No.
TITLE OF THE CASE
1 Wenphil Corporation vs. Almer Abing
Bernard A.Tenazas et. al vs. R.
2
Villegas Taxi Transport and Villegas
Romeo Basan et.al vs Coca-Cola
3
Bottlers Philippines
Fonterra Brands Philippines, Inc. vs.
4
Largado and Estrellado
Omni Hauling Services, Inc. et.al vs.
5
Bernardo Bon et.al
6 Hacienda Leddy vs Paquita Villegas
Concepcio A. Villena vs. Batangas II
7
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Colegio De San Juan De Letran -
8
Calmba vs Engr. Deborah Tardeo
Colegio De San Juan De Letran -
8
Calmba vs Engr. Deborah Tardeo
Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Co.
9
vs. Glyza Esteban
Essencia Manarpiis vs. Texan
10
Philippines
Nancy S. Montinola vs. Philippine
11 Airlines G.R. No. 198656
September 8, 2014 J. Leonen
Manggagawang Komunikasyon Sa
12 Pilipinas vs PLDT - J. Leonen G.R. No.
190389, April 19, 2017
Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Atty.
13 Salvana G.R. No. 192074 June
10, 2014 J Leonen
14 Pursimo M. CabaObas vs. Pepsi Cola
Enrique Marco G. Yulo vs. Concentrix
15
Daksh
Golden Thread Knitting Industries vs.
16
NLRC
Grace Christian High School vs.
17
Filipinas Lavandera
Avelino S. Alilin et. al vs. Petron
18
Corporation
Teekay Shipping Lines vs. Exequiel
19
Jarin
Immaculate Conception Academy vs
20
Evelyne Camilon
DOCTRINE
The decision of labor arbiter reinstating the dismissed employee is immediately executory. Hence, the employer shall
pay the wages even during the period of appeal until it was reversed by the higher court. The SC ruled that the term
higher court refers to CA not SC except ofcourse when the CA did not reverse the ruling of NLRC.
Separation pay is not inconsistent with backwages. Separation pay is designed to provide an employee a money or
wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment. On the other hand, payment of backwages is
a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by the reason of unlawful dismissal.
Essential elements of employer-employee relationship. No hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid
elements. Normal consequence of illegal dismissal: Backwages plus reinstatement if viable, or separation pay if not
It is only when reinstatement is no longer feasible that the payment of separation pay is ordered in lieu thereof.
Reinstatement is a general rule. Separation pay due to strange relation is the exception. The doctrine of strained
relations should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone.
Nature of work of route helpers is usually necessary and desirable in the usual busines or trade of Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phil. Inc.
Art. 280 of LC provides for two kinds of regular employees: Regular employees by nature of work and Regular
employees by years of service. Former, regardless of length of service. Latter, regardless of nature of work. While fixed
term employment is not per se illegal or against public policy, the criteria laid down in Brent School Inc. vs. Zamora
must be complied with in order to be valid.
Legitimate job contracting or subcontracting: 1. Distinct and independent business performing a job, work or service on
its own account and under its own manner and method and free from the control and directopm of the principal except
as to the results thereof, 2. The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or investment and 3. Enjoyment of
contractual employees of labor standards and right to self organization and security of tenure.
Respondents were fixed term employees. Fixed term employment contracts are not limited to those by nature of
seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion, they also include those to which the parties by
free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. The determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the
employee BUT the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment
relationship. In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents were employed by AC SIcat as project employees.
A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The principal
test for determining project employee is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking where the duration (scope) was specified.
the criteria laid down in Brent School Inc. vs. Zamora was not complied with. There is no employment contract in the
case at bar that clearly stipulating that the workers' employment was co-terminus with the project to support their
claims that the employees were notified of the scope and duration of the project. Hence, as a regular employees it is
incumbent upon the employer to prove that the dismissal is accompanied with just or valid cause
Respondent's length of service is an indication of the regularity of his employment. Even assuming that the nature of
work is not necessary and desirable in the business of the petitioner, he shall became regular employee by operation of
law one year after he was employed.
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business of the employer. Without doubt, with more than 20
years of service, the respondent attains the employment regularity. Payment on a piece rate basis does not negate
regular employment because payment by piece rate is just a Method of Compensation and does not define the
essence of the relations.
On retirement pay, the Court sees that the "other benefits" mentioned in these rulings cannot be construed to include
retirement pay for the primary reason that they adjudged awards relative to Villena’s illegal dismissal complaint, which
remains barren of a specific cause of action for retirement pay. In order for her retirement pay claim to be
considered, Villena’s complaint should have contained substantial allegations which would show that she (a)
had applied for the same, and (b) her application squares with the requirements of entitlement under the terms
of the company’s retirement plan.
