LABOR RELATIONS College of Maasin

Compilation of CDs re: ULP shace 2018

NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD
9 BPI v BPI EU- Far East Bank (FEB) was absorbed by the BPI which has an WON the USC No. Failure of an employee to join the union pursuant to the USC is an
Davao- existing USC with the BPI union with a pre-condition that new violated the authorized cause for BPI not to continue employing the employee
Federation of employees must join the union before they can be regularized constitutional right concerned – and BPI must respect that provision of the CBA. In the
Unions in BPI otherwise they will not have a continued employment. When of security of tenure hierarchy of labor rights, unionism is favored over security of tenure.
Unibank FEB employees failed to join the union, the Union of the FEB
recommended to BPI their dismissal. BPI refused. employees

4 Carino v NLRC Carino former union president was believed to have grossly
mismanaged the Union. He was expelled from the Union for
failure to answer the complaints against him. Per info from the
union, the company terminated his employment per USC.
WON the dismissal Yes. The charges against Carino falls within the provisions of the
was justified union's CBL. The right to due process was not wiped away by the USC.
However, Carino chose to disregard all calls to defend himself. The
prescribed impeachment and recall proceeding had been more than
substantially complied with. The power to dismiss is a normal
management prerogative but it has limit. The employer is bound to
exercise caution in terminating employees based on union's request.

2 Kapatiran sa 60 days prior to existing Tupas (local chapter) CBA's expiration, WON the order for Yes. Upholding the right of INC members does not bar them from
Meat & Canning New ULO (composed of INC workers) registered a new union certification of forming their own union. The recognition of the tenets of the sect
Div v BLR and filed a petition for certification of election at the BLR election was proper should not infringed the basic right of self-organization granted by the
claiming that they have the majority of the rank-and-file Constitution regardless of religious affiliation of workers.
employees.

3 Malayang MSMG is a local union. The Federation passed a resolution
Samahan ng placing MSMG under trusteeship with Admin. The Admin
mga designated designated a local union president disauthorizing
Manggagawa sa the incumbent officers. The Federation demanded the
M Greenfield v separation of 30 union officers pursuant to its union security
Ramos clause with threat to file a notice of strike. The company (M.
Greenfield) then terminated said officials.
WON the dismissal No. The dismissal thru the enforcement of the union security clause
was justified may be valid but due process is still required. There cannot be valid
dismissal because said USC limits the dismissal to 3 grounds: non-
payment of union dues, resignation and violation of the union's CBL.
Enforcement of the USC is not a ULP.

5 Manila Beloncio (assistant head waitress) was expelled from the Union WON the union is
Mandarin EU v for acts allegedly inimical to the interests of the union. The guilty of ULP
NLRC charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose from her emotional
remark to a waitress (a union steward), "Wala akong tiwala sa
Union ninyo." in the course of a heated discussion regarding
Beloncio's efforts to make a lazy and recalcitrant waiter adopt a
better attitude towards his work.
Yes. USCs cannot be used by union officials against an employer,
much less their own members. The Union should have disciplined its
erring and troublesome members instead of causing so much
hardship to member who was only doing her work for the best
interests of the employer, all its employees, and the general public
whom they serve

8 Rizal Cement The union staged a strike at the other plant. The Company WON the company No. The company's action was "justified apprehension and fear" to
Workers Union directed its warehouseman in other bodega to not allow union is guilty of ULP protect its properties. It was not shown that the company intended to
et al v Madrigal members to enter the premises. induce the complainants to renounce their membership nor deter
and Co, Rizal affiliation therewith nor retaliate against the union.
Cement Co, Inc
et al

10 T and H Respondents and other employees discussed to form a union. WON the company
Shoplifters The following day some of them were refused entry and were is guilty of ULP
Corp/Gin Queen transferred to another area due to expansion but were
Corp v T and H repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due to the
SC/Gin Queen unavailability of work. Other employees were not given regular
WA work assignments, made to report to non-existent site and
were made do grass cutting (officers). Members were excluded
in a field trip and were eventually retrenched.
Yes. The various acts of company, taken together, reasonably support
an inference that, indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict
respondents free exercise of their right to self organization. They had
no business persuading and/or assisting its employees in their legally
protected independent process of selecting their exclusive bargaining
representative (impeded in employees quest to be certified).

1 Victoriano v Victoriano (INC member) resigned from the union due to RA WON the law is No. The law both recognizes the right of unions and employers to
Elizalde Rope 3350 which provides that closed shop agreement shall not unconstitional as it enforce terms of contracts and the worker's right to join or not to join
Workers Assoc cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation discriminately a union. It recognizes the primacy of a constitutional right (religious)
of their members in any labor org. favors religious over a contractual right (closed shop agreement in the CBA). His
sects employment could not be validly terminated for non-membership in
the union.

6 Villar v Inchiong Villar and others disaffiliated from the union and filed a petition WON the dismissal
for certification election. Due to the USC, they were removed was justified
from the union. The management placed them in preventive
suspension and subsequently terminated them.
Yes. A closed shop is a valid form of union security. It is not a
restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution. Inherent in very union is the right to self-preservation.
Petitioners must suffer the consequences of their separation from the
union.

7 Wise and Co v The management introduced a profit-sharing scheme for its
Wise and Co In managers, supervisors and rank-and-file employees not
EU covered by CBA. The union wanted to participate in the scheme
and filed a notice of strike based on the ULP of employer.
WON the employer No. The scheme falls within the management's prerogative. There can
is guilty of ULP be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not
similarly situation. There is a valid classification in this case. Union
members are different and distinct from non-union members as they
do not derive or enjoy benefits under the CBA.
LABOR RELATIONS College of Maasin
Compilation of CDs re: Jurisdiction shace 2018
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD
1 Espino v NLRC Espino (Executive VP-COO) was terminated by the PAL BODs due to WON LA has NO. SEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal
certain admin charges. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the jurisdiction from employment of corporate officers. A corporate officer's dismissal is
LA. always a corporate act and/or intra-corporate controversy which is under the
specialized competence and expertise of the SEC.

2 Mainland DOLE found that Mainland committed irregularities which include
Construction Co underpayments or non-payments of 13 employees including Movilla
etc v Movilla et al (CPA, promoted to AO, elected as Admin Manager until his death).
Movilla was unpaid so he filed a case before LA. LA ruled that SEC has
jurisdiction in this case.
WON SEC has NO. Unpaid wages against the corporate involves a labor dispute. It does not
jurisdiction involve an intra-corporate matter. It relates to EER distinct from the corporate
relationship. NLRC has jurisdiction over the case (Art 217).

3 Sanyo Phils WU v Certain employees were dismissed per union's request due to WON LA has YES. Both union and the company are united in the dismissal of said
Canizares cancellation of membership with the union for anti-union activities and jurisdiction employees. The dismissal was due to the enforcement of the USC in the CBA
for joining a minority union. A complaint was filed. LA assumed and not arising from the interpretation/implementation of CBA. LA has
jurisdiction. jurisdiction and not the GM.

4 Georg Grotjahn v Lanchinebre (sales rep of Georg) secured a loan from Georg. Despite WON NLRC NO. While the loan was contracted during her employment, it is not covered
Isnani demand, she failed to settle the obligation. She then filed with the NLRC has by Art 217 of the LC. Said article is limited to disputes arising from EER which
a complaint for illegal suspension, dismissal and non-payment of jurisdiction. can only be resolved by reference to the LC, other labor statutes and their CBA.
commissions. Recovery of sum of money is not a labor dispute.

5 Montinola v PAL Montinola (flight attendant) was suspended for taking airline items as WON LA is YES. Under the LC, LA has jurisdiction. It is also authorized to award actual,
found by custom officials in Hawaii. She filed a complaint for illegal authorized to moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the EER.
suspension before LA. LA ordered her reinstatement with award of award
damages. damages

6 Amecos Innov Inc Amecos settled its obligations with SSS after a complaint was filed for WON the NO. LC is applicable in this case. LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
v Lopez alleged delinquency. Amecos filed a complaint for sum of money and regular court claims for damages arising from EER. Matters on SSS contribution flowed from
damages before MeTC against Lopez who allegedly refused to give SSS has the EER.
number and deduct contributions. jurisdiction

7 Tolosa v NLRC Capt Tolosa died on board due to illness. A complaint for damages was
filed against the employer, agency and other officials before the POEA
which was then transferred to NLRC.
WON NLRC NO. NLRC and LA has no jurisdiction over the case based on quasi-delict or tort.
has Jurisdiction of labor tribunals is limited to disputes arising from EER. While LA
jurisdiction and NLRC has jurisdiction have jurisdiction to award not only reliefs provided
by labor laws but also damages governed by the Civil Code provided it has
reasonable causal connection with the Labor Code, other labor statutes or
CBAs. Loss of earning capacity based on quasi-delict is within the real of Civil
Law cognizable before the regular courts.

