U.P.

LAW BOC LABOR LAW

LABOR LAW
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
2019
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

Acosta v. Matiere Matiere SAS is a French SC held that Matiere In redundancy, an

SAS company contracted by the SAS failed to comply employer must show
DPWH to construct flyovers with 2 of the 4 that it applied fair and
G.R. No. 232870 | and bridges. They had requisites needed for a reasonable criteria in
June 3, 2019 Employment Agreements redundancy program to determining what
with several workers. be valid—good faith positions have to be
However, SAS terminated and fair and reasonable declared redundant.
their contracts due to criteria. To establish Otherwise, it will be
“cessation of delivery good faith, the held liable for illegally
operations and the company must provide dismissing the
diminution of activities.” substantial proof that employee affected by
Acosta, one of the the services of the the redundancy.
employees, filed a employees are in
complaint for illegal excess of what is
dismissal against SAS. required of the
Labor Arbiter (LA) held that company, and that fair
Matiere SAS failed to prove and reasonable criteria
the factual bases for the were used to determine
reduction of its workforce, the redundant
and failed to submit a positions. Fair and
redundancy plan. NLRC reasonable criteria may
reversed LA. CA affirmed take into account the
the NLRC and found that preferred status,
SAS was able to establish efficiency, and seniority
that Acosta's position of employees to be
became redundant upon the dismissed due to
completion of its contracts redundancy.
with DPWH.

GSIS Family President Aquino signed SC held that GSIS Officers and employees
Bank Employees into law Republic Act No. Family Bank is a of GOCCs without
Union v. 10149, or the GOCC government-owned or original charters are
Villanueva Governance Act of 2011. controlled corporation covered by the Labor
GSIS Family Bank’s since 99.55% of its Code, not the Civil
G.R. No. 210773 | president sought opinion outstanding capital Service Law. However,
Jan. 23, 2019 from the Governance stock is owned and non-chartered GOCCs
Commission as to whether controlled by the GSIS, are limited by law in
GSIS Family Bank may be as defined by Sec. 3(o) negotiating economic
considered as a GOCC or of RA No. 10149. RA terms with their
government bank, whether No. 10149 defines a employees. This is
it has the authority to enter non-chartered GOCC because the law has

Page 1 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

into a collective bargaining as a GOCC that was provided the

agreement with the GSIS organized and is Compensation and
Union, and whether its operating under the Position Classification
employees has the right to Corporation Code. It System, which applies
strike. In its petition before does not differentiate to all GOCCs,
the SC, GSIS Union between chartered and chartered or non-
stresses that as a private non-chartered GOCCs; chartered.
corporation established hence, its provisions
under the Corporation apply equally to both.
Code, GSIS Family Bank When it comes to
and its employees are collective bargaining
covered by the applicable agreements and
provisions of the Labor collective negotiation
Code, not the Civil Service agreements in GOCCs,
Law. Thus, the Collective Executive Order No.
Bargaining Agreement 203 unequivocally
between GSIS Union and stated that while it
GSIS Family Bank cannot recognized the right of
be impaired by Republic Act workers to organize,
No. 10149. bargain, and negotiate
with their employers,
“the Governing Boards
of all covered GOCCs,
whether Chartered or
Non-chartered, may not
negotiate with their
officers and employees
the economic terms of
their collective
bargaining
agreements.” Thus,
considering the existing
law at the time, GSIS
Family Bank could not
be faulted for refusing
to enter into a new
collective bargaining
agreement with GSIS
Union.

Aldovino v. Gold Aldovino and her co- The Court held first that The clause "or for three
and Green applicants applied for work the Compromise (3) months for every
Manpower at Gold and Green Agreement did not bar year of the unexpired
Management and Manpower. Before they petitioners from holding term, whichever is less"
Development could be deployed for work, Gold and Green liable as reinstated in Section
Services, Inc. Gold and Green Manpower for claims. The law 7 of Republic Act No.
required each applicant to does not recognize 10022 is
G.R. No. 200811 | pay a placement fee, and to agreements that result unconstitutional, and
June 19, 2019 sign a contract saying they in compensation less has no force and effect
would be paid on a piece- than what is mandated of law. It violates due
rate basis. Their by law. These process as it deprives
employment was eventually quitclaims do not overseas workers of
terminated after a prevent employees their monetary claims

Page 2 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Compromise Agreement from subsequently without any discernible

was signed by them for their claiming benefits to valid purpose.
unpaid salaries. Upon which they are legally
return in the PH, they filed a entitled.
case for illegal termination In Serrano, this Court
against Gold and Green ruled that the clause "or
Manpower. CA ordered for three (3) months for
Gold and Green to pay the every year of the
salaries of petitioners for unexpired term,
the unexpired portion of whichever is less"
their respective employment under Section 10 of the
contracts or for three (3) Migrant Workers and
months for every year of the Overseas Filipinos Act
unexpired term, whichever is unconstitutional for
is less. violating the equal
protection and
substantive due
process clauses.
Hence, petitioners are
entitled to the award of
salaries based on the
actual unexpired
portion of their
employment contracts.
The award of
petitioners' salaries, in
relation to the three (3)-
month cap, must be
modified accordingly.

Toquero v. Toquero was employed by The POEA Standard Disability ratings should
Crossworld Crossworld. Toquero Employment Contract be adequately
Marine Services underwent a pre- and the CBA clearly established in a
Inc. employment medical provide that when a conclusive medical
examination and was seafarer sustains a assessment by a
G.R. No. 213482 | declared fit for sea duty. work-related illness or company-designated
June 26, 2019 After deployment, he got injury while on board physician. To be
into a fistfight with another the vessel, his fitness conclusive, a medical
employee, and had to or unfitness for work assessment must be
undergo surgery for a shall be determined by complete and definite
hematoma. He was the company- to reflect the seafarer's
repatriated back and designated physician. If true condition and give
referred to a company- the physician appointed the correct
designated physician who by the seafarer corresponding disability
declared him fit to go back disagrees with the benefits.
to work. However, his company-designated
chosen physicians declared physician's
him permanently unfit and assessment, the
diagnosed him with a total opinion of a third doctor
and permanent disability. may be agreed jointly
Toquero filed a claim for between the employer
permanent disability and the seafarer to be
benefits under the CBA. the decision final and

Page 3 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

binding on them.

Tardy, doubtful, and

incomplete medical
assessments, even if
issued by a company-
designated physician,
have been repeatedly
set aside by the SC.
Here, the medical
assessment issued by
the company-
designated physician
cannot be regarded as
definite and conclusive.
A review of the records
shows that the
company-designated
physician failed to
conduct all the proper
and recommended
tests.

Claret School of Sinday filed a Complaint for The SC held that Sinay Brent School, Inc. v.
Quezon City v. illegal dismissal against is a regular employee Zamora recognized that
Sinday Claret, claiming that she entitled to security of the Civil Code and the
had been a regular tenure. Labor Code allow the
G.R. No. 226358 | employee as she performed In drawing the line, execution of fixed-term
Oct. 9, 2019 various jobs that were Brent laid down the employment contracts.
usually necessary and criteria under which a However, in cases
desirable in the usual fixed-term employment where periods are
business of Claret. On the cannot be deemed in imposed to prevent an
other hand, Claret denied circumvention of the employee from
Sinday's claims averring security of tenure: acquiring security of
that she was merely a part- (1) When the parties tenure, such contracts
time fixed-term contractual have knowingly and must be disregarded for
employee whom the school voluntarily agreed upon being contrary to public
accommodated. LA ruled a fixed period of policy and morals.
that the repeated hiring of employment without Brent's application is
Sinday for around 3 years any force, duress[,] or limited to cases where
conferred her with regular improper pressure the employer and the
employment status. LA being brought to bear employee are more or
found that Sinday badly upon the employee and less on an equal footing
needed a job, leaving her absent any other when they enter into
no choice but to apply from circumstances vitiating the contract.
one position to the other. his consent; or
This showed that Sinday (2) When it
and Claret were not on an satisfactorily appears
equal footing in dealing with that the employer and
the terms of her employee dealt with
employment. each other on more or
less equal term with the
employer not having

Page 4 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

exercised any moral

dominance over the
employee.
Neither of the two (2)
criteria in Brent is
present in this case.
Petitioner did not deal
with respondent in
more or less equal
terms with no moral
dominance on its part.
There is no genuine
freedom to contract
when a fixed-term
employment is used as
a vehicle to exploit the
economic disadvantage
of workers like
respondent. The
validity of a fixed-term
employment is an
exception, not the
general rule.

Paringit v. Global Paringit entered into a 6- SC held that CA erred There is very little that
Gateway month employment contract in ruling that there was seafarers can do to
Crewing with Mid-South Ship and no causal connection better their working
Services, Inc. Crew Management. After he between his heart conditions upon
was deployed, Paringit was disease and his work boarding a ship. It is
G.R. No. 217123 | rushed to the intensive care abroad because such the shipowners and
Feb. 6, 2019 unit and underwent blood was due to his own their representatives
transfusion after lifestyle choices and who have better
experiencing fatigue, stress, health habits. resources to ensure
and blood in his feces. He The POEA Standard that their crew
was medically repatriated. Employment Contract members are properly
Paringit filed a Complaint defines a work-related nourished, kept
for medical expenses and illness as "any sickness adequately fit, and are
other money claims. LA as a result of an placed in a situation
granted Paringit's occupational disease where they are not put
Complaint. She found that listed under Section 32- at any risk greater than
his various illnesses were A of this Contract with what is inherent in their
work-related or work- the conditions set jobs.
aggravated, brought about therein satisfied.”
by the type of food served Petitioner's heart
and the stressful nature of ailments are classified
his job aboard the ship. under a cardiovascular
event.
Petitioner, despite
being hypertensive,
was still declared fit to
work in his pre-
employment medical

Page 5 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

examination. Moreover,
the poor food choices
in his workplace led or
contributed to his heart
disease. The POEA
Standard Employment
Contract spells out the
conditions for
compensability. Here,
the compensability of
petitioner's condition is
clear; however, instead
of fulfilling its
responsibilities,
respondent Global
Gateway delayed his
treatment and raised
technical procedural
barriers that were
clearly unwarranted.

Esteva v. Esteva was hired as a The SC held that the When a company-
Willhelmsen seafarer. While he was company-designated designated physician
Smith Bell onboard the vessel, Esteva physician's assessment fails to arrive at a final
Manning, Inc. began to suffer severe back must be upheld. and definite
pains. He was diagnosed If the seafarer does not assessment of a
G.R. No. 225899 | with lumbar disc prolapse contest the findings of seafarer's fitness to
July 10, 2019 and declared have a the company- work or level of
temporary total disability designated physician disability within the
and unfit for work. Esteva and fails to refer the prescribed periods, a
was repatriated and was assessment to a third presumption arises that
found by the company- doctor, "the company the seafarer's disability
designated physician to can insist on its is total and permanent.
have tubercolosis of the disability rating even
spine and should take 1 against a contrary
year of treatment. He also opinion by another
consulted other doctors with physician[.]" Securing a
a different finding - that he third doctor's opinion is
was totally disabled and the duty of the
unfit to work. Hence, Esteva employee who must
filed a complaint for total actively or expressly
permanent disability request for it.
benefits. Noncompliance with
this procedure militates
against the seafarer's
claim, particularly in
cases where the
company-designated
physician concluded
that there is no
permanent total
disability. Without the
referral to a third

Page 6 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

doctor, there is no valid

challenge to the
company-designated
physician's findings.

Page 7 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

2018
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

Malcaba v. Prohealth Malcaba, Nepomuceno, First, the SC held that First, in appeals of
Pharma Phils, Inc. Palit-Ang, and Adona, respondents illegal dismissal cases,
were employed as substantially complied employers are strictly
G.R. No. 209085 | June officers of Proheatlh. with the requirements mandated to file an
6, 2018 They filed complaints on the posting of an appeal bond to perfect
illegal dismissal, appeal bond. While the their appeals. Second,
claiming that (1) the procedural rules strictly LA and NLRC do not
CEO did acts that require the employer to exercise jurisdiction
made Malcaba’s job submit a genuine bond, over termination
difficult, amounting to an appeal could still be disputes between a
constructive dismissal, perfected if there was corporation and a
(2) Nepomuceno was substantial compliance corporate officer. Third,
let go due to a minor with the requirement. dismissal of employees
infraction of mistakenly They already filed a for minor and negligible
reporting his flight security deposit under offenses may be
details and missing a a bank check. considered as illegal
day of work, (3) Palit- dismissal.
Ang was wrongfully Second, SC held that
accused of Malcaba is the
disobedience. President of
Petitioners also argue respondent corporation
that CA should have and a corporate officer,
dismissed outright the so any issue on his
Petition since alleged dismissal is
respondents failed to beyond the jurisdiction
post a genuine appeal of the LA or the NLRC.
bond before the NLRC.
Third, Nepomuceno’s
penalty of dismissal
was too severe for this
kind of infraction. The
breach of trust must be
willful, that is, "it is done
intentionally, knowingly
and purposely, without
justifiable excuse.”