RATA and Cellular allowance is within the term allowance as these benefits are given to the Finance/Department
Manager.
As amplified by jurisprudence, the misconduct must (1) be serious; (2) relate to the performance of the employee’s
duties; and (3) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
There is no substantial evidence to prove that in not including a portion of the invitation to her fund request, respondent
acted in malicious and contemptuous manner with the intent to cause damage to the petitioner. In other words, there is
no basis for the allegation that respondent’s act constituted serious misconduct that warrants the imposition of penalty
of suspension. The penalty must commensurate to the acts done. Indeed, considering the fact that before the act
complained of, respondent has been rendering service untarnished for 23 years, it is not easy to conclude that for
₱600.00, respondent would willfully and for wrongful intentions omit portions of the documents taken from the PPS
website.
As consistently ruled by the court, it is not the job title but the actual work that the employee performs that determines
whether she or she occupies a position of trust and confidence. In this case, Esteban was a sales clerk. However, her
duties were more than that of a sales clerk. She also assumed cashiering duties. Among the fiduciary rank and file
employees are cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly
handle significant amounts of money or property.
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be work related such as would show the emloyee
concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer and it must be based on a wilfull breach of trust and
founded on clear established facts. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely without
justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly or inadvertently. The Court found that the acts of
Esteban do not amount to a willful breach of trust because she dis so out of curiosity and without any obvious intention
of defrauding the petitioner.
For company's closure dut to business losses, prevailing jurisprudence would dictate that the same should be
substantiated by competent evidence. Financial statement audited by Independent Externals Auditors constitute the
normal method of proof of the profit and loss performance of the company. On the other hand, if the business closure is
due to serious losses or financial reverses, the employer must present sufficient proof of its actual or imminent losses.
SC laid down the two elements which must concur for a valid abandonment: 1. the failure to report to work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason, and 2. Clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Mere absence or
failure to work even after notice to return is not tantamount to abandonment. In fact petitioner did not abandon her work
but was told not to report for work due to company's closure.
Security of tenure is not only statutorily protected but also a constitutionally guaranteed right. Any deprivation of this
right must be attended by due process of law. Suspension from work is prima facie a deprivation of this right. Due
process contains procedural and substantive due process. For procedural due process to be met, the employer must
furnish the employee with a written notice containing the cause for termination. Second, the employer must give the
employee an opportunity to be heard. It is worthy to note that there is a denial of an opportunity to be heard if the
employee is not clearly apprised of the acts she comitted that constituted the cause for disciplinary action.
As regards granting of moral and exemplary damages, as correctly stated by the CA the moral damages is awarded
when the acts of employer were attended by 1. bad faith or fraud; 2. in a manner oppressive to labor; 3. contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy. The acts of employer of suspendin its employee without just cause is contrary
to morals, good customs and public policy. Hence, she entitled to moral damages. Exemplary damages is also proper
since the purpose of which is to deter future employers from committing the same acts.
The redundancy exists when the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonable demanded by
the actual requirements of the enterprise. Though declaration of redundancy is ultimately a management
decision however management must not violate the law nor declare redundancy without sufficient basis. The
elements for the valid implementation of a redundancy program are as follows: 1. Written notice served on
both the employees and DOLE at least 1 month prior to the implentation; 2. Payment of separation pay (1
month pay for every year of service or 1 month salary whichever is higher); 3. Good faith in abolishing the
redundant positions; and 4. Fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
redundant and accordingly abolished. PLDT was backed up by substantial evidence showing a consistent
decline of operator-assisted callsbecause of cheaper alternatives like direct calling services.
Return-to-work order by the DOLE is not akin to LA's order of reinstatement. Although return-to-work and
reinstatement orders are both immediately executory; however, a return-to-work order is interlocutory in
nature, and is merely to maintaing status quo while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper forum.
In contrast, an order of reinstatement is a judgement on the merits promulgated by LA pursuantto the original
and exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 224(a) of the LC.
Under the Constitution, CSC was tasked to set standards and enforce the laws and rules governing the Selection,
Utilization, Training, and Discipline of civil servants. Dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive or defraud. In order that dishonesty to warrant dismissal, need not be comitted in the course of the
performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employyee is
dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his
office, they affect his right to continue in office. Since the utmost integrity is expected to public servants, its
absence is not only frowned upon but punsihed severely.
CSC ruled that the respondent's act would be classified as simple dishonesty as the same did not cause damage or
prejudice to the government and no direct relation to his duties and responsibilities. SC held that there is damage
suffered by the State as the respondent given salary when in fact he is not entitled. However, the act of causing
damage or prejudice cannot be classified as serious since the information falsified had no direct relation to her
employment. The resignation of the concerned employee does not render the administrative proceedings moot and
academic.
