People vs chowdury gr.

No 129577-80

Offense Involved: Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale

Facts

Accusation: In November 1995, Bulu Chowdury and Josephine Ong were formally accused of engaging in
illegal recruitment in Manila, Philippines. This means they were allegedly promising people employment
opportunities overseas without the proper authorization from the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), which is the government agency responsible for regulating overseas
employment.

 Legal Process: Bulu Chowdury pleaded not guilty to the charges during his court appearance in
April 1996. On the other hand, Josephine Ong did not appear in court, and thus was considered
at large, meaning she had not been apprehended by authorities.

 Witnesses: Several individuals, including Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja, and Melvin Miranda,
testified against Chowdury. They claimed that they had applied for jobs through Chowdury and
Ong, paid processing fees as instructed, but were never deployed for the promised overseas
employment. Additionally, Labor Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla testified about the status
of the company's licensing, indicating that it was not authorized to engage in recruitment
activities during the relevant period.

 Chowdury's Defense: Chowdury defended himself by stating that he was employed as an

interviewer for Craftrade, the company in question. He claimed that he merely followed
instructions given by his superiors and did not handle any financial transactions. Another
defense witness provided documentation suggesting that the company had been accredited,
which Chowdury argued supported the legitimacy of their operations.

 Court Decision: Despite Chowdury's defense, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale. As a result, he was sentenced to life imprisonment,
fined, and ordered to provide restitution to the individuals who had paid fees but did not
receive employment opportunities.

 Appeal: Chowdury appealed the decision, arguing that he should not be held responsible for the
illegal recruitment activities because he was merely following orders as an employee. The
appeals court ultimately overturned Chowdury's conviction, citing insufficient evidence to prove
his knowing involvement in the illegal activities. However, it was noted that the individuals who
were promised jobs but did not receive them could still pursue restitution through government
action against the higher-ups in the company
 Manila jockey employees union vs manila jockey club gr no. 167760

Background:

 Who's Involved: There's a group of workers represented by a union called the Manila Jockey
Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO. They work for a company called Manila Jockey Club, Inc.,
which organizes horse races.
 Agreement: The workers and the company made an agreement called a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) that laid out things like their pay and working hours. This agreement was in
place from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2000.

What Happened:

 Schedule Change: The company decided to change the working hours for some of the workers.
Instead of working from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., they would now work from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. on certain days when horse races were happening.
 Workers' Complaint: The workers didn't like this change. They said it went against the
agreement they had (the CBA) and meant they couldn't work overtime like they used to.

How It Was Resolved:

Talks: Both sides talked about the problem, but they couldn't agree. So, they went to a group of people
called arbitrators to help them sort it out.

Arbitrators' Decision: The arbitrators said the company was allowed to change the schedule based on
what they thought was best for their business, even if it meant changing what was in the agreement.

Going to Court: The workers didn't like this decision, so they took it to a higher court called the Court of
Appeals. But the Court of Appeals agreed with the arbitrators.

Issues Raised in Court:

 Did the Company Give Up Its Right?: The workers said that by agreeing to a schedule in the
CBA, the company gave up its right to change it later. But the court said no, the company still
had the right to make changes as long as it followed the rules.
 Was It Fair?: The workers also said the change in schedule was unfair because it meant they
couldn't work overtime like before. But the court said the agreement didn't guarantee overtime
for everyone, so the change wasn't breaking any rules.

Court's Final Decision:

The court said the workers' appeal wasn't valid. They agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the
company had the right to change the schedule, and it didn't break any rules or agreements.

In short, the workers didn't get what they wanted, and the company was allowed to change the
schedule because it followed the rules.
 RE transport vs latag gr no 155214

Facts:

 Pedro Latag worked as a taxi driver for La Mallorca Taxi from March 1, 1961, until the company ceased
operations. He then joined R & E Transport, Inc.
 Pedro fell ill in 1995 and had to stop working. He applied for partial disability benefits, which were granted.
 In 1998, when Pedro tried to return to work, his employer refused to let him continue due to his old age.
 Pedro requested retirement pay according to the law, but his employer, R & E Transport, Inc., ignored his
request.
 Pedro filed a case for retirement pay before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but passed away
before receiving his benefits. His wife, Avelina Latag, took over the case.
 The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Pedro, ordering his employer to pay retirement benefits. However, the
employer appealed the decision.

