Page |1

Labor Relations:
7. Jurisprudence on Procedure:

a) The doctrine in Telus International Philippines, Inc. and

Michael Sy v. Harvey De Guzman is about
the reinstatement of a preventively suspended worker who
was exonerated. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere desire
to reinstate the employee is not enough to comply with the
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure1. The employer
must actually revert the employee to his former post without
diminution in rank or pay1. The Court also held that the floating
status principle does not apply to the case, as the employee’s
transfer to another account does not depend on the employer’s
third party contracts.
➢ The case of Telus International Phils. Inc and Michael Sy vs.
Harvey De Guzman was a labor dispute involving the issue of
constructive dismissal. The respondent, Harvey De Guzman,
was a senior quality analyst for Telus, a call center company.
He was accused of insulting and ridiculing his team captain,
Jeanelyn Flores, in a chat conversation with another agent.
Telus issued a due process form to De Guzman and placed him
under preventive suspension. After the investigation, Telus
found De Guzman guilty of violating its code of conduct and
transferred him to a different account. However, De Guzman
refused to accept the transfer and filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, claiming that he was constructively dismissed.
➢ The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of De Guzman, finding that he
was constructively dismissed and ordering Telus to reinstate
him and pay him back wages and other benefits. The National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor
Arbiter’s decision and dismissed De Guzman’s complaint,
holding that there was no constructive dismissal and that Telus
acted within its management prerogative to transfer De
Guzman. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC’s
decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, finding that
De Guzman was constructively dismissed and that Telus failed
to prove that the transfer was justified by a valid and fair
reason. The CA also held that De Guzman’s floating status was
tantamount to dismissal. Telus elevated the case to the
Supreme Court, which denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s
decision. The Supreme Court held that De Guzman was
constructively dismissed and that Telus did not comply with the
requirements of due process and substantial evidence in
imposing the penalty of transfer. The Supreme Court also held
that De Guzman’s floating status violated his right to security
of tenure and that Telus did not show that it exerted efforts to
reinstate him.
=======================================================
 Page |2

b) The case of Bacolor et al v. Makabali Memorial Hospital Inc.

was a labor dispute involving the issue of constructive dismissal
of six resident physicians who worked at the hospital. The
petitioners claimed that they were demoted, harassed, and
forced to resign by the respondents after they refused to sign a
waiver and a new contract. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
the petitioners and ordered their reinstatement and payment of
back wages and other benefits. The National Labor Relations
Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and
dismissed the petitioners’ complaint. The Court of Appeals
reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and found that the
petitioners were constructively dismissed and that the
respondents did not comply with the requirements of due
process and substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed
the Court of Appeals’ decision and held that the petitioners were
constructively dismissed and that the respondents violated
their right to security of tenure1

Doctrine:
➢ The court emphasizes that rules of procedure should be used to
achieve speedy and efficient administration of justice and not to
derail it. When strict application of the rules on verification and
non-forum shopping would result in a denial of substantial
justice, the rules may be construed liberally. Substantial
compliance with the requirements may be accepted especially
when there are justifiable circumstances or compelling reasons.
=======================================================
c) The doctrine in Dee Jay’s Inn and Cafe et al v. Rameses
October 5, 2016 is that separation pay may be awarded to an
employee who was neither dismissed nor abandoned his or her
work, but whose employment was effectively severed due to
strained relations with the employer12. This is based on the
principle of social justice and the policy of providing full
protection to labor.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Dee

Jay’s Inn and Cafe et al v. Raneses, where the employee filed a
complaint against the employer for non-remittance of SSS
contributions and underpayment of wages, and the employer
got infuriated and told the employee to seek another
employment. The Court found that the employee was not
dismissed nor did she abandon her work, but the relationship
between the parties had become so strained that it was unlikely
that they could work together harmoniously in the future. Thus,
the Court directed the payment of separation pay to the
employee as a measure of social justice and compassion1.
 Page |3

d) The doctrine in Remegio E. Burnea v. Security Trading

Corporation et al April 26, 2021 is that the burden of proof to
establish the employer-employee relationship rests on the party
who asserts its existence1. This is based on the rule that he who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it2.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Remegio

E. Burnea v. Security Trading Corporation et al, where the
petitioner claimed that he was an employee of the respondents
and that he was illegally dismissed. The Court found that the
petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove his
allegation, such as payroll records, employment contracts, or
identification cards. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s
claim was contradicted by his own SENA Complaint, where he
admitted that he was a construction worker and a security
guard for different companies owned by the respondents. Thus,
the Court denied the petitioner’s money claims and affirmed the
rulings of the NLRC and the CA1.

=======================================================
e) The doctrine in Interorient Maritime et al v. Hechanova July
28, 2022 is that the courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for
in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party
to a case1. This is based on the rule that he who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it2.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of

Interorient Maritime et al v. Hechanova, where the petitioner
claimed disability benefits, but the CA awarded him other
monetary claims that he did not ask for. The Court found that
the CA erred in granting such relief, as it violated the
petitioner’s right to due process and the principle of fair play1.

=======================================================
f) The doctrine in Karl Global Marketing v. Miguel Mara July
28, 2020 is that the posting of an appeal bond is an
indispensable requirement for perfecting an appeal before
the NLRC, but the court may relax the requirement in
exceptional circumstances, such as insolvency
proceedings . This is based on the rule that the appeal bond
12

serves as a guarantee that the employer will pay the monetary

award to the employee if the appeal is dismissed or denied1.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Karl

Global Marketing v. Miguel Mara, where the employer failed to
post an appeal bond within the prescribed period, but claimed
that it was undergoing insolvency proceedings. The Court held
that the insolvency proceedings may be considered an
 Page |4

exceptional circumstance that warrants a more liberal

application of the rules, but it does not negate the need to
ensure that the employee will receive the monetary award if his
claims are valid. Thus, the Court directed the employer to post
a partial appeal bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award,
and remanded the case to the NLRC for further proceedings1.