Pacios v. Tahanang Regular employees of SC held that CA erred Execution may be

Walang Hagdan TWH, hired by Sr. in reversing the NLRC. authorized even
Baerts, were PWDs. In view of the pending appeal. In
G.R. No. 229579 | Nov. They were eventually employees’ dire authorizing execution
14, 2018 dismissed and filed a situation and since the pending appeal of the
complaint for illegal NLRC has already reinstatement aspect of
dismissal against TWH. ruled twice on the case a decision of the Labor
LA ruled in favor of the in a way that supports Arbiter reinstating a
employees and the the release of the dismissed or separated
NLRC dismissed supersedeas bond, it is employee, the law itself
TWH’s appeal since the proper to continue with has laid down a
cash bond was execution proceedings compassionate policy

Page 8 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

insufficient. CA in this case despite a which, once more,

reversed NLRC, finding pending motion for vivifies and enhances
the cash bond to be reconsideration. The the provisions of the
sufficient. Meanwhile, SC found that the 1987 Constitution on
LA issued a writ of principles allowing labor and the
Execution to implement execution pending workingman.
its Decision awarding appeal are equally
P16,629,163.63 to the applicable here as
workers. Thus, the petitioners are poor
cash bond of employees, deprived of
P40,000.00 was their only source of
released to them. livelihood for years and
Thereafter they filed a reduced to begging on
Motion to Release the the streets. Under Sec.
Supersedeas Bond but 3 Rule XI of the NLRC
was opposed by TWH. Rules, the perfection of
LA issued a Resolution an appeal stays the
suspending the execution of a Labor
resolution of the Arbiter’s decision.
employees’ Motion to Thus, for clarity, the CA
Release the should have explained
Supersedeas Bond. that because its April
27, 2015 Decision
deemed respondents'
appeal before the
National Labor
Relations Commission
as reinstated, the
execution of the Labor
Arbiter's October 24,
2013 Decision was
stayed under Rule XI,
Section 3 of the
National Labor
Relations Commission
Rules of Procedure.

Magsaysay Mol While working on board The SC held that Atraje The third doctor rule
Marine v. Atraje a vessel, Atraje had a is entitled to permanent does not apply when
seizure. After and total disability there is no final and
G.R. 229192 | July 23, undergoing different benefits. The company- definitive assessment
2018 procedures in designated physicians by the company-
Singapore General of Mol Ship breached designated physicians.
Hospital, he was their duty to declare
declared unfit to work, Atraje’s fitness or
and was recommended unfitness to work within
to be repatriated due to 120 days from the time
his epileptic seizure. he reported to them
Upon his arrival in the since he was never
Philippines, Atraje issued any medical
underwent different assessment or
procedures again in progress report by the
Shiphealth, which company-designated

Page 9 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

reported that Atraje’s physicians. The third

seizure was a single doctor rule states that if
episode, and that there a doctor appointed by
was no indication for the seafarer disagrees
him to undergo further with the assessment, a
diagnosis or treatment. third doctor may be
Atraje went to Ygeia agreed jointly between
Medical Center for a the Employer and the
second opinion, and seafarer. However, said
the report of the rule does not apply
hospital stated that his when there is no
illnesses are not work- definite disability
related. Atraje filed a assessment from the
complaint against Mol company-designated
Ship for payment of physicians. Thus, the
total and permanent contention of petitioner
disability benefits. The on non-compliance with
Panel of Voluntary the third doctor rule is
Arbitrators ruled in untenable.
favor of Atraje. The CA
affirmed.

Civil Service Moralde worked as a The SC held that An employee who

Commission v. dental aide in the Moralde willfully voluntarily ends his
Moralde Provincial Health severed his employee- employment cannot
Office. He was formally employer relationship later cry foul over the
G.R. 211077, 211318 | charged with falsifying with the government. end of such
Aug. 15, 2018 his Daily Time Records. This is implied from his employment and
The Provincial Attorney deliberate petitioning compel his employer to
recommended that he for benefits occasioned reinstate him.
be dismissed from by what he mistakenly
service. However, while thought was retirement,
the administrative case but which was actually
was pending, Moralde a simulation of
went to GSIS and filed resignation. When it
for an application for was informed of
retirement. The next Moralde’s successful
day, Moralde was application for benefits
dismissed from service. with the GSIS, the CSC
Moralde filed an appeal was correct in ruling
before the CSC. The that the reinstatement
GSIS then informed of a voluntarily
Moralde that his deserting employee
application for was unfair and unjust.
retirement was Under the Revised
approved. But Moralde Government Service
served no notice on the Insurance Act, the
CSC of such approval, availing of retirement
instead he filed a notice benefits differs from
of appeal of his separation benefits. For
dismissal before the retirement, the
CSC. The CSC set applicant needs to be
aside the termination at least 60 years old

Page 10 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

order. Thereafter, the and must have served

provincial governor for at least 15 years.
issued an order For separation benefits,
reinstating Moralde. the applicant must be
The Province filed below 60 years old.
before the CSC a Despite this difference,
Motion for New Trial a public officer who
upon discovering that applies to receive either
Moralde bypassed his of them, acts out of the
administrative case same contemplation:
through retirement. The the termination of his or
CSC set aside its her employer-employee
resolution ordering relationship with the
Moralde’s government. Thus,
reinstatement since he whether Moralde
has retired already and received retirement or
received all his separation benefits, he
benefits. The CA voluntarily and
reversed, and ordered personally intended to
Moralde’s put his public
reinstatement, holding employment to a
that Moralde is not complete and
qualified to retire, being unequivocal end.
only 38 years old.

Ebuenga v. Southfield Ebuenga was hired by The SC held that The Court is duty-
Agencies Southfield as a chief Ebuenga is not entitled bound to respect the
cook aboard the vessel, to permanent disability consistent prior findings
GR No. 208396 | March MN Super Adventure. benefits. The POEA- of the LA, of the NLRC,
14, 2018 Ebuenga wrote a letter Standard Employment and of the CA. It must
to Southfield, asking Contract mandates be cautious not to
that he be repatriated seafarers to see a substitute its own
as soon as possible "to company-designated appreciation of the
attend to a family physician for a post- facts to those of the
problem." Respondents employment medical tribunals which have
acted favorably on this examination within previously weighed the
request and Ebuenga three working days parties' claims and
was repatriated. upon his return. Failure personally perused the
Without consulting to comply shall result in evidence.
Southfield's designated the forfeiture of the
physician, Ebuenga right to claim disability
had himself checked at benefits. However, the
St. Luke's Medical conduct of post-
Center, where he was employment medical
advised to undergo examination is a
physical therapy for reciprocal obligation
multilevel disk where the employer is
dessication. Ebuenga correspondingly obliged
went back to his "to conduct a
hometown to undergo meaningful and timely
physical therapy examination of the
sessions. Thereafter, seafarer.” Thus, in
he consulted Dr. cases where the

Page 11 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Ticman, who issued a employer refuses to

Disability Report, have the seafarer
finding him to be examined, the
permanently disabled seafarer's claim for
and no longer fit to disability benefits is not
work as a seafarer. hindered by his reliance
Consequently, on a physician of his
Ebuenga filed a own choosing. In this
complaint for case, Ebuenga insists
permanent disability that Southfield refused
benefits. The Labor to entertain him when
Arbiter dismissed the he asked to have
complaint since himself examined.
Ebuenga failed to prove However, he failed to
that he suffered an prove his allegations by
illness or injury while on substantial evidence.
board the vessel. The Thus, with the utter
NLRC and CA affirmed. dearth of proof
advancing petitioner's
cause, this Court is
constrained to sustain
the consonant findings
of the Labor Arbiter, of
the NLRC, and of the
CA.

La Consolacion Pascua's services as The SC held that the When termination of

College v. Pascua school physician were retrenchment of employment is
engaged by La Pasuca was invalid, the occasioned by
G.R. 214744 | March Consolacion. Pascua fact that she had the retrenchment to
14, 2018 was handed a highest rate of pay did prevent losses, an
termination of not justify her employer must declare
employment letter, dismissal. a reasonable cause or
including payment of Retrenchment is an criterion for retrenching
separation pay. The authorized cause for an employee.
letter explained that terminating Retrenchment that
due to the school’s employment. The disregards an
current financial employer must show employee's record and
situation, the Board of that: (1) the length of service is an
Trustees advised the retrenchment is illegal termination of
school to downsize the reasonably necessary employment.
health services staff. and likely to prevent
Pascua proceeded to le business losses, (2) it
a complaint for illegal exercises its
dismissal against La prerogative to retrench
Consolacion. The LA employees in good
ruled in favor of faith, and (3) it used fair
Pascua, holding that and reasonable criteria
her employment was in ascertaining who
illegally terminated. The would be dismissed. In
NLRC reversed, this case, La
holding that the Consolacion failed to to
termination was valid. use fair and reasonable

Page 12 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

The CA reinstated the criteria that considered

LA’s decision. the status and seniority
of the retrenched
employee.
Nevertheless, Pascua
is not a victim of
arbitrary and high-
handed action, as her
dismissal was merely
the result of a flawed
appreciation of
circumstances. Thus,
the Court will temper
respondent’s liability for
backwages.

Remoticado v. Typical Remoticado's services The SC held that While, in illegal

Construction Trading were engaged by Remoticado voluntarily termination cases, the
Corp. Typical Construction as resigned, thus, his burden is upon the
a helper in its employment was not employer to show just
G.R. 206529 | April 23, construction projects. illegally terminated. It is cause for termination of
2018 Remoticado was true that in illegal employment, such a
absent for 10 days termination cases, the burden arises only if
without an official burden is upon the the complaining
leave. Upon showing employer to prove that employee has shown,
up, he informed Nielo, termination of by substantial
the Human Resources employment was for a evidence, the fact of
Officer, that he was just cause. Logic termination by the
resigning. Nielo dictates, however, that employer.
advised Remoticado to the complaining
return the following employee must first
day, as his final pay establish by substantial
had yet to be evidence the fact of
computed. Remoticado termination by the
was handed P5,082.53 employer. In this case,
as his final pay. He Remoticado failed to
protested, saying that prove by substantial
he was entitled to evidence that he was
"separation pay told to stop reporting for
computed at two work on account of his
months for his services supposed indebtedness
for two years.” Nielo at the canteen. In
explained that he could contrast with
not be entitled to petitioner's bare
separation pay allegation are
considering that he undisputed facts and
voluntarily resigned. pieces of evidence
Remoticado filed a adduced by
Complaint for illegal respondents, which
dismissal against cast serious doubt on
Typical Construction. the veracity of
The LA dismissed petitioner's recollection
Remoticado’s of events.

Page 13 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

complaint since he
voluntarily resigned.
The NLRC and CA
affirmed.

Abuda v. L. Natividad The workers of L. The SC held that the The necessity or
Poultry Farms Natividad Poultry maintenance personnel desirability of the work
Farms filed complaints in L. Natividad are performed by an
G.R. 200712 | July 4, for illegal dismissal, considered as its employee can be
2018 unfair labor practice, regular employees. L. inferred from the length
overtime pay, holiday Natividad is the of time that an
pay, premium pay for petitioners' real employee has been
holiday and rest day, employer, in light of the performing this work. If
service incentive leave labor-only contracting an employee has been
pay, thirteenth month arrangement between employed for at least
pay, and moral and respondents, San one year, he or she is
exemplary damages. Mateo, and Del considered a regular
The LA dismissed the Remedios. L. Natividad employee by operation
complaint due to lack of hired petitioners directly of law.
employer-employee or through Del
relationship between Remedios, a supervisor
the workers and L. at respondents' farm.
Natividad, as San Petitioners are regular
Mateo General employees of L.
Services were the real Natividad since they
employers. The NLRC continuously worked for
modified the LA’s respondents for a
Decision, finding that period ranging from 3
the workers were hired years to 17 years.
by San Mateo and Del Thus, even if the CA is
Remedios on pakyaw of the opinion that
basis to perform carpentry and masonry
specific servies for L. are not necessary or
Natividad. The CA desirable to the
modified the NLRC business of livestock,
Decision, holding that petitioners' service of
San Mateo and Del more than one year to
Remedios are labor- respondents has made
only contractors, and them regular
as such, they are employees for so long
considered as L. as the activities they
Natividad’s agents. were required to do
subsist.

