Manila Electrical Company v. Quisumbing, G.R. No.

127598 January
27, 1999

FACTS: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) faced a dispute with the

MERALCO Employees and Workers Association (MEWA) over labor practices
and collective bargaining negotiations. MEWA accused MERALCO of
committing unfair labor practices, prompting the involvement of the
Secretary of Labor, Leonardo Quisumbing. The dispute raised issues under
Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees workers'
rights to self-organization, collective bargaining, and security of tenure.
Articles 3 and 266 of the Labor Code were also cited, addressing labor policy
in promoting social justice and procedures in resolving collective bargaining
deadlocks through compulsory arbitration.

ISSUE: Whether or not grave abuse of discretion has attended the Secretary’s
arbitral award because the Secretary complied with constitutional norms in
rendering the disputed award.

HELD: The extent of judicial review over the Secretary of Labor’s arbitral
award is not limited to a determination of grave abuse in the manner of the
secretary’s exercise of his statutory powers. This Court is entitled to, and
must — in the exercise of its judicial power — review the substance of the
Secretary’s award when grave abuse of discretion is alleged to exist in the
award, i.e., in the appreciation of and the conclusions the Secretary drew
from the evidence presented.

The suggested constitutional yardsticks is not necessary in the disposition of

this case, the more appropriate standard is the standard of reasonableness.
Thus, the question we have to answer in deciding this case is whether the
Secretary’s actions have been reasonable in light of the parties’ positions and
the evidence they presented.

The court found that the Secretary of Labor disregarded and misappreciated
MERALCO’s evidence, in favor of claims that do not have evidentiary support.
MERALCO’s projection had every reason to be reliable because it was based
on actual and undisputed figures for the first six months of 1996. On the
other hand, the union projection was based on a speculation of Yuletide
consumption that the union failed to substantiate.

Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, 17 November 2004

FACTS: Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling

and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners
Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on
January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for
abandonment of work. Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and payment of money claims and on December 28, 1999, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private
respondent to pay the monetary claims. It was found out from the
investigations that the abandonment from work by the petitioners was
because they subcontracted with another company to which they have been
remanded before when they committed the same initially. The petitioners
alleged that due process has not been observed.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.

HELD: To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a
just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the
right to be heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and
unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. For a valid
finding or abandonment, two factors are considered: failure to report for work
without a valid reason; and, a clear intention to sever employer-employee
relationship with the second as the more determinative factor which is
manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees
has no more intention to work.

Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not
follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the
employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This
became known as the Wenphil Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.

Art. 279 means that the termination is illegal if it is not for any of the
justifiable or authorized by law. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the
lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal but the
employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory
rights. The indemnity should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of
“dismiss now, pay later” which we sought to deter in Serrano ruling. The
violation of employees’ rights warrants the payment of nominal damages.

If the dismissal of an employee is done for a just and valid cause, it should be
upheld, notwithstanding the non-compliance with the procedural
requirements of due process by the employer. However, the employer may
be held liable for indemnity or penalty, which are to be determined on a case-
to-case basis considering the factual circumstances and the gravity of the
due process violation.

Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28

March 2005.

FACTS: Respondents Darwin Pacot, et.al. were hired by the Petitioner Jaka
Food Processing Corp. (JAKA) until their services were terminated in August
1997 because the corporation was in dire financial straits. However, JAKA
failed to comply with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor
Code, which provides that a written notice must be served to affected
employees at least one (1) month before the intended date of termination.
Thus, the Respondents filed a case of illegal dismissal before the Labor
Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondents are entitled to separation pay and
nominal damages.

HELD: In all cases of business closure or cessation of operation, the affected

employee is entitled to separation pay. However, the Supreme Court ruled
that as an exception to this general rule the closure of business or cessation
of operation due to serious business losses or financial reverses. In which
case, the right of the affected employee to separation pay is lost for obvious
reasons. In the present case, the Respondents did not assail the fact that
JAKA was suffering from serious business losses. Hence, they are not entitled
to separation pay.

However, If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause, and the employer

failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer
because the dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative. This is different when the dismissal is based on
just causes whereby dismissal was initiated by the an act imputable to the
employee.

In the present case, JAKA was suffering from serious business loss which
prompted them to terminate the employment of the Respondents. However,
it is also established that JAKA failed to comply with the notice requirement
under Art. 283. As such, it is proper to award nominal damages to the
Respondents, although dismissal was considered legal.
Abbot Laboratories v. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, 23 July 2013

FACTS: Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) advertised for the position of

a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, then a
Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis Pasteur Philippines,
applied for the position and was formally offered the job by Abbott on
December 7, 2004, on a probationary basis. She accepted the offer, and her
employment contract stated a probation period of six months starting
February 15, 2005. Throughout her employment, Alcaraz was briefed about
her responsibilities, received Abbott’s Code of Conduct, and was informed
about the performance evaluation process for probationary employees. She
was tasked with evaluating the staff’s performance and ensuring compliance
with Abbott’s policies.

However, her management style was considered “too strict” by some,

including her immediate supervisor, Kelly Walsh. Alcaraz approached HR
Director Maria Olivia T. YabutMisa with her Concerns but was advised to “lie
low.” On April 12, 2005, she was asked to submit staff performance
evaluations, which she did. However, on May 16, 2005, she was informed in a
meeting with Walsh and Terrible that she failed to meet the regularization
standards and was asked to resign or face termination. She was then barred
from entering the company premises and, on May 23, 2005, was formally
handed her termination letter, citing failure in time and people management
and decision-making skills as reasons for her dismissal.

Alcaraz filed for illegal dismissal dispute.

ISSUE: Whether Alcaraz’s termination constitutes illegal dismissal.

HELD: A probationary employee is deemed regular if not informed of the

standards for regularization at the time of engagement. However, the
inherent requirements of a job can constitute reasonable performance
standards. The employer’s failure to observe its procedural policies in
evaluating probationary employees may not necessarily amount to illegal
dismissal but may constitute procedural infirmity warranting nominal
damages.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alcaraz, declaring her dismissal

unjustified due to the employer’s failure to communicate the performance
standards for regularization. The Court found that while Alcaraz was aware of
her job duties, the absence of specific performance metrics rendered her
termination invalid. The Court emphasized that under Article 281 of the Labor
Code, a probationary employee must be informed of reasonable performance
standards at the time of engagement. Failure to do so deprives the employee
of the opportunity to meet the expectations for regularization, thereby
violating due process. Moreover, the employer’s management prerogative
must be exercised in good faith, considering both quantitative and qualitative
measures of performance.

Duncan Assoocation of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome, G.R.

No. 162994, 17 September 2004

FACTS: Pedro A. Tecson signed a contract of employment as Medical

Representative with Glaxo Wellcome Philippines which stipulates, among
others, that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to
disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity
or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and
should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of
interest, to resign from the company.
The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides that an employee
is expected to inform management of any existing or future relationship by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug
companies. If management perceives a conflict of interest or a potential
conflict between such relationship and the employee’s employment with the
company, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a
“transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking position” or
preparation for employment outside the company after 6 months.

Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, a Branch Coordinator

in Albay for Glaxo’s competitor, Astra Pharmaceuticals. Despite receiving
several reminders from his District Manager regarding the possible conflict of
interest which may arise from his relationship with Betty, Tecson married
Bettsy on September 1998.

ISSUE: Whether or not Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying

employees from competitor companies is valid.

HELD: Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with

an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of management
prerogative. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing
formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and
information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival
companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.

The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of

competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the
circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the
interests of the company. In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo
only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor
company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.

The policy being questioned is not a policy against marriage. An employee of

the company remains free to marry anyone of his or her choosing. The policy
is not aimed at restricting a personal prerogative that belongs only to the
individual. However, an employee’s personal decision does not detract the
employer from exercising management prerogatives to ensure maximum
profit and business success.

Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008

FACTS: Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight of

Philippine Arlines, Inc. He stands at 5’8”. As mandated by the Cabin and Crew
Administration Manual of PAL, the proper weight for a man of this height is
from 147-166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds.

To address his weight concerns, petitioner was advised to go on leave

without pay. But after gaining 43 pounds over his ideal weight, petitioner was
removed from flight duty, as per company policy. He was formally requested
to trim down to his ideal weight and report for weight checks on several
dates. However, instead of losing weight, he gained them instead.
On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL decision for him to remain
grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight
standards and was directed to report every 2 weeks for weight checks.

After petitioner’s repeated failure to report for weight checks, he was

formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight check would be
dealt with accordingly. He was given another set of weight check dates which
petitioner ignored. When petitioner finally tipped the scale on July 30, 1990,
he weighed at 212 pounds which is way over his ideal weight of 166 pounds.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s dismissal for obesity can be predicated on
the “bona fide occupational qualification” defense.

HELD: In British Columbia Public Service Employee CommissionA (BSPSERC)

v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union
(BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called “Meiorin Test”
in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under this test, (1)
the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally
connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish
that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that
workrelated purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard
is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related
purpose. Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, the SC held that in
order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment
qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job
involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or
substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to
properly perform the duties of the job.

Thus, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is

parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.”

A common carrier, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public
policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the
passengers it transports. It is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. The law leaves
no room for mistake or oversight on the part of a common carrier. Thus, it is
only logical to hold that the weight standards of PAL show its effort to comply
with the exacting obligations imposed upon it by law by virtue of being a
common carrier. The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has
committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to achieve this, it
must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight deck
crew who are on board the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be
viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employees.

Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply, G.R. No. 127553, 28 November

1997

FACTS: Petitioners were employed as drivers at. N.C. Construction Supply

owned by private respondents. Another company driver and his helper was
found stealing company property consisting of electrical wire, welding rod,
G.I. sheet, steel bar and plywood. The helper identified petitioners as among
the perpetrators of the theft.

The petitioners received separate notices informing them that they were
positively identified by their co-worker and were thus invited to Pasig Police
Station for investigation. Petitioners admitted their guilt and offered to resign
in exchange for the withdrawal of any criminal charge against them. The
resignation was accepted by the counsel of the respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employer observed due process in

terminating the employment of the petitioners and whether or not the
petitioner’s admission is inadmissible as evidence against them as they were
not assisted by counsel during the conduct of investigation at the police
station.

HELD: Employers failed to observe due process in terminating the

employment of petitioners. Due process requires that the employer should
furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written
notice containing a statement of the cause(s) for termination and afford him
ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a
representative if he so desires. Specifically, the employer must furnish the
worker with two written notices before termination of employment can be
legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (2) the subsequent notice
which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

Furthermore, the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is

meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation.
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer
a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out
a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements.
It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of such
investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph 3 Section 12
of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. In this
case, petitioners were not under custodial investigation as they were not yet
accused by the police of committing a crime. The investigation was merely an
administrative investigation conducted by the employer, not a criminal
investigation.

Punzal v. ETSI Technologies Inc., G.R. No. 170384, 9 March 2007

FACTS: Lorna Dising Punzal was employed by ETSI Technologies, Inc. (ETSI)
for 12 years, serving as Department Secretary until her termination on
November 26, 2001. On October 30, 2001, she sent an email to her
colleagues about a planned Halloween party, but her immediate superior,
Carmelo Remudaro, advised her to seek approval from Senior Vice President
Werner Geisert, who disapproved the event. In response, Punzal sent a
follow-up email criticizing Geisert's decision, calling it unfair and suggesting
that he felt overburdened. This resulted in disciplinary action against her for
improper conduct and making malicious statements about a company officer.
Despite her claim of having no malicious intent, she was terminated on
November 26, 2001. Punzal subsequently filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the Labor
Arbiter dismissed her case. On appeal, the NLRC found the penalty of
dismissal disproportionate, awarding her separation pay but denying back
wages and other damages. Both parties filed petitions for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, which consolidated the cases and upheld the legality of
Punzal's dismissal, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision. Punzal then filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutional rights are accorded to his dimissal.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that Punzal's second email was not merely an
expression of dissatisfaction but was directed against Senior Vice President
Werner Geisert, undermining his authority and credibility. The email,
circulated to many employees, encouraged them to disregard Geisert's
decision, which constituted serious misconduct under ETSI's Code of Conduct.
The Court emphasized that employees must show due respect to their
superiors, and that management has the prerogative to regulate all aspects
of employment. However, the Court also found that due process was not fully
observed, as Punzal was not informed of her right to be assisted by counsel
during the conference with Geisert and her immediate superior, Carmelo
Remudaro. This violation of her statutory due process rights entitled her to
nominal damages, which the Court fixed at P30,000. Despite this, the Court
affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Lopez v. Alturas Group of Companies, G.R. No. 191008, 11 April 2011

FACTS: Quirico Lopez was hired by respondent Alturas Group of Companies in

1997 as truck driver. Ten years later or sometime in November 2007, he was
dismissed after he was allegedly caught by respondent’s security guard in
the act of attempting to smuggle out of the company premises 60 kilos of
scrap iron worth P840 aboard respondents’ Isuzu Cargo Aluminum Van with
Plate Number PHP 271 that was then assigned to him. When questioned,
petitioner allegedly admitted to the security guard that he was taking out the
scrap iron consisting of lift springs out of which he would make axes.
In compliance with the Show Cause Notice dated December 5, 2007 issued by
respondent company’s Human Resource Department Manager, Lopez denied
the allegations by a handwritten explanation written in the Visayan dialect.
Finding petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory, respondent company
terminated his employment by Notice of Termination effective December 14,
2007 on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence, and of violation of
company rules and regulations

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was not afforded procedural due process.

HELD: The Court held that there is no violation of due process even if no
hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his
side of the controversy. What is frowned upon is the denial of the
opportunity to be heard.

Petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side when he was
informed of the charge against him and required to submit his written
explanation with which he complied. After receiving the first notice apprising
him of the charges against him, the employee may submit a written
explanation (which may be in the form of a letter, memorandum, affidavit or
position paper) and offer evidence in support thereof, like relevant company
records (such as his 201 file and daily time records) and the sworn
statements of his witnesses. For this purpose, he may prepare his
explanation personally or with the assistance of a representative or counsel.
He may also ask the employer to provide him copy of records material to his
defense. His written explanation may also include a request that a formal
hearing or conference be held. In such a case, the conduct of a formal
hearing or conference becomes mandatory, just as it is where there exist
substantial evidentiary disputes or where company rules or practice requires
an actual hearing as part of employment pretermination procedure.

The right to counsel and the assistance of one in investigations involving

termination cases is neither indispensable nor mandatory, except when the
employee himself requests for one or that he manifests that he wants a
formal hearing on the charges against him.

Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, L-25018, 26 May 1969

FACTS: Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton filed an administrative

case against Arsenio Pascual Jr.
for alleged immorality. At the initial hearing thereof, Gatbonton’s counsel
announced that he would present Pascual as his first witness. Pascual
objected, relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a
witness against himself. The Board of Examiners took note of such a plea but
scheduled Pascual to testify in the next hearing unless in the meantime he
could secure a restraining order from a competent authority. Pascual filed
with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition with prayer
for preliminary injunction against the Board of Medical Examiners. The lower
court ordered that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the Board
commanding it to refrain from hearing or further proceeding with such an
administrative case and to await the judicial disposition of the matter.
Subsequently, a decision was rendered by the lower court finding the claim of
Pascual to be well-founded and prohibiting the Board "from compelling the
petitioner to act and testify as a witness for the complainant in said
investigation without his consent and against himself."

ISSUE: Whether a medical practitioner charged with malpractice in

administrative case can avail of the constitutional guarantee not to be a
witness against himself.

HELD: The case for malpractice and cancellation of the license to practice
medicine while administrative in character possesses a criminal or penal
aspect. An unfavorable decision would result in the revocation of the license
of the respondent to practice medicine. Consequently, he can refuse to take
the witness stand.

The right against self-incrimination extends not only to right to refuse to

answer questions put to the accused while on witness stand, but also to forgo
testimony, to remain silent and refuse to take the witness stand when called
by as a witness by the prosecution. The reason is that the right against self
incrimination, along with the other rights granted to the accused, stands for a
belief that while a crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be
revealed, such desirable objective should not be accomplished according to
means and methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded to the
human personality.

Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency, G.R. No. 157870, 3 November 2008

FACTS: Petitioners question the constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165,

a.k.a. the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. Section 36 requires mandatory
drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary
schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons
charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, particularly
those who are charged with offenses punishable by a penalty of not less than
6 years and 1 day of imprisonment.

On December 23, 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution 6486, which provides

the rules on the mandatory drugs testing of candidates for public office. It
requires the COMELEC offices and employees concerned to submit two
separate lists of candidates: one for those who complied with the mandatory
drug testing and the other of those who failed to comply.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9165 unconstitutional

HELD: Section 36(c) and (d) are constitutional, but 36(f) is not.

The provision of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing for students

(Section 36[b]) are constitutional as long as they are random and
suspicionless. This is because schools and their administrators stand in loco
parentis with respect to their students, and schools have the right to impose
conditions on applicants for admission that are fair and non-discriminatory.

The provision requiring mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of
public and private offices (Section 36[d]) are also justifiable. The privacy
expectation in a regulated office environment is reduced. A degree of
impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. To the Court, the need for
drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to
override the individual’s privacy interest under the premises.
On the other hand, the Court finds no justification in the mandatory drug
testing of those prosecuted for crimes punishable by imprisonment of more
than 6 years and 1 day (Section 36[f]). The operative concepts in the
mandatory drug testing are randomness and suspicionless. In this case, it
cannot be said that the drug testing is random. To impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a
tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165.

Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, 18 October 2011

FACTS: CSC Chair Constantino-David received an anonymous letter complaint

alleging of an anomaly taking place in the Regional Office of the CSC. The
respondent then formed a team and issued a memo directing the team “to
back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD)
and Legal divisions.”
Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of
PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson David. The
contents of the diskettes were examined by the CSC’s Office for Legal Affairs
(OLA). It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files
copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner,
numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or lettersin
connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. On the
basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order,
requiring the petitioner, who had gone on extended leave, to submit his
explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted by the CSC on the computer of
the petitioner constituted an illegal search and was a violation of his
constitutional right to privacy.

HELD: The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his office and computer files.

In Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 437 (1967), the US Supreme Court held that
the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a conversation made by
petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his right to privacy
and constituted a “search and seizure”. Because the petitioner had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a
personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to
such area. Moreso, the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan noted that the
existence of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold
requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective)
expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society
is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

Furthermore, the Court rules that the search authorized by the CSC Chair, the
copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioner’s computer reasonable
in its inception and scope.

LVN Pictures Inc. v. Phil. Musicians Guild (110 Phil. 725)

FACTS: LVN Pictures, Inc. and Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. seek a review by
certiorari of an order of the Court of Industrial Relations, certifying the
Philippine Musicians Guild, petitioner therein and respondent herein, as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agency of allmusicians working with said
companies, as well as with the Premiere Productions, Inc., which has not
appealed. In its petition in the lower court, the Philippine Musicians Guild,
averred that it is a duly registered legitimate labor organization, that LVN
Pictures, Inc., Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., and Premiere Productions, Inc. are
corporations, duly organized under the Philippine laws, engaged in the
making of motion pictures and in the processing and distribution thereof, that
said companies employ musicians for the purpose of making music
recordings for title music, background music, musical numbers, finale music
and other incidental music, without which a motion picture is incomplete;
that 95% percent of all the musicians playing for the musical recordings of
said companies are members of the Guild; and that the same has no
knowledge of the existence of any other legitimate labor organization
representing musicians in said companies.