=======================================================
g) The doctrine in Pacific Royal Basic Foods v. Noche et al
October 4, 2021 is that in order to terminate the services
of employees, employers must comply with the
requirements of procedural due process, which include
giving the employees a reasonable opportunity to explain
their side and present evidence in their defense12. This is
based on the rule that the employer has the burden of proving
the validity and legality of the dismissal of an employee3.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Pacific

Royal Basic Foods v. Noche et al, where the employer sent
letters to the employees accusing them of product
contamination and suspending them for 15 days without giving
them a chance to be heard. The Court found that the employer
violated the employees’ right to due process and ordered the
payment of full backwages and separation pay to the
employees1.

h) The doctrine in Marlon Butial Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi

Service Inc. et al April 20, 2022 is that an employee’s
spoken words immediately followed by an unequivocal
order for him to get out of the office constitute an outright
termination of employment without just cause and due
process12. This is based on the rule that the employer has the
burden of proving the validity and legality of the dismissal of an
employee3.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Marlon

Butial Agapito v. Aeroplus Multi Service Inc. et al, where the
petitioner was suspended and then dismissed by his employer
after he raised a concern during a meeting. The Court found
that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity to
explain his side, and that his dismissal was based on the
personal grudge of his supervisor. Thus, the Court ordered the
employer to pay the petitioner full backwages, separation pay,
13th month pay, service incentive leave, reimbursement of cash
bond, attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages1.
 Page |5

i) Mc Burnie v. Ganzon et al October 17, 2013 is a case decided

by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which involved a
complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims filed
by an Australian national against a Filipino company and its
owner. The main issue in the case was whether the posting of
an appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award is an
indispensable requirement for perfecting an appeal before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and whether the
court may relax the requirement in exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal bond is mandatory,
but it may be reduced in meritorious cases, such as when the
employer is undergoing insolvency proceedings. The Supreme
Court also dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, finding
that there was no employer-employee relationship between the
parties, and that the employment contract was a sham
document to facilitate the foreigner’s work permit.

j) The doctrine in Guagua National Colleges v. CA et al August

28, 2018 is that the period for appealing the decision or award
of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators to the Court
of Appeals is 15 days from notice, as provided by Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, and not 10 days, as stated in Article 262-A of
the Labor Code12. This is based on the rule that the Voluntary
Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators exercises quasi-judicial
functions, and their decisions or awards are subject to the same
rules of procedure governing appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts to the Court of Appeals1.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Guagua

National Colleges v. CA et al, where the petitioner filed a petition
for review before the Court of Appeals 14 days after receiving
the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator. The respondents
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed out
of time, citing Article 262-A of the Labor Code. The Court of
Appeals denied the motion, holding that the 15-day period
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court should prevail over the 10-
day period under the Labor Code. The Supreme Court affirmed
the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and further explained the
rationale and policy behind the 15-day period for appeals from
the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators1.

8. Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction:

a) The doctrine in Bishop Shinji Amari of Abiko Baptist Church

et al v. Villaflor Jr., February 17, 2020 is that the State
cannot meddle in ecclesiastical affairs, which involve the
relationship between the church and its members and relate to
matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship, and governance of
the congregation12. This is based on the rule that the separation
 Page |6

of church and state is a constitutional principle that guarantees

the free exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of
any religion by law3.

➢ The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Bishop

Shinji Amari of Abiko Baptist Church et al v. Villaflor Jr., where
the respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioners, claiming that he was an employee of the Abiko
Baptist Church and the Missionary Baptist Institute and
Seminary. The Court found that the respondent failed to prove
the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and that
his removal as a missionary and a member of the church was
an ecclesiastical affair that the State had no authority to
interfere with. Thus, the Court dismissed the complaint and
affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations
Commission1.

b) The doctrine in the case of Victoria Manufacturing

Corporation Employees Union v. Victoria Manufacturing
Corporation July 24, 2019 is that administrative boards and
officers vested with quasi-judicial power can only exercise
jurisdiction over matters conferred upon them by their enabling
statutes. Lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and is a
defense that cannot be waived. However, by way of exception,
the doctrine of estoppel by laches, pursuant to the ruling in
Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, may operate to bar jurisdictional
challenges.

c) The doctrine in the case of Honda Care Philippines v Honda

Cars Technical Specialist and Supervisors Union November
19, 2014 is that the cash conversion of the unused gasoline
allowance enjoyed by the members of the union is a fringe
benefit subject to the fringe benefit tax, not to income tax. The
Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators that the gasoline allowance is a negotiated item
under the collective bargaining agreement and not a company
policy. The Supreme Court held that the gasoline allowance is a
de minimis benefit under the National Internal Revenue Code
and the implementing regulations, and that the company failed
to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing a claim for
refund or credit with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
before filing a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals.

d) The doctrine in the case of Del Monte Land Transportation

Bus Company v. Armenta et al February 3, 2021 is that
jurisdiction over labor standards claims, such as underpayment
of wages and non-payment of benefits, is conferred to the
appropriate Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
 Page |7

Regional Office under Department Order No. 118-12. The

Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Labor Arbiter had no
authority to hear and decide the money claims of the bus drivers
and conductors against the company, since the DOLE Regional
Office had the exclusive power to enforce and adjudicate such
claims under the said department order. The Supreme Court
also held that the Labor Standards Compliance Certificates
issued to Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., a separate and distinct
corporation, could not be used as evidence of compliance by Del
Monte Land Transport Bus Company

e) The doctrine in the case of People’s Broadcasting Service

(Bombo Radyo) v. Secretary of Labor March 6, 2012 is that
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has the
power to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, and to issue compliance orders in accordance with
Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7730. The DOLE’s determination of the employer-employee
relationship must be respected, unless there is a showing of
grave abuse of discretion. The DOLE’s visitorial and
enforcement power is not co-extensive with the power to
determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
but is dependent on it. The National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) is not the primary agency in determining
the existence of an employer-employee relationship, but has
appellate jurisdiction over the DOLE’s orders1

f) The doctrine in the case of South Cotabato Communications

Corporation v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas June 15, 2016 is
that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has no
jurisdiction to issue compliance orders for labor standards
violations if there is no employer-employee relationship between
the parties. The existence of an employer-employee relationship
is a statutory prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of
the Secretary of Labor, one which the legislative branch is
entitled to impose. The DOLE’s visitorial and enforcement power
under Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7730, is not co-extensive with the power to determine
the existence of an employer-employee relationship, but is
dependent on it. The National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) is not the primary agency in determining the existence
of an employer-employee relationship, but has appellate
jurisdiction over the DOLE’s orders12

g) The doctrine in the case of Norkis Trading Corporation v.

