LABOR | ATTY.

GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST

1. People’s Broadcas ng Service v. Secretary of Labor, March 6, 2012

2. Urbanes v. Sec of Labor, February 19, 2003
3. Zialcita v. PAL February 20, 1977
4. Star Paper Corpora on v. Simbol, April 12, 2006
5. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, January 2015
6. Duncan Associa on of Detailman v. Glaxo Wellcome, September 14, 2004
7. Domingo v. Rayala, February 18, 2008
8. LBC v. Palco, February 2020
9. Apex Mining Co. v. NLRC, April 22, 1991
10. GSIS v. CA, January 2008

LABOR STANDARD 11. Salome v. ECC, September 26, 2000

12. Heirs of Deauna v. Fil Star Mari me Corpora on, June 20, 2012
13. Debaudin v. SSS, September 21, 2007
Case Digests
14. Austria v. CA, August 12, 2002
15. Gatus v. SSS, January 26, 2011
16. Republic of the Phils. v. Mariano, March 28, 2003

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ti
ti

ti

ti

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE vs SECRETARY OF LABOR enforcement power of the DOLE. But even in conceding the power of the DOLE to determine
GR. No. 1796527 the existence of an employer-employee rela onship, the Court held that the determina on of
6 March 2012 the existence of an employer-employee rela onship is s ll primarily within the power of the
Tickler: NLRC, that any nding by the DOLE is merely preliminary. This conclusion must be revisited.
Facts:
Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan led a complaint against pe oner, People’s No limita on in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the existence of
Broadcas ng Service (PBS) with the DOLE Regional O ce in Cebu City for illegal deduc on, an employer-employee rela onship. No procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only
nonpayment of service incen ve leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day make a preliminary nding, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law did not
and illegal diminu on of bene ts, delayed payment of wages, and nonycoverage of SSS, PAG- say that the DOLE would rst seek the NLRCs determina on of the existence of an employer-
IBIG and Philhealth. A er conduct of summary inves ga ons, the DOLE Regional Director employee rela onship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee rela onship be
found that Juezan was an employee of PBS and was en tled to his money claims. Pe oner disputed, the DOLE would refer the ma er to the NLRC. The DOLE must have the power to
sought reconsidera on of the Director’s Order but failed. The Ac ng DOLE Secretary dismissed determine whether or not an employer-employee rela onship exists, and from there to decide
pe oner’s appeal on the ground that pe oner submi ed a Deed of Assignment of Bank whether or not to issue compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code,
Deposit instead of pos ng a cash or surety bond. When the ma er was brought before the CA, as amended by RA 7730.
where pe oner claimed that it had been denied due process, it was held that pe oner was
accorded due process as it had been given the opportunity to be heard, and that the DOLE The determina on of the existence of an employer-employee rela onship by the DOLE must
Secretary had jurisdic on over the ma er, as the jurisdic onal limita on imposed by Ar cle be respected. The expanded visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730
129 of the Labor Code on the power of the DOLE Secretary under Art. 128(b) of the Code had would be rendered nugatory if the alleged employer could, by the simple expedient of
been repealed by Republic Act No. (RA) 7730. dispu ng the employer-employee rela onship, force the referral of the ma er to the NLRC.

The SC, however, reversed the decision of the CA, and the complaint against pe oner was If the DOLE makes a nding that there is an exis ng employer-employee rela onship, it takes
dismissed. The Court found that there was no employer-employee rela onship between cognizance of the ma er, to the exclusion of the NLRC. The DOLE would have no jurisdic on
pe oner and private respondent. It was held that while the DOLE may make a determina on only if the employer-employee rela onship has already been terminated, or it appears, upon
of the existence of an employer-employee rela onship, this func on could not be co-extensive review, that no employer-employee rela onship existed in the rst place.
with the visitorial and enforcement power provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended by RA 7730. The Na onal Labor Rela ons Commission (NLRC) was held to be the This is not to say that the determina on by the DOLE is beyond ques on or review. Su ce it
primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee rela onship. to say, there are judicial remedies such as a pe on for cer orari under Rule 65 that may be
availed, should a party wish to dispute the ndings of the DOLE.
From this Decision, the Public A orney’s O ce (PAO) led a Mo on for Clari ca on of
Decision (with Leave of Court). The PAO sought to clarify as to when the visitorial and Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered to
enforcement power of the DOLE be not considered as co-extensive with the power to make a determina on as to the existence of an employer-employee rela onship in the
determine the existence of an employer-employee rela onship.6 In its Comment,7 the DOLE exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by the
sought clari ca on as well, as to the extent of its visitorial and enforcement power under the NLRC.
Labor Code, as amended.
There is a view that despite Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, there is
Issue: s ll a threshold amount set by Arts. 129 and 217 of the Labor Code when money claims are
WON the DOLE has the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee involved, i.e., that if it is for PhP 5,000 and below, the jurisdic on is with the regional director
rela onship of the DOLE, under Art. 129, and if the amount involved exceeds PhP 5,000, the jurisdic on is
with the labor arbiter, under Art. 217. The view states that despite the wording of Art. 128(b),
Held: this would only apply in the course of regular inspec ons undertaken by the DOLE, as
Yes, the DOLE can determine whether or not an Er-Ee Rela onship exists. In the Decision, the di eren ated from cases under Arts. 129 and 217, which originate from complaints. There are
Court had placed a limita on upon the power of the DOLE, that is, the determina on of the several cases, however, where the Court has ruled that Art. 128(b) has been amended to
existence of an employer-employee rela onship cannot be co-extensive with the visitorial and expand the powers of the DOLE Secretary and his duly authorized representa ves by RA