Apart from impugning the conclusion of the lower court on the status of the
Guild members as alleged employees of the film companies, the LVN
Pictures, Inc., maintains that a petition for certification cannot be entertained
when the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties is
contested. However, this claim is neither borne out by any legal provision nor
supported by any authority. So long as, after due hearing, the parties are
found to bear said relationship, as in the case at bar, it is proper to pass upon
the merits of the petition for certification.

ISSUE: Whether or not the musicians in question are employees of the film
companies and an employer-employee relationship exists?

HELD: Yes, the musicians are employees of the film companies, thus, an
employer-employee
relationship exists. The work of the musical director and musicians is a
functional and integral part of the enterprise performed at the same studio
substantially under the direction and control of the company. Meaning, to
determine whether a person who performs work for another is the latter's
employee or an independent contractor, the National Labor Relations relies
on 'the right to control' test. Under this test an employer-employee
relationship exist where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the
manner and means to be used in reaching the end.

The right of control of the film company over the musicians is shown (1) by
calling the musicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of the company (2) by
arranging schedules in its studio for recording sessions, (3) by furnishing
transportation and meals to musicians, and (4) by supervising and directing
in detail, through the motion picture director, the performance of the
musicians before the camera, in order to suit the music they are playing to
the picture which is being flashed on the screen.

Paguio Transport Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119500, 28 August

1998

FACTS: Melchor was hired by respondent company as a taxi driver under the
boundary system. He was engaged to drive the taxi unit assigned to him on a
24-hour schedule per trip every two
days, for which he used to earn an average income from P500 to P700 per
trip, exclusive of the Php. 650.00 boundary and other deductions imposed on
him. The complainant allegedly met a vehicular accident when he
accidentally bumped a car which stopped at the intersection even when the
traffic light was green and go. After he submitted the traffic accident report
to the office of respondents, he was allegedly advised to stop working and
have a rest. After several days, he allegedly reported for work only to be told
that his service was no longer needed. Hence, the complaint for illegal
dismissal, among others. Respondents for their part maintained that
complainant was not illegally dismissed, there being in the first place no
employer-employee relationship between them. Payment of boundary
allegedly makes the relationship between them of a wase-agreement.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship.

HELD: Yes. In Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court
already ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one
hand and jeepney drivers on the other under the boundary system is that of
employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. In the lease of chattels, the
lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased. In the case of jeepney
owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and
control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages
but get only the excess of that so-called boundary they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them
from that of employer and employee. The doctrine is applicable in the
present case. Thus, private respondents were employees. They had been
engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in
the usual trade or business of the employer. Under the "boundary system,"
private respondent was engaged to drive petitioner's taxi unit on a 24-hour
schedule every two days. On each such trip, private respondent remitted to
petitioner a "boundary" of P650. Whatever he earned in excess of that
amount was considered his income. Petitioner argues that under said
arrangement, he had no control over the number of hours private respondent
had to work and the routes he had to take.

Teng v. Pahagac, G.R. No. 169704, 17 November 2010

FACTS: Albert Teng (Petitioner) is engaged in the business of deep-sea

fishing, and customarily enters into joint venture agreements with master
fishermen (maestros) who are skilled and are experts in deep sea fishing;
they take charge of the management of each fishing venture, including the
hiring of the members of its complement. He avers that the maestros hired
the respondent workers as checkers to determine the volume of the fish
caught in every fishing voyage.

Respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissal. They averred that Teng

hired them, without any written employment contract, to serve as his "eyes
and ears" aboard the fishing boats, that they received regular monthly
salaries and other incentives. Sometime around September 2002, Teng
doubted the amounts that they were telling him regarding how much fish
were caught. By December, Teng told them their services were terminated.

The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed the complaint because there was no

employer-employee
relationship. Respondents received the decision on June 12, 2003; They filed
an Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied and they received the order on July 8,
2003. The Voluntary Arbitrator reasoned that the Procedural Guidelines in the
Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings, does not provide the remedy of
a motion for reconsideration to the party adversely affected by the Voluntary
Arbitrator’s order or decision.

ISSUE:Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between

Teng and the respondent workers.

HELD:
Yes. While Teng alleged that it was the maestros who hired the respondent
workers, it was his company that issued to the respondent workers
identification cards (IDs) bearing their names as employees and Teng’s
signature as the employer. Generally, in a business establishment, IDs are
issued to identify the holder as a bona fide employee of the issuing entity. For
the 13 years that the respondent workers worked for Teng, they received
wages on a regular basis, in addition to their shares in the fish caught.

The element of control is also present in this case. Teng not only owned the
tools and equipment, he directed how the respondent workers were to
perform their job as checkers; they, in fact, acted as Teng’s eyes and earsin
every fishing expedition. The employer has the burden of proving that the
dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this, as in the present case,
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore,
illegal.

Dy Keh Beng v. International Labor, L-32245, 25 May 1979

FACTS: Dy Keh Beng, proprietor of basket factory, was charged with Unfair
Labor Practice for discriminatory acts defined under Sec 4(a), subparagraph
(1 & 4), R.A. No. 875 by dismissing on September 28-29, 1960, respectively,
Carlos N. Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities. After PI was
conducted, a case was filed in the CIR for in behalf of the ILMUP and two of its
members, Solano and Tudla. Dy Keh Beng contended that he did not know
Tudla and that Solano was not his employee because the latter came to the
establishment only when there was work which he did on pakiaw basis.
According to Dy Keh Beng, Solano was not his employee.

According to petitioner, these facts show that respondents Solano and Tudla
are only piece
workers, not employees under Republic Act 875, where an employee is
referred to as shall include any employee and shag not be limited to the
employee of a particular employer unless the act explicitly states otherwise
and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of,
or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any ulp and
who has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular
employment. While an employer includes any person acting in the interest of
an employer, directly or indirectly but shall not include any labor organization
or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of
such labor organization. Petitioner also contends that the private respondents
"did not meet the control test in the fight of the definition of the terms
employer and employee, because there was no evidence to show that
petitioner had the right to direct the manner and method of respondent's
work. He points to the case of Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Nieves Baens del
Rosario, et al., L-13130, October 31, 1959, where the Court ruled that the test
of the existence of employee and employer relationship is whether there is
an understanding between the parties that one is to render personal services
to or for the benefit of the other and recognition by them of the right of one
to order and control the other in the performance of
the work and to direct the manner and method of its performance.

ISSUE: Whether or not an employee employer relation existed between

petitioner Dy Keh Beng and the respondents Solano and Tudla.

HELD: Yes. The SC also noted the decision of Justice Paras in the case of
Sunrise Coconut Products Co. V.. CIR that judicial notice of the fact that the
so-called "pakyaw" system mentioned in this case as generally practiced in
our country, is, in fact, a labor contract -between employers and employees,
between capitalists and laborers. With regard to the control test the Supreme
Court that said that , it should be borne in mind that the control test calls
merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work,
not the
actual exercise of the right. Considering the finding by the Hearing Examiner
that the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is "engaged in the manufacture of
baskets known as kaing, it is natural to expect that those working under Dy
would have to observe, among others, Dy's requirements of size and quality
of the kaing. Some control would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the
making of the kaing would be subject to Dy's specifications. Parenthetically,
since the work on the baskets is done at Dy's establishments, it can be
inferred that the proprietor Dy could easily exercise control on the men he
employed.
Therefore, an employer-employee relationship exists.

Insular Life Assurance Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 84484, 15 November

1989.

FACTS: Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and Melecio T. Basiao entered into a
contract where Basiao was authorized to solicit applications for insurance
policies within the Philippines, subject to the Company's rules. He would
receive compensation in the form of commissions as outlined in the contract.
Additionally, the Company's Rate Book, Agent's Manual, and circulars were
incorporated into the agreement.

In April 1972, the parties entered into a second agreement called an Agency
Manager's Contract, prompting Basiao to establish an office called M. Basiao
and Associates while also fulfilling his responsibilities under the original
contract. However, in May 1979, the Company terminated the Agency
Manager's Contract, leading Basiao to file a complaint with the Ministry of
Labor. He claimed unpaid commissions and sought relief. The Company
contested the Ministry's jurisdiction, arguing that Basiao was an independent
contractor and not an employee. Despite this, the Labor Arbiter and the
National Labor Relations Commission both ruled that Basiao was an
employee, citing the terms of their agreement. The Company appealed,
insisting that Basiao had control over his working time and methods,
operated without fixed quotas, and was compensated based on performance,
thus denying an employer-employee relationship.

ISSUE: Whether or not Melecio T. Basiao an employee of Insular Life

Assurance Co., Ltd.

HELD: No, Basiao was not an employee of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. The
Supreme Court ruled that Basiao was a commission agent and an
independent contractor. The Court emphasized that a distinction should be
made between rules that serve as mere guidelines for achieving a result and
those that control the methods used to achieve that result. Basiao's contract
gave him the freedom to choose the time, place, and manner of soliciting
insurance without any binding restrictions or control over his methods. The
absence of specific rules regulating his methods supported the conclusion
that he was not an employee. Therefore, Basiao's claim for unpaid
commissions should have been pursued through an ordinary civil action, not
a labor case.

Tongko v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. 167622,

29 June 2010 (See also: 25 January 2011 Resolution)

FACTS: Manulife is a domestic corporation engaged in the life insurance

business. Renato A. Vergel De Dios was its President and Chief Executive
Officer. The petitioner, Gregorio V. Tongko, began his professional
relationship with Manulife by executing a Career Agent’s Agreement. The
Agreement states that the agent is an independent contractor and that
nothing in it shall create an employer-employee relationship between the
Company and the Agent. The Agent is tasked with canvassing applications for
life insurance, annuities, group policies, and other products offered by the
Company, as well as collecting money due to the Company in exchange for
provisional receipts issued by the Agent. Furthermore, the Company may
terminate the Agreement for any breach or violation of its provisions by
giving notice to the Agent within 15 days from discovering the breach.

Tongko was subsequently named a Unit Manager and then a Branch

Manager. Problems arose when Manulife instituted manpower development
programs at the regional sales management level. In connection with this, De
Dios sent a letter to Tongko stating that his Region was the lowest performer
in terms of recruiting in 2000 and that a one-on-one meeting was necessary.
De Dios later wrote another letter terminating Tongko's services. Tongko then
filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission against
Manulife for illegal dismissal, alleging that De Dios gave him specific
directives on managing his area of responsibility and that Manulife exercised
control over him. Manulife submitted a position paper with a Motion to
Dismiss, arguing that Tongko was not its employee and that it did not
exercise control over him.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However,
on appeal, the NLRC reversed this decision, finding Tongko to have been
illegally dismissed. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals,
which concluded that there was no employer-employee relationship between
the parties and deemed the NLRC without jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between

Manulife and Tongko and whether or not Manulife is guilty of illegal dismissal.

HELD: Yes, Tongko was an employee of Manulife. Not every form of control
that one party reserves over the conduct of another in relation to services
rendered establishes an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court
in the case of Insular Life Insurance versus NLRC held that a distinction must
be made between rules that serve merely as guidelines to achieve a desired
result and those that dictate the means and methods used to achieve it. The
first type creates no employer-employee relationship, while the second does.
In this case, Manulife had sufficient control over Tongko, making him its
employee. The Agreement executed between Tongko and Manulife included
specific requirements that an agent must comply with: compliance with the
regulations and requirements of the Company, maintenance of a satisfactory
level of knowledge of the Company's products, and compliance with a quota
of new business. Thus, these requirements alone indicate that Tongko was an
employee of Manulife as they controlled the means and methods he needed
to achieve the Company’s goals.

Tongko was illegally dismissed. Manulife failed to present any evidence to

support its claims. The Company did not specify which order or rule Tongko
disobeyed, nor did it identify any specific acts of gross or habitual neglect of
duty or disobedience. In Quebec versus NLRC, it was established that when
no clear, valid, and legal cause for termination is shown, the matter is
considered a case of illegal dismissal, placing the burden on the employer to
prove valid grounds for the termination. For breaching due process
requirements, Manulife is liable to Tongko for P30,000 as indemnity in the
form of nominal damages.

AFP Mutual Benefit Association v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102199, 28 January

1997

FACTS: The AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. (AFP MBA) was established
for the benefit of its members, particularly to provide mutual aid and
assistance in times of need. A member of the AFP MBA, who was a military
officer, claimed death benefits following the death of his wife, which was
denied by the association. The denial was based on the ground that the death
of the member's wife was not due to natural causes. The member filed a
complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for the
recovery of the benefits.

ISSUE: Whether or not the AFP Mutual Benefit Association is liable to pay the
death benefits to the member.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.
is liable to pay the death benefits to the member. The Court ruled that the
association is obliged to pay benefits according to the terms of the contract,
which is in the nature of an insurance policy. The Court emphasized that the
provisions of the Insurance Code apply to mutual benefit associations. The
grounds for denying benefits must be clearly stated in the bylaws of the
association, and such grounds must be consistent with the law. The denial of
the claim was found to be arbitrary and not based on valid grounds as
stipulated in their by-laws.

CORPORAL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129315, October 2, 2000

FACTS: The five male petitioners worked as barbers, while the two female
petitioners worked as manicurists at New Look Barber Shop, owned by Lao
Enteng Co. Inc. Initially, the shop was a single proprietorship managed by
Vicente Lao. In January 1982, his children incorporated Lao Enteng Co. Inc.,
which took over the assets of the shop. The petitioners continued working
under the new management until they were informed on April 15, 1995, that
their services were no longer needed. They filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and other labor-related claims. The respondent contended that
petitioners were joint venture partners receiving commissions, thus denying
an employer-employee relationship.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between

the petitioners and the respondent.

HELD: Yes, there exists an employer-employee relationship. The petitioners

were engaged in work that was necessary and desirable to the business of
the respondent, and all three elements of such a relationship were present.
The control test established that the respondent had the right to control the
petitioners’ work performance, evidenced by their requirement to report for
duty and adhere to specific work hours. The petitioners' long-term
commitment to the business, along with the inability to take other
employment, indicated the presence of an employer-employee relationship.

MARAGUINOT v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120969, January 22, 1998

FACTS: Petitioner Maraguinot was employed in a filming crew and later

promoted to Electrician, while Enero worked as part of the shooting crew.
Both refused to sign a blank employment contract when requested. Enero
was forced to go on leave, and upon return, was not allowed back to work,
while Maraguinot was terminated for refusing to sign the contract. They filed
for illegal dismissal, while the respondents claimed that the petitioners were
project employees of independent contractors, hence no employer-employee
relationship existed.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship

between the petitioners and the respondents.

HELD: Yes, an employer-employee relationship exists. The control test

indicates that the relationship between VIVA and its producers was akin to
agency, as they exerted control over the petitioners regarding the production
of films. VIVA's authority over the schedule, quality, and methods of
production established the necessary control that defined the employment
relationship.

CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, November 25,

2008

FACTS: Calamba Medical Center engaged the services of doctors Ronaldo and
Merceditha Lanzanas as resident physicians. They were assigned fixed work
schedules, received regular compensation, and were enrolled in Social
Security and tax systems. After incidents leading to complaints of illegal
suspension and dismissal, the Labor Arbiter initially found no employer-
employee relationship, but the NLRC reversed this decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship

between the petitioner and the spouses-respondents.

HELD: Yes, an employer-employee relationship exists. The control exerted by

the hospital over the physicians' work schedules, duties, and adherence to a
Code of Ethics illustrated the employer's authority. Furthermore, enrollment
in the Social Security System and the issuance of identification cards further
confirmed their employee status.

JARDIN v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119268, February 23, 2000

FACTS: Petitioners were taxi drivers for Philjama International Inc., operating
under a boundary system. They earned daily income but faced illegal
deductions for washing fees. After attempting to form a labor union, they
were barred from driving their taxicabs and subsequently filed for unfair labor
practices and illegal dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship

between petitioners and respondent.

HELD: Yes, there exists an employer-employee relationship. The boundary

system arrangement does not negate the existence of an employment
relationship, as the taxi owner maintains control over the drivers’ operations,
such as adherence to prescribed routes and operational regulations.
Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioners was illegal due to the absence of
just cause and lack of proper termination procedures.

SONZA v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004

FACTS: Petitioner Sonza entered into an exclusive talent agreement with ABS-
CBN, receiving a substantial monthly fee. After two years, he resigned and
subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The respondent
contended that Sonza was an independent contractor, not an employee.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship

between petitioner and respondent.

HELD: Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship. The nature of the

exclusivity and the substantial compensation suggest that Sonza was not
merely an independent contractor but an employee. His services were
integral to ABS-CBN's operations, reinforcing the existence of an employer-
employee relationship based on the control test.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Marlyn Nazareno, G.R. No.

164156, 26 September 2006.
FACTS: ABS-CBN, a major broadcasting company, employed Marlyn
Nazareno, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Lerasan as
production assistants (PAs) at varying dates and assigned them to different
radio programs at its Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly salary of
P4,000. Their duties were closely related to the company’s core business
operations, and they worked under the supervision of ABS-CBN executives.
When a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was executed between ABS-
CBN and its rank-and-file employees, the respondents were excluded on the
grounds that they were not considered part of the bargaining unit.
Subsequently, they filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment
Status and other related claims against ABS-CBN before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) but initially failed to pursue it. They later refiled
their complaint, insisting on their status as regular employees and seeking
associated benefits. The case was dismissed for lack of interest, refiled, and
ultimately decided in favor of the respondents by the Labor Arbiter, declaring
them regular employees and awarding monetary benefits. ABS-CBN appealed
to the NLRC, which modified the decision in favor of the respondents. The
Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents should be considered regular

employees and, if so, whether they are entitled to benefits under the ABS-
CBN and its rank-and-file employees’ CBA.

HELD: The Supreme Court denied the petition of ABS-CBN, affirming the
decisions of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. It held that the respondents
were regular employees because their job responsibilities were integral and
necessary to ABS-CBN’s business. The decision was based on several factors,
including the nature of their work, the length of their service, and the degree
of control and supervision exercised by ABS-CBN over them. The Court also
ruled that the respondents were entitled to the benefits under the CBA
because their work made significant contributions to the company’s profits,
and being regular employees, they should enjoy the benefits provided to
other regular employees under the CBA.

This case reiterated the doctrine that employment should be deemed regular
when the employee has been engaged to perform activities usually necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except in specific
circumstances clearly outlined by law. It also underscored the principle that
technicalities should not impede the resolution of labor disputes in favor of
substantive justice.

Fulache v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 183810, 21 January 2010. Begino v.

ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 199166, 20 April 2015.

FACTS: Petitioners Fulache, et al., all drivers of ABS-CBN, challenged the

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) executed between ABS-CBN and the
ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union, arguing that they were classified as
temporary employees instead of regular employees. They claimed
entitlement to regular employee status due to their more than a year of
service with the company, which should also confer upon them the benefits
of regular employees. ABS-CBN countered that they were engaged as
independent contractors or off-camera talents, receiving “talent fees” rather
than salaries, and that their services were specifically for designated
programs, with contracts terminating upon program completion.