SC observed that the issue was raised on for the first time in the motion for consideration and that explains why NLRC
and CA did not discuss the issue in the first place. Basic consideration of fairness and due process dictates that any
issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by estoppel.
The court finds that this case cannot be considered as one of those cases under the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court (A.M. No. 10-420-SC)
To exhibit that there was good faith and fair and reasobale criteria in ascertaining redundant positions, a companu
claiming to be over-manned must produce adequate proof of the same. The Court has ruled that it is not enough for a
company to merely declare that it has become over-manned. The documents for adequate proof are as follows: New
Staffing pattern, Feasibility Studies, Viability of new created positions, job description and approval of management.
Golden Thread case explained that fair and reasonable criteria may include but not limited to the following: 1. Less
preferred status, 2. efficiency and 3. seniority.
The provision of RA 7641 amending Article 267 of the LC is applicable where (a) there is no CBA or other applicable
agreement providing for retirement benefits to employees, or (b) there is a CBA or other applicableagreement providing
for retirement benefits but it is below the requirement set by law. both the NLRC and the CA correctly ruled that
Filipinas’ retirement benefits should be computed in accordance withArticle 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA
7641, being the more beneficent retirement scheme.
The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines,Inc., has recently affirmed that "one-half (1/2) month salary means
22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the remaining 5 days for
[SIL]." The Court sees no reason to depart from this interpretation.
Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a
contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined period,
regardless of whether such job, work or, service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the
principal. Under this arrangement, the following conditions must be met: (a) the contractor carries on a distinct and
independent business and undertakes the contract work on his account under his own responsibility according to his
own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with
the performance of his work except as to the results thereof; (b) the contractor has substantial capital or investment;
and (c) the agreement between the principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees’
entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization,
security of tenure, and social welfare benefits."44 Labor-only contracting, on the other hand, is a prohibited act, defined
as "supplying workers to an employer who does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are
performing activities wich are directly related to the principal business of such employer."
Petron failed to discharge the burden of proving that RDG is a legitimate contractor. Hence, the presumption that RDG
is a labor-only contractor stands. A finding that a contractor is a ‘labor-only’ contractor is equivalent to declaring that
there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor. In
sum, the Court finds that RDG is a labor-only contractor. As such, it is considered merely as an agent of Petron.
Consequently, the employer-employee relationship which the Court finds to exist in this case is between petitioners as
employees and Petron as their employer. Petron therefore, being the principal employer and RDG, being the labor-only
contractor, are solidarily liable for petitioners' illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
Section 32-A does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable.. "(t)hose illnesses not
listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related." In the case at bar, Jarin was able to
prove that his rheumatoid arthritis was contracted out of his daily duties as Chief Cook onboard M.T. Erik Spirit. The
narration of facts in his position paper detailed the nature of his work as Chief Cook and the daily working conditions on
sea duty.
The petitioners cannot escape such liability on the mere fact that Jarin finished his contract and was not medically
repatriated.
It is well to note that in resolving disputes on disability benefits, the fundamental consideration has been that the
POEA-SEC was designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seamen in the pursuit of their employment
onboard ocean-going vessels. As such, its provisions must be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in
their favor because only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect
Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee's fault as well as in
cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed
for just cause. Respondent’s length of service with petitioners does not justifies the award of separation pay. . Length
of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer.
Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation benefits or some form of
financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is not the appropriate instance for generosity. If an
employee’s length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, such gesture
will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to
cleanse its ranks of undesirables
KEY
Serious Misconduct - LA favored the labor, NLRC affirmed, CA
reversed, SC affirmed CA. Final and Executory
Respondent filed a motion for execution before the LA. LA granted
motion. NLRC affirmend. CA reversed. SC favored CA
Illegal dismissal - Tenazas is a regular driver, Endraca is a spare driver
and Francisco is a piling driver
LA dismissed, NLRC reversed because of additional evidence. CA
affirmed NLRC. For tenazas and Endraca, CA ruled - immediate filing of
complaint for illegal dismissal and persistent please for continuance of
emploment are incompatible with abandonment
Illegal dismissal - Temporary Route Helpers
LA favored the labor as the nature of work is UNDUBT. NLRC affirmed.
CA reversed on the ground that the services is less than a year.
Illegal dismissal -Trade Merchandising Representatives
LA dismissed, NLRC affirmed LA. CA reversed the NLRC ruling, as it
held that the transfer of respondents to A.C Sicat is tantamount to a
complete new engagement by another employer.
Illegal dismissal -garbage truck drivers and paleros
LA dimissed the complaint. NLRC affirmed. CA reversed contending that
no contract of employment exists therefore the employees became
regular employees by operation of law.