8 Indophil Textile Engr. Adviento was dismissed from employment due to health WON RTC has YES. Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by labor courts.
Mills Inc v problems. He filed a complaint with the RTC alleging the company's jurisdiction The case is grounded on Indophil's gross negligence or a case of quasi-delict.
Adviento gross negligence to provide safe, healthy and workable environment. Jurisdiction is with the regular courts.

9 Tabango Shell Before the CBA expired, the union started negotiating with the corp but WON the YES. Art. 263 of the LC authorized the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a
Refinery EA v could not agree on the increase of salaries. It then filed a notice of strike Secretary has labor dispute or causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
Pilipinas Shell in NCMB. The corp filed a petition with the Secretary who assumed jurisdiction indispensable to the national interest. ASSUME JURISDICTION connotes intent
Petroleum Corp jurisdiction due to the adverse effects tot he national economy/interest. of the law to give the Secretary full authority to resolve all matters including
cases which LA has exclusive jurisdiction.

10 Smart Comm Inc v Astorga was terminated which was due to the joint venture agreement WON RTC has YES. SMARTs demand for payment of the market value of the car or, in the
Astorga with other companies. She was not recommended by Smart to be jurisdiction alternative, the surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It
absorbed to the new company. She then filed a complaint for illegal involves the relationship of debtor and creditor rather than EER.[33] As such,
dismissal while SMART filed a suit for replevin before the RTC. the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

11 Milan et al v NLRC Milan and other employees were allowed to occupy the company’s WON LA has
village provided they will vacate anytime the company deems fit. Due to jurisdiction
serious losses, they were dismissed. As their benefits and separation pay
were not given, they refused to vacate. A complaint was filed before the
LA.
YES. Art. 217 of LC provides that LA (original) and NLRC (appellate) jurisdiction
may determine issues involving claims arising from EER. The return of the
subject properties by virtue of their employment is intertwined with EER. LA
and NLRC has jurisdiction.

12 The Manila Hotel Santos was terminated due to retrenchment by Palace Hotel (in China). WON NLRC
Corp v NLRC The hotel was owned by MHC (Phil GOCC) owned 50% of MHICL (foreign has
corp). MHICL trained employees of the Hotel per agreement. He then jurisdiction
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC against the Hotel,
MHC, MHICL.
NO. NLRC is not a convenient forum. Defendants are not nationals of the
Philippoines neither they are doing business in the country. NLRC has no
power to determine the facts as all acts took place in China. Under the
PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS, it has no power to execute the decision as it
could not bind a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summon. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.

13 Halaguena et al v PAL and the FASAP (association) entered into a CBA which includes a
PAL provision on compulsory retirement for male is 60 and for female 55.
TRO was filed before the RTC due to the provision being gender
discriminatory.
WON RTC has YES. The subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation cognizable by the RTC
jurisdiction being an ordinary civil action. This issue could not be resolved by the LC rather
by the Constitution, labor statute, laws on contracts and CEDAW. Not every
dispute between EER involves matters that only the LA and NLRC can resolve.
GM and VAs do not have jurisdiction either to decide on constitutional issues.

14 Santos v Servier Santos (HRM) was terminated when she had not recovered from her WON LA has YES. The claim for illegal deduction falls within the tribunals jurisdiction.The
Phil Inc illness acquired abroad while on vacation. Retirement benefits was not jurisdiction issue of deduction for tax purposes is intertwined with the main issue of WON
paid in full (withheld for taxation purposes). The husband, on her behalf, petitioners benefits have been fully given her. A money claim arising from the
filed an action before the LA. EER, clearly falls within the jurisdiction of LA and NLRC.

15 Honda Cars Phils CBA was entered which include the conversion of transpo allowance into WON VA has NO. Issue raised is clearly tax matters and not labor disputes. It pertains to
Inc v Honda Cards monthly gasoline allowance. The remaining/ unused may be converted jurisdiction NIRC, not LC. Thus, CIR has the exclusive and original jurisdiction.
Tech Specialist to cash subject to applicable tax. There was a disagreement to consider
and Supervisors it as income subject to withholding tax. Grievance was submitted to a
Union panel of VA.
16 Jordan v Grandeur Jordan and his co-employees filed a for money claims (minimum wages, WON NLRC
Security Services holiday, premium, service incentive leave, 3th month pays, cost of living has
Inc allowance) before the LA and illegal dismissal (Jordan). LA ordered jurisdiction
payments and reinstatement but allegedly Jordan did not received the
letter. When LA noted that he waived his right to be reinstated, he filed
a memo of appeal to NLRC with claims for backwages, separation pay,
and attorney’s fees.
NO. Art217 of the LC, LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
termination disputes; the NLRC only has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
these cases. A plain reading of the "memorandum of appeal" shows that this
pleading was in fact another complaint for illegal dismissal. Moreover, NLRC
acted outside of its jurisdiction in replacing the LA’s return to work order with
order to pay backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.
LABOR RELATIONS College of Maasin
Compilation of CDs re: NLRC shace 2018
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD
1 Genuino vs. Genuino was terminated by Citibank due to irregular/fraudulent WON the NO. If on appeal NLRC found the ground for dismissal valid (even without due process), then
NLRC transactions. She was notified prior to her termination but particular reinstatement order the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to
acts/ommissions were not stated, it was too general. LA ruled that was correct refund the salaries received during the pendency, or it can be deducted from the accrued
her dismissal was illegal and ordered reinstatement. Pending appeal, benefits that the dismissed employee was entitled to receive. But if the employee was
she was not reinstated. Later, NLRC reversed LA's decision. reinstated to work during the pendency of the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the
compensation received for actual services rendered.

2 Garcia vs. PAL Garcia and Dumango were dismissed (for sniffing shabu) by PAL.. WON execution of NO. All actions for claims against PAL shall be ipso jure suspended in order not to interfere the
Both filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before LA. Later, PAL was LA's order is legally rescue of the corporation. Payments of claims during the execution stage are automatically
put under receivership due to severe financial losses. Then, LA ruled possible suspended pending the rehabilitation proceedings.
in their favor. On appeal, NLRC reversed LA's ruling.

3 Benguet The GM of Beneco was dismissed by the board members of Beneco. WON the date of NO. The date of filing in court is the actual receipt of the court. The 10-day reglementary
Electric Coop LA ordered his reinstatement. Beneco sent its appeal through a delivery of pleadings period to perfect an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature that failure to file an
vs. NLRC licensed private carrier. thru private carrrier is appeal within the reglementary period renders the assailed decision final and executory. NLRC
considered date of should have dismissed their appeal.The established rule is that the date of delivery of
filing in court pleadings to a private letter forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing in
court.

4 Mindanao Confesor was dismissed by Mindanao Times. LA ruled in her favor. On WON said deed of NO. Appeal from judgment is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. "Only"
Times Corp vs. appeal, Mindanao Times surrendered to the NLRC the passbook with assignmen as bond makes it clear that it only intended the posting of cash or surety bond. Said bond is mandatory
Confesor a deed of assignment as appeal bond. considered substantial and jurisdictional. It is indispensable in cases of appeals involving monetary awards. Non-
compliance compliance will render LA's decision final and executory.

5 Amabe vs. Amabe (radio tech/operator) was retrenched by Asian. He filed a WON NRLC is NO. Technical rules on evidence are not binding in labor case. However, a caveat to this policy
Asian Const, complained for illegal dismissal before LA who ruled in his favor for precluded from includes that delay in the submission should be clearly explained and should adequately prove
failure of Asian to submit financial statements to prove losses. On receiving evidence on the termination. Asian failed to submit its audited financial statements 2 years and after LA's
appeal, NLRC reversed the decision with it already received the appeal adverse judgment. SEC even certified its non-submission. The dismissal on account of
financial statements. retrenchment is unjustified.

6 PAL vs. NLRC Penida and Cabling (flight attendants) were dismissed due to alleged WON NLRC is correct NO. NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction. The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive (a provisional
involvement in the currency smuggling in HK. They filed a petition for in granting the remedy) writ originates from "any labor dispute" upon application by a party, which if not
injunction before the NLRC which granted the same. application granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
decision in favor of such party." There is no labor dispute in this case as there has yet been no
complaint for illegal dismissal filed.

7 TUPAS Local Super Garments and Rustan have separate compartments in the WON the court has YES. There is no labor dispute in this case which justifies relief sought in court.The ULP filed
Chapter vs. same building. TUPAS filed a notice of strike against Super Garments jurisdiction to issue does not prove a labor dispute. IT is improper to file a case before the NLRC.
Coscocuela and later picketed Rustan for allegedly spirited out goods of the injunction
former. Rustan filed a civil case for injuction and damages (before
Judge Coscocuela) who issued the writ after finding no EER between
the parties.

8 PAFLU vs. PAFLU filed a complaint of ULP before the CIR which ruled in their WON the CFI has YES. The civil case filed was an ordinary action for damages, not a labor dispute. An ordinary
Salas favor and issued a writ of execution. When the writ was effected, jurisdiction to issue civil action for damages is not a labor dispute. It remains distinct from the labor dispute
properties in the apartment of Yuen including that of Hun's were injuctive relief pending with the CIR.
levied. Yuen filed a complaint for damages with the CFI. The judge
issued an injuctive writ.