The Labor Arbiter, Rendoque, ruled in favor of Fulache, et al., declaring them
regular employees entitled to benefits and privileges under the CBA. ABS-
CBN appealed this decision, maintaining that the petitioners were
independent contractors. During the appeal, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, et
al. for refusing to sign employment contracts with a service contractor.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter upheld ABS-CBN’s right to contract out work but found that the
dismissal of Fulache, et al. was due to redundancy, a lawful cause for
dismissal. The NLRC, however, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling regarding
illegal dismissal, determining that Fulache, et al. were illegally dismissed and
awarding backwages and separation pay.

ISSUE: Whether or not Fulache, et al. should be considered regular

employees entitled to CBA benefits.

HELD: YES. The Court held that Fulache, et al. should be considered regular
employees who fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and are
therefore entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract. The
decision included the following conclusions. Appropriate Bargaining Unit, the
parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit consists of regular rank-
and-file employees, excluding certain classifications such as supervisors,
casual or probationary personnel, and those on contract status. Confirmation
of Regular Employee Status, the Court confirmed that petitioners are regular
employees of ABS-CBN and entitled to all rights, benefits, and privileges,
including CBA benefits, from the time they became regular employees. The
Court declared the dismissal of Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, and Lagunzad as
illegal, ordering their reinstatement to former positions without loss of
seniority rights and full backwages, and awarded moral damages of P100,000
each to Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, and Lagunzad and attorney’s fees
amounting to 10% of the total monetary award.

Therefore, the Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the
decisions of the Court of Appeals confirming the status and entitlements of
the petitioners as regular employees.

Aquino v. ABS-CBN

FACTS: Respondent ABS-CBN, represented by Respondent Villafuerte,

engaged the services of Petitioners as cameramen, editors, and reporters for
its TV Broadcasting operations. They signed regularly renewed Talent
Contracts, which ranged from three months to one year, and Project
Assignment Forms that detailed the duration, budget, and technical
requirements for each project. Petitioners were tasked with the coverage of
news items for the daily airings of Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program. The
Talent Contracts included an exclusivity clause and explicitly stated that they
did not establish an employer-employee relationship. In support of their
complaint for regularization filed with the NLRC, Petitioners argued that they
worked under the direct control of Respondent Villafuerte. They were
required to wear company IDs, provided with necessary equipment, informed
about news coverage assignments, and subject to company policies on
attendance and punctuality. Respondents contended that Petitioners were
hired as talents with no imposed control over how they performed their
duties and were only briefed about general project requirements. After the
termination of Petitioners' contracts while the case was pending, they filed a
second complaint for illegal dismissal. The Arbitration Branch ruled that
Petitioners were regular employees and ordered their reinstatement. The
NLRC affirmed this ruling, but the Court of Appeals later overturned it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that Petitioners are regular employees of ABS-
CBN, notwithstanding the terminology used in their Talent Contracts and
Project Assignment Forms. The Court emphasized that the "control test" is
the most crucial factor in determining the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. Under this test, a relationship is established when the
employer reserves the right to control not only the end result but also the
means and manner used to achieve that result. The Court found that
Petitioners were indeed subject to the control and supervision of
Respondents, who provided essential equipment for their tasks. Additionally,
the exclusivity clause and prohibitions contained in the Talent Contracts
indicated Respondents' control over Petitioners, albeit in an oblique manner.
The Court further asserted that when the work performed is integral to the
employer’s business and the worker does not offer independent services, it
constitutes regular employment rather than independent contracting.
Consequently, the Court concluded that Petitioners met the criteria for
regular employment and were entitled to the rights and benefits associated
with such status.
Orozco v. Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 155207, 13 August 2008.

FACTS: In March 1990, Wilhelmina S. Orozco was engaged by the Philippine

Daily Inquirer (PDI) to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section,
receiving compensation of PHP 250, later increased to PHP 300 per column.
Orozco submitted her articles regularly, except for a six-month period when
she was in New York City but continued sending articles via mail. On
November 7, 1992, Orozco was informed that her column would no longer be
published, with PDI stating that there were too many columnists. PDI claimed
the decision aimed to improve their Lifestyle section, retaining only columns
that met their high standards, which they felt Orozco’s did not. Aggrieved,
Orozco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, back wages, moral and
exemplary damages, and other monetary claims before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). On October 29, 1993, Labor Arbiter Arthur
Amansec held that Orozco was an employee of PDI and was illegally
dismissed, mandating her reinstatement with back wages and other benefits.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but dismissed the appeal due
to procedural issues, emphasizing that PDI controlled Orozco’s work. PDI
escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which referred the case to the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision, holding
that Orozco was not an employee of PDI. The Supreme Court initially ordered
the Labor Arbiter to clarify the monetary award and directed PDI to post the
required bond. After compliance, the Supreme Court considered the merits of
the case again.

ISSUES: Whether Orozco was an employee of PDI under the legal parameters
for an employer-employee relationship. If Orozco was indeed an employee,
whether her dismissal constituted illegal dismissal under Philippine labor
laws.

HELD: Yes, Orozco was an employee of PDI under the legal parameters for an
employer-employee relationship. The court applied the “four-fold test,”
examining the elements of selection and engagement, payment of wages,
the power to dismiss, and control over the employee’s conduct. Focusing on
the control test, the court determined that PDI did not control how Orozco
wrote her columns but only the final output’s compliance with general
guidelines, thus insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship.
The restrictions on content, space, and deadlines were noted as inherent to
the editorial process of a newspaper and did not amount to sufficient control
over Orozco's work execution. The court referenced Sonza v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation to illustrate that individuals with specialized skills
and no operational control by the employer are regarded as independent
contractors, not employees. The court concluded that for an employer-
employee relationship to exist, significant control over the means and
method of work performance is necessary, not merely over the end result,
also considering the worker’s economic dependence on the business for
steady employment.

Television And Production Exponents, Inc. v. Servaña, G.R. No.

167648, 28 January 2008.

FACTS: In March 1987, Servaña began his employment as a security guard

with the Agro-Commercial Security Agency (ACSA), which had a contract with
the TV network RPN 9. In 1995, when RPN 9 severed its relationship with
ACSA, Television and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE), responsible for TV
programming including the show Eat Bulaga!, retained Servaña's services. In
2000, TAPE contracted Sun Shield Security Agency and notified Servaña of
his termination due to redundancy. Servaña then filed a case for illegal
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that his dismissal was valid based on
redundancy, yet he was entitled to separation pay amounting to PHP 78,000.
TAPE appealed, claiming Servaña was a talent and not a regular employee,
asserting there was no employer-employee relationship. The National Labor
Relations Commission ruled in favor of TAPE, designating Servaña as a
program employee. Servaña subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which reversed the NLRC's decision, affirming the Labor Arbiter's ruling and
imposing nominal damages of PHP 10,000 against TAPE and its president,
Tuviera.

ISSUE: Whether or not an employee-employer relationship existed between

TAPE and Servaña.

HELD: Yes, Servaña is a regular employee. The Supreme Court applied the
Four-Fold Test to ascertain the nature of his employment. First, it determined
that TAPE selected and engaged Servaña when it absorbed him as a talent in
1995; despite being termed a talent, he performed an activity essential to
TAPE's business. Second, the court noted that Servaña received a fixed
monthly compensation of PHP 6,000. Third, TAPE had the power to dismiss
Servaña, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Discontinuance indicating his
redundancy. Finally, the court found that TAPE exercised control over
Servaña, as shown by the requirement for him to report to work at fixed
hours documented by bundy cards. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled
that Servaña was entitled to separation pay but found no basis for holding
Tuviera liable for nominal damages, as there was no evidence of bad faith in
the termination.

Tabang v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121143, 21 January 1997.

FACTS: Purificacion Tabang was a founding member and corporate secretary

of Pamana Golden Care Medical Center Foundation, Inc. She received a
monthly retainer fee of P5,000.00 until its payment was stopped in November
1991. On April 30, 1993, she was relieved of her duties as Medical Director
and Hospital Administrator through a Board resolution. Tabang filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages, which was
dismissed by the labor arbiter for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: No. The SEC has jurisdiction as the case involves an intra-corporate
controversy. As a medical director and hospital administrator, Tabang is
considered a corporate officer under the corporation's by-laws. Section 5(c) of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A gives the SEC exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes regarding the election or appointment of corporate officers.
Therefore, jurisdiction is vested in the SEC, not in the NLRC.

Francisco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 170087, 31 August 2006.

FACTS: Petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation, serving various roles

including Accountant, Corporate Secretary, and Acting Manager. Following
her replacement, her salary was reduced, and she was eventually informed
she was no longer connected with the company. Petitioner filed for
constructive dismissal, while Kasei claimed she was only a technical
consultant, not an employee.

ISSUE: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between

petitioner and Kasei Corporation.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that a two-tiered test is appropriate to
analyze complex relationships. Petitioner was under the direct control of the
corporation and had served multiple roles with substantial job functions over
six years, evidencing an employer-employee relationship. The economic
dependence test also supported her status as an employee, given her regular
payments and SSS contributions.

In cases of complex employer-employee relationships, the existence of an

employer-employee relationship is determined through a two-tiered test: (1)
the employer's power to control the employee's means and methods of work,
and (2) the economic realities of the relationship.

WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. et al. v. Galera, G.R. No.

169207/G.R. No. 169239, 25 March 2010.

FACTS: Jocelyn Galera was recruited as a corporate officer but was verbally
notified of her termination without proper process. The Labor Arbiter found
her dismissal illegal, while the NLRC claimed she was a corporate officer,
making the case an intra-corporate dispute. The CA reversed the NLRC's
decision, ruling her an employee.

ISSUE: Whether or not Galera was a corporate officer.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court found that Galera's appointment was to a non-
existent corporate office, as the by-laws only provided for one Vice-President.
The Court applied a four-fold test, confirming she was subject to WPP's
control, paid wages, and operated under WPP’s disciplinary procedures.
Galera was determined to be an employee, thus the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
had jurisdiction over the case. WPP failed to establish just cause for her
dismissal, which lacked both substantive and procedural due process.

Thus, corporate officers are defined by the Corporation Code or the

corporation’s by-laws. The power to create additional officers lies with the
Board of Directors or the by-laws.

Matling Industrial v. Coros, G.R. No. 157802, 13 October 2010.

FACTS: Respondent Coros filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal
dismissal against petitioner Matling and some of its corporate officers in the
NLRC. The petitioners moved to dismiss, claiming the dispute fell under SEC
jurisdiction as an intra-corporate dispute due to Coros's membership on
Matling’s Board of Directors and his role as Vice-President for Finance and
Administration. Coros opposed, arguing he had not been formally elected.
The LA granted the dismissal, but the NLRC set it aside, stating Coros was not
a corporate officer since his position was not listed in Matling’s Constitution
and By-Laws. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Coros was a corporate officer, thereby

granting jurisdiction to the SEC and not the labor tribunals.

HELD: No. Section 25 of the Corporation Code indicates that corporate

officers are the President, Secretary, Treasurer, and others provided for in the
By-Laws. The interpretation clarifies that corporate officers are only those
designated by the Corporation Code or the corporation's By-Laws. The office
of Vice President for Finance and Administration, created by Matling's
President under By Law No. V, was an ordinary office, not a corporate one.
The Board of Directors could not delegate the power to create a corporate
office, as this power is reserved exclusively for them.

A position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws to be considered a

corporate office; the creation of an office pursuant to or under a By-Law
enabling provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office.

Malcaba v. Prohealth Pharma Philippines, G.R. No. 209085, 6 June

2018.
FACTS: ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc. employed Malcaba as President.
He claimed Del Castillo, the CEO, made it difficult for him to perform his job,
leading him to take a leave. Upon attempting to return, he was informed that
he had resigned. Malcaba later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
nonpayment of salaries, and other claims. The LA found him constructively
dismissed, a ruling later affirmed by the NLRC. However, the CA reversed
this, stating that there was no employer-employee relationship as Malcaba
was a corporate officer, hence the complaint should have been filed in the
RTC.

ISSUE: Whether the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission
had jurisdiction over Malcaba's termination dispute, considering he was a
corporate officer.

HELD: No. The Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
termination disputes between an employer and employee, while the NLRC
has appellate jurisdiction over these cases. Malcaba, being the President of
the corporation, was considered a corporate officer. His dismissal fell under
the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, making the
adjudication of his claims void for lack of jurisdiction.

The President of a corporation is a corporate officer; a president’s removal as

such is an intra-corporate dispute under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Republic v. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, 23 November

2007.

FACTS: A petition for Review on Certiorari was filed by the Social Security
System (SSS) to annul the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 87236. The appellate court annulled the Orders of the Social
Security Commission (SSC) in SSC Case No. 6-15507-03, which dismissed the
petition-complaint filed by the SSS against Asiapro Cooperative. The
cooperative, composed of owner-members, entered into Service Contracts
with Stanfilco but did not provide compensation or wages to its members. To
access benefits under the Social Security Law of 1997, the owner-members
requested registration with the SSS as self-employed and sought the
cooperative’s assistance in remitting their contributions.

The cooperative ignored these demands, claiming that no employer-

employee relationship existed between it and its owner-members, thereby
denying SSC jurisdiction over it.

ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between the

respondent cooperative and the owner-members.
HELD: Yes. The Court determined that an employer-employee relationship
exists based on the four-fold test, which includes: (1) the selection and
engagement of workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever means; (3)
the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the worker's conduct,
with the latter being the most significant factor. The Court affirmed that all
elements of the employment relationship were met. The Service Contracts
executed by the cooperative and Stanfilco, which stated that no employer-
employee relationship existed between the cooperative and its owner-
members, were deemed ineffective as they contradicted public policy and
legal provisions.

The Court ruled that an employment relationship cannot be denied merely by

contract renunciation if the terms and circumstances demonstrate otherwise,
emphasizing that employment status is defined by law, not by the parties'
declarations.
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 184977, 7 December 2009

FACTS: The respondents, route helpers assigned to Coca-Cola trucks, were

either directly hired by the petitioner or through its contractors, Peerless and
Excellent Partners Cooperative, Inc. They argued that their services are
essential to the petitioner’s business but did not receive the same
remuneration and benefits as the petitioner's regular employees. The
petitioner claimed the respondents were under the control of Peerless and
Excellent, which retained the rights to hire, discipline, and pay their
personnel. The respondents countered that they worked under the direct
supervision of the company's supervisors, asserting that Peerless and
Excellent lacked sufficient capital for legitimate contracting, thereby making
the agreements "labor-only" contracts prohibited by law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Peerless and Excellent Partners Cooperative, Inc. is a

labor-only contractor.

HELD: Yes. The Court affirmed that there is "labor-only" contracting as

defined by Article 106 of the Labor Code. Peerless and Excellent lacked
substantial capital or investment necessary for legitimate contracting. The
workers' tasks were directly related to the principal business of Coca-Cola,
and the contractors did not exercise sufficient control over the work
performed. The arrangement was therefore deemed a labor-only contract,
making the employer liable for the workers' entitlements.

There is "labor-only" contracting where the person supplying workers to an

employer 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 persons are performing activities directly
related to the principal business of such employer.

Temic Automotive Philippines v. Temic Automotive Phils. Inc.

Employees Union – FFW, G.R. No. 186965, 23 December 2009.

FACTS: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing electronic brake systems,

had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with its union. Since 1998, the
petitioner contracted out some warehouse services to independent service
providers. The union claimed these functions overlapped with those of
regular employees and demanded the absorption of forwarders' employees
into the bargaining unit. The petitioner argued the outsourcing was a
legitimate exercise of management prerogative.

ISSUE: Whether the company validly contracted out forwarding, packing, and
clerical services.

HELD: Yes, the company validly contracted out the services. The outsourcing
arrangement aimed to achieve greater operational efficiency, a legitimate
business objective. The Court found no evidence of bad faith or violation of
labor laws in the contracting arrangement. Moreover, the functions of
forwarders' employees were distinct from those of regular employees. The
forwarders performed separate services that, while similar in skill, were not
covered by the CBA, as they were part of a different operational process.

Thus, a ompany can determine in its best judgment whether it should

contract out a part of its work as long as the employer is motivated by good
faith, the contracting does not circumvent the law, and does not result from
malicious or arbitrary actions.

Alviado v. Procter & Gamble, G.R. No. 160506, 9 March 2010.

FACTS: Petitioners, merchandisers for P&G, were hired through Promm-Gem
and SAPS under short-term contracts and filed for regularization and benefits
against P&G. They handled P&G products at various retail outlets. P&G
contended it had legitimate contracts with Promm-Gem and SAPS for
merchandising services.

ISSUE: Whether P&G is a labor-only contractor.

HELD: No. P&G was found to be a legitimate independent contractor. Promm-
Gem demonstrated sufficient capital and resources necessary for the services
provided. The arrangements did not meet the criteria for "labor-only"
contracting as defined by the Labor Code, thus P&G was not liable for the
petitioners' benefits as they were not its direct employees.

Thus, labor laws expressly prohibit "labor-only" contracting, establishing an

employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employees of
the labor-only contractor to prevent circumvention.

Neri v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 97008-09, 23 July 1993.

FACTS: Petitioners Virginia Neri and Jose Cabelin were hired by Building Care
(BCC), which provided services to Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).
They filed a complaint for regular employment against FEBTC, arguing that
BCC was a labor-only contractor. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of BCC,
citing its substantial capital of P1 million. Petitioners contended BCC lacked
necessary tools and equipment.

ISSUE: Whether or not BCC is engaged in labor-only contracting.

HELD: NO. BCC is an independent contractor. It demonstrated substantial

capital, and control over petitioners rested with BCC, as evidenced by their
selection, uniforms, and procedures for filing leaves. BCC maintained
supervision and control over the workers, indicating an independent business
operation.

One is not required to possess both substantial capital and investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machinery, work premises, among others, to be
considered an independent job contractor. Possession of either attribute is
sufficient for the purposes of complying with one of the conditions for the
establishment of permissible job contracting.

Vinoya v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126586, 2 February 2000.

FACTS: Petitioner Vinoya was employed as a sales representative by Regent

Food Corp (RFC) and was later transferred to Peninsula Manpower Company
Inc (PMCI). After being reassigned, he was terminated when the Contract of
Service between RFC and PMCI expired. Vinoya claimed illegal dismissal and
non-payment of benefits.

ISSUE: Whether or not PMCI is a labor-only contractor.

HELD: Yes. PMCI was found to be a labor-only contractor despite its

substantial capitalization. It did not operate an independent business, and the
employees performed activities directly related to RFC's main business. The
evidence showed that RFC controlled the workers, confirming the labor-only
contractor arrangement.

As a labor law principle, labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an

arrangement where the contractor merely supplies workers to perform a job
for a principal. Elements of labor-only contracting include the lack of
substantial capital and the performance of activities directly related to the
principal's business.
San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano, G.R. No. 164257, 5 July 2010.

FACTS: Vicente et al. were hired by Alilgilan Multi-Purpose Coop (AMPCO) for
work at San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) Bottling Plant. After being dismissed
without notice, they filed for illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled AMPCO as the
employer, but the Court of Appeals determined that AMPCO was a labor-only
contractor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that AMPCO was a labor-only
contractor.

HELD: NO. AMPCO was not an independent contractor, lacking the necessary
assets and independence in operations. The Court reiterated that AMPCO
operated under SMC’s control and did not perform a specific job, confirming it
acted merely as a recruitment agency.

As such, the existence of an independent contractor relationship is

established by several criteria, including whether the contractor carries on an
independent business and the control exerted over the workers.