Issues:

 Whether the Court of Appeals properly reviewed the findings of the NLRC regarding Pedro's entitlement to
retirement benefits.
 Whether Avelina Latag violated the rule on forum shopping by filing two appeals before the Court of Appeals.
 Whether the labor arbiter's decision involved a monetary award and whether the employer's appeal was valid.

Ruling

The ruling of the Court favored Avelina Latag, the widow of Pedro Latag, affirming Pedro's entitlement to retirement
benefits despite procedural issues with the employer's appeal.

 Entitlement to Retirement Benefits: The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which
reviewed the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and affirmed Pedro's entitlement to
retirement benefits. Despite conflicting findings between the NLRC and the labor arbiter, the CA ruled in favor
of Avelina Latag, stating that Pedro was indeed entitled to retirement benefits. This means that Avelina, as
Pedro's widow, was legally entitled to receive the retirement benefits owed to Pedro.
 Forum Shopping: The Court found that Avelina Latag did not engage in forum shopping, despite filing two
appeals before the Court of Appeals. Forum shopping refers to the unethical practice of filing multiple cases
based on the same issue in different courts, with the hope of obtaining a favorable decision. In this case,
Avelina adequately explained why she filed two appeals, and the Court allowed both appeals to proceed.
 Procedural Issues with Employer's Appeal: The Court acknowledged that there were procedural issues with the
employer's appeal, particularly regarding the posting of a bond. Normally, an appeal in labor cases involving a
monetary award requires the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer. However, due to unique
circumstances and errors in the labor arbiter's factual conclusions, the Court allowed the employer's appeal to
proceed despite the procedural lapses.

Overall, the ruling upheld Pedro Latag's entitlement to retirement benefits and affirmed Avelina Latag's right to receive
those benefits as Pedro's widow. Despite procedural issues with the employer's appeal, the Court prioritized the
substantive rights of the parties involved and allowed the appeal to proceed in the interest of justice.
 Aklan electric cooperative inc vs nlrc gr no. 121439

Facts:

 On January 22, 1991, the Board of Directors of AKELCO allowed the temporary relocation of
their office to Amon Theater, Kalibo, Aklan, citing safety concerns at their Lezo, Aklan office.

 Despite the relocation, some employees, including the complainants, continued to work at the
Lezo office and were paid.

 The complainants argued that the relocation was illegal and continued working at the Lezo office
until they were locked out by AKELCO.

 Even after being locked out, the complainants still reported to work at the Lezo office but were
not paid their salaries from June 1992 to March 18, 1993.

Ruling:

 The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaints, but the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) reversed the decision, stating that the employees were entitled to unpaid wages.

 The NLRC based its decision on letters and memoranda indicating the request for payment of
unpaid wages and the employees' own computation of their unpaid wages.

 AKELCO argued that the employees should provide evidence like timecards and payslips to
support their claims.

The Issue:

 Whether the refusal of the employees to work at the relocated office justified AKELCO's "no
work, no pay" policy, thus denying their claim for unpaid wages.

The Ruling Simplified:

 The NLRC's evidence wasn't enough to prove that the employees worked at the Kalibo office
during the period in question.

 AKELCO had moved its operations to Kalibo, and it was the employees' responsibility to prove
they worked there, which they failed to do.

 Since they didn't work at the Kalibo office during the specified time, it's unfair to demand
payment for services they didn't provide.

 Therefore, the employees are not entitled to unpaid wages for that period.
 Netlink vs delimo gr no. 160827

facts

 Eric Delmo's Employment: Eric Delmo was employed by Netlink Computer, Inc. as an account manager. His
primary responsibility was to generate sales for the company by persuading clients to purchase Netlink's
products and services.
 Sales and Commissions: Delmo successfully generated sales amounting to approximately P35,000,000.00. As
part of his compensation, he earned commissions from these sales. It's important to note that these
commissions were earned both in Philippine pesos and US dollars, indicating that Delmo dealt with
international clients or transactions.
 Payment Disagreement: When Delmo requested payment for his commissions, Netlink only provided him with
partial cash advances instead of the full amount owed. Moreover, Netlink refused to pay the portion of his
commissions that were in US dollars, insisting on paying him solely in Philippine pesos.
 Workplace Issues: Netlink also began criticizing Delmo's work performance, highlighting supposed issues such
as absences and tardiness. They issued warnings and memos regarding his attendance, possibly as a tactic to
pressure him into resigning from his position.
 Delmo's Sales Performance: Despite the criticisms and attempts to undermine his performance, Delmo
continued to excel in his role, consistently generating significant sales for Netlink. This suggests that Delmo was
a valuable asset to the company, despite the challenges he faced in the workplace.