9 Rustans The union alleged that Rustan refused to negotiate. They declared a WON the court has NO. Union's strike and picketing activities show that there exists a labor dispute between the
Supervisory strike and picket the company premises. Rustan then filed with the jurisdiction to issue parties. This pertains to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR and not the respondent court.
Union vs. court (Judge Dalisay) for damages with preliminary injunction. injunction
Dalisay

10 UST vs. DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute between the WON said acceptance NO. Members were merely constrained to accept the payment as Christmas was just around
Samahang UST and the union. The Secretary directed the parties to execute a is considered waiver the corner. Necessitous men are not free men.
Mangagawa CBA incorporating the increase in signing bonus. Pending appeal,
ng UST many members of the union were paid as it was nearing Christmas
then. UST argued that said acceptance have ratified its offer and
rendered moot and academic the case before the CA.

11 Jag vs. NLRC The union staged a strike which caused Jag to file a petition to declare WON compromise NO. Settlement of disputes by way of compromise is an accepted, desirable practice
the strike illegal. LA ruled in Jag's favor and ordered the dismissal of agreement is binding encouraged by the courts of law and administrative tribunals. For a waiver to be legally
the officers who took part in the illegal strike. On appeal, ordered for upon who did not sign effective requires individual consent which must be shown. The officers or the majority have
reinstatement. Pending MRs, a compromise agreement was entered. no authority to waive the rights of the dissenting minority members.
Majority of the affected employees availed of the benefits provided
under the agreement. Others moved for the execution of NLRC's
decision.

12 Nacar vs. Nacar filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against Gallery. LA WON LA was correct
Gallery ruled in his favor awarded him backwages and separation pay in lieu
Frames of reinstatement. NLRC, CA, and SC ruled in his favor. On the
recomputation, LA ruled that it should be up to promulgation of LA's
decision. It 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.
NO. 2 parts of a decision in illegal dismissal cases (referring to cases where the dismissed
employee wins, or loses but wins on appeal): (1) the ruling that the employee was illegally
dismissed. This is immediately final even if the employer appeals – but will be reversed if
employer wins on appeal. (2) the ruling on the award of backwages and/or separation pay. For
backwages, it will be computed from the date of illegal dismissal until the date of the decision
of the LA. But if the employer appeals, then the end date shall be extended until the day when
the appellate court’s decision shall become final. Hence, as a consequence, the liability of the
employer, if he loses on appeal, will increase – this is just but a risk that the employer cannot
avoid when it continued to seek recourses against LA’s decision. Illegal dismissal ruling stands
only the computation of money is affected. It doesn ot violate the "principle of immutability of
final judgments".

13 Christian Loida (bookkeeper) was terminated due to incompetence. LA ruled in WON the writ of YES. The execution of judgment must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the
Literature her favor with reinstatement and later issued a writ of execution. execution is null and dispositive portion of the decision. Once a judgment has become final and executory or
Crusade vs. Backwages was paid but she was not reinstated. On appeal, NLRC void partially executed as in this case, it may no longer be amended, modified or altered. What
NLRC remanded to LA the execution of the reinstatement. A Motion for the remains to be done is purely the ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. In case
Issuance of a Writ of Execution was filed anew with additional of defiance or non-compliance, the remedy is not another writ of execution of continuing
backwages which was granted by LA. backwages rather filing motion to cite Christian in contempt.

14 Cabaobas vs. Cabaobas and others were terminated by Pepsi due to financial WON the decision of YES. Records disclose that CA and NLRC had already determined that Pepsi complied with the
Pepsi-Cola losses. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal before the LA NLRC affirmed by CA is requirements of substantial loss and due notice. It is axiomatic that absent any clear showing
Products alleging that Pepsi was not facing serious financial losses (regularized binding of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, the findings of fact by the NLRC, especially when
employees and hired replacements) and was just designed to prevent affirmed by the CA as in this case are binding and conclusive upon the Court. Thus, given that
their union from being certified. Pepsi submitted its audited financial there lies no discretionary abuse with respect to the foregoing findings, the Court sees no
statements. But, LA ruled in favor of the dismissed employees. On reason to deviate from the same.
appeal, NLRC and CA ruled in favor of Pepsi.