Philippine Span Asia Pelayo was employed The SC held that Not every
Carriers v. Pelayo by Sulpicio Lines as an Pelayo’s involvement in inconvenience,
accounting clerk at its the investigation disruption, difficulty, or
G.R. 212003 | Feb. 28, Davao City branch conducted by petitioner disadvantage that an
2018 office. Sulpicio Lines does not amount to employee must endure
uncovered several constructive dismissal. sustains a finding of
anomalous transactions An employer who constructive dismissal.
in its Davao City branch conducts investigations It is an employer's right
office, most notably, a following the discovery to investigate acts of

Page 14 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

check issued to a of misdeeds by its wrongdoing by

certain "J. Josol" had employees is not being employees. Employees
been altered. The abusive when it seeks involved in such
signatories to the check information from an investigations cannot
were branch manager employee involved in ipso facto claim that
Tan and cashier the workflow which employers are out to
Sobiaco. Sulpicio Lines' occasioned the get them.
Cebu-based misdeed. The Court
management team failed to see how the
went to Davao to petitioner's
investigate. In the midst investigation amounted
of a panel interview, to respondent's
Pelayo walked out. She constructive dismissal.
later claimed that she Other than
was being coerced to respondent's bare
admit complicity with allegation, there is
Tan and Sobiaco. nothing to support the
Sulpicio Lines served claim that her
on Pelayo a interviewers in the
memorandum requiring course of the
her to submit a written investigation were
explanation, and placed hostile, distrusting, and
her on preventive censorious, or that the
suspension for 30 days. interview was a mere
Pelayo filed a pretext to pin her down.
Complaint against Due to the very reason
Sulpicio Lines charging of her main functions
it with constructive as accounting clerk, it
dismissal. The LA ruled made sense to view
in favor of Pelayo, Pelayo with a degree of
holding that she was suspicion. It was only
constructively logical for petitioner to
dismissed. The NLRC inquire into how
reversed the LA’s multiple vouchers and
decision. The CA checks could have
reinstated the LA’s passed the scrutiny of
decision. the officer tasked to
prepare them.

Hubilla v. HSY Several Novo Jeans The SC held that the When the evidence in
Marketing Ltd. employees went to petitioners were labor cases is in
Raffy Tulfo's radio illegally dismissed by equipoise, doubt is
G.R. 207354 | Jan. 10, program to air their respondents. On the resolved in favor of the
2018 grievances against their part of the respondents, employee
employers for alleged no evidence has been
labor violations. These presented proving that
employees claimed that each and every
on June 7, 2010, they petitioner received a
were not allowed to copy of the First Notice
enter the Novo Jeans of Termination of
branches they were Employment. There is
employed in. They likewise no proof that
further averred that petitioners abandoned

Page 15 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

while Novo Jeans sent their employment. On

them a show cause the part of the
letter the next day, they petitioners, they failed
were in truth already to substantially prove
dismissed from their dismissal. Where
employment. both parties in a labor
Thereafter, the case have not
employees filed a presented substantial
complaint with the LA evidence to prove their
for illegal dismissal. LA allegations, the
dismissed the evidence is considered
complaints. NLRC to be in equipoise. In
reversed. CA reinstated such a case, the scales
the LA ruling. of justice are tilted in
favor of labor. Thus,
petitioners are hereby
considered to have
been illegally
dismissed.

Pascua v. Bankwise Pascua was employed The SC held that There is constructive
by Bankwise as its Pascua was not dismissal when an
G.R. 191460 | Jan. 31, Executive Vice constructively employee is compelled
2018 President for dismissed. Even if the by the employer to
Marketing. Pascua was employer claims that resign or is placed in a
informed by Buhain, the employee resigned, situation where there
President of Bankwise, the employer still has would be no other
that as part of the the burden of proving choice but to resign. An
merger or trade-off that the resignation was unconditional and
agreement with voluntary. It is categorical letter of
Philippine Veterans constructive dismissal resignation cannot be
Bank (PVB), he should when resignation was considered indicative of
tender his resignation. made under constructive dismissal if
Campa, Bankwise’s compulsion or under it is submitted by an
director, told Pascua circumstances employee fully aware of
that it was imperative approximating its effects and
that he submit his compulsion, such as implications.
resignation and when an employee's
assured his continued act of handing in his
service with PVB. resignation was a
Pascua tendered his reaction to
resignation, and wrote circumstances leaving
a letter to Campa, him no alternative but
reminding him of his to resign. In this case,
money claims due to Pascua's resignation
his resignation. Due to letter was
his demands for early unconditional. It
settlement of his money contained no
claims going unheeded, reservations that it was
Pascua filed a premised on his
complaint for illegal subsequent claim for
dismissal against severance pay and
Bankwise and PVB. LA other benefits. His

Page 16 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

dismissed the resignation was also

complaint on the accepted by his
ground that Pascua employers. In this
had voluntarily instance, Pascua is not
resigned. NLRC considered to have
reversed, and the CA been constructively
affirmed, holding that dismissed. Moreover,
Pascua was his claim for severance
constructively pay cannot be granted.
dismissed, but that only An employee who
Bankwise should be voluntarily resigns is
made liable to Pascua not entitled to
for his money claims. separation pay unless it
was previously
stipulated in the
employment contract or
has become
established company
policy or practice.

Orient Hope Agencies Jara was hired by The SC held that Jara Failure of the company-
v. Jara Orient Hope, as engine is entitled to total designated physician to
cadet on board M/V permanent disability render a final and
G.R. 204307 | June 6, Orchid Sun. M/V Orchid benefits. The CA definitive assessment
2018 Sun sank off Muscat, properly found that the of a seafarer's condition
during which Jara NLRC overlooked the within the 240-day
sustained leg injuries. company-designated extended period
He was treated at physician's failure to transforms the
Khoula Hospital in issue a final and seafarer's temporary
Oman and thereafter definitive medical and total disability to
repatriated and assessment within the permanent and total
admitted at the 240-day extended disability.
Metropolitan Hospital in period, which under the
Manila. Jara underwent law and jurisprudence
knee operations, and transforms
he did not return to the respondent's disability
company-designated to permanent and total.
doctor after his check The implementing rules
up on March 17, 2008. of the Labor Code
Jara then filed a provide that if the
complaint with the LA, disability is caused by
insisting that he was injury or sickness, it
entitled to total shall not be paid longer
permanent disability than 120 consecutive
benefits. Thereafter, on days except where
May 29, 2008, the such injury or sickness
Assistant Medical still requires medical
Coordinator of the attendance beyond 120
Metropolitan Medical days but not to exceed
Center issued a letter 240 days from onset of
stating that Jara’s disability in which case
disability grading is benefit for temporary

Page 17 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Grade 11. Thereafter total disability shall be

The LA found Jara paid. In this case, the
entitled to surgical procedure
compensation performed on Jara, 159
equivalent to Grade 11 days from his
disability. NLRC repatriation, shows that
affirmed. CA modified, his condition required
ruling that Jara is further medical
entitled to total treatment, justifying the
permanent disability extension of the 120-
benefits, not merely to day period to 240 days.
Grade 11 disability However, the medical
compensation. or progress report
made by the company-
designated physician
was issued on May 29,
2008, or 300 days from
respondent's
repatriation on August
3, 2007.

Page 18 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

2017
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

Republic of the The president of the The SC ruled that As a general rule, “all
Philippines v. National Power Corporation COLA and AA are allowances are deemed
Hon. Cortez Employees Consolidated already deemed included in the
Union (NECU) and the integrated into the standardized salary
G.R. Nos.187257 president of the National standardized salaries of rates.” The following
& 187776 | Power Corporation the NAPOCOR allowances, however,
February 7, 2017 | Employees and Workers employees from July 1, are deemed not to have
En Banc Union (NEWU) filed a 1989 to December 31, been integrated…
petition for Mandamus 1993. representation and
before the RTC of Quezon transportation
City to direct the National RA No. 6758 aimed “to allowances; clothing
Power Corporation standardize salary and laundry
(NAPOCOR) to release and rates among allowances;
pay the cost of living government personnel subsistence allowance
allowance (COLA) and and do away with of marine officers and
Amelioration allowance multiple allowances crew onboard
(AA) due to all NAPOCOR and other incentive government vessels
employees. packages and the and hospital personnel;
resulting differences in hazard pay; allowances
This is pursuant to the compensation among of foreign service
decision of the SC in the them.” Thus, even if personnel stationed
case of De Jesus v. COA DBM-CCC No. 10 was abroad; and such other
which found DBM-CCC No. ineffective, RA No. additional
10 - which provided for the 6758 continues to be compensation not
integration of COLA, AA, operative and applies otherwise specified
and other allowances into to NAPOCOR. herein as may be
the standardized salaries of Evidence also shows determined by the
public employees pursuant that during the period in DBM...
to RA 6758 - ineffective for question, there was no
lack of publication. diminution in the salary The implementation of
of the employees Republic Act No. 6758
The RTC ruled in favor of evincing the factual resulted in the
NECU and NEWU. integration of the two integration of all
According to the trial court, allowances to their allowances previously
the determination of salary. received, including
whether the COLA and AA Cost of Living
had been factually Moreover, from the Allowance and
integrated was already enactment of RA No. Amelioration
resolved when the 7648 which authorized Allowance, into the
NAPOCOR Committee the President of the basic standardized
certified that the COLA and Philippines to salary. When a
AA of the employees from reorganize NAPOCOR government entity
July 1, 1989 to December and to upgrade its ceases to be covered
31, 1993 were not factually compensation plan, by Republic Act No.
integrated into their NAPOCOR ceased to 6758, the new position
standardized salaries. be covered by the classification and
Hence, this petition for standardized salary compensation plan
certiorari and prohibition by rates of RA No. 6758. must also include all
the Solicitor General and Pursuant to RA No. allowances previously
Department of Budget and 7648, then President received in the basic

Page 19 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Management. issued Memorandum salary, in line with the

Order No. 198, principle of non-
The Office of the Solicitor providing for a different diminution
General contends that position classification of pay.
Section 12 of Republic Act and compensation plan
No. 6758 already integrated for NAPOCOR
all allowances into employees.
standardized salary rates, Considering there was
including the COLA and AA no diminution in the
since these allowances salaries and benefits of
were not specifically the NAPOCOR
mentioned in the exempted employees upon the
allowances under the law. implementation of the
The Department of Budget New Compensation
and Management echoes Plan, there was no
the Office of the Solicitor basis for the RTC to
General’s argument that the grant NECU and
COLA and AA were already NEWU’s money claims.
deemed factually integrated
into the standardized salary
rates as shown in its Notice
of Position Allocation and
Salary Adjustment. NECU
and NEWU, on the other
hand, maintain that De
Jesus, Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA) Employees
Hired After July 1, 1989,
and Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage
System have all decreed
that they were entitled to
their COLA and AA from
July 1, 1989 to March 16,
1999.

Manansala v. Antonio B. Manansala’s The SC held that Honest mistakes do not

Marlow services were engaged by Manansala is not negate compensability
Navigation Phils., Marlow Navigation Phils., entitled to total and for disability arising
Inc. Inc. for him to serve as a permanent disability from pre-existing
“fitter” onboard the vessel benefits occasioned by illnesses shown to be
G.R. No. 208314 | M/V Seaboxer. Before work-related illnesses. aggravated by their
August 23, 2017 | boarding the vessel, To enable working conditions.
Third Division Manansala underwent a compensation, an However, when a
Pre- Employment Medical occupational disease seafarer’s proper
Examination (PEME) where and ensuing death or knowledge of
he was required to disclose disability must, thus, be preexisting conditions
information regarding all “work-related”; that is to and intent to deceive
existing and prior medical say that there must be an employer are
conditions. Manansala’s a “reasonable linkage established,
examination certificate between the disease compensability is
indicates that he denied suffered by the negated.
having hypertension and employee and his work.

Page 20 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

diabetes, specifically
answering “NO” when Consistent with the Settled is the rule that
asked about hypertension basic standard in labor for illness to be
and diabetes mellitus. cases and other compensable, it is not
administrative necessary that the
While onboard the M/V proceedings, the nature of the
Seaboxer, Manansala linkage between the employment be the
suffered a stroke disease or its sole and only reason
experiencing a moderate aggravation and the for the illness suffered
headache at the vertex working conditions of a by the seafarer. It is
associated with dizziness seafarers must be sufficient that there is a
and blurring of vision and proven by substantial reasonable linkage
right-sided weakness. He evidence and whoever between the disease
was, claims entitlement to suffered by the
then, admitted to the ADK the benefits provided employee and his work
Hospital in the Maldives by law should establish to lead a rational mind
where a brain CT scan his or her right to conclude that his
conducted on him showed Thereto. work may have
that he was suffering from contributed to the
an acute infarct at the left The POEA-SEC bars establishment or, at the
MCA territory. Because of the compensability of very least, aggravation
this, Manansala was disability arising from a of any preexisting
repatriated. He was preexisting illness when condition he might have
confined at the De Los attended by an had.
Santos Medical Center from employee’s fraudulent
June 10, 2010 to June 23, misrepresentation as
2010, under the primary provided for in Section
care of company- 20(E). To speak of
designated physician, Dr. fraudulent
Teresita Barrairo. While misrepresentation is
under Dr. Barrairo’s care, not only to say that a
he repeatedly denied that person failed to
he had any past history of disclose the truth but
diabetes and hypertension. that he or she
Dr. Barrairo issued a final deliberately concealed
Grade 10 Disability it for a malicious
assessment on Manansala purpose.
on
September 30, 2010. On The SC finds petitioner
October 21, 2010, to have knowingly and
Manansala filed a fraudulently
Complaint against the misrepresented himself
respondents for total and as not afflicted with
permanent disability hypertension or
benefits, as well as diabetes. During his
damages and attorney’s PEME, petitioner was
fees. recorded to have
“categorically answered
Manansala’s own doctor, ‘No’ when asked
Dr. Amado whether he has ever
San Luis, issued a medical suffered from or has
opinion stating been told to have
that Manansala must be hypertension

Page 21 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

considered permanently and diabetes and again

disabled. The same opinion denied this when being
indicated that Manansala treated by Dr. Barrairo.
admitted to having had a However, in the
long history of hypertension medical opinion and
and diabetes. He even evaluation
admitted to taking Enalapril prepared by his own
and Metformin as physician petitioner
maintenance medications. was indicated to not
only have admitted that
The Labor Arbiter rendered “he had a past history
a Decision finding that of hypertension and
Manansala was suffering diabetes,
from preexisting, rather than but even that he was
work-related, ailments. “regularly taking
Therefore, he was not Enalapril and Metformin
entitled to disability benefits. respectively to treat the
This decision was affirmed said illnesses.”
by the NLRC and CA,
hence, this petition.