Buenavista October 10, 2012 is that the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is a statutory prerequisite to
and a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue
 Page |8

compliance orders for labor standards violations. The

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has no
jurisdiction to determine and enforce such violations if there is
no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is not the primary
agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, but has appellate jurisdiction over the DOLE’s
orders1

h) The doctrine in the case of Hijo Resources Corporation v.

Mejares et al. decided on January 13, 2016 is that the
decision of the Med-Arbiter in a certification election case does
not bar the subsequent determination of the existence or non-
existence of an employer-employee relationship in a regular
labor case. The Supreme Court held that the Med-Arbiter’s
ruling on the issue of employer-employee relationship is merely
provisional and incidental, and does not attain finality. The
Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf case that the decision
in a certification election case, by the very nature of that
proceeding, does not foreclose all further dispute between the
parties as to the existence or non-existence of an employer-
employee relationship between them1.

i) The doctrine in Tumaodos v San Miguel Yamamura

Packaging Corporation February 19, 2020 is the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction. This doctrine states that courts should
not resolve a controversy involving a question within the
jurisdiction and competence of an administrative body,
especially if the question requires the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact12

➢ In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the labor tribunals
had no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim for the withheld
amount of his separation pay, which was subject to conflicting
claims by the petitioner and the cooperative to which he was a
member. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim did not arise
from his employment relationship with the respondent, but
from his contractual obligations with the cooperative and the
respondent’s contractual obligation to the cooperative pursuant
to a memorandum of agreement. The Court also held that the
respondent properly filed a complaint for interpleader with
consignation before the RTC, which was the proper forum to
resolve the conflicting claims over the disputed amount1
 Page |9

j) The doctrine in Comscentre Philippines Inc v. Recio January

22, 2020 is the doctrine of constructive dismissal. This
doctrine states that an employee may be considered dismissed
even if there is no formal termination of employment, if there is
a clear intention on the part of the employer to end the
employment relationship or if the employer makes the working
conditions intolerable or unbearable for the employee12

➢ In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was
constructively dismissed by the petitioners when they placed
her on preventive suspension without due process, withheld her
salaries and benefits, and failed to reinstate her to her former
position or a substantially equivalent one after the lapse of the
suspension period. The Court held that the petitioners violated
the respondent’s right to security of tenure and due process,
and ordered them to pay her backwages, separation pay, and
other monetary claims1

PART II

(after No. 5. Source Laws topic)

JURISPRUDENCE:

a) Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc., v. Central Luzon

Regional Sales Executive Union Coca Cola, San Fernando
Plant, September 3, 2020

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the inclusion of employees who

are outside the bargaining unit as union members shall not be
a ground to cancel the union registration. The ineligible
employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of
membership of the union. This is based on Section 6, Rule XIV
of Department of Labor and Employment Order 40-F-03-08.
The Court affirmed the denial of the petition for cancellation of
the union’s registration filed by Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines,
Inc., which alleged that the union members comprised of
managers who are ineligible to join, assist, or form any labor
organization. The Court ruled that none of the grounds under
Article 247 of the Labor Code was present to warrant the
cancellation of the union’s registration.

b) The doctrine in GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v.

Villanueva et al January 23, 2019 is that officers and
employees of government-owned or controlled corporations
(GOCCs) without original charters are covered by the Labor
Code, not the Civil Service Law. However, non-chartered GOCCs
are limited by law in negotiating economic terms with their
employees, as they are subject to the Compensation and
 P a g e | 10

Position Classification System, which applies to all GOCCs,

chartered or non-chartered12

➢ This doctrine was applied by the Supreme Court to deny the

petition of the GSIS Family Bank Employees Union, which
sought to declare GSIS Family Bank as a private bank and
direct it to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with
its employees. The Supreme Court ruled that GSIS Family Bank
was a non-chartered GOCC, as it was effectively owned by the
Government Service Insurance System, a chartered GOCC.
Therefore, GSIS Family Bank was bound by the provisions of
Republic Act No. 10149, or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011,
which created the Governance Commission for Government-
Owned or Controlled Corporations and authorized it to
formulate and implement policies on the compensation and
benefits of GOCC employees1

c) SAN MIGUEL CORP EMPLOYEES UNION VS SAN MIGUEL

PACKING EMPLOYEES UNION September 12, 2007

DOCTRINE: When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or

chapter, some of the requirements for registration are no longer
necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an
independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the
number of employees and names of all its members comprising at
least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate.

d) SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL

SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR
EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (SMCC-SUPER), ZACARRIAS
JERRY VICTORIO - UNION PRESIDENT, PETITIONER,VS.
CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT. – March 16, 2011

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the right to file a petition for
certification election is accorded to a labor organization
provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper
registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor
organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-
and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate
labor organization12

d) The case of Notre Dame of Greater Manila v. Laguesma

January 31, 2005 is a labor dispute involving the petition for
 P a g e | 11

certification election filed by the Notre Dame of Greater Manila

Teachers and Employees Union (NGMTEU) among the rank-
and-file employees of Notre Dame of Greater Manila (NDGM).
The Supreme Court ruled that NDGM, as the employer, had no
standing to question or interfere in the certification election, as
it was the sole concern of the workers. The Court also affirmed
the validity of the NGMTEU as a legitimate labor organization,
despite the inclusion of some supervisory employees in its
membership. The Court held that the proper remedy for NDGM
was to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election123
=======================================================
e) Empire Tantrade vs Sec of Labor : 166285 : January 31,
2005 –
The doctrine in this case is that the employer has no standing
to question or interfere in the certification election of a union,
as it is the sole concern of the workers. The employer’s remedy
is to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election12

f) St-James-School-of-Quezon-City-vs-Samahang-
Manggagawa-Sa-St. James School November 23, 2005

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the computation of quorum in

a certification election should be based on the membership of
the rank and file unit in the particular worksite petitioning and
not on all the employees in the other worksites. The Supreme
Court affirmed the validity of the Samahang Manggagawa sa St.
James School of Quezon City as a legitimate labor organization,
despite the inclusion of some supervisory employees in its
membership. The Court also ruled that the employer, St. James
School of Quezon City, had no standing to question or interfere
in the certification election, as it was the sole concern of the
workers12