15 Manila Mining Amor and other were temporarily laid off due to temporary WON Mining failed to
Corp vs. Amor suspension of Mining's operation. It was then extended. LA ruled in perfect the appeal
their favor. On appeal, NLRC favored Mining. On appeal, CA ruled that
LA's decision was final due to failure of Mining to perfect an appeal,
posting an unusually smaller sum as appeal bond (P100k v P2M), and
the dishonored check.
YES. Posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving
monetary awards from the decision of the LA. Since it is the posting of a cash or surety bond
which confers jurisdiction upon the NLRC, the rule is settled that non-compliance is fatal and
has the effect of rendering the award final and executory. The dishonored check (provisional
bond) made the tender thereof ineffectual. The filing of the motion to reduce bond without
compliance with the requisites (meritorious and reasonable) shall not stop the running of the
period to perfect an appeal.
16 Beduya vs. Beduya and others of Ace were terminated when the contract of Ace WON LA's decision is
Ace Prom & with Delfi Marketing expired. LA ruled that they were illegally deemed final and
Mktg Corp dismissed being regular employees. Ace filed an appeal with NLRC executory due to non-
with motion to reduce the bond (P437k v P6M) but did not rule on it. perfection of an
Per certiorari filed, CA found Ace's willingness and good faith in appeal
complying with the requirements as sufficient justification to relax
the rule on posting of an appeal bond.
17 Smart vs. Solidum (Dept Head) was dismissed by Smart for breach of trust. LA WON NLRC's decision
Solidum ruled that he was illegally dismissed. On appeal, NLRC reversed the became final and
decision promulgated on 29 May 2009, mailed on 11 June 2009 and executory
in the absence of return cards, the decision became final and
executory on 10 August 2009 (after 60 days from the date of mailing).
18 Gadia vs. Gadia and others were terminated by Sykes when Alltell terminated WON NLRC is correct
SykesAsia its contract with Sykes. Aggrieved, they filed a case for illegal in reversing LA's
termination with LA who ruled in favor of Sykes (project based). NLRC decision
reversed LA's decision.
19 Milan vs. Milan and other employees were allowed to occupy the company’s WON NLRC has
NLRC village provided they will vacate anytime the company deems fit. Due jurisdiction
to serious losses, they were dismissed. As their benefits and
separation pay were not given, they refused to vacate. A complaint
was filed before the LA. LA favored Milan but NLRC reversed it.
20 Protective Fuentes (SG) was detained by PNP due to alleged conspiracy with WON NLRC has the
Maximum Sec NPA when his post was ransacked by armed persons. When he power to overturn the
Agency vs. returned to work, he was refused because his positionw as already findings of facts of the
Fuentes filled up. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which LA ruled LA
against his favor. On appeal, NLRC reversed LA's decision.
21 Unicol Mgmnt Delia (surviving spouse) filed a complaint before LA for death WON NLRC is allowed
Services vs. compensation under POEA contract of his husband who committed to receive evidence
Malipot suicide due to depression when not allowed to go home. LA ruled in first time on appeal
her favor but NLRC reversed and ruled that death due to suicide was
not compensable under POEA contract. CA reversed NLRC's decision
and stated that NLRC should not have admitted evidence first time on
appeal.
22 Sutherland Labrador (call center agency) was found guilty of violating certain WON NLRC commit
Global vs. provisions of Sutherland's Employees' Handbook. Instead of being grave abuse of
Labrador terminated, he requested for resignation. He later filed for discretion when it
constructive dismissal. LA dismissed the same. NLRC reversed LA's applied a liberal
decision as it applied its liberal interpretation of the rules and application of the
admitted Labrador’s appeal even in the absence of certificate of non- rules
forum shopping.
23 Unibersidad Sambajon had 3 appointment contracts with Unibersidad (1st & 3rd WON issues not
de Sta. Isabel were signed; 3rd no probationary indicated). When he finished his included on appeal
vs. Sambajon masters he requested to be reranked which the school denied. Later, shall become final and
his probationary appointment was not renewed. He filed a case executory
before LA who ruled in his favor. On appeal, NLRC affirmed LA's
decision and held Sambajon had acquired a permanent status. CA
affirmed. On its petition, Unibersidad pointed out that LA’s finding
that Sambajon was dismissed while still a probationary employee was
not appealed by him, and hence such finding had already become
final.
24 Sara Lee Phils Aris Phils former employees filed a case for illegal dismissal alleging WON NLRC can
vs. Macatlang that Fashion Accessories Phils Inc was a continuing business of Aris reduced the bond
(closed already), Sara Lee (major stockholder) and Cruz. LA ruled in
their favor and awarded P3.45B. NLRC granted the reduction of bond
at P9M). CA held that it should add P1B. SC ruled that it should be
P725M.
25 Belza vs. Diones Belza (DNB Electronics) terminated Canonero and 2 others. WON NLRC is correct
Canonero Complaint for illegal dismissal was filed. LA ruled in their favor. On
appeal, NLRC dismissed the case due to non-submission of non-forum
shopping.
26 Lepanto Icao (lead miner) was dismissed from work for highgrading. He filed a WON the appeal was YES. The appeal was filed within the 10-day reglementary period. The appeal bond is in cash, is
Conso Mining case of illegal dismissal. LA ruled in his favor. Lepanto appealed perfected more than sufficient. Lepanto's move showed a willingness to comply with the requirement.
Corp. vs. Icao before NLRC but failed to post the bond (P300k) instead it requested Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately protected.
to release the cash bond (P400k) in the separate case decided earlier
and apply it to the present appeal. NLRC dismissed the appeal.
27 Olores vs. Olores was dismissed by Manila Doctors due to his erroneous grading WON the appeal was
Manila system. He filed a case of illegal dismissal. LA ruled in his favor. perfected
Doctors Manila Doctors appealed but NLRC denied the same for non-posting
College of cash bond.
28 Princess Joy Binalla (RN) filed a complaint against Princess Joy/CBM and foreign WON the posting of
Placement vs. employer (Adlwani) before LA when she found in his contract that his initial bond will suffice
Binalla recruiting agency is CBM and that his signature was forged. LA ruled as requirement to
in his favor (P800k). Princess Joy appealed, moved for a reduction of perfect an appeal
the bond and posted P250k bond . NLRC held that only CBM has
liability after Princess Joy posted the remaining balance of the appeal
bond.
29 Grand Asian Grand Asian dismissed the complainants due to their illegal activities WON NLRC erred in
Shipping vs. (siphon and sell fuel). They filed a case of illegal dismissal. LA ruled in granting the motion to NLRC upon showing of the reasonableness of the bond tendered and the merits of the grounds
Galvez their favor. Grand Asian filed a notice of appeal with an motion to reduce bond
reduce bond which was denied. Additional bond was instead ordered
within 10 days. Grand Asian posted P1.5M supersedeas bond and
P50k cash bond. NLRC, granted the same.
NO. Appewal was timely filed. Ace’s motion to reduce appeal bond was based on meritorious
and justifiable grounds: (1) failure of 8 complainants to verify position paper and (2)
withdrawal of 7 complainants. This would reduce the total monetary award to more than P3M.
Hence, the appeal bond of P437k is more than 10% requirement (parameter set in Mcburnie).
The required 10% of the monetary award as appeal bond is merely provisional given that the
NLRC still retains the authority to exercise its full discretion to resolve a motion for the
reduction of bond.
YES. GR: Decisions of the NLRC shall become final after 10 days from receipt of the decision by
the parties. But when there is delay as shown by the absence of return card or certification
from the post office, the finality of the decision shall be determined by the Clerk of Court by
giving 60 days from mailing of the decision.
NO. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia,
its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence.
NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioners were regular employees of Sykes
when the latter had established by substantial evidence that they were merely project-based.
YES. Art. 217 of LC provides that LA (original) and NLRC (appealate) jurisdiction may determine
issues involving claims arising from EER. The return of the subject properties by virtue of their
employment is entertwined with EER. Claims arising from an EER are not limited to claims by
an employee. Employers may also have claims against the employee, which arise from the
same relationship.
YES. NLRC is not bound by the findings of LA. The Labor Code vests in the NLRC the authority to
reverse the decision of LA provided that there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion
of LA, if the decision/order/award was procured thru fraud/coercion, including graft and
corruption, if made purely on questions of law and if serious errors in finding of facts are
raised would cause grave/irreparable damage/injury to the appeallant. The errors in the
findings of facts that will justify a modification/reversal of LA's decision must be "serious" and
if left uncorrected would lead to "grave" or irreparable damage/injury to the appeallant.
YES. NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure considering that rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and LA are
directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of
substantial justice. In keeping with this directive, it has been held that the NLRC may consider
evidence, such as documents and affidavits, submitted by the parties for the first time on
appeal.
NO. Technical rules are not necessarily fatal in labor cases; they can be liberally applied if – all
things being equal – any doubt or ambiguity would be resolved in favor of labor. while the
2005 NLRC Rules specifically stated that a certificate of non–forum shopping should be
attached, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure no longer requires it. Jurisprudence, too, is
replete with instances when the Court relaxed the rules involving the attachment of the
certificate of non–forum shopping. However, the Court ruled that Labrador was not illegally
dismissed.
NO. GR: NLRC shall limit itself only to specific issues that were elevated for review. Any other
issues not included on appeal shall become final and executory 2005 Rules).The records show
that the Unibersidad elevated the issues to NLRC regarding the correctness of the award of
damages, reinstatement with backpay, retirement benefits and the cost-saving bonus. This
opened the said issues for review and any action taken by NLRC was well within the
parameters of its jurisdiction.
YES. The 10% is based on the judgment award and should in no case be construed as the
minimum amount of bond to be posted in order to perfect appeal. The percentage of bond
shall be merely provisional. The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and
determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted, still in accordance with the standards
of "meritorious grounds" and "reasonable amount." Should the NLRC, after considering the
motion’s merit, determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be
posted, then the appellant shall comply accordingly within a period of 10 days from notice of
the NLRC order. The compromised amount roughly comprises only 10% of the judgment award
(P342 instead of P725). It defeats the complainant's legitimate claim.
YES. NLRC's Rules show that the requirements for perfection of an appeal include submission
of certificate of non-forum shopping. The fact that DNB had not actually engaged in forum
shopping is not an excuse for its failure to comply with the requirement, an omission that
allowed the period for perfecting the appeal to run inexorably. The NLRC was correct.
Manila Doctors did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the prescribed period, thus, no
appeal was perfected from LA's decision. The decision had become final and executory, and
therefore, immutable. NLRC has no authority to entertain the appeal much less to reverse the
decision of LA. Any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and
executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceeding
held for that purpose.
YES. The initial bond is reasonable, considering that it is questioning the unusually large
amount of the awarded damages. The Court takes a liberal approach on the appeal bond
requirement in "the broader interest of justice and with the desired objective of deciding cases
on the merits." The motion was filed within the 10-day appeal period with the notice of appeal
and the memorandum of appeal. Also, the motion was accompanied by a surety bond of
₱250k, an indication of a genuine effort on the part of the agency to comply with the bond
requirement.
NO. The granting of a motion to reduce appeal bond lies within the sound discretion of the
relied upon. Rules should not be applied in a very rigid and strict sense. This is especially true
in labor cases wherein the substantial merits of the case must accordingly be decided upon to
serve the interest of justice. When there has been substantial compliance, relaxation of the
Rules is warranted.
30 Radio Amurao III was dismissed due to the station's program of WON affidavit of YES. Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy. A quitclaim is invalid or
Mindanao restructuring. He accepted RMN's offer of benefits and signed the release/quitclaim was contrary to public policy only: (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wrangled from
Network vs. affidavit of release/quitclaim. 5 months after, he filed for illegal valid and binding an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable
Amurao III dismissal. on their face. Where the party has voluntarily made the waiver, with a full understanding of its
terms as well as its consequences, and the consideration for the quitclaims credible and
reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking, and may
not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. A waiver is essentially contractual.
LABOR RELATIONS
Compilation of CDs re: MidArbiter
NO. CASE FACTS
1 Kapisanan ng A written request for examination of financial status of
Manggagawang union was filed due to union officer's failure to keep and
Pinagyakap vs maintain its funds. MedArbiter ordered a referendum
Trajano under BLR's supervision to decide whether to expel or
suspend said officers.
2 Ilaw at Buklod ng IBM and SMB had an agreement that each member be WON NLRC has
Mangagawa (IBM) assessed with 10% of the amount received in the CBA. jurisdiction
vs. NLRC There were employees were removed for refusing to sign
the authorization on said deduction. They filed a
complaint before LA and appealed before NLRC.
3 Associated Labor ALU had a CBA with GAW Trading Inc. Other labor unions WON CBR applies
Union vs. Ferrer- had a strike and filed a certification election. Med-Arbiter in the case
Calleja ruled in favor of holding said election. BLR ruled that
Contract Bar Rule applies.
4 Buklod Ng Saulog The company has 2 unions (Buklod and Saulog). Saulog
Transit vs. Cassalla filed a petition for a certification election. Buklod said
that they already have a CBA with the company.
5 Associated Trade Federation of Free Worker filed a petition for
Unions vs. Noriel certification election with signatures of more than 30%
of union members. ATU's CBA will expire within 2
months. ATU and the company opposed and reasoned
that it was covered by the CBR as it has a new CBA
registered with the BLR (allegedly entered almost 6
months early; not ratified).
6 Firestone vs Estrella Association Labor Union (ALU) entered into a
supplemental agreement with Firestone prior to the
expiration of its CBA, extending the life of the CBA for 1
year. Within the 60-day period prior to CBA's original
expiration, more than half of its members resigned and
formed another union and requested for certification
election. ALU opposed that CBR applies as they have an
existing CBA.
7 Takata (Phils.) Corp. Takata filed a petition for cancellation of the Cert of
vs. BLR Union Registration of its union (Samahang Lakas) on the
ground of misrepresentation, false statement, fraud with
respect to the no. of attendees of the organizational
meeting, adoption and ratification of its CBL and its
election of officers. DOLE RD granted the same as he
found that there were less than 20% of the total number
required, contradiction of names on the attendance
sheet.
College of Maasin
shace 2018
ISSUE HELD
WON Med- NO. Med-Arbiter should decide on the matter. It has no authority to order a
Arbiter's act to call referendum to decide on the matter in issue. It should decide on the intra-union
a referendum was issue.
proper
NO. Assessment, deduction, and expulsion are intra-union disputes. Internal union
disputes include all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the CBL of a union. BLR has jurisdiction on all
inter-union or intra-union conflicts.
NO. CBR will not apply if the CBA is defective (recognition was done 2 days after
the execution of the CBA). Status of the union was dubious, many employees
(181/281) denied strongly their ratification of the CBA, posting of the CBA was not
complied, and CBA was filed days after petition for certification election was filed.
WON the subject NO. The CBA was merely a grievance (of drivers, conductors and inspectors) and
CBA constitutes a incomplete (did not touch on the conditions of employment). It does not bar a
bar to the certification election even if there was a supplemental agreement as it was filed
certification after the petition for certification election. Retraction/withdrawal of petitioners
election does not divest the CIR of its jurisdiction. 65 petitioners are sufficient to confer
jurisdiction for being more than 10% (53) of all laborers and employees.
WON CBR applies NO. CBA was only certified after the petition for certification election was filed.
in the case The CBA was hastily entered into prior to the 60-day freedom period. There was a
desire to frustrate the will of the employees in selecting the collective bargaining
representative.
WON CBR applies NO. CBA which can no longer foster industrial peace and stability warrants for the
in the case certification election to be conducted to clear any doubts on employees'
representation. The extension of 1 year cannot bar said election. Only a certified
CBA would serve as a bar.
WON the Union is NO. 20% minimum requirement pertains to employees' membership in the union
guilty of and not to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting. For
misrepresentation, fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation, the same must be
false statements grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of the majority of union
and fraud members.
LABOR RELATIONS College of Maasin
Compilation of CDs re: Labor Organizations shace 2018
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD
1 Progressive Devt The mother union filed a certification election alleging WON a local YES. A local union must first comply with the statutory requirements in
Corp v Secretary that its local chapter was issued charter certificate and chapter needs to order to exercise this right. It need not be independently registered. By
was the only labor organization in the company. The comply with the force of law, such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization
company contended that said local chapter failed to requirements to upon issuance of charter certificate and submission of contract/agreement
submit the documentary requirements (CBL, list, become a of affiliation to the Bureau within 30 days and the CBL, list, and books.
books). legitimate LO