Baguio v, NLRC, G.R. No. 79004, 4 October 1991.

FACTS: Feliciano Lupo, a contractor, hired petitioners for construction work at

GMC's facility. After being dismissed, petitioners sought unpaid wages. The
NLRC initially denied GMC's liability, stating they were not directly employed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lupo and GMC are solidarily liable to Lupo’s
employees.

HELD: YES. GMC and Lupo are jointly liable for the employees' wages.
Although the setup did not constitute labor-only contracting, GMC's obligation
stems from Article 106 of the Labor Code, which ensures employee protection
regarding unpaid wages. As rules by the Supreme Court, in job contracting,
while the contractor is the direct employer, the employer is deemed an
indirect employer by operation of law.

San Miguel v. Semillano, G.R. No. 164257, 5 July 2010.

FACTS: AMPCO (Alilgilan Multi-Purpose Coop) hired the services of Vicente et

al. wherein they were required to work inside the premises of SMC using
SMC’s equipment. They rendered service with SMC for more than 6 months.
Subsequently, SMC entered into a Contract of Services with AMPCO
designating the latter as the employer of Vicente et al. As a result, Vicente et
al. failed to claim the rights and benefits ordinarily accorded a regular
employee of SMC. In fact, they were not paid their 13th month pay. On June
6, 1995, they were not allowed to enter the premises of SMC. The project
manager of AMPCO, Merlyn Polidario, told them to wait for further instructions
from SMC’s supervisor. Vicente et al. waited for one month; unfortunately,
they never heard a word from SMC. Consequently, Vicente et al., as
complainants, filed a COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL with the Labor
Arbiter against AMPCO contending that they are regular employees of SMC.

ISSUE: Whether or not AMPCO is a legitimate job contractor.

HELD: NO. The existence of an independent and permissible contractor

relationship is generally established by the following criteria: whether or not
the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent
of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the
right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and
supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the
hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the
premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials, and
labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment. The AMPCO’s main
business activity is trading, maintaining a store catering to members and the
public. Its job contracting with SMC is only a minor activity or sideline. The
component of AMPCO’s substantial capital are in fact invested and used in
the trading business.

In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-

only contracting, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances
of the case are to be considered. The evidence is clear that respondents
performed activities which were directly related to petitioner’s main line of
business. Petitioner is primarily engaged in the manufacturing and marketing
of beer products, and respondents’ work of segregating and cleaning bottles
is unarguably an important part of its manufacturing and marketing process.

Consolidated Building Maintenance v. Asprec, G.R. No. 217301, 6

June 2018.

FACTS: CBMI is a corporation that provides various services, including

janitorial and kitchen support, to clients such as Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI).
CBMI has had contracts with PPI since 2008, offering kitchen, delivery,
sanitation, and other services for one-year terms.

Rolando Asprec, Jr. and Jonalen Bataller claim they are regular employees of
PPI. Asprec started as a "Rider" in January 2001, and Bataller as a "team
member/slice cashier" in March 2008, both at the PPI branch on Marcos
Highway, Marikina City. Asprec states that after his contract expired on
November 4, 2001, he was told by PPI to take a leave of absence. After an
interview with PPI's Area Manager, he signed a new contract with CBMI but
continued working in the same role at the same location. Bataller had a
similar experience; she was told by her manager to submit a resignation
letter and go through CBMI to continue her employment, which she did after
an interview with PPI's General Manager.

CBMI claims that Asprec and Bataller are its employees and that they were
involved in an incident on July 23, 2010, concerning an attempted theft
related to pizza deliveries. Asprec, who was not aware of the incident, was
suspended for eight days and later dismissed. Bataller, who was working at
the LRT Santolan, Pasig Station on that day, claims she did not notice an
excess delivery while attending to customers and reported the incident to her
area manager. Following the incident, she was instructed not to return to
work starting July 24, 2010.

ISSUE: Whether or not CBMI is a labor only contractor.

HELD: The Certificate of Registration issued by DOLE recognizes CBMI as an

independent contractor as of February 13, 2008, and regards the validity of
the latter's registration as such until February 14, 2011 well within the period
relevant to this appeal. In this light, it then becomes incumbent upon the
respondents to rebut the presumption of regularity to prove that CBMI is not
a legitimate contractor as determined by the DOLE, which they failed to do.
Under the premises and based on the evidence presented by the parties, the
Court is inclined to sustain the position of CBMI that it is an independent
contractor. All these, without doubt indicate that CBMI possesses the power
of control over the respondents; which in turn supports the conclusion that
CBMI carries a business independent of PPI. CBMI, as the employer has the
power to impose discipline upon the respondents who are its employees,
which includes the imposition of the preventive suspension pending
investigation.
Mago v. Sun Power Manufacturing, G.R. No. 210961, 24 January
2018.

FACTS: Jobcrest is a corporation engaged in the business of contracting

management consultancy and services and was duly licensed by DOLE. A
Service Contract Agreement was entered into by Jobcrest and Sunpower
wherein the former is to provide business process services for the latter
which is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing automotive
computer and other electronic parts. Petitioners, as employees of Jobcrest,
were trained for their engagement in Sunpower.

Thereafter, petitioners were assigned to the plant of Sunpower in Laguna

Technopark. Leo was a Production Operator in the Coin Stacking Station while
Leilanie was a Production Operator tasked with final visual inspection in the
Packing Station. Petitioners were supervised by Jobcrest’s on-site supervisor
during their assignment with Sunpower. Due to Sunpower’s operational
alignment, the segments wherein petitioners were assigned were terminated.
During such, petitioners were on leave. Allegedly, Leo was informed that his
employment was terminated when he reported for work. Nonetheless, he was
asked to report to Jobcrest for his assignment to Sunpower.

Upon compliance, he was served with a “Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation

Slip” for not disclosing his relationship with Leilanie. Meanwhile, Leilanie was
informed that she is being transferred to another client company. Petitioners
then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization with the NLRC.
At the mandatory conference, it was clarified by Jobcrest that petitioners
were not dismissed from employment. However, petitioners assert that they
were regular employees of Sunpower and not Jobcrest. The LA ruled that
Jobcrest is a legitimate independent contractor and is the statutory employer
of the petitioners, which was reversed by the NLRC. Sunpower then filed a
petition for certiorari which was granted by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the fact of registration with DOLE creates a

presumption that Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor.

HELD: NO. Nonetheless, the issuance of the DOLE Certificate of Registration

in Jobcrest’s favor is presumed to have been done in the regular performance
of official duty. DOLE is the agency primarily tasked with the regulation of job
contracting. As such, it is presumed that the DOLE officer who issued said
certificate evaluated the application for registration pursuant to the
applicable rules and regulations. Further, it was not disputed by the
petitioners that Jobcrest was a duly-registered contractor. Thus, there is no
operative presumption that Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor.

Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency v. Sales, G.R. No. 162420,

22 April 2008.

FACTS: Petitioner is a private corporation engaged in the business of

providing security services to its clients, one of whom is Delta Milling
Industries, Inc. Private respondents were hired as security guards by Jaguar,
assigned at the premises of Delta in Quezon City. Caranyagan and Tamayo
were terminated by Jaguar. Allegedly their dismissals were arbitrary and
illegal. Sales, Moron, Fetalvero and Silva remained with Jaguar. All the guard-
employees claim for monetary benefits. Petitioner Jaguar filed a partial
appeal questioning the failure of public respondent NLRC to resolve its cross-
claim against Delta as the party ultimately liable for payment of the
monetary award to the security guards. NLRC dismissed the appeal, holding
that it was not the proper forum to raise the issue. Jaguar, being the direct
employer of the security guards, is the one principally liable to the
employees. Thus, it directed petitioner to file a separate civil action for
recovery of the amount before the regular court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter, for the purpose of proving the liability of Delta. Petitioner
argues that as principal, Delta Milling is liable for the awarded wage increases
and petitioner should be reimbursed of any payments to be made.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jaguar’s cross-claim against Delta may be raised in the
NLRC.

HELD: No, Jaguar’s cross-claim against Delta may not be raised in the NLRC.
The jurisdiction of labor courts extends only to cases where an employer-
employee relationship exists. The RTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the present case. It is well-settled in law and jurisprudence that
where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no
issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code,
other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional
Trial Court that has jurisdiction. In the case at bar, no employer-employee
relationship exists between petitioner and Delta Milling. In its cross-claim,
petitioner is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but merely
reimbursement of the monetary benefits claims awarded and to be paid to
the guard employees.

There is no labor dispute involved in the cross-claim against Delta Milling.

Rather, the cross-claim involves a civil dispute between petitioner and Delta
Milling. Petitioner's cross-claim is within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction
over it belongs to the regular courts. Moreover, the liability of Delta Milling to
reimburse petitioner will only arise if and when petitioner actually pays its
employees the adjudged liabilities. Payment, which means not only the
delivery of money but also the performance, in any other manner, of the
obligation, is the operative fact which will entitle either of the solidary
debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corresponds to each of
the debtors. In this case, it appears that petitioner has yet to pay the guard
employees. There is no question regarding their liabilities. Both parties are
liable. Under Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code, the joint and
several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated to assure
compliance with the provisions therein including the statutory minimum
wage. Petitioner is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. On
the other hand, Delta Milling, as principal, is made the indirect employer of
the contractor's employees for purposes of paying the employees their wages
should the contractor be unable to pay them. This joint and several liability
facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers' performance of any
work, task, job or project, thus giving the workers ample protection as
mandated by the 1987 Constitution. However, in the event that petitioner
pays his obligation to the guard employees pursuant to the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and CA, petitioner has the right of
reimbursement from Delta Milling under Article 1217 of the Civil Code.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines v. Agito, G.R. No. 179546, 13 February

2009

FACTS: Petitioner is a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC), engaged in manufacturing, bottling, and
distributing soft drink beverages and other related products. Respondents,
who were salesmen assigned to the Lagro Sales Office of the petitioner,
claimed they had been employed for several years without being regularized.
They alleged that their employment was terminated on April 8, 2002, without
just cause and due process. On April 15, 2002, respondents filed complaints
with the NLRC against the petitioner, Interserve, Peerless Integrated Services,
Inc., Better Builders, Inc., and Excellent Partners, Inc. The complaints sought
reinstatement with back wages, regularization, non-payment of 13th-month
pay, and damages.
The petitioner filed a Position Paper along with a Motion to Dismiss, stating
that the respondents were employees of Interserve, which had been
contracted to provide services according to a Contract of Services executed
between the petitioner and Interserve on March 23, 2002. The contract,
effective from April 1, 2002, to September 30, 2002, constituted legitimate
job contracting, as Interserve was deemed a bona fide independent
contractor with substantial capital or investment in tools, equipment, and
machinery necessary for its business operations.

ISSUE: Whether or not Interserve is a legitimate job contractor.

HELD: The Court clarified that "labor-only" contracting exists when the
contractor supplying workers lacks substantial capital or investment in tools,
equipment, or machinery and when the workers perform activities directly
related to the principal employer's business. In such instances, the contractor
is considered an agent of the employer, responsible to the workers as if they
were directly employed by the employer.

Labor-only contracting is prohibited and is defined as an arrangement where

the contractor merely recruits, supplies, or places workers to perform jobs for
a principal, with at least one of the following conditions met, that the
contractor does not have substantial capital or investment related to the job,
and the employees are performing activities directly related to the principal's
main business and that the contractor does not exercise control over the
performance of work by the contractual employees.

Garden of Memories Park v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160278, 8 February

2012.

FACTS: Private respondent Hilaria Cruz was employed as a utility worker for
the petitioner incorporation until her services were terminated following a
misunderstanding with a co-worker regarding the use of a garden water hose.
After the altercation, Paulina Requino, her service contractor, instructed her
to go home. When Cruz returned to work three days later, she was informed
that she had been replaced by another worker. This led Cruz to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner incorporation.

In its defense, the petitioner claimed that Cruz was an employee of Requino,
who operated as a service contractor running an independent business and
had undertaken the contract of work on her own account. Requino, in turn,
sought the dismissal of the complaint, stating that her mother had hired Cruz
and owned the business, which had never been transferred to her name.

ISSUE: Whether or not Requino is engaged in labor-only contracting.

HELD: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Requino was engaged in labor-only
contracting. The Court noted that both the capitalization requirement and
Requino's power of control were lacking. There is a presumption that a
contractor is a labor-only contractor unless it can demonstrate substantial
capital, investment, or tools. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to
show that Requino met these requirements, which it failed to do.

Requino’s claim that her business was merely a livelihood program to assist
the underprivileged indicated that her capital was not substantial.
Furthermore, the Service Contract Agreement between Cruz and Requino
revealed that Requino lacked the discretion to determine the means and
manner of the work performed; rather, it mandated strict compliance with the
requirements and standards set by the petitioner incorporation. Importantly,
Cruz was engaged in activities essential to the principal trade or business of
the petitioner incorporation.
Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble, G.R. No. 160506, 9 March 2010.

FACTS: Petitioners worked as merchandisers for P&G, beginning as early as

1982 or as late as June 1991, with contracts lasting approximately five
months. They were assigned to various outlets, supermarkets, and stores
handling P&G products, receiving wages from Promm-Gem or SAPS. Both
SAPS and Promm-Gem imposed disciplinary measures on the merchandisers.
In December 1991, the petitioners filed a complaint for regularization against
P&G, but the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no
employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and P&G. This
decision was affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether Promm-Gem and SAPS were legitimate independent job

contractors.

HELD: Promm-Gem is considered a legitimate independent contractor due to

its substantial investment, including an authorized capital stock of 1 million
and paid-in capital of 500,000, along with long-term and current assets. It
provided the necessary materials and uniforms for its workers, indicating it
was not a labor-only contractor.

In contrast, SAPS was deemed a labor-only contractor, having only 31,250 in

paid-in capital and no substantial evidence of investment in tools or assets.
The workers it supplied were engaged in activities directly related to P&G's
principal business, which established an employer-employee relationship
between P&G and the employees of SAPS. Consequently, the petitioners
recruited by SAPS are considered employees of P&G.

Manila Memorial Park v. Lluz, G.R. No. 208451, 3 February 2016

FACTS: On February 23, 2006, Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. entered
into a Contract of Services with Ward Trading and Services. Ward Trading was
to provide interment and exhumation services at Manila Memorial Park.
Respondents, who worked six days a week for a daily wage, filed a complaint
for regularization after Manila Memorial refused their request for regular
status. Manila Memorial contended that respondents were employed by Ward
Trading. The respondents were subsequently dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether there is labor-only contracting.

HELD: There exists labor-only contracting. The Court found that although a
Contract of Services was in place between Manila Memorial Park and Ward
Trading, the latter did not possess substantial capital or investment in tools,
equipment, or machinery, as these were owned by Manila Memorial.
Additionally, Ward Trading was subject to the control of Manila Memorial,
meaning it acted as an agent of the principal employer. Consequently, the
workers supplied by Ward Trading were deemed regular employees of Manila
Memorial.

WM Manufacturing v. Dalag, G.R. No. 209418, 7 December 2015.

FACTS: On April 26, 2010, Golden Rock contracted Dalag as a side machine
operator at W.M. Manufacturing’s factory. Although the contract was for five
months, Dalag was barred from entering the worksite on August 7, 2010, and
subsequently filed a case for illegal dismissal, alleging that labor-only
contracting occurred because all necessary tools and supervision were
provided by W.M. Manufacturing.

ISSUE: Whether WM Manufacturing Inc. and Golden Rock Manpower Services

engaged in labor-only contracting.
HELD: Labor-only contracting was established between WM Manufacturing
and Golden Rock. The Court determined that Golden Rock lacked substantial
capital, as it did not possess the necessary tools or equipment for the work
performed, which were supplied by WM Manufacturing. Moreover, WM
Manufacturing exercised control over the workers provided by Golden Rock,
undermining the latter's claim to independent contractor status. Thus, Dalag,
as a worker supplied by Golden Rock, was considered an employee of WM
Manufacturing.

Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor

Workers, G.R. No. 173254, 13 January 2016.

FACTS: Davao Fruit Inc. (DFI) owns an 800-hectare banana plantation in

Alejal, Carmen, Davao, which is subject to the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 (CARL). Initially granted a deferment privilege by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to operate until 1998, DFI later closed
some areas and laid off employees, leading to a petition for cancellation of
the privilege. DAR recalled this privilege, resulting in the plantation's
automatic acquisition under CARL.

To minimize losses, DFI offered to relinquish its rights through a Voluntary

Offer to Sell, which DAR accepted, dividing the plantation into 689.88
hectares awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and a retained
managed area. The ARBs formed a cooperative named DARBMUPCO and
entered into a Banana Production and Purchase Agreement (BPPA) with DFI.
Due to manpower shortages, DFI hired respondent-contractors to recruit
workers, leading to labor disputes. The Southern Philippines Federation of
Labor (SPFL) filed a petition for certification for about 400 workers employed
by DFI and DARBMUPCO and another case for wage underpayment against
them and the contractors. DFI and DARBMUPCO denied being the employers,
claiming the contractors employed the workers.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment ruled DFI was the employer,
prompting DFI to appeal. The Labor Arbiter classified the contractors as
"labor-only contractors," affirming DFI as the statutory employer, a ruling
supported by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether or not DFI is the statutory employer of the respondent-

workers.

HELD: The case centers on job contracting, which involves a principal, a

contractor, and workers. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, permissible job
contracting requires that the contractor operates independently, has
substantial capital or investment, and conducts work under its own
responsibility. Conversely, labor-only contracting, which is prohibited, occurs
when a contractor lacks the necessary capital and the workers perform
activities integral to the principal's business.

The court found that the respondent-contractors were labor-only contractors.

DFI failed to demonstrate that the contractors operated independent
businesses with sufficient capital. The evidence did not support DFI's
assertion that the contractors were anything but labor-only contractors. As
such, an employer-employee relationship arose between DFI and the workers
of the labor-only contractors, making DFI the statutory employer.

The court further clarified that ownership of the land does not determine the
employer-employee relationship. Despite DARBMUPCO owning the awarded
plantation, DFI exercised control over the workers, assigning tasks and
monitoring performance. DFI hired the respondent-contractors, who supplied
labor, and the direct supervision by DFI's management solidified its role as
the principal employer. Consequently, the Court of Appeals upheld the
decision that DFI is the statutory employer of the respondent-workers,
emphasizing the importance of the labor relations framework in determining
employer responsibilities in subcontracting arrangements.

People v. Panis, L-58674, 11 July 1990

FACTS: Four informations were filed in the Court of First Instance of Zambales
and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein,
"without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of
authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency." Abug filed a motion
to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense
because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the
four informations.

Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal

recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner
promised or offered any employment for a fee.” The view of the private
respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts
mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or more persons as
an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that
the requirement of two or more persons is imposed only where the
recruitment and placement consist of an offer or promise of employment to
such persons and always in consideration of a fee.

ISSUE: Whether or not Abug is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code.

HELD: Yes, Abug is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The
proviso does not impose a condition on the basic rule but establishes a
presumption that an individual or entity is engaged in recruitment whenever
dealing with two or more persons to whom an offer or promise of
employment is made for a fee.