Manansala asserts that he

properly disclosed his pre-
existing illnesses during his
medical examination and
that his stroke was work-
related.

Barsolo v. SSS Manuel Barsolo was The SC ruled that To emphasize, it is not
employed as a seaman by Cristina is not entitled refuted that myocardial
G.R. No. 187950 | various companies from to compensation for the infarction is a
January 11, 2017 | 1988 to 2002. From July 2, death of her husband. compensable
Second Division 2002 to December 6, 2002, occupational illness.
Manuel served as a Riding The Amended Rules on However, it becomes
Gang/Able Seaman Employee compensable only
onboard MT Polaris Star Compensation provide when it falls under any
with Vela International the guidelines before a of the three conditions,
Marine Ltd.,. Vela was his beneficiary can claim which should be proven
last employer before he from the state by substantial
died in 2006. After his insurance fund. Rule III, evidence.
separation from Section 1(b) states: For
employment with Vela, the sickness and the
Manuel was diagnosed with resulting disability or
hypertensive cardiovascular death to be
disease, coronary artery compensable, the
disease, and osteoarthritis. sickness must be the
When he died on result of an
September 24, 2006, the occupational disease
autopsy report listed listed under Annex “A”
myocardial infarction as his of these Rules with the
cause of death conditions set therein
satisfied, otherwise,
Believing that the cause of proof must be shown

Page 22 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Manuel’s death was work- that the risk of

related, his wife Cristina contracting the disease
filed a claim for death is increased by the
benefits under Presidential working conditions.
Decree No. 626, as
amended, with the Social In Rañises, the Court
Security System. However, held that for myocardial
SSS denied her claim on infarction to be
the ground that there was considered a
no longer an employer- compensable
employee relationship at the occupational disease,
time of Manuel’s death and any of the three
that his being a smoker conditions stated
increased his risk of therein must be proven
contracting the illness. by substantial
evidence. Petitioner
The CA denied Cristina’s failed in this regard.
appeal for lack of merit and She offered no proof
ruled that while there was that her husband
no doubt that myocardial suffered any of the
infarction was a symptoms during his
compensable disease, employment.
Cristina failed to prove a
causal relationship between Since there was no
Manuel’s work and the showing that her
illness that brought about husband showed any
his death. Hence, this sign or symptom of
petition. cardiac injury during
the performance of his
functions, petitioner
clearly failed to show
that her husband’s
employment caused
the disease or that his
working conditions
aggravated his existing
heart ailment.

Moreover, as the Court

of Appeals correctly
pointed out, Manuel
died on September 24,
2006, four years after
he disembarked from
MV Polaris Star. Other
factors have already
played a role in
aggravating his illness.
Due to the considerable
lapse of time, more
convincing evidence
must be presented in
order to attribute the

Page 23 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

cause of death to
Manuel’s work.

SONEDCO In 2007, while there was no The Court held that the Generally, a wage
Workers Free Collective Bargaining ₱32.00/day wage increase not included in
Labor Union v. Agreement in effect, URC- increase beginning the Collective
URC SONEDCO offered, among January 1, 2009 to Bargaining Agreement
other benefits, a ₱l6.00/day present should be is not demandable.
wage increase to their awarded to petitioners. However, if it was
employees. To receive the withheld by the
benefits, employees had to employer as part of its
sign a waiver that stated unfair labor practice
that in the event that a against the union
subsequent CBA is members, this benefit
negotiated between should be granted.
Management and Union, It is illegal to continue
the new CBA shall only be denying the petitioners
effective on January 1, the wage increase that
2008. was granted to
employees who signed
Realizing that the waiver the waivers. To rule
was an unfair labor practice, otherwise will
some members of perpetuate the
SONEDCO Workers Free discrimination against
Labor Union refused to petitioners. All the
sign. URC-SONEDCO consequences of the
offered the same unfair labor practice
arrangement in 2008. must be addressed.

SONEDCO Workers Free

Labor Union and its
members who refused to
sign the 2007 and 2008
waivers filed a complaint for
unfair labor practices
against URC-SONEDCO.

The Court found URC-

SONEDCO guilty of unfair
labor practice for failing to
bargain with SONEDCO
Workers Free Labor Union
in good faith.

Members of SONEDCO
Workers Free Labor Union
filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration. They aver
that the ₱l6.00 wage
increases granted in 2007
and 2008 were integrated in
the salary of the employees
who signed the waiver.

Page 24 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Thus, since the start of

2009, employees who
signed the waiver have
been receiving ₱32.00/day
more than petitioners.

The sole issue of this case

is whether a ₱32.00/day
wage increase beginning
January 1, 2009 to present
should be awarded to
petitioners.

United Doctors Under the optional The Court ordered An employee who has
Medical Center v. retirement policy in the United Doctors Medical already qualified for
Bernadas collective bargaining Center to pay optional retirement but
agreement, an employee respondent Cesario dies before the option
who has rendered at least Bernadas, through his to retire could be
20 years of service is beneficiary Leonila exercised is entitled to
entitled to optionally retire. Bernadas, optional his or her optional
In addition to the retirement retirement benefits. retirement benefits,
plan, employees are also which may be claimed
provided insurance. by the qualified
employee's
Cesario, an employee at beneficiaries on his or
United Doctors Medical her behalf.
Center for 23 years died
from a "freak accident" Retirement benefits
while working in a doctor's must be differentiated
residence. from insurance
Before his death, Cesario proceeds. One is in the
was already qualified to concept of an indemnity
receive his retirement while the other is
benefits, having been conditioned on age and
employed by petitioner for length of service. Thus,
23 years. While the choice the grant of insurance
to retire before the proceeds will not
compulsory age of necessarily bar the
retirement was within grant of retirement
respondent Cesario's benefits.
control, his death foreclosed
the possibility of him making It would be the height
that choice. of inequity to withhold
respondent Cesario's
Leonila Bernadas , retirement benefits
representing her deceased despite being qualified
husband, Cesario, filed a to receive it, simply
Complaint for payment of because he died before
retirement benefits. Leonila he could apply for it. In
and her son also claimed any case, the CBA
and were able to receive does not mandate that
insurance proceeds an application must first

Page 25 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

be filed by the
employee before the
right to the optional
retirement benefits may
vest.

Rodriguez v. Lourdes Rodriguez was The Court held that (1) Constructive
Park N Ride, Inc. employed by the Javier there was no dismissal exists where
spouses in Park N Ride as constructive dismissal there is involuntary
G.R. No. 222980 | an Administrative and in this case. The Javier resignation because of
March 20, 2017 | Finance Assistant. She was spouses gave their full the harsh, hostile and
Second Division also required to handle the trust and confidence to unfavorable conditions
personal and administrative Rodriguez. She was set by the employer.
matters of the other entrusted with both The unreasonably
companies owned by the their business and harsh conditions that
spouses. She was the personal affairs, and compel resignation on
custodian of 201 employee was treated by the the part of an employee
files, representative to spouses as part of the must be way beyond
courts and agencies, and family. Rodriguez’s the occasional
had access and information unequivocal intent to discomforts brought
on the Javier spouses' relinquish her position about by the
finances. She was given was manifest in her misunderstandings
authority to transact with letters of resignation. between the employer
business and banking They contained words and employee.The
institutions and became a of gratitude, which standard for
signatory to their bank could hardly come from constructive dismissal
accounts. She was also an employee forced to is "whether a
given custody over the resign. reasonable person in
deeds and titles of the employee's position
ownership over properties According to would have felt
of the spouses. She Rodriguez, what compelled to give up
likewise took care of the triggered her to resign his employment under
spouses’ household was when she was told the circumstances."
concerns such as preparing that “Kung ayaw mo na
payrolls of drivers and ng ginagawa mo, we (2) Applying Article 291
helpers, shopping for can manage!" These of the Labor Code, the
household needs, and words, however, are 3-year prescriptive
looking after the spouses’ not sufficient to make period for the claim of
house. her continued service incentive leave
employment commences, not at the
However, Rodriguez was impossible, end of the year when
allegedly emotionally unreasonable, or the employee becomes
sensitive and prone to unlikely. Such entitled to the
occasional "tampo" when utterance was a commutation of his
she would be reprimanded consequence of a service incentive leave,
or cited for tasks spontaneous outburst but from the time when
unaccomplished. She would of feelings resulting the employer refuses to
then be absent after such from Rodriguez’s failure pay its monetary
reprimands and would to perform a task long equivalent after
eventually return after a few overdue, and was not demand of
days. Once, she tendered an act to force her to commutation or upon
her resignation but returned resign. There was no termination of the

Page 26 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

to work a few days later. In showing of bad faith or employee's services, as

another instance, she did malicious design by the the case may be.
not report for work because spouses that would
she was reprimanded and make Rodriguez’s work
was told that if she did not conditions unbearable.
want to continue with her
work, the company could In light of these,
manage without her. Rodriguez is not
entitled to moral and
Rodriguez filed a Complaint exemplary damages
for constructive dismissal, since she was not
non-payment of service illegally dismissed. With
incentive leave and 13th respect to the claim for
month pay, including claims payment of service
for moral and exemplary incentive leave, the 3-
damages and attorney’s year prescriptive period
fees. commenced only from
the time of her
resignation or
separation from
employment. Since
Rodriguez filed her
complaint a few days
after her resignation,
her claim for service
incentive leave has not
prescribed. She may
thus be awarded
service incentive leave
pay for her entire 25
years of service.

Bravo v. Urios Respondent Urios College The Court held that 1) A dismissal based
College employed Bravo as a part- Bravo was validly on willful breach of trust
time teacher and also dismissed based on or loss of trust and
GR No. 198066 | designated him as the loss of trust and confidence under
June 7, 2017 | 2nd school's comptroller from confidence. As a Article 297 of the Labor
Division June 1, 2002 to May 31, comptroller, he cannot Code entails the
2002. In 2004, a committee be considered as an concurrence of two (2)
to review the ranking ordinary rank-and-file conditions:
system implemented during employee since his ● First, the
school year 2001-2002 was task included the employee whose
formed. It found out that the preparation of payroll . services are to be
ranking system for the said His position of terminated must
school year caused salary responsibility on occupy a position
distortions which include delicate financial of trust and
discrepancies in the salary matters entailed a confidence.
adjustments of Bravo and of substantial amount of ● Second, there
two (2) other employees. trust from the must be the
Specifically, the committee respondent. Therefore, presence of some
discovered that "the it was reasonable for basis for the loss
Comptroller's Office solely them to trust that he of trust and
prepared and implemented had basis for his confidence.

Page 27 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

the [s]alary [a]djustment computations ○ This means that

[s]chedule" without prior especially with respect "the employer
approval from the Human to his own must establish
Resources Department. compensation. the existence of
Hence, it recommended an act justifying
that Bravo be Bravo’s act in assigning the loss of trust
administratively charged for to himself a higher and confidence."
serious misconduct or willful salary rate without
breach of trust as he proper authorization is 2) Different rules apply
allegedly misclassified a clear breach of the in determining whether
several positions and trust and confidence loss of trust and
miscomputed his and other reposed in him. His confidence may validly
employees’ salaries. position made him be used as a
The matter was investigated accountable in ensuring justification in
and hearings were that the Comptroller's termination cases.
conducted thereafter. Bravo Office observed the Managerial employees
was found guilty of serious company's established are treated differently
misconduct for which he procedures. It was than fiduciary rank-and-
was ordered to return the reasonable that he file employees.
overpayment of his monthly should be held liable by ● With respect to
salary. Upon receipt of the the respondent on the rank-and-file
termination letter, Bravo basis of command personnel, loss of
filed before the Executive responsibility. trust and
Labor Arbiter a complaint confidence as
for illegal dismissal which Considering that there ground for valid
was dismissed for lack of was a just cause for dismissal requires
merit. Upon his appeal, terminating Bravo from proof of
NLRC found Bravo’s employment, there is involvement in the
dismissal as illegal. Urios no basis to award him alleged events in
College assailed the NLRC separation pay and question, and that
decision before the Court of backwages. There are mere
Appeals which then also no factual and uncorroborated
reinstated the Executive legal bases to award assertions and
Labor Arbiter’s decision. attorney's fees to him. accusations by the
Aggrieved by the CA’s Hence, his petition for employer will not
decision, petitioner filed this review is DENIED. be sufficient.
petition for review. ● As regards a
managerial
employee, mere
existence of a
basis for believing
that such
employee has
breached the trust
of his employer
would suffice for
his dismissal.
Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not
required, it being
sufficient that there is
some basis for such
loss of confidence

Page 28 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Grieg The Court held that Settled is the rule that

Philippines, Inc. Gonzales’ leukemia for illness to be
v. Gonzales was work-related. The compensable, it is not
2000 Philippine necessary that the
Overseas Employment nature of the
Administration- employment be the
Standard Employment sole and only reason
Contract defines work- for the illness suffered
related illness as "any by the seafarer. It is
sickness resulting to sufficient that there is a
disability or death as a reasonable linkage
result of an between the disease
occupational disease suffered by the
listed under Section 32- employee and his work
A of this Contract with to lead a rational mind
the conditions set to conclude that his
therein satisfied." One f work may have
the diseases listed contributed to the
under the provision is establishment or, at the
acute myeloid leukemia very least, aggravation
secondary to prolonged of any pre-existing
benzene exposure. condition he might have
had.
As an Ordinary
Seaman, Gonzales’
tasks included
removing rust
accumulations and
refinishing affected
areas of the ship with
chemicals and paint to
retard the oxidation
process. This meant
that he was frequently
exposed to harmful
chemicals and cleaning
aids which may have
contained benzene.
Furthermore, Star
Florida transported
chemicals, which could
have also contributed
to Gonzales' leukemia.

