Labor Law and Social Legislation
Uploaded by
mariejoygarcia96Labor Law and Social Legislation
Uploaded by
mariejoygarcia961
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Introduction Table of Contents
I Introduction to Labor Law
This is the 5th edition of the Syllabus-based Introduction to Labor Law 1
Legal Basis
Reviewers of eCodal+Pro. This passion project started
e
in 2021 while the author, Atty. RGL, reviewed for the
Jurisdiction and Remedies 19 Recruitment and Placement
2020_21 #BestBarEver.
Illegal Recruitment
he review materials are painstakingly curated to
T
address the topics of thecurrentbarsyllabi.Knowthat Social Legislation 50 iability of local recruitment agency and
L
the aim here is to be as concise anddirectaspossible, foreign employer
whilemakingsurealltopicsarecovered.Thematerials
are not envisioned to be a primary review material as Work Relationships 97 ermination of contract of migrant
T
we give deference to the scholarly works of legal worker
luminaries.Itishighlyadvisedthatthematerialsareto
betreatedassupplementstoreviewersasprescribedby
Labor Standards 118 Employment of non-resident aliens
law school professors.
A Legal Basis
lease note as well that the author has no crystal ball
P Post-Employment 158
andisnotinthebusinessofpredictingwhattopicswill
come out in the Bar. What the author would like to
International Documents
impart to the reader is the sense of security and Termination by Employer 173 1987 Constitution
confidence that after finishing the materials, all topics
have been covered. Civil Code
Termination by Employee 221
astly, the author wishes to request the reader to be
L Labor Code
vanguards of the law. If you happen to grab a copy of
this material without havingsubscribedtoeCodal+Pro, Retirement 226 1 International Documents
pleasecontacttheauthoratfb.com/ecodalplus,oremail
him atecodalplus@gmail.com. a. I nternational Labor Organization
ay you have the strength and peace of mind as you
M Labor Relations 229 Ratifications
take one more step into becoming members of the
noblest of all professions.Padayon! Convention Date
Jurisdiction and Reliefs 253
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page2of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
029- Forced Labour Convention,
C 15 Jul 2005 on-impairment Clause. Sec 10 Art III. No
1. N heconstitutionalmandatesofprotectiontolabor
T
1930 (No. 29) law impairing the obligation of contracts and security of tenure may be deemed as
087- Freedom of Association and
C 29 Dec 1953 shall be passed. self-executing in the sense that these are
Protection of the Right to Organise automatically acknowledged and observed
Convention, 1948 (No. 87) qual Protection Clause. Sec 1 Art III. No
2. E
without need for any enabling legislation.
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
098- Right to Organise and
C 29 Dec 1953 However, to declare that the constitutional
Collective Bargaining Convention, property without due process of law, nor
provisions are enough to guarantee the full
1949 (No. 98) shall any person be denied the equal
exercise of the rights embodied therein, and the
100- Equal Remuneration
C 29 Dec 1953 protection of the laws.
realization of ideals therein expressed, would be
Convention, 1951 (No. 100) 3. P
rohibition Against Involuntary Servitude. impractical, if not unrealistic.
105- Abolition of Forced Labour
C 17 Nov 1960 Sec 18(2) Art III. No involuntary servitudein
Convention, 1957 (No. 105) ubsequentlegislationisstillneededtodefinethe
S
any formshallexistexceptasapunishment
parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure
111- Discrimination (Employment 17 Nov 1960
C foracrimewhereofthepartyshallhavebeen
and Occupation) Convention, 1958 the protection and promotion, not only therights
duly convicted.
(No. 111) of the labor sector, but of the employers' as well.
ue Process Clause. Sec 1 Art III. No person
4. D
138- Minimum Age Convention,
C 04 Jun 1998
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
1973 (No. 138)
without due process of law, nor shall any
Minimum age specified: 15 years 3 Civil Code
person be denied the equal protectionofthe
182- Worst Forms of Child Labour 28 Nov 2000
C
Convention, 1999 (No. 182) laws. rticle 1700. The relations between capital and
A
187- Promotional Framework for
C 17 Jun 2019 onstitutionalprovisionsontheprotectionoflabor
C labor are not merely contractual. They are so
Occupational Safety and Health are NOT SELF-EXECUTING, and are mere impressed with public interest that labor
Convention, 2006 (No. 187) guidelines that need enabling laws. They are not contracts must yield to the common good.
judicially enforceable. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the
special laws on labor unions, collective
2 1987 Constitution ouncil of Teachers & Staff of Colleges &
C bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop,
Universities of the Phils. v. Sec. of Education2018 wages, working conditions, hours of labor and
rovides limitations in the enactment of Labor
P En Banc
Laws. similar subjects.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page3of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rticle 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act
A as issued to grant bus drivers and conductors
w onciliation and
C Preventive Mediation
oppressively against the other, or impair the minimum wages and social welfare benefits. Cases.
interestorconvenienceofthepublic.(P
rincipleof ave the force and effect of laws, provided,
1) H
Non-oppression) however,thattheserulesandissuanceswillnot
4 Labor Code expand the law or strip the law.
rticle1702.Incaseofdoubt,alllaborlegislation
A
andalllaborcontractsshallbeconstruedinfavor a) PD 442, as amended; 2) D
OLEistheleadagencyinenforcinglaborlaws
of the safety and decent living for the laborer. and it possesses rule-making power in the
b) Omnibus Rules.
enforcement of the Code.
c) P
D 442, 1974. A Decree Instituting a Labor
he Provincial Bus Operators Association of the
T rt5.RulesandRegulations.—TheDepartment
3) A
Code Thereby Revising and Consolidating
Philippines et al v. DOLE, et al.2018 En Banc of Labor (now DOLE) and other government
LaborandSocialLawstoAffordProtectionto
agencies charged with the administration and
statute passed to protect labor is a "legitimate
A Labor, Promote Employment and Human
enforcementofthisCodeoranyofitspartsshall
exercise of police power, although it incidentally Resources Development and Insure
promulgate the necessary implementing rules
destroys existing contract rights." Contracts Industrial Peace Based on Social Justice.
and regulations. Such rules and regulations
regulatingrelationsbetweencapitalandlaborare
d) S
ignedintolaw:May1,1974;Tookeffect:Nov shall become effective fifteen (15) days after
not merely contractual, and said labor contracts
1, 1974; announcement of theiradoptioninnewspapers
areimpressedwithpublicinterest,andmustyield
RTICLE4.ConstructioninFavorofLabor.—
e) A of general circulation.
to the common good.
All doubts in the implementation and
he relations between capital and labor are not
T B Recruitment and Placement
interpretation of the provisions of this Code,
merely contractual as provided in Article 1700 of
including its implementing rules and
the Civil Code. By statutory declaration, labor ocal employment and overseas
L
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
contracts are impressed with publicinterestand, employment
labor.
therefore, must yield to the common good. Labor
contracts are subject to special laws on wages, f) 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure; evised POEA Rules and Regulations
R
working conditions, hours of labor, and similar Governing the Recruitment and
g) Single Entry Approach (SEnA IRR);
subjects. In other words, labor contracts are
Employment of Land based Overseas
h) The Revised National Conciliation and Filipino Workers
subject to the police power of the State. The DO
Mediation Board Manual of Procedures for
2016 Revised POEA Rules and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page4of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
egulations Governing the
R t hrough their foreign exchange remittances, the
rivate Sector Participation in the Overseas
P
Recruitment and Employment of State does not promote overseas employment as a
Employment Program
Seafarers means to sustain economic growth and achieve
national development. The existence of the 1. W
ho may participate; Required
Parties Capitalization.—
overseas employment program rests solely on the
efinition of recruitment and
D assurance that the dignity and fundamental a. A
ny Filipino citizen acting as a sole
placement human rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizen proprietor or
shall not, at anytime,becompromisedorviolated.
egulation of recruitment and
R b. a partnership, or
TheState,therefore,shallcontinuouslycreatelocal
placement activities employment opportunities and promote the c. a
corporation at least seventy-five
equitable distribution of wealthandthebenefitsof percent (75%) of the authorized and
Regulatory authorities
development. votingcapitalstockofwhichisowned
Ban on direct hiring and controlled by Filipino citizens,
stablishmentofNationalReintegrationCenterfor
E
Entities prohibited from recruiting Overseas Filipino Workers. — A national ay engage in the business of recruitment
m
reintegration center for overseas Filipino workers and placement of Filipino workers.
uspension or cancellation of license
S
(NRCO) is hereby created in the Department of he sole proprietor and partnership shall
T
or authority
MIgrant Workers for returning Filipino migrant have a minimum capitalization of Five
Prohibited practices workerswhichshallprovideamechanismfortheir Million Pesos (PhP5,000,000.00) and a
reintegration into thePhilippinesociety,serveasa minimum paid up capital of Five Million
ocal employment and overseas
L promotion house for their local employment, and Pesos (PhP5,000,000.00) in case of a
employment tap their skills and potentials for national corporation.
1
epublicAct(R.A.) No.8042,asamendedby
R development.
hose with existing licenses shall, within
T
R.A. No. 10022;R.A. No. 10706,R.A. No. 11641
four (4) years from effectivity hereof,
evised Philippine Overseas
R
verseas employment means employment of a
O increase their capitalization or paid up
Employment Administration (POEA)
worker outside the Philippines. capital, as the case may be, to Five Million
2 Rules and Regulations Governing the
Pesos (PhP5,000,000.00) at the rate of Seven
hile recognizing the significant contribution of
W Recruitment and Employment of Land
based Overseas Filipino Workers Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
Filipino migrant workers to the national economy
(PhP750,000.00) every year.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page5of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ailure to report shall automatically include
F
2. D erogatory Record after Issuance/Renewal Parties
such next-in-rank officer in the list of
of License. — The license of a single
proprietorship or a partnership shall be
persons with derogatory record. Worker
suspended, until cleared by the 5. R
evocation of License of a Partnership Due igrant Worker or Overseas
M
Administration, should any derogatory to Death or Withdrawal of Partner. — The Filipino Worker
4
record as provided in Section 3 herein be license of a partnership shall be
foundtoexistagainstthesingleproprietoror automatically revoked upon the death or Private Employment Agency
anyorallofthepartners,asthecasemaybe. withdrawal of a partner which materially Private Recruitment Entity
The appointment of any officer or employee interruptsthecourseofbusinessorresultsin
of any licensed recruitment agency may be the actual dissolution of the partnership. License/Authority
cancelled or revoked by the Administration
at any time, with due notice to the licensed 016 Revised POEA Rules and
2 a. Worker
recruitment agency concerned, whenever Regulations Governing the eans any member of the labor force, whether
m
3
saidofficeroremployeeisfoundtohaveany Recruitment and Employment of employed or unemployed.
derogatory record. Seafarers
b. Migrant Worker or Overseas Filipino
3. N on-TransferabilityofLicense. —Nolicense 1. W
ho may participate; Required Worker
shall be used, directly or indirectly, by any Capitalization. —Same as above r eferstoaFilipinowhoistobeengaged,isengaged,
person other than the one in whose favor it or has been engaged in remunerated activity in a
2. W
ho are Disqualified. — Same as entities
was issued, nor at any placeotherthanthat prohibited from recruiting for overseas country of which he or she is not an immigrant,
statedinthelicense,normaysuchlicensebe employment in Topic 9 below with the citizen, or permanent resident or is not awaiting
transferred, conveyed or assigned to any naturalization, recognition, or admission, whether
following addition:
other person or entity. land-based or sea-based regardless of status;
a. T
he applicant is presently an
4. R
evocationofLicenseofSoleProprietorship. excluding a Filipino engaged under a
incorporator, director or key officer of
—Thelicenseofthesoleproprietorshipshall government-recognized exchange visitor program
at least five (5) licensed manning
automatically be revoked upon the death of forculturalandeducationalpurposes.Forpurposes
agencies.
the sole proprietor. The next-in-rankofficer ofthisprovision,apersonengagedinremunerated
of the agency shall, within ten (10) days, activity covers a person who has been contracted
report such death to the Administration. for overseas employment but has yet to leave the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page6of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hilippines, regardless of status, and includes
P
ny recruitment activities, including the
A egulation of recruitment and
R
“Overseas Contract Workers”. The term “OFW” is
prohibited practices, to be undertaken by placement activities
synonymous to “Migrant Worker”;
non-licensees or non-holders of authority
6 POEA Charter
c. Private Employment Agency shall be deemedillegal.
r efers to any person, partnership or corporation The characteristics of a recruitment license are: epartment of Migrant Workers
D
duly licensed by the SOLE to engage in the
(DMW) Charter
1) It isplace-specific;
recruitmentandplacementofworkersforoverseas
2) It isperson-specific; and a. POEA Charter
employment for a feewhichischarged,directlyor
3) It isprospective. xecutive Order No. 247, series of 1987, as
E
indirectly, from the workers or employers or both.
amended byR.A. No. 9422
d. Private Recruitment Entity efinition of recruitment and
D heAdministrationshallregulateprivatesector
T
5
eans any person or association engaged in the
m placement participation in the recruitment and overseas
recruitment and placement of workers, locally or placement of workers by setting up a licensing
Recruitment and placement refers to any act
overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, and registration system. It shall also formulate
f
o canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
any fee from the workers or employers. and implement, in coordination with
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
appropriateentitiesconcerned,whennecessary,
e. License/Authority workers, and includes referrals, contract
a system for promoting and monitoring the
1. A uthorityreferstoadocumentissuedbythe services, promising or advertising for
overseasemploymentofFilipinoworkerstaking
SOLE authorizing the officers, personnel, employment, locally or abroad, whether for
into consideration their welfare and the
agents or representatives of a licensed profit or not:
domestic manpower requirements.
recruitment/manning agency to conduct rovided, That any person or entity which, in
P
recruitment and placement activities in a I n addition to its powers and functions, the
any manner,
administration shall inform migrant workers
place stated in the license or in a specified
1. offers orpromisesfor a fee, not only of their rights as workers but also of
place.
2. employment totwo or morepersons theirrightsashumanbeings,instructandguide
2. L icensereferstothedocumentissuedbythe the workers how to assert their rights and
SOLE authorizing a person, partnership or s hall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
provide the available mechanism to redress
corporation to operate a private placement.
violation of their rights.
recruitment/manning agency.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page7of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
abor Situationers. The POEA, in consultation
L 4. F
oster the professionalization, promote 3. t heInternationalLaborAffairsBureau(ILAB)
with the DFA,shalldisseminateinformationon ethical recruitment practices, and ensure and all Philippine Overseas Labor Offices
labor and employment conditions, migration compliancewithlegalandethicalstandards, (POLO) under DOLE;
realitiesandotherfacts,aswellasadherenceof training, and capacity-building of private
4. the National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP);
particular countries to international standards recruitment and manning agencies;
on human and workers rights which will 5. t he National Reintegration Center for OFWs
5. R
equire private recruitment and manning (NRC) under the OWWA, and
adequately prepare individuals into making agencies to provide comprehensive
informed and intelligent decisions about insurance to the OFWs they deploy in 6. t he Office of the Social Welfare Attaché
overseas employment. accordance with the law. (OSWA) under the DSWD.
b. Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) andate.—TheDMWismandatedtofacilitatethe
M
Charter Regulatory authorities overseas employment and reintegrationofFilipino
workers, while taking into consideration the
R.A. No. 11641 DMW
7 national development programs of the National
the Department shall: egulatory and visitorial powers of
R Economic and Development Authority. It is also
1. R egulate the recruitment, employment, and the DMW Secretary tasked to promote the empowerment and
deployment of OFWs; protection of OFWs through continuous training
a. DMW and knowledge development.1
2. I nvestigate, initiate, sue, pursue, and help
heDepartmentofMigrantWorkersAct(RA11641)
T
prosecute, in cooperation with the b. Regulatory and visitorial powers of the
took effect on February3,2022,whereintheDMW
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the DMW Secretary
was created, established, and constituted.
Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking I ntheperformanceofitsfunctions,theDepartment
(IACAT), illegal recruitment and human I t now assumes and performs all the powers and
Secretary and his or her authorized deputy shall
trafficking cases; functions of seven merged agencies, namely:
have the power:
3. R egulate the operations of private 1. t he Philippine Overseas Employment
1) t o issue subpoena or subpoena ducestecum
recruitment and manningagenciesinvolved Administration (POEA);
to any person for investigation for illegal
inthedeploymentofOFWsabroadtoprotect 2. t he Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant recruitment or trafficking in persons cases
the interests and well-being of these Workers' Affairs (OUMWA) of the DFA; as defined under Republic Act No. 9208, as
workers;
1
https://www.dmw.gov.ph/about-dmw.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page8of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
mended, and other existing lawsandother
a onditions over and above the standards
c
8 Ban on direct hiring
issuances; and hold or cite any person in set by the POEA. The number of
contempt as may be provided by the rt 18. Ban on Direct-Hiring. — No employer
A professionals and skilled OFWs hired for
implementing rules and regulations; may hire a Filipino worker for overseas the first time by the employer shall not
employment except through the Boards and exceed five (5). For the purpose of
2) t o administer oaths upon cases under
entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. determining the number, workers hired
investigation; and
Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic as a group shall be counted as one; or
3) t o have access to all public records and to corps, international organizations and such
records of private parties and concerns, in c) W
orkers hired by a relative/family
other employers as may be allowed by the
accordance with law. member who is a permanent resident of
Secretary of Labor is exempted from this
the host country, except domestic
t he Secretary shall have the followingpowersand provision.
workers (live-in caregiver/careworkeror
functions: The following areexemptedfrom the ban: household service workers).