=======================================================
g) Air Philippines Corporation v. BLR June 22, 2006

➢ The case of Air Philippines Corporation v. BLR is a labor

dispute involving the petition for cancellation of union
registration filed by Air Philippines Corporation (APC) against
Air Philippines Flight Attendants Association (APFLAA). The
Supreme Court ruled that APC had no standing to question or
interfere in the certification election of APFLAA, as it was the
sole concern of the workers. The Court also affirmed the validity
of APFLAA as a legitimate labor organization, despite the
 P a g e | 12

inclusion of some supervisory employees in its

membership. The Court held that the proper remedy for APC
was to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election12

h) EAGLE RIDGE GOLF VS. CA March 18, 2010

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the employer has no standing
to question or interfere in the certification election of a union,
as it is the sole concern of the workers. The employer’s remedy
is to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election12

i) Legend International Resorts v. KML-INDEPENDENT

February 23, 2011

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the employer has no standing

to question or interfere in the certification election of a union,
as it is the sole concern of the workers. The employer’s remedy
is to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election12

j) Lepanto v. Lepanto Capataz Union February 18, 2013

➢ The doctrine in this case is that capatazes are not rank-and-file

employees because they perform supervisory functions for the
management; hence, they may form their own union that is
separate and distinct from the labor organization of rank-and-
file employees. The employer has no standing to question or
interfere in the certification election of a union, as it is the sole
concern of the workers. The employer’s remedy is to file a
petition for cancellation of the union’s registration, not to
oppose the certification election12

k) HCCS v. Sto. Tomas, et al. (G.R. No. 179146; July 23,

2013)

➢ The doctrine in this case is that the employer has no standing

to question or interfere in the certification election of a union,
as it is the sole concern of the workers. The employer’s remedy
is to file a petition for cancellation of the union’s registration,
not to oppose the certification election
 P a g e | 13

l) Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. Bureau of

Labor Relations (BLR) October 14, 2015

➢ The doctrine in the case of Samahan ng Manggagawa sa

Hanjin Shipyard v. Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) is that
the right to self-organization is not limited to unionism, but also
includes the right to form or join an association for mutual aid
and protection and for other legitimate purposes. The Supreme
Court held that the workers of Hanjin, who were not managerial
employees, had the right to form an association under Article
249 of the Labor Code, and that their registration as such could
not be cancelled on the ground that they did not fall under any
of the types of workers enumerated in the second sentence of
the same article. The Court also ruled that misrepresentation,
to be a ground for the cancellation of the certificate of
registration, must be done maliciously and deliberately

PART III UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

4. Jurisprudence:
a) New World International Development (Phil.), Inc. et al. v. New
World Renaissance Hotel Labor Union July 28, 2021

➢ The case of New World International Development (Phil.),

Inc. et al. v. New World Renaissance Hotel Labor Union
involved a complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the union
against the hotel for refusing to negotiate a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) with them. The hotel claimed that it had a
valid reason not to negotiate because there was a pending
petition for cancellation of the union’s certification as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees12

➢ The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that the

hotel’s reason was valid and that there was no bad faith on its
part. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s decision. However, the Court of Appeals
reversed the NLRC and held that the pendency of a cancellation
proceeding against the union was not a bar to set in motion the
mechanics of collective bargaining. The Court of Appeals also
found that the hotel’s refusal to negotiate, despite the final and
executory resolution of the cancellation petition in favor of the
union, demonstrated its bad faith and constituted unfair labor
practice. The Court of Appeals ordered the parties to promptly
conduct collective bargaining negotiations and directed the
hotel to pay the union P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees2
➢ The hotel elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which
affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision on July 28, 2021. The
Supreme Court ruled that the hotel violated the union’s right to
self-organization and collective bargaining by using the
 P a g e | 14

cancellation petition as an excuse to evade its obligation to

negotiate in good faith. The Supreme Court also upheld the
award of attorney’s fees to the union as a form of indemnity for
the damages it suffered due to the hotel’s unfair labor practice.

b) Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor June

16, 2004

➢ The doctrine in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Employees

Union v. Confesor is that the pendency of a petition for
cancellation of union registration does not suspend the duty to
bargain collectively of the employer and the certified bargaining
agent. The Supreme Court held that the employer cannot refuse
to negotiate with the union on the ground that there is a
pending cancellation proceeding against it, as this would
amount to unfair labor practice and a violation of the union’s
right to self-organization and collective bargaining. The
Supreme Court also ruled that the employer’s insistence on the
exclusion of the federation president from the union’s
negotiating panel was not a valid reason to impede the
negotiation, as the union had the right to choose its own
representatives12

c) Slord Development Corporation v. Noya February 4, 2019

➢ The doctrine in the case of Slord Development Corporation v.

Noya is that the employer cannot refuse to negotiate with the
certified bargaining agent on the ground that there is a pending
petition for cancellation of its union registration, as this would
amount to unfair labor practice and a violation of the union’s
right to self-organization and collective bargaining. The
employer must also comply with the procedural due process in
dismissing an employee for disloyalty pursuant to the closed
shop provision of the collective bargaining agreement12

d) Bankard, Inc. v. NLRC March 6, 2013

➢ The doctrine in the case of Bankard, Inc. v. NLRC is that the

employer cannot refuse to bargain collectively with the certified
union on the ground that there is a pending petition for
cancellation of its union registration, as this would amount to
unfair labor practice and a violation of the union’s right to self-
organization and collective bargaining. The Supreme Court also
ruled that the employer’s insistence on the exclusion of the
federation president from the union’s negotiating panel was not
a valid reason to impede the negotiation, as the union had the
right to choose its own representatives12
 P a g e | 15

e) T & H Shopfitters Corporation v. Gin Queen Corporation v. T

& H Shopfitters Corporation Gin Queen Workers Union February
26, 2014

➢ The doctrine in the case of T & H Shopfitters Corporation v.

