Abbott Laboratories, Philippines v. Pearlie Ann F.

Alcaraz (2013)
Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies (2011)

Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Inc. v. Spouses Simplicio Mila Cuaresma, April 7,
2009
Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, March 19, 1993

Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation (2009)

Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, Sept. 22, 2010 (Read
before Tabigue)
Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. NLRC and Philippine Airlines Employees Association
(PALEA)
Doctrine:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Gagui v. Dejero G.R. No. 196036, Oct. 23, 2013

Doctrine: In order to hold the officers of the agency solidarily liable, it is required that there
must be proof of their culpability therefor. This liability must be so stated in the decision
sought to be implemented. Absent this express statement, a corporate officer may not be
impleaded and made to personally answer for the liability of the corporation.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Sunace International Management Services, Inc. v. NLRC G.R. No. 161757, Jan. 25, 2006.
Doctrine: The theory of imputed knowledge is a rule that any information material to the
transaction, either possessed by the agent at the time of the transaction or acquired by him
before its completion, is deemed to be the knowledge of the principal, at least insofar as
the transaction is concerned, even though the knowledge, in fact, is not communicated to
the principal at all
 While knowledge of the agent is deemed knowledge of the principal, knowledge
of the principal is NOT deemed knowledge of the agent
Facts:
Issue:
Held

OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC G.R. No. 138193, March 5, 2003
Doctrine: effect of hiring a seafarer for overseas employment but assigning him to local
vessel
the non-deployment of the ship overseas did not affect the validity of the
perfected employment contract
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. G.R. No. 162419, July 10, 2007
Doctrine: the effect of non-deployment of OFW to overseas employment
seafarers are considered contractual employees and cannot be considered as
regular employees under the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts
they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the
contract expires. The exigencies of their work necessitate that they be employed on a
contractual basis.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009
Doctrine: An illegally dismissed OFW is now entitled to all the salaries for the entire
unexpired portion of their employment contracts, irrespective of the stipulated term or
duration thereof
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, Aug. 05, 2014
Part 2 of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc
Doctrine: The said provision was thus declared still unconstitutional and null and void
despite its replication in R.A. No. 10022
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar (2013)

Doctrine: The Labor Code’s concept of permanent total disability is similar to that of OFWs
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Salazar v. Achacoso G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990.

Doctrine: The exercise by the DOLE Secretary of his twin powers to issue arrest warrant
and search and seizure orders provided under Article 38[c] of the Labor Code is
unconstitutional. Only regular courts can issue such orders
Facts:
Issue:
Held:

Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda

Doctrine: The following should be excluded from the computation of “basic salary,” to wit:
payments for sick, vacation and maternity leaves, night differentials, regular holiday pay
and premiums for work done on rest days and special holidays.
 Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff
Association
G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014.
Doctrine: the Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly
prohibits employers from eliminating or reducing the benefits received by their
employees. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit is based on any of the
following: (1) An express policy; (2) A written contract; or (3) A company practice.

Vergara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 176985, April 1, 2013
Doctrine: the following criteria may be used to determine whether an act has ripened into a
company practice: (1) The act of the employer has been done for a considerable period of
time; (2) The act should be done consistently and intentionally; and (3) The act should
not be a product of erroneous interpretation or construction of a doubtful or difficult
question of law or provision in the CBA

Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union-NLU, G.R. No.
188949, July 26, 2010.
Doctrine: Company practice the act of petitioner of granting for thirty (30) years, its
workers the mandatory 13th month pay computed in accordance with the following
formula: Total Basic Annual Salary divided by twelve (12) and Including in the
computation of the Total Basic Annual Salary the following: basic monthly salary; first
eight (8) hours overtime pay on Sunday and legal/special holiday; night premium pay;
and vacation and sick leaves for each year.

Hinatuan Mining Corporation and/or the Manager v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117394, Feb. 21, 1997
Doctrine: Where the act of the employer in granting separation pay to resigning employees,
despite the fact that the Labor Code does not grant it, was considered an established
employer practice.

Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol. G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006
Doctrine: The following policies were struck down as invalid for violating the standard of
reasonableness which is being followed in our jurisdiction, otherwise called the
“Reasonable Business Necessity Rule
 Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Welcome Philippines, Inc
G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004
Doctrine: the prohibition against marriage embodied in the following stipulation in the
employment contract was held as valid exercise of management prerogative.
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of
competitor companies upon its employees was held reasonable under the circumstances
because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company