1) R ender decisions, orders, and resolutionson 1) members of the diplomatic corps; heir hiring nonetheless must be processed
T
appeal on cases decided by the Regional through the POEA (now DMW) by submitting:
2) international organizations;
Director arising from recruitment violations
or disciplinary actions; 3) H
eadsofstateandgovernmentofficialswith 1. The employment contract;
the rank of at least deputy minister; 2. Valid passport;
2) A t anytime,terminate,suspend,orimposea
total ban on the deployment of migrant 4) O
ther employers as may be allowed by the 3. E
mployment visa or work permit, or
workers, when upon his or her assessment, POEA, such as equivalent;
afterconsultationwiththeadvisoryboardon a) T
hose provided in 1, 2, and 3 above who 4. Certificate of medical fitness; and
migration and development and the bear a lesser rank, if endorsed by the
Secretary of the DFA in consonance with 5. C
ertificate of attendance to the required
Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO),
Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, the employment orientation/ briefing.
or Head of Mission in the absence of the
conditionsinthereceivingcountryorregion POLO;
are inimical and not protective of the best 9 Entities prohibited from recruiting
b) P
rofessionals and skilled workers with
interest, welfare, and safety of migrant he following are disqualified from recruitment
T
duly executed verified/authenticated
workers. and placementfor domestic employment:
contracts containing terms and
1) Personsconvictedof
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page9of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i llegal recruitment, or for other related
a) illegal recruitment, 1) T
ravelagenciesandsalesagenciesofairline
companies; crimes or offenses committed in the course
b) trafficking in persons, of, related to, or resulting from, illegal
c) violation of child labor laws, or 2) O
fficers or Board members of any recruitment, or for crimes involving moral
corporation or partners in a partnership turpitude;
d) crimes involving moral turpitude; engaged in the business of a travel agency;
2) T
hose agencies whose licenses have been
2) A gencies whose licenses have previously 3) C
orporations andpartnerships,whereanyof revoked for violation of RA 8042 (Migrant
beencancelledorrevoked; its officers, Board members or partners is Workers and Overseas FilipinosActof1995),
3) Cooperatives; also (b); as amended, PD 442 (Labor Code of the
4) L awenforcersandanyofficialoremployeeof 4) I ndividuals, partners, officers or directors of Philippines), as amended, and RA 9208
the DOLE. an insurance company who make, propose (Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as
or provide an insurance contract under the amended, and their implementing rules and
5) T hose against whom probable cause or
compulsory insurance coverage for regulations;
prima facie finding of guilt for illegal
agency-hired OFWs; 3) T
hose agencies whose licenses have been
recruitment or other related cases exist
particularly to owners or directors of 5) S
ole proprietors, partners or officers and cancelled, or those who, pursuant to the
agencies who have committed such board members withderogatory records. Order of the Administrator,wereincludedin
violations. thelistofpersonswithderogatoryrecordfor
6) A
ny official or employee of DOLE, POEA,
violation of recruitment laws and
6) S oleproprietorsofdulylicensedagenciesare OWWA, DFA, DOJ, DOH, BI, IC, NLRC,TESDA,
regulations
prohibited from securing another license to CFO, NBO, PNP, CAAP, international airport
engage in recruitment and placement. authorities, and other GAs directly involved
uspension or cancellation of license
S
7) S oleproprietors,partnershipsorcorporations
intheimplementationofRANo8042and/or 10
or authority
any of his relatives within the 4th civil
licensed to engage in private recruitment
degree. Meaning of License and Authority
and placement for local employment are
prohibited from engaging in job contracting Derogatory record 1. A
uthority referstoadocumentissuedbythe
or subcontracting activities. (S
ec 5, DO No 1) T
hose convicted, or against whom probable SOLE authorizing the officers, personnel,
141-14) cause or prima facie finding of guilt is agents or representatives of a licensed
determined by a competent authority, for recruitment/manning agency to conduct
For Overseas Employment
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page10of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r ecruitment and placement activities in a ctually received by him as a loan or
a s upported, or has contacted or is supported
place stated in the license or in a specified advance; by any union or workers' organization;
place. 2) T
o furnish or publish any f alse notice o
r 6) T
oengageintherecruitmentorplacementof
. License referstothedocumentissuedbythe
2
information or document in relation to workers in jobs harmful to public health or
SOLE authorizing a person, partnership or
recruitment or employment; morality or to the dignity of the Republic of
corporation to operate a private
3) T the Philippines;
recruitment/manning agency. o give any false notice, testimony,
information or documentorcommitanyact 7) T
oobstructorattempttoobstructinspection
ny recruitment activities, including the
A of misrepresentation for the purpose of by the SOLE or by his duly authorized
prohibited practices, to be undertaken by securing a license or authority under the representative;
non-licensees or non-holders of authority Labor Code, or for the purpose of
shall be deemedillegal. 8) T
o fail to submit reports on the status of
documenting hired workers with the POEA, employment, placement vacancies,
The characteristics of a recruitment license are: which include the act of reprocessing
remittance of foreign exchange earnings,
workers through a job order that pertainsto
1) It isplace-specific; separation from jobs, departures and such
non-existent work, work different from the other matters or information as may be
2) It isperson-specific; and actual overseas work, or work with a
required by the SOLE;
3) It isprospective. different employer whetherregisteredornot
with the POEA; 9) T
o substitute or alter to the prejudice ofthe
he DOLE Secretary has jurisdiction tosuspendor
T worker,employmentcontractsapprovedand
cancel a license. 4) T
o induce or attempt to induce a worker verified by the Department of Labor and
already employedtoquithisemploymentin
Employment fromthetimeofactualsigning
11 Prohibited practices ordertoofferhimanotherunlessthetransfer
thereofbythepartiesuptoandincludingthe
is designed to liberate a worker from period of the expiration ofthesamewithout
I t shall be unlawful for any individual, entity,
oppressive terms and conditions of
licensee, or holder of authority: the approval of theDepartmentofLaborand
employment;
Employment;
1) T
ochargeoracceptdirectlyorindirectlyany
5) T
o influence or attempt to influence any 10)For an officer or agent of a recruitment or
amount greater than that specified in the
person or entity not to employ any worker placement agency to become an officer or
schedule of allowablefeesprescribedbythe
whohasnotappliedforemploymentthrough
SOLE, or to make a worker pay or member of the Board of any corporation
his agency or who has formed, joined or engaged in travel agency or to be engaged
acknowledge any amount greater than that
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page11of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
irectlyorindirectlyinthemanagementofa
d arty, postdated checks in relation to the
p t hecostorpremiumofinsurancesunderthe
travel agency; said loan; compulsory workers insurance coverage.
11) To withhold or deny travel documents from 16)Specifying a Loan Entity. To impose a
Fil-Expat Placement Agency v. Lee2020
applicant workers before departure for compulsory and exclusive arrangement
monetary or financial considerations, or for whereby an OFW is required to avail a loan o substitute or alter to the prejudice of the
T
any other reasons, other than those only from specifically designated entities; worker, employment contracts approved and
authorized under the Labor Code and its verified by the DOLE from the time of actual
17)Non-renegotiation of Loan. To refuse to
implementing Rules and Regulations; signingthereofbythepartiesuptoandincluding
condonealoanincurredbyanOFWafterhis
the period of the expiration of the same without
12)Failure to actually deploy a contracted employment contract has been prematurely
theapprovaloftheDOLE—isconsideredanactof
worker without valid reason as determined terminated not through his fault.
illegal recruitment under Section 6(i)ofRepublic
by the DOLE; 18)Specifying a Medical Entity. Whereby an Act No. 8042.
13)Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by OFW is required to undergo health
ON Fil-Expat and Thanaya Al-Yaqoot are
W
the worker in connection with his examinations only from specific clinics,
guilty of breach of contract and constructive
documentation and processing for purposes entities, except when the cost is shouldered
dismissal.
of deployment, in cases where the by the principal;
deployment does not actually take place 1. Y
ES. Fil-Expat and Thanaya Al-Yaqoot are
19)Specifying a Training Entity. Whereby an
without the worker's fault; and guiltyofbreachofcontractandconstructive
OFW is required to undergo trainings,
dismissal.
14)To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or seminars only from specific entities, except
manage a licensed recruitment/manning when cost is shouldered by the principal; 2. T
hesubstitutionoralterationofemployment
agency. contracts is listed as a prohibited practice
20)Violation of Suspension. To engage in any
under Article 34(i) of the Labor Code.
Other Prohibited Acts kind of recruitment activity including the
processing ofpendingworkers’applications; 3. T
he employer's claim that the new contract
15)Excessive Interest. To arrange, facilitate or
and was for uniformity and was notintendedto
grantaloantoanOFWwithinterest>8%per
alter the terms of the original contract is
annum, which will be used for payment of 21)CollectionofInsurancePremium.Topasson
implausible. It is illogical to require Maria
legal and allowable placement fees and theemployerthroughdeductionofhiswages
Antoniette to sign a second contract if it
make the OFW issue, either personally or
would only restate the contents of the
through a guarantor or accommodation
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page12of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hilippine
P Overseas Employment er services, Maria Antoniette's continued
h romise or offer of employment to two or
p
Administration (POEA)-approved employment was rendered unlikely and moreprospective workers.
employment contract, which incidentally, unbearable amounting to constructive 3. Additional elements
alreadyincludedanArabictranslationofthe dismissal.
a. F
or syndicated. — committedbythree
agreed terms and conditions between the
or more persons conspiring and
employee and the foreign employer.
confederating with one another.
4. I n PHILSA International Placement & C Illegal Recruitment (People v. Hashim2012)
Services Corp. v. Secretary of Labor &
b. F
or large scale. — committed against
Employment, the recruitment agency was Elements and Types
three or more persons, individuallyor
found guilty of two counts of prohibited I llegal recruitment as distinguished as a group. (People v. Tuguinay2012)
contract substitution, even though the from Estafa
workers refused the second attempt to 4. T
ypes. — There are at least four kinds of
compel them to sign another contract. illegal recruitment under the law.
1 Elements and Types
5. A
nent the issue of constructive dismissal, a. O
ne is simple illegal recruitment
1. E
ssential Element. Presupposes deceit or
we reiterate that the law recognizes committed by a licensee or holder of
misrepresentation.
situations wherein theemployeemustleave authority.
his or her work to protect one's rights from a. Without being duly authorized;
b. A
ny person “who isneitheralicensee
the coercive acts of the employer. b. G
ave distinct impression that he had noraholderofauthority”commitsthe
6. H
ere, Maria Antoniette was constructively power or ability to deploy workers; second type of illegal recruitment.
dismissed.Despitetheseemingbenevolence c. C
omplainants were convinced to part c. L
arge scale or Qualified. — The third
oftheforeignemployerinprovidinghousing with their money by such impression;2 type of illegal recruitment refers to
accommodation and other benefits to its offenders who either commit the
d. T
here must be at least a promise or
medicalemployees,theevidenceshowsthat offense alone or with another person
offer of employment.3
Maria Antoniette was singled out and against three or more persons
verballyintimidatedaftersherefusedtosign 2. R
ecruitment and Placement; Presumption.
individually or as a group.
the second employment contract. Whereafeeiscollectedinconsiderationofa
d. S
yndicated—A syndicateoragroupof
7. While there was no formal termination of 2
People v. Goce, GR No 113161, August 29, 1995 three or more persons conspiringand
3
arvin v. CA and People, GR No 125044, July 13, 1998
D
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page13of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onfederating with one another in
c i ntent, whereas estafais maluminse,inthe
2.2. t he offender undertakes any of the
carrying out the act circumscribed by prosecution of which, proof of criminal
the law commits the fourth type of intent is necessary. (Sy v. People2010) activities within the meaning of
illegal recruitment by the law.(P
eople "recruitment and placement" under
People v. Begino2022 Article 13(b)oftheLaborCode,orany
v. Sadiosa)
oftheprohibitedpracticesenumerated
nder RA 8042, the third and fourth types
U he elements of large scale illegal recruitment
T under Article 34 of the Labor Code
herein are considered IllegalRecruitmentas are (now Section 6 of RA 8042);
Economic Sabotage. 1) t he offender has no valid license or 2.3. t he offender commits any of the acts
authority required by law toenablehimto of recruitment and placementagainst
I llegal recruitment as distinguished lawfully engage in recruitment and
2 three(3)ormorepersons,individually
from Estafa placement of workers; or as a group.
1. E stafa bymeansoffalsepretense. Aworker 2) t he offender undertakes any of t he 3. R
egina had no authority to engage in
who suffers pecuniarydamageasaresultof activities within the meaning o f recruitment activities. Regina did not
a previous or simultaneous false pretense "recruitment and placement"; and contest the POEA certification that she was
resorted to by a nonlicenseeornonholderof
3) s uch is committed against three (3) or not licensed to deploy workers for overseas
authority, may complain for estafa aside
more persons, individually or as a group. employment. Finally, there are four (4)
fromillegal recruitment.
complainants who testified against Regina
ON the prosecution failed to prove the
W
2. I llegal recruitment and estafa cases may be which qualified the offense to economic
elements of large scale illegal recruitment.
filed simultaneouslyorseparately.Thefiling sabotage.
of charges for illegal recruitment does not 1. N
O.TheconvictionofReginaforthecrimeof
large scale illegal recruitment is upheld. 4. T
he facts reveal that Regina has an active
bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa. An
role in perpetuating the crime. Regina
accused’s acquittalintheillegalrecruitment 2. H
ere, all the elements of large scale illegal always accompanied Darwin in conducting
case does not prove that she is not guiltyof recruitment are present, to wit: the job interviews of the complainants.
estafa.
2.1. t he offender has no valid license or Regina discussed the employment
ouble jeopardy will not set in because
D authority required by law to enable opportunities abroad and assured
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in himtolawfullyengageinrecruitment complainantsoftheirdeployment.Moreover,
whichthereisnonecessitytoprovecriminal and placement of workers; Regina met the complainants to collect the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page14of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
lacement fees. The index cardsevidencing
p e imputed on the corporate officers or
b orkers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
W
payments from the complainants were directors only if it is proved that they are as amended, provides that an illegally
found inRegina'spossessionduringtheNBI personally involved in the wrongful acts of dismissed overseas worker isentitledtothe
entrapment operation but she failed to give the company. full reimbursement of the placement fee,
any explanation as towhythesedocuments 4. T
he liability of corporate directors and withinterestof12%perannum,plussalaries
were in her custody. officers is not automatic. To make them fortheunexpiredportionoftheemployment
jointly and solidarily liable with their contract. Further, the foreign employer and
company, there must be a finding that they thelocalemploymentagencyarejointlyand
iability of local recruitment agency
L were remiss in directing the affairs of that severally liable for moneyclaimsofFilipino
D workers arising out of an
and foreign employer company, such as sponsoring or tolerating
the conduct of illegal activities. employer-employeerelationship,orbyvirtue
Solidary liability of any law or contract, including damages.
Questcore, Inc. v. Bumanglag2022
3. T
he CA correctly ruled that petitioner
Theory of imputed knowledge
ection 10 of RA 8042 expressly states that the
S Questcore'ssolidaryliabilitywiththeforeign
1 Solidary liability liability oftherecruitmentagencyshallcontinue principal Cosmo was not terminated when
during the entire period or duration of the Melody's first contract ended.
1. T he liability of the principal/employer and employmentcontractandshallnotbeaffectedby 4. H
ere, the initial contract provides for an
the recruitment/placement agency for any any substitution, amendment or modification option to renew, and it is unlikely that
and all claims under this section shall be made locally or in a foreign country of the said petitioner was unaware that Melody was
joint and several. contract. actually reemployed by Cosmo.Therewasa
2. S uch liabilities shall continue during the ON Questcore should be held solidarily liable
W subsisting recruitment agreement/contract
entire period ordurationoftheemployment for Melody's illegal dismissalandmoneyclaims of agency between Cosmo and petitioner,
contract and shall not be affected by any against her foreign employer Cosmo. which coincided with Melody's entire stint
substitution, amendment or modification in Ghana, Africa.
1. Y
ES. Questcore, as the local employment
made locally or in a foreign country of the
agency, is solidarily liable with its foreign 5. A
rticle 18 of the Labor Code bans a foreign
said contract. (Sec 10, RA 8042)
principal. employer from directly hiring a Filipino
3. I n Sto. Tomas, et al. v. Salac 2012 En Banc, worker for overseas employment. Even
2. Section 10 of RA 8042, or the Migrant
however,theCourtclarifiedthatliabilitymay
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page15of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ssuming that Cosmo dealt directly with
a ther way around. The knowledge of the
o c. p
lus his salaries for the unexpired
Melody for the renewal of her contract, principal-foreign employer cannot, therefore, be portion of hisemploymentcontractor
petitioner is still jointly and solidarilyliable imputed to its agent. for three (3) months for every year of
with its foreign principal because under theunexpiredterm,whicheverisless 4
.
s there was no substantial proof that Sunace
A
Article 18, the foreign employer does not knew of, and consented to be bound under, the (Sec 10)
have a personality to hire an OFW unlessit 2-year employment contract extension, it could 2. T
ermination of employment of OFWs takes
actsthroughalicensedlocalmanningagent. notbesaidtobeprivythereto.Assuch,itandits place in the following instances:
TheactofpetitionerandCosmoinexcluding owner were not held solidarily liable for any of
Melodyfromtheirrosterofagency-deployed a. P
re-termination of employment
the complainant’s claimsarisingfromthe2-year
employees after her initial contract, despite contract with approval of employer;
employment extension.
their subsisting contract of agency, is an b. Discharge for a valid cause;
attempt to circumvent the ban on direct
c. Suffered injury or illness; or
hiring, which the Court cannot countenance.
ermination of contract of migrant
T d. An OFW has died.
6. P
rincess Talent Center Production, Inc. v. E
worker
Masagca rejected the local manningagent's
Skippers United Pacific Inc. v. Doza2012
disavowal of its liability concerning a 1. I n case of termination of overseas
worker'sdeploymentpremisedonitsalleged employmentwithoutjust,validorauthorized he OFW can pre terminate his employment
T
lack of knowledge or participation in the cause as defined by law or contract, or any contractwhichisakintoresignation.However,if
extension of the OFW's contract. unauthorized deductions from the migrant the employer failed to submit substantial
worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled evidence that indeed the OFW voluntarily
to pre-terminated his contract; then the OFW is
2 Theory of imputed knowledge deemed illegally dismissed.
a. t he full r eimbursement of his
placement fee and the deductions he best proof of pre-termination is a written
T
made resignation.
unace International ManagementServices,Inc.
S
v. NLRC b. w
ith interest at twelve percent (12%)
per annum,
he theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the
T
knowledge of the agent TOtheprincipal,notthe
4
Declared unconstitutional.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page16of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
F Employment of non-resident aliens 4) A
lien Employment Permit. — Revised Rules d) F
oreign nationals who come to the
for Issuance of Employment Permits to Philippines to teach, present and/or
Foreign Nationals,DOLE D.O. No. 186, S. 2017 conduct research studies in
Department Order No. 221-2021 universities and colleges as visiting,
overage.—Allforeignnationalswhointend
C
exchange or adjunct professors
evised Rules and Regulations for the
R to engage in gainful employment in the
1 provided that the exemption is on a
Issuance of Alien Employment Permits to Philippines shall apply for AEP.
Foreign Nationals reciprocal basis;
xemption. — The following categories of
E
foreign nationals are exempt from securing e) P
ermanent resident foreign nationals
1) O nly non-resident aliens are required to and probationary or temporary
an employment permit:
secure employment permit. For resident resident visa holders;
aliens and immigrants, what is required is a) A
llmembersofthediplomaticservice
and foreign government officials f) R
efugees and Stateless Persons
an Alien Employment Registration
subject to reciprocity; recognized by DOJ; and
Certificate (AERC).
b) O g) A
ll foreign nationals granted
2) T he latest department order issued about fficers and staff of international
organizations of which thePhilippine exemption by law.
employment of foreign workers is DO No
146-15. government is a member, and their xclusion. — The following categories of
E
legitimatespouses desiringtoworkin foreignnationalsareexcludedfromsecuring
3) A foreign national working in PH without
PH; an employment permit:
the requisite employment permit may file
with the NLRC an illegal dismissal c) O
wnersandrepresentativesofforeign a) M
embersofthegoverningboardwith
complaint. The dismissal may be declared principals whose companies are voting rights only and do not
invalid and she may be recognized as an accredited by the POEA, who come to intervene in the management of the
employee but she cannot be awarded claim the Philippines corporation or in the day to day
formonetarybenefits.Todosowillsanction operation of the enterprise.
i. for a limited period and
the violation of PH labor laws requiring b) P
resident and Treasurer, who are
ii. s olely for the purpose of
aliens to secure work permits before their part-owner of the company.
interviewingFilipinoapplicants
employment.5
for employment abroad; hose providingconsultancyservices
T
who do not have employers in the
5
WPP Marketing, et al. v. Galera2010
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page17of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hilippines.(r emovedbyDOLED.O.No.