The number of persons involved is not essential to the act of recruitment;

even one prospective worker suffices for illegal recruitment to occur. The
proviso serves as a rule of evidence, indicating that if a fee is charged for a
promise of employment to two or more individuals, it is deemed recruitment
and placement. This interpretation strengthens efforts against illegal
recruitment, protecting vulnerable Filipino workers from deception in their
pursuit of employment abroad.

People Dela Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, 24 January 2001

FACTS: The case involves Dela Piedra, who was charged with illegal
recruitment under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Dela Piedra operated a
recruitment agency without the necessary license from the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE). The complaints arose when several workers
were promised overseas employment in exchange for payment of placement
fees. Dela Piedra argued that he was not engaged in illegal recruitment since
he claimed to have only recruited a limited number of individuals.

ISSUE: Whether Dela Piedra is guilty of illegal recruitment under Article 13(b)
of the Labor Code.

HELD: Yes, Dela Piedra is guilty of illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court
ruled that the mere act of offering employment in exchange for a fee
constitutes illegal recruitment, regardless of the number of persons involved.
The Court emphasized that the law aims to protect the public from
unscrupulous recruiters, thereby affirming that the absence of a license to
operate an employment agency is sufficient to establish guilt under the Labor
Code.

People v. Chua, G.R. No. 184058, 10 March 2010

FACTS: Chua was charged with illegal recruitment after he was found to be
operating a recruitment agency without a valid license. Several individuals
testified that they had paid him fees for promises of employment abroad.
Chua contended that the individuals were not his employees and that he
merely facilitated their applications. He argued that he did not collect
placement fees from them but rather charged them for services.

ISSUE: Whether Chua is liable for illegal recruitment despite his claims of
providing services and not collecting placement fees.

HELD: Yes, Chua is liable for illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court clarified
that the essence of illegal recruitment lies in the act of recruiting individuals
for employment in exchange for fees without the proper license. The Court
found that even if Chua claimed to provide other services, the fact remains
that he was engaged in recruitment activities that required a license. The
absence of such a license rendered his actions unlawful.

David v. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859, 5 June 2017

FACTS: David, a recruitment agent, was accused of illegal recruitment after

he solicited fees from job seekers for employment in the United States
without securing the necessary licenses from the DOLE. The victims testified
that they paid David substantial amounts based on promises of employment
abroad. David argued that the payments were for services related to
processing applications rather than placement fees.

ISSUE: Whether David is guilty of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.

HELD: Yes, David is guilty of illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court ruled
that collecting fees in connection with recruitment activities without the
required license constitutes illegal recruitment. The Court highlighted that the
law is designed to prevent exploitation and protect job seekers from
deceptive practices. The classification of the fees as "service fees" does not
exempt David from liability, as the core issue revolves around the unlawful
act of recruiting individuals for overseas employment without the requisite
authorization.

Republic v. Principalia Management and Personnel Consultants, G.R.

No. 167639, 19 April 2006

FACTS: The Republic, through the Department of Labor and Employment

(DOLE), filed a case against Principalia for engaging in illegal recruitment
practices. Principalia argued that it was not engaged in illegal recruitment
and had complied with DOLE regulations.

ISSUE: Whether or not Principalia was engaged in illegal recruitment.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, finding that
Principalia was engaged in illegal recruitment activities as it did not have the
proper licenses and permits from DOLE to recruit workers for overseas
employment. An agency engaging in recruitment for overseas employment
without the necessary licenses and permits from DOLE is guilty of illegal
recruitment.
Trans Action Overseas Corporation v. DOLE Secretary, G.R. No.
109583, 5 September 1997
FACTS: Trans Action Overseas Corporation, a recruitment agency, faced
penalties imposed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) due
to accusations of engaging in illegal recruitment activities. The agency
contested the penalty, asserting that the DOLE Secretary lacked jurisdiction
over the case, claiming that only the proper courts had authority to address
such matters. The agency argued that the penalties imposed were not
warranted and sought relief from the DOLE's decision. This led to a legal
dispute over the interpretation of the DOLE Secretary's regulatory powers
concerning recruitment agencies.

ISSUE: Whether or not the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction to penalize Trans
Action Overseas Corporation for illegal recruitment.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) possesses the authority to penalize recruitment
agencies for violations of labor laws, including illegal recruitment practices.
The Court highlighted the DOLE's regulatory functions as essential for
enforcing compliance with labor laws, thereby safeguarding the rights and
welfare of workers. The ruling underscored the importance of the DOLE's
oversight in the recruitment industry, establishing that the Secretary was
acting within his jurisdiction when imposing penalties on Trans Action
Overseas Corporation. This affirmed the agency's accountability under the
law and reinforced the role of the DOLE in regulating recruitment practices to
prevent exploitation.

Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group v. Medequillo, G.R. No. 177498,

18 January 2012

FACTS: Medequillo, a seafarer employed by Stolt-Nielsen, sustained a serious

injury while performing his duties on board a vessel. Following the incident,
he filed a claim for disability benefits under the POEA Standard Employment
Contract. However, Stolt-Nielsen denied the claim, arguing that the injury was
not work-related and, therefore, not covered under the applicable benefits.
This led to a dispute regarding the nature of the injury and its relation to
Medequillo’s work duties, raising questions about the validity of his claim for
benefits.

ISSUE: Whether or not Medequillo was entitled to disability benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Medequillo, finding that his injury
was work-related and that he was entitled to full disability benefits as
stipulated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract for seafarers. The
Court affirmed that seafarers are entitled to benefits for injuries sustained
during their employment, emphasizing that any injury occurring in the course
of duty should be compensated. This ruling reinforced the principle that
employers must honor claims related to injuries sustained while working,
ensuring that the rights of seafarers to receive compensation for legitimate
work-related injuries are protected.

Estate of Nelson Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, G.R. No. 172642,

13 June 2012

FACTS: Nelson Dulay, a seafarer, tragically died while on duty aboard a

vessel. Following his death, his estate filed a claim for death benefits, arguing
that the circumstances surrounding his employment were directly related to
his demise. However, Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime denied the claim, contending
that Dulay's death was not work-related and therefore not covered under the
provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The case brought to
light the complexities of establishing a direct connection between a
seafarer's employment and the cause of death, raising important legal
questions regarding the entitlement to benefits.

ISSUE: Whether or not the estate of Dulay was entitled to death benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dulay’s estate, determining that
his death was work-related and that his family was entitled to death benefits
under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Court established that
the evidence demonstrated a significant connection between Dulay's
employment and his death, affirming the family's right to receive
compensation. This ruling highlighted the legal protections afforded to
seafarers and their families, ensuring that families of deceased workers
receive due compensation when death occurs in the course of employment,
thereby reinforcing the commitment to protect the rights and welfare of
seafarers’ families.

Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, G.R. No. 162419, 10 July

2007

FACTS: Santiago, a seafarer, was repatriated after sustaining a serious injury

while on duty. He subsequently filed a claim for disability benefits based on
the injury he incurred during his employment. However, CF Sharp Crew
Management denied the claim, arguing that Santiago had a pre-existing
condition that was not aggravated by his work and that the injury was not
work-related. This case brought to light the complexities of determining the
nature of injuries and the responsibilities of employers regarding
compensation for injured workers.

ISSUE: Whether or not Santiago was entitled to disability benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Santiago, concluding that he was
entitled to disability benefits because his injury was indeed work-related,
regardless of any pre-existing conditions. The Court clarified that if an injury
is aggravated by the nature of a seafarer's work, the worker is still entitled to
benefits under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. This ruling affirmed
that workers should not be penalized for pre-existing conditions if their work
contributes to the worsening of their health, thereby reinforcing the principle
that the maritime industry bears responsibility for ensuring the safety and
well-being of its workers.

Industrial Personnel and Management Services v. De Vera, G.R. No.

205703, 7 March 2016

FACTS: De Vera was deployed overseas through Industrial Personnel and

Management Services. Upon his return to the Philippines, he claimed that he
was underpaid and that the terms of his employment contract were not
honored by the agency. The recruitment agency denied his claim, leading to
a dispute over the payment of wages and the enforcement of the
employment contract. This case highlighted the critical issues surrounding
the enforcement of labor rights for overseas workers and the accountability
of recruitment agencies in ensuring compliance with employment
agreements.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera was entitled to the wages claimed.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of De Vera, determining that the
agency had failed to comply with the terms of the employment contract,
thereby entitling him to the proper wages as stipulated. The Court
emphasized that recruitment agencies are legally bound to adhere to the
contracts they issue and must ensure that their workers receive all wages
and benefits owed to them. This ruling reinforced the obligation of
recruitment agencies to uphold contractual agreements, ensuring that
overseas workers are compensated fairly and protecting their rights against
exploitation and underpayment.

Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower, G.R. No. 156029, 14

November 2008

FACTS: Datuman was hired by First Cosmopolitan Manpower as a mechanic

for deployment to Qatar, where he was promised employment. Upon his
arrival, however, he discovered that no work was available for him, and he
was left without any duties to perform. Feeling stranded and without the
promised employment, he filed a complaint against the recruitment agency
for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages.
ISSUE: Whether or not Datuman's situation constituted illegal dismissal and
non-payment of wages.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Datuman, establishing that he was
constructively dismissed because he was not provided with any work despite
being deployed. The Court emphasized that constructive dismissal occurs
when an employee is placed in an intolerable situation, making continued
employment unreasonable or impossible. Consequently, the recruitment
agency was ordered to pay Datuman back wages and other benefits,
reinforcing the obligation of recruitment agencies to ensure that employees
are provided the work for which they were hired.

Gagui v. Dejero, G.R. No. 196036, 23 October 2013

FACTS: Dejero was terminated from his employment after being accused of
misappropriating company funds. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
contending that his termination lacked due process, as he was not given the
opportunity to contest the accusations against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dejero's dismissal was valid and compliant with due
process.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dejero, declaring his dismissal
illegal due to insufficient evidence substantiating the claims of
misappropriation. The Court held that employees must be terminated only for
just cause, supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, employers are
required to observe procedural due process, which includes providing the
employee with notice and a fair hearing prior to termination. This ruling
underscores the importance of due process in employment termination
cases.

Sealanes Marine Services v. Dela Torre

G.R. No. 214132, 18 February 2015

FACTS: Dela Torre, a seafarer, was repatriated after sustaining a work-related

injury that required medical treatment. He sought full disability benefits due
to the injury, but Sealanes Marine Services only offered partial compensation,
asserting that the injury did not result in permanent disability.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dela Torre was entitled to full disability benefits based
on the nature of his injury.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dela Torre, determining that his
injury was indeed work-related and led to permanent disability. The Court
emphasized that under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, seafarers
are entitled to full disability benefits if they suffer work-related injuries
resulting in permanent disabilities. This ruling reaffirms the rights of seafarers
to comprehensive disability compensation when their work-related injuries
hinder their ability to perform their duties.

Gargallo v. DOHLE Seafront Crewing, G.R. No. 215551, 17 August

2016

FACTS: Gargallo, a seafarer, filed a claim for disability benefits after being
diagnosed with a medical condition while on duty. DOHLE Seafront Crewing
denied his claim, arguing that Gargallo's condition was pre-existing and
therefore not work-related.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gargallo was entitled to disability benefits despite the
claim of a pre-existing condition.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gargallo, stating that his condition
was aggravated by the nature of his work on the vessel. The Court clarified
that even a pre-existing condition could qualify for disability benefits if the
employee's work exacerbates the condition. This ruling highlights the
principle that work-related aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition
can entitle an employee to full disability benefits, thereby ensuring fair
compensation for seafarers facing health challenges due to their work
environment.

Princess Talent Center Production v. Masagca,G.R. No. 191310, 11

April 2018

FACTS: Masagca, a talent artist engaged by Princess Talent Center, filed a

complaint for illegal dismissal after her services were abruptly terminated
without any prior notice or explanation. The company contended that her
dismissal was justified due to alleged poor performance, but Masagca argued
that she had not been given any chance to address these claims before her
termination.

ISSUE: Whether or not Masagca's dismissal was legal.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masagca, concluding that her
dismissal was executed without just cause and failed to adhere to the
principles of due process. The Court emphasized that employees, regardless
of their contract terms, are entitled to due process before termination.
Consequently, Princess Talent Center was ordered to pay Masagca back
wages and other benefits, reinforcing the requirement for employers to
provide just cause and proper procedures when terminating employees.

Powerhouse Staffbuilders International v. Rey, G.R. No. 190203, 7

November 2016

FACTS: Rey, an overseas worker employed through Powerhouse Staffbuilders

International, was terminated by his employer without any just cause while
working abroad. In response to his wrongful termination, Rey filed a
complaint seeking payment of his wages for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rey was entitled to the payment of his wages for the
unexpired portion of his contract.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rey, awarding him compensation
for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, as his dismissal was
deemed without just cause. The Court reiterated that overseas workers who
are illegally dismissed are entitled to receive their wages for the remaining
duration of their contract under Republic Act No. 8042. This ruling
underscores the protective measures available to overseas workers against
unjust termination.

Sunace International Management Services v. NLRC, G.R. No.

161757, 25 January 2006

FACTS: Sunace International terminated the employment of an employee,

alleging poor performance as the reason for dismissal. The dismissed
employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that he was not given
any opportunity to contest the allegations against him and that the dismissal
was unjust.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employee’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, asserting that the
dismissal was illegal due to the lack of due process. The Court found that the
employer failed to provide the necessary notice and an opportunity for the
employee to be heard. It highlighted that termination for poor performance
requires adherence to both substantive grounds and procedural due process,
including adequate notice and the chance for the employee to defend
themselves against allegations.

Yap v. Thenamaris Ship Management, G.R. No. 179532, 30 May 2011

FACTS: Yap, a seafarer, was repatriated after suffering an injury while on

duty. Following his return, he filed a claim for disability benefits, which was
denied by Thenamaris Ship Management on the grounds that his injury was
not work-related.

ISSUE: Whether or not Yap was entitled to disability benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yap, concluding that his injury was
indeed work-related and that he was entitled to receive disability benefits
under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The ruling underscored the
principle that seafarers are entitled to disability benefits for work-related
injuries, regardless of whether the injury manifests before or after
repatriation. This decision affirms the protective rights afforded to seafarers
under Philippine labor law.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, 5

August 2014

FACTS: Cabiles, an overseas worker, was terminated without just cause by

her employer while working abroad. She subsequently filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, the local
recruitment agency, for failing to safeguard her rights and ensure compliance
with her employment contract.

ISSUE: Whether or not the recruitment agency was liable for the illegal
dismissal of Cabiles.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabiles, holding Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency liable for her illegal dismissal. The Court ordered the
agency to pay her the wages for the unexpired portion of her contract. This
ruling emphasized that recruitment agencies bear responsibility for ensuring
the protection of workers’ rights under their employment contracts and that
they can be held accountable for any unjust dismissals that occur.

Maersk-Filipinas Crewing v. Avestruz, G.R. No. 207010, 18 February

2015
FACTS: Avestruz, a seafarer, was diagnosed with a medical condition while on
duty and was subsequently repatriated for medical treatment. He filed a
claim for disability benefits, but Maersk-Filipinas Crewing denied his claim,
arguing that his medical condition was not work-related.

ISSUE: Whether or not Avestruz was entitled to disability benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Avestruz, determining that his
condition was work-related and aggravated by the nature of his employment.
The Court awarded him full disability benefits, establishing that seafarers are
entitled to such benefits when their medical conditions arise from or are
exacerbated by their work. This ruling reinforces the principle that seafarers
should receive adequate compensation for health issues resulting from their
employment conditions.

Rada v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96078, 9 January 1992

FACTS: Rada, a teacher at the Mapua Institute of Technology, was dismissed

due to alleged unauthorized absences. He contested his termination,
asserting that it was illegal since he had not been afforded due process and
was dismissed without just cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rada's dismissal was legal.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rada, determining that his
dismissal was illegal due to the absence of just cause for termination. The
Court noted that the school failed to observe procedural due process by not
providing Rada with proper notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding
the allegations against him. This ruling reiterates the fundamental principle
that termination must be based on just cause and that employees should be
afforded due process, including adequate notice and a chance to defend
themselves.

University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan,

L-63122, 20 February 1984

FACTS: The University of Pangasinan Faculty Union filed a complaint against

the University after several faculty members were terminated for
participating in union activities. The union claimed that these dismissals were
retaliatory and aimed at suppressing their right to organize.

ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of the faculty members constituted

illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the faculty union, finding that the
termination of the faculty members was an act of union busting. The Court
held that such actions constituted illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
It reiterated that employees cannot be terminated for engaging in lawful
union activities, and such dismissals violate labor rights and protections.

San Juan de Dios Hospital Employees Association v. NLRC, G.R. No.

126383, 28 November 1997

FACTS: The employees’ association of San Juan de Dios Hospital filed a

complaint for unfair labor practices after the hospital refused to negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and dismissed several union
members. The union argued that these actions were intended to undermine
their collective rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not the hospital committed unfair labor practices.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, stating that the
hospital’s refusal to negotiate a CBA and the dismissal of union members
constituted acts of unfair labor practice. The Court affirmed that the refusal of
an employer to engage in collective bargaining and the termination of
employees for union involvement are violations of labor law.

Philippine Graphic Arts v. NLRC, L-80737, 29 September 1988

FACTS: Employees of Philippine Graphic Arts initiated a strike in response to

alleged unfair labor practices by the company. In retaliation, the company
dismissed the striking employees, arguing that the strike was illegal and
unjustified.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employees' strike was illegal and if their dismissal
was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the strike was legal, motivated by
legitimate grievances regarding unfair labor practices. Consequently, the
Court declared the dismissal of the employees illegal, emphasizing that
employees cannot be dismissed for participating in a legal strike grounded in
valid labor issues.

Unicorn Safety Glass v. Basarte, G.R. No. 154689, 25 November 2004

FACTS: Basarte was dismissed from Unicorn Safety Glass based on

allegations of inefficiency. He contested the dismissal, arguing that there was
no valid basis for his termination and that he had not been given the
opportunity to present his side.

ISSUE: Whether or not Basarte’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Basarte, declaring that his
dismissal was illegal. The employer failed to prove just cause and did not
provide the necessary due process, including notification of the charges
against him and a chance to explain. The ruling highlighted that valid
dismissals require clear evidence of just cause and adherence to due process.

Linton Commercial v. Hellera, G.R. No. 163147, 10 October 2007

FACTS: Hellera was dismissed from Linton Commercial due to alleged

misconduct. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that the
accusations were unfounded and that he had not been given an opportunity
to respond to the allegations.

ISSUE: Whether or not Hellera’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hellera, determining that his
dismissal was illegal due to the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of
misconduct and the failure to observe procedural due process. The Court
underscored that employers must provide substantial evidence for claims of
misconduct and ensure due process in termination proceedings.

Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 151309, 15 October 2008

FACTS: Workers at Tryco Manufacturing Company were dismissed following

their participation in a strike regarding wage disputes and alleged unfair
labor practices. The company claimed that the strike was illegal and justified
the dismissal of the workers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal and the dismissal of the workers
was valid.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the workers, declaring that the
strike was legal as it stemmed from valid labor grievances. The Court held
that the dismissal of the workers was illegal, affirming that employees cannot
be terminated for participating in a legal strike addressing legitimate labor
issues such as wage disputes and unfair labor practices.