2 NAFLU v Noriel The local union disaffiliated from NAFLU. The company WON the NO. The local union remained the basic unit of the association. It remains
dismissed its officers and board members for failing to dismissal was separate and distinct. They are free to serve their own/common interest
maintain membership. correct subject to the provisions of CBL. "Substitutionary Doctrine" does not intend
to change/amend the CBA but only to be given chance to enforce them.
The employee can change agent but the contract continues to bind them
up to its "expiration date".

3 Chrysler Phil v The local union affiliated with a national union. Prior WON the local YES. The law does not provide that a union loses its legal personality when
Estrella to the expiration of its CBA, the union filed a petition union has legal it affiliates with a national union/federation. The change of name was only
for certification election. It was dismissed on the personality a matter of form.
ground that it has no legal personality independent
from the national union.

4 Malayang MSMG is a local union. The Federation passed a
Samahan v Ramos resolution placing MSMG under trusteeship with
Admin. The Admin designated designated a local
union president disauthorizing the incumbent officers.
The Federation demanded the separation of 30 union
officers pursuant to its union security clause with
threat to file a notice of strike. The company (M.
Greenfield) then terminated said officials.
WON the No.A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or
dismissal was declare its autonomy. Such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty in
justified the absence of specific provisions in the federation's constitution the same.
There is nothing in its constitution which specifically prohibits disaffiliation
or declaration of autonomy. There is no disloyalty to speak of. Hence,
there cannot be any valid dismissal.

5 Galvadores v A lawyer was hired on contingent fee basis. The union WON there was NO. No check-offs may be affected without individual written
Trajano passed a resolution requesting the company to deduct a valid checkoff authorization. Attorney's fees may be charged against union funds as may
legal fees against union funds. be agreed upon.

6 Takata Phils Corp Takata filed a petition for cancellation of the WON the union NO. The 20% minimum requirement pertains to employee membership in
v BLR certificate of registration on the ground of is guilty of the union and not to the list of workers who participated in the
misrepresentation, false statement of fraud with misrepresentatio organizational meeting. The law does not provide for the required number
respect to the number of attendees of the n, false of members to attend the organizational meeting. The nature of the fraud
organizational meeting (only 17% or 68/389), adoption statements and and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the
and ratification of its CBL (no signed of 119/470) and fraud consent of a majority of union members for it to be a ground for
its election of officers. cancellation.

7 Honda Cars Phils CBA was entered which include the conversion of
Inc v Honda Cars transpo allowance into monthly gasoline allowance.
Technical The remaining/ unused may be converted to cash
Specialist and subject to applicable tax. There was a disagreement to
Supervisors Union consider it as income subject to withholding tax.
Grievance was submitted to a panel of VA.

8 Coop Rural Bank Members of the coop (Federation of Free Workers) WON coop YES as for those who are not co-owners. A member and co-owner cannot
of Davao City Inc v filed a petition for certification election. It was ruled employees can do so as he/she could not bargain with himself. Thus, they could not join or
Calleja that coop is not precluded from forming or joining a form a labor form a labor organization.
labor union. organization

9 Reyes v Trajano In an election, there were 3 choices in the ballot (the WON the INK YES. No law or jurisprudence which requires that only employees affiliated
3rd 1 is No Union). INK employees protested for the employees have with labor organization may take part in an certification election. All rank-
exclusion of their votes. the legal right to in-file employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to vote.
vote

10 Manila Electric Co Staff and technical employees of MERALCO formed a WON security NO. Security guards under EO III are no longer barred from joining a labor
v Secretary legal organization. It was contended that security guards are organization. RA 6715's provision of their disqualification was deemed null
guards are prohibited from forming, joining or disqualified and void. The option to join and not to join should be left entirely to the
assisting a labor organization. employees themselves.

11 San Miguel Corp The union filed a certification election among the WON supervisors NO. Said employees are not vested with the powers and prerogatives to lay
Supervisors and supervisors and exempt employees of SMC. and exempt down and execute management policies. Supervisors 3 and above may not
Exempt Union v employees are be considered confidential employees merely because they handle
Laguesma ineligible to to confidential data. Only those who have access to confidential labor relation
join a union policies or information are prohibited from joining a labor organization.
(Rationale: conflict of interest)

12 The Heritage The union filed a certification election among the WON the NO. The employer was but a bystander in respect of the conduct of the
Hotel Manila v supervisors employees of the Hotel. The company cancellation of certification election. The pendency of the cancellation of union
Secretary filed a petition for the cancellation of the union's registration registration should not prevent the conduct of the certification election.
registration for failing to submit its annual financial should bar the The mixed membership does not result in the illegitimacy of the registered
reports and an updated list of members. Later, it also conduct of the labor union unless the same was done through misrepresentation, false
filed another motion to either dismiss or suspend the certification statement or fraud
election due its pending petition for the cancellation. election
LABOR RELATIONS College of Maasin
Compilation of CDs re: CBA shace 2018
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD
1 DWU v Secretary DWU Employees Union submitted its proposals. WON While the Court recognizes that technically, the University has the right to
Before the conference the VP of the union resigned certification file the petition for certification election as there was no bargaining
and withdrew the proposals hence the PC was election can be deadlock to speak of, to grant its prayer that the herein assailed Orders be
cancelled. 3 years after, the affiliate of the held after CBA annulled would put an unjustified premium on bad faith bargaining as it
union,requested a conference. The university was agreed upon surreptitiously filed said petition during the conference committed itself to
remained silent. The union thereafter filed a notice of after 5 years. "sit down" with the Union. The university violated its duty to bargain
strike. It was found that the university filed for a collectively as well as for not replying the counter proposal.
petition for certification election one hour before the
agreement was concluded.

2 Kiok Loy v NLRC The Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa (a legitimate late WON the
labor federation) was subsequently certified as the Company is
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and- guilty of ULP for
file employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant. It furnished refusal to
the Company its proposed CBA and requests for bargain
counter proposals.
Both requests were ignored and remained unacted. It
then filed a notice of strike. All attempts towards
an amicable settlement failed.
YES. Collective bargaining is the negotiations towards a collective
agreement, democratic frameworks designed to stabilize the relations
between the labor and management and to create a climate of sound and
stable industrial peace. A company’s refusal to make a counter proposal if
considered in relation to the entire bargaining process may indicate bad
faith and this is especially true where the union’s request for a counter-
proposal
is left unanswered. It is not obligatory upon either side of a labor
controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other.
But an erring party should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to
resort to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures.

3 Samahan Wage orders were issued for salary increase. The WON the NO. Article 252 also states that the duty to bargain “does not compel any
Manggagawa sa Union demanded that the increase be on an across- Company is party to agree to a proposal or make any concession.” Thus, petitioner
Top Form the-board basis. The company refused. Instead, it guilty of ULP for union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the Minutes of
Manufacturing- implemented a scheme of increases purportedly to bargaining in bad the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it finally entered into with
United Workers of avoid wage distortion. As the company stood firm, the faith and private respondent. Bargaining in bad faith must be raised while the
the Phil vs. NLRC union filed a complaint for ULP alleging that the discriminating bargaining is in progress.
company's “reneging on its undertaking/promise against its When the bargaining is finished and the CBA has been executed voluntarily
(retain the old provision of CBA) constitutes bargaining employees. by the parties , a charge in bargaining in bad faith is too late and untenable
in bad faith.” as the CBA is proof enough that private respondent exerted reasonable
effort in
good faith bargaining.

4 Rivera vs. Espiritu, PAL was suffering from a difficult financial situation in
et. al 1998. It was faced with bankruptcy and was forced to
adopt a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor
force by more than 1/3. PALEA went on a 4-day strike
to protest retrenchment measures. PAL later ceased
operations and later resumed. Earlier both parties
agreed to suspend the CBA for a period of ten years,
subject to certain conditions.
WON YES. The agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations may negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation, with
be suspended for the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial peace
10 years. at PAL, but preventing the latter’s closure. There is no conflict between
said agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor Code. CBA under Article
253-A of the Labor Code has a two-fold purpose. One is to promote
industrial stability and predictability. Nothing in Article 253-A prohibits the
parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetable and agreeing
on the remedies to enforce the same.

5 Reyes vs. Trajano, In an election, there were 3 choices in the ballot (the
3rd 1 is No Union) with the following results: TUPAS 1,
TUEU-OLALIA 95, NO UNION 1, SPOILED 1,
CHALLENGED 141. The challenged votes were those
cast by the 141 INK members. They were segregated
and excluded from the final count in virtue of an
agreement at the pre-election conference, that the
INK members should not be allowed to vote “because
they are not members of any union and refused to
participate in the previous certification elections.” INK
employees protested.
WON the INK YES. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the
employees have right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right.`No law or jurisprudence
the legal right to which requires that only employees affiliated with labor organization may
vote take part in an certification election. All rank-in-file employees in the
bargaining unit are entitled to vote. Members of Iglesia Ni Kristo who did
not join a labor union can vote. This is because union membership is not a
prerequisite to vote.

6 Samahan ng The Union filed a petition for certification election
Manggawa sa claimed among others that it was a local chapter,
Samma-Lakas sa there was no other legitimate labor organization and
Industriya ng no certification or consent election had been
Kapatirang Haligi conducted for the last 12 months prior to the filing of
ng Alyansa the petition. It was questioned due to its failure to
(SAMMA-LIKHA) establish the federal's legal personality, its existence
vs. SAMMA Corp as a local chapter; and non-submission of the
certificate of non-forum shopping.
WON the NO. A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition, is not a
submission of litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding
certificate of character. The rules further provide that where two or more petitions
non-forum involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, the
shopping is a same shall be automatically consolidated. Hence, the filing of multiple suits
requirement and the possibility of conflicting decisions will rarely happen in this
proceeding and, if it does, will be easy to discover.Under the Labor Code
and the rules pertaining to the form of the petition for certification
election, there is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping
either in D.O. No. 9, series of 1997 or in D.O. No. 40-03, series of 2003
which replaced the former.

7 Picop Resources, The company and the union had a CBA with a union WON signing on NO. There is nosufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to
Inc. (PRI) vs. security clause (maintenance of membership). PRI the petition for expel the employee from the union. Mere signing of the authorization in
Anacleto L. demanded the termination of employees for alleged election during support of said Petition or before the freedom period, is not sufficient
Taneca, et. al. disloyalty, campaigned for, supported and signed the the effectivity of ground to terminate the employment inasmuch as the petition itself was
Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of the CBA can be actually filed during the freedom period. Nothing in the records would
Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of the a ground for show that respondents failed to maintain their membership in good
CBA. termination standing in the Union.
LABOR RELATIONS
Compilation of CDs re: Grievance Machinery
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE
1 San Jose v NLRC San Jose was advised to retire (65 yrs old) and was WON NLRC is
and Ocean paid retirement pay. However, he filed a case for correct
Terminal underpayment of his retirement benefits. LA ruled in
his favor. NLRC ruled that LA has no jurisdiction as the
issued arises from interpretation/implementation of a
CBA.
2 Sanyo Phils Certain employees were dismissed per union's request WON LA has
Workers Union v due to cancellation of membership with the union for jurisdiction
Canizares anti-union activities and for joining a minority union. A
complaint was filed. LA assumed jurisdiction.
3 Teng v Pahagac Teng is engaged in deep sea fishing. In the operation WON the
of the business, it was alleged that he usually enters voluntary
into a joint-venture agreement with master-fishermen arbitrator’s
responsible in hiring workers as checkers of fish decision is
caught in every fishing voyage. Teng later terminated subject to a MR
their services which prompted them to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal. VA dismissed the same
due to absence of EER. MR was filed but was denied as
their Procedure does not provide such remedy.
4 Phil Electric Corp The union had a CBA which provided for increases in WON VA was
v CA case of promotion. The union claimed that the correct
schedule of training allowance didn ot conform with
their CBA. They decided to settle their grievance to
VA. VA ruled in favor of the union.
5 UST Union v UST The union demanded from UST the remittance for the WON VA/Panel
hospitalization and medical fund of its members. of VA has
Unheeded, they filed a complaint for ULP. UST sought jurisdiction
the dismissal on the ground that the case falls within
the jurisdiction of VA/Panel of VAs and their conflict
must be resolved as grievance under the CBA and not
ULP.
6 Honda Cars Phils CBA was entered which include the conversion of WON VA has
Inc v Honda Cards transpo allowance into monthly gasoline allowance. jurisdiction
Tech Specialist The remaining/ unused may be converted to cash
and Supervisors subject to applicable tax. There was a disagreement to
Union consider it as income subject to withholding tax.
Grievance was submitted to a panel of VA.
College of Maasin
shace 2018
HELD
YES. LA's jurisdiction on money claims is limited only to those arising from
statutes or contracts other than a CBA. VA will have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over money claims arising from the
interpretation/implementation of the CBA AND those arisign from the
interpretation/enforcement of company personnel policies.
YES. Both union and the company are united in the dismissal of said
employees. The dismissal was due to the enforcement of the USC in the
CBA and not arising from the interpretation/ implementation of CBA. LA
has jurisdiction and not the GM.
YES. The amendatory act deleted the word "unappealable". The decision
may still be reconsidered on the basis of an MR duly filed. This is in
accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The contrary provision in D.O. 40-03 clearly shows an invalid exercise of
the authority granted by the legislative to the Department of Labor as it
tends to modify and improve the law. Such agency should not go beyond
the restrictions provided by law.
YES. VA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over UNRESOLVED
grievances arising from interpretation/implementation of CBA and those
arising from interpretation/implementation of company personnel policies.
Unless such violation is gross, it should not be treated as ULP. Likewise, VA
could hear and decide LDs including ULPs and bargaining deadlocks.
YES. Jurisdiction of VA/Panel of VA must be voluntarily conferred upon by
both parties (labor and management). LDs covered can include all those
cases under LA's jurisdiction. Violations of CBA except those which are
gross shall not be considered as ULP and shall be resolved as grievance
under the CBA.
NO. VA has no competence to rule on the taxability of the subject matter.
Issue raised is clearly tax matters and not labor disputes. It pertains to
NIRC, not LC nor the interpretation of MOA and/or company policies.
Parties cannot agree or compromise the State's inherent power to tax.
LABOR RELATIONS
Compilation of CDs re: Strike
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE
1 PAL v Secretary The CBA between the parties provided for pay WON the strike
increases but the parties did not agree the union filed was valid
a notice of strike due to bargaining deadlock and ULP.
NCMB advised that pre-mediation is appropriate, not
valid for strike. The union then declared a strike. The
Secretary declared the strike valid and prohibited the
company from taking retaliatory actions.
2 Capitol Med The Secretary ordered Capitol to negotiate a CBA with WON strike is
Center v NLRC its EA. Pursuant thereto, EA requested for a meeting valid
but was refused. Then it filed a notice of strike.
However, it was alleged that no voting had taken place
and notice of such voting was submited prior to the
strike.
3 San Mig Corp v Due to financial losses, San Miguel shutdown some of WON the strike
NLRC its plants and retrenched some employees. The union was valid
filed grievance cases. During the proceeding, most of
the employees were redeployed while others
accepted early retirements. The remaining (17)
employees proceeded but the union declared a
deadlock. A notice of strike was filed.
4 Manila Diamond The union manifest its desire to negotiate a CBA which WON payroll
Hotel EU v CA was refused due to the earlier dismissal of union's reinstatement is
certification election. A strike was staged. allowed
Confrontations followed straining their relationship.
The Hotel accused the union for illegal strike and
dismissed some employees. The Union accused the
Hotel for illegal dismissal. The Secretary issued a
return-to-work order within 24 hours. The Hotel
refused and filed for an MR. The Secretary ordered
their payroll reinstatement.
5 UST v NLRC UST terminated the union officers on the ground of WON payroll
libelous and defamatory attacks against Father Rector. reinstatement is
Some faculty members staged a mass leave of allowed
absence disrupting classes. A complaint for illegal
dismissal and ULP were filed. The Secretary issued an
order for readmission of all faculty members. UST
grant substantially equivalent academic assignments.
6 Reliance Surety Reliance rearrange the sitting arrangement of its staff WON the
and Insurance v to lessen non-work related conversations/visits which employees who
NLRC was taken as a pressure to employees to quit the participated in
union. Said employees refused to obey and even an illegal strike
argued with the management which later resulted to may be
their dismissal. ULP was filed. While the complaint was reinstated
hibernating, a strike was staged even without the
required majority vote and it was attended with
harassment to the management and employees not
on strike.
7 Visayas Union leaders of the local affiliate staged a strike even WON the
Community Med if its not a LLO. Nurses and midwives joined and took dismissal was
Center v Yballe part in committing illegal acts during the strike. Union valid
leaders were terminated as well as said nurses and
midwives.
College of Maasin
shace 2018
HELD
NO. The Secretary was incorrect. The strike was illegal as there was an
existing CBA (9 months to run) and it violated the no strike provision on the
CBA. Likewise, once converted to preventive mediation case, the conduct
of strike & lockout shall be invalid. The effect of such conversion was to
drop the case from the docket of notice of strikes as if there was no notice
of strike. During the pendency of preventive mediation proceeding, no
strike could be legally declared.
NO. Non submission of notice of strike vote is tantamount to non-
compliance of taking of strike vote. Unless and until the NCMB is notified
at least 24 hours, it cannot determine whether to supervise a strike vote
meeting or not and ensure its peacefule and regular conduct. Thus, it
would render the staged strike illegal.
NO. The ground relied upon by the union is non-strikeable. There is no CB
deadlock (def: failure in the CB negotiation) in this case since the board
assigned to the grievance machinery. Compliance of grievance procedure
must be exhausted first before conducting a strike.
NO. Payroll reinstatement is not allowed even if the relationship between
parties are strained. All employers must readmit all of them in the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike and lockout. Unlike in
UST case, there is no similar compelling reason (change of teacher mid
sem) that called for payroll reinstatement as alternative remedy. (Ratio:
State's means to protect itself from an emergency or crisis, not for labor
nor management).
NO. The giving of substantially equivalent assignment without actual
teaching loads cannot be considered as reinstatement under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Actual reinstatement is
required. In this case, to take effect at the start of the second semester of
the school year but not later because to change the faculty members
around the time of final exams would adversely affect and prejudice the
students.
NO. It was an exercise of a management prerogative and its not considered
ULP. The strike was not only illegal but also violent. Violation of the cooling
off period in good faith is merely defective strike but when in bad faith, the
strike is illegal. Illegality of the strike cannot be used to dismiss employees
who were impressed with good faith. Employees who were in bad faith
cannot be reinstated without loss of seniority rights for to do so would be
to reward them for an act which public policy does not sanction. In this
case, no good faith could not be found but rather plain arrogance, pride
and cynicism.
NO. Any union officers who knowingly participated in an illegal strike and
any union officer/member who knowingly participated in the commission
of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status. Here, respondents merely participated in the illegal strike but did
not commit any of the illegal acts.
LABOR RELATIONS
Compilation of CDs re: Kinds of Employment
NO. CASE FACTS
1 Abbot Alcaraz was employed on probationary status as
Laboratories Phil v Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Her
Alcaraz (2014) management style was considered as strict. She was
informed that she failed to meet the regularization
standards
2 Universal Robina Acibo et. al. were hired in different capacities – i.e.
Sugar Milling drivers, crane operators, among others. They were
Corpo v Acibo repeatedly rehired.
3 Unibersidad de Sambajon was hired a full-time college faculty
Sta. Isabel v member (Assistant Professor on probation). After he
Sambajon, Jr. finished his masters, he demanded a retroactive
adjustment of his pay. His appointment was not
renewed.
4 Malicdem v Malicdem and Flores were hired by respondent
Marulas Industrial corporation as extruder operators. Every year, they
Corp would sign a Resignation/Quitclaim a day after their
contracts ended, and then sign another contract for
one (1) year.
5 Noblejas v Italian Noblejas was hired as training instructor/assessor on a Is there a case
Maritime contractual basis for 3 months and was rehired for illegal
Academy Phils without any contract. dismissal?
6 Manao v TNS Manalo and others were hired as field personnel. They
Philippines, Inc. were made to sign a project-to-project employment
contract. Years later, they were advised to not report
for work as their services are no longer needed.
7 Omni Hauling Bernardo Bon and 17 others as garbage truck drivers
Services, Inc .v and paleros paid on a per trip basis. When the service
Bernardo Bon contract was renewed for another year, they were
required to sign employment contracts (re-hired). But
they refused claiming that they were regular
employees
8 Hacienda Leddy / Villegas worked at hacienda doing farming jobs. More
Ricardo Gamboa, than 20 years later, he was terminated without prior
Jr. v. Paquito notice or valid reason.
Villegas
9 FVR Skills and FVR (employer of Seva and 27 others) entered into a
Services contract of janitorial service with Robinsons Land
Exponents, Inc. v. Corp. for a period of one year. FVR and Robinsons no
Seva longer extended their contract of Janitorial services.
10 Fuji Television Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged as a news
Network, Inc v correspondent/producer. When she was diagnosed
Espiritu with lung cancer, the company had a problem
renewing the her contract. After a series of verbal and
written communications, she signed a non-renewal
contract but under protest.
11 Lopez v Irvine Lopez was hired as laborer and years later designated
Construction Corp as a guard at its warehouse. He was purportedly
terminated from his employment more than 10 years
after, whereupon he was told "Ikaw ay lay-off muna."
College of Maasin
shace 2018
ISSUE HELD
Was Alcaraz Yes. Despite the existence of a sufficient ground to terminate Alcarazs
illegally employment and Abbotts compliance with the Labor Code termination
dismissed? procedure, it is readily apparent that Abbott breached its contractual
obligation to Alcaraz when it failed to abide by its own procedure in
evaluating the performance of a probationary employee.
Whether or not Yes. Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are
complainants are temporarily laid off during the off-season are not separated from the
Regular service in said period, but are merely considered on leave until re-
Employees? employment. The nature of the employment depends on the nature of the
activities to be performed, the nature of the employer’s business, the
duration and scope to be done.
WON Yes. Teachers's probation in private schools is not governed purely by the
Sambajon’s LC, it is supplemented by special rules in the Manual of Regulations for
probationary Private Schools which provides that full-time teachers who have
employment was satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be considered
validly regular or permanent (3 consecutive years for elementary and secondary,
terminated 6 for tertiary level, 9 trimester for tertiary level with collegiate courses
offered)
Whether or not Yes. Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as
petitioners were opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same
illegally tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and
dismissed indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer (REASONABLE
CONNECTION), then the employee must be deemed a regular employee,
pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence.
No. The record is bereft of any indication that he was prevented from
returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work assignment or that he
was dismissed. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal with numerous
money claims is obviously intended to compel the company to abide with
his demands.
WON CA erred in Yes. TNS failed to show that they were still project employees and that
holding Manalo they submitted the termination reports to the DOLE. Absence of proof that
and the others subsequent employment continued to be on a project-to-project basis per
not regular contract, they were deemed to have become regular employees.
employees
WON Yes. The presumption of regular employment should be accorded in their
respondents are favor pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, which provides that
regular “employees who have rendered at least one year of service (continuous or
employees broken) shall be considered as regular employees as they have performed
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade
WoN there exists Yes. While length of time may not be the controlling test to determine if
an employer- Villegas is indeed a regular employee, it is vital in establishing if he was
employee hired to perform tasks which are necessary and indispensable to the usual
relationship business or trade of the employer.
WON Yes. The primary standard in determining regular employment is the
respondents are reasonable connections between the particular activity performed by the
regular employee and the employer’s business or trade. They had been doing the
employees of the same type of work and occupying the same positions and that their work
petitioner as janitors, service crews and sanitation aides, are necessary or desirable to
the petitioner’s business as an independent contractor.
Was Arlene Yes. Arlene was a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. Thus, she
illegally was entitled to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code and
dismissed? could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes and after observance
of due process. The expiration of the contract does not negate the finding
of illegal dismissal. The manner by which Fuji informed Arlene of non-
renewal through email a month after she informed Fuji of her illness is
tantamount to constructive dismissal. Further, Arlene was asked to sign a
letter of resignation prepared by Fuji. The existence of a fixed-term
contract should not mean that there can be no illegal dismissal.
Whether or not Yes. Lopez was a regular employee. He is entitled to security of tenure,
petitioner Lopez and, hence, dismissible only if a just or authorized cause exists therefor.
was illegally The burden to prove the validity and legality of the termination of
dismissed employment falls on the employer, Irvine should have established the
bona fide suspension of its business operations or undertaking that would
have resulted in the temporary lay-off of its employees
12 Begino v ABS-CBN Nelson Begino and 3 others worked as WON CA erred in Yes. Manalo and the others repeatedly hired over the years is indicative
cameramen/editors and reporters of ABS-CBN thru reversing the that they are regular employees. Their functions are necessary and
Talent Contracts regularly renewed over the years. decision of LA essential to ABS-CBN’s business. It matters little that they were hired for
They filed a complaint for regularization and NLRC on the specific period and were paid according to the allocated budget.
ground that Employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects where the
there is no EER employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of the employer’s
business.

13 Hacienda Cataywa Rosario Lorezo was informed that she cannot avail of WON Lorezo is a
v Lorezo their retirement benefits since she has only paid 16 regular
months. She alleged that she was employed as laborer employee
in the Hacienda in 1970-1995 but was reported to the
SSS only in 1978 and that her contributions were not
remitted.
Yes. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal
employees. It was also consistently held that seasonal employees may be
considered as regular employees when they are called to work from time
to time. They are in regular employment because of the nature of the job,
and not because of the length of time they have worked. However,
seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not be
considered regular employees.

14 Paz v Northern Zenaida Paz (1974) was hired as a seasonal sorter. She Whether or not Yes. She was regularly rehired since 1974 and performed the same tasks
Tobacco Redrying was 63 years old when NTRCI informed her that she Paz can be every season for several years. She is then considered complainants as
Co., Inc. was considered retired under company policy. Her considered as regular employees entitled to rights under Article 279 of the Labor Code.
retirement pay of P12,000 was inadequate for her 29 regular seasonal
years of service employee?

15 Fonterra Brands Largado and Estrellado were hired by Zytron to WON they were No. When they are refused to renew their contract with Zytron by applying
Phils, Inc. v provide for trade merchandising representatives to illegally with AC Sicat, they effectively resigned from Zytron. Hence, they were not
Largado Fonterra. When Fonterra terminated its contract with terminated illegally dismissed because they voluntarily terminated their employment
Zytron and entered into an agreement for manpower with the latter. They were hired as fixed-term or project employees of AC
supply with AC Sicat, they applied with AC Sicat and Sicat. The non-renewal of their contracts by AC Sicat is a management
were hired but their 5-month contract were not prerogative, and failure of respondents to prove that such was done in bad
renewed. faith militates against their contention that they were illegally dismissed.

16 Montero v Times TTCI also adopted a company-wide retrenchment Whether or not Yes. While the filing of the said case could have interrupted the running of
Corporation program including the sale of 25 buses to Mencorp the petitioners’ the 4-year prescriptive period, the voluntary withdrawal of the petitioners
Transport Systems, Inc.,. After TTCI filed business complaints for effectively cancelled the tolling of the prescriptive period within which to
closure due to heavy business losses, complaints were illegal dismissal file their illegal dismissal case, leaving them in exactly the same position as
filed but were later withdawn. 4 years and 7 months have already though no labor case had been filed at all.
after receipt of notice, illegal dismissal was filed. prescribed.

17 Basan v Coca-Cola Basan and 6 others were hired as temporary route
Bottlers Phils helpers to act as substitutes for its absent regular
route helpers merely for a fixed period in anticipation
of the high volume of work in its plants or sales
offices.
WON petitioners No. (Magsalin Doctrine), the nature of work of route helpers hired
could not have necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade qualifies them as
attained regular regular employees. The repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the
employment continuing need for their services clearly attest to the necessity or
desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business or trade
of petitioner company.

18 Enchanted Rizalito Verzo, a licensed engineer, was hired as WON CA erred in Yes. Considering that Verzo failed to meet the reasonable standards set,
Kingdom, Inc v Section Head - Mechanical & Instrumentation ruling that Verzo Enchanted cannot be compelled to regularize Verzo. Enchanted is not
Verzo Maintenance under probation. When his performance should be duty-bound to retain an employee who is clearly unfit.
was not up to par, he was not considered for considered a
regularization. regular
employee

19 Dacles v Dacles was moved to another project but was
Millenium instructed to return to former job site. He requested
Erectors Corp to be assigned to a new project after 2 days but was
later told by the paymaster not to report for work.
Whether or not Employers claiming that their workers are project employees should prove
Dacles is a that: (a) the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the
project time they were engaged; and (b) there was indeed a project. The employer
employee was able to prove that Dacles was project employee. The repeated and
successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and of itself, qualify
them as regular employees. If length of service (for regularization) is
applied to the construction industry because construction firms cannot
guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project
as they have no control over the decisions and resources of project
proponents or owners.

20 Vicmar Ruben Panes et. al. were hired by Vicmar. They alleged Whether or not Yes. Vicmar did not submit any documents to refute the allegation.
Development that they were regular employees but their wages the employees Respondents were also able to show that their activities were necessary to
Corp v Elarcosa were reduced and later dismissed them without cause were illegally the usual business of Vicmar, which made them fall under “regular
and due process. dismissed employees” as defined in the Labor Code.

21 OKS Designtech Caccam was hired as an accountant for for 6 months WON Caccam Yes. Even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that are
Inc v Caccam which was renewed for another 6 months. Before the was a fixed-term necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, the
expiration, she received a letter informing her of the employee. same does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. Art.
impending expiration of her contract. She felt that she 280 of LC does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a
was summarily dismissed, so she filed a complaint for fixed period provided the same is entered into by the parties, without any
illegal dismissal. force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent.
22 Convoy Marketing Albia worked as pahinante (load/unload) for the WON Albia is not
Corp v Albia Convoy (distributor of bottled wines, liquor and a regular
bottled water). He was later promoted to a driver. He employee
was dismissed on the ground that he was under the
influence of liquor. He then filed a complaint. Convoy
said that he was not a regular employee but an
independent contractor, paid on per trip basis.
YES. The fact that Convoy has 15 regular drivers underscores that he was
engaged to perform an activity necessary or desirable in the usual
company business. He is a regular employee is evident from the Delivery
Agency Agreements. He is only a paid hand. He has no independent
resources to conduct the business of contracting and works for no one else
but the respondent. The vehicle he operates belongs and maintained by
Convoy, and his pahinantes are the Convoy's admitted employees.

23 Exotec Security Marcelo was assigned as “close-in” security of JG
and Allied Summit’s corporate officers in 1994. In 2006, he was
Services Corp v relieved. For more than 6 months, he reported back to
Marcelo Exocet without any assignment. In 2007, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal.
Whether or not No. There is no showing that Exocet was in bad faith when it placed
Serrano was Serrano in floating status for more than 6 months. Serrano’s lack of
constructively assignment cannot be attributed to the petitioner. On the contrary, in as
dismissed. early was one month after Serrano was relieved, Exocet had already
offered him general security service assignment as there were no available
VIP contracts, their availability being not wholly within Exocet’s control.

24 Peak Ventures Villareal was hired as security guard. In 2002, he was WON CA erred in No. Peak failed to discharge the burden of proving that there were no
Corp and/or El relieved from duty and was later informed that he upholding the other posts available for Villareal after his recall from his last assignment.
Tiger Security and would no longer be given assignment because of his decision of LA Worse, no sufficient reason was given for his relief and continued denial of
Investigation age (he was already 42). He resigned later resigned and NLRC that a new assignment. Moreover, Villareal’s immediate filing of a complaint for
Agency v Heirs of due to his dwindling resources. Villareal was illegal dismissal to ask for reinstatement negates the fact of voluntary
Nestor Villareal constructively resignation.
and illegally
dismissed

25 Quillopa v Quality Quillopa was placed on a temporary "off-detail" or
Guards Services "floating status" without any salary or benefits.
and Investigation Despite repeated follow-ups, he failed to get a new
Agency post or assignment for lack of vacancy (records are
bereft of any indication or proof)
WON there was Yes. Placing a security guard in temporary "off-detail" or "floating status" is
constructive part of management prerogative of the employer-security agency and does
dismissal not, per se, constitute a severance of the employer-employee relationship.
It does not constitute constructive dismissal, so long as such status does
not continue beyond six months. The onus of proving that there is no post
available to which the security guard can be assigned rests on the
employer .