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
fi

ti
ti
fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
tt
ti
ti
ft

fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
tt
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
7730. In these cases, the Court resolved that the DOLE had the jurisdic on, despite the decisions of the Regional Directors in complaints led under Art. 129 of the Labor Code. They
amount of the money claims involved. Furthermore, in these cases, the inspec on held by the claim that appeals from orders of Regional directors should be made with the NLRC.
DOLE regional director was prompted speci cally by a complaint. Therefore, the ini a on of a
case through a complaint does not divest the DOLE Secretary or his duly authorized Issue:
representa ve of jurisdic on under Art. 128(b). WON the Secretary of Labor has jurisdic on to review appeals from decisions of the Regional
Directors in complaints led under Art. 129.
In the present case, the nding of the DOLE Regional Director that there was an employer-
employee rela onship has been subjected to review by this Court, with the nding being that Held:
there was no employer-employee rela onship between pe oner and private respondent, No. Neither the pe oners conten on nor the SSS’s is impressed with merit, rather, it is the
based on the evidence presented. Private respondent presented self-serving allega ons as well RTC that has jurisdic on over the subject ma er of the present case. It is well se led in law
as self-defea ng evidence. The ndings of the Regional Director were not based on substan al and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee rela onship exists between the par es
evidence, and private respondent failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor
rela onship. The DOLE had no jurisdic on over the case, as there was no employer-employee statutes or any collec ve bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has
rela onship present. Thus, the dismissal of the complaint against pe oner is proper. The jurisdic on. In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code
Decision is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that in the exercise of the DOLEs visitorial and but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of pe oner's alleged breach
enforcement power, the Labor Secretary or the la er’s authorized representa ve shall have of its obliga on under their Guard Service Contract. The ac on is within the realm of civil law
the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee rela onship, to the exclusion hence jurisdic on over the case belongs to the regular courts. While the resolu on of the
of the NLRC. issue involves the applica on of labor laws, reference to the labor code was only for the
determina on of the solidary liability of the pe oner to the respondent where no employer-
URBANES vs SECRETARY OF LABOR employee rela on exists.
GR. No. 122791
19 Feb 2003 In the case at bar, even if pe oner led the complaint on his and also on behalf of the
Tickler: security guards, the relief sought has to do with the enforcement of the contract between him
Facts: and the SSS which was deemed amended by virtue of Wage Order No. NCR-03. The
Pe oner Placido O. Urbanes, Jr., doing business under the name and style of Catalina Security controversy subject of the case at bar is thus a civil dispute, the proper forum for the
Agency, entered into an agreement to provide security services to respondent Social Security resolu on of which is the civil courts. Even if the pe on was led with the proper forum, it
System (SSS). During the e ec vity of the agreement, pe oner, by le er of May 16, 1994, must s ll be dismissed for lack of cause of ac on. Under Art. 106 of the Labor Code: In the
requested the SSS for the upward adjustmentof their contract rate in view of Wage Order No. event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wage of his employees in
NCR-03. As SSS refused to comply, On June 29, 1994, pe oner led a complaint with the accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his
DOLE-NCR against the SSS seeking the implementa on of Wage Order No. NCR-03. In its contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the
posi on paper, the SSS prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that pe oner contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by
is not the real party in interest and has no legal capacity to le the same. In any event, it him.
argued that if it had any obliga on, it was to the security guards. On the other hand, pe oner
in his posi on paper, ci ng Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, contended that the security It is only when [the] contractor pays the increases mandated that it can claim an adjustment
guards assigned to the SSS do not have any legal basis to le a complaint against it for lack of from the principal to cover the increases payable to the security guards. The conclusion that
contractual privity. the right of the contractor (as principal debtor) to recover from the principal (as solidary co-
debtor) arises only if he has paid the amounts for which both of them are jointly and severally
Finding for pe oner, the Regional Director of the DOLE-NCR issued an Order for SSS to pay liable is in line with Ar cle 1217 of the Civil Code.
pe oner P1.6 million. SSS appealed to the Secretary of Labor, claiming that the Regional
Director has no jurisdic on to issue the assailed order. The Secretary set aside the order and In ne, the liability of the SSS to reimburse pe oner arises only if and when pe oner pays
remanded the case. Pe oner led the present pe on for cer orari with the Supreme Court his employee security guards the increases mandated by Wage Order No. NCR-03.
asser ng that the Secretary of Labor does not have jurisdic on to review appeals from

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti

ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi

tt
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

fi
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
tt
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
ZIALCITA vs PAL STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs SIMBOL
RO4-3-3398 GR. No. 164774
20 Feb 1977 12 Apr 2006
Tickler: Tickler:
Facts: Facts:
Zialcita is a stewardess of PAL. She was red from work because she had go en married. PAL Pe oner Star Paper Corpora on (the company) is a corpora on engaged in trading –
argued and cited its policy that stewardesses must be single. The policy also states that principally of paper products. Josephine Ongsitco is its Manager of the Personnel and
subsequent marriage of a stewardess shall automa cally terminate employment. Administra on Department while Sebas an Chua is its Managing Director. Simbol was
employed by the company on October 27, 1993. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee of the
Zialcita anchored on Ar cle 136 of the Labor Code. PAL sought refuge from Ar cle 132. company, whom he married. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco advised the couple that should
they decide to get married, one of them should resign pursuant to a company policy:
Ar cle 132 provides, "Ar cle 132. Facili es for women. The Secretary of Labor and 1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has rela ve, up to 3rd
Employment shall establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women degree of rela onship, already employed by the company.
employees. In appropriate cases, he shall, by regula ons, require any employer to: To 2. In case of two of our employees (both singles, one male and another female) developed a
determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for re rement or termina on in friendly rela onship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married,
special occupa ons such as those of ight a endants and the like." one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.

Ar cle 136 provides, "Ar cle 136. S pula on against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an Simbol resigned on June 20, 1998 pursuant to the company policy.
employer to require as a condi on of employment or con nua on of employment that a Comia was hired by the company on February 5, 1997. She met Howard Comia, a co-
woman employee shall not get married, or to s pulate expressly or tacitly that upon ge ng employee, whom she married. Ongsitco likewise reminded them that pursuant to company
married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, policy, one must resign should they decide to get married. Comia resigned.
discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her Estrella was hired on July 29, 1994. She met Luisito Zuñiga, also a co-worker. Pe oners stated
marriage.” that Zuñiga, a married man, got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly could have
terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign.
Issue: Simbol and Comia allege that they did not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in
WON Zialcita’s termina on is proper view of an illegal company policy. As to respondent Estrella, she alleges that she had a
rela onship with co-worker Zuñiga who misrepresented himself as a married but separated
Held: man. A er he got her pregnant, she discovered that he was not separated. Thus, she severed
The termina on was improper. First of all, during the me Zialcita was terminated, no her rela onship with him to avoid dismissal due to the company policy. Due to her urgent
regula on had yet been issued by the Secretary of Labor to implement Ar cle 132. Second, need for money, she later submi ed a le er of resigna on in exchange for her thirteenth
even assuming that the Secretary of Labor had already issued such a regula on and to the month pay. They averred that the aforemen oned company policy is illegal and contravenes
e ect that stewardesses should remain single, such would be in viola on of Ar cle 136 of the Ar cle 136 of the Labor Code.
Labor Code. The labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit sta ng that the company policy
was decreed pursuant to what the respondent corpora on perceived as management
Ar cle 136's protec on of women is broader and more powerful than the regula on provided preroga ve.
under Ar cle 132. Pe oners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the subject 1995 policy/
regula on is viola ve of the cons tu onal rights towards marriage and the family of
employees and of Ar cle 136 of the Labor Code and the respondents’ resigna ons were far
from voluntary.