Gin Queen Corporation v. T & H Shopfitters Corporation Gin
Queen Workers Union is that the employer cannot refuse to
bargain collectively with the certified union on the ground that
there is a pending petition for cancellation of its union
registration, as this would amount to unfair labor practice and
a violation of the union’s right to self-organization and collective
bargaining. The Supreme Court also held that the employer
committed unfair labor practice by sponsoring a field trip for its
employees, to the exclusion of union members, before the
scheduled certification election; by actively campaigning
against the union during the field trip; by escorting its
employees to the polling center; by continuously hiring
subcontractors performing the functions of the employees; by
assigning union members to work as grass cutters; and by
assigning work on a rotational basis for union members1

f) Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union v. Adamson

University March 9, 2020

➢ The doctrine in the case of Adamson University Faculty and

Employees Union v. Adamson University is that the use of
expletives as a casual expression of surprise or exasperation is
not serious misconduct per se that warrants an employee’s
dismissal. However, the employee’s subsequent acts showing
willful and wrongful intent may be considered in determining
whether there is a just cause for their employment termination1

PART IV STRIKE AND LOCKOUT

5. Jurisprudence
a) Bigg’s Inc. v. Jay Boneacas et al. and Junnie Arines et al. v.
Bigg’s Inc. et al. March 6, 2019

➢ The doctrine in the case of Bigg’s Inc. v. Jay Boneacas et al. and
Junnie Arines et al. v. Bigg’s Inc. et al. is that the union
officers who instigated and participated in illegal strikes are
deemed to have lost their employment status12. This is
based on Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, which provides that
"any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in
the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared
 P a g e | 16

to have lost his employment status and is therefore not entitled

to reinstatement."1

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter

and the National Labor Relations Commission that the strikes
staged by the union members were illegal for failure to comply
with the requirements of a valid strike, such as filing a notice of
strike, observing the cooling-off period, and conducting a strike
vote123. The Court also upheld the finding that the union
officers, namely Boncacas, Liria, San Juan, and Arines, were
the ones who led and organized the illegal strikes, and thus,
they forfeited their right to be reinstated12. The Court, however,
modified the award of backwages and separation pay to the
union members who were not union officers, as they were
entitled to such benefits under the principle of social justice1.

b) HSBC Employees Union et al v NLRC and HSBC January 11,

2016

➢ The doctrine in the case of HSBC Employees Union et al.

v. NLRC and HSBC is that the union officers who knowingly
participated in an illegal strike are deemed to have lost
their employment status, while the union members who
merely participated in good faith are entitled to
reinstatement12. This is based on Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code, which provides that "any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer
who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status and is therefore not entitled to reinstatement."23

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter

and the National Labor Relations Commission that the strikes
staged by the union members were illegal for failure to comply
with the requirements of a valid strike, such as filing a notice of
strike, observing the cooling-off period, and conducting a strike
vote124. The Court also upheld the finding that the union
officers, namely Dela Chica, Militante, Atanacio, Rivera, Fermin,
Molo, Palma, Hernandez, Llacuna, Ortiguerro, Kimseng, Sison,
Geronimo, Cadena, Tamonte, Relucio, Gongora, Albos,
Gonzales, Baltazar, Jimenez, Orlina, Ellarma, Flores, Broqueza,
Fajardo, Luna, Galang, Amion, De Leon, Ocampo, Dizon,
Atienza, Gaba, Camposanto, Deriada, Hilis, Mabunay, Gerong,
Herrera, Gonzaga, Pedida, Loquellano, Gonzaga, Paule, Motus,
Motus, Fagutao, Del Rosario, Grey, Del Mundo, Cruz, Durano,
Yee, Caligagan, Militante, Perez, and Mateo, were the ones who
led and organized the illegal strikes, and thus, they forfeited
their right to be reinstated12. The Court, however, modified the
award of backwages and separation pay to the union members
who were not union officers, as they were entitled to such
benefits under the principle of social justice15.
 P a g e | 17

c) Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT April 19,

2017

➢ The doctrine in the case of Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa

Pilipinas v. PLDT is that the employer’s declaration of
redundancy is valid and authorized when it is based on
substantial evidence that the services of the employees are
more than what is reasonably demanded by the
business12. This is based on Article 283 of the Labor Code,
which provides that "the employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or
the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written
notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and
Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
thereof."3

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of

Appeals that the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company’s (PLDT) declaration of redundancy was justified and
valid, as the redundancy program was based on substantial
evidence. The Court held that PLDT sufficiently proved that the
services of the affected employees were in excess of what was
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the
enterprise, and that the selection of the employees to be
dismissed was done in good faith, without any discrimination
or favoritism12. The Court also ruled that the affected employees
were entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay
for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months
being considered as one (1) whole year, in addition to their full
backwages, allowances, and other benefits14.

d) Visayas Community Medical Center v. Yballe et al January 15,

2014

➢ The doctrine in the case of Visayas Community Medical Center

v. Yballe et al. is that the union officers who knowingly
participated in an illegal strike are deemed to have lost
their employment status, while the union members who
merely participated in good faith are entitled to
reinstatement1. This is based on Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code, which provides that "any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer
who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status and is therefore not entitled to reinstatement."2
 P a g e | 18

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter

and the National Labor Relations Commission that the strikes
staged by the union members were illegal for failure to comply
with the requirements of a valid strike, such as filing a notice of
strike, observing the cooling-off period, and conducting a strike
vote13. The Court also upheld the finding that the union officers,
namely Yballe, Angel, Cortez and Ong, were the ones who led
and organized the illegal strikes, and thus, they forfeited their
right to be reinstated1. The Court, however, modified the award
of backwages and separation pay to the union members who
were not union officers, as they were entitled to such benefits
under the principle of social justice1 .

e) Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. et al, Progresibong Unyon

Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER et al v. Automotive Engine
Rebuilders, Inc. and Inducil July 13, 2011

➢ The doctrine in the case of Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc.

et al. v. Progresibong Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa AER et
al. is that the employer has the burden of proving that the
employees who participated in an illegal strike committed
illegal acts that would justify their dismissal12. This is based
on Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, which provides that "any
union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
have lost his employment status and is therefore not entitled to
reinstatement."3