Durabilt Recapping Plant v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76746, 27 July 1987

FACTS: Several employees of Durabilt Recapping Plant were dismissed after

participating in a strike. They argued that the strike was a response to the
company's unfair labor practices, while the employer contended that the
strike was illegal, justifying the dismissals.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was legal and the dismissal of the
employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal, as it was in
response to the company’s unfair labor practices. The Court declared the
dismissal of the employees illegal, reinforcing that employees cannot be
dismissed for participating in a legal strike based on legitimate labor
grievances.

Pan American World Airways System v. Pan American Employees Association,

L-16275, 23 February 1961, 1 SCRA 527

FACTS: The Pan American Employees Association initiated a strike against

Pan American World Airways, alleging unfair labor practices by the employer.
The employer contested the legality of the strike, claiming that it was
unjustified.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was legal and whether the employer
committed unfair labor practices.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal and based on valid
labor grievances. The Court also found that the employer had indeed
committed unfair labor practices. This decision reaffirmed that a strike is
legal when grounded in legitimate labor issues, including unfair labor
practices by the employer.

Sime Darby Pilipinas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, 15 April 1998

FACTS: Employees of Sime Darby Pilipinas went on strike after the company
refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The company
responded by dismissing the striking employees, asserting that the strike was
illegal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal and whether the dismissal of the
employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal because it arose
from a legitimate labor dispute regarding the company’s refusal to negotiate
a CBA. The Court declared the dismissal of the employees illegal, reinforcing
that strikes motivated by legitimate labor disputes are protected under labor
law.

Philippine Airlines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 132805, 2 February 1999

FACTS: Several employees of Philippine Airlines were dismissed for

participating in a strike. The airline contended that the strike was illegal and
that the dismissals were justified based on the legality of the strike.
ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was legal and the dismissal of the
employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal, as it was motivated
by valid labor grievances. The Court declared the dismissals illegal,
emphasizing that employees participating in a legal strike cannot be
terminated based on their involvement in that strike.

Arica v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78210, 28 February 1989

FACTS: Arica, an employee, was dismissed due to his alleged involvement in

illegal activities. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that he
was not afforded due process.

ISSUES: Whether or not Arica’s dismissal was legal.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal due to the lack
of due process. The employer failed to provide proper notice and an
opportunity for Arica to explain his side. Dismissal must be based on just
cause, and the employee must be afforded procedural due process, including
notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Salazar v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109210, 17 April 1996

FACTS: Salazar was dismissed from her job due to allegations of misconduct.
She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the accusations were
baseless and that she was not given the opportunity to explain her side.

ISSUES: Whether or not Salazar’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Salazar’s dismissal was illegal due to the
employer’s failure to provide substantial evidence of misconduct and the lack
of procedural due process. Employees must be afforded due process in
termination proceedings, and the employer must provide sufficient evidence
to justify the dismissal.

San Miguel Brewery v. Democratic Labor Union, L-18353, 31 July

1963

FACTS: The Democratic Labor Union filed a complaint against San Miguel
Brewery for committing unfair labor practices by dismissing several
employees who were active union members.

ISSUES: Whether or not San Miguel Brewery committed unfair labor practices.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, finding that San Miguel
Brewery committed unfair labor practices by dismissing union members in
retaliation for their involvement in union activities. Dismissal of employees
for their involvement in lawful union activities constitutes unfair labor
practice.

PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association v. NLRC, G.R. No.

105963, 22 August 1996

FACTS: PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association terminated several

employees for allegedly mishandling company funds. The employees claimed
that they were dismissed without just cause and without due process.

ISSUES: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was legal.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal as the
employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and did not
afford the employees due process. For dismissal to be valid, the employer
must prove just cause with substantial evidence and ensure that due process
is observed.

Philippine National Bank v. Philippine National Bank Employees

Association, L-30279, 30 July 1982

FACTS: The Philippine National Bank Employees Association filed a complaint

alleging that the Philippine National Bank committed unfair labor practices by
refusing to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and
terminating employees involved in union activities.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Philippine National Bank committed unfair labor
practices.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the bank committed unfair labor
practices by refusing to negotiate a CBA and by dismissing employees for
their involvement in union activities. Refusal to negotiate a collective
bargaining agreement and the dismissal of employees for engaging in union
activities are considered unfair labor practices.

R.B. Michael Press v. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, 13 February 2008

FACTS: Galit was dismissed from R.B. Michael Press after he was accused of
serious misconduct. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that
there was no just cause for his termination and that due process was not
observed.

ISSUES: Whether or not Galit’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Galit, finding that his dismissal
was illegal due to the lack of substantial evidence to prove the alleged
misconduct and the employer’s failure to comply with procedural due
process. Dismissal of an employee must be supported by substantial
evidence of just cause, and due process must be strictly observed in
termination proceedings.

Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, G.R. No. 79256, 20 January 1992

FACTS: The Union of Filipro Employees sought to compel the management of

Filipro, Inc. to submit to voluntary arbitration regarding the implementation of
a wage increase provided under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Filipro refused, claiming that the issue was not arbitrable.

ISSUES: Whether or not the dispute involving the implementation of a wage

increase under the CBA is subject to voluntary arbitration.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dispute was arbitrable. The terms of
the CBA explicitly provided for arbitration in case of any disagreements
concerning its implementation. Disputes concerning the interpretation and
implementation of provisions in a CBA should be resolved through voluntary
arbitration, as agreed by the parties.

Jose Rizal College v. NLRC, L-65482, 1 December 1987

FACTS: Jose Rizal College dismissed several employees after they

participated in a strike. The employees argued that the strike was legal, while
the school insisted it was illegal and justified the dismissal.
ISSUES: Whether or not the strike was legal and whether the dismissal of the
employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the strike was legal and that the
dismissal of the employees was illegal. The employees were participating in a
lawful activity aimed at protecting their labor rights. Employees participating
in a legal strike cannot be dismissed for exercising their right to organize and
strike.

Grand Asian Shipping Lines v. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, 29 January

2014

FACTS: Galvez was an employee of Grand Asian Shipping Lines who was
dismissed for allegedly abandoning his post. Galvez filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, asserting that his termination was unjust.

ISSUES: Whether or not Galvez was illegally dismissed.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Galvez, stating that the company
failed to present sufficient evidence proving abandonment. The dismissal was
declared illegal, and the employee was entitled to reinstatement and back
wages. Abandonment is a valid ground for dismissal only when there is clear
evidence of the employee’s deliberate refusal to report to work, and the
employer must give due process before terminating employment.

San Miguel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146775, 30

January 2002

FACTS: San Miguel Corporation dismissed employees who were accused of

fraud. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they
were not afforded due process.

ISSUES: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that while there was just cause for dismissal,
San Miguel Corporation failed to provide procedural due process. The
employees were entitled to back wages due to the lack of notice and hearing,
even though their termination was justified. Even if there is a valid ground for
dismissal, the employer must comply with procedural due process, which
includes proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, L-44717, 28 August

1985

FACTS: The Chartered Bank Employees Association staged a strike due to the
employer’s refusal to recognize the union. The employer filed for an
injunction to stop the strike, claiming it was illegal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal and whether the employer’s
refusal to recognize the union was justified.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal as it was based on
the employer's refusal to recognize the union, which is considered an unfair
labor practice. The employer was ordered to recognize the union and
negotiate in good faith. The refusal of an employer to recognize a legitimate
union and engage in collective bargaining constitutes an unfair labor practice
and can justify a strike.

Wellington Investment v. Trajano, G.R. No. 114698, 3 July 1995

FACTS: Trajano, an employee of Wellington Investment, was dismissed for
alleged dishonesty. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that he
was not given due process and that the allegations were unfounded.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Trajano was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal due to the lack
of substantial evidence proving dishonesty and the employer’s failure to
observe due process. An employer must provide substantial evidence to
justify dismissal and must observe due process by giving the employee notice
and the opportunity to explain.

Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100701, 28

March 2001

FACTS: Several employees of Producers Bank were dismissed after

participating in a strike. The bank claimed the strike was illegal and that the
dismissals were justified.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal and the dismissal of the
employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal and that the
dismissal of the employees was illegal. The employees were exercising their
right to engage in collective actions against unfair labor practices.
Participation in a legal strike cannot be used as a ground for dismissal unless
it is proven that the strike was illegal.

Odango v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147420, 10 June 2004

FACTS: Odango was dismissed from his job after being accused of gross
negligence. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that he was not
given due process and that the accusations were false.

ISSUE: Whether or not Odango’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Odango, finding that his dismissal
was illegal due to the lack of substantial evidence to prove gross negligence
and the absence of procedural due process. Gross negligence must be proven
with substantial evidence, and the employee must be afforded due process
before dismissal.

Lim v. HMR Philippines, G.R. No. 201483, 4 August 2014

FACTS: Lim was dismissed from HMR Philippines after being accused of
misconduct. Lim filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that he was
not given the chance to defend himself against the accusations.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lim’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Lim’s dismissal was illegal due to the
company’s failure to provide procedural due process. Lim was not properly
notified of the charges and was not given an opportunity to defend himself.
Employers must follow due process by notifying employees of the charges
and allowing them to defend themselves before terminating employment.

Asian Transmission Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

144664, 15 March 2004

FACTS: Asian Transmission Corporation dismissed employees after accusing

them of falsifying documents. The employees filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, asserting that they were not given due process.
ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the employees was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that while there was just cause for dismissal,
Asian Transmission Corporation failed to provide procedural due process,
such as notice and the opportunity to be heard. The employees were entitled
to back wages due to this violation. Even when there is just cause for
dismissal, failure to follow procedural due process entitles employees to back
wages.

Fernandez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105892, 28 January 1998

FACTS: Fernandez was dismissed from his job due to his involvement in
alleged dishonest acts. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting
that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Fernandez was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Fernandez's dismissal was illegal
because the employer failed to observe due process. While the employer may
have had a valid reason for dismissal, the absence of proper notice and
hearing invalidated the termination. Dismissal of employees must be based
on both substantive and procedural due process. Even if there is just cause,
due process must be observed before termination.

Auto Bus Transport v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, 16 May 2005

FACTS: Bautista, a driver of Auto Bus Transport, was dismissed after being
accused of involvement in a vehicular accident. He filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, claiming that the company had no sufficient grounds for his
termination.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Bautista was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was illegal because the
employer failed to provide substantial evidence of Bautista’s negligence.
Moreover, the company did not observe due process in terminating Bautista’s
employment. Dismissal of employees must be backed by substantial
evidence, and due process must be observed, including proper notice and
hearing.

JPL Marketing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151966, 8 July 2005

FACTS: JPL Marketing dismissed an employee for alleged misconduct without

providing a proper investigation. The employee challenged the dismissal as
being illegal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal was valid without proper investigation
and due process.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal because JPL
Marketing failed to observe procedural due process. The employee should
have been given the opportunity to explain and defend himself before the
termination. Employers are required to provide procedural due process,
including the opportunity for the employee to be heard, before dismissing an
employee for alleged misconduct.

David v. Macasio G.R. No. 195466, 2 July 2014

FACTS: Macasio was dismissed for allegedly committing misconduct. He filed

a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that his termination lacked just
cause and due process.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macasio’s dismissal was valid.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was illegal because the
employer did not provide sufficient proof of the alleged misconduct, and due
process was not followed. For dismissal to be valid, both just cause and due
process must be established. The employer must present substantial
evidence of misconduct and give the employee the opportunity to defend
himself.

Paloma v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 148415, 14 July 2008

Facts: Paloma, a flight attendant for Philippine Airlines, was dismissed for
allegedly violating company rules. The airline cited specific infractions that
constituted a breach of their internal regulations. Paloma contested her
dismissal, arguing that the application of the rules was arbitrary and that she
was denied due process. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting
that the company failed to follow proper procedures and that her rights as an
employee were not upheld.

Issue: Whether or not Paloma’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Paloma’s dismissal was valid. The Court
found that there was substantial evidence indicating a clear violation of
company rules by Paloma. Furthermore, the Court concluded that due
process was observed in her dismissal, as the airline provided her with
appropriate notice and an opportunity to defend herself against the
allegations. The ruling emphasized that dismissals are valid when an
employer can prove a clear violation of company policies and has adhered to
procedural requirements.

Sugue v. Triumph International, G.R. No. 164804, 30 January 2009

Facts: Sugue was employed by Triumph International and was dismissed due
to alleged misconduct. The employer accused her of actions that were
deemed inappropriate and contrary to company standards. Sugue disputed
her termination, claiming that it was without just cause and did not follow the
required procedural safeguards. She subsequently filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, asserting that the employer's evidence was insufficient.

Issue: Whether or not Sugue’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sugue, declaring her dismissal
illegal. The Court determined that the employer failed to present substantial
evidence to support the allegations of misconduct. Additionally, the Court
highlighted that procedural due process was not observed in Sugue's case, as
she was not given adequate notice of the charges against her nor the
opportunity to respond. The decision reaffirmed that both substantial
evidence and adherence to due process are necessary for a dismissal to be
considered valid.

Soriano v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, G.R. No. 171231, 17 February

2010

Facts: Soriano was employed by PNCC Skyway Corporation and was

dismissed for his alleged involvement in fraudulent activities related to the
company's operations. Following his termination, Soriano filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, contending that he was not given proper due process and
that the accusations were unfounded. He maintained that the evidence
against him was insufficient to warrant his dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not Soriano’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Soriano’s dismissal was illegal. The Court
found that PNCC Skyway Corporation did not provide substantial evidence to
prove Soriano’s involvement in the alleged anomalies. Furthermore, it was
determined that the company did not afford him the necessary procedural
due process, including a fair hearing and an opportunity to defend himself.
The ruling emphasized that employers are required to establish just cause
supported by substantial evidence and must comply with due process when
dismissing employees.

Aklan Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439, 25 January

2000

Facts: A group of employees from Aklan Electric Cooperative was dismissed

after being accused of staging an illegal strike. The employees argued that
their actions were lawful and part of their right to engage in collective
bargaining. They claimed that their dismissal was unjust and filed a complaint
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal,
contending that the strike was legal and that the employer acted unlawfully
in terminating them.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. The Court found
that the strike was not unlawful and that the employees were exercising their
right to collective action as recognized under the law. The employer failed to
provide adequate evidence to demonstrate the illegality of the strike. The
ruling underscored that employees cannot be dismissed for participating in a
lawful strike or for exercising their right to collective action.

Philex Gold Philippines v. Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union, G.R. No.

149758, 25 August 2005

Facts: Philex Gold Philippines was embroiled in a dispute with the Philex
Bulawan Supervisors Union regarding the interpretation of certain provisions
within their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The union alleged that
the company was not adhering to the agreed-upon terms, particularly
concerning employee benefits and compensation. The union sought legal
recourse, asserting that the company's actions constituted a violation of the
CBA.

Issue: Whether or not the company was in violation of the CBA.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, holding that Philex Gold
Philippines had indeed failed to comply with specific provisions of the CBA,
especially those relating to employee benefits. The Court mandated that the
company implement the agreed terms as stipulated in the CBA. The decision
highlighted the importance of respecting and implementing the provisions of
collective bargaining agreements in good faith by both parties.

International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R. No.

128845, 1 June 2000

Facts: The International School Alliance of Educators raised concerns

regarding salary disparities between Filipino teachers and their foreign
counterparts at the school. The teachers argued that this disparity was
discriminatory and sought redress for equal pay for equal work. The school
contended that the difference in salaries was justified based on various
factors, including qualifications and experience.
Issue: Whether or not the salary disparity between local and foreign teachers
was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the teachers, declaring the wage
disparity discriminatory. The Court held that the principle of equal pay for
equal work must be upheld, regardless of the nationality of the employees.
The ruling emphasized that wage disparities based on nationality are
considered discriminatory and must be addressed to ensure fair and
equitable treatment in the workplace.

C Planas Commercial v. NLRC, G.R. No. 144619, 11 November 2005

Facts: C Planas Commercial dismissed several employees, citing redundancy

as the basis for their termination. The employees challenged their dismissal,
asserting that the employer had not demonstrated any genuine redundancy
and that the terminations were unjustified. They contended that the company
failed to provide the necessary evidence to support its claims of redundancy.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal based on redundancy was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the claimed redundancy was not
sufficiently proven by C Planas Commercial. The Court emphasized that for a
dismissal to be valid on the grounds of redundancy, it must be established
that the services of the employees were indeed in excess of what was
required by the company. Since the employer failed to provide adequate
proof of this condition, the dismissal was declared illegal. The ruling
reaffirmed that redundancy must be substantiated with sufficient evidence
and that dismissals should be conducted in good faith.

Rosario Gaa v. Court of Appeals, L-44169, 3 December 1985

Facts: Rosario Gaa was terminated from her employment without proper
notice and a hearing. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that
her termination was conducted in violation of her right to due process. The
employer failed to provide her with a clear explanation of the charges and did
not afford her the opportunity to present her side.

Issue: Whether or not Rosario Gaa’s dismissal was valid despite the absence
of notice and hearing.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Gaa’s dismissal was illegal due to the
employer's failure to observe due process. The Court highlighted that
employees must be provided with procedural due process, which includes
notice of the charges against them and the opportunity to be heard before
any dismissal. The ruling reinforced the principle that an employee cannot be
dismissed without due process, which requires both substantive and
procedural compliance with the law.

Honda Philippines v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda,

G.R. No. 145561, 15 June 2005

Facts: Honda Philippines dismissed several employees who were members of

a union. The employees contended that their termination was in retaliation
for their union activities, which violated their rights. The union filed a
complaint asserting that the dismissals were unlawful and sought
reinstatement and damages.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of employees for participating in union

activities was legal.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissals were illegal, as they were
motivated by bad faith and retaliation against the employees for their union
activities. The Court underscored that employees have the right to join and
participate in union activities without fear of retribution from their employer.
The ruling affirmed that dismissals based on union activities are unjustifiable
and constitute a violation of labor rights.

Millares v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 500 (1999)

Facts: Millares was dismissed from her job after allegedly violating company
policies. She contested her termination, arguing that the company did not
follow the proper procedures in dismissing her. Millares filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, asserting that her rights were violated and that she was not
given a fair chance to respond to the allegations.

Issue: Whether or not Millares’ dismissal was valid despite the alleged
violation of company policies.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Millares, stating that while there
may have been just cause for her dismissal, the employer failed to observe
the necessary procedural due process. The Court emphasized that due
process requires that employees be given notice of the charges against them
and an opportunity to due process requires that employees be given notice of
the charges and an opportunity to be heard before being terminated.

Even when just cause exists for dismissal, procedural due process must be
followed. Employers must provide both notice and an opportunity to be heard
before termination.

Mayon Hotel and Restaurant v. Adana, G.R. No. 157634, 16 May

2005.

Facts: Adana was dismissed from Mayon Hotel and Restaurant for allegedly
violating company rules. She contested her dismissal, claiming that it was
without just cause and due process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of Adana was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adana, finding her dismissal illegal.
The Court stated that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence of
the alleged violation, and procedural due process was not observed.

Dismissal of an employee must be based on just cause and must comply with
due process requirements, which include providing notice and a chance to
defend oneself.

SLL International v. NLRC, G.R. No. 172161, 2 March 2011

Facts: SLL International dismissed an employee without following the

procedural requirements under labor laws. The employee filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, asserting that the dismissal was unjustified and lacked due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal was valid despite the absence of
procedural due process.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was illegal because the
employer did not comply with the two-notice rule and did not provide a
proper hearing. The Court reiterated that both substantive and procedural
due process must be observed in terminating employees.
Compliance with the two-notice rule, which is notice of the offense and notice
of dismissal and a hearing are mandatory in employee dismissals, is imbued
with public interest and shall be complied with.

Our Haus Realty Development Corporation v. Parian, G.R. No.

204651, 6 August 2014.

Facts: Parian was dismissed from Our Haus Realty for alleged dishonesty. He
contested
the dismissal, claiming that the charges were unfounded and that his right to
due
process was violated.

Issue: Whether or not Parian’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parian, declaring his dismissal
illegal. The
employer failed to present substantial evidence of dishonesty and did not
observe
procedural due process. Parian was not given a proper notice or the chance
to
defend himself.

Thus, dismissal for dishonesty must be supported by substantial evidence,

and the
employer must observe due process, including giving notice and an
opportunity
for the employee to explain his side.

Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, 11 November

1993.

Facts: Philippine Duplicators, Inc. dismissed its employees due to alleged

redundancy.
The employees challenged the dismissal, claiming that it was illegal and not
based on valid grounds.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal based on redundancy was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the redundancy program was valid and
that the company followed the proper procedure in terminating the
employees. Redundancy is a recognized ground for termination under the
Labor Code, provided that it is done in good faith and with proper notice to
the employees.

As such, redundancy is a valid ground for termination, but it must be based

on good
faith and must comply with legal procedures, including the issuance of proper
notice.

Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, 15 February

1995.

Facts: This case involves a continuation of the dispute between Philippine

Duplicators, Inc. and its employees regarding the latter’s redundancy-based
termination. The employees argued that the company’s claim of redundancy
was a pretext for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the claim of redundancy was used in bad faith to
dismiss employees.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision, holding that the
company’s redundancy program was implemented in good faith and was
based on legitimate business concerns. The dismissals were lawful, as
redundancy is a recognized cause for termination when proven. The principle
of good faith is essential in determining the validity of redundancies in
employment terminations.

Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. No. 92174, 10

December 1993.

Facts: The employees of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. were dismissed after

the company restructured its workforce. The employees contested the
termination, alleging that their dismissal was arbitrary and without due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the restructuring of the company and subsequent

dismissal of employees were valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal because the
company failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the need for
restructuring. The Court emphasized the need for employers to prove the
validity of their actions, especially in cases involving dismissals.

Employers must present clear and convincing evidence to justify workforce

restructuring and employee dismissals.

Iran v.NLRC, G.R.No. 121927, 22 April 1998.

Facts: Iran was dismissed from his employment due to alleged inefficiency.
He claimed that the dismissal was unjust and that he was not given an
opportunity to improve his performance.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal based on inefficiency was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. While
inefficiency can be a valid ground for dismissal, the employer must provide
the employee with an opportunity to improve. In this case, the employer
failed to prove that the employee was given sufficient chances to rectify his
inefficiencies.

As such, inefficiency as a ground for dismissal shall be supported by evidence

that the employee was given adequate opportunities to improve.

Reyes v. NLRC,, G.R. No. 160233, 8 August 2007.

Facts: Reyes was dismissed from his employment for alleged misconduct. He
claimed that the dismissal was without just cause and that due process was
not observed.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for misconduct was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was valid. The employer
presented substantial evidence to prove that Reyes had committed serious
misconduct, justifying his termination. Additionally, the employer complied
with the procedural requirements of due process. Dismissals based on
misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence, and procedural due
process must be observed.

Philippine Spring Water Resources v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

164589, 31 October 2007.
Facts: Employees of Philippine Spring Water Resources were dismissed for
violating company policies. They challenged their dismissal, arguing that it
was not justified and that the penalties were too severe.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for violation of company policies was
valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissals were valid, as the
company had provided substantial evidence that the employees violated
important company policies. The penalties imposed were deemed
commensurate with the violations committed.

Employers have the right to enforce company policies, and dismissal may be
valid if an employee's violation of such policies is proven and the penalty is
proportionate to the infraction.

Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor

Union-NLU, G.R. No. 188949, 26 July 2010.

Facts: A labor dispute arose between Central Azucarera de Tarlac and its
employees over wage increases and other benefits. The union claimed that
the company had failed to comply with its obligations under a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA).

Issue: Whether or not the company had breached the terms of the CBA.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the
company had indeed violated the CBA by not providing the agreed-upon
wage increases and benefits. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the
CBA and the importance of compliance by both parties.

Collective bargaining agreements are binding contracts, and any violation by

an employer may result in liability and sanctions.

Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna,, G.R. No. 92174, 10

December 1993

Facts: The employees of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. were dismissed after

the company restructured its workforce. The employees contested the
termination, alleging that their dismissal was arbitrary and without due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the restructuring of the company and subsequent

dismissal of employees were valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal because the
company failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the need for
restructuring. The Court emphasized the need for employers to prove the
validity of their actions, especially in cases involving dismissals.However,
employers must present clear and convincing evidence to justify workforce
restructuring and employee dismissals.

Iran v. NLRC,, G.R. No. 121927, 22 April 1998

Facts: Iran was dismissed from his employment due to alleged inefficiency.
He claimed that the dismissal was unjust and that he was not given an
opportunity to improve his performance.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal based on inefficiency was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. While
inefficiency can be a valid ground for dismissal, the employer must provide
the employee with an opportunity to improve. In this case, the employer
failed to prove that the employee was given sufficient chances to rectify his
inefficiencies. Inefficiency as a ground for dismissal must be supported by
evidence that the employee was given adequate opportunities to improve.

Reyes v. NLRC,, G.R. No. 160233, 8 August 2007

Facts: Reyes was dismissed from his employment for alleged misconduct. He
claimed
that the dismissal was without just cause and that due process was not
observed.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for misconduct was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was valid. The employer
presented substantial evidence to prove that Reyes had committed serious
misconduct, justifying his termination. Additionally, the employer complied
with the procedural requirements of due process. However, dismissals based
on misconduct must be supported by substantial evidence,
and procedural due process must be observed.

Philippine Spring Water Resources v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

164589, 31 October 2007

Facts: Employees of Philippine Spring Water Resources were dismissed for

violating company policies. They challenged their dismissal, arguing that it
was not justified and that the penalties were too severe.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for violation of company policies was
valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissals were valid, as the
company had provided substantial evidence that the employees violated
important company policies. The penalties imposed were deemed
commensurate with the violations committed.

Employers have the right to enforce company policies, and dismissal may be
valid if an employee's violation of such policies is proven and the penalty is
proportionate to the infraction.

Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor

Union-NLU, G.R. No. 188949, 26 July 2010

Facts: A labor dispute arose between Central Azucarera de Tarlac and its
employees over wage increases and other benefits. The union claimed that
the company had failed to comply with its obligations under a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA).

Issue: Whether or not the company had breached the terms of the CBA.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the
company had indeed violated the CBA by not providing the agreed-upon
wage increases and benefits. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the
CBA and the importance of compliance by both parties. Collective bargaining
agreements are binding contracts, and any violation by an employer may
result in liability and sanctions.
Honda Philippines v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda,
G.R. No. 145561, 15 June 2005.

Facts: Honda Philippines dismissed several employees who were part of a

union. The union argued that the dismissals were in retaliation for their union
activities, and thus, were illegal.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of employees for participating in union

activities was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissals were illegal as they were
done in bad faith and were motivated by the employees’ union activities. The
Court emphasized that union membership and activities are protected rights,
and dismissals for such reasons are unjustifiable. Employees have the right to
join and participate in union activities without fear of retaliation from the
employer. Dismissals motivated by union activities are considered illegal.

Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. No. 92174, 10

December 1993

Facts: The employees of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. were dismissed after

the company restructured its workforce. The employees contested the
termination, alleging that their dismissal was arbitrary and without due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the restructuring of the company and subsequent

dismissal of employees were valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal because the
company failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the need for
restructuring. The Court emphasized the need for employers to prove the
validity of their actions, especially in cases involving dismissals. Employers
must present clear and convincing evidence to justify workforce
restructuring and employee dismissals.

Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, 15 February

1995.

Facts: This case involves a continuation of the dispute between Philippine

Duplicators, Inc. and its employees regarding the latter’s redundancy-based
termination. The employees argued that the company’s claim of redundancy
was a pretext for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the claim of redundancy was used in bad faith to
dismiss employees.

Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision, holding that the
company’s redundancy program was implemented in good faith and was
based on legitimate business concerns. The dismissals were lawful, as
redundancy is a recognized cause for termination when proven.

King of Kings Transport v. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, 29 June 2007

Facts: The employer terminated the employment of Mamac, a driver, due to

alleged misconduct. Mamac claimed that the dismissal was illegal and that
the employer failed to follow due process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for misconduct was valid and in
accordance with due process.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. Although there
was just cause for the dismissal, the employer failed to comply with the two-
notice rule and did not afford Mamac the opportunity to explain his side. Even
if just cause exists for termination, employers must follow procedural due
process, including the issuance of two notices: one informing the
employee of the charges, and another notifying them of the decision.

Vergara v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No. 176985, 1 April

2013

Facts: Noel Vergara was a Coca-Cola employee dismissed for allegedly

committing serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. He filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming his termination was unjustified.

Issue: Whether or not Vergara’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vergara, holding that the employer
failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the alleged misconduct.
Furthermore, due process was not observed as Coca-Cola did not give
Vergara proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Employers must
provide substantial evidence to support claims of misconduct or loss of trust
and confidence. Employees are entitled to due process before dismissal,
including notice and the opportunity to explain their side.

Arco Metal Products v. SAMARM-NAFLU, G.R. No. 170734, 14 May

2008

Facts: Arco Metal Products dismissed several employees who were members
of the
union SAMARM-NAFLU, citing redundancy. The union claimed the dismissal
was retaliatory for their union activities.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was due to redundancy
or was a form of union-busting.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was illegal. The redundancy
was merely a pretext to weaken the union. The Court emphasized that the
protection of workers’ right to unionize must be upheld and that dismissal as
a retaliatory measure for union activities is illegal. Union activities are
protected, and any dismissal aimed at discouraging unionization is
considered illegal.

Metropolitan Bank v. NLRC, G.R. No. 152928, 18 June 2009

Facts: Several employees of Metropolitan Bank were terminated due to

alleged participation in a fraudulent scheme. They filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, claiming lack of due process.

Issue: Whether or not the employees' dismissal for fraud was valid and if due
process was observed.

Held: The Supreme Court found the dismissal valid, as Metropolitan Bank
presented substantial evidence proving the employees' involvement in the
scheme. However, the Court stressed that procedural due process must be
strictly followed, which includes notice and a hearing before dismissal. As the
bank complied with these requirements, the dismissal was upheld.
Substantial evidence is necessary to justify dismissal for fraud, and
procedural
due process must always be observed.
University of the East v. University of the East Employees
Association, G.R. No. 179593, 14 September 2011

Facts: The University of the East (UE) implemented a retirement program, but
several employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they
were forced to retire under unfair terms.

Issue: Whether or not the employees were illegally dismissed through forced
retirement.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the retirement program was valid, as it
was implemented in good faith and accepted by the employees. There was
no illegal dismissal, as retirement was voluntary and in accordance with the
law. Retirement programs are valid if implemented in good faith, and no
coercion is exerted on employees to retire.

American Wire and Cable Daily Rated Employees Union v. American

Wire and Cable Co., G.R. No. 155059, 29 April 2005

Facts: The union sought recognition as the sole bargaining agent, but the
company opposed, arguing that another union represented a significant
portion of employees. The company refused to bargain collectively with the
union.

Issue: Whether or not the company’s refusal to bargain with the union was
justified.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, holding that it had been
validly chosen by the employees to represent them. The company’s refusal to
bargain constituted an unfair labor practice.

A duly recognized union has the right to represent employees in collective

bargaining, and an employer's refusal to negotiate with a validly recognized
union constitutes an unfair labor practice.

Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya, G.R. No. 168654, 25 March 2009

Facts: Protacio, an employee of Laya Mananghaya, was dismissed for alleged

misconduct. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that his
termination was unwarranted.

Issue: Whether or not Protacio’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that Protacio’s dismissal was valid. The
company presented substantial evidence of his misconduct, and the
termination was done in compliance with due process requirements.
Dismissal for just cause, such as misconduct, is valid if the employer can
present substantial evidence, and due process is observed.

Le-panto Ceramics v. Le-panto Ceramics Employees Association, G.R.

No. 180866, 2 March 2010

Facts: Le-panto Ceramics terminated several employees due to alleged

redundancy. The union claimed that the redundancy program was designed
to eliminate
union members.

Issue: Whether or not the redundancy program was a valid basis for
termination or a form of union-busting.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the redundancy program was valid and
supported by a legitimate business reason. The termination was upheld, as
the company followed due process and did not target union members
specifically. Redundancy is a valid ground for termination if it is implemented
in good faith and for legitimate business reasons, with due process followed.

Mega Magazine Publications v. Defensor, G.R. No. 162021, 16 June

2014

Facts: Defensor, an employee of Mega Magazine, was terminated for poor

performance. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that his
termination was without just cause and due process.

Issue: Whether or not Defensor’s termination for poor performance was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was valid, as the company
provided evidence of Defensor’s poor performance. The Court also found that
the company followed due process by giving Defensor prior notice and an
opportunity to improve his performance. Termination for poor performance is
valid if there is evidence of underperformance and if due process is followed.

TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees Union, G.R. No. 163419, 13

February 2008

Facts: TSPIC Corporation and the employees’ union were engaged in

collective bargaining negotiations, but the company refused to negotiate
further. The union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice.

Issue: Whether or not TSPIC Corporation's refusal to continue negotiations

constituted unfair labor practice.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, stating that the
company’s refusal to negotiate was an act of unfair labor practice. The right
to collective bargaining is protected under the law, and employers are
obligated to negotiate in good faith. The refusal to bargain collectively in
good faith constitutes unfair labor
practice.
Eastern Telecommunications v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union,
G.R. No. 185665, 8 February 2012

Facts: Eastern Telecommunications unilaterally altered the terms of

employment without consulting the employees' union. The union filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice, arguing that the company should have
negotiated the changes.

Issue: Whether or not the company's unilateral action violated the right to
collective bargaining.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, stating that any
significant changes to employment terms should be negotiated with the
union. Eastern Telecommunications’ actions violated the employees' right to
collective bargaining. Employers must negotiate with the union before
altering employment terms significantly. Failure to do so constitutes unfair
labor practice.

Rosario Gaa v. Court of Appeals, L-44169, 3 December 1985

Facts: Rosario Gaa was an employee of Manila Electric Company (Meralco) for
over 30 years. She was dismissed from service after being accused of
dishonesty related to the non remittance of electric bills. Gaa contended that
thedismissal was arbitrary and without basis. She filed a petition for
reinstatement and back wages, which the trial court denied, leading her to
appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or not Gaa’s dismissal from Meralco was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding
that Gaa’s dismissal was valid. The evidence presented showed that she had
been dishonest in her work, and such misconduct justified her termination.
The Court held that long years of service do not excuse an employee’s act of
dishonesty, which goes against the trust required in the employer-employee
relationship. Termination due to dishonesty is justified if supported by
evidence, regardless of the employee's length of service.

Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474, 22 August 1994

Facts: Roberto Maglucot was a taxi driver employed by Five J Taxi. He was
dismissed after allegedly failing to remit the full amount of his taxi fare
collections. Maglucot filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), claiming that his termination was
without just cause.

Issue: Whether or not Maglucot’s dismissal was legal and whether he was
entitled to
back wages.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maglucot, holding that Five J Taxi
failed to prove that he committed any misconduct warranting his dismissal.
There was insufficient evidence to show that Maglucot failed to remit the
correct fare collections. The Court emphasized that employers must present
clear and convincing evidence to justify the dismissal of an employee.

The ruling directed Five J Taxi to reinstate Maglucot and pay him back wages.
Dismissal must be based on just cause, and employers bear the burden of
proof in showing sufficient grounds for termination.

Niña Jewelry v. Montecillo, G.R. No. 188169, 28 November 2011

Facts: Niña Jewelry terminated the services of Montecillo, one of its

employees, on the grounds of redundancy. Montecillo, however, claimed that
her termination was not due to redundancy but because of her union
activities. She filed a case for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not Montecillo’s dismissal was valid on the ground of

redundancy or if it was an act of union-busting.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montecillo, declaring that her
dismissal was illegal. The Court found that the claim of redundancy was a
mere pretext to dismiss Montecillo because of her involvement in union
activities. There was no genuine redundancy program, and the company's
failure to provide substantial evidence rendered the dismissal unjust. Niña
Jewelry was ordered to reinstate Montecillo with back wages. Dismissal on the
ground of redundancy must be backed by substantial evidence and must not
be used to undermine employees’ union rights.

Special Steel Products, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 143304, 8 July 2004

Facts: Vicente Villareal was an employee of Special Steel Products, Inc. (SSPI)
working as a machine operator. He was dismissed from his employment for
violating company rules related to productivity and for being habitually
absent. Villareal contended that his dismissal was illegal as the company did
not comply with due process requirements.
Issue: Whether or not Villareal's dismissal was valid and whether due process
was observed by SSPI.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Villareal, declaring that his
dismissal was illegal. While the Court acknowledged that Villareal committed
infractions, SSPI failed to follow the required due process. The company did
not give him the proper notices nor the opportunity to be heard. The Court
reiterated that procedural due process must always be observed in dismissal
cases, regardless of the gravity of the employee’s offense. Villareal was
entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, as well as back wages. Even if an
employee commits misconduct, the employer must still observe due process,
which includes notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissal.

Milan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 202961, 4 February 2015

Facts: Richelle Milan worked as a cashier for a supermarket. She was

dismissed after being accused of negligence, resulting in a financial
discrepancy. Milan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her
termination was unjustified and that she had no prior knowledge of the
charges against her.

Issue: Whether or not Milan’s dismissal was legal and whether due process
was observed by the employer.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Milan, holding that her dismissal
was illegal due to the lack of due process. The employer failed to give Milan
proper notice of the charges against her and did not provide her with an
opportunity to explain her side. Furthermore, the financial discrepancy was
not directly attributed to her negligence. The Court emphasized that for a
dismissal to be valid, both substantive and procedural due process must be
complied with. Dismissal must comply with both substantive grounds (just or
authorized cause) and procedural due process (two written notices and an
opportunity to be heard).

Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union v. Norkis Trading Co.,

Inc., G.R. No. 157098, 30 June 2005

Facts: Norkis Trading Co., Inc. (NTCI) dismissed several of its employees,
members of the Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union (NFIWU), on the
ground of redundancy. The union contended that the redundancy program
was a mere pretext to terminate union members and filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was valid on the ground
of redundancy or if it constituted unfair labor practice.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of NFIWU, declaring that the dismissal
was illegal. The Court found that NTCI failed to provide sufficient proof that a
redundancy situation existed. Employers must provide substantial evidence
to support redundancy claims,
and dismissals should not be used to target union members or undermine
union rights. The company’s claim was not supported by any evidence of
business decline or financial losses that would warrant the implementation of
a redundancy program. Moreover, the Court noted that the dismissal of union
members appeared to be a discriminatory act aimed at weakening the union.
NTCI was ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees
with back wages.
Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank, G.R. No. 131247, 25
January 1999

Facts: Prubankers Association, representing employees of Prudential Bank,

demanded wage increases and other economic benefits during collective
bargaining negotiations. Prudential Bank refused, leading the union to file a
case. The bank argued that it was not financially capable of granting the
demands.

Issue: Whether or not Prudential Bank was legally obligated to grant the
union's demands for wage increases and benefits.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prudential Bank. Employers are not
required to grant union demands for wage increases and benefits if they can
prove that doing so would negatively affect their financial stability. It found
that the financial status of the bank did not allow it to grant the wage
increases and benefits sought by the union. The Court highlighted that the
union could not compel the employer to grant such demands if doing so
would lead to financial instability.

Employer’s Confederation of the Philippines v. National Wages and

Productivity Commission, G.R. No. 96169, 24 September 1991

Facts: The Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) challenged the

validity of a wage order issued by the National Wages and Productivity
Commission (NWPC), which mandated increases in wages for employees.
ECOP argued that the wage increase was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Issue: Whether or not the NWPC had the authority to issue the wage order
and whether the wage increase was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the wage order. It ruled that
the NWPC had the authority to issue wage orders to promote the welfare of
employees and ensure a decent standard of living. The Court found that the
wage increase was reasonable and based on economic conditions at the time.
The NWPC has the authority to issue wage orders, and wage increases may
be imposed if they are justified by economic conditions.

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. Employees Union v. NLRC, G.R. No.
102636, 10 September 1993

Facts: The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. Employees Union filed a case for
unfair labor practices, alleging that the bank had dismissed several union
members to discourage union activity. The bank, in turn, claimed that the
employees were dismissed for just cause due to serious misconduct.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees constituted unfair labor
practice.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, holding that the
dismissals were motivated by anti-union bias. The Court found no substantial
evidence to support the bank's claim of misconduct. The employees were
ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. When dismissal of employees
motivated by anti-union sentiment constitutes unfair labor practice.

Metro Transit Organization v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116008, 11 July 1995

Facts: Metro Transit Organization dismissed several employees for

participating in a strike that was deemed illegal. The employees argued that
their dismissal was illegal and sought reinstatement.
Issue: Whether or not the employees’ dismissal for participating in the strike
was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, declaring that their
dismissal was illegal. The Court held that the strike was not illegal, and the
dismissal of the employees was an act of retaliation. The employees were
entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Employees cannot be dismissed
for participating in a lawful strike.

Bankard Employees Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 140689, 17 February

2004

Facts: Bankard Employees Union filed a case for illegal dismissal, arguing that
several of its members were terminated without due process. Bankard, on
the other hand, claimed that the employees were dismissed for redundancy
and that the proper process was followed.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was legal due to
redundancy.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bankard, finding that the
dismissal of the employees was justified by redundancy. The company had
provided substantial evidence showing the necessity of the redundancy
program and had complied with the procedural requirements for dismissal.
Dismissals due to redundancy are valid if justified by substantial evidence
and if due process is followed.

Philippine Geothermal Employees Union v. Chevron, G.R. No. 207252,

24 January 2018

Facts: The Philippine Geothermal Employees Union filed a case alleging that
Chevron committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain in good faith
and by dismissing employees who were union members.

Issue:
Whether Chevron’s actions constituted unfair labor practice and refusal to
bargain in good faith.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the union, finding that Chevron
committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain in good faith and
dismissing union members without valid cause. The employees were entitled
to reinstatement and Chevron was directed to negotiate in good faith. Refusal
to bargain in good faith and dismissal of union members without just cause
constitutes unfair labor practice.

Filipinas Golf and Country Club v. NLRC, G.R. No. 62918, 23 August
1989

Facts: Several employees of Filipinas Golf and Country Club were dismissed
for alleged inefficiency and violation of company rules. The employees filed a
case for illegal dismissal, claiming that they were not given proper notice or
due process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees was legal and whether
due process was observed.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, declaring that their
dismissal was illegal. The Court found that the company did not comply with
due process requirements, as the employees were not given proper notice or
the opportunity to defend themselves. Furthermore, employers must observe
procedural due process when dismissing employees, which includes notice
and an opportunity to be heard.

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.

99858, 19 June 1995

Facts: The Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) dismissed

several employees due to a redundancy program. The employees argued that
the redundancy was a pretext for terminating union members and filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employees on the ground of

redundancy was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, declaring that the
redundancy program was not sufficiently proven by PT&T. The Court found
that the company failed to show that there was a genuine redundancy and
that the dismissal of union members was motivated by anti-union sentiments.
Employers must present substantial evidence to justify redundancy
programs, and dismissals should not be used as a means to target union
members.

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82763,

19 March 1990

Facts: Several employees of DBP were dismissed after the bank implemented
a retrenchment program due to alleged financial losses. The employees filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that the retrenchment was not
justified and that DBP did not follow the proper procedure.

Issue: Whether or not DBP’s retrenchment program was valid and if the
dismissal of the employees was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the retrenchment program was not valid
because DBP failed to prove substantial financial losses. The Court
emphasized that retrenchment should be a last resort and should be based
on clear and convincing evidence of financial distress. Moreover, DBP did not
comply with the requirements for retrenchment, such as proper notice to the
employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The
dismissal was therefore declared illegal. Retrenchment is valid only if the
employer proves substantial financial losses and follows the proper
procedures, including providing notice to employees and DOLE.

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86227,

19 January 1994

Facts: DBP employees were terminated under a reorganization plan aimed at

streamlining operations and reducing operational costs. The employees
challenged the legality of their dismissal, claiming that the reorganization
was not bona fide and that they were dismissed without just cause and due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the reorganization implemented by DBP was done in

good faith and whether the dismissal of the employees was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the reorganization was valid as it was
made in good faith to improve the bank’s efficiency and to reduce operational
costs. The Court found that DBP’s reorganization plan was a management
prerogative and was carried out with a legitimate business purpose. However,
the Court reiterated that even in cases of reorganization, due process must
be observed, including giving notice to the employees concerned.
A reorganization made in good faith for a legitimate business purpose is a
valid ground for dismissal, but due process must still be followed, including
giving notice to the affected employees.

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, 23

May 1997

Facts: Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. (PT&T) terminated an

employee who had been absent without leave (AWOL) for several days. The
employee claimed that the dismissal was illegal because the company did not
conduct a proper investigation and failed to provide a valid reason for his
dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the employee by PT&T was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was invalid. PT&T failed to
follow the proper procedure of giving two notices: a notice specifying the
grounds for dismissal and another stating the decision to terminate after
giving the employee a chance to explain. The Court emphasized that
procedural due process must be observed, even in cases of AWOL. An
employer must observe procedural due process in terminating an employee,
which includes giving the employee notice of the charges and an opportunity
to be heard before the decision is made.

Lakpue Drug v. Belga, G.R. No. 166379, 20 October 2005

Facts: Lakpue Drug, a pharmaceutical company, dismissed its employee for

serious misconduct and breach of trust after discovering that the employee
had allegedly stolen company property. The employee challenged the
dismissal, claiming there was no concrete evidence of the theft.

Issue: Whether or not the employee’s dismissal for alleged theft was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, holding that there
was insufficient evidence to prove that the employee had committed theft.
The Court emphasized that dismissal based on serious misconduct requires
clear and convincing evidence. Dismissal for serious misconduct must be
supported by substantial evidence. As such, mere allegations without proof
do not justify termination.

Del Monte v. Velasco, G.R. No. 153477, 6 March 2007

Facts: An employee of Del Monte Philippines, Inc. was terminated after being
implicated in an internal investigation regarding irregularities in company
sales. The employee denied involvement and claimed illegal dismissal.

Issue: Whether the employee’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was valid. It found that Del
Monte had conducted a fair investigation, giving the employee an opportunity
to explain his side. The Court held that the company's reliance on evidence
gathered during the investigation was sufficient to establish loss of trust and
confidence in the employee. While employers have the right to dismiss
employees for loss of trust and confidence, it must be provided that there is
sufficient evidence and the employee is given a chance to explain.

Star Paper v. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, 12 April 2006

Facts: Star Paper terminated an employee for violating company policies and
procedures. The employee filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that
the company did not give her a chance to explain her side.

Issue: Whether or not the termination of the employee was legal.

Held: The Supreme Court found the dismissal illegal. Star Paper failed to
comply with the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due
process. The employee was not given an opportunity to be heard, and the
company did not have sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal. For a
dismissal to be valid, both substantive and procedural due process must be
observed.

Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 187226, 28 January 2015

Facts: Leus, an employee of St. Scholastica’s College, was terminated for

allegedly engaging in premarital sexual relations, which the school
considered a violation of its ethical standards. Leus claimed that her
dismissal was discriminatory and violated her right to privacy.

Issue: Whether or not the termination of Leus for premarital pregnancy was
valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, holding that
premarital pregnancy alone is not sufficient to justify termination. The Court
emphasized that dismissal based on pregnancy constitutes discrimination,
which violates the constitutional right to privacy and equal protection.
Dismissal based on premarital pregnancy is discriminatory and violates an
employee’s constitutional rights.

Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges,G.R. No. 187417, 24

February 2016

Facts: Capin-Cadiz, an employee of Brent Hospital, was terminated for poor

performance and failure to comply with company standards. The employee
contested the dismissal, claiming that it was unjust and without due process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for poor performance was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the employer had
provided sufficient evidence of the employee’s poor performance. The Court
found that Brent Hospital had followed due process by issuing notices and
giving the employee a chance to improve before terminating her. Dismissal
for poor performance is valid if the employer can show substantial evidence
of the employee’s deficiencies and if due process is observed.

Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation,G.R. No. 202621, 22 June 2016

Facts: Inocente was dismissed from her job at St. Vincent Foundation for
alleged insubordination and gross misconduct. She filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, arguing that the charges were baseless.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for insubordination and gross misconduct
was valid.

Held:The Supreme Court found the dismissal invalid. The Court held that the
employer failed to prove the employee’s alleged misconduct and did not
follow the proper procedure for termination. Employers must provide
substantial evidence of insubordination or gross misconduct and must follow
due process in terminating employees.
Union School International v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 234186, 21 November
2018

Facts: Dagdag, a teacher at Union School International, was dismissed for

failure to comply with the school’s performance standards. Dagdag contested
her dismissal, claiming that the school had not given her sufficient notice or
opportunity to improve.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal for poor performance was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dagdag, holding that the school
failed to provide sufficient evidence of poor performance. Moreover, the
Court found that Dagdag was not given a chance to improve her performance
before being dismissed. Dismissal for poor performance requires clear
evidence of deficiencies and a reasonable opportunity for the employee to
improve.

Libres v. NLRC, G.R. No. 123737, 28 May 1999

Facts: Libres, an employee of a water district, was dismissed from his position
for allegedly inciting a strike and committing acts of insubordination. He filed
a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, claiming that his termination
was unjust and lacked due process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of Libres was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Libres, holding that the water
district failed to observe procedural due process in terminating him. The
Court found that the employer did not provide the required notices or a
proper opportunity for Libres to defend himself. Dismissal must comply with
the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process, ensuring
that the employee is properly notified of the charges and given an
opportunity to be heard.

Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008

Facts: Domingo, an administrative officer, was dismissed for grave

misconduct,
specifically sexual harassment. The complainant, a subordinate, accused
Domingo of improper behavior. Domingo denied the allegations and
contested his dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of Domingo for sexual harassment was
valid.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, affirming the finding of sexual
harassment. The Court ruled that Domingo’s conduct violated the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995, and his dismissal was warranted based on the
evidence presented. Dismissal for sexual harassment is valid if supported by
substantial evidence proving the commission of the offense, in line with the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act.

Toliongco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 231748, 8 July 2020

Facts: Toliongco was dismissed by his employer for alleged inefficiency and
failure to meet company standards. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
arguing that his termination was done without just cause and without
following due process.

Issue: Whether or not Toliongco’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Toliongco, holding that his
dismissal was illegal. The employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to
justify the dismissal, and procedural due process was not observed. The
Court emphasized that inefficiency alone does not warrant dismissal unless
supported by concrete evidence and due process is followed. Dismissal for
inefficiency or poor performance requires substantial evidence and
adherence to procedural due process.

LBC Express v. Palco, G.R. No. 217101, 12 February 2020

Facts: Palco, an employee of LBC Express, was dismissed for alleged theft of
company property. Palco denied the accusation and filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, arguing that there was no concrete evidence of his
involvement in the theft.

Issue: Whether or not Palco’s dismissal was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Palco, finding that LBC Express
failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the theft. The company also
failed to comply with the procedural requirements of dismissal, such as giving
Palco an opportunity to defend himself. Dismissal based on serious
misconduct, such as theft, requires clear and convincing evidence, and
procedural due process must be observed.

Apex Mining v. NLRC, G.R. No. 94951, 22 April 1991

Facts: Apex Mining dismissed several employees after they engaged in a

strike that the company considered illegal. The employees argued that the
strike was avalid exercise of their right to self-organization and that their
dismissal was illegal.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the striking employees was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, holding that the
strike was legal and that their dismissal was unjustified. The Court
emphasized that the right to strike is a fundamental right protected by the
Constitution, and any dismissal based on participation in a lawful strike is
illegal. The right to strike is constitutionally protected, and dismissal based on
participation in a legal strike is considered illegal.

Barcenas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 87210, 16 July 1990

Facts: Barcenas was dismissed by his employer for alleged dishonesty and
unauthorized absences. He filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal
dismissal, claiming that his termination was arbitrary and without due
process.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of Barcenas was valid.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, as the employer
failed to provide sufficient evidence of dishonesty and did not follow the
proper procedure in terminating Barcenas. The Court reiterated the
importance of adhering to both substantive and procedural due process in
dismissal cases. An employer must observe due process and provide
sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to justify dismissal. Failure to do so renders
the dismissal illegal.

Atienza v. Saluta, G.R. No. 233413, 17 June 2019

Facts: The case involved Atienza, a former employee of the Municipal

Government of San Mateo, Rizal, who filed a complaint against Saluta, the
municipal treasurer, for illegal dismissal. Atienza was dismissed after an
administrative investigation found him guilty of serious misconduct for failing
to remit government funds. He claimed that his dismissal was invalid and
that he was not given due process.

Issue: Whether or not Atienza's dismissal was lawful and whether he was
afforded due process.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atienza, declaring his dismissal
illegal. The Court held that Atienza was not afforded due process as required
by law. Specifically, the investigation conducted did not meet the procedural
safeguards necessary for a valid dismissal. The Court emphasized the
importance of adhering to the constitutional and statutory requirements for
due process in administrative proceedings, which includes providing the
employee a clear statement of the charges against them and a fair
opportunity to respond. An employee's dismissal from public service must
comply with due process requirements as mandated by the Constitution and
applicable laws. Failure to observe these procedural safeguards renders the
dismissal illegal, regardless of the merits of the charges against the
employee.

Bernardo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, 12 July 1999

Facts: The case involves Bernado, an employee of the Department of Public

Works and Highways (DPWH), who was dismissed from service after being
found guilty of serious misconduct for allegedly committing acts of
dishonesty in the procurement of materials. He appealed his dismissal to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), contending that the
investigation was flawed
nd that he was denied due process.

Issue: Whether or not Bernardo was denied due process during the
investigation
and whether his dismissal was justified based on the allegations against him.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bernardo, declaring his dismissal
as illegal. The Court found that the dismissal was not only based on
substantial evidence but also that the procedure followed in the
administrative investigation was inadequate. Specifically, it highlighted that
Bernardo was not given the opportunity to adequately defend himself against
the charges. The ruling emphasized the necessity of adhering to due process
in administrative investigations, especially in cases involving dismissal from
public service. An employee must be provided with a fair and impartial
hearing, including the right to be informed of the charges against them, the
right to present evidence, and the right to be heard. Failure to observe these
rights can result in the nullification of the dismissal. The decision underscored
the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights
in administrative proceedings, reinforcing that dismissals must be grounded
not only in just cause but also in fair procedures.

Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114337, 29 September 1995

Facts: Nitto Enterprises dismissed a group of workers after they held a strike.
The workers argued that the strike was legal and that their dismissal was
unjust. Nitto Enterprises contended that the strike was illegal and justified the
workers’ dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the strike conducted by the workers was legal, and
whether their dismissal was justified.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the strike was legal, as it was conducted
to address valid labor grievances. The workers were entitled to due process
and their dismissal was deemed illegal since there was no just cause for
termination and proper procedure was not followed.

A strike conducted in response to valid labor grievances is considered legal.

The dismissal of employees participating in a lawful strike without due
process or just cause constitutes illegal termination.

Century Canning Corporation v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 128540, 27

May 1999.

Facts Century Canning Corporation, a well-established company in the food

processing industry, implemented a redundancy program affecting several of
its employees. This program was initiated in response to declining sales and
increased competition in the canned goods market. The management
asserted that the redundancy was necessary to enhance efficiency and
ensure the company's survival. Consequently, the company dismissed a
number of employees whose positions were deemed redundant.

In response to the dismissal, the affected employees filed a complaint for

illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
They argued that the company's claim of redundancy was a mere pretext to
terminate their employment, aimed at circumventing labor laws protecting
job security. The employees contended that the company had failed to
observe the required procedural due process in carrying out the dismissals.
They alleged that they were not given prior notice of their termination and
that the company did not provide the necessary notifications to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

The NLRC ruled in favor of the employees, stating that the redundancy
program was not valid and that the dismissals were illegal due to the lack of
due process. Century Canning Corporation subsequently elevated the case to
the Court of Appeals, which ultimately affirmed the NLRC's decision.

Issue: Whether or not the redundancy program implemented by Century

Canning Corporation was valid and whether the employees' dismissal was
lawful.

Held:The Supreme Court ruled that the redundancy program implemented by

Century Canning Corporation was valid. It recognized the company’s
prerogative to implement measures such as redundancy for legitimate
business reasons, particularly in the context of declining revenues and the
need to maintain competitiveness in the market. The Court emphasized that
employers have the right to reorganize their workforce to respond to
economic challenges.

However, the Court also stressed the necessity of following procedural due
process in implementing a redundancy program. This includes the
requirement to provide written notice to the affected employees as well as
notification to the DOLE at least 30 days before the intended date of
termination. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that employees are
afforded an opportunity to contest their dismissal and that the DOLE is made
aware of mass layoffs for monitoring and compliance purposes.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that Century Canning Corporation had
complied with the procedural requirements mandated by law. The company
provided proper notices to the affected employees and adhered to the
notification requirements for DOLE. Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of
the employees' dismissal as it was carried out in good faith and followed the
appropriate procedures.
The ruling reinforced the principle that redundancy is a valid ground for
dismissal provided that the employer acts in good faith and adheres to the
necessary procedural safeguards. The decision clarified that while employers
have the authority to manage their workforce, they must also ensure
compliance with labor laws designed to protect employees' rights during
termination processes.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Century Canning Corporation v. Court of

Appeals serves as a significant precedent in labor law, particularly regarding
the implementation of redundancy programs. It emphasizes the balance
between an employer’s rights to reorganize and the need to uphold
procedural due process to protect employee rights. Employers must exercise
this prerogative in good faith and comply with the proper legal procedures to
avoid accusations of illegal dismissal. The ruling underscores the importance
of notice and due process in redundancy cases, ensuring that employees are
treated fairly even in difficult economic circumstances.

----------------------------------------------------------
----

Nothing Follows

Submitted by:
VICTORIO D. BARRAMEDA, III

Thank you.