Issue

 The central issue in the case revolves around the currency in which Eric Delmo's commissions should be paid.
Specifically, the question is whether Delmo is entitled to receive his commissions in US dollars, as he requested,
or if Netlink Computer, Inc. is justified in paying him solely in Philippine pesos.

This issue arises due to the following factors:

 Delmo earned commissions from sales in both Philippine pesos and US dollars.
 Delmo requested payment of his commissions, including the portion in US dollars, but Netlink refused to honor
this request and only provided partial cash advances.
 There was no written agreement specifying the currency of commission payment, leading to ambiguity
regarding the appropriate currency for payment.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Delmo should be paid his commissions in US dollars. Here's why:

1. Established Practice: Even though there was no written agreement specifying the currency of commission payment, it
had become a common practice at Netlink to pay commissions in US dollars.
2. Rate of Exchange: The court clarified that the exchange rate at the time of payment, not at the time of sales, should be
used to determine the conversion rate for paying commissions in foreign currency.
3. Non-Diminution of Benefits: The court noted that there's no specific minimum duration for a company practice to
become binding. Past cases cited durations ranging from two to six years, and Delmo had been receiving commissions in
US dollars, indicating an established practice.
4. Attorney's Fees: The court also awarded attorney's fees to Delmo due to the violation of procedural due process by
Netlink.

So, based on these reasons, Delmo has the right to continue receiving his commissions in US dollars, as it had become
the established practice at Netlink.
Mayon hotel & restaurant vs adana 458 scra 609
 Facts:

 Mayon Hotel & Restaurant Operations: Mayon Hotel & Restaurant, a business registered under Pacita O. Po,
was managed by her mother, Josefa Po Lam. The establishment employed approximately sixteen (16)
workers.Suspension of Operations: The hotel operations were suspended on March 31, 1997, due to the
expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for the premises. However, the restaurant continued its
operations in a new location while waiting the construction of a new hotel.
 Employee Complaints: Sixteen employees filed complaints against the establishment for underpayment of
wages and other money claims. The complaints included allegations of unpaid wages and other labor
violations during their employment.
 Labor Arbiter Decision: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, awarding their money claims.
Additionally, the Labor Arbiter recognized Josefa Po Lam as the owner/proprietor of the hotel based on her
active participation in the proceedings.
 NLRC Decision: The hotel owners appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), which reversed the ruling and dismissed the employees' complaints.
 CA Decision: The employees then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed
the NLRC's decision and ruled in favor of the employees, affirming Josefa Po Lam's ownership of the hotel and
granting the employees' claim of illegal dismissal.
 SC Review: Dissatisfied with the CA's decision, the hotel owners appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing the
CA's findings.

Issues:

 Ownership of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant: The main issue is whether Pacita Po or Josefa Po Lam is the rightful
owner/proprietor of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant. This involves determining who has the legal authority over
the establishment.
 Illegal Dismissal and Entitlement to Separation Pay: Another issue is whether the suspension of hotel
operations amounted to illegal dismissal. If so, the employees would be entitled to separation pay. This
revolves around whether the cessation of operations constituted lawful termination of employment.

Ruling: Ownership: The Supreme Court affirmed Josefa Po Lam as the owner of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant.

The decision was based on several factors:

 Josefa Po Lam's active participation in the proceedings and her acknowledgment as the owner by the
Labor Arbiter.
 Lack of evidence provided by Pacita Po to substantiate her ownership claims.
 Testimonies from employees indicating Josefa's ownership and involvement in the business.
Illegal Dismissal and Separation Pay: The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of hotel operations amounted to
illegal dismissal. The decision was supported by the following:
 The failure to recall employees to work even after an extended period.
 Lack of a valid reason provided by the hotel owners for the termination of employment.
 Employees being entitled to separation pay due to the unlawful dismissal, as per labor laws and principles
of fairness.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling, affirming Josefa Po Lam's ownership of the
hotel and granting the employees' claim of illegal dismissal, entitling them to separation pay