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of

Appeals that the strike staged by the union members was illegal
for failure to comply with the requirements of a valid strike,
such as filing a notice of strike, observing the cooling-off period,
and conducting a strike vote124. The Court, however, modified
the ruling of the Court of Appeals that all the employees who
participated in the illegal strike should be reinstated without
backwages. The Court held that only the union officers, namely
Villota, Agustin, Mariano, and Brizuela, were proven to have
committed illegal acts during the strike, such as blocking the
ingress and egress of the company premises, threatening and
coercing other employees, and vandalizing company property12.
Thus, they were deemed to have lost their employment status
and were not entitled to reinstatement. The other union
members, however, were not shown to have committed any
illegal act during the strike, and thus, they were entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages, subject to the deduction of
the amount equivalent to the wages they received from their
employment elsewhere during the period of their dismissal1 .
 P a g e | 19

f) NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF (Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter) v. The

Honorable Court of Appeals November 11, 2008

➢ The doctrine in the case of NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel

Nikko Chapter v. The Honorable Court of Appeals is that the
employer has the right to prevent employees who shaved
their heads or cropped their hair as a form of protest from
working in the front-line positions of the hotel, as this
would adversely affect the hotel’s image and
reputation . This is based on the management prerogative of
12

the employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the

freedom to prescribe work assignments, working methods,
processes, and regulations, and the right to impose discipline,
rules of conduct, and penalties for violations thereof13.

➢ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of

Appeals that the strike staged by the union members was illegal
for failure to comply with the requirements of a valid strike,
such as filing a notice of strike, observing the cooling-off period,
and conducting a strike vote124. The Court also upheld the
finding that the union officers, namely Boncacas, Liria, San
Juan, and Arines, were the ones who led and organized the
illegal strikes, and thus, they forfeited their right to be
reinstated12. The Court, however, modified the ruling of the
Court of Appeals that the employees who shaved their heads or
cropped their hair should be dismissed from service. The Court
held that the act of shaving or cropping one’s hair, while
indicative of the employees’ intention to stage a strike, did not
amount to a serious misconduct or a willful disobedience of a
lawful order that would warrant their dismissal12. The Court,
however, recognized the right of the hotel management to
prevent these employees from working in the front-line
positions, such as guest relations, front office, and food and
beverage service, as this would affect the hotel’s image and
reputation as a five-star service establishment12. The Court
ruled that these employees should be reinstated to their former
positions or, if not possible, to other positions where they will
not be exposed to the hotel guests, without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges, and with full backwages12.

PART V
SECURITY OF TENURE AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
6. Jurisprudence:
a) American Express Transnational (now American International
Tours, Inc.) and Carlo Severino vs. Menandro T. Borre July 15,
2020
 P a g e | 20

➢ The case of American Express Transnational (now American

International Tours, Inc.) and Carlo Severino vs. Menandro
T. Borre is a labor dispute involving the dismissal of Borre, a
driver/messenger, for insubordination and disobedience. The
Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the
Court of Appeals, which upheld the legality of Borre’s dismissal
but granted him separation pay as a measure of social justice.
The Supreme Court ruled that Borre’s act of insubordination or
disobedience was a valid and just cause for termination, but it
was not serious or grave enough to warrant the forfeiture of his
separation pay. The Supreme Court also denied Borre’s claim
for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and 13th
month pay12

b) Melchor Cuadra et al v. San Miguel Corporation July 13, 2020

➢ The doctrine in Melchor Cuadra et al v. San Miguel

Corporation is about the reckoning point of an employee’s
length of service when there is a valid severance of the
employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that
the period of service of the petitioners, who were declared
regular employees of San Miguel Corporation after filing an
illegal dismissal case, should be computed from the date of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision, not from the date they first started
working for the respondent. The Court reasoned that the
petitioners had effectively waived their right to continuous
service when they accepted the settlement offer from the
respondent, which extinguished their claims arising from their
previous employment. Thus, their reinstatement was
considered a rehiring, and their length of service should be
reckoned from the day they were rehired

c) University of the Cordilleras et al v. Benedicto Lacanaria

September 27, 2021
The doctrine in University of the Cordilleras et al v. Benedicto
Lacanaria is about the proper computation of backwages and
separation pay for an employee who was dismissed for just cause but
without due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the employee is
entitled to full backwages from the time of his dismissal until the
finality of the decision, and separation pay equivalent to one month
salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six months
being considered as one whole year. The Court reasoned that this is
consistent with the principle of social justice and the protection of
labor, as well as the employer’s right to discipline its employees
 P a g e | 21

d) Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Bumagat November 25,

2020

➢ The doctrine in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Bumagat

is about the computation of backwages and separation pay for
an employee who was dismissed for just cause but without due
process. The Supreme Court ruled that the employee is entitled
to full backwages from the time of his dismissal until the finality
of the decision, and separation pay equivalent to one month
salary for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six
months being considered as one whole year. The Court
reasoned that this is consistent with the principle of social
justice and the protection of labor, as well as the employer’s
right to discipline its employees1

e) Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod et al v. Melinda M. Montaño

March 28, 2022

➢ The doctrine in Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod et al v. Melinda M.

Montaño is about the valid dismissal of an employee for breach
of trust and confidence, even if there was no malice or bad faith
on the part of the employee. The Supreme Court ruled that the
respondent, who was the school registrar, was guilty of a
serious misconduct when she allowed some students to join the
graduation ceremony despite not meeting the academic
requirements. The Court held that this act violated the school’s
policies and standards, and undermined its reputation and
integrity. The Court also found that the respondent was
accorded due process, as she was given the opportunity to
explain her side and to appeal the decision of the school.

The Court, however, awarded the respondent full backwages and

separation pay, as a measure of social justice and compassion,
considering her long years of service and lack of ill motive. The Court
also granted her salary differential for the diminution of benefits that
she suffered during her reappointment as school registrar.

f) Ariel Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Rafael March 23, 2022

➢ The doctrine in Ariel Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Rafael is

about the valid dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct
and loss of trust and confidence, even if the employee was not
directly involved in the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by his
co-employees. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner,
who was the Internal Auditor of the respondent bank, was
negligent and remiss in his duties when he failed to detect and
report the irregularities in the stock subscriptions of the bank’s
stockholders, which resulted in the loss of millions of pesos. The
 P a g e | 22