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ft
ti

ti
ti

ti

ti

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
tt

fl
ti
ti

fi
ti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti

ti
ti

ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
tti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
Issue: There are two types of employment policies involve spouses: policies banning only spouses
WON the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same from working in the same company (no-spouse employment policies) , and those banning all
company violates the rights of the employee under the Constitution and the immediate family members, including spouses, from working in the same company (an -
Labor Code. nepo sm employment policies) .Unlike in our jurisdic on where there is no express
prohibi on on marital discrimina on, there are twenty state statutes in the United States
Held: prohibi ng marital discrimina on.
Yes. The policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company is
viola ve of the rights of the employee under the Cons tu on and the Labor Code. There are two theories of employment discrimina on: the disparate treatment and the
The 1987 Cons tu onstates our policy towards the protec on of labor under the following disparate impact . Under the disparate treatment analysis , the plain must prove that an
provisions: employment policy is discriminatory on its face. No-spouse employment policies requiring an
employee of a par cular sex to either quit, transfer, or be red are facially discriminatory.
Ar cle II, Sec on 18. The State a rms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect
the rights of workers and promote their welfare. On the other hand, to establish disparate impact , the complainants must prove that a facially
neutral policy has a dispropor onate e ect on a par cular class. For example, although most
Ar cle XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall a ord full protec on to labor, local and overseas, organized employment policies do not expressly indicate which spouse will be required to transfer or
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportuni es for leave the company, the policy o en dispropor onately a ects one sex. Though they agree that
all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organiza on, collec ve bargaining and the term "marital status" encompasses discrimina on based on a person's status as either
nego a ons, and peaceful concerted ac vi es, including the right to strike in accordance with married, single, divorced, or widowed, they are divided on whether the term has a broader
law. They shall be en tled to security of tenure, humane condi ons of work, and a living wage. meaning. The courts narrowly interpre ng marital status to refer only to a person's status as
They shall also par cipate in policy and decision-making processes a ec ng their rights and married, single, divorced, or widowed reason that if the legislature intended a broader
bene ts as may be provided by law. de ni on it would have either chosen di erent language or speci ed its intent. They hold that
the relevant inquiry is if one is married rather than to whom one is married. They construe
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers, marital status discrimina on to include only whether a person is single, married, divorced, or
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of produc on and the right of widowed and not the "iden ty, occupa on, and place of employment of one's spouse."
enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
The courts that have broadly construed the term "marital status" rule that it encompassed the
The Civil Code likewise protects labor with the following provisions: Art. 1700. The rela on iden ty, occupa on and employment of one's spouse. These courts also nd the no-spouse
between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public employment policy invalid for failure of the employer to present any evidence of business
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are necessity other than the general percep on that spouses in the same workplace might
subject to the special laws on labor unions, collec ve bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed adversely a ect the business. They hold that the absence of such a bona de occupa onal
shop, wages, working condi ons, hours of labor and similar subjects. quali ca on invalidates a rule denying employment to one spouse due to the current
employment of the other spouse in the same o ce. Unless the employer can prove that the
Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legisla on and all labor contracts shall be construed in reasonable demands of the business require a dis nc on based on marital status and there is
favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. no be er available or acceptable policy which would be er accomplish the business purpose,
an employer may not discriminate against an employee based on the iden ty of the
The case at bar involves Ar cle 136 of the Labor Code which provides: Art. 136. It shall be employee’s spouse. This is known as the bona de occupa onal quali ca on excep on.
unlawful for an employer to require as a condi on of employment or con nua on of
employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to s pulate expressly or tacitly There must be a compelling business necessity for which no alterna ve exists other than the
that upon ge ng married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to discriminatory prac ce. To jus fy a bona de occupa onal quali ca on, the employer must
actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by prove two factors:
reason of her marriage. (1) that the employment quali ca on is reasonably related to the essen al opera on of the
job involved;

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti

ti
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti

ff
ti
tti

ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ft
ffi
ti
ti

ff

ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ffi

ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
ti

ti
ff
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi

ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti

ti
ti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
(2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substan ally all persons mee ng the
quali ca on would be unable to properly perform the du es of the job. Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents' maternity leaves and demand for their
resigna on on its "Uni ed Employment Contract for Female Cabin A endants" (Uni ed
We employ the standard of reasonableness of the company policy which is parallel to the bona Contract) which provides that if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any me during the term
de occupa onal quali ca on requirement. The requirement that a company policy must be of this contract, this shall render her employment contract as void and she will be terminated
reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management preroga ve. due to lack of medical tness. The respondents averred that the Uni ed Contract took e ect
We do not nd a reasonable business necessity in the case at bar. Pe oners’ sole conten on a er the approval of their maternity leaves. Rather than comply and tender resigna on le ers,
that "the company did not just want to have two (2) or more of its employees related between respondents led separate appeal le ers that were all rejected. Faced with the dilemma of
the third degree by a nity and/or consanguinity" is lame. That the second paragraph was resigning or totally losing their bene ts, respondents executed handwri en resigna on le ers.
meant to give teeth to the rst paragraph of the ques oned rule is evidently not the valid
reasonable business necessity required by the law. Respondents were hired a er they were Issues:
found t for the job, but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. Pe oners 1. Whether or not the respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally terminated.
failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Shee ng Machine Operator, to Alma Dayrit, 2. Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdic on over the case
then an employee of the Repacking Sec on, could be detrimental to its business opera ons.
The policy is premised on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less Held:
e cient. The ques oned policy may not facially violate Ar cle 136 of the Labor Code but it 1. Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed. The pe oner Saudia themselves stated that
creates a dispropor onate e ect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could the Saudi law does not allow the termina on of employment of women who take maternity
pass judicial scru ny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit leaves Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, it is illegal and unlawful to
dispropor onate, e ect. The failure of pe oners to prove a legi mate business concern in terminate the employment of any woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law in Saudi Arabia is
imposing the ques oned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be free from arbitrary even more harsh and strict in that no employer can terminate the employment of a female
discrimina on based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company. worker or give her a warning of the same while on Maternity Leave, the speci c provision of
Saudi Labor Laws on the ma er is hereto quoted as follows: “An employer may not terminate
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs REBESENCIO the employment of a female worker or give her a warning of the same while on maternity
GR. No. 198587 leave.” (Ar cle 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Royal Decree No. M/51.)
14 Jan 2015
Tickler: 2. Yes, the Philippine court has jurisdic on over the case. Saudia asserts that s pula ons set in
Facts: the Cabin A endant contracts require the applica on of the laws of Saudi Arabia. It insists that
Pe oner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corpora on established and exis ng the need to comply with these s pula ons calls into opera on the doctrine of forum non
under the laws of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Respondents were recruited and hired by conveniens and, in turn, makes it necessary for Philippine tribunals to refrain from exercising
Saudia as Flight A endants with the accredita on and approval of the Philippine Overseas jurisdic on. Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum shopping, li s penden a, and res
Employment Administra on (POEA). Respondents con nued their employment with Saudia judicata, is a means of addressing the problem of parallel li ga on. While the rules of forum
un l they were separated from service on various dates in 2006. The respondents contended shopping, li s penden a, and res judicata are designed to address the problem of parallel
that the termina on of their employment was illegal. li ga on within a single jurisdic on, forum non conveniens is a means devised to address
parallel li ga on arising in mul ple jurisdic ons. On the ma er of pleading forum non
They alleged that the termina on was made solely because they were pregnant. As conveniens, the court state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly
respondents alleged, they had informed Saudia of their respec ve pregnancies and had gone pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible
through the necessary procedures to process their maternity leaves. Ini ally, Saudia had given opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
its approval but later on informed respondents that its management in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
had disapproved their maternity leaves. In addi on, it required respondents to le their It further stated: Forum non conveniens nds no applica on and does not operate to divest
resigna on le ers. Respondents were told that if they did not resign, Saudia would terminate Philippine tribunals of jurisdic on and to require the applica on of foreign law. Saudia invokes
them all the same. The threat of termina on entailed the loss of bene ts, such as separa on forum non conveniens to supposedly e ectuate the s pula ons of the Cabin A endant
pay and cket discount en tlements. The respondents were required to report to the o ce contracts that require the applica on of the laws of Saudi Arabia.
one month into their maternity leave.