Gonzales was also able

to present proof that
hisn leukemia was not
genetic in nature.

Gonzales was able to

satisfy the conditions
under Section 32-A and
establish a reasonable

Page 29 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

linkage between his job

as an Ordinary Seaman
and his leukemia. He
has submitted his
official job description,
which involved constant
exposure to chemicals.
It is also not disputed
that he contracted
leukemia only while he
was onboard Star
Florida since he was
certified to be fit for sea
duty prior to boarding
and his leukemia was
not genetic in nature.

Manggagawa ng At the NCMB, the Union Redundancy exists While a declaration of

Komunikasyon filed a Notice of Strike when the services of an redundancy is
sa Pilipinas v. charging PLDT with unfair employee are in excess ultimately a
PLDT, Inc. labor practice for dismissing of what is reasonably management decision
several of its employees on demanded by the in exercising its
G.R. No. 190389 | the ground of redundancy. actual requirements of business judgment, and
April 19, 2017 | However, pursuant to a the enterprise. For the the employer is not
Second Division Return-to-Work Order implementation of a obligated to keep in its
issued by the SOLE, PLDT redundancy program to payroll more
was directed to readmit all be valid, the employer employees than are
striking workers under the must comply with the needed for its day-to-
same terms and conditions following requirements: day operations,
prevailing before the strike. (1) Written notice management must not
Later on, the NLRC served to the violate the law nor
dismissed the Union’s employees and the declare redundancy
charge of unfair labor DOLE at least one without sufficient basis.
practice against PLDT, as month before the date
the redundancy program of retrenchment; (2) An Order of
was valid. Hence, the Payment of separation Reinstatement,
Union’s eventual recourse pay equivalent to at including backwages, is
to the SC contending that least one month pay or awarded by the LA to
the redundancy was invalid, at least one month pay an illegally dismissed
and that under Garcia v. for every year of employee pursuant to
PAL, an employee is still service, whichever is Article 294, Labor Code.
entitled to reinstatement or higher; (3) Good faith in A Return-to-Work
backwages if an Order of abolishing the Order is issued by the
Reinstatement by the LA is redundant positions; SOLE when he or she
later on reversed. and (4) Fair and assumes jurisdiction
reasonable criteria in over a labor dispute in
ascertaining what an industry that is
positions are to be considered
declared redundant. indispensable to the
national interest, and is
To establish good merely meant to
faith, the company maintain status quo
must provide while the main issue is

Page 30 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

substantial proof that being threshed out in

the services of the the proper forum.
employees are in
excess of what is
required of the
company, and that fair
and reasonable criteria
were used to determine
the redundant
positions. In this case,
PLDT’s declaration of
redundancy was
backed by substantial
evidence showing a
consistent decline for
operator-assisted calls
due to cheaper
alternatives like direct
dialing services, and
wireless
communication.
Redundancy is
ultimately a
management
prerogative, and the
wisdom or soundness
of such business
judgment is not subject
to discretionary review
by labor tribunals or
even the SC, as long
as the law was followed
and malicious or
arbitrary action was not
shown.

However, while PLDT

complied with the
notice requirement, it
did not give the
required separation
pay. In redundancy
cases, separation pay
is a statutory right. In
this case, the
terminated employees
who were with PLDT
for more than 15 years
only received a
separation pay of 75%
of their basic pay for
every year of service,
despite the clear

Page 31 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

wording of the law.

Lastly, the case of

Garcia is not
applicable. In this case,
there is no Order of
Reinstatement from the
LA. What was issued
was a Return-to-Work
Order by the SOLE.
The two are different.
Clearly, Garcia is not
applicable in the case
at bar, and there is no
basis to reinstate the
employees who were
terminated as a result
of redundancy.

Madridejos v. Madridejos was a Filipino Madridejos cannot For an illness to be

NYK-Fil Ship seafarer hired by NYK-FIL, claim disability benefits compensable with
Management, a registered local manning since he was not disability benefits, it is
Inc. agency operating by virtue medically repatriated. not necessary that the
of Philippine laws for its However, even nature of the
G.R. No. 204262 | foreign principal, assuming that he was, employment be the
June 7, 2017 | International Cruise he still cannot claim for sole and only reason
Second Division Services. Madridejos signed disability benefits since for the illness suffered
an employment contract his sebaceous cyst was by the seafarer. It is
with NYK-FIL as a Demi not work-related. enough that there is a
Chef. Madridejos Illnesses not listed as reasonable linkage
commenced to work aboard an occupational between the disease
the vessel. Two weeks disease under Sec. 32 suffered by the
after, he claimed that he of the 2000 POEA employee and his work
suddenly slipped on a metal Standard Terms and to lead a rational mind
stairway and fell down, Conditions Governing to conclude that his
hitting his abdomen and the Employment of work may have
chest on a metal pipe. He Filipino Seafarers on contributed to the
was brought to the ship Board Ocean-Going establishment or, at the
doctor and was diagnosed Vessels are disputably very least, aggravation
to have a sebaceous cyst. presumed to be work- of any pre-existing
After two months, NYK-FIL related. However, condition he might have
terminated Madridejos’ seafarers must prove had.
services through its foreign through substantial
principal. Madridejos evidence the
insisted that he did not correlation between
finish his employment their illness and the
contract with NYK-FIL due nature of their work for
to his unwanted health their claim for disability
condition. Not being at fault benefits to prosper.
for the pre-termination of his Madridejos cannot
employment contract, he solely rely on the
made demands upon NYK- disputable
FIL to pay his disability presumption. For his

Page 32 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

benefits. failure to substantiate

his claim that his cyst
was either work-related
or work-aggravated, he
cannot be granted
relief. Courts cannot
presuppose.

Furthermore, it was
already settled that
Madridejos was not
repatriated due to his
alleged medical
condition but due to the
expiration of his
contract as a
probationary employee.
Clearly, it becomes
unnecessary for NYK-
FIL to overcome the
disputable presumption
that Madridejos' illness
was work-related.

Padilla v. Padilla was hired by The SC held that (1) Placing security
Airborne Airborne Security Service Padilla was guards on floating
Security Service as a security guard and constructively status is a valid
rendered service for 23 dismissed. Temporary exercise of
GR No. 210080 | years. In 2009, he was displacement or management
Nov. 22, 2017 | informed that the agency temporary off-detail of a prerogative. However,
Third Division had a hard time finding an security guard is, any such placement on
assignment for him since he generally, allowed in a off-detail should not
was already over 38 years situation where a exceed six (6) months.
old. He allegedly was asked security agency's client Otherwise, constructive
to resign but he refused. decided not to renew dismissal shall be
Still not having been their service contract deemed to have
deployed or re-assigned in with the agency and no occurred. Security
2010, he filed a complaint post is available for the guards dismissed in
for illegal dismissal. relieved security guard. this manner are
Respondents counter that But, when the floating ordinarily entitled to
(1) he was relieved from his status lasts for more reinstatement.
post because of a client's than 6 months, the
request, (2) and abandoned employee is considered (2) The assignment
his work. The CA ruled that constructively given to a ‘floating’
Padilla was placed on dismissed. A security security guard within 6
floating status for only 2 guard's-employer must months must be to a
months. The temporary ‘off give a new assignment specific or particular
detail’ or placing on within six (6) months. client. A general return-
‘floating’ status of security This assignment must to-work order does not
guards for less than 6 be to a specific or suffice.
months does not amount to particular client. A
dismissal. general return-to-work (3) It is unreasonable to
order does not suffice. deny employees their

Page 33 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

means of earning a
The letters requiring living exclusively on the
Padilla to report to basis of age when
office did not identify there is no other
any specific client to indication that they are
which he was to be incapable of performing
reassigned. Hence, their functions. Age, per
they were nothing more se, is not a reliable
than general return-to- indication of physical
work orders. stamina or mental rigor.
What is crucial in
Padilla also did not determining capacity
abandon his work. The for continuing
2 requisites of (1) employment is an
failure to report for work assessment of an
without a valid or employee's state of
justifiable reason and health.
(2) clear intention to
sever the employer-
employee relationship
was absent. The SC
held that the second
element must be
manifested by some
overt acts. Padilla’s act
of immediately calling
the agency and
personally reporting to
inquire do not show
abandonment.
Furthermore, this is
belied by his 24 years
of uninterrupted service
and immediate filing of
a complaint for illegal
dismissal.

Sharpe Sea Mabunay was hired as an The SC took note that The company-
Personnel Inc. v. oiler for 9 months. When he the company- designated physicians'
Mabunay boarded M/V Larisa, he designated physician’s failure to arrive at a
slipped and hit his back Grade 8 disability rating final and definite
GR No. 206113 | while cleaning, but was was belatedly issued assessment of a
Nov. 6, 2017 | made to continue working. with insufficient seafarer's fitness to
Third Division He was then brought to a justification of the work or level of
hospital and was declared delay. Nonetheless, it disability within the
unfit to work by the was only an interim prescribed periods
attending physician. He was disability rating. A means that the seafarer
repatriated to Manila, and company­ designated shall be deemed to be
was told to report to the physician is expected totally and permanently
company-designated to come up with a disabled.
physician. He underwent definite assessment of
physical therapies and a seafarer's fitness or if those injuries or
surgeries, as advised by the lack of fitness to work disabilities with a

Page 34 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

company-designated or to determine the disability grading from 2

physician. The company- seafarer's degree of to 14, hence, partial
designated physician disability within a period and permanent, would
belatedly gave a report with of 120 or 240 days from incapacitate a seafarer
a Grade 8 disability rating. repatriation, depending from performing his
He then claimed on the need for further usual sea duties for a
reimbursement for medical medical treatment. If period of more than
expenses and total disability the physician fails to do 120 or 240 days,
benefits. He sought the so, the employee is depending on the need
opinion of 2 surgeons who considered totally and for further medical
deemed him unfit to work. permanently disabled. treatment, then he is,
. An interim disability under legal
grading is merely an contemplation, totally
initial prognosis and and permanently
does not provide disabled.
sufficient basis for an
award of disability If a doctor appointed by
benefits. the seafarer disagrees
with the assessment of
It was also impossible the company-
to engage the opinion designated physician, a
of a third doctor jointly third doctor may be
agreed upon as agreed jointly between
provided in the POEA- the Employer and the
SEC, since 240 days seafarer. The third
had already lapsed doctor's decision shall
since his repatriation be final and binding on
yet the company- both parties.
designated physician
had not given him a
disability rating.

Demex Leron was hired as a The Supreme Court Although abandonment

Rattancraft Inc. weaver by Demex held that Leron was of work is not expressly
v. Leron Rattancraft, Inc. (Demex), a NOT validly dismissed enumerated as a just
domestic corporation from service. cause under Article 297
G.R. No. 204288 | engaged in manufacturing of the Labor Code,
Nov. 8, 2017 | handcrafted rattan products Demex’s evidence jurisprudence has
Third Division for local sale and export. does not clearly recognized it as a form
Leron was dismissed by establish a case of of or akin to neglect of
Demex's foreman and abandonment. duty.
Demex's personnel Petitioners failed to
manager. prove the second Abandonment of work
element of has been construed as
On June 28, 2006, Leron abandonment (clear "a clear and deliberate
did not report for work. The intention to sever the intent to discontinue
next day, he filed a employer-employee one's employment
complaint against Demex relationship), which is without any intention of
for illegal dismissal. regarded by this Court returning back."
as the more decisive
Meanwhile, Demex factor. To justify the dismissal
construed Leron's failure to of an employee on this

Page 35 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

report to work as an Intent to sever the ground, two (2)

absence without leave. On employer-employee elements must concur,
July 3, 2006, Demex sent relationship can be namely: "(a) the failure
Leron a notice requiring him proven through the to report for work or
to return to work on July 5, overt acts of an absence without valid
2006. This was personally employee. or justifiable reason;
served to Leron by one of and, (b) a clear
his co-employees. On July In this case, Leron filed intention to sever the
7, 2006, Demex sent an illegal dismissal employer-employee
another notice to Leron case against petitioners relationship.
requiring him to report to on June 29, 2006, the
work. Despite having day after he was Mere failure to report to
received these two notices, unceremoniously work is insufficient to
Leron did not resume his dismissed by his support a charge of
post. On July 12, 2006, superiors on June 28, abandonment. The
Leron received a third 2006. employer must adduce
notice from Demex clear evidence of the
informing him of its decision Leron’s non- employee's "deliberate,
to terminate his services on compliance with the unjustified refusal . . . to
the ground of return-to-work notices resume his [or her]
abandonment. and his alleged act of employment," which is
crumpling the first manifested through the
return-to-work notice employee's overt acts.
are equivocal acts that
fail to show a clear
intention to sever his
employment. Strained
relations caused by
being legitimately
disappointed after
being unfairly treated
could explain the
employee's hesitation
to report back
immediately. If any, his
actuations only explain
that he has a
grievance, not that he
wanted to abandon his
work entirely.

Perea v. Elburg Perea entered into a The Court ruled that The doctor who has
Shipmanagement Contract of Employment Perea is not entitled to personal knowledge of
Philippines Inc. with Elburg disability benefits. the actual medical
Shipmanagement condition, having
G.R. No. 206178 | Philippines, Inc. (Elburg) For an illness or injury closely, meticulously
Aug. 9, 2017 | where he was hired as a to be compensable and regularly monitored
Second Division fitter for a period of nine under the POEA and actually treated the
months. Several months Contract, it must have seafarer's illness, is

Page 36 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

into working, Perea been work-related and more qualified to

experienced difficulty acquired during the assess the seafarer's
breathing and chest pains term of the seafarer's disability
with palpitations. He was contract. It is not
also involved in an accident disputed that Perea
where the torch he was was treated for injuries
holding exploded. He hit his and hypertension
left shoulder and twisted his during the term of his
fingers in trying to avoid the contract.
explosion. He was soon
repatriated to the This Court sees no
Philippines. reason to distrust Dr.
Hao-Quan and Dr.
After conducting laboratory Lim's assessment of
examinations and other Perea's condition
medical procedures on considering that they
Perea, company-designated were able to monitor
physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan Perea's condition over
and Dr. Lim, concluded that a prolonged period. As
the cause of Perea’s between the findings
hypertension was not work- made by the company-
related. designated physicians
who conducted an
Perea filed a complaint for extensive examination
underpayment of his sick on the petitioner and
leave pay, permanent Dr. Pascual who saw
disability benefits, petitioner on only one
compensatory, moral and occasion and did not
exemplary damages, and even order that medical
attorney's fees. tests be done to
support his declaration
Perea consulted another that petitioner is unfit to
physician, Dr. Pascual, who work as a seaman, the
diagnosed him with company-designated
"Uncontrolled Hypertension physicians' findings that
and Coronary Artery petitioner has been
Disease." The doctor found cleared for work should
Perea to be medically unfit prevail.
to work as a seafarer.

After a series of
examinations, the company-
designated physicians
certified that Perea was
cleared of the injuries that
caused his repatriation.

Magsaysay Magsaysay Maritime The Court ruled that the (1) A conditional
Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) petition for certiorari settlement of a
Corporation v. hired Bernardine De Jesus was in fact moot and judgment award may
De Jesus (Bernardine) as an academic. The parties be treated as a
Accommodation Supervisor entered into a compromise agreement

Page 37 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

GR No. 203943 | for the cruise ship Regal compromise agreement and a judgment on the
August 30, 2017 | Princess. when they executed a merits of the case if it
Third Division Conditional Satisfaction turns out to be highly
2 months after his contract of Judgement Award. prejudicial to one of the
ended, Bernardine was Parties freely enter into parties.
diagnosed with an aortic a compromise
aneurysm and died 2 agreement, making it a (2) One may still be
months after his judgement on the entitled to death
repatriation. merits of the case with benefits even if the
the effect of res death occurs after the
A year later, his widow, judicata upon them. contract has terminated
Cynthis De Jesus (Cynthia) as provided for in Sec
filed a complaint against While the general rule 21-A of POEA SEC so
Magysaysay for “payment is that a valid long as following
of death benefits, medical compromise agreement conditions are met:
expenses, sickness has the power to render 1. The work involves
allowance, damages, and a pending case moot the risks described
Atty Fees.” and academic, being a 2. The disease was
contract, the parties contracted as a result
The Labor Arbiter ruled in may opt to modify the of the seafarer’s
favour of Cynthia saying legal effects of their exposure to the risks
she sufficiently established compromise agreement 3. The disease was
that her husband suffered to prevent the pending contracted within a
chest pains while he was case from becoming period of exposure and
still aboard the Regal moot. under such other
Princess. factors necessary to
In this case, both contract it
The NLRC upheld the LA’s parties agreed that the 4. There was no
decision saying that payment was without notorious negligence
although the general rule is prejudice to the on the part of the
that the death must have pending case. The seafarer
occurred during the term of widow even agreed to
the employment contract, return whatever she
an exception to the rule is if would have received if
he contracts an illness while the LA’s decision was
under the contract and this reversed. However, in
illness caused his death. the affidavit of heirship,
Cynthia was prohibited
Magsaysay filed a petition from pursuing any other
for certiorari with the CA available legal remedy
and later paid Cynthia a should the LA’s
conditional satisfaction of decision be reversed.
the judgement award This puts the seafarer’s
without prejudice to the heirs at a
petition filed before the CA. disadvantage. The
The CA dismissed the case “conditional” settlement
for being moot and of the judgement still
academic. operates in such a way
that the case is
Magsaysay filed a petition rendered moot and
for certiorari with the SC academic.
saying that the case was
not moot by the mere fact Despite ruling that the

Page 38 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

that it paid the LA’s award case is moot and

to the widow. It argued that academic, the Court
the widow is estopped from still ruled on the issue
arguing that the case is of whether or not the
moot and academic heirs of a seafarer are
because she accepted the entitled to death
payment knowing it was benefits when the
without prejudice to the death occurs after the
pending case before the employment contract
CA. has terminated. The
Court ruled in the
affirmative.

Sec 21-A of POEA

SEC acknowledges the
possibility of
“compensation for the
death of the seafarer
occuring after the
employment contract
on account of a work-
related illness so long
as the following
conditions are met:
1. The work involves
the risks described
2. The disease was
contracted as a result
of the seafarer’s
exposure to the risks
3. The disease was
contracted within a
period of exposure and
under such other
factors necessary to
contract it
4. There was no
notorious negligence
on the part of the
seafarer

Sec 32-A (11) of the

POEA-SEC also
provided for the
conditions to be met for
cardio-vascular
disease.

The Supreme Court

upheld the finding of
fact of the LA that such
illness was contracted
during Bernardine’s

Page 39 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

employment.

Cristobal v. Cristobal worked as a pilot The Supreme Court Where a tribunal

Philippine for PAL. He filed for a leave held that the motion for renders a decision
Airlines of absence without pay to reconsideration filed substantially reversing
enter into a 4 year contract was not a prohibited itself on a matter, a
GR No. 201622 | with EVA Air. PAL approved second motion for motion for
Oct 4, 2017 | Third the application and told him reconsideration. reconsideration seeking
Division that he will continue to reconsideration of this
accrue seniority during this Rule VII Sec 15 of the reversal, for the first
period and also told him NLRC Rules of time, is not a prohibited
that he could opt to retire. A Procedure provides second motion for
year later, Cristobal advised that only one motion for reconsideration.
PAL of his intent to retire reconsideration shall be
and in response PAL told entertained.
him that he was deemed to
have lost employment when The general rule is that
he entered into a contract parties are prohibited
with EVA Air. Cristobal filed from questioning a
a complaint with the NLRC. decision, resolution, or
order, twice. However,
The LA ruled in favour of a decision substantially
Cristobal saying that his reversing a
dismissal was illegal and determination in a prior
that he was entitled to decision is a discrete
retirement pay in the decision from the
amount provided for by Art earlier one. An
287 of the Labor Code and Amended Decision is
damages. an entirely new
decision which
The NLRC deleted the supersedes the original
award for moral and decision, for which a
exemplary damages. new motion for
Cristobal filed a motion for reconsideration may be
Reconsideration. They filed again.
upheld the deletion of
damages and they also Here the NLRC’s
reduced the retirement second decision
benefits saying that such substantially modified
should not be computed the first. Given this, the
based on Art 287 because petitioner was not
Cristobal was not yet 60 precluded from seeking
years old. Instead, Cristobal a reconsideration of the
should receive P5000 per new decision.
year of service as provided
for by the 1967 PAL-ALPAP
Retirement Plan. Cristobal
filed a motion for
reconsideration but the
NLRC denied this outright
seeing it as a second
motion for reconsideration.

Page 40 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Page 41 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

2016
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

Republic v. Due to Bicolandia Sugar In this case, the APT No EER is created by
National Labor Development Corp.’s (BSDC) was initially not liable to the APT’s acquisition of
Relations (a government asset), pay for the separation government assets for
Commission continued failure to pay its benefits, as its privatization. It is not
loan obligations, Asset acquisition of BSDC obliged to pay money
G.R. No. 174747 | Privatization Trust (APT) was merely to prepare claims arising from the
March 9, 2016 | acquired the interests of said it for privatization and EER, except when it
Second Division company in order to not to continue BSDC’s voluntarily holds itself
conserve its assets for business. As such, the liable to pay.
privatization. Later on, the APT never became the
APT began the privatization substitute employer of Under Article 298,
of BSDC. Due to this, it the employees. Labor Code, the
issued Notices of However, the APT termination of
Termination to BSDC’s voluntarily obliged itself employees to prevent
employees. After the to pay the employees business losses is
dismissal of the employees, separation benefits in allowed provided that
the assets and properties of the event of the the employer pays
BSDC were sold. The Union BSDC’s privatization. separation benefits.
then filed a complaint against The employer may be
APT and BSDC for unfair Under Proclamation exempted from paying
labor practice and union- No. 50, no EER is said benefits if closure
busting, and claimed created by the APT’s was due to serious
separation benefits. acquisition of business losses. A
government assets for business suffers from
privatization. It is not serious business losses
obliged to pay money when it has operated at
claims arising from the a loss for such a period
EER, except when it of time that its financial
voluntarily holds itself stability is unlikely to
liable to pay. improve in the future.

The APT then tried

contending that it could
not be made liable to
pay, as BSDC’s closure
was due to serious
business losses. In this
case, BSDC obtained
large loans from PNB
to cover substantial
losses. When the APT
acquired the interests
over BSDC, said loans
were acquired as well.
With the loans, the
financial standing of
BSDC clearly showed
serious business
losses. BSDC would
have been exempted

Page 42 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

from paying separation

benefits.

Under Article 298,

Labor Code, the
termination of
employees to prevent
business losses is
allowed provided that
the employer pays
separation benefits.
The employer may be
exempted from paying
said benefits if closure
was due to serious
business losses. A
business suffers from
serious business losses
when it has operated at
a loss for such a period
of time that its financial
stability is unlikely to
improve in the future.

However, this
exemption only applies
to the employer
(BSDC) and not the
APT who had already
voluntarily obligated
itself to pay the
separation benefits.

Philippine When PAL was privatized, The Supreme Court The employer has the
Airlines, Inc. v. the new owners acquired ruled that the burden of proving that
Dawal PAL’s alleged aging fleet and complainants were the dismissal of its
overly manned workforce. illegally dismissed. employees is with a
G.R. No. 173921 | However, due to the Asian valid and authorized
Feb. 24, 2016 | Financial Crisis & the 3 week The complainants cause. The employer’s
Second Division strike of pilots, the company likewise allege that the failure to discharge this
had to sell the Maintenance financial statements burden makes the
and Engineering Department. presented were mere dismissal illegal.
No consultation meeting with machine copies, hence
the union, however, as the alleged losses (to The union has the
required under the CBA, was sustain a valid burden of proving, by
conducted with the sale of retrenchment) were not substantial evidence,
the department to Lufthansa proved by sufficient and its allegation of unfair
Inc. PAL alleges this is due convincing evidence. labor practice.
to the ongoing protest of the The SC ruled that
union election results. PAL employees, not PAL
then issued primers to (who is invoking the
address questions regarding non-application of
the spin-off, under which technical rules) can

Page 43 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

some PAL employees were invoke the liberal

to be retrenched. After interpretation rule.
signing a release, waiver and Employees almost
quitclaim, the complainants always have no
were given separation possession of the
packages. PAL issued a company’s financial
Notice of Separation to statement. Further, it is
affected employees giving for PAL to prove the
them the option of court the validity of
employment from Lufthansa terminations due to
in case the latter chooses to alleged business
hire them, or if not, a lower losses.
rank for a lesser salary.
When PAL spun off the PAL also failed to show
engineering and the reasonable
maintenance department, it necessity for the
created the Technical retrenchment. It did not
Services Department. resort to less drastic
PALEA and Dawal et. al. filed and elss permanent
a case for ULP and illegal cost-cutting measures.
dismissal.
There was also no
good faith. Although it
gave separation
packages over and
beyond what is
required by the Labor
Code, it engates the
alleged dire financial
condition. Further, it
effectively
circumvented the
security of tenure and
seniority rights of its
enduring employees. It
claimed it was
overmanned but
offered new jobs to the
dismissed employees.

The complaint for ULP,

however, cannot
prosper. The union nor
Dawal failed to
discharge the burden to
prove its allegation.
PAL did not single out
between union and
non-union members.
Dawal et al were
dismissed before the
submission of CBA
proposals, hence they

Page 44 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

cannot claim their

dismissal was to
prevent the
renegotiation of the
CBA. PAL validly
declined to meet
because of the protests
to the election results.
Further, violations of a
CBA are only treated
as ULP when they are
gross and related to the
economic provisions.
The provisions on Job
Security are non-
economic in nature.

SONEDCO
Workers Free
Labor Union v.
Universal Robina
Corp.

Nonay v. Bahia Nonay worked as a casino The SC upheld the CA (1) If the illness
Shipping attendant for Bahia Shipping decision. contracted by a
Services, Inc. and worked aboard the M/S seafarer is not listed
Breamer. During her The SC ruled that under the 2000 POEA-
GR No. 206758 | employment it was found that although an SEC, it may still be
Feb 17, 2016 | she had 2 ovarian cysts. She Adenomyoma is not disputably presumed to
Second Division was medically repatriated included among the be work-related or
and was referred to the occupational diseases work-aggravated.
company-designated listed in the POEA
physician. She was Standard Employment For disability benefits to
diagnosed with “Abnormal Contract, Sec 20(B)(4) be granted, the relation
Uterine Bleeding Secondary states that those not of the disease
to an Adenomyosis with listed are disputably contracted to the work
Adenomyoma.” presumed work related. done by the seafarer,
or that the work
Nonay was not declared fit to While the law aggravated the
work by the end of the 120- recognizes that any disease, must be
day period from her illness may be sufficiently proven by
repatriation but was declared disputably presumed to substantial evidence.
“fit to resume sea duties” be work-related, the An illness cannot be
within the 240-day period. seafarer/claimant must automatically
still show a reasonable considered a total and
Nonay filed a complaint for connection between the permanent disability
payment of disability benefit, nature of the work simply because there
medical expenses, moral and onboard the vessel and was no certification that
exemplary damages, and the illness one was fit to work after
atty fees. The LA and the contracted/aggravated. 120 days.
NLRC ruled in favour of Stressing the ruling in
Nonay. Quizora v. Denholm (2) The general rule is

Page 45 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Crew Management, the that in case there is a

The CA nullified the LA’s seafarer cannot simply conflict between the
ruling saying that Nonay rely on the disputable findings of the company
failed to provide substantial presumption provided physician and the
evidence to prove her in the POEA-SEC. He personal physician of
allegation that her illness was still has to substantiate the seafarer, he must
work-related. his claim in order to be consult a third-party
entitled to disability physician. If the
compensation. A seafarer fails to do this,
causal connection the findings of the
between the illness and company physician
the work contracted shall prevail unless, the
must be established. finding of the company
physician is found to be
In this case, Nonay clearly biased in favor
alleged that she of the employer.
developed her illness
because she constantly
had to walk upward and
downward onboard the
vessel carrying loads.
She did not however,
discuss the duties of a
Casino Attendant. She
also failed to show the
causation between
walking, carrying heavy
loads, and the
adenomyoma. She
simply asserts that
since her illness
developed while she
was on board the
vessel, it was work
related.

The Court also stated

that the company
physician was justified
in not issuing whether
she was fit to work or
not after the 120 day
period. This is because
her treatment required
more than 120 days.
Her illness could not be
automatically
considered a total and
permanent disability
simply because there
was no certification that
she was fit to work after
120 days.

Page 46 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

As to the supposed
conflict between
Nonay’s personal
physician and the
company physician, the
general rule is that the
seafarer must consult a
third-doctor as provided
for by POEA-SEC. The
general rule is that if
the seafarer fails to
consult a third doctor,
the findings of the
company physician
shall prevail. The
exception to this is if
the company
physician’s findings are
clearly biased in favor
of the employer. Such
bias may be shown if
there is no scientific
relation between the
diagnosis and the
symptoms felt by the
seafarer, or if the final
assessment is not
supported by the
medical records.

In this case, the

company physician was
a OBGYN while
Nonay’s personal
physician was an
orthopedic surgeon.
The company physician
was more qualified to
make the assessment.

Page 47 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

2015
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

Far East Bank v. Chua was the Assistant The Court reversed the The rule in civil
Chua Vice President at Far East CA Resolution, and procedure that
Bank, but her employment ruled in favor of Far “although the issue of
G.R. No. 187491 | was terminated after it was East Bank. jurisdiction may be
July 8, 2015 | found out that she was raised at any stage of
Second Division engaging in multiple “kiting” Although Chua was the proceedings, a
transactions, which are correct in saying that party may nonetheless
fradulent transactions Rule VI, Sec. 4 of the be barred from raising
involving the drawing out of New Rules of Procedure it on the ground of
a money from a bank of the NLRC stipulates laches or estoppel”
account that does not have that appeals must be equally applies to
sufficient funds in order to filed with the Regional quasi-judicial agencies.
cover a check. Arbitration Branch
instead of the NLRC, Under the 1999 New
Chua filed a Complaint for that requirement is not Rules of Procedure of
illegal dismissal. The LA one of the requisites for the NLRC, proper
found that Chua was perfecting an appeal, as venue of filing appeal is
illegally dismissed. Far East enumerated in Rule VI, not a requisite for
Bank directly filed an appeal Sec. 3. Proper venue for perfecting an appeal.
with the NLRC, rather than filing appeals is thus not
before the Regional a requisite for perfecting
Arbitration Branch, in an appeal. In any event,
accordance with Rule VI, the same NLRC Rules
Sec. 3, 1999 New Rules of of Procedure allow for a
Procedure of the NLRC. liberal application of
The NLRC eventually procedural rules.
reversed the LA’s decision.
Chua also belatedly
Chua filed a petition for raised the procedural
certiorari to the CA, arguing issue with the CA, and
that Far East Bank’s appeal is now estopped from
was not perfected because questioning the
it was filed with the wrong jurisdiction of the NLRC.
place. Far East Bank Chua actively
argues that the NLRC has participated in the
discretion in admitting proceedings of the
appeals filed directly with it NLRC, and is deemed
on reasonable and to have acquiesced to
meritorious grounds, and Far East Bank’s filing of
that the NLRC was merely a direct appeal to the
relying on the rule set by NLRC. She cannot now
jurisprudence that profit from her own
technicalities in labor cases inaction.
must yield to substantial
justice. The CA eventually
ruled for Chua, and
reversed the NLRC
Resolution.

Dayo v. Status Dayo was hired by Status The Court affirmed the In cases where the

Page 48 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

Maritime Maritime Corporation as a CA’s decision. death of the seafarer

Corporation bosun for a period of 10 occurs after the
months starting June 8, The Court ruled that termination of the
2008. While on board, he although a worker’s employment contract
was diagnosed with death need not occur on account of a work-
hypertension and was during the term of the related illness, the
repatriated. employment contract to claimant under the
count to qualify for 2000 POEA Standard
Dayo requested for medical death benefits, the Employment Contract
assistance from Status and causation between the must fulfill the
was sent to the company- nature of employment following:
designated physician, who and the aggravation of
diagnosed Dayo with the illness must still be 1. The seafarer’s
diabetes mellitus. Status proven before the work must involve
stopped giving Eduardo benefit may be granted. the risks described
medical assistance in herein;
February 2009. Dayo In this case, Flor was 2. The disease was
eventually died on June 11, unable to show how the contracted as a
2009 of cardiopulmonary nature of Dayo’s work result of the
arrest. as a bosun contributed seafarer’s
to the development or exposure to the
Dayo’s wife, Flor, requested the aggravation of his described risks;
for death benefits, but was illness. 3. The disease was
denied, so she filed a contracted within a
complaint. Status, in In fact, Flor even period of exposure
denying death benefits, presented the results of and under such
claimed that his illness was Dayo’s medical other factors
not work-related. examination with his necessary to
private physician contract it;
The LA ruled in favor of Flor conducted after his 4. There was no
and awarded death repatriation, which notorious
benefits, burial expenses, showed that his 2D negligence on the
and attorney’s fees, but this echocardiogram was part of the
was reversed by the NLRC. normal. This militates seafarer.
against Flor’s argument
The CA affirmed the NLRC that Dayo’s claim for Death benefits will also
Resolution, stating that death benefits. be granted in cases
diabetes mellitus is not an when employment
occupational disease. Since Similarly Dayo’s “fit to aggravates a pre-
Dayo died after the term of work” certification which existing illness.
his contract with Status, and showed that Dayo was However, the causation
since Flor failed to fit to work, which Flor between the nature of
substantiate her allegation claims shows that Dayo employment and the
that Dayo’s illness and contracted the disease aggravation of the
cause of death were work- while a bosun, cannot illness must still be
related, Flor could not be be conclusive proof proved.
awarded death benefits. because the pre-
employment medical A pre-employment
examination (PEME) medical examination
merely reveals enough only determines
for a company to decide whether one is “fit to
whether a seafarer is fit work” at sea, and does
for overseas not state the real health

Page 49 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

employment, it may not of an applicant. Thus, a

be relied upon to inform PEME cannot be
the company of a conclusive proof to
seafarer’s true state of show that one was free
health. from any ailment prior
to deployment.

G.J.T. Rebuilders G.J.T. Rebuilders operated The Court affirmed the To prove serious
v. Ambos a machine shop in Far East CA, and ruled for the 3 business losses, one
Asia Building. When a fire employees. needs to prove a
partially destroyed the continuing pattern of
building, the building’s G.J.T. only presented its loss within a sufficient
owners notified its tenants financial statement period of time. Two
to vacate the building. covering the fiscal years fiscal years is not
Nevertheless, G.J.T. 1996 and 1997, where it sufficient to fulfill this
continued to operate in the earned a net income in requirement. Failure to
building. When the building 1996, and a net loss in prove serious business
owners finally refused to 1997. The two-year losses as the rationale
accommodate them, they period covered by the for closure renders the
closed the machine shop financial statement was business liable to pay
and retired its business. Its insufficient for G.J.T. to separation pay to its
employees Ricardo, prove the business employees.
Russell, and Benjamin were would not recover from
not paid separation pay, the loss. G.J.T. needs to Even if employers
which led them to file a show that there was a validly close their
complaint for illegal continuing pattern of businesses, if they do
dismissal. loss within a sufficient not comply with the
period of time. In this requirement to serve a
G.J.T. argued that it case, G.J.T. even written notice of
suffered serious business earned a net income in closure to its
losses and financial one of the 2 years employees at least 1
reverses, which made them presented. month before the
not liable to pay separation intended date of
pay to its employees. G.J.T. is also liable to closure, they will be
pay nominal damages to liable to pay nominal
The LA did not find any its employees for not damages.
convincing proof of G.J.T.’s complying with the
alleged serious business notice requirement in
losses, and awarded Art. 283 of the Labor
separation pay to the 3 Code when it closed its
employees. business without
informing its employees
The NLRC reversed the LA, in advance. The law
and found serious business requires a written notice
losses as a result of the fire of closure served on the
that damaged the building. affected employees at
least 1 month before the
The CA reversed the NLRC, intended date of
arguing that since G.J.T. closure. Since G.J.T.
continued its business for only informed its
more than one year after employees two months
the fire, it did not suffer after it had closed its
serious business losses but business, it was liable to

Page 50 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

closed the machine shop to pay nominal damages.

prevent further losses.