Court held that the petitioner’s negligence amounted to a

breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the bank,
and justified his dismissal from service123

g) Intercontinental Broadcasting v. Guerrero July 15, 2020

This case involves the illegal dismissal of respondent Angelino B.
Guerrero by petitioner Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation
(IBC13). Guerrero was hired as a technician in IBC 13’s Technical
Operation Center (TOC) in 1986. In 2009, the management assigned
the task of logos superimposition to the TOC personnel, including
Guerrero. Guerrero was later accused of negligence, sleeping on duty,
insubordination, tampering with his daily time record, and reporting
late for work. After administrative proceedings, Guerrero was
terminated from employment. He filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, unpaid wages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor
arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision, finding that there was no substantial evidence to
support Guerrero’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals ordered
Guerrero’s reinstatement, payment of backwages, and attorney’s
fees.
Doctrine:
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to
show that the dismissal is a just and valid cause. Failure to do so
would mean that the dismissal was illegal. The employer must
present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the employee’s
dismissal. Substantial evidence is defined as “such amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion.”

h) Stanfilco – A Division of DOLE Philippines and Casino v. Jose

Tequillo et al July 17, 2019
The case involves the dismissal of an employee, Jose Tequillo, for
mauling a co-worker and consuming alcohol within company
premises and during work hours. The employer, Stanfilco, argued
that Tequillo’s actions constitutes serious misconduct and willful
disobedience. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the
employer, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
reversed the decision, declaring Tequillo’s dismissal illegal. The Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The Supreme Court,
however, held that Tequillo’s action amount to serious misconduct
and justified his dismissal. The Court emphasized that the work
relatedness of an act should be determined by the underlying cause
or motive, rather than the time and place of the incident. The Court
found that Tequillo’s attack on his co-worker was connected to his
dissatisfaction with the employer’s refusal to provide him with a
performance incentive. The Court also noted that there was a
 P a g e | 23

reasonable basis to believe that Tequillo may repeat his violent act.
Therefore, the Court concluded that all the requisites of serious
misconduct were present, and the NLRC’s decision declaring
Tequillo’s dismissal illegal was based on grave abuse of discretion.
Doctrine:
Physical violence inflicted by one employee on another constitutes
serious misconduct, justifying the dismissal of the offending
employee. However, the employer must establish a reasonable
connection between the offense and the employee’s duties to prove
that het act was work-related and rendered the employee unfit to
continue working.

i) Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express Inc., January 25, 2017

This case involves the illegal dismissal of petitioner Leo T.

Maula by respondent Ximex Delivery Express, Inc. Petitioner
filed a complaint against respondent for various labor
violations. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner,
finding his dismissal to be illegal and ordering respondent to
pay backwages and separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the
decision, but the Court of Appeals reversed it.

Doctrine:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the termination of

employment must comply with both substantial and
procedural due process. Substantive due process requires
that there be a just cause for dismissal, while procedural due
process requires that the employee be given ample
opportunity to be heard and defend himself. The employer
has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a lawful
cause or that the termination of employment was valid.

j. ) Rustan’s Commercial v. Raysag and Entrina May 14,

2021

This case involves dismissal of respondents Dolora F. Raysag

and Merlinda S. Entrina by petitioner Rustan Commercial
Corporation. The respondents were inventory specialist at
Rustan’s Department Store in Makati City. They were
accused of gross neglect of duty, which resulted in the loss
of high-end cosmetic merchandise worth Php509,004.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and ruled that
the respondents were illegally dismissed. The CA also found
 P a g e | 24

that petitioner did not comply with procedural due process

in terminating the respondents’ employment.

Doctrine:

To validly dismiss an employee, the employer must establish

just or authorized cause of termination and comply with the
requirements of procedural due process. The burden of
proving the validity of the dismissal lies with the employer,
who must present substantial evidence to support their case.
Failure to comply with the requirements of procedural due
process may render the dismissal illegal, even if there is just
cause for termination.

k) TelePhilippines Inc. v. Jacolbe February 18, 2019

This case involves the illegal dismissal of Ferrando H. Jacolbe

by TelePhilippines, Inc. (TP) for consistently failing to meet the
average handle time (AHT) target of 7 minutes or below. The
Labor Arbiter initially found Jacolbe to have been illegally
dismissed, but the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) reversed the decision and held that the dismissal was
valid. The Court of Appeals (CA) later set aside the NLRC ruling
and declared Jacolbe’s dismissal as illegal. TP filed a petition for
review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Doctrine:

Gross inefficiency is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of

duty under Article 297 of the Labor Code. It involves specific
acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage
to the employer or its business. Meeting reasonable work
standards, such as the AHT metric, is within the employer’s
management prerogative. Procedural due process requires the
employer to give the employee two written notices and an
opportunity to be heard before termination.

l) 3M Philippines Inc. v. Lauro Yuseco November 9, 2020

This case involves a dispute between 3M Philippines (petitioner) and
Lauro D. Yuseco (respondent) regarding the respondent’s termination
from employment. The petitioner claimed that the termination was
due to redundancy, while the respondent argued that he was illegally
dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially
ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed
the decision and declared the respondent’s dismissal as illegal. The
 P a g e | 25

petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the Court

of Appeals’ ruling.
Doctrine:
Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in
excess of what is reasonable needed to meet the demands of the
business enterprise. A valid redundancy program must comply with
the requisites of written notice, payment of separation pay, good faith
in abolishing redundant positions, and fair reasonable criteria in
determining which positions are to be declared redundant.

m) Yulo v. Concentrix Daksh Services Philippines Inc.

January 21, 2019
This case involves the illegal dismissal of petitioner Enrique Marco G.
Yulo by respondent Concentrix Daksh Services, Philippines, Inc.
Petitioner was terminated on the ground of redundancy, but he filed
a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of petitioner, ordering his reinstatement and the payment of
backwages and other damages. The NLRC affirmed the decision, the
court of Appeals reverse it, ruling that the dismissal was legal. The
Supreme Court, however, held that respondent failed to prove good
faith and fair criteria in terminating petitioner’s employment based
on redundancy. Therefore, the Court reinstated the NLRC’s decision,
declaring petitioner dismissal as illegal.
Doctrine:
Redundancy is recognized as an authorized cause for dismissal
under Article 298 (formerly 283) of the Labor Code. However, the
employer must prove good faith in abolishing redundant positions
and employ fair and reasonable criteria in determining which
positions are redundant. The employer must also pay the affected
employee separation pay.

n) La Consolacion College of Manila et al v. Pascua March 11,

2018
This case involves the termination of employment of Virginia
Pascua, a school physician at La Consolacion College of Manila.
Pascua was terminated due to retrenchment caused by the decrease
in enrollment and financial difficulties faced...
Doctrine:
When termination of employment is occasioned by retrenchment to
prevent losses, an employer must declare a reasonable cause or
criterion for retrenching an employee. Retrenchment that disregards
 P a g e | 26

an employee’s record and length of service is an illegal termination

of employment.

o) Team Pacific Corporation et al v. Layla M. Parente July

15, 2020
This case involves a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which found that
the respondent, Layla M. Parente, was illegally dismissed by Team
Pacific Corporation. The Court of Appeals reversed the rulings of the
National Labor Relations Commission and the Labor Arbiter, and
ordered the reinstatement of Parente to her former position without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges, as well as, the payments
of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits.

Doctrine:
For a retrenchment to be valid, the employer must prove that it
incurred substantial and serious business losses, that the
retrenchment was done in good faith, and that the retrenched
employees were selected through fair and reasonable criteria.

p) (Manila Polo Club Employees’ Union [MPCEU] FUR-TUCP v.

Manila Polo Club, Inc., G.R. No. 172846, 24 July 2013)

Closure of a business or undertaking due to business losses is the

reversal of fortune of the employer whereby there is a complete
cessation of business operations to prevent further financial drain
upon an employer who cannot pay anymore his employees since
business has already stopped.

q) GJT Rebuilders Machine Shop et al v. Ricardo Ambos, et al.,

January 28, 2015

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by G.J.T.

Rebuilders Machine Shop and the Trillana spouses against Ricardo
Ambos, Benjamin Putian, and Russell Ambos. G.J.T. Rebuilders
failed to prove its alleged serious business losses, which led to the
closure of its establishment. The Court of Appeals found that G.J.T.
Rebuilders should have paid separation pay to the affected
employees. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeal, stating that G.J.T. Rebuilders did not sufficiently prove it
serious business losses.
 P a g e | 27

Doctrine:
To prove serious business losses, employers must present financial
statements showing net loses suffered by the business over a
sufficient period of time. A single financial statement showing losses
is generally insufficient. If employers fail to prove serious business
losses, they must pay dismissed employees separation pay equivalent
to one-month pay or at least one-half-month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher.

r) Carissa Santo v. University of Cebu (G.R. No. 232522, 28

August 2019)

In May 1997, the University of Cebu hired Carissa as a full-time

instructor. During her employment, Carissa studied law and passed
the 2009 bar examinations.

Under the university’s Faculty Manual, “a permanent employee may,

upon reaching his fifty-fifth (55th) birthday or after having completed
at least fifteen (15) years of service, opt for an early retirement… and
shall be entitled to the retirement pay equivalent to a total of fifteen
(15) days for every year of service…”

In April 2013, she applied for optional retirement. The university

approved her application and computed her optional retirement pay
at 15 days per year of service under the faculty manual.

Carissa asserted that her retirement pay should have been computed
at 22.5 days per year of service under Article 287 of the Labor Code.
The university refused to accept her computation. Thus, she initiated
a complaint for payment of retirement benefits under the law,
damages, and attorney’s fees.

Which retirement scheme applied to Carissa?

The SC ruled that Carissa’s retirement pay should have been

computed at 22.5 days per year of service (based on Article 287 of
the Labor Code) which was more beneficial and advantageous to
Carissa than the retirement benefits under the faculty manual (15
days per year of service). It reiterated that “while the employer is
free to grant retirement benefits and impose different age or
service requirements, the benefits should not be less than that
provided in Article 287 of the Labor Code.”

The SC disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s ruling that Article 287
of the Labor Code on retirement benefits was not applicable since it
was supposedly not intended to benefit Carissa who voluntarily
resigned not to rest in the twilight years of her life but to actively
engage in the practice of the legal profession.
 P a g e | 28

The SC clarified that Carissa’s intention to practice law after retiring

as a college instructor did not affect or diminish her entitlement to
retirement benefits under the law.

Part VI Prescription

3. Jurisprudence:

a) Montero v. Times Transportation Inc. March 16, 2015

This case involved a dispute between the petitioners, who were former
employees of Times Transportation Co., Inc. (TTCI), and the
respondents, including TTCI and Mencorp Transport System, Inc.
The petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice, and money claims against the respondents. The main issue
in this case is whether or not the petitioners’ complaint for illegal
dismissal have already prescribed. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled
in favor of the petitioners, but the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, stating that the
complaints have already prescribed. The Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s
decision, stating that the complaint s have indeed prescribed.

Doctrine:

The prescriptive period for filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is

four years. The filing of a complaint interrupts the running of the
prescriptive period, but the voluntary withdrawal of the complaint
leave the parties in the same position as if no action had been filed
at all. The prescriptive period continues to run even after the
withdrawal of the case.

b) Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon August 13, 2014

This case involves a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by George A.
Arriola against Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. Arriola alleged that he was
arbitrarily dismissed by the company and that his rights to security
of tenure and due process were violated. The Labor Arbiter ruled that
Arriola abandoned his employment and that his money claims have
prescribed. The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court
of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Arriola filed a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Doctrine:
The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four
years from the time the cause of action accrued. This four-year
prescriptive period, not the three-year period for filing money claims
 P a g e | 29

under Article 291 of the Labor Code, applies to claim for backwages
and damages due to illegal dismissal.

c) University of the East v. University of the East Employees

Association September 14, 2011
A labor union files a complaint against a university for non-
payment/under payment of employees’ share of tuition fee increases,
but the Supreme Court rules in favor of the university, stating that
the change in the distribution scheme is not a diminution of benefits
and the employees’ right to question the scheme has already expired.

Time and again, the Court has upheld the theory that the rules of
procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial
justice.27 These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution
of cases, hence, their strict and rigid application which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice must be avoided.

d) Accessories Specialist Inc. vs. Jones Alabanza July 23, 2008

The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied when a promise
is made, even without consideration, and is intended to be relied
upon by the promise. If a refusal to enforce the promise would result
in injustice, the court may enforce it. In this case, Jones relies on
ASI’s promise to pay his money claims after the rank-and-file
employees were settled. Thus the three-year prescriptive period
under Article 291 of the Labor Code does not apply.

End of jurisprudence.