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

fi
ti
ft
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi

fi

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
tt
ti

ti
fi
ti
tt

ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ff
ffi
ti
fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
tt
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ff

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

tt
ti
ti
fi

ti
tt
fi
ti

ti
ti
tt
ti
fi
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
tt
ti
ti
ti

ti
tt
tt
ff
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
fi

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
As argued by respondents, Saudia’s policy entails the termina on of employment of ight DUNCAN ASSOC. OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO vs GLAXO WELLCOME
a endants who become pregnant. At the risk of sta ng the obvious, pregnancy is an GR. No. 162994
occurrence that pertains speci cally to women. Saudia’s policy excludes from and restricts 17 Sept 2004
employment on the basis of no other considera on but sex. Tickler:
Facts:
The court do not lose sight of the reality that pregnancy does present physical limita ons that Pe oner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.
may render di cult the performance of func ons associated with being a ight a endant. (Glaxo) as medical representa ve on October 24, 1995, a er Tecson had undergone training
Nevertheless, it would be the height of iniquity to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and orienta on.
and immutable that it must entail the termina on of one’s employment. It is clear that any
individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that limit the performance of Therea er, Tecson signed a contract of employment which s pulates, among others, that he
func ons. However, they fail to appreciate how pregnancy could be such an impairing agrees to study and abide by exis ng company rules; to disclose to management any exis ng
occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete termina on of the means or future rela onship by consanguinity or a nity with co-employees or employees of
through which a woman earns a living. Oddly enough, the pe oner Saudia themselves stated compe ng drug companies and should management nd that such rela onship poses a
that the Saudi law does not allow the termina on of employment of women who take possible con ict of interest, to resign from the company. Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly
maternity leaves; provides these condi ons; that otherwise, the management and the employee will explore the
possibility of a “transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking posi on” or
Consistent with lex loci inten onis, to the extent that it is proper and prac cable (i.e., “to make prepara on for employment outside the company a er six months.
an intelligent decision”), Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign law selected by the par es.
In fact, (albeit without meaning to make a pronouncement on the accuracy and reliability of Tecson was ini ally assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte
respondents’ cita on) in this case, respondents themselves have made averments as to the sales area. Subsequently, Tecson entered into a roman c rela onship with Be sy, an employee
laws of Saudi Arabia. of Astra Pharmaceu cals3(Astra), a compe tor of Glaxo. Be sy was Astra’s Branch Coordinator
in Albay. She supervised the district managers and medical representa ves of her company
WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATIONS that rst, pe oner Brenda J. Be a is not solidarily and prepared marke ng strategies for Astra in that area.
liable with pe oner Saudi Arabian Airlines, and second, that pe oner Saudi Arabian Airlines
is liable for moral and exemplary damages. The June 16, 2011 Decision and the September 13, Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District Manager
2011 Resolu on of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 113006 are hereby AFFIRMED in all regarding the con ict of interest which his rela onship with Be sy might engender. S ll, love
other respects. Accordingly, pe oner Saudi Arabian Airlines is ordered to pay respondents: prevailed, and Tecson married Be sy in September 1998.

(1) Full backwages and all other bene ts computed from the respec ve dates in which each of Tecson’s superior reminded him that he and Be sy should decide which one of them would
the respondents were illegally terminated un l the nality of this Decision; resign from their jobs. Tecson requested for me to comply with the company policy against
(2) Separa on pay computed from the respec ve dates in which each of the respondents entering into a rela onship with an employee of a compe tor company. He explained that
commenced employment un l the nality of this Decision at the rate of one ( 1) month's Astra, Be sy’s employer, was planning to merge with Zeneca, another drug company; and
salary for every year of service, with a frac on of a year of at least six ( 6) months being Be sy was planning to avail of the redundancy package to be o ered by Astra.
counted as one ( 1) whole year;
(3) Moral damages in the amount of Pl00,000.00 per respondent; Tecson again requested for more me resolve the problem. Therea er, Tecson applied for a
(4) Exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00 per respondent; and transfer in Glaxo’s milk division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk division, the
(5) A orney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. Interest of 6% per annum shall poten al con ict of interest would be eliminated. His applica on was denied in view of Glaxo’s
likewise be imposed on the total judgment award from the nality of this Decision un l full “least-movement-possible” policy.
sa sfac on thereof.
Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson
This case is REMANDED. to the Labor Arbiter to make a detailed computa on of the amounts asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied. Tecson de ed the transfer
due to respondents which pe oner Saudi Arabian Airlines should pay without delay. order and con nued ac ng as medical representa ve in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte
sales area.

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

tt
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
tt

ti
ti
ft
ti
ti

tt

ti
ti
ti
fl

fl
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti

ti
fl
ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti
tt
ti

ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
tt
ti
ti
fi
ft
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti
ft
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
tt

ti
ti

ti

ti
ft
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
tt
ti

fl
fi

ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
Because the par es failed to resolve the issue at the grievance machinery level, they Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the cons tu onal policy on social jus ce and
submi ed the ma er for voluntary arbitra on, but Tecson declined the o er. On November the protec on of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of
15, 2000, the Na onal Concilia on and Media on Board (NCMB) rendered the workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also en tled to
its Decision declaring as valid Glaxo’s policy on rela onships between its employees and respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.
persons employed with compe tor companies, and a rming Glaxo’s right to transfer Tecson
to another sales territory. EQUAL-PROTECTION: Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibi on against rela onships
between its employees and those of compe tor companies. Its employees are free to cul vate
The Court of Appeals sustained the decision, and the mo on for reconsidera on was denied. rela onships with and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks
Pe oner’s Conten on claims that that Glaxo’s policy against employees marrying employees to avoid is a con ict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of
of compe tor companies violates the equal protec on clause of the Cons tu on because it such rela onships.
creates invalid dis nc ons among employees on account only of marriage. They claim that the
policy restricts the employees’ right to marry; that Tecson was construc vely dismissed. Moreover, records show that Glaxo gave Tecson several chances to eliminate the con ict of
GLAXO argues that the company policy prohibi ng its employees from having a rela onship interest brought about by his rela onship with Be sy.
with and/or marrying an employee of a compe tor company is a valid exercise of its
management preroga ves and does not violate the equal protec on clause. DOMINGO vs RAYALA
GR. No. 155831
The policy is also aimed at preven ng a compe tor company from gaining access to its secrets, 18 Feb 2008
procedures and policies; that Tecson can no longer ques on the assailed company policy Tickler:
because when he signed his contract of employment, he was aware that such policy was Facts:
s pulated therein. Pe oner Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, led a
Compliant for sexual harassment against Respondent, NLRC Chairman Rogelio I. Rayala before
Issue: the Secretary of Labor and Employment. She claimed that the respondent commi ed the
WON Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from compe tor companies is following acts:
valid 1. Holding and squeezing her shoulders;
2. Running his ngers across her neck and ckling her ear;
Held: 3. Having inappropriate conversa ons wither her;
The Court nds no merit in the pe on. 4. Giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges; and
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marke ng strategies and 5. Making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones.
other con den al programs and informa on from compe tors, especially so that it and Astra A commi ee was created to inves gate the said allega ons. The said commi ee found the
are rival companies in the highly compe ve pharmaceu cal industry. respondent guilty of the o ense charged and recommended the imposi on of the minimum
penalty provided under AO 250, which it erroneously stated as suspension for 6 months.
The prohibi on against personal or marital rela onships with employees of compe tor However, the Secretary of Labor and employment recommended that the penalty should be
companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because suspension for 6 months and 1 day, in accordance with AO 250. The O ce of the President,
rela onships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down through Execu ve Secretary Zamora, concurred with the ndings of the Commi ee but
the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that imposed the penalty of dismissal. The respondent assailed the decision claiming his acts do
a compe tor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. not cons tute sexual harassment. The CA held that there was su cient evidence on record to
create moral certainty that the respondent commi ed the acts he was charged with.
That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No less than
the Cons tu on recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to Issue:
protect its right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth. 1. Whether or not the Respondent is guilty of sexual harassment?
2. Whether or not the O ce of the President may impose the penalty of dismissal?