Illegal dismissal -odd jobs around the farm
LA favored the labor. NLRC set aside the LA's decision. CA annulled the
NLRC's decision.
Constructive dismissal - Villena demoted from Finance Manager to
Auditor (The decision that petitioner was illegaly dismissed is already
final and executory, the CA awarded salary differential, allowances due
to the position and other benefits. Petitioner moved for the execution of
awards.)
LA granted the motion. Respondent insisting that petitioner is not entitled
to other benefits, appealed to NLRC. NLRC modified the award
excluding retirement pay, RATA and cellular phone allowance. CA
reversed the ruling
Serious Misconduct, penalty suspension - (Faculty Development
Program and Fund Assistance)
VA rendered that the suspension is illegal. CA affirmed VA ruling
Illegal dismissal - Breach of trust and confidence (Sales Clerk and
Universal Password 123456)
LA ruled in favor of Respondent, NLRC reversed the decision and CA
granted Esteban's petition and reinstated LA
Closure or cessation of operation, thereafter abandonment -
Petitioner - Sales and Marketing Manager.
LA observe the flip-flopping of the employer and found that there is no
compliance with the legal requisites. NLRC upheld the LA's ruling.
Illegal suspension -Flight attendant (Suspension 1 year without pay
LA favored the labor and in addition awarded moral and exemplary
damages; NLRC affirmed the LA's decision. CA deleted moral and
exemplary damages contending that the moral damages are recoverable
only where the dismissall or suspension of the employee was attended
by Bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppresive to labor or was
done contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Valid Redundancy - Petitioner filed notice of strike before the
NCMB. The Secretary of DOLE certified the labor dispute for
compulosry arbitration pursuant to Art. 263(g) of the LC and
directed that all striking workers to return to work except those
terminated due to redundancy. CA reverse the order of Secretary
because the wordings of the said article is ALL striking workers.
The SC affirmed the CA
NLRC dismisses the unfair labor practice against PLDt. CA
affirmed. Petitioner filed motion for execution of its return to work
order however Secretary of labor dimissed it. The petitioner
appealed to CA but denied.
LRTA (GOCC) under CSC; Respondent, OIC administrative department,
falsified the medical certificate
LRTA Committee imposed dismissal to Respondent; CSC modified the
decision to simple dishonesty.
Retrenchment - Principle of stare decisis Petitioner contend that the
said doctrine is not applicable
Petitioner filed MR before the SC asserting that Pepsi Cola failed to
observed the last two requisites for a valid retrenchment
Cosntructive Illegal Dismissal - Redundancy - Petitioner Customer
Care Specialist
LA ruled that respondent failed to meet the requisites of valid
redundancy, NLRC affirmed the LA. CA set aside the NLRC ruling.
Computation of Retirement Pay - 22.5 days (retirement benefit plan, the
employee is considered retired
LA ruled that respondent is deemed retired under the retirement plan.
NLRC affirmed but set aside the award, NLRC ruled that respondent is
entitled to 22.5 days as provided in RA 7641
Illegal dismissal -Labor-only contracting. RDG
LA found that petitioners are regular employees of Petron. NLRC
affirmed LA. CA found no er-ee relationship as RDG considered
independent labor contractor with sufficient capitalization and investment
as shown by its financial statement for year-end 2000.
Jarin as Chief Cook , Jarin suffered rheumatoid arthritis and became a
partial disability pensioner of the Social Security System and no longer
worked as seaman in view of his illness. Jarin filed before the arbitration
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission pursuant to the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency-Standard Employment
Contract for Filipino Seafarers (POEA-SEC).
LA ruled in favor of employee as the employer failed to overcome the
presumption that the sickness is work related. NLRC reversed the ruling.
CA reversed the NLRC and sustained the LA ruling
Dismissal on the ground of Loss of trust and confidence - Respondent is
a Chief Accountant and Administrator having a responsibility to pre-audit
the cashier's report, checking the entries and keeping custody of the
petty cash custodian.
LA held in favor of respondent since the petitioner failed to substantiate
the involvement of the respondent and the negligence. NLRC reversed
the LA's ruling and ruled that the dismissal is legal. CA affirmed the
NLRC ruling. In addition CA awarded separation pay on the ground of
social justice and equity.
Month Actual Basic Salary
Jan 8,000.00
Feb 8,000.00 Total basic salary earned
Mar 8,000.00 during the taxable year =
Apr 14,000.00 12 months
May 14,000.00
Jun 14,000.00
Jul 14,000.00 Proprotionate 13th month
pay =
Aug 14,000.00
Sep 14,000.00
Oct 14,000.00
Nov 14,000.00
Dec 14,000.00
Total 150,000.00
150,000.00
12 months
12,500.00