P EP application beyond the prescribed
A
ii. ust possess the appropriate
m
221-21) educational and professional
period.
c) Intra-corporate transferee qualifications; and 6) W
orking Permits & Visas. — See DOLE, DOJ,
BI and BIRJoint Guidelines No. 01, S. 2019
i. ho is a manager, executive or
w iii. ustbeemployedbytheforeign
m
specialist in accordance with service supplier for at least one 7) C
ertificate of No Objection. — document
Trade Agreements and year prior to the supply of issuedbytheDOLEtocertifythatthereisno
ii. service in the Philippines. Party objecting to the issuance of
n employee of the foreign
a
service supplier for at least one work-related visa. The following categories
e) R
epresentative of the Foreign
(1) year continuous Principal/Employer assigned in the of foreign nationals are exempted from
employment. securing CNO from DOLE, to wit:
Office of Licensed Manning Agency
(OLMA). i) cholars, students, volunteers and
S
ll other intra-corporate transferees
A
not within thesecategoriesasdefined personnel of International
5) S
alient Changes brought about by the New
above are required to secure an AEP AEP Rules (D OLE D.O. No. 221-21). — Organizations entitled to 47(a)(2) visa
undercertainentitiesandprogramsof
prior to their employment in the Previously, AEP applications could be filed,
Philippines.(r emovedbyDOLED.O.No. without penalty, within 15 working days the Codified Visa Rules and
Regulations of 2002 of the DFA;
221-21) fromthesigningoftheemploymentcontract
or appointment. Under the New AEP Rules, ii) oreign nationals exempted under
F
d) C ontractual service supplier who is a
all applications for the issuance of AEPs Section 7 of theJMCNo.001,seriesof
manager, executive or specialist and
an employee of a foreign service s hall now be filed within10workingdays 2019; and
supplier which has no commercial after the foreign national signs his contract iii) oreign nationals required to secure
F
presence in the Philippines: or after the commencement of his AEP.
employment.
i. ho enters the Philippines
w 8) G
rounds for Denial of CNO. — The Regional
temporarily to supply a service he DOLE shall impose a fine of Php
T DirectormaydenytherequestforCNO,based
pursuant to a contract; 10,000.00 against the employer, and another on the following grounds:
Php10,000.00againsttheforeignnationalfor
every year orafractionthereof,forfilingthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page18of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i) eritorious objection or i nformation
M Prescription of Actions 1. A
nemployeewhoisunjustlydismissedfrom
on the employment of the foreign work shall be entitled to reinstatement
national; A Jurisdiction without loss of seniority rights and to back
wages from the time his compensation was
ii) isrepresentation of facts and
M
submission of fraudulent documents; Reinstatement withheld from him up to the time of his
and reinstatement.
Backwages
iii) 2. A
n employee who is separated from work
erogatory information from the
D
National Intelligence Coordinating
Damages and Attorney’s Fees without just cause shall be reinstated to his
Agency (NICA).DOLE D.O. No. 205-19 former position, unless such position no
Separation Pay
longerexistsatthetimeofhisreinstatement,
Financial Assistance in which case he shall be given a
Jurisdiction and Remedies
substantiallyequivalentpositioninthesame
II ee also Executive Order Nos. 126 & 251;
S Indemnity establishment without loss of seniority
Republic Act No. 9347 rights.
Liability of Corporate Officers
3. I n case the establishment where the
Jurisdiction n employee who is unjustly dismissed from
A
employee is to be reinstated has closed or
work shall be entitled
Labor Arbiter ceased operations or where his former
1. t o reinstatementwithoutlossofseniority position no longer exists at the time of
NLRC rights and other privileges and reinstatement for reasonsnotattributableto
Court of Appeals 2. t o his full backwages, inclusive of thefaultoftheemployer,theemployeeshall
allowances, and beentitledtoseparationpayequivalenttoat
Supreme Court least one-month salary or to one-month
3. t o his other benefits or their monetary
epartment of Labor and Employment
D salaryforeveryyearofservice,whicheveris
equivalent computed from the time his
(DOLE) Regional Directors higher,afractionofatleastsixmonthsbeing
compensationwaswithheldfromhimup
considered as one whole year.
to the time of his actual reinstatement.
DOLE Secretary
4. Award When Reinstatement not Viable
Voluntary Arbitrator 1 Reinstatement
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page19of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a. B ackwages from date of dismissal 3. T
he base figure is the wage rate at time of eld that the law should also apply with equal
h
until finality of decision; dismissal inclusive of “allowances”, forcetoanemployer'sclaimfordamagesagainst
b. S excludingsalaryincreases.Salaryincreases its dismissed employee, provided that the claim
eparation pay from date of
employment until finality of decision are not akin to allowances or benefits, and arises from or is necessarily connected withthe
cannot be confused with either. (Equitable fact of termination and should be entered as a
(not date of dismissal);
Banking v. Sadac) counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case. Thus,
c. 1 0% attorney’s fees based on the the "reasonable causal connection with the
awards computed; and 3 Damages and Attorney’s Fees employer-employee relationship" is a
d. I nterestontheawardscomputedfrom requirement not only in employees' money
date of finality of decision until they claims against the employer but is, likewise, a
are paid, thesemonetaryclaimsbeing Comscentre PIDLS v. Rocio2020Lazaro-Javier, J. condition when the claimant is the employer.
equivalent to a forbearance of credit
rticle 224 of the Labor Code clothes the labor
A ere, the controversywasrootedinrespondent's
H
(J avellana, Jr v. Belen2010) tribunals withoriginalandexclusivejurisdiction resignation from the company within
over claims for damages arising from employer twenty-four (24) months from the time she got
2 Backwages employee relationship. employed in violation of the "Minimum
1. B ackwages in general are granted on Employment Length" clause of her employment
añez v. Valdevilla elucidated that the
B
grounds of equity for earnings which a jurisdiction of labor tribunals is comprehensive contract.
workeroremployeehaslostduetohisillegal enough to include claims for all forms of I t is clear that petitioners' claim for payment is
dismissal. It is not private compensation or damages "arising from the employer-employee inseparably intertwined with the parties'
damages but is awarded in furtherance and relations." Thus, the Court decreed therein that employer-employee relationship. For it was
effectuation of the public objective of the labor tribunals have jurisdiction to award not respondent's act of prematurely severing her
Labor Code. only the reliefs provided by labor laws, but also employment with the company which gave rise
2. T he rule in Bustamante is controlling that damages governed by the Civil Code. to the latter's cause of action for payment of
the dismissed employee is to be paid "employment bond." Verily , petitioners' claim
lso,while SupraMulti-Services,Inc.v.Labitigan
A
backwages for the entire period thathewas falls within the original and exclusive
recognizedthatArticle224oftheLaborCodehad
without work, without deduction and been invariably applied to claims for damages jurisdiction of the labor tribunals.
without qualification filedbyanemployeeagainsttheemployer,itwas
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page20of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onsidered as one (1) whole year,fromthe
c t hedismissaliseffectedinawanton,oppressive,
hile petitioners are liabletorespondentforher
W
illegal suspension and unpaid money claims , time of theemployee'sillegaldismissalup or malevolent manner.
to the finality of the judgment; and
respondent, too, is liable to petitioners for ere, the spiteful and wanton manner by which
H
payment of the "employment bond."Assuch,the b) f ull backwages inclusive of allowances petitionerwasillegallydismissedentitleshimto
NLRC correctly ordered the offsetting of their and other benefits or their monetary moral and exemplary damages. Following both
respective money claims against each other. To equivalent computed from the time statutory and case law,petitionershouldbepaid
rule otherwise would be "to sanction split compensation was not paid to the time of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%)of
jurisdiction, which is prejudicial to the orderly his actual reinstatement. thetotalmonetaryaward.Thisisbecausehewas
administration of justice." forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect
ithregardtothemonthlydeductionofP200.00
W
his rights and interest.
ascashbond,weremindAeroplusofArticles112
and 113 of the Labor Code. Aeroplus cannot
gapito v. Aeroplus Multi-Services2022
A
interfere with the freedom of any employee to
Lazaro-Javier, J. Leus v. St. Scholastica's College2015
dispose of his or her wages. More, it cannot
eroplus is liable for
A unilaterally make any deductions except in the evertheless, the petitioner is NOT entitled to
N
petitioner's money claims three (3) instances provided by law. Here, moral and exemplary damages. The records of
and moral and exemplary this case are bereft of any clear and convincing
Aeroplus illegally deducted P200.00 as monthly
damages.
cash bond from petitioner's wages. Thus, evidence showing that the respondents acted in
imalay v. CA, citing Noblado v. Alfonso, aptly
G badfaithorinawantonorfraudulentmannerin
petitioner is entitled to a reimbursement of the
discussed the consequences of illegal dismissal,
total of this monthly deduction. dismissingthepetitioner.Thatthepetitionerwas
viz.: illegally dismissed is insufficient to prove bad
s to damages, Leus v. St. Scholastica's College
A
n illegally dismissed employee is ordinarily
A faith. A dismissal may becontrarytolawbutby
Westgrove teaches that a dismissed employeeis
entitled to: itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to
entitled tomoraldamageswhenthedismissalis
entitle the dismissed employee to moral
a) r einstatement without loss of seniority attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an
damages. The award of moral and exemplary
rights and other privileges, or in lieu act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner
damages cannot be justified solely upon the
thereof, separation pay equivalent to one contrary to goodmorals,goodcustoms,orpublic
premise that the employer dismissed his
(1) month pay for every year of service, policy. Exemplary damages may be awarded if
employee without cause.
with a fraction of at least six (6) months
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page21of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
owever, the petitioner is entitled to attorney’s
H I t is true that respondent may indeed be rticle 111 of the Labor Codestatesthat“incases
A
fees in the amount of 10% of the total monetary consideredasonewhooccupiesapositionoftrust of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable
awardpursuanttoArticle111oftheLaborCode.It and confidence. However, petitioners failed to party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent
is settled that where an employee was forced to present substantial evidence to support their to tenpercentoftheamountofwagesrecovered.”
litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his allegations that respondent had, in any way, Likewise, this court has recognized that “in
rightsandinterest,theawardofattorney’sfeesis participated in the theft of the company's stolen actions for recovery of wages or where an
legally and morally justifiable. itemsandthatafterhispreventivesuspensionhe employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur
no longer reported for work. expenses to protect his rights and interest, the
award of attorney’s fees is legally and morally
Distribution & Control Products Inc. v. Santos2017 justifiable.” Due to her illegal dismissal, Arlene
Fuji Television v. Espiritu2014 was forced to litigate.
WON Santos was validly dismissed for just cause.
O. Termination without a just or authorized
N uitclaims in labor cases do not bar illegally
Q
cause renders the dismissal invalid, and entitles dismissedemployeesfromfilinglaborcomplaints
Barroga v. Quezon Colleges of the North2018
the employee to reinstatement without loss of and money claims.
seniority rights and other privileges and full ase law instructs that in labor cases where the
C
oraldamagesareawarded“whenthedismissal
M
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other concerned employee is entitled to the
isattendedbybadfaithorfraudorconstitutesan
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner wages/benefits prayed for, said employee is also
from the time the compensation wasnotpaidup contrary to good morals, good customs or public entitled to attorney's fees amounting to ten
to the time of actual reinstatement. policy.” On the other hand, exemplary damages ercent (10%) of the total monetary award due
p
maybeawardedwhenthedismissalwaseffected him.
n employee's removal for just or authorized
A
cause but without complying with the proper “in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.”
procedure, on the other hand,doesnotinvalidate part from Arlene’sillegaldismissal,themanner
A 4 Separation Pay
the dismissal. It obligates the erring employer to of her dismissal was effected in an oppressive
ay nominal damages to the employee, as
p approachwithhersalaryandotherbenefitsbeing GR: hen an EE is validly dismissed, NO
W
penalty for not complying with the procedural withheld, when she had no other choice but to separation pay is given.
requirements of due process. sign the non-renewal contract. EXC: S
uch cause does not constitute serious
misconduct nor reflect on the EE’smoral
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page22of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
haracter, separation pay MAY be validly
c between them; or
trainedrelationsmustbedemonstratedasa
S
awarded. This is the DISCERNING
fact, however, to be adequatelysupportedby 6. w
henthedismissedemployeeoptednotto
COMPASSIONdoctrine.
evidence—substantialevidencetoshowthat bereinstated,orthepaymentofseparation
1. S eparation pay is made an alternativerelief the relationship between the employer and benefits would be for the best interest of
in lieu of reinstatement in certain the employee is indeed strained as a the parties involved.
circumstances, like: necessary consequence of the judicial
controversy. I nfine,asageneralrule,separationpayinlieuof
a. w hen reinstatement can no longer be reinstatement could not be awarded to an
effected in view of the passage of a long employee whose employment was not
Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
period of time or because of the realities terminated by his employer.
of the situation; As to separation pay
here were cases, however, wherein the Court
T
b. r einstatement is inimical to the I n sum, separation pay is only awarded to a awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
employer’s interest; dismissed employee in the following instances: to the employee even after a finding that there
c. reinstatement is no longer feasible; 1. i n case of closure of establishment under was neither dismissal nor abandonment. In
Article 298; Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v.
d. r einstatement does not serve the best
Lumahan, the Court awarded separation pay in
interests of the parties involved; 2. i n case of termination due to disease or
viewofthefindingsoftheNLRCthatrespondent
e. t he employer is prejudiced by the sickness under Article 299;
stoppedreportingforworkformorethanten(10)
workers’ continued employment; 3. a
s a measure of social justice in those years and never returned.
f. f acts that make execution unjust or instances where the employee is validly
inequitable have supervened; or dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his Angono Medics Hospital v. Agabin2020
g. s trained relations between the employer moral character;
and employee. There is no conflict between the two CA rulings.
4. w
herethedismissedemployee'spositionis
2. D octrine of Strained Relations. — The no longer available; hatisbeingassailedinthecaseatbenchisthe
W
payment of separation pay is considered an computation of Agabin's separation pay and
acceptablealternativetoreinstatementwhen 5. w
hen the continued relationship between backwages and no longer the finding of illegal
the latter option is no longer desirable or the employer and the employee is no dismissal.
viable. longer viable due to the strained relations
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page23of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ecision which ordered the
d payment of
hecomputationofAgabin'sbackwagesmustbe
T he computation of backwages depends on the
T
separation pay and backwages.
from the time of her illegal dismissal from finalawardsadjudgedasaconsequenceofillegal
employment until the finality of the decision dismissal: he ruling of the CA which reinstated the
T
ordering the payment thereof. As for her Decision of the Arbiter is thus correct.
1. w
henreinstatementisordered,thegeneral
separation pay, it should be computed at one concept under Article 279 of the Labor
month pay for every year of service reckoned Code, as amended, computes the
from September 2, 2002(asfoundbytheArbiter) backwagesfromthetimeofdismissaluntil 5 Financial Assistance
until the finality of the decision in her favor. reinstatement. octrine of Discerning Compassion or
D
he twin reliefs that should be given to an
T 2. w
hen separation pay is ordered in lieu of Compassionate Justice. — Separation payshall
illegally dismissed employee are full backwages reinstatement or reinstatement is waived beallowedasameasureofsocialjusticeonlyin
and reinstatement. by the employee, backwages is computed those instances where the employee is validly
1. B ackwages restore the lost income of an fromthetimeofdismissaluntilthefinality dismissed for causes other than serious
employee and is computed from the time of the decision ordering separation pay. misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
compensation was withheld up to actual character. Where the reason for the valid
3. w
hen separation pay is ordered after the
reinstatement. dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication
finality of the decision ordering the
or an offense involving moral turpitude, like
2. A nent reinstatement, only when it is not reinstatement by reason of a supervening
theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow
viable is separation pay given. event that makes the award of
worker, the employer may not be required to
reinstatement no longer possible,
ession Delights Ice CreamandFastFoodsv.CA
S give the dismissed employee separation pay,or
held that a decision in a case involving illegal backwages is computed from the time of
financial assistance, or whatever other nameit
dismissal until the finality of the decision
dismissal consists essentially of two is called, on the ground of social justice. (S
an
ordering separation pay.
components: Miguel v. Lao)
1. T he first is the finding of the illegality of he second scenario applies herein since the
T
thedismissalandtheawardsofseparation order of separation pay was decreed in lieu of 6 Indemnity
reinstatement. Hence, the employer-employee
pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages.
relationship of AMHI and Agabin will only be
2. T he second part is the computationofthe completely terminated upon the finality of the Atienza v. Saluta2019
awards made.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page24of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nder the Labor Code,therulesforindemnityin
U bandonment in this case, none of the party is
a orker costs incurred related to the
w
case a family driver is terminated from the entitled to claim any indemnity from the other. deployment expenses, if any: Provided, That
service shall be governed by Article 149 thereof. Verily, in a case where the employee's failure to the service has been terminated within six
work was occasioned neither by his (6) months from the domestic worker’s
owever, Section 44 of Republic Act No. 10361,
H employment.
otherwise known as the"DomesticWorkersAct" abandonmentnorbyatermination,theburdenof
or "Batas Kasambahay" (Kasambahay Law), economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the 4. I f the durationofthedomesticserviceisnot
expressly repealed Chapter III (Employment of employer; each partymustbearhisownloss.[37] determined either in stipulation or by the
Househelpers) of theLaborCode,whichincludes Otherwise stated, the respondent's act of not nature of the service, the employer or the
Article 149. reporting to work after a verbal domestic worker may give notice toendthe
miscommunicationcannotjustifythepaymentof working relationship five (5) daysbeforethe
he Kasambahay Law, on the other hand, made
T any form of remuneration. intended termination of the service.
no mention offamilydriversintheenumeration
ofthoseworkerswhoarecoveredbythelaw.Due Indemnity in Kasambahay Act 7 Liability of Corporate Officers
totheexpressrepealoftheLaborCodeprovisions
1. N
either the domestic worker nor the
pertaining to househelpers, which includes GR: fficersofacorporationareNOTliablefor
O
employer may terminate the contract before
family drivers, by the KasambahayLaw;andthe their official acts unless it is shownthey
theexpirationofthetermexceptforgrounds
non-applicability of the Kasambahay Law to have exceeded their authority.
provided for in Sections 33 and 34 of this Act.
family drivers, there is a need to revert back to EXC: W
here the incorporators and directors
the Civil Code provisions, particularly Articles 2. I fthedomesticworkerisunjustlydismissed,
belong to a single family.
1689, 1697 and 1699. the domestic worker shall be paid
ursuant to Article 1697 of the Civil Code,
P a. the compensation already earned plus Kho, Sr. v. Magbanua2019
respondent shall be paid the compensation he b. t heequivalentoffifteen(15)dayswork undamental in the realm of labor law that
F
had already earned plus thatfor15days byway by way ofindemnity. corporate directors, trustees, or officers can be
of indemnity if he was unjustly dismissed. held solidarity liable with the corporation
3. I f the domestic worker leaves without
However, if respondent left his employment
justifiable reason, any unpaid salaryduenot 1. w
hen they assent to a patently unlawful
without justifiable reason, he shall forfeit any
exceeding the equivalent fifteen (15) days act of the corporation, or
salary due him and unpaid for not exceeding 15
work shall be forfeited. In addition, the
days. Given that there is neither dismissal nor
employer may recover from the domestic
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page25of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
egligence, or any of the aforementioned
n istortion in unorganized establishments
d
2. w hen they are guilty of bad faith or gross
not voluntarily settled.
negligence in directing its affairs, or exceptions to warrant his personal liability.
c) U
nder Art 128(b) of LC. — Where the ER
3. w hen there is a conflict of interest contests the findings of the labor
resultingindamagestothecorporation,its B Labor Arbiter employment and enforcement officer and
stockholders, or other persons. raises issues supported by documentary
finding of personal liability against a director,
A urisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as
J proofs which were not considered in the
trustee, or a corporate officer requires the distinguished from the Regional course of inspection.
concurrence of these two (2) requisites, namely: Director
d) U
nder Art 233[227] of LC. — Enforcement of
a) a clearallegationinthecomplaintofgross equirements to perfect appeal to
R compromise agreements when there is
negligence, bad faith or malice, fraud, or National Labor Relations Commission non-complianceby any of the parties thereto.
any of the enumerated exceptional (NLRC) e) U
nder Art 276[262-A] of LC. — Issuance of
instances; and writ of execution to enforce decisionsofVA
J urisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as
b) c learandconvincingproofofsaidgrounds or panel of VAs, in case of their absence or
1 distinguished from the Regional
relied upon in the complaint sufficient to incapacity.