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

tt

ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti

ti

fi
ti
ti

fl
ti
ti
tt

ti
ti
ti

ti
ffi

ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

tt
tt

ti
ti
ti

ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ffi

ti

ffi
ti

ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt

ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
fi
fl
ti
ti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST

Held: LBC EXPRESS-VIS INC. vs PALCO

1. Yes. If we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards set in Sec on 3, RA 7877, he GR. No. 217101
would s ll be administra vely liable. It is true that this provision calls for a "demand, 12 Feb 2020
request or requirement of a sexual favor." But it is not necessary that the demand, Tickler:
request or requirement of a sexual favor be ar culated in a categorical oral or wri en Facts:
statement. It may be discerned, with equal cer tude, from the acts of the o ender. Respondent Monica C. Palco led a complaint for sexual harassment before the Danao City
Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders, running his ngers across her neck and Prosecutor’s O ce, alleging that she was harassed by her supervisor, Arturo Batucan; and that
ckling her ear, having inappropriate conversa ons with her, giving her money allegedly her employer, pe oner LBC Express-Visayas, failed to take immediate ac on on the ma er.
for school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Palco. The Na onal Labor Rela ons Commission and the
unmistakable sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity Court of Appeals likewise ruled in favor of the respondent. In view thereof, LBC led this
the unspoken request for a sexual favor. Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, it is not pe on, arguing that they should not be liable for construc ve dismissal, and that it cannot be
essen al that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condi on for con nued held liable for the sexual acts of Batucan.
employment or for promo on to a higher posi on. It is enough that the respondent’s
acts result in crea ng an in mida ng, hos le or o ensive environment for the employee. Issue:
That the acts of Rayala generated an in mida ng and hos le environment for Domingo is WON the sexual harassment done to Monica Palco cons tutes to her construc ve dismissal
clearly shown by the common factual nding of the Inves ga ng Commi ee, the OP and
the CA that Domingo reported the ma er to an o cemate and, a er the last incident, Held:
led for a leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit. Yes, the sexual harassment done to Palco can be a compelling reason for her to complain
2. No. Under AO 250, the penalty for the rst o ense is suspension for six (6) months and against construc ve dismissal. Construc ve dismissal occurs when an employer makes and
one (1) day to one (1) year, while the penalty for the second o ense is dismissal.52 On employee’s con nued employment impossible, unreasonably or unlikely, or has made an
the other hand, Sec on 22(o), 52 A(15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administra ve employee’s working condi ons or environment harsh, hos le, and unfavorable, such that the
Cases in the Civil Service54 both provide that the rst o ense of disgraceful and immoral employee feels obliged to resign from his or her employment. One of the ways by which
conduct is punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. A hos le or o ensive work environment is created is through the sexual harassment of an
second o ense is punishable by dismissal. Under the Labor Code, the Chairman of the employee. Palco posited in this case that her resigna on was not voluntary but was borne out
NLRC shall hold o ce during good behavior un l he or she reaches the age of sixty- ve, of the hos le work environment brought about by Batucan’s sexual harassment. Thus, this
unless sooner removed for cause as provided by law or becomes incapacitated to pe on was denied by the Supreme Court.
discharge the du es of the o ce. In this case, it is the President of the Philippines, as the
proper disciplining authority, who would determine whether there is a valid cause for the APEX MINING CO., INC. vs NLRC
removal of Rayala as NLRC Chairman. This power, however, is quali ed by the phrase "for GR. No. 94951
cause as provided by law." Thus, when the President found that Rayala was indeed guilty 22 Apr 1991
of disgraceful and immoral conduct, the Chief Execu ve did not have unfe ered Tickler:
discre on to impose a penalty other than the penalty provided by law for such o ense. Facts:
As cited above, the imposable penalty for the rst o ense of either the administra ve Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by pe oner Apex Mining Company, Inc. to
o ense of sexual harassment or for disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension of six perform laundry services at its sta house. In the beginning, she was paid on a piece rate
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Accordingly, it was error for the O ce of the basis. However, she was then paid on a monthly basis at Php 250.00 a month, which was
President to impose upon Rayala the penalty of dismissal from the service, a penalty, ul mately increased, to Php 575.00 a month. On 18 December 1987, while she was a ending
which can only be imposed upon commission of a second o ense. to her assigned task and she was hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back
on a stone. As a result of which, she was not able to con nue her work.

She was o ered the amount of Php 2,000.00, which was eventually increased to Php 5,000.00,
to persuade her to quit her job, but she refused. The pe oner subsequently disallowed her to
return to work. She led a request for assistance with the DOLE.

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti

ti
ff
ff
ti

ff

ffi

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
fi

ti
ff
fi
ti
tt
fi
ti

ti

ti
ff
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi
ti
ffi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi
ti

ff

fi
ft
ti
ti

ti
tt
ti
ti
ffi
ff
ff
ti
tt
fi
tt
fi
ti
ti
tt
tt

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST

The Labor Arbiter ordered the pe oner to pay her the following: 1) salary; 2) Emergency GSIS vs COURT OF APPEALS
Living; 3) 13th Month Pay; and 4) Separa on Pay. The pe oner appealed the decision to the GR. No. 124208
NLRC. 28 Jan 2008
Tickler:
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and a rmed the appealed decision. A mo on Facts:
for reconsidera on thereof was likewise denied. On March 6, 1974, Abraham Cate joined the military service as a Ri eman of the Philippine
Navy. In 1975, he was designated as Ac on Clerk. On Feburary 22, 1986, he was transferred to
Issue: the now defunct Philippine Constabulary with the rank of Technical Sergeant and was later
WON private responded should be treated as a mere househelper or domes c servant and not promoted to Master Sergeant. On January 2, 1991, he was absorbed in the Philippine Na onal
as a regular employee en tled to the amounts granted by the Labor Arbiter Police with the rank of Senior Police O cer IV. He was diagnosed of having Osteoblas c
Osteosarcoma in his le cheek. He underwent Total Maxillectomy with Orbital Exentera on in
Held: the PGH. However, his disease recurred and he underwent debulking of the recent tumor at
No. Under Rule XIII, Sec on l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms PGH. The post-opera ve course was uneven ul and he underwent radiotherapy. He was then
"househelper" or "domes c servant" are de ned as follows: compulsorily re red from the PNP. He led a claim for income bene ts with the GSIS under PD
No. 626 as amended. However, his claim was denied by the GSIS on the ground Osteosarcoma
The term "househelper" as used herein is synonymous to the term "domes c servant" and is not considered an occupa onal disease. A er his death, his wife and 2 children appealed the
shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about the decision of the GSIS to the ECC.
employer's home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance
and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of The ECC a rmed the decision of the GSIS and dismissed the case for lack of merit. The CA
the employer's family. reversed and set aside the decision of the ECC on the ground the Employee’s Compensa on
Act should be liberally construed in favor of applicant.
The de ni on cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen working in
sta ouses of a company, like pe oner who a ends to the needs of the company's guest and Issue:
other persons availing of said facili es. By the same token, it cannot be considered to extend WON the ailment of the late Abraham is compensable under the present law on employee’s
to then driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company, the sta ouses and compensa on
its premises. They may not be considered as within the meaning of a "househelper" or
"domes c servant" as above-de ned by law. The criteria is the personal comfort and Held:
enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. While it may be true Yes. The present law on compensa on allows certain diseases to be compensable if it is
that the nature of the work of a househelper, domes c servant or laundrywoman in a home or su ciently proven that the risk of contract it is increased by the working condi ons. The
in a company sta ouse may be similar in nature, the di erence in their circumstances is that applica on of the rules would mean that absent any proof that the risk of contrac ng the
in the former instance they are actually serving the family while in the la er case, whether it is ailment was increased by the working condi ons of the late Abraham, private respondents
a corpora on or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other would not be en tled to compensa on. Considering, however, that it is prac cally undisputed
agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the sta ouses or within the that under the present state of science, the proof referred by the law to be presented by the
premises of the business of the employer. In such instance, they are employees of the deceased private respondent claimant was unavailable and impossible to comply with, the
company or employer in the business concerned en tled to the privileges of a regular condi on must be deemed as not imposed. Pe oners’ failure to present posi ve evidence of
employee. a causal rela on of the illness and his working condi ons is due to the pure and simple lack of
available proof to be o ered in evidence. Verily, to deny compensa on to osteosarcoma
vic ms who will de nitely be unable to produce a single piece of proof to that e ect is
unrealis c, illogical and unfair. At the very least, on a very excep onal circumstance, the rule
on compensability should be relaxed and be allowed to apply to such situa ons. To disallow
the bene t will even more add up to the su erings, this me, for the ignorance of the inability
of mankind to discover the real truth about cancer.

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ffi
ti
ffh

ti

ti
fi
ti
ti

fi
ti
ti
ffi

ti

ti

ti
ti

ti
ffh
fi
ti

ft
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ffi
ff
fi
ft
tf
ti
ti
tt

ti

ti
ti

ffi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti

ti
fi
fl
ffh
ti
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffh
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
SALOME vs EEC least, by substan al evidence that the development of the disease is brought largely by the
GR. No. 142392 condi ons present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable work-
26 Sept 2000 connec on and not a direct causal rela on. It
Tickler: is enough that the hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Medical
Facts: opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for
The Paul Geneve Entertainment Corpora on employed pe oner Dominga A. Salmone as a inferring a work- connec on. Probability, not certainty, is the touchtone.
sewer. She was later promoted as the o cer-in-charge and the over-all custodian in the
Sewing Department. However, she started to feel chest pains, which forced her to le a leave HEIRS OF DEAUNA vs FIL STAR MARITIME CORPORATION
of absence from work because they have become unbearable. Upon medical examina on, she GR. No. 191563
was diagnosed with Atherosclero c heart disease, Atrial Fibrilla on, Cardiac Arrhythmia. Upon 20 Jun 2012
recommenda on of her doctor, she resigned from her work hoping that with a much needed Tickler:
complete rest, she will be cured. She then led a disability claim with the SSS from the Facts:
Employee’s compensa on fund. However, the SSS denied her claim including her mo on for Edwin boarded on August 1, 2004 for a nine-month engagement as Chief Engineer of the
reconsidera on. Thus she appealed the said decision to the ECC. Sanko. He su ered from abdominal pains and was found to have kidney stones for which he
was given medica on. Edwin was then
The ECC dismissed her appeal for want of merit. The CA dismissed the pe on on the ground repatriated. Respondents claimed that Edwin requested for an early termina on while
that the pe oner’s illness was not compensable because pe oner failed to adduce pe oners averred that Edwin was repatriated due to the la er's body weakness and head
substan al evidence proving any of the condi on of compensability. heaviness. Edwin was discovered to
have Glioblastoma WHO Grade 4 (GBM) . It was then noted that Edwin could have acquired
Issue: the cancer as a result of radia on or vinyl products, or had worked in the vicinity of power
WON the pe oner’s illness is compensable lines.

Held: Respondent claimed that out of compassion and intent to avoid legal ba les, they extended to
Yes. Under the Labor Code, as amended, the law applicable to the case at bar, in order for the Edwin an allowance of US$6,033.36. They also o ered the payment of US$60,000.00 disability
employee to be en tled to sickness or death bene ts, the sickness or death resul ng bene ts despite having no obliga on to do so on their part as GBM can only be considered as
therefrom must be or must have resulted from either (a) any illness de nitely accepted as an work-related if a person who su ers therefrom had exposures to radia on or vinyl products, or
occupa onal disease listed by the Commission, or (b) any illness caused by employment, had worked in the vicinity of power lines. The respondents claimed that Edwin did not have
subject to proof that the risk of contrac ng the same is increased by working condi ons. such exposure while under their employ. Pe oners then asked
for disability bene ts, but were denied by respondents. They then led a complaint for
In this case, pe oner has shown by uncontroverted evidence that in the course of her disability bene ts, medical and transporta on reimbursements, moral and exemplary damages
employment, due to work related stress, she su ered from severe chest pains which caused and a orney's fees were led before the Na onal Labor Rela ons Commission (NLRC). Edwin
her to take a rest, per physician's advice, and ul mately to resign from her employment. She died on April 13, 2006 during the pendency of the proceedings. He was subs tuted therein by
was diagnosed as su ering from "atherosclero c heart disease, atrial brilla on, cardiac the pe oners who sought the payment of death bene ts under the Interna onal Bargaining
arrhythmia" which, as heretofore stated, is included within the term cardiovascular diseases. Forum/Associated Marine O cers and Seamens Union of the
Philippines/Interna onal Mariners Management Associa on of Japan Collec ve Bargaining
Indisputably, cardiovascular diseases, which, as herein above-stated include atherosclero c Agreement (IBF/AMOSUP/IMMAJ CBA).
heart disease, atrial brilla on, cardiac arrhythmia, are listed as compensable occupa onal
diseases in the Rules of the Employees' Compensa on Commission, hence, no further proof of Voluntary Arbitrator Rene Ofreneo (VA Ofreneo), invoking the provisions of the Philippine
casual rela on between the disease and claimant's work is necessary. Overseas Employment Administra on Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) and the IBF/
AMOSUP/IMMAJ CBA, awarded death bene ts to the pe oners. The Court of Appeals
The degree of proof required under P. D. No. 626, is merely substan al evidence, which means, reversed the decision of VA Ofreneo. Pe oners contend that they are en tled to death
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a bene ts.
conclusion." The claimant must show, at

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

ti
ti
fi
fi

ti
tt

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
ti

ff
ti
ti
ti
fi

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
fi
ti
ffi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
fi
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
fi
fi

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
tt
ti

ti

ti

ti

ti
ti

fi
tt
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
Issue: by the law. The CA dismissed the case on the ground that pe oner failed to adduce
WON within the purview of the IBF/AMOSUP/IMMAJ CBA, Edwin's death on April 13, 2006, or substan al evidence suppor ng the conclusion that the working condi ons as a seaman
more than a year from his repatria on, can be considered as one occurring while he was s ll in increased the risk of contrac ng his chronic open angle glaucoma.
the employment of the respondents
Issue:
Held: WON the work of Debaudin as a seaman contributed even in a small degree in or had
YES. Edwin's death can be considered can be considered as one occurring while he was s ll in increased the risk of contrac ng his chronic open angle glaucoma
the employment of respondents. Under the IBF/AMOSUP IMMAJ CBA provisions, Edwin's
death a li le more than a year from his repatria on can s ll be considered as one occurring Held:
while he was s ll under the respondents' employ. From the foregoing, the SC concluded that No. In the present case, pe oner’s chronic open angle glaucoma is not listed as an
at the me of Edwin's death on April 13, 2006 due to GBM, he was s ll in the employment of occupa onal disease; hence, he has the burden of proving by substan al evidence, or such
the respondents. While it is true that Ar cle 22.1 of the IBF AMOSUP/IMMAJ CBA considers a relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to jus fy a conclusion,
seafarer as terminated when he signs o from the vessel due to sickness, the foregoing is that the nature of his employment or working condi ons increased the risk of contrac ng the
subject to the provisions of Ar cle 29. Under Ar cle 29, a seafarer remains under the ailment or that its progression or aggrava on was brought about thereby. It is enough that the
respondents' employ as long as the former is s ll en tled to medical assistance and sick pay, hypothesis on which the workmen's claim is based is probable. Probability, not the ul mate
and provided that the death which eventually occurs is directly a ributable to the sickness degree of certainty, is the test of proof in compensa on proceedings since in carrying out and
which caused the seafarer's employment to be terminated. As discussed above, the company- interpre ng the provisions of the Labor Code and its implemen ng rules and regula ons the
designated physician, Dr. Cruz, in e ect admi ed that Edwin was repatriated due to symptoms primordial and paramount considera on is the employees' welfare. Other than posi ng
which a person su ering from GBM normally exhibits. The pe oners are, however, not pe oner’s allega ons, pe oner presented no competent medical history, records or
en tled to moral and exemplary damages and a orney's fees. physician’s report to objec vely substan ate the claim that there is a reasonable nexus
DEBAUDIN vs SSS between his work and his ailment. Without saying more, his bare allega ons do not ipso facto
GR. No. 148308 make his illness compensable. Awards of compensa on cannot rest on specula ons or
21 Sept 2007 presump ons. The claimant must present concrete evidence to prove a posi ve proposi on.
Tickler:
Facts: AUSTRIA vs CA
Pe oner, Roberto Debaudin, is a seaman by profession as a u lity sta who performed GR. No. 146636
cleaning chemical-spill-oil on deck, slat dislodging, and spraying naphtha chemical and washing 12 Aug 2002
dirt and rusts inside the tank. 18 years a er, Debaudin sought medical assistance a er he Tickler:
experienced episodes of bilateral blurring of vision and was later diagnosed of chronic open Facts:
angle glaucoma. On account of his ailment, pe oner led before the SSS a claim for Pe oner Pablo A. Austria was employed as bag piler at Central Azucarera de Tarlac from June
compensa on bene ts under P.D. No. 626 claiming that the strenuous tasks required climbing, 1, 1977 to July 20, 1997. In 1994, pe oner began to feel severe back pain. In 1998, it was
bending over and running for so many mes – acts which a medical book considered as revealed that he was su ering from osteoarthri s of the lumbar spine. Thus pe oner led
contributory factors that would increase intraocular pressure which causes glaucoma. He also with the SSS a claim for compensa on bene ts under PD 626 as amended. The claim was
adds that he was also subjected to emo onal strains of going through the perils of the sea and granted and pe oner was awarded permanent par al disability bene ts.
homesickness for being away from his family during the en re dura on of the contracts. He,
thus, alleges that his employment as a seaman contributed, even in a small degree, to the Pe oner therea er requested the SSS for conversion of his permanent par al disability
development of his ailment. His claim, however, was denied by SSS on the ground that there is bene t to permanent total disability bene t. The SSS denied the request. On appeal, the ECC
no causal rela onship between the illness and his job as a seaman. a rmed the decision of the SSS. The ECC held that considering the degree of his disability at
the me he was separated from the service, pe oner has already availed of the maximum
EEC denied Debaudin’s mo on for reconsidera on holding that Debaudin’s Chronic Open bene ts to which he is en tled on account of his osteoarthri s. The appellate court dismissed
Angle Glaucoma is not an occupa onal disease under the law. Thus, he is required to show by the pe on, ruling that the law does not allow the conversion of permanent par al disability
substan al evidence that the nature of his job as a Seaman had increased the risk of to permanent total disability
contrac ng the disease. However, appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021



ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
tt
ti

ti
ti

ti

ti
ft

ti
ff
fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi
ti
ft
tt
fi
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti

ti

ti


ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti

ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti

 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
Issue: Central Azucarera de Tarlac upon reaching 30 years of service at the age of 62. He was
WON the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in denying the claim for addi onal bene ts in diagnosed to be su ering from Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): Triple Vessel and Unstable
favor of the pe oner and not allowing the conversion of his (pe oner) permanent par al Angina in 1995. His medical records showed him to be hypertensive for 10 years and a smoker.
disability to permanent total disability Thus he was given by the SSS EC/SSS Permanent Par al Disability (PPD) bene ts.

Held: In 2003, an SSS audit revealed the need to recover the EC bene ts already paid to him on the
YES. The test of whether or not an employee su ers from permanent total disability is a ground that his CAD, being a ributed to his chronic smoking, was not work-related. He
showing of the capacity of the employee to con nue performing his work notwithstanding the elevated the ma er to the ECC, which denied his appeal on December 10, 2004, essen ally
disability he incurred. Thus, if by reason of ruling that although his CAD was a cardiovascular disease listed as an occupa onal disease
the injury or sickness he sustained, the employee is unable to perform his customary job for under Annex A of the Implemen ng Rules on Employees Compensa on, nothing on record
more than 120 days and he does not come within the coverage of Rule X of the Amended established the presence of the qualifying circumstances for responsibility; that it was
Rules on Employees Compensability (which, in more detailed manner, describes what incumbent upon him to prove that the nature of his previous employment and the condi ons
cons tutes temporary total disability), then the said employee undoubtedly su ers from prevailing therein had increased the risk of contrac ng his CAD; and that he had failed to prove
permanent total disability regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his this requisite. Hence, this recourse, wherein he contends that he had contracted the disease
body. due to the presence of harmful fuel smoke emission of methane gas from a nearby biological
waste digester and a railway terminal.
PD 626 as amended provides three types of disability bene ts to quali ed employees: (1)
temporary total disability, (2) permanent total disability, and (3) permanent par al disability. In The appellate court a rmed the ruling of SSS ruling that pe oner failed to submit substan al
the case at bar, pe oner was granted by the SSS, as a rmed by the ECC, permanent par al evidence that might have shown that he was en tled to the bene ts he had applied for.
disability bene t, but he seeks to avail of permanent total disability bene t. Under Sec on 2
Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensa on, a disability is total and Issue:
permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee is unable to perform any WON the Court of Appeals commi ed grave abuse of discre on in a rming the nding of the
gainful occupa on for a con nuous period exceeding 120 days; and a disability is par al and ECC that pe oners ailment is not compensable under Presiden al Decree No. 626, as
permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness, the employee su ers a permanent par al amended
loss of the use of any part of his body.
Held:
Total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled, or totally paralyzed. The court held NO. Gatus was diagnosed to have su ered from CAD; Triple Vessel and Unstable
What is necessary is that the injury must be such that she cannot pursue her usual work and Angina, diseases or condi ons falling under the category of Cardiovascular Diseases which are
earn therefrom. Applying the foregoing standards, we nd pe oner en tled to permanent not considered occupa onal diseases under the Amended Rules on Employees Compensa on.
total disability bene t under the law. Pe oner has been employed as bag piler for twenty His disease not being listed as an occupa onal disease, he was expected to show that the
(20) years at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac. His du es require him to carry heavy loads of illness or the fatal disease was caused by his employment and the risk of contrac ng the
re ned sugar and to perform other manual work. Since his work obviously taxes so much on disease was increased or aggravated by the working condi ons. His proof would cons tute a
his back, his illness which a ects his lumbar spine renders him incapable of doing his usual reasonable basis for arriving at a conclusion that the condi ons of his employment had caused
work as bag piler. Hence, his disability to perform his regular du es may be considered total the disease or that such working condi ons had aggravated the risk of contrac ng the illness
and permanent. or the fatal disease. While he might have been exposed to various smoke emissions at work for
30 years, he did not submit sa sfactory evidence proving that the exposure had contributed to
GATUS vs SSS the development of his disease or had increased the risk of contrac ng the illness. Neither did
GR. No. 174725 he show that the disease had progressed due to condi ons in his job as a factory worker. In
26 Jan 2011 fact, he did not present any physicians report in order to substan ate his allega on that the
Tickler: working condi ons had increased the risk of acquiring the cardiovascular disease
Facts:
Gatus worked at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac beginning 1972. He was a covered member of
the SSS and was cer ed as being t to work before employment. He op onally re red from

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

fi
ti

ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
ti

tt
ti
ti
ti
ff
fi
ti
ffi
fi
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
tt
ti
tt
fi

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
ti
ti
ffi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ff
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti


 LABOR | ATTY. GOLANGCO CASE DIGEST
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS vs MARIANO carbon monoxide, or manganese. As the ECC itself admi ed in its judgment, the exposure to
GR. No. 139455 these toxic substances is among the possible causes of this disease. Where it was established
28 Mar 2003 that the claimants ailment occurred during and in the course of his employment, it must be
Tickler: presumed that the nature of the claimants employment is the cause of the disease.
Facts:
For an eleven-year period, respondent Pedro Mariano was an employee of LGP Prin ng Press. Second, even if we were to assume that Parkinsons Disease is not compensable, there can be
During his employment, Mariano worked in various capaci es, including that of a machine no ques on that Essen al Hypertension is a compensable illness, following our ruling in
operator, paper cu er, monotype composer, lm developer, and supervisor of the prin ng Government Service Insurance System v. Gabriel, that hypertension and heart ailments are
press. Some me in February 1994, Marianos service abruptly ended when he could no longer compensable illnesses. In upholding respondent Marianos claim, the Court of Appeals found
perform any work due to a heart ailment. An electrocardiograph test revealed that he was that among the various jobs the respondent performed were those of a machine operator,
su ering from Incomplete Right Bundle Branch Block. Respondent had consulted Dr. Rogelio paper cu er, monotype composer, and later as supervisor, most of which are physical and
Mariano, whose diagnosis showed he was su ering from Parkinsons disease and hypertension. stressful in character. In established cases of Essen al Hypertension, the blood pressure
uctuates widely in response to emo onal stress and physical ac vity. Given the nature of his
Mariano led a claim for employees compensa on bene t with the SSS. In its medical assigned job and the prin ng business, with its ght deadlines entailing large amounts of rush
evalua on dated April 15, 1997, SSS denied his claim on the ground that there was no causal work, indeed the emo onal and physical stress of respondents work at the prin ng press
connec on between his ailment and his job as lm developer. The ECC ul mately dismissed caused, and then exacerbated, his hypertension. On this score, we hold that the Court of
the case on the ground that the claimant failed to establish a causal connec on between Appeals did not err in liberally construing the rules implemen ng P.D. No. 626. In ma ers of
Parkinson’s disease and the condi ons of the prin ng press. labor and social legisla on, it is well established that doubts in the interpreta on and
applica on of the law are resolved liberally in favor of the worker and strictly against the
The Court of Appeals found that the nature of pe oners work at LGP resulted in his exposure employer.
to various toxic chemicals, which is a possible cause of Parkinsons Disease. As to his
hypertension, the appellate court ruled that the respondents du es as machine operator and
paper cu er involved physical pressure and restlessness, since he was required to meet urgent
deadlines for rush print orders. This in turn caused respondent to su er from stress and
anxiety. In sum, the appellate court held that respondent had substan ally established the
connec on between the cause of his ailments and the nature of his work

Issue:
WON Mariano was able to prove that his employment had a causal rela on that with his
ailments: Parkinson's and Hypertension.

Held:
YES. Workmens Compensa on cases are governed by the law in force at the me the claimant
contracted his illness. In the instant case, the applicable rule is Sec on 1 (b), Rule III, of the
Rules Implemen ng P.D. No. 626. Under said Rule, for the sickness to be compensable, the
same must be an occupa onal disease included in the list provided, with the condi ons set
therein sa s ed; otherwise, the claimant must show proof that the risk of contrac ng it is
increased by the working condi ons.

As to Parkinsons disease, while it is true that this disease is not included in the list of
compensable diseases under the law then prevailing, it was found by the Court of Appeals that
the condi ons prevailing at LGP largely led to the progression of the ailment. The respondents
func ons entailed constant exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals such as carbon disulfate,

Be stronger than your excuses. CHLOE FRANCISCO | SBU-COL 2020-2021

fl
ff
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
tt
tt
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi

ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ff
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti