INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES’ UNION (IBAA-EU), petitioner, vs.HON. AMADO G.

INCIONG, and IBAA,

respondents. 

G.R. No. L-52415

October 23, 1984

FACTS:
The Department of Labor promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay. The controversial section
thereof reads: “Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. — Employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the
number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid
for all days in the month whether worked or not. For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less than the statutory
minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by twelve” 

Later, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor interpreting the above-quoted rule, pertinent portions of which
read:
“xxx xxx xxx
The ten (10) paid legal holidays law, to start with, is intended to benefit principally daily employees. In the case of monthly, only those
whose monthly salary did not yet include payment for the ten (10) paid legal holidays are entitled to the benefit.” 

Respondent IBAA by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code and by Policy
Instruction No. 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to all its employees. 

Writ of execution of the previously decided case for them to be paid their holiday pay was filed by the petitioner. Labor arbiter and
NLRC ruled in their favor. IBAA filed an MR to the Office of the Minister of Labor which set aside the decision of NLRC. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE:
WON holiday pay does not apply to monthly- paid employees.

HELD:
No.
Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and
void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of
their exclusion.
The provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit – it provides for both the
coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state
that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular
holiday pay.

NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION (NASUREFCO) petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION, (PACIWU) TUCP, respondents.

PNOC Energy Development Corporation vs NLRC, 201 SCRA 487 (1991)

FACTS:
 Private respondent Danilo Mercado was employed by petitioner Phil. National Oil Company-Energy Development Corp. (PNOC-
EDC).
 Mercado held various positions ranging from clerk, general clerk to shipping clerk during his employment at its Cebu office until his
transfer to its establishment at Oriental Negros.
 Mercado was dismissed due to alleged serious acts of dishonesty and violation of rules and regulations.
 Mercado purchased 1,400 pieces of nipa shingles from Mrs. Leonardo Nodado for the total purchase price of Pl,680.00. Against
company policy, regulations and specific orders, Danilo Mercado withdrew the nipa shingles from the supplier but paid the amount
of P1,000.00 only. Mercado appropriated the balance of P680.00 for his personal use;
 In the same transaction, the supplier agreed to give the company a discount of P70.00 which Mercado did not report to the
company;
 Mercado was instructed to contract the services of Fred R. Melon for the fabrication of rubber stamps, for the total amount of
P28.66. Mercado paid the amount of P20.00 to Fred R. Melon and appropriated for his personal use the balance of P8.66.
 Mercado was absent from work without leave, without proper turn-over of his work, causing disruption and delay of work activities;
 Mercado went on vacation leave without prior leave, against company policy, rules and regulations.
 Mercado filed for illegal dismissal, retirement benefits, separation pay, unpaid wages, etc. against PNOC-EDC before the NLRC.
 PNOC-EDC praying for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Labor Arbiter and/or the NLRC had no jurisdiction.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent Mercado.
 Petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolution of NLRC which affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria.
ISSUE:
1.Whether or not matters of employment affecting the PNOC-EDC, a government-owned and controlled corporation, are within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
2.Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are justified in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent
RULING:
1. Yes. PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the General Corporation Law was held to be a GOCC whose employees are
subject to the provisions of the Labor Code.
The test in determining whether a government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service Law are the manner of its
creation, such that government corporations created by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under the
General Corporation Law are not within its coverage.
The fact that the case arose at the time when the 1973 Constitution was still in effect, does not deprive the NLRC of jurisdiction on the
premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs because it is the Constitution in place at the time of the decision.
2. PNOC-EDC's accusations of dishonesty and violations of company rules are not supported by evidence.
While it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, such loss or breach of trust must
have some basis.
Petition is denied.
***
International Catholic Migration Commission v. Ferrer-Calleja 190 SCRA 130

Facts: (This is a consolidation of two cases)

GR # 85750- the Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) case.

ICMC an accredited refugee processing center in Morong Bataan, is a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and
voluntary work. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative status II.
It has the activities parallel to those of the International Committee for Migrtion (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC).

On July 14, 1986, Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a
Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by the ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the
ground that it enjoys diplomatic immunity. The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition of TUPAS for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Med – Arbiter’s Decisionand ordered the immediate conduct of a
certification election.

GR # 89331- the IRRI case

The International Rice Research Institute was a fruit of memorandum of understanding between the Philippine government and the
Ford and Rochefeller Foundations. It was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization
designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting “ basic research on the rice plant.”
It was organized and registered with the SEC as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of P.D no.
1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization.

The Kapisanan filed a petition for direct certification election with regional office of the Department of Labor and Employment. IRRI
opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree no.1620 conferring upon it the status of an international organization and granting it
immunity from all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. The Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition on the
basis of PD 1620 and dismissed the petition for direct certification.

On appeal by BLR Director, set aside the med-arbiter’s decision and contends that immunities and privileges granted to IRRI do not
include exemption from coverage of our labor laws.

Issue:
W/N the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities extend to immunity from the application of Philippine Labor Laws

Held:
The grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and IRRI extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws,
because it is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes which is to avoid the danger of partiality and
interference by the host country in their internal workings. . The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances
would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international
practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the
unhampered performance of their functions.

Employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled because each specialized agency shall make provision
for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is
a party. Moreover, pursuant to article IV of memorandum of agreement between the government and ICMC, whenever there is abuse of
privilege by ICMC, the government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.

Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute with management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum
for better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management
(CIEM) wherein "both management and employees were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial
cooperation between IRRI and its employees." The existence of this Union factually and tellingly belies the argument that Pres. Decree
No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status, privileges and immunities of an international organization, deprives its employees of the right
to self-organization.

The immunity granted being "from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived
their immunity," it is inaccurate to state that a certification election is beyond the scope of that immunity for the reason that it is not a suit
against ICMC. A certification election cannot be viewed as an independent or isolated process. It could tugger off a series of events in
the collective bargaining process together with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could inevitably involve ICMC in the
"legal process," which includes "any penal, civil and administrative proceedings."

***
ORLANDO FARM GROWERS ASSOCIATION/GLICERIO AÑOVER vs.NLRC (5th Division) (by Cris Figueroa)
GR No. 129076 November 25, 1998
Facts:
1. Petitioner Orlando Farm Growers Association (Anover is the president) is an
association of landowners engaged in the production of export quality
bananas located in Kinamayan, Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte, established for
the sole purpose of dealing collectively with Stanfilco on matters concerning
technical services, canal maintenance, irrigation and pest control, among
others. 
2. Respondents (about 20 complainants) were hired as farm workers by several
member-landowners but, nonetheless, were made to perform functions as
packers and harvesters in the plantation of petitioner association.
3. January 8, 1993 – July 30, 1994 –respondents were dismissed on various
dates. Thus, they filed against petitioner for illegal dismissal and monetary
benefits.
 Petitioner’s liabilities to complainants are joint and solidary, with its
responsible officers.
4. September 6, 1995 – LABOR ARBITER SANCHO: ordered reinstatement of
respondents and payment of backwages and other benefits
o Note: 2 complainants eventually dropped their case (Loran Paquit
and LovillaDorlones) because they were able to amicably settle
their claims.
5. December 26, 1996 - NLRC – affirmed decision of LA and denied the motion
for reconsideration.
6. Petitioner contends that being an unregistered association and having been
formed solely to serve as an effective medium for dealing collectively with
Stanfilco and not existing in law, it cannot be considered an employer.

Issue:
Whether or not an unregistered association may be an employer independent of the
respective members it represents

Held:
- YES. Petition is DISMISSED. NLRC judgment affirmed but remanded back to
Labor Arbiter Sancho to specify the amount each respondent is entitled to.

Ratio:
- The law does not require an employer to be registered before he may
considered as one within the definition of the Labor Code.
o Art 212 (e) of the Labor Code defines an employer as any person
acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly

- To determine the existence of employer – employee relationship (Filipinas

Broadcasting Network v. NLRC):
1. The manner of selection and engagement
 2. Payment of wages
3. Presence or absence of the power of dismissal
4. Presence or absence of the power of control (most important
element

- Evidence to support existence of employer – employee relationship:

o During the subsistence of the association, several circulars and
memoranda were issued concerning, among other things, absences
without formal request, loitering in the work area and disciplinary
measures with which every worker is enjoined to comply.
o The employees were issued IDs.
 In Domasig v. NLRC, the issuance of ID was held to be not only
as a security measure but mainly to identify the holder as a
bonafide employee of the firm
o The power of the petitioner to enter into compromise agreements
involving money claims filed by three employees, namely: Lorna
Paquit, LovellaDorlones and Jasmine Espanola.
o
- The association exceeded the purpose it was initially established for
when it did the above mentioned acts. Thus, it is considered an
employer.