Manalo v. Ateneo
de Naga
University

Rivera v.
Genesis
Transport

Ceprado v.
Nationwide
Security

Pascual v. Petitioners Pascual and The SC first ruled that 1) An appeal of the
Caniogan Credit Terencio were appointed by the case had become outright dismissal of a
and the former Board of moot and academic with petition for
Development Directors of Respondent the finality of the certiorari against an
Caniogan Credit and judgment by default interlocutory order of a
G.R. No. 172980 | Development Cooperative rendered on July 20, lower court becomes
July 22, 2015 | (CCDC) to act as the 2006 by RTC Br.12. moot and academic
2nd Division cooperative’s General Nonetheless, even on where, during its
Manager and Collection the merits, the Court pendency, judgment on
Manager, respectively, from ruled that the petition the merits has been
start of operations until they must be denied. rendered in the main
reach the compulsory age case and has become
of retirement of 65. When The SC found that CA final and executory.
petitioners reached their correctly dismissed
retirement age, they still petitioners’ Rule 65 2) Pursuant to Sec.
continued serving in their Petition since there was 121 of RA 6928, an
respective positions. In no exceptional intra-cooperative
2005, the Board of Directors circumstance to justify dispute between two
of CCDC passed a petitioners’ omission to officers on one hand
resolution terminating them the general rule that a and the Board of
but despite this, petitioners motion for Directors on the other
still refused to vacate their reconsideration is falls within the
positions indispensable before jurisdiction of the
resort to the special civil regular courts, not of
Upon a complaint by the action for certiorari is the Labor Arbiter.
respondent and its new made.
General Manager, RTC 3) Distinction
Br.12 issued a TRO The Court said that between an officer
enjoining the petitioners for petitioner’s allegation and an employee:
a period of 20 days from that the trial court was - An “office” is
performing the functions of unable to resolve their created by the
their offices. Petitioners many motions for a long charter of the
then filed a Motion to time is belied by the corporation and the
Dismiss with prayer to defer facts on record since officer is elected by
all proceedings, questioning their Motions to Dismiss the directors or
the RTC’s jurisdiction and to lift the TRO were stockholders.
because the case allegedly resolved after a little On the other hand, an
involves a labor dispute in over one month from its “employee” usually

Page 51 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

the guise of an injunction. filing. , occupies no office and

Finding that the case generally is employed
involves a dispute between However, SC disagreed not by action of the
the Board of Directors and with CA’s observation directors or
officers of CCDC, RTC that prior recourse to the stockholders but by the
Br.12 re-raffled it to RTC modes of settlement managing officer of the
branch 79 which is under Article 121 of RA corporation who also
specifically assigned to hear 6938 and Section 8 of determines the
and decide intracorporate RA 6939 should have compensation to be
disputes. However, RTC br. been made before paid to such employee.
79 then returned the case seeking judicial relief
to Br. 12 because the case because before the
is not an intra-corporate respondents filed the
dispute but an intra- complaint with the trial
cooperative one. On March court the dispute was,
3, 2006, RTC Br. 12 issued first referred to the
the Order denying the Regional Office of the
Motion to Dismiss for lack of Cooperative
merit because the case Development Authority
involves an intra- (CDA) for mediation and
cooperative dispute. On arbitration but no
July 20, 2006, the same settlement was reached
RTC branch permanently therein.
enjoined petitioners from
assuming the positions of Finally, as regards
General Manager and jurisdiction, the SC held
Collection Manager of that CA was correct in
respondent CCDC and ruling that the case
ordered them to pay it, involves an intra-
jointly and severally, the cooperative dispute
sum of P50,000.00 as which falls within the
attorney’s fees and the jurisdiction of the regular
costs of suit. courts under Sec. 121 of
RA 6938 since there is
Aggrieved by the RTC’s evidently no employment
decision, Petitioners relationship between the
challenged the same in the parties.
CA but the said Court
dismissed said action, Here, petitioners were
holding that it was officers of respondent
premature because (1) CCDC and were
petitioners did not file a appointed directly by the
motion for reconsideration former Board of
of the impugned Regional Directors according to
Trial Court Order; and (2) the bylaws of
the case involved an intra- respondent CCDC, and
cooperative dispute, and their salaries were
there was no showing that likewise set by the same
prior recourse to the modes Board. Hence, their
of settlement required in termination is clearly an
Article 121 of R.A. 693823 inter-cooperative matter.
and Section 8 of R.A.
693924 were resorted to Besides, petitioners’

Page 52 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

before seeking judicial relief participation constitutes

and intervention. Petitioners their in the
filed a Motion for mediation/conciliation
Reconsideration but it was proceedings before the
likewise denied, hence this CDA is an Implied
petition. acceptance that the
dispute is an intra-
cooperative one.

Milan v. NLRC Herein petitioners are The court held that the An employer is allowed
employees of private employer was justified in to withhold terminal
GR NO. 202961 | respondent Solid Mills. Out withholding petitioners' pay and benefits
February 4, 2015 | of liberality and for benefits and separation pending the
Second Division convenience of its pays pending the employee’s return of its
employees, Solid Mills settlement of the properties.
allowed petitioners and their employees’
families to occupy a accountabilities with the The law supports the
property they owned. In company. employers’ institution of
2013, Solid Mills went clearance procedures
through serious business The SC ruled that as an exception to the
losses. Such was clearance procedures general rule that wages
recognized by the National are standard among may not be withheld
Federation of Labor Unions employers to ensure and benefits may not
(NAFLU), the CBA of the that properties be diminished.
employees, through a belonging to the
memorandum which employer are returned
provided for respondent’s before the employee’s
grant of separation pay less departure. It cited Article
accountabilities, accrued 116 of the Labor Code
sick leave benefits, vacation which provides for the
leave benefits, and 13th general rule that
pay to the employees. employers are
Consequently, Solid Mills prohibited from
sent individual notices to withholding wages from
petitioners to vacate the employees. It also cited
Village and required them to Article 100 of the same
sign a MOA with release code which prohibits the
and quitclaim before the elimination or diminution
aforementioned benefits of benefits.
would be released.
HOWEVER, the SC
Petitioners refused to sign stated that our law
the documents and supports the employers’
demanded to be paid their institution of clearance
benefits and separation procedures as an
pay. Hence, they filed exception to the general
complaints before the LA for rule that wages may not
nonpayment of separation be withheld and benefits
pay, leaves, and 13th may not be diminished
month pay. They allege that which is provided in
their possession of Solid Article 113 of the Labor
Mills property is not an Code. Moreover, in Art.

Page 53 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

accountability that is subject 1706 of NCC, the word

to clearance procedures. “debt” in this provision
Solid Mills, on the other refers to any obligation
hand, argued that due from the employee
petitioners’ complaint was to the employer. It
premature as they had not includes any
yet vacated its property. accountability not just
the uniforms and
LA ruled in favor of equipment, as
petitioners. NLRC reversed petitioners claim.
the decision and held that
respondent was justified in Therefore, in this case,
withholding their benefits the return of the
and separation pay until property’s possession
they have turned over the became an obligation or
property. CA affirmed. liability on the part of the
Hence, this petition. employees when the E-
E relationship ceased.
Thus, Solid Mills has the
right to withhold
petitioners’ wages and
benefits because of this
existing debt or liability.
- The Court clarified that
the employees’ benefits
are not being reduced. It
is only subjected to the
condition that the
employees return
properties belonging to
the employer. This is
consistent with the
principle that “no one
shall be unjustly
enriched or benefited at
the expense of another.”

Protective Celso Fuentes was hired as The absence of Fuentes (1) For a valid finding
Maximum a security guard by does not constitute of abandonment, these
Security Agency Protective Maximum abandonment. two factors should be
v. Fuentes Security Agency. He was Abandonment, to present: (1) the failure
posted to a security constitute a just cause to report for work or
G.R. No. 169303 | checkpoint designated as for dismissal, must be a absence without valid
February 11, 2015 Post 33, which was gross and habitual or justifiable reason;
| ransacked by the NPA who neglect by the employee and (2) a clear
Second Division inflicted violence upon of his duties, pursuant to intention to sever
Fuentes and the other Article 282(b) of the employer-employee
security guards present at Labor Code. In this relationship. The
the checkpoint. Fuentes case, Fuentes’ failure to second is the more
reported the incident to the return to work was determinative factor
PNP, and the latter found justified because of his which is manifested by

Page 54 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

reason to believe that detention and its overt acts from which it
Fuentes conspired with the adverse effects. He was may be deduced that
NPA. PNP then filed a so traumatised that he the employees have no
complaint for robbery asked to remain in more intention to work.
committed by a band custody of the police in The intent to
against Fuentes. He was fear of his life, and left discontinue the
detained and was allegedly only when his mother employment must be
mauled and tied up by the accompanied him. shown by clear proof
security officers of Furthermore, his act of that it was deliberate
Protective Agency. The reporting for work after and unjustified. The
complaint was dismissed by being cleared of the burden to prove
the provincial prosecutor charges against him whether the employee
due to lack of probable showed that he has no abandoned his or her
cause. Fuentes intention to sever ties work rests on the
subsequently filed a with his employer. He employer.
complaint for illegal attempted to return to
dismissal, non-payment of work after the dismissal (2) If the dismissal is
salaries, overtime pay, and of the complaint so that based on a just cause
other benefits before the Protective Agency under Article 282, the
NLRC. He claimed that right would not have any employer must give the
after the dismissal of the reason to deny his employee two written
criminal complaint against request to resume notices and a hearing
him, he demanded to return employment. or opportunity to be
to work but was refused heard if requested by
entry on the ground that he In addition, Fuentes’ the employee before
was an NPA member and right to procedural due terminating the
that his position had already process was not employment. The first
been filled up by another observed. The two- notice must specify the
security guard. Protective notice requirement was grounds for which
Agency claims that as a not followed. There was dismissal is sought and
usual routine, he should no attempt from after hearing or
have reported to his Team Protective Agency to opportunity to be
Leader or Officer-in-Charge, serve the proper notice heard, a second notice
but he failed to do so, thus, on Fuentes at the of the decision to
he is considered to have address indicated in his dismiss.
abandoned his work. employment records. He
was replaced without
being given an
opportunity to explain
his absence.

Paz v. Northern Northern Tobacco Redrying The Supreme Court (1) Article 280 of the
Tobacco Inc. Co., Inc. (NTRCI) hired held that Paz was a Labor Code and
Zenaida Paz as a seasonal regular seasonal jurisprudence identified
G.R. No. 199554 | sorter with a salary of employee. NTRCI three types of
February 18, 2015 Php185 daily, and was engaged the services of employees, namely: (1)
| regularly hired every Paz as a seasonal regular employees or
Second Division tobacco season. She sorter and had been those who have been
signed a seasonal job regularly rehired during engaged to perform
contract at the start of her the tobacco seasons for activities which are
employment and a pro- 29 years until she was usually necessary or
forma application letter informed that she was desirable in the usual
prepared by NTRCI in order being retired under business or trade of the

Page 55 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

to qualify for the next company policy. Paz’s employer; (2) project
season. Later on, NTRCI services were employees or those
informed Paz, who was 63 necessary and whose employment
years old, that she was indispensable to has been fixed for a
considered retired under NTRCI’s business of specific project or
company policy. A year flue-curing and redrying undertaking, the
later, she was told she tobacco leaves. As a completion or
would receive Php12,000 regular seasonal termination of which
as retirement pay. Paz filed employee, she is has been determined
an illegal dismissal entitled to the rights at the time of the
complaint which she later under Article 279 of the engagement of the
amended into a complaint Labor Code. Paz was employee or where the
for payment of retirement only 63 years old with work or service to be
benefits, damages, and two more years performed is seasonal
attorney’s fees as the remaining before she in nature and the
Php12,000 seemed would reach the employment is for the
inadequate for her 29 years compulsory retirement duration of the season;
of service. NTRCI age of 65 pursuant to and (3) casual
countered that it had no Article 287, as employees or those
CBA with its workers, thus, amended. Since she did who are neither regular
the computation of the not yet reach the age of nor project employees.
retirement pay of its compulsory retirement In addition to these, the
seasonal workers was and had no intent to status of regular
based on Article 287 of the retire at 63 years old, seasonal employees
Labor Code. It raised the she is entitled to full are also recognized by
requirement of at least 6 backwages for the jurisprudence. These
months of service a year to period until she reaches are those who perform
be considered in the 65. seasonal work which is
retirement pay computation. necessary and
However, Paz only worked As to the issue on the indispensable to their
for at least six months in 3 amount of retirement employer’s business.
out of the 29 years she benefits to be paid,
rendered service. since NTRCI failed to (2) Retirement is the
present a copy of a CBA result of a bilateral act
on the alleged of the parties, a
retirement policy, Article voluntary agreement
287, as amended by RA between the employer
7641, shall apply. Such and the employee
provision provides that whereby the latter,
absent a retirement plan after reaching a certain
or agreement, the age, agrees to sever
computation of his or her employment
retirement benefits shall with the former. Article
be at least one-half 287, as amended,
month salary for every allows for optional
year of service, a retirement at the age of
fraction of at least six at least 60 years old. If
months being the intent to retire is not
considered as one clearly established or if
whole year. Thus, an the retirement is
employee must have involuntary, it is to be
rendered at least 6 treated as a discharge.
months in a year for An employer may

Page 56 of 57
U.P. LAW BOC LABOR LAW

said year to be provide for retirement

considered in the benefits in an
computation. In this agreement with its
case, Paz only rendered employees such as in a
6 months of service in 3 Collective Bargaining
out of the 29 years she Agreement. Otherwise,
worked for NTRCI. Article 287 of the Labor
However, the Court did Code, as amended,
award her financial governs.
assistance “as a
measure of social
justice in exceptional
circumstances, and as
an equitable
concession,” since she
worked for NTRCI for
almost 3 decades, had
no record of any
malfeasance or
violations, and her
advanced age has
rendered her weak and
reduced her
employment
opportunities.

Page 57 of 57