Director
overcome the burdenofproofbornebythe
f) U
nderSec10ofRA8042.—Moneyclaimsof
complainant. a) Under Art 224[217] of LC
OFWsarisingoutofEERbyvirtueofanylaw
ere, the evidence on record do not support the
H i. Unfair labor practice cases; or contract, including claims of death and
findings of boththeLAandtheCAthatKhowas ii. Illegal dismissal; disabilitybenefitsand for damages.
the Corporation's President at the time of its
iii. Money claims> P5K; g) Other casesas may be provided by law.
closure, and that he assented to a patently
unlawful act, thereby exposing him to solidary iv. laims for damages arising from ER-EE
C U R Employed International v. Pinmiliw2022
liability with the Corporation. Also, nowhere in relations; and
the complaint nor in the respondents' omplaintsraisingdifferentcausesofactionfiled
C
v. Legality of strikes and lockouts. beforedifferentadministrativebodiesthatdonot
submissions before the labor tribunals did they
allege that Kho committed bad faith, fraud, b) U
nder Art 1 24 of LC. — Disputes involving have concurrent jurisdiction do not warrant the
legislated w age increases and wage application of the doctrine of primary
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page26of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
jurisdiction. oesnotapply.Moreover,thePOEAandthe
d judgments does not apply to this case.
I. W LA do not have concurrent jurisdiction.
ONtheLAandNLRCviolatedthedoctrine 2. U
nder the doctrine, all the issues between
of primary administrative jurisdiction. a. O
n the one hand, the Migrant the parties are deemed resolved and laid to
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act restonceajudgmentbecomesfinal.Noother
1. N O. The jurisdiction of the POEA and LA
doesnotinanywayintersectastowarrant of1995,asamendedbyRANo.10022, actioncanbetakenonthedecisionexceptto
the application of the doctrine of primary provides that the LA shall have order its execution.
originalandexclusivejurisdictionto
jurisdiction. 3. H
ere, the DOLE'sOrder,whichbecamefinal,
hear and decide the claims arising settled the issue of whether petitioners
2. P rimary jurisdiction, also known as the out of an employer-employee
doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and violated the 2002 POEA Rules and
relationship or by virtue of any law Regulations Governing the Recruitment and
authority vested by the Constitution or by or contract involving Filipino
statute upon anadministrativebodytoact Employment of Land-Based Overseas
workers for overseas deployment Workers. It did not involve the issue of
upon a matter by virtue of its specific including claims for actual, moral,
respondents' illegal dismissal and money
competence. exemplary, and other forms of claims lodged with the LA and the NLRC.
3. W hiletherespondentsallegedthesameset damage. Consequently, the finality of the DOLEOrder
of facts and the same affidavits were b. R
ule X of the IRR of RA No. 10022 has no effecttotheresolutionofthepresent
submittedbeforetheLAandthePOEA,the provides that the POEA exercises petition.
complaints raised different causes of administrative jurisdiction arising
action. The LA complaint involved the out of violations of rules and Pepsi-Cola v. Gal-lang
issue of illegal dismissal and various regulations and administrative he case involves a complaint for damages for
T
money claims, while the POEA complaint disciplinary jurisdiction over malicious prosecution which was filed with the
involved administrative disciplinary employers, principals, contracting RTCbytheemployeesofthedefendantcompany.It
liability for violation of the 2002 POEA partners, and overseas Filipino does not appear that there is a "reasonablecausal
Rules and Regulations Governing the workers. connection" between the complaint and the
Recruitment and Employment of
II. W
ONtheLAandNLRCviolatedthedoctrine relations of the parties as employer and
Land-Based Overseas Workers.
of immutability of judgment. employees. The complaint did notarisefromsuch
4. Thus, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction relations and in fact could have arisen
1. NO. The doctrine of immutability of
independently of an employment relationship
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page27of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
etween the parties. This is a matter which the
b
he CA erred in limiting the "Confidentiality of
T Austria v. NLRC
labor arbiter has no competence to resolve as the
Documents and Non-Compete Clause" only to acts he grounds invoked for petitioner's dismissal,
T
applicable law is not the Labor Code but the done after the cessation oftheemployer-employee
Revised Penal Code. namely: misappropriation of denominational
relationship or to the "post-employment" relations funds, willful breach of trust,seriousmisconduct,
San Miguel v. Etcuban of the parties. As clearly stipulated, the parties gross and habitual neglect of duties and
wantedtoapplysaidclauseduringthependencyof
I n the present case, while respondents insist that commissionofanoffenseagainstthepersonofhis
their action isforthedeclarationofnullityoftheir Babiano's employment, and CPI correctly invoked employer's duly authorized representative, are all
"contractoftermination,"whatisinescapableisthe the same before the labor tribunals. based on Article 282 of the Labor Code which
fact that it is, in reality, an action for damages PAL v. ALPAP2018 enumerates the just causes for termination of
emanating from employer-employee relations. employment. By this alone, it is palpable that the
AL's causeofactionisnotgroundedonmereacts
P
reasonforpetitioner'sdismissalfromtheserviceis
espondents' claim for damages is intertwined
R of quasi-delict. The claimed damages arose from
with their having been separated from their the illegal strike and acts committed during the not religious in nature.
employment without justcauseand,consequently, same which were in turn closely related and he SDA cannot hide behind the mantle of
T
has a reasonable causal connection with their intertwined with the respondents' allegations of protection of the doctrine of separation of church
employer-employee relations with SMC. unfair labor practices against PAL. and state to avoid its responsibilities as an
Accordingly, it cannot be denied thatrespondents' employer under the Labor Code.
he question of damages becomes a labor
T
claim falls under the jurisdiction of the labor
controversy and is therefore an employment Silva v. NLRC
arbiteras provided in paragraph 4 of Article 217.
relationship dispute.
or a ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor
F
Indophil Textile Mills v. Adviento2014 Perpetual Help Credit Coop v. Faburada Arbiter, and the NLRC to exercise its appellate
I t is obvious from the complaint thattheplaintiffs here is no evidence that private respondents are
T
jurisdiction,theallegationsinthecomplaintshould
havenotallegedanyunfairlaborpractice.Theirsis members of petitioner PHCCI and even if theyare, show prima facie the concurrence of two things,
a simple action for damages for tortious acts namely:
the dispute is about payment of wages, overtime
allegedlycommittedbythedefendants.Suchbeing
pay, rest day and termination of employment. 1) gross violation of the CBA; AND
thecase,thegoverningstatuteistheCivilCodeand UnderArt.217oftheLaborCode,thesedisputesare
not the Labor Code. 2) t he violation pertains to the economic
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
provisionsof the CBA.
Century Properties v. Babiano2016 the Labor Arbiter.
Sim v. NLRC
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page28of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ause of action is within the realm of Civil Law,
c BA, which allegedly discriminates against them
C
ection 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations
S
andjurisdictionoverthecontroversybelongstothe for being female flight attendants. The subject of
provides that the Labor Arbiters oftheNLRCshall
havetheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictiontohear regular courts.Moresowhenweconsiderthatthe litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
and decide all claims arising out of EER or by stipulationreferstothe post-employmentrelations exclusively cognizable by the RTC. Being an
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino of the parties. ordinary civil action, the same is beyond the
workersforoverseasdeploymentincludingclaims Replevin case by ER against EE inSmart v. Astorga jurisdiction of labor tribunals.
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
MART’s demand forpaymentofthemarketvalue
S The said issue cannot be resolved solely by
damages,subjecttotherulesandproceduresofthe ofthecaror,inthealternative,thesurrenderofthe applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the
NLRC. pplication of the Constitution, labor statutes, law
a
car,isnotalabor,butacivildispute.Itinvolvesthe
I nternational Management Services v. Logarta relationship of debtor and creditor rather than on contracts and the CEDAW, and the power to
2012 employee-employer relations. As such, the dispute apply and interpret theconstitutionandCEDAWis
falls within the jurisdiction of theregular courts. within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of
I n the case at bar, despite the factthatrespondent
general jurisdiction.
was employed by Petrocon as an OFW in Saudi ction by employer to recover unpaid loans of
A
Arabia,stillbothheandhisemployeraresubjectto employees who were dismissed. HSBC Ltd. Staff I ntracorporate vs Labor Dispute. Okol v. Slimmers
the provisions of the Labor Code when applicable. Retirement Plan v. Sps Broqueza2010 World
The basic policy in this jurisdiction is that all ection 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates
S
he enforcement of a loan agreement involves
T
Filipino workers, whether employed locally or corporate officers as the president, secretary,
"debtor-creditor relations founded on contract and
overseas, enjoy the protective mantleofPhilippine does not in any way concern employee relations. treasurer and such other officers as may be
labor and social legislations. As such it should be enforced through a separate providedforintheby-laws.In Tabangv.NLRC,we
ction for damages by employeragainstemployee
A civilactionintheregularcourtsandnotbeforethe heldthatan"office"iscreatedbythecharterofthe
whoresignedshortof30daypriornotice.Eviotav. Labor Arbiter." corporation and the officer is elected by the
CA directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an
ction for declaratory relief filed by female flight
A
"employee" usually occupies no office and
Petitioner does not ask for any relief under the attendantstoquestiontheconstitutionalityoftheir
generallyisemployednotbyactionofthedirectors
Labor Code of the Philippines. It seeks to recover compulsory age of retirement at 55 compared to
or stockholders but by the managing officer ofthe
damagesagreeduponinthecontractasredressfor male workers.Halaguena v. PAL
corporationwhoalsodeterminesthecompensation
private respondent’s breach of his contractual
Here, the petitioners' primary relief is the to be paid to such employee.
obligation to its "damage and prejudice". Such annulmentofSection144,PartAofthePAL-FASAP
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page29of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i llegal dismissal partakes of the nature of an
ere, petitioner was a director and officer of
H hen petitioner sought for reinstatement, he
W
intra-cooperative controversy.
SlimmersWorld.Thechargesofillegalsuspension, wanted to recover his position as Manager, a
illegal dismissal, unpaid commissions, position which has been declared to be not a
Del Monte Land Transport Bus v. Armenta2021
reinstatement and back wages imputed by corporate position. The case is thus a termination
petitioneragainstrespondentsfallsquarelywithin dispute and, consequently, falls under the hich between the Labor Arbiter and the DOLE
W
the ambit of intra-corporate disputes. jurisdictionoftheLaborArbiterpursuanttoSection has jurisdiction over the labor standards claims
217 of the Labor Code. of respondents public utility bus drivers and
orporate Officers. Matling
C Industrial and
conductors.
Commercial Corp v. Coros2010 Cacho v. Balagtas2018
he DOLE. Section 1 of DO 118-12 categorically
T
onformably with Section 25 of the Corporation
C nder the nature of the controversy test, the
U
providesthatissuesconcerningcompliancewith
Code, a position must be expressly mentioned in disagreement must not only be rooted in the
theminimumwagesandwage-relatedbenefitsof
the By-Laws in order to be considered as a existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but
public utility bus drivers and conductors is
corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office must as well pertain to the enforcement of the
conferred with DOLE-Regional Officer having
pursuant to or under a By-Law enablingprovision parties'correlativerightsandobligationsunderthe
jurisdiction over the principal office of the bus
is not enough to make a position a corporate office. Corporation Code and the internal and
owner/operator.
intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.
hoever are the corporate officers enumerated in
W
ere, the RD of DOLE-NCR issued several Labor
H
the by-laws are the exclusive Officers of the I t is clear that the termination complained of is
Standard Compliance Certificates, certifying
corporation and the Board has no power to create intimately and inevitably linked to Balagtas's role
petitioner's compliance with thelaborstandards
other Offices without amending first the corporate as North Star's EVP. Balagtas's dismissal is an
requirements of the law. This fact should have
By-laws. intra-corporate controversy, not a mere labor
prompted the LAtoreferthecasetotheDOLEas
Real v. Sangu Phil2011 dispute.
it was evident that the respondents' money
he better policy to be followed in determining
T
Ellao v. BATELEC2018 claims are beyond his jurisdiction.
jurisdiction over a case should be to consider ere, the position of General Managerisexpressly
H he rules governing jurisdiction on labor
T
concurrent factors such as the status or provided for under Article VI, Section 10 of standards claims,assetin People'sBroadcasting
relationship of the parties or the nature of the BATELEC I's By-laws. It is therefore beyond cavil Service v. SecretaryofDOLE maybesummedup
question that is subject of theircontroversy.Inthe that Ellao's position as General Manager is a as follows:
absence of any one of these factors, the SEC (RTC) cooperative office. Accordingly, his complaint for
1. If the claim involves labor standards
will not have jurisdiction.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page30of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
enefits mandated by the Labor Code or
b equirements to perfect appeal to
R 6) T
o be filed with the Regional Arbitration
other labor legislation regardless of the National Labor Relations Commission BranchoftheRegionalOfficewherethecase
amountprayedforandprovidedthatthere 2 (NLRC) was heard and decided.
is an existing employer employee 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure 7) N
o appeal from interlocutory order shall be
relationship, jurisdiction is with the DOLE
entertained. (Sec 10 Rule VI,supra).
regardless of whether the action was 1) D
ecisions,awardsororderofLAshallbeF&E
brought about by the filing of a complaint unless appealed to NLRC within 10 caldays 8) REQUISITES(Sec 4):
or not. from receipt thereof. a) Filedwithin the reglementary period;
2. I f the claim involves labor standards 2) I n case of decisions or resolutions of RD b) V
erifiedbytheappellantinaccordanceto
benefits mandated by the Labor Code or pursuant toArt 129, within5 cal days. Sec 4 Rule 7 of RoC;
other labor legislation regardless of the 3) I f last day falls on a weekend or holiday, c) I n the form of a memorandum of appeal
amountprayedforandthereisnoexisting move to the next working day. which shall
employer-employee relationship or the
4) N
o motion or request for extension shall be i) State the grounds relied upon and
claim is coupled with a prayer for
allowed.
reinstatement, jurisdiction is with the ii) The arguments in support thereof,
LA/NLRC. 5) Grounds for appeal:
iii) The relief prayed for, and
ere,theissuessurroundingthemoneyclaimsof
H a) P
rima facie evidence of abuse of
iv) ith a statement of the d
W ate the
respondents public utility bus drivers and discretionon the part of LA or RD;
appellant received the appealed
conductors,aswellasquestionspertainingtothe
b) D
ecision, award orordersecuredthrough decision, award or order;
LSCCs, are within thepurviewofthejurisdiction
fraud or coercion, including graft and
of the DOLE pursuant to Article 128 and the d) I n3legiblytypewrittenorprintedcopies;
corruption;
provisions of DO 118-12. and accompanied by:
c) I f made purely on questions of law;
he CA therefore erred in affirming the LA's
T i) roof of payment of the required
P
and/or
assumption of jurisdiction. appeal fee and legal research fee;
d) I f serious errors in the findings of facts
ii) osting of a cash or surety bond as
P
are raised which may cause grave and
provided inSec 6; and
irreparable damage or injury to appellant.
iii) Proof of serviceupon the other parties
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page31of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
9) A ppeal from Decision involving monetary d) n
otarized board resolution or secretary’s e Jesus v. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises
D
award may be perfected only upon the certificate from the bonding company 2021
posting of a bond (Sec 6) which shalleither showing its authorized signatories and he outright dismissal of the case based on
T
be in the form of their specimen signatures. procedural defects alone was not proper.
a) Cash deposit; or O motion to reduce bond shall be
N Substantial compliance to formal requisites
entertained except on meritorious grounds, allowed; procedural rules are mandatory but
b) Surety bond
and only upon the posting of a bond in a must not frustrate the administration of justice.
quivalentinamounttothemonetaryaward
E
reasonable amount in relation to the second perusal of the MR with Manifestation
A
exclusiveof damages and attorney’s fees.
monetary award. filed by the petitioner before theCAwouldshow
I n case of surety bond, the same shall be that there was a genuine attempt to rectify the
he mere filing of a motion to reduce bond
T
issuedbyareputablebondingcompanyduly procedural infirmities in the petition. Petitioner
withoutcomplyingwiththerequisitesinthe
accredited by the Commission, and shall be subsequently submitted several supporting
preceding paragraphs shall not stop the
accompanied by original or certified true documents together with the motion.
running of the period to perfect an appeal.
copiesof the following:
10)Prohibited appeals: ltimately, theCourtfindsitpropertodecidethe
U
a) a joint declaration under oath by the case based on the merits and brush aside the
employer, his/her counsel, and the a) A
ppeal from any interlocutory order of
technicalities considering the substantial
bondingcompany,attestingthatthebond the LAdenying a motion:
compliance of the petitioner with the formal
posted is genuine, and shall be effective i) To dismiss; requirements.
until final disposition of the case;
ii) To inhibit;
b) a n indemnity agreement between the
iii) For issuance of writ or execution, or
employer-appellant and bonding C NLRC
company; iv) To quash writ of execution;
b) A
ppeal from the issuance of a certificate Jurisdiction
c) p roof of security deposit or collateral
securing the bond:provided,thatacheck of finality of decision by LA; Mode of Appeal and Requisites
shall not be considered as an acceptable c) A
ppeal from orders issued by LA in the
security; and, course of execution proceedings. Jurisdiction
1
Original
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page32of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. C
ases decided by DOLE R D or hearing ot later than 10caldaysfromreceiptof
N
Appellate
officers involving small money claims order of LA, aggrieved party may file the
under Art 129. petition before the NLRC, furnishing a
a. Original
copy to the adverse party.
aborCode,Arts.225(d)and(e),278(g);2011
L
2 Mode of Appeal and Requisites b. I njunctive relief —writofpreliminary
NLRC Rules of Procedure, asamended,Rule
XII, Sec. 1 he NLRC is a quasi-judicial body tasked to
1. T injunction;
promote and maintain industrial peace by c. Temporary restraining order.
1. P etition for Injunction in ordinary labor
resolving labor and management disputes
disputes
involving both local and overseas workers ICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology v.
C
2. P etition for Injunction on strikes or through compulsory arbitration and Perez2017
lockouts(Art 279) alternative modes of dispute resolution.
I n the event the aspect of reinstatement is
3. C ertified cases which refer to labor 2. Extraordinary Remedies. — disputed, backwages, including separation pay,
disputes causing or likely to cause a shall be computed from the time of dismissal
a. P
etition to annul or modify order or
strike or lockout in an industry until the finality of the decision ordering the
resolution, with the following grounds:
indispensable to the national interest, separation pay.
certified to it bytheSOLEforcompulsory i. rimafacie evidenceofabuseof
P
arbitration pursuant toArt 278(g). discretion; he rule is, if the LA's decision, which granted
T
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, is
4. P etition to annul or modify the order or ii. erious errors in thefindingsof
S
appealed by any party, the employer-employee
resolution of the LA. facts;
relationship subsists and until such time when
iii. party, by fraud, accident,
A decision becomes final and executory, the
b. Appellate
mistakeorexcusablenegligence employee is entitled to all the monetary awards
abor Code, Art. 129; 2011 NLRC Rules of
L
has beenpreventedfromtaking awarded by the LA.
Procedure, as amended, Rule VI, Sec. 1
an appeal;
I t has been settled that no essential change is
1. All cases decided by the LA;
iv. Purely on Questions of law; or made by a recomputation as this step is a
v. rder or resolution will cause
O necessary consequence that flows from the
injustice if not rectified. nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in
that decision. By the nature of an illegal
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page33of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on
d 4. H
ere, Dela Cruz alleges that he filed an hepostingofcashorsuretybondismandatory
T
until full satisfaction thereof. applicationforhisretirementbenefitswith and jurisdictional; failure to comply with this
FIBECO, but to no avail. As the law vested requirement renders the decision of the Labor
ela Cruz v. First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative
D the NEA with jurisdiction over all Arbiter final and executory.
2022 administrativemattersinvolvingofficersof
ON CAerredinaffirmingtheNLRC'sdismissal
W
urisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
J electriccooperatives,FIBECO'sdenialof,or
of petitioners' appeal.
conferredbylaw.Itcannotbeacquiredbywaiver inaction on Dela Cruz's claim should have
been brought to the NEA's disposal in O. It is clear from both the Labor Codeandthe
N
or acquiescence of any or all of the parties, by
accordance with the retirement policy as NLRC Rules of Procedurethatthereislegislative
estoppel,orbytheerroneousbeliefofthecourtor
correctly held by the LA. and administrative intent to strictly apply the
any adjudicative body that it exists.
appeal bond requirement, and the Court should
I. W
ON the CA erred in upholding the labor II. W
ON Dela Cruz is entitled to retirement giveutmostregardtothisintention.However,the
tribunal's jurisdiction over DelaCruz'sclaim benefits. Court,inspecialandjustifiedcircumstances,has
for retirement benefits. 1. N
O. Dela Cruz is not entitled to his claimed relaxedtherequirementofpostingasupersedeas
1. Y ES. NEA, and not NLRC, has jurisdiction retirement benefits. bond.
over Dela Cruz's retirement benefits claim. 2. D
ela Cruz's removal from his position as he reduction of the appeal bond is allowed,
T
2. N othing is more settled than that general manager through NEA Resolution subject to the following conditions:
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a No.79,entailstheforfeitureofhisretirement
1. t he motion to reduce the bond shall be
case is conferred by law. It cannot be benefits.
based on meritorious grounds; and
acquired by waiveroracquiescenceofany
or all of the parties, by estoppel, or by the 2. a
reasonable amount in relation to the
erroneous belief of the court or any urks Shawarma Company v. Pajaron, et al.2017
T monetary award is posted by the appellant.
adjudicative body that it exists. re Reduction of Appeal Bond ere, petitioners' motiontoreducebondwas not
H
3. P D No. 269, as amended, clearly provides heliberalinterpretationoftherulesappliesonly
T predicated on meritorious and reasonable
thattheNEAhastheauthoritytosupervise to justifiable causes and meritorious grounds and the amount tendered is not
the management and operations of all circumstances. reasonable in relation to the award.
electric cooperatives.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page34of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Inthecaseof McBurniev.Ganzon,theCourthas award of P3,683,394.45. xhibited their willingness and/or
e
good faith by posting a partial bond
set a provisional percentage of 10% of the 2. A
ppeals involving monetary awards are
during the reglementary period.
onetary award (e xclusive of damages and
m perfected only upon compliance with the
attorney's fees) as reasonable amount of bond following mandatory requisites, namely: 4. H
ere, Abelardo posted a total of P3.6M
t hat an appellantshouldpostpendingresolution within the reglementary period, which
a. payment of the appeal fees;
by the NLRC of a motion for a bond's reduction. substantially covers the total monetary
b. fi
lingoftheMemorandumofAppeal; award. These constitute substantial
Onlyafterthepostingofthisrequiredpercentage
and compliance and demonstrate willingness
shallanappellant'speriodtoperfectanappealbe
suspended. c. p
ayment of the required cash or on the part of Abelardo to abide with the
surety bond. Rules on Perfection of Appeal.
3. T
he bond requirement on appeals II. W
ON an Employer-Employee relationship
Salazar v. Simbajon2021 involvingmonetaryawardsmayberelaxed exist between Abelardo and Simbajo, et al.
he posting of Appeal Bond is not only
T in meritorious cases. These cases include 1. N
O. Abelardo is not the employer of
mandatory but jurisdictional as well. instances in which Simbajon, et al.
Non-compliance with the bond requirement is a. t here was substantial compliance 2. A
pplying the four-fold test of employment
fatalandhastheeffectofrenderingthejudgment with the Rules, relationship, namely:
final and executory in exceptional cases,
b. s urrounding facts and 2.1. t he selection and engagement of the
however,thebondrequirementmayberelaxedin
circumstances constitute employee or the power to hire;
line with the desired objective of Labor Laws to
meritorious grounds to reduce the
resolve controversies on their merits, provided 2.2. the payment of wages;
bond,
there is substantial compliance with the rules
2.3. the power to dismiss; and
governing Appeal to the NLRC. c. a
liberal interpretation of the
requirement of an appeal bond 2.4. t he power to control the employee,
I. W
ONAbelardowasabletoperfecthisappeal
would serve the desired objective of would disclose that Abelardo is not
with the NLRC.
resolving controversies on the the employer of Simbajon, et al.
1. Y
ES. Abelardo posted a total of P3.6M merits, or
3. F
irst, with regard to thepowertohire,there
within the reglementary period, which
d. the appellants, at the very least, was no substantial evidence that Abelardo
substantially covers the total monetary
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page35of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
articipated in the selection of the
p appeal by final judgment. 4. T
he provisional bond must be posted
restaurant employees. Second, with respect
ailure to do so shall render the NLRC liable for
F within the reglementaryperiodforappeal;
to the payment of wages, it was not shown grave abuse of discretion for having ruled onan and
that Simbajon, et al. directly received their
appeal without acquiring jurisdiction. 5. I f the NLRC eventually determines that a
premiumsandsalariesfromAbelardo.Third,
as to the power to dismiss, Simbajon, et al. ppeals of decisions rendered by a labor arbiter
A greaterorthefullamountofthebondshall
admitted that it was Lucia who terminated that grant a monetary award in favor of an be posted, the employer-appellant shall
their services. Lastly, concerning thepower employeerequiretheaggrievedemployertofilea comply accordingly within ten (10) days
of control, there is no proof that Abelardo bond. fromnoticeoftheNLRCorderdirectingthe
issued orders and instructions to Simbajon, such posting of the increased or full
cburnie v. Ganzon has already set the
M
et al. or that he supervised and monitored amount of the bond.
"reasonable amount" of the provisional reduced
the proper performance of their work. bond at a percentage of 10% of the monetary he requisites laid out by Mcburnie also
T
4. I ncontrast,Abelardosubstantiatedhisclaim award, excluding the amount of damages and presupposes a sixth requirement: the NLRC
that he is a mere lessor of the restaurant. attorney's fees, if any. issues an express ruling on the appellant's
motion to reduce bond.
5. T
he quantum of proof in Labor Cases is cburnie requires the concurrence of the
M
substantial evidence. Simbajon et al. utterly following conditions before an aggrieved ere, PRBFI's Motion to Reduce Bond was never
H
failed to establishwithsubstantialevidence employer appealing before the NLRC may be acted upon by the NLRC. For the perfection of
their supposed employment relationship allowed to post abond in a reduced amount: appeals filed by an employer must the NLRC
with Abelardo. 1. T
he employer-appellant files a motion to
expressly rule on motions to reduce bond, or
reduce bond;
would animpliedapprovalofamotiontoreduce
bond, i.e., the NLRC's disposal of the appeal by
2. T
he motion to reduce bond shall bebased final decision, order, or resolution, suffice as a
Pacific Royal Basic Foods v. Noche2021
on meritorious grounds; grant of the appellant-employer's motion to
Doctrinal Rule 3. T
he employer-appellant posts the reduce bond?
hether the NLRC accepts or rejects the
W provisionalpercentageofatleast10%ofthe O. Whether the NLRC accepts or rejects the
N
appellant's motion to reduce bond, the ruling monetary award, excluding therefrom the appellant's motion to reduce bond, the ruling
must be unequivocal, and such ruling must be award of damages and attorney's fees; must be unequivocal, and such ruling must be
issuedbeforeoratthetimetheNLRCresolvesthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page36of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ssuedbeforeoratthetimetheNLRCresolvesthe t he LA. Absent any qualifying terms, so long as judgment, or the rule that once a judgment has
appeal by final judgment. Failure to do so shall the decision of the LA involves a monetary become final and executory, the same can no
render the NLRC liable for grave abuse of award, as in this case, that ruling can only be longerbealteredormodifiedandthecourt'sduty
discretion for havingruledonanappealwithout appealed after the employer posts a bond. isonlytoorderitsexecution,isnotabsolute.One
acquiring jurisdiction over the same, and the
owever, this procedural rule may be relaxed in
H
of its exceptions iswhenthereisasupervening
judgment it had issued shall be vacated as null the interest of substantial justice. The case was event occurringafterthejudgmentbecomesfinal
and void. already in its execution stage. BATELEC II had and executory, which renders the decision
already posted an appeal bondwhenitappealed unenforceable.
the case for the first time. At the time when an
Del Pilar v. BATELEC II2020 appeal was made from the NLRCResolution,the
final award, upon which the bond should be
Doble, Jr. v. ABB Inc. 2017
scertaining the scope of backwages involves a
A
recomputation thereof. based, has not yet been settled. he provision states that either a legible
T
ara Lee Philippines, Inc. v. Macatlang decreed
S duplicate original or certified true copy thereof
herecomputationoftheawardsstemmingfrom
T
that the NLRC may dispense with thepostingof shallbesubmitted.Ifwhatissubmittedisacopy,
an illegal dismissal case does not constitute an
the bond when the judgment award is: thenitisrequiredthatthesameiscertifiedbythe
alteration or amendment of the final decision
being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or
1. not stated or
office involved or his duly-authorized
stands; only the computation of the monetary
2. b
ased on a patently erroneous representative. The purpose for thisrequirement
consequences of the dismissal is affected and
computation. isnotdifficulttosee.Itistoassurethatsuchcopy
this is not a violation of the principle of
is a faithful reproduction of the judgment, order,
immutability of final judgments.
resolution or ruling subject of the petition.
I n the interest of substantial justice, BATELEC II Dutch Movers Inc. v. Lequin, et al.2017
was excused from filing an appeal bond.
ON petitioners are personally liable to pay the
W
oyota Alabang, Inc. v. Games was emphatic in
T Genpact Services Inc. v. Santos-Falceso2017
judgment awards in favor of respondents.
declaring that Article 223 of the Labor Code and
he 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended,
T
Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of ES. Valderrama v. NLRC, and David v. Courtof
Y
provides, among others, thattheremedyoffiling
Procedure do not limit the appeal bond Appeals are applicable here. In said cases, the
a motion for reconsideration may be availed of
requirement only to certain kinds of rulings of Court held that the principle of immutability of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page37of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
once byEACHparty. 2. f ailure of the LAtostatetheexactamount
ventandlegalimpossibilitytoreinstatearosein
e
of money judgment due, and this case.
3. r elianceonanoticeofjudgmentthatfailed O. The Court agrees with theCAthatCondisis
N
Malcaba et al. v. Prohealth Pharma Phils.2018 liableforbackwagesandseparationpayuntilthe
to state that a bond must first be filed in
I n appeals of illegal dismissal cases, employers finality of the decision awarding separation pay
order to appeal.
are strictly mandated to file an appeal bond to as ruled inBani.
osewood Processing v. NLRC likewise
R
perfect their appeals. Substantial compliance, ere, the award of separation pay in lieu of
H
enumerated other instances where there would
however, may merit liberality in its application. reinstatement was made subsequent to the
be aliberal applicationof the procedural rules.
ON CA should have dismissed outright the
W finality of the Decision in the Illegal Dismissal
espitetheirfailuretocollectontheappealbond,
D Case.Condiscannotthereforeevadeitsliabilityto
Petition for Certiorarisincerespondentsfailedto
petitionersdonotdenythattheywereeventually Rogel for backwages and separation pay
post a genuine appeal bond before the NLRC.
able to garnish the amount from respondents' computeduntilthefinalityofthisDecisionwhich
NO. In labor cases, an appeal by an employer is bank deposits. Respondents are considered to affirms the order granting separation pay.
erfectedonlybyfilinga bond equivalenttothe
p have substantially complied with the
monetary award. requirements on the posting of an appeal bond. or Olympia Housing v. Lapastora to apply, the
F
employer must prove the closure of its business
rocedural rules require that the appeal bond
P
in full and complete compliance with all
filedbe"genuine."Anappealbonddeterminedby
statutory requirements prior to the date of the
the NLRC to be "irregular or not genuine" shall onsolidated Distillers of Far East v. Zaragoza
C
2018 finality of the award of backwages and
cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal.
separation pay.
I n Quiambao v. NLRC, this Court held that the hen there is a supervening event that renders
W
mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of the reinstatement impossible, backwages is
filing of an appeal bondcouldberelaxedifthere computed from the time of dismissal until the
acios et al., v. Tahanang Walang Hagdanan
P
was substantial compliance. Quiambao finality of the decision ordering separation pay. 2018
proceeded to outline situations that could be ONCourtofAppealscommittedreversibleerror
W I n authorizing execution pending appeal of the
considered as substantial compliance, such as in reckoning the period of back wages and reinstatement aspect of a decision of the Labor
1. late payment, separation pay until finality of the decision of Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated
this case andnotuntilthetime,thesupervening
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page38of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
mployee, the law itself has laid down a
e Doctrinal Rule orrelative between the parties, hinges on the
c
compassionate policy. enforceability of the contentious clause in the
I n determining which tribunal has jurisdiction
employment contract. Clearly, Alphaland's
ON the Court of Appealserredinaffirmingthe
W over a case, we consider not only the status or
recourse against Esico is based on our law on
suspension of the execution proceedings. relationshipoftheparties,butmoresothenature
of the question that is the subject of controversy. contracts.
ES. The more relevant rule in this case is Rule
Y
XI, Section 3 of the NLRCRules, which provides: here the claim to the principal relief sought is
W I n determining which tribunal has jurisdiction
to be resolvednotbyreferencetotheLaborCode over a case, we consider not only the status or
ection 3. Effect ofPerfectionofAppealon
S relationshipoftheparties,butmoresothenature
Execution. — The perfection of an appeal but by the general civil law,thejurisdictionover
thedisputebelongstotheregularcourtsofjustice of the question thatisthesubjectofcontroversy.
shall stay the execution of the decision of There is no reasonable causal connection
the Labor Arbiter except execution for
and not to the LA and the NLRC.
between Esico's money claims hinging on his
reinstatement pending appeal. he LA and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction
T supposedconstructivedismissalandAlphaland's
over the wrongful resignation and damages separate claim before the NLRC grounded on
xecution may be authorized even pending
E
complaint. The important principle that runs Esico's alleged "wrongful resignation," which
appeal. This Court finds that the principles
allowing execution pending appeal invoked in through Article 217 of the Labor Code is that obviously terminated the employment contract.
Aris areequallyapplicablehereaspetitionersare wheretheclaimtotheprincipalreliefsoughtisto
be resolvednotbyreferencetotheLaborCodeor urisdiction being set by law and not by the
J
poor employees, deprived of their only source of parties, the LA and the NLRC cannot exercise
livelihood for years and reduced to begging on other labor relations statute or a collective
bargaining agreement but by the general civil jurisdiction over respondents Alphaland's
the streets.Inviewoftheirdirestraitsandsince complaint just by the mere expedient of the
law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to
theNLRChasalreadyruledtwiceonthecaseina designation thereof as one for "wrongful
way thatsupportsthereleaseofthe supersedeas the regular courts of justiceandnottotheLabor
resignation with claims of damages" and the
bond, it is proper to continue with execution Arbiter and the NLRC.
employer-employee relationship between the
proceedings in this case despite a pending ere, the bone ofcontentionbetweentheparties
H parties. The general rule is that the issue of
motion for reconsideration. lies in the interpretation of the employment jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
contract,specificallytheclauseontheminimum proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by
servicerequirementinconsiderationofexpenses waiver or by estoppel. The rule in Tijam v.
Esico v. Alphaland Corporation2021 (advances)forflighttrainings.Alphaland'scause Sibonghanoy is an exception to the general rule
ofaction,thesupposedviolationoftheright-duty
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page39of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
which is not applicable herein. xcess of or with grave abuse of discretion
e ule 45 limits the review to questionsoflaw.In
R
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. ruling for legal correctness, the Court views the
tackedagainstTijam,thefactualcircumstances
S
herein do not equate to laches. CADecisioninthesamecontextthatthepetition
ere, the appellate court modified the aforesaid
H
decision by reducing the award of unpaid forcertiorariwaspresentedtotheCA.Hence,the
salariesduethepetitioneronthegroundthatthe Court has to examine the CA Decision from the
prism of whether the CA correctly determined
D Court of Appeals basis should be the first contractofemployment
which had a duration of only one (1) year.
the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion in the NLRC Decision.
hesupervisoryjurisdictionoftheCAunderRule
T
Bugaoisan v. Owi Group et al. 2018 65 was confined only to the determination of I n labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be
whether ornottheNLRCcommittedgraveabuse attributed to the NLRC when its findings and
he CA is only tasked to determine whether or
T
of discretion in deciding the issues brought conclusions are not supported by substantial
not the NLRC committed grave abuse of
before it on appeal. To recapitulate, the CA is evidence,whichreferstothatamountofrelevant
discretion in its appreciation of factual issues
evidencethatareasonablemindmightacceptas
presented before it by any parties. The CAisnot allowed to consider the factual issues only
insofar as they serve as the basis of the adequate to justify a conclusion. Thus, if the
given unbridled discretion to modify factual
jurisdictional error imputed tothelowercourtor NLRC ruling has basis in the evidence and the
findings of the NLRC and LA, especially when
applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave
such matters have not been assigned as errors in this case, the NLRC.
abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so
nor raised in the pleadings.
declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition.
ON the CA was correct when it went beyond
W
the issues of the case and the assigned errors E Supreme Court
raisedbyrespondentswhenitfiledthecertiorari epartment of Labor and
D
petition under Rule 65.
Philippine Pizza v. Cayetano2018 Employment (DOLE) Regional
F
O. In a Rule 65, petitionforcertiorarifiledwith
N Directors
the CA, the latter must limit itself to the he Court stresses the distinct approach in
T
determination of whether or not the inferior reviewingaCArulinginalaborcase.InaRule45 Jurisdiction
review,theCourtexaminesthecorrectnessofthe
court,tribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicial
CA Decision in contrast with the review of Recovery and adjudicatory power
or quasi-judicial functions acted without, in
jurisdictional errors under Rule 65. Furthermore,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page40of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1 Jurisdiction 1) A
RT 129. The RD or any of the duly a) P
rima facie evidence of abuse of
authorized hearing officers of DOLE have discretion;
jurisdiction over claims for recovery of b) D
ecision, order orawardsecuredthrough
Office Basis Jurisdiction wages, simple money claims and other fraud or coercion, including graft and
benefits,providedthat: corruption;
OLE Art 129 R
D ecovery of wages, simple
RD money claims and other benefits a) Claim arises from ER-EE Relationship; c) Made purely onquestions of law;
VA Art 261 A
ll unresolved grievances b) Claimant does not seek reinstatement; d) Serious errors in the findings of facts.
arising from the interpretation c) Aggregate money claim of each <=P5K.
and implementation of the CBA
RT 268. Representation Issue inOrganized
2) A
2 Recovery and adjudicatory power
exceptthosegrossin character; Establishments. — In organized
Cases arising from interpretation establishments, when a verified petition
or enforcement of company Visitorial and
questioning the majority status of the Simple Money Claim
Enforcement Power
personnel policies
incumbent bargaining agent is filed, the
Art 128 Art 129
rt
A ll other labor disputes including
A Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an
262 ULP and bargaining deadlocks, election by secret ballot. olice power -
P uasi-judicial -
Q
upon agreement of the parties RT 269. Petitions in Unorganized
3) A Inspection and Adjudication through
Establishments. — In any establishment issuance of orders to summary proceedings
SOLE rt
A ithin 24 hours from knowledge
W
where there is nocertifiedbargainingagent, compel compliance
63(g) of an occurrence of a labor
2
a CERTIFICATION ELECTION shall
dispute causing or likely to cause nforcement of labor
E onetary claims which
M
automatically be conducted by the
a strike or lockout in an industry legislation in general only involve labor
Med-Arbiter.
indispensable to the national standards law
interest, SOLE may assume 4) A
ppeal to NLRC within 5 cal days from
jurisdiction, decide on the receipt of copy of decision. ffshoots of
O worn complaints by
S
disputeorcertify the same to inspections done by interested party
5) N
LRC to resolve within 10 cal days from
NLRC forcompulsory arbitration. labor officers or safety
submission of last pleading.
engineers
6) Grounds for appeal(Art 229)
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page41of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Visitorial and 2. E
mployee files a pro-forma complaint with
Simple Money Claim nforcement Power on Health and Safety of
E
Enforcement Power theRD; Workers
I nvolves employees still P
resent or past 3. R
D dockets the complaint as simple money 1. An inspection is made via Art 128;
in service employees at the time claim;
2. N
on-compliance was discovered that poses
of complaint provided
4. R
D issues summons served upon employer grave and imminent danger to the health
there is no demand for
as respondent, together with the copy of and safety of workers in the workplace.
reinstatement
complaint;
3. S
OLE may order stoppage o
f w
ork o r
o maximum
N laim per claimant not
C 5. ER is given5 calendar daysto answer; suspension of operations of u nit or
monetary amount to exceed P5K department concerned;
6. A
fter receiving the answer, RD calls for a
xercised by SOLE or
E D or any duly
R summary hearing; 4. W
ithin 24 hours, a hearing shall be
any of his duly authorized hearing 7. R
D decides within 30 calendar days from conducted to determine whether said
authorized officer of DOLE date of filing of the complaint; stoppage order shall be lifted or not.
representatives, i.e. the a. I f violation is attributable to ER, he
8. E
R may appeal with the NLRC within 5
RD shall pay the wages ofEEsduringthe
calendar days from receipt of decision.
Appeal must be with cash or security bond. period of stoppage or suspension of
ppealable to SOLE,
A Appealable to NLRC
then to CA operations.
9. E
RmaythefileMRfromanadversedecision
of the NLRC; b. S
uspension should not exceed 6
Recovery of Wages and Simple Money Claims months.
10.PetitionforCertiorariunderRule65totheCA
1. Requisites: not later than60 daysfrom notice; 5. s ee RA 11058, Strengthening C
ompliance
a. C laimant is an employee or domestic with Occupational Safety & Health
11. Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 totheSC
worker; Standards;
within15daysfromnoticeonpurequestions
b. Claim does not exceed P5K; of law. EC. 23. Payment of Workers During Work
6. S
Stoppage Due to Imminent Danger. — If
c. No claim of reinstatement;
stoppage of work due to imminent danger
d. Claim arose from ER-EE relationship. occursasaresultoftheemployer'sviolation
or fault, the employer shall pay theworkers
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page42of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
oncerned their wages during the period of
c
a. V
iolation resulted t o death, insanity, or ational interest, the SOLE may assume
n
such stoppage of work or suspension of jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or
serious physical i njury to a child
operations. employed; certify the same to the Commission for
7. I n NationalMinesandAlliedWorkersUnion compulsory arbitration. xxxx
b. Prostitution or obscene or lewd shows; or
v. Marcopper Mining, if the suspension of ( h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory
operations was ordered by a government c. T
here is imminent danger in thelifeand
arbitration process, the parties may opt to
agency other than theDOLE,thegeneral"no limb of a child.
submit their dispute tovoluntary arbitration.
work, no pay" rule should prevail with nderanysuchcircumstance,SOLEorRDmust,
U
( i) The SOLE, the Commission or the voluntary
respect to employees' wages during the within 5 working days from receipt of
arbitrator orpanelofvoluntaryarbitratorsshall
suspension period, subject to existing CBA complaint, order immediate closure.
decide or resolve the dispute within thirty (30)
termsonleavecreditsandsimilarbenefitsof
close-now-hear-laterprocessistobeadhered
A calendar days from the date oftheassumption
employees.
to, which shall besummaryin nature. ofjurisdictionorthecertificationorsubmission
8. D OLE D.O. No. 198, S. 2018, distinguished ofthedispute,asthecasemaybe.Thedecision
from Bonafidesuspensionofoperations(Art G DOLE Secretary of the President, the SOLE, the Commission or
301). the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and
Closure of Business under RA 9231 Jurisdiction executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt
thereof by the parties.
DOLE DC 03-09 Visitorial and enforcement powers
OLEorRDmayorderclosureofbusinessfound
S ower to suspend effects of
P Visitorial and enforcement powers
2
tohaveviolatedanyprovisionsofRA9231more termination Department Order No. 283-23 series of 2023
than 3 times.
1) T
hefollowingshallbetheapproachesinthe
GR: rior notice and hearing is required
P 1 Jurisdiction
administration and enforcement of labor
before issuance of such Closure Order,
RTICLE 278. Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts.
A standards:
unless:
xxxx a) Technical and Advisory Visit (TAV);
EXC:
( g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor b) Labor Inspection; and
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
lockout in an industry indispensable to the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page43of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c) O ccupational Safety and Health (OSH) 4) T
he technicalandadvisoryservicesmaybe 6) P
reparation of Action Plan. The LI or ALI
Investigation. conducted through the following: shall require micro establishments with
2) P compliance gaps to accomplish the action
riority Establishments. – The following a) O
nline Session. Micro establishments
establishments shall be prioritized for may enroll in self-paced technical and planindicatingtheinterventionsandfurther
technical assistance needed. They shall
inspection: advisory modules through the learning
management system. They shall correct the noted noncompliances within
a) engaged in hazardous work; three (3) months from the date of receipt of
complete the modules within one (1)
b) employing children and/or women; month from registration. the action plan.
c) construction projects; b) O 7) T
he LI may inspectmicroestablishmentsin
nsite Session. Micro establishments
any of the following circumstances:
d) P hilippine-registered ships or vessels may attend technical and advisory
engaged in domestic shipping; modules in an activity organized by the a) u
njustifiable failure to attend t he TAV
Regional Office in coordination with the session despite receipt of two (2)
e) fishing vessels;
LGU and/or other partners. invitations;
f) e ngaged in contracting and
c) H
ybrid Session. Micro establishments b) f ailure to accomplish the TAV checklist
subcontracting arrangements;
may enroll in the onsite sessions and after receipt of two (2) notifications; or
g) s ubject of Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) attend virtual meetings and webinars
c) failure to prepare an action plan.
referral,anonymouscomplaint,orrequest through various online collaboration
for inspection; and platforms. 8) L
abor Inspection. The LI shall conduct an
opening conference to discuss the scope of
h) other establishments as may be 5) T
he Bureau of Working Conditions shall theinspectionanddeterminetheappropriate
determined by the SOLE. provide the list of micro establishments,
representatives of the employer and
3) E mployment Records. – All employers shall employing less than ten (10) workers,tothe
employees.
keep and maintain employment records in DOLERegionalOffices.TheRegionalDirector
shall further coordinate with the Local 9) I n the presence of the employer and
andaboutthepremisesofallworkplacesfor
Government Units (LGUs), concerned employees’ representative, the LI shall:
at least three (3) years.Shouldtheemployer
maintain a centralized recording system, it government agencies, or business a) e
xamine employment recordsforthelast
shall provide access or produce a hardcopy organizations for an updated additional list three (3) years;
to the labor inspector (LI). of micro establishments.
b) interview employees; and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page44of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i njury, imminent danger, or dangerous mployer to pay the wages of the affected
e
c) inspect work premises
occurrence. employees during the period of such
i) t o validate employment stoppage of work or suspension of
13)Work Stoppage Order. The SOLE or theduly
relationships based on the operations.
four-fold test, or the economic authorized representative may immediately
order stoppage of work or suspension of 16)Compliance with Action Plan. The LI shall
dependence test and
operation of any unit or department of an assist the employerinthepreparationofthe
ii) t o determine compliance with establishment when Action Plan for the remaining violations
general labor standards, found during the investigation and shall
occupational safety and health a) t he imminent danger cannot be abated
during the investigation, or monitor the same. The employer shall
standards, and other social submit proof of compliance to the Action
legislations. b) n
on compliancewithoccupationalsafety Plan within twenty (20) days from the OSH
10)Notice of Inspection Results. The LI shall and health standards poses grave and investigation.
conduct a closing conference and issue the imminentdangertothehealthandsafety
of the workers in the workplace or has 17)Effect of Refusal. – Refusal of access to
Notice of Inspection Results to the records,workpremises,oremployeesduring
representatives of the employer and resulted in a dangerous occurrence.
the conduct of inspection or investigation
employees, including legitimate labor 14)HearingandLiftingofWorkStoppageOrder. shall result in the filingofacriminalaction
organizations complaining on behalf of the The Regional Director shall conduct a against the employer or responsible officers
employees. hearing within twenty-four (24) hours from of the establishment.
the issuance of the Work Stoppage Order to
11) Correction Period. The employer is required
determine the cause and abatement Procedure for the Disposition of Cases
to correct violations of labor standards
within twenty (20) days from receipt of the measures of the imminent danger. 18)Notice of Mandatory Conference. – The
Notice of Inspection Results. 15)Upon submission of proof of abatement of Regional Director shall issue a notice of
the imminent danger, the Regional Director mandatory conference within five (5) days
12)OSH Investigation. Authority to Investigate.
shall,withintwenty-four(24)hours,issuean fromtheissuanceofnoticeofvisitresultsor
The Regional Director shall issue an
Order lifting the Work Stoppage Order lapse of the correction period.
Authority to Investigate to the LI within
effectiveimmediately.Ifimminentdangeris 19)Mandatory Conference. – The Hearing
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
due to the violation or fault of theemployer, Officer shall conduct the first mandatory
information on the existence of disabling
the Regional Director shall direct the conference within ten (10) days from the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page45of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ssuance of notice ofmandatoryconference.
23)Appeal. – The aggrieved party may file an 27)Exception clause of Art128.— In Meteorov.
The conference proceeding shall be
Appeal totheOfficeoftheSOLE,throughthe CreativeCreatures,respondentcontestedthe
terminated within thirty (30) days from the concerned Regional Office, within ten (10) findings of the labor inspector during and
first date of the scheduled conference.
daysfromreceiptoftheassailedCompliance after the inspection and raised issues the
20)Compliance Order. – The Regional Director Order or Resolution. resolution of which necessitated the
shall issueaComplianceOrderwithinthirty examination of evidentiary matters not
24)Grounds of Appeal. – The Appeal shall be
(30) days after the termination of the verifiableinthenormalcourseofinspection.
based on any of the following:
mandatory conference. Hence,theRegionalDirectorwasdivestedof
a) p
rima facie evidence of grave abuse of jurisdiction and should have endorsed the
21)The Regional Director shall close and
discretion on the part of the Regional casetotheappropriateArbitrationBranchof
terminate the case due to Director; the NLRC.
a) compliance, b) pure questions of law; or
b) compromise agreement, ower to suspend effects of
P
c) s
erious errors in the findings of facts
c) lack of employment relationship, or were committed which, if not corrected, 3 termination
would cause grave orirreparabledamage DOLE D.O. No. 183, S. 2017
d) lack of jurisdiction.
or injury to the appellant.
22)MotionforReconsideration.–Theaggrieved he Secretary of the Department of Labor and
T
party may file a MR from the Compliance 25)In People’s Broadcasting Service v. SOLE Employment may suspend the effects of the
OrderoftheRegionalDirectorwithinten(10) 2012 En Banc, the issue was WONtheSOLE, termination pendingresolutionofthedisputein
days from receipt thereof, copy furnished to
in exercising his visitorial power, can the event of a prima facie finding by the
the other party.
determine the existence of ER-EE appropriate official of the DOLE before whom
relationship.YES. such dispute is pending that the termination
he Reply of the other party shall be
T
submitted within ten (10) days from receipt 26)In Balladares v. Peak Ventures, the worker 1. may cause a serious labor disputeor
need not litigate to get what legallybelongs
of the Motion for Reconsideration. 2. is in implementation of amass lay-off.
to him, for the whole enforcement
he Regional Director shall issue a
T machinery of the DOLE exists to insure its
Resolution on the Motion for expeditious delivery to him free of charge. H Voluntary Arbitrator
Reconsideration within ten (10) days from
receipt of the Reply or lapse thereof. Jurisdiction
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page46of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Remedies b) i nterpretationorenforcementofcompany iv) ransfer
T and other personnel
personnel policiesor movement. Which are not spelled out
1) G rievancereferstoanyquestionbyeitherthe in the CBA.
c) a
ny claim by either party that the other
employer or the union regarding the
party is violating any provision of the
interpretation or implementation of any Compulsory Voluntary
CBA or company personnel policies.
provision of the collective bargaining
agreement or interpretation or enforcement 4) G
rievance machinery; Unresolved Definition
of company personnel policies. grievances. — Refers to the internal rules of
helawdeclares the
T ontractual proceeding
C
proceduresestablishedbythepartiesintheir
2) Grievance handling dispute subject to wherein the parties, to
CBA with voluntary arbitration as the
a) An employeeshallpresentthisgrievance arbitration,regardless obtain a speedy and
terminal step, which are intendedtoresolve
or complaint orally or in writing to the of consent of the inexpensive final
all issues arising from the implementation
parties. disposition of the
shop steward. and interpretation of their collective
matter,select a judgeof
b) I fthegrievanceisvalid,theshopsteward agreement and the company personnel
their own choice and
shall immediately bring the complaintto policies or company rules and regulations.
by consent, submit
theemployee's immediate supervisor. 5) C
ompany Personnel Policies. — are guiding their controversy to
c) I f no settlementisreached,thegrievance principles stated in broad, long-range terms him.
shall be referred to the grievance that express the philosophy or beliefs of an
organization’s top authority regarding Done by
committee whichshallhaveten(10)days
to decide the case. (Sec 2 Rule XIX Book 5) personnel matters. They deal with matters
abor Arbiter, clothed
L oluntary Arbitrator,
V
3) G rievance; Concept and Scope. — Refers to a) A
ffecting efficiency and well-being of with original and an impartial 3rd person
any question by either the employer or the employees and exclusive jurisdiction named by both parties
union regarding b) I nclude the procedures in the (Art 217)
a) t he interpretation or implementation of administration of
Nature
anyprovisionofthecollectivebargaining i) Wages,
agreementor dversarial; initiated by M
A ay be done prior to or
ii) Benefits,
a complaint. during compulsory
iii) Promotions,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page47of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Compulsory Voluntary rbitrators shall have original andexclusive
A RT 275. Jurisdiction over Other Labor
A
jurisdictionto hear and decide Disputes.—TheVoluntaryArbitratororpanel
arbitration; (B5-R19-S5)
of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of
ettlement of labor
S 1. a
ll unresolvedgrievancesarisingfrom
the parties, shall also hear and decide all
disputes by a Private judicial system; theinterpretationorimplementationof
other labor disputes including unfair labor
government agency. the CBAand
practices and bargaining deadlocks.
on-litigious, not
N
2. t hosearisingfromtheinterpretationor
governed by technical 1) Exclusive and original. —
enforcement of company personnel
ROC, but still observes
policies. a) a
ll unresolved grievances arising from
due process.
ccordingly,violationsofaCBA,exceptthose
A the implementation or interpretation of
Initiated by which are gross in character, shall no longer the collective bargaining agreementsand
be treated as unfair labor practice and shall b) t hose arising from the interpretation or
omplaint; to be
C a) S ubmission
be resolved asgrievancesunder the CBA. enforcement of company personnel
answered by other agreement;
party. b) Demand or Notice, or purposes of this article, gross violations
F policies
invoking a CBA of CBA shall mean flagrant and/ormalicious c) w
age distortion issues arising from the
clause; refusal to comply with the economic application of any wage orders in
c) Or both provisions of such agreement. organized establishments,
Appeal to he Commission,itsRegionalOfficesandthe
T d) u
nresolved grievances arising from the
Regional Directors of the DOLE shall not interpretation and implementation of the
LRC, who merely reviews for errors of fact or
N entertain disputes, grievances or matters productivity incentive programs under
law. under the exclusive and original jurisdiction R.A. 6971
of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
2) C
oncurrent. — All other labor disputes
Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately
1 Jurisdiction including ULP and bargaining deadlocks,
dispose and refer the same to the Grievance
upon agreement of the parties. Before or at
RT274.JurisdictionofVoluntaryArbitrators
A Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided
any stage of compulsory arbitration, parties
and Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. — The in the CBA.
may opt to submit to VA instead.
Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page48of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) V oluntary arbitration. — a mode of settling he10-dayperiodstatedinArticle276shouldbe
T s tringent technical rules may be relaxed in the
labor management disputes by which the understood astheperiodwithinwhichtheparty interest of the working man, and should not
parties select a competent, trained and adversely affected by the rulingoftheVoluntary defeat the complete and equitable resolution of
impartial person who shall decide on the Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may file a the rights and obligations of the parties.
merits of the case and whose decision is motion for reconsideration. Only after the
final, executory and binding. resolution of themotionforreconsiderationmay
theaggrievedpartyappealtotheCAbyfilingthe ORELCO Employees Union v. DORELCO, Inc.
D
4) N
ature o
f proceedings. — The proceedings
petition for review under Rule 43 of theRulesof 2021
before
a voluntary arbitrator are
Court within 15 days from notice pursuant to he10-dayperiodstatedinArticle276shouldbe
T
non-litigious in nature. They are not
Section 4 of Rule 43. understood as theperiodwithinwhichtheparty
overned by technical rules applicable to
g
court or judicial proceedings, but they must, adversely affected by the ruling oftheVoluntary
atalltimes,complywiththerequirementsof Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may file a
imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L motion for reconsideration. Only after the
due process.
Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021
resolution of the motionforreconsiderationmay
5) D ecision of voluntary arbitrator, and
heproperremedytoreverseormodifyaVA'sor
T theaggrievedpartyappealtotheCAbyfilingthe
prohibited motion. — THE decision of THE
apanelofVA'sdecisionorawardistoappealthe petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rulesof
voluntary arbitrator SHALL BE final and
awardordecisionbeforetheCAviaRule43ofthe Court within 15 days from notice.
executory after ten (10) calendar days from
Rules of Court. WON the appeal was filed out of time.
receipt of the copy of the decision by the
parties. hus, certiorari is not a proper remedy in the
T 1. N
O. The Union filed a petition for review
present case. However,itmustbenotedthatthis well within the prescribed period.
2 Remedies court has at times permitted the resort to
2. U
nder Article 276 of the Labor Code, the
certiorari despite the availability of appeal, or of
1) Thepetitionforreviewshallbefiled within any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the
award or decision of voluntary arbitrators
15 days pursuant to Section 4, Rules 43 of shallbefinalandexecutoryafter10calendar
ordinary course of law inexceptionalsituations.
the Rules of Court; daysfromnotice.Ontheotherhand,Rule43
Our jurisprudence allows the relaxation of labor
oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatanappeal
2) Rule 45, procedure before the SC. rules from time to time if such would serve the
from the judgment or final orders of
ends of justice. Punctilious adherence to
voluntary arbitrators must be made within
Guagua National Colleges v. CA 2018 En Banc
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page49of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
15 days from notice. b) I f WITHOUT reinstatement — THREE Management Prerogative
3. G
uaguaNationalCollegesv.CAclarifiedthat (3) YEARS.
the 10-day period in Article 276 should be 2) M
oneyclaims —THREE(3)YEARSfromthe Social Security System Law
understood as the time within which the time the action accrued;
A
R.A. No. 11199
adverse party may move for a
3) U
nfair Labor Practice — ONE (1)YEARfrom
reconsideration from the decision or award Coverage and Exclusions
accrual;
of the voluntary arbitrators. Thereafter, the
aggrievedpartymayappealtotheCAwithin 4) P
enal provisions under LC — THREE (3) Dependents, Beneficiaries
15 days from notice pursuant to Rule 43. YEARS;
Benefits
4. H
ere, the records reveal that the Union 5) Illegal Recruitment. —FIVE (5) years:
receivedthevoluntaryarbitrator'sresolution I f involving economic sabotage shall 1 Coverage and Exclusions
denying its motion for reconsideration on prescribe intwenty (20) years. 1) C
overage. — The SS Law mandates that all
November 27. As such, the Union had 15
6) Execution of Judgment —FIVE (5) YEARS. employees including kasambahays or
days or until December 12 within which to
domesticworkersnotoversixty(60)yearsof
perfect an appeal. 7) B
ackwages asareliefforillegaldismissalis
ageshallbemembersoftheSSS(Sec9).The
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.
law also mandates compulsory coverage of
8) S
eparation pay and retirement benefits are the Self-Employed as stated in Sec 9-A
I Prescription of Actions akin to money claims. which provides that self-employed includes,
but not limited to, the following:
III Social Legislation
a) All self-employed professionals;
1 Civil Code and Labor Code
Social Security System Law b) P
artners and single proprietors of
1) Illegal dismissal —
businesses;
a) I f with prayer of reinstatement — the overnment Service Insurance System
G
Law c) A
ctors and actresses, directors,
EE is given a period of FOUR (4)
scriptwriters and news correspondents
YEARS from the time of his illegal Portability who do not fall within the definition of
dismissalwithinwhichtoinstitutethe
complaint (Art 1146, NCC); Disability and Death Benefits
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page50of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he term “employee” in Sec 8 (d) of this ftheseafarer,manningagency,andforeignship
o s olidary liability in favor of seafarers, simply
Act; owner are consistent and uniform in every acknowledged the existing law and regulations.
d) P rofessional athletes, coaches, trainers POEA-SEC.
and jockeys; and ontrarythereto,land-basedOFWsdonothavea
C
e) Individual farmers and fishermen. singular or uniform employment contract 2 Dependents, Beneficiaries
because of the variety of work they perform. 1) Thedependentsshall be the following:
2) O FWs, sea-based or land-based, are
Their contracts depend on the nature of their
compulsory members as provided for under a) T
he legal spouse entitled by law to
employment and their place of work.
Sec 9-B. receive support from the member;
hus,thesetwo(2)classificationsofOFWscanbe
T
oint Ship Manning Group v. SSS2020 En Banc
J b) T
he legitimate, legitimated or legally
treated differently.
re Constitutionality of Sec 9-B adopted, and illegitimate child who is
he 2016 POEA Rules provides that manning
T unmarried, not gainfully employed, and
ON Sec. 9-B Of R.A. No. 11199 is
W agencies are jointly and severallyliablewiththe has not reached twenty-one (21) years of
unconstitutional as it violates substantive due principalemployerforanyandallclaimsarising age,orifovertwenty-one(21)yearsofage,
process and equal protection of rights. out of the implementation of the SEC involving he is congenitally or while still a minor
O.Sec.9-BofR.A.No.11199doesnotviolatethe
N seafarers. Necessarily, this includes claims has been permanently incapacitated and
equal protection of laws because there is a arisingoutoftheSSScoverageandcontributions incapable of self-support, physically or
substantial distinction between sea-basedOFWs in favor of seafarers.Iftheprincipalforeignship mentally; and
and land-based OFWs. ownerfailstopaytheSSScontributions,thenthe
c) T
he parent who is receiving regular
joint and several liability of the manning
eafarers constitute a unique classification of
S support from the member.
agencies can be invoked.
OFWs. Their essential difference against
2) Primary Beneficiaries
land-based OFWs is that all seafarers have only hus, the solidary liability of manning agencies
T
one (1) standard contract, which provides the withrespecttoprincipalforeignshipownershas a) T
he dependent spouse until he or she
rights and obligations of the foreign ship owner, been established by law, particularly, R.A. No. remarries;
the seafarer and the manning agencies. Thus, 8049, as amended, and duly implementedbythe b) t he dependent legitimate, legitimated or
whether a seafarer is a chef on a cruise ship, or 2016 POEA Rules. Sec. 9-B(b) of R.A. No. 11199, legally adopted,andillegitimatechildren,
anengineeronacargoship,theyarecoveredbya which treatsmanningagenciesasemployersfor In their absence,
unifiedPOEA-SEC.Therightsandresponsibilities the sole purpose of recognizing their joint and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page51of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) Secondary Beneficiaries f orremittanceofSSmonthlycontributionsisnot lainly,"dependentparents"areparents,whether
P
a type of money claim which needs to be filed legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by
a) the dependent parents;
against the estate proceedings. adoption, who are in need of support or
b) I n the absence of all the foregoing, any assistance.
other person designated by the member
as his/her secondary beneficiary. SSS v. Delos Santos
Haveria v. SSS2018
SSS v. Alba N ESTRANGED wife who was not dependent
A
upon her deceased husband for support is not ON Haveria's inclusion as a compulsory
W
n action for remittance of SS monthly
A
qualified to be his beneficiary. member of the SSS was valid and consequently,
contributionsisnotatypeofmoneyclaimwhich
eath benefits should not be denied to the wife
D
whether he is entitled to receive monthly
needs to be filed against the estate proceedings.
who was married to the deceased retiree only
pensions.
ON the term "employer" under the Social
W
after the latter's retirement. O. Haveria was reported by the SSSEA as an
N
Security Act of 1954 may be applied to Far Alba,
employee, and he claims coverage as a
the administrator-son of the owner, Arturo Alba, he reckoning point in determining the
T
beneficiaries of the deceased should be the time compulsorymemberoftheSSS.Ascorrectlyheld
Sr., who is directly and actively involved in the
of his death. There is no need to look into the by the SSC and CA, the SSSEA, a labor
operation of the agricultural undertaking.
organization, cannot be considered anemployer
time of retirement.
ES. Plainly, Far Alba, as the hacienda
Y under the law. As a government employee,
administrator, acts as thelegalrepresentativeof I n Aguas, the Court ruled that although a Haveria would have been qualified forvoluntary
theemployerandisthusanemployerwithinthe husband and wife are obliged to support each coverage under Section 9(b)ofR.A.No.1161,had
meaning of the law liable to pay the SS other, whether one is actually dependent for he registered as a voluntary member.
contributions. supportupontheothercannotbepresumedfrom Consequently, his compulsory coverage while
the factofmarriagealone.Awifewhoisalready supposedly employed with the SSSEA was
he Court sustains the jurisdiction of the
T
separated de facto from her husband cannot be erroneous.
Commission over disputes under the Social
s aid to be "dependent for support" upon the
Security Act "with respect to coverage, benefits,
husband, absent any showing to the contrary.
contributions and penalties thereon oranyother
matterrelatedthereto.Moreover,theCourtagrees Salabe v. SSC2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
with the Commission's assertion that an action
Bartolome v. SSS 2014
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page52of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
I s Leonarda entitled to retirement benefits from ower to hire, Ana could have fired Leonarda;
p eath of a legal dependent, if the CBA is silent
d
the SSS? fourth and most importantly, Ana as owner about it, is to be construed as similar to the
directly supervised Leonarda in her work as meaning that contemporaneous social
eonardawasneverthelessabletoprovethatshe
L
helper or dishwasher. legislationshaveset.Thisisbecausethetermsof
was an employee at Ana'scarinderia.Duringthe
suchsociallegislationsaredeemedincorporated
clarificatory hearings before the SSC, Leonarda ssuming further that Leonarda was not an
A
in or adopted by the CBA.
offered the following pieces evidence: her employee of Ana, this does not automatically
affidavit and testimony; affidavit of SabasRanin; entail the invalidationofher137contributionsto ON petitioner’s denial of respondents’ claims
W
affidavit and testimonyofCeferinoMacasasson SSS. For Leonadra may be placed under the for funeral and bereavement aid granted under
of carinderia owner Ana Macas who had since category "self-employed" pursuant to the their CBA constitutedadiminutionofbenefitsin
passed away; and affidavit and testimony of liberality rule. In fact, she may even be violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Ricardo Vinalon as disinterested third person. considered as a voluntary paying member. ES. The civil status of the employee as either
Y
he Court has consistently ruledthatthereisno
T ven if the Court rules that Leonarda was never
E married or single is not the controlling
hard and fast rule designed to establish the an employee of Ana, this would not necessarily consideration in order thatapersonmayqualify
elements of an employer-employee relationship. entail the invalidity of all her contributions. astheemployee’slegaldependent.Whatisrather
Some forms evidence that have accepted to Rather, this would call for the application of decidedly controlling is the factthatthespouse,
establishtheelementsinclude,butarenotlimited liberality wherein Leonarda could be considered child,orparentisactuallydependentforsupport
to, identification cards, cash vouchers, social as a self-employed or voluntary paying member upon the employee.
security registration, appointment letters or as of January 1, 1980 when PD 1636 took effect, etitioner had no basis to deny the claim for
P
employment contracts, payroll, organization expanding the scope of RA 1161 to include the funeral and bereavement aid of Alfante for the
charts, and personnel lists, among others. Too, self-employed. deathofhisparentwhosedeathandfactoflegal
the Court has also accepted witnesses' dependency on him could be substantially
testimonial evidence to sufficiently establish proved.
employer-employee relationship, as here. hilippine Journalist Inc. v. Journal Employees
P
Union2013 ursuant to Article 100 of the Labor Code,
P
eonarda and her witnesses proved: first, Ana
L petitioner as the employer could not reduce,
personallyhiredLeonardaashelper;second,Ana he coverage of the term legal dependent as
T diminish, discontinue or eliminate any benefit
paid Leonarda adailywageofP30.00,albeitona usedinastipulationinaCBAgrantingfuneralor and supplement being enjoyed by or granted to
weekly or monthly basis; third, corollary to the bereavementbenefittoaregularemployeeforthe its employees.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page53of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
isability, which is defined by Section 13-A
d
overnment Service Insurance
G
(d), and permanent partial disability.
3 Benefits System Law
B
5) F
uneral Benefit. — under Section 13-B,
R.A. No. 8291
1) M aternity Leave Benefit. — see also 105-Day provides for a funeral grant equivalent to
Expanded Maternity Leave LawRA 11210 P12K to help defray the cost of funeral Coverage and Exclusions
2) R etirement Benefit. — under Section 12-B, is expense upon the death of a member,
given to a member who: including a permanently totally disabled Dependents, Beneficiaries
member or retiree.
a) h asreachedtheageofsixty(60)yearsold, Benefits
andisalreadyseparatedfromworkorhas 6) S
ickness Benefit. — under Section 14,
ceased to be self-employed; or providesdailysicknessbenefitsequivalentto 1 Coverage and Exclusions
inety percent (9
n 0%) of his average daily
b) h asreachedtheageofsixtyfive(65)years 1) M
embershipintheGSISshallbecompulsory
salary credit, to members who are confined for all employees receiving compensation
provided he/she has complied with the
for more than three (3) daysinahospitalor who have not reached the compulsory
required monthly contributions.
elsewhere with the approval of the SSS.
retirement age, irrespective of employment
3) D eathBenefit.—underSection13,allowsthe However,toavailofthisbenefit,themember
status,except
primary beneficiaries of the deceased musthavecompliedwiththeconditionsand
member to be entitled to monthly pension qualifications provided by the said law. a) m
embers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine National
provided the latter has paid the required
monthly contributions to be qualified thereof.
⭐
7) Unemployment Insurance or Involuntary Police, subject to the condition that they
Separation Benefits. — under Section 14-B, must settle first their financial obligation
4) P
ermanent Disability Benefit. — under provides that an employee who is
with the GSIS, and
Section 13-A, provides that those who have involuntarily unemployed or separated from
permanent disabilities shall be entitled to a work can avail of this benefit.However,this b) c
ontractual who have no employer and
monthly pension. Thesumequivalenttothe employee relationship with the agencies
benefit shall only be availed once every
monthly pension is still subject to the they serve.
three (3) years.
conditionsandqualificationsprovidedbythe 2) E
xcept for themembersofthejudiciaryand
saidlaw.Further,thelawprovidesadifferent constitutional commissions who shall have
monthly pension for permanent total life insurance only, all members oftheGSIS
shall have life insurance, retirement,andall
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page54of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ther social security protection such as
o Rodrin v. GSIS hen an employee is constrained toretireatan
W
disability, survivorship, separation, and early age due to his illness and the illness
unemployment benefits. embers of the national police, unless they are
M
persists even after retirement, resulting in his
on official leave, are, by the nature of their
continued unemployment,asinthiscase,sucha
2 Dependents, Beneficiaries functions, technically on duty 24 hours a day,
ondition amounts t o t otal disability which
c
becausepolicemenaresubjecttocallatanytime
1) Dependentsshall be the following: and may be asked by their superiors or by any should entitle him to the maximum benefits
distressed citizen to assist in maintaining the allowed by law.
a) t he legitimate spouse dependent for
support upon the member or pensioner; peace and security of the community. ON respondent's claim for conversion of his
W
ON the death of SPO1 Rodrin is compensable
W PPD benefits to PTD benefits should be granted.
b) t he legitimate, legitimated, legally
adopted child, including the illegitimate under PD 626. ES. A disability is considered total and
Y
child, who is unmarried, not gainfully permanentifasaresultoftheinjuryorsickness,
ES. For the compensability of an injury to an
Y
employed, not overtheageofmajority,or employeewhichresultsinhisdisabilityordeath, the employee is unable to perform any gainful
is over the age of majority but is occupationforacontinuousperiodexceeding120
Section 1(a), Rule III of the Amended Rules on
incapacitated and incapable of Employees'Compensationimposesthefollowing days.
self-support due to a mental or physical conditions: isability should be understood not singly
D
defect acquired prior to age of majority; through its medical significance but, more
1. T
he employee must have been injured at
and importantly,intermsofaperson'slossofearning
the place where his work required him to
c) t he parents dependent upon the member be; capacity.
for support; ermanent totaldisabilitymeansdisablementof
P
2. T
he employeemusthavebeenperforming
2) P rimary beneficiaries. — The legal an employee to earn wages in the same kind of
his official functions; and
dependentspouseuntilhe/sheremarriesand work, or work of a similar nature that he was
3. I f the injury was sustained elsewhere, the trainedfororaccustomedtoperform,oranykind
the dependent children;
employee must have been executing an of work which a person of his mentality and
3) S econdary beneficiaries. — The dependent orderof the employer. attainment could do. It does not mean absolute
parents and, subject to the restrictions on
helplessness but rather anincapacitytoperform
dependent children, the legitimate
gainful work which is expected to be permanent.
descendants. GSIS v. Casco
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page55of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
o small measure to the ailments that ledtohis
n hile there is permanent partial
b) w
GSIS v. De Castro disability retirement. disability when a GSIS member is
incapacitatedtoworkforalimitedperiod
hat the law requires is a r easonable work
W of time because of complete, and
connection and not direct c ausal relation. 3 Benefits permanent loss of any of the following
Probability, nottheultimatedegreeofcertainty, body parts. xxx
is the test of proof in compensation proceedings. 1) T
he separation benefits are given to GSIS
members who are separated fromserviceor urther,thereistemporarytotaldisability
c) F
ONDeCastroprovedthathisheartailmentsare
W when a GSIS member is momentarily
who resigned therefrom provided that the
work-related and/or have been precipitated by incapacitated to work or engage in any
qualifications set by law are met by the
his duties with the AFP. gainful occupation as a result of
member claiming for separation benefits.
ES.Inanydeterminationofcompensability,the
Y impairment of physical or mental
2) O
n the other hand, the Unemployment or
nature and characteristics of the job are as faculties which can be rehabilitated or
Involuntary Separation Benefitsaregivento
important as raw medical findings and a restored to their normal functions.
an employee who, at the time of separation
claimant's personal and social history. 4) R
etirement benefits are those received by
from work,
I ntoxication which does not incapacitate the employees upon reaching the age of
a) w
as holding a permanent employment,
employee from following his occupation is not retirement which is sixty (60) years of age.
and
sufficienttodefeattherecoveryofcompensation, To be entitled thereon, according to Section
although intoxication may be a contributory b) w
as separated involuntarily due to the 13-A of R.A. No. 8291, the following
cause to his injury. While smoking may abolition of his/her office or position qualifications shall be met:
contribute tothedevelopmentofaheartailment, resulting from reorganization.
a) h
e hasrenderedatleastfifteen(15)years
heart ailment may be caused by other factors 3) With respect todisability benefits, of service;
such as working and living under stressful
a) p
ermanent total disability means b) h
eisatleastsixty(60)yearsofageatthe
conditions.
disability caused by injury or disease time of retirement; and
ased on the totality of the circumstances
B resulting in complete, irreversible, and
c) h
e is not receiving a monthly pension
surrounding De Castro's case, we are convinced permanent incapacity to work or to
benefit from permanent total disability.
that his long years of military service, with its engage in any gainful occupation,
attendant stresses and pressures, contributed in
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page56of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
5) L ikewise, Survivorship benefits are given 1) " Portability" shall refer to the transfer of 5) " Totalization" shall refer to the process of
when a member or pensioner dies, his/her fundsfortheaccountandbenefitofaworker adding up the periods of creditable services
beneficiariesshallbeentitledtosurvivorship who transfers from one system to the other. or contributions under each of the Systems,
benefits provided in Sections 21 and 22 of forpurposesofeligibilityandcomputationof
2) I t refers to instances where a worker
R.A. No. 8291 as stated in Section 20 of said transfers from private employment to benefits.
lawprovidedthequalificationssetbylaware government employment, and vice versa, 6) A
pplying the totalization rule can increase
met. therebytransferringfrombeingSSSmember the chances of a worker to avail of benefits
6) F uneral benefit is given to the beneficiaries toGSISmember,andviceversa.Thetransfer under the subject law. This may be availed
ofthedeceasedmembertohelpthemdefray of funds is to ensure that his/her years of of only ONCE.
the cost of burial, and funeral expenses. service are duly credited. 7) S
ection 3, Rule V provides instances where
7) L ife insurance benefits are given to allGSIS 3) C
overage. — Section 1, Rule I provides that totalization applies, to wit:
members, except for Members of the AFP the rules and regulations shall apply to all
a) I faworkerisnotqualifiedforanybenefits
and the PNP. worker‐membersoftheGSISand/orSSSwho
from both Systems;
transferfromonesectortoanother,andwho
8) It must be noted that the claimsforbenefits
wish to retain their membership in both b) I f a worker in the public sector is not
nder this law shall be filed within 4years
u qualified for any benefits in the GSIS; or
Systems.
from the time of the contingency except
4) L
imited Portability Scheme. — R.A.No.7699 c) I f a worker in the private sector is not
claims forlife and retirement benefits.
wasenactedtoenablethosefromtheprivate qualified for any benefits from the SSS.
9) H ence, after the contingency such as
sector who transfer to the government d) I f a work qualifies for benefits in both
separation from work, occurrence of
serviceorfromthegovernmentsectortothe Systems, totalization shall not apply.
disability, or death happens, then the
private sector to combine their years of
memberoughttofileaclaimimmediately,in 8) T
otalization of service credits is only
service and contributions which have been
order to avail of the benefits providedunder resorted to whentheretireedoesnotqualify
credited with the SSS or GSIS, as the case
this law. for benefits in either or both oftheSystems.
may be, to satisfy the required number of
Here, petitioner is qualified to receive
years of service for entitlement to the
Portability benefits under the applicable laws.
benefitsgrantedbyGSIS,ifsuchrighthasnot
C yet been exercised.
R.A. No. 7699
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page57of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ence, if an employee is entitled to some
H i njury resulting in permanent partial disability
rovided, finally, That the minimum death
P
benefitseitherfromGSISorSSS,asthecase shall, for each month not exceeding the period benefitshallnotbelessthanfifteenthousand
maybe,thentheruleontotalizationwillnot designated herein, be paid by the Systemduring pesos.
apply. (G
amogamo v. PNOC Shipping and such a disability an income benefit for
Transport Corp.) permanent total disability. xxxx b) T
he System shall pay to the primary
beneficiaries upon the death of a covered
CHAPTER VII Death Benefits
D Disability and Death Benefits employee who is under permanent total
ARTICLE 200.Death. — disability under this Title, eighty (80%)
Labor Code, Article 198 a) T percentofthemonthlyincomebenefitandhis
he System shall pay to the primary
dependents to the dependents' pension:
POEA Standard Employment Contract beneficiaries upon the death of the covered
employee, rovided, That the marriage must have been
P
Rules on referral to third doctor validly subsisting at the time of disability:
i) n amount equivalent to his monthly
a
upplemental Guidelines on the
S income benefit, rovided, further, That if he has no primary
P
Implementation of the Mental Health beneficiary, the System shall pay to his
ii) lus ten percent thereof for each
p
Policy and Program in the Workplace secondary beneficiaries the monthly pension
dependent child, but not exceeding five,
excluding the dependents' pension, of the
Labor Code beginning with the youngest and without
substitution, except as provided for in remainingbalanceofthefive-yearguaranteed
CHAPTER VI Disability Benefits period:
paragraph (j) of Article 167 hereof:
RTICLE 197. Temporary Total Disability. — Any
A rovided, finally, That the minimum death
P
rovided, however, That the monthly income
P
employee who sustains an injury or contracts benefit shallnotbelessthanfifteenthousand
benefit shall be guaranteed for five years:
sickness resulting in temporary total disability pesos.
shall,foreachdayofsuchadisabilityorfraction rovided, further, That if he has no primary
P
thereof, be paidbytheSystemanincomebenefit beneficiary, the System shall pay to his c) T
he monthly income benefit provided herein
equivalent to ninety(90%)percentofhisaverage secondary beneficiaries the monthly income shall be the new amount of the monthly
daily salary credit. benefit but not to exceed sixty months: income benefit for thesurvivingbeneficiaries
upon the approval of this decree.
RTICLE199.PermanentPartialDisability.—Any
A
employee who contracts sickness orsustainsan
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page58of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f due care contributedtohisdeathorinjury,
o
d) F
uneral benefit. — A funeral benefit of Three Book IV of the Labor Code has impliedly
the compensation shall beequitably reduced.
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) shall be paid repealed Article 1711of the Civil Code.
upon the death of a covered employee or Oceanmarine Resources v. Nedic2022 En Banc hechoiceofactionofemployeesandtheirheirs
T
permanently totally disabled pensioner. should be selective,notcumulativeorexclusive.
imquiaco, Jr. v. Judge Ramolete reaffirmed the
L
The remedies of compensation and damages
Civil Code rule now obtaining in workmen's compensation
couldnotbecumulativebecauseofArticle179of
RT 1711. Owners of enterprises and other
A cases, which is for the employee or his or her
the Labor Code, in relation to the rule on
employers are obliged to pay compensation heirs, in case of death, to have the option to
inconsistent remedies and the doctrine of
1. f or the death of or injuries to their 1. c
laim compensation from the employer election of remedies.
laborers,workmen,mechanicsorother under the Labor Code or
RT 179. Extent of Liability. — Unless
A
employees, 2. p
roceed against the employer as a otherwise provided, the liability of the State
2. e ven though the event may have been tortfeasor in an ordinary action for Insurance Fund under this Title shall be
purely accidental or entirely due to a damagesbefore the regular courts. exclusiveandinplaceofallotherliabilitiesof
fortuitous cause, nce an election has been exercised, the
O theemployertotheemployee,hisdependents
employee,orhisorherheirs,arenolongerfreeto or anyone otherwise entitled to receive
3. i fthedeathorpersonalinjuryaroseout
of and in the course of the opt for the other remedy. Both remedies cannot damages on behalf of the employee or his
also be pursued simultaneously. dependents. The payment of compensation
employment.
under this Title shall not bar therecoveryof
he employer is also liableforcompensation
T he intentin Floresca wastoallowthechoiceof
T
benefits as provided for in Section699ofthe
if the employee contracts any illness or recovery of damages under the Civil Code based
Revised Administrative Code, RA 1161, as
diseasecausedbysuchemploymentorasthe on negligence or breach of contract despite the
amended, RA 610, as amended, RA 4864, as
result of the natureoftheemployment.Ifthe exclusivity provision in Article 179 of the Labor
amended, and other laws whose benefits are
mishap was due to the employee's own Code.
administered by the System or by other
notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or iven the irreconcilable inconsistency between
G agencies of the government.
drunkenness,theemployershallnotbeliable theaforesaidlawsandtheirnatureasspeciallaw
for compensation. When the employee'slack rticle179operatestoBARsimultaneouspursuit
A
and general law, the Court declares that Title II,
of both compensation and damages. A claimfor
compensation under the Labor Code triggersthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page59of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
pplication of the exclusivityprincipleinArticle
a eginning with the youngest and without
b
b. w
hen therearesuperveningfactsor
substitution.
179—the liability of the State Insurance Fund developments occurring after the
shallbe"exclusive",andcompensationunderthe claimant opted for the first remedy. b) T
he monthly income benefit s hall b e
State Insurance Fund shall be "in place of all guaranteed for five years, and s hall be
other liabilities of the employer." RT 1712. If the death or injury is due to the
A suspended if the employee
imilarly, one who has availed of the remedy of
S negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and
i) is gainfully employed, or
damages under the Civil Code may no longer the employer shall be solidarily liable for
recover compensation under the Labor Code. compensation.Ifafellowworker'sintentional ii) r ecovers from hispermanenttotaldisability,
ormaliciousactistheonlycauseofthedeath or
ll considered, the conclusion reached in
A
or injury, the employer shall not be iii) f ails to present himself for examination at
Florescais still good law.
answerable, unless it should be shown that least once a year upon notice by the System.
1. T he remedies of compensation and thelatterdidnotexerciseduediligenceinthe
damages are selective. selection or supervision of the plaintiff's c) T
he following disabilities shallbedeemedtotal
2. E mployees or their heirs may choose fellow worker. and permanent:
between an action for damages under the i) emporary
T total disability lasting
Civil Code or a claim for compensation 1 Labor Code, Article 198
continuously for more than one hundred
under the Labor Code. twenty days, except as otherwise provided
ARTICLE 198.Permanent Total Disability. —
3. U pon electing a remedy, the employees or for in the Rules;
a) A
ny employee who contracts sickness or
theirheirsshallbedeemedtohavewaived ii) Complete loss of sight of both eyes;
sustains an injury resulting in his permanent
the other remedy, save for recognized
total disability shall, for each month until his iii) oss of two limbs at or above the ankle or
L
exceptions, such as death, be paid by the System during such a wrist;
a. w hen the choice of the first remedy disability,
iv) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
was based on ignorance or mistake
i) namountequivalenttothemonthlyincome
a
of fact, which nullifiesthechoiceas v) raininjuryresultinginincurableimbecility
B
benefit,
it was not an intelligent choice, or or insanity; and
ii) lus ten (10%) percent thereof for each
p
dependent child, but not exceeding five,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page60of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
vi) uch cases as determined by the Medical
S eriod of 120 days from the time the
p s econdopinionfromhisownphysicianonlyafter
Director of the System and approved by the seafarer reported to [them]; he had already initiated his complaint. For even
Commission. prior to such date, he was already deemed to be
2. I f the company-designated physician fails
togive[their]assessmentwithintheperiod suffering from total and permanent disability
POEA Standard Employment Contract
when the company-designated physicians
of 120 days, without any justifiable reason,
2 Sec. 32 POEA Standard Employment assessed that his treatment shall last well-
thentheseafarer'sdisabilitybecomes(total
Contract beyond the 240-day maximum period.
and permanent);
3. I f the company-designated physician fails oniov.88AcesMaritimeServices ruledinfavor
Z
togive[their]assessmentwithintheperiod of the compensability of "Diabetes Mellitus" that
elestino v. Belchem Philippines2022
C
Lazaro-Javier, J. of 120 days with a sufficient justification afflicted the seafarer. As held in Flores v.
(e.g., seafarer required further medical Workmen'sCompensationCommission,"Diabetes
etitioner filed his complaint on July 1, 2013,
P Mellitus" is generally not compensable. It is,
treatment or seafarer was uncooperative),
whichwasonlythe199thdayfromwhenhewas however, compensable in instances when it is
thentheperiodofdiagnosisandtreatment
first referred to the company-designated complicatedwithotherillnesses.Here,petitioner
shall be extended to 240 days. The
physician upon his repatriation on December 14, was diagnosed by the company-designated
employer has the burden to prove that the
2012.TheCAruledthatforfailureofpetitionerto physicians with "Diabetes Mellitus" complicated
company-designated physician has
wait for the final assessment of the with"Ureterolithiasis",anotherillnesspreviously
sufficient justificationtoextendtheperiod;
company-designated physician within the deemed as compensable in GSIS v. Court of
and
240-day period, no cause of action for total and Appeals and Lilia S. Arreola.
permanent disability benefits had yet accrued. 4. I f the company-designated physician still
fails to give [their] assessment within the
his is erroneous. Orient Hope Agencies v. Jara
T
extended period of 240 days, then the
set out the guidelines to determine a seafarer's arandan v. Dohle Seafront Crewing Manila2021
C
seafarer's disability becomes permanent Lazaro-Javier, J.
disability, viz.:
and total, regardless of any justification.
1. T
he company-designated physician must espondents denied petitioner's claim for total
R
etitioner cannot be faulted for filing his
P
issue a final medical assessment on the and permanent disability benefits because he
complaint on the 199th day of his ongoing
seafarer's disability grading within a supposedlyconcealedfromthemthatpriortohis
treatment even before the lapse of the 240-day
employment with them, he had already been
period, nor can he be faulted for acquiring a
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page61of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iagnosed with pre-existing hypertension and
d
ntitlement to total and
E ecords show that petitioner had already been
R
chest pains with nocturnal dyspnea. permanent disability diagnosedwithhypertensionduringhisprevious
ne. Although the company-designated doctor,
O benefits 2009 PEME with another employer. Hehadbeen
Dr.Go,statedthatpetitionersupposedlyadmitted maintained on metoprolol to treat his
rior to assuming his duties as Able Seaman
P
toherthathegottreatedforhypertensionin2010 aboard respondents' "MV Favourisation" on hypertension. He also got diagnosed with
and hadbeenexperiencingchestpainssincethe January 17, 2016, petitioner was declared fit to diabetes in 2010 and was treated at Seaman's
year 2000, petitioner had invariably denied it. At work per the PEME he had with the Hospital and prescribed with metformin as
any rate, the statement of Dr. Go regarding what company-designated doctors. Thus, he did not maintenance medicine. But despite personal
petitioner supposedly told her is hearsay, thus, showanysymptomsofanyillnessbeforehewent knowledge of his medical history, petitioner lied
devoid of any probative weight. aboutitduringhisJanuary2012PEME.There,he
on board and before he got subjectedtostrainat
was asked whether he had suffered from orhad
wo. Petitioner passed the PEME prior to his
T work. He onlybegantoshowsymptomsofheart
boarding. He was declared fit to work by the ailment while already performing his work on been diagnosed withhypertension,hearttrouble,
company-designateddoctors.Hadpetitionerbeen board. Considering that petitioner was rheumaticfever,and/ordiabetesmellitus.Tothis
question, he indicated "no" in the form he was
already suffering from hypertension and asymptomatic prior to boarding and that his
coronary artery disease, this would have been symptoms persisted, it is reasonable to claim a made to answer.
reflected in his physical examination. causal relationship between petitioner's illness erona enunciated that passing a PEME is not
L
and his work as Able Seaman who was and cannot excuse willful concealment. Neither
ssuming that petitioner was indeed previously
A
diagnosed with hypertension or any constantly exposed to strenuous work. can it precluderejectionofdisabilityclaims.The
PEME is nothing more than a summary
cardiovascular disease, he still could not be erily, petitioner is entitled to total and
V
deemed guilty of material concealment. There permanentdisabilitybenefitsinaccordancewith examination of the seafarer's physiological
was absolutely no proof that he "deliberately condition; it merely determines whether one is
his employment contract.
"fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it
concealed" hisillnessforamaliciouspurpose;or
had "intent to deceive" and to "profit from that does not state the real state of health of an
deception." Consequently, he cannot be applicant.
illera v. United Philippine Lines2020
R
disqualified from claiming disability benefits on Lazaro-Javier, J. or not disclosing his previous diagnoses and
F
the ground of material concealment. treatment for hypertension and diabetes,
ere, petitioner fraudulently concealed his
H
hypertension and diabetes.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page62of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
etitioner is guilty of material concealment and
p iston lining when he started to exhibit limited
p ain. Toourmind,slippinginthebathroomfloor
p
is disqualified for any compensation and benefits. trunk motion due to pain. is not an unforeseen injurious occurrence that
could not be reasonably anticipated. We cannot
venassumingthatpetitionerhadapre-existing
E
back pain, there is no showing that he therefore consider the incident as an "accident"
ampued v. Next Wave Maritime Management
C within the contemplation of the POEA-SEC
"deliberately concealed" his condition for a
2021Lazaro-Javier, J. contract.
malicious purpose. It was not shown either that
ursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness shall
P he had the "intent to deceive" andto"profitfrom evertheless, petitioner suffered compensable
N
be considered as pre-existing if prior to the that deception." Consequently, petitioner cannot injury under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC. For
processing of the POEA contract, any of the be considered guilty of concealment as to an injury or disability to be compensable under
following conditions is present: disqualify him from claiming disability benefits. this provision, two (2) elements must concur:
a) t headviceofamedicaldoctorontreatment 1) t he injury or illness must bework-related;
was given for such continuing illness or and
condition; or
alera v. Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines2021
C
Lazaro-Javier, J. 2) t he work-related injury or illness must
b) t he seafarer had been diagnosed and has have existed during the term of the
knowledge ofsuchillnessorconditionbut
I s petitioner entitled to total and permanent seafarer's employment contract.
failed to disclose the same during the disability benefits?
ere, before actual boarding of the vessel,
H
PEME, and such cannot be diagnosed ection 1 (4) ofthe2010POEA-SECmandatesthe
S petitionerslippedinthebathroomofHolidayInn
during the PEME. principalemployertotakeprecautionstoprevent and suffered injury. This, by itself, is not
accidents and provide a safe working compensable. But when petitioner boarded his
hat the records revealisthatpetitionerpassed
W
the PEME prior to boarding respondents' vessel environment for the seafarer. assigned vessel, he immediately reported the
and was in fact declared fit to work by the nDecember5,2016,petitionerleftforCartagena,
O incidenttotheBosun,aswellastheexcruciating
company-designated physician. Also, prior to Colombia where he would board Hoegh Grace. pain and recurring numbness he had been
boarding respondents' vessel, petitioner had no Since he arrived earlier than his embarkation, experiencing on his lower back and extremity
impediment or restrictions in his actions due to respondentcheckedhiminattheHolidayInn.On after saidincident.Herequestedforpainreliever
jointormusclepaininanypartofhisbody.Itwas December 7, 2016, the dayofhisembarkation,he but was not given any. And instead of showing
only after the incident on board involving the slipped and fell on his buttocks while taking a compassion, his superiors ordered him to
shower, causing him excruciating lower back immediately get to work, making him carry
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page63of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
eavy baggage and cans of grease. These
h octors at Marine Medical Services for medical
d
he attendant circumstances here are similar to
T
circumstances show that the injury petitioner treatment.
Wallem and Status. When he arrived in the
suffered at Holiday Inn which would have
here was no categorical statement whether
T Philippines, petitioner was already ill and no
otherwisebeennotcompensablewasaggravated petitioner is fit or unfit to resume his work as a longer in good physical condition to go back to
by his work on board the vessel. seafarer. Too, no final and definite disability Manila for treatment. Immediately, petitioner
eirsofLicuananv.SingaShipManagement,Inc.
H rating was issued on him. was subjected to series of laboratory tests to
categorically held that it is not required that the properly diagnose his ailment. As in Status,
ore, the company-designated physicians
M
employment be the sole factor in the growth, themselves recommended that petitioner be petitioner's primary concern was his health
development, or acceleration of the illness to subjected to psychiatric evaluation and rather than physically strain himself just to
entitle the claimant to the benefits incident management and that his symptoms be report to Grieg PH. Infine,petitionerhadalready
thereto. It is enough that the employment had evaluated for disability grading. But as the PVA established his substantial compliance with the
contributed, even in a small measure, to the aptly found, nothing on record shows that first requirement of disability claim. He was
development of the disease. respondents acted on this recommendation. excused from the reporting requirement for he
was physically incapacitated to personally
Evidently, the Medical Reports are not complete
and final,therefore,thesameareinconclusiveas report.
uines v. United Philippine Lines2021
Q to petitioner's real health status. ection 20(A)(4) of the 2010 POEA-SEC creates a
S
Lazaro-Javier, J.
disputable presumption that illnesses not listed
hiledischarginghisdutiesonboardduringhis
W as an occupational disease in Section 32 are
last engagement, petitioner suffered chest pains, Caraan v. Grieg Philippines2021Lazaro-Javier, J. work-related. However, this disputable
shivering legs and arms, dizziness, headaches, presumptiondoesnotsignifyanautomaticgrant
eporting to the company within three (3) days
R
and difficulty in breathing. His blood pressure of compensation and/or benefits claim.
from repatriation is required so that the
was 170/100 mmHg. These all happened during Claimants for disability benefits must first
company-designated physician can promptly
the first week of March 2016 orthree(3)months dischargetheburdenofproving,withsubstantial
arriveatamedicaldiagnosis,consideringthathe
after he went on board Silver Ebuna. Thus, he evidence, that their ailmentwasacquiredