Gopio vs Bautista

GR 205953
Jun 6 2018

Facts:
Respondent (Bautista) was hired as a Project Manager for Shorncliffe (PNG) Limited
(Shorncliffe) in Papua New Guinea through Job Asia, a single proprietorship owned by
petitioner (Gopio), which is engaged in the business of recruitment and deployment of
land-based manpower for overseas work. Bautista's contract stated that his employment
shall be valid and effective for 31 months with a net monthly salary of P40,000.00.
Just nine months after his deployment in Papua New Guinea, Bautista was served a
notice of termination effective July 10, 2009 on the alleged grounds of unsatisfactory
performance and failure to meet the standards of the company, and was paid his salary
for the period July 1 to 10, 2009, and thereafter, he was repatriated on July 11, 2009.
Hence, this complaint.

Issue:
Was Bautista illegally dismissed from his employment?

Law:
 Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, otherwise known as an "An Act to Institute the
Policies of Overseas Employment and Establish a Higher Standard of Protection
and Promotion of the Welfare of Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas
Filipinos in Distress, and for Other Purposes" Section 2(c) 
 Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 Article 292(b)

Case History:
 On January 7, 2010, the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision finding Bautista to
have been illegally dismissed.
 On May 17, 2010, the NLRC issued its Decision setting aside the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter and dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal
 On August 31, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision annulling and setting aside the
NLRC Decision and reinstating that of the Labor Arbiter. 

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of respondent

Opinion:
One of the guarantees provided by our Constitution to the labor force is the right of
security of tenure. Security of tenure is an employee’s rights that protects them from being
unjustly terminated from employment by their employers. One of the fundamental
principles of labor law is the State shall accord full protection to labor which is based on
the Constitution. The State shall act as parents if the rights of labor is violated which
includes unjust dismissal. Since the employee has a right to security of tenure, the
employee should only be dismissed for at least for the period agreed upon in the contract.
PNCC v NLRC
GR 83320
Feb 9, 1989

Facts:
Domingo Manreza was hired by the CDCP as a Leadsman, having the main duty of
removing and/or changing damaged flexbeams on the expressway. On May 24, 1983, the
North Luzon Expressway (NLE) Security Services Investigation discovered NLE
flexbeams in the house of Eusebio in Bulacan, and also in the house of Enriquez. Both
declared that the items were deposited there by Manreza.
Foreman Salvador Bautista sent a memo to Manreza for alleged violations of the CDCP
Code of Employee Discipline and Manreza explained that he merely deposited the NLE
properties in the homes of Eusebio and Enriquez temporarily. Due to this incident, the
administrative officer issued a memorandum finding the complainant guilty of stealing of
company property, a violation of the CDCP Code of Employee Discipline and thus placed
Manreza under preventive suspension and thereafter terminated his employment.

Issue:
Is Manreza entitled to separation pay despite its own finding that he was legally dismissed
for just cause.

Law:
 Principle of Social Justice

Case History:
 The Labor Arbiter directed the petitioner to reinstate Manreza to his former
position. 
 The National Labor Relations Commission set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision
and "finding the dismissal of the complainant (Manreza) to be valid and with just
cause. However, in the spirit of compassionate justice, the respondent-appellant is
ordered to pay Manreza separation pay.

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

Opinion:
One of the fundamental principles of labor law is the concept of social justice. Social
justice is the “humanization of laws” and the “equalization of forces so that justice may be
approximated.” Social justice dictates that when there are doubts and ambiguities in the
law, it should always be resolved in favor of labor. However, social justice is not intended
to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. Social
justice should not be used as a shield for scoundrels for this would be a countenance of
justice and equity. Social justice can only be invoked to those who come with “clean
hands” and not simply because they happen to be poor. Here, Manreza was found to be
dishonest and is thus not entitled to separation pay and he cannot invoke social justice
because his dismissal was considered just. 
AMCOW vs GAMCA
GR 207132
December 6 2016

Facts:
On March 8, 2001, the DOH issued an administrative order which directed the decking or
equal distribution of migrant workers among the several clinics who are members of
GAMCA. This administrative order was issued to comply with the States' requirement that
only Gulf Cooperative Countries (GCC)-accredited medical clinics/hospitals' examination
results will be honored by the GCC States' respective embassies. It required an OFW
applicant to first go to a GAMCA Center which, in turn, will refer the applicant to a GAMCA
clinic or hospital.

Subsequently, the DOH issued an administrative order holding in abeyance the

implementation of the referral decking system reasoning that the referral decking system
did not guarantee the migrant workers' right to safe and quality health service. 

Issue:

Are the DOH CDO letters prohibiting GAMCA from implementing the referral decking
system a valid exercise of police power.

Law:

 Section 3, Article II of the 1987 Constitution

Case History:

 In its August 10, 2012 decision, the RTC granted GAMCA's certiorari petition and
declared null and void ab initio the DOH CDO letters.

Ruling:

The Court ruled in favor of AMCOW.

Opinion:

One of the fundamental principles of labor law if the exercise of police power as the
strongest means to achieve full protection to labor. This principle dictates the State’s
capacity to enforce laws within the country for the betterment of the health, safety and
general welfare of its inhabitants. In order for there to be a valid exercise of police power,
the following requisites must be present: 1) interests of the public generally and 2)
means employed are reasonably necessary to attain the objective sought. In this case,
there is a valid exercise of police power as the welfare of migrant workers are imbued
with public interest and the prohibition on the referral docking system is consistent with
providing regulations for the health and safety of the people. The OFW’s should have the
right to choose a quality health care service and should not only be limited to the health
care provided to them. Since the OFW’s can choose what clinics they can have their
examination, they can have access to better health care and thus consistent with the
objective of providing the OFW’s betterment of their health, safety and general welfare.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs DRILON
G.R. No. 81958
June 30, 1988

Facts:
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm
"engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas
placement," challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, in the
character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Specifically, the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females;" that it
"does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with
similar skills;" and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid
exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in
character.

Issue:
Is Department Order No.1 a valid exercise of police power?

Law:
 Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution

Case History:
 Respondent, Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq,
Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and
Switzerland.

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of respondent.

Opinion:
One of the fundamental principles of labor law if the exercise of police power as the
strongest means to achieve full protection to labor. This principle dictates the State’s
capacity to enforce laws within the country for the betterment of the health, safety and
general welfare of its inhabitants. In order for there to be a valid exercise of police power,
the following requisites must be present: 1) interests of the public generally and 2) means
employed are reasonably necessary to attain the objective sought. In this case, there is a
valid exercise of police power as the female labor force abroad has been subject to
exploitative working conditions and thus constitute compelling motives for the government
to take action. The government should not idly stand by and watch the female labor force
become victims and become subjects of abuse. The government should seek to protect
our labor force and its protection can come from the exercise of police power where the
government can restrain the liberty or property of the people. The order seeks for the
protection of our female workers and thus promote for the betterment of their general and
thus the prohibition on their deployment is considered a valid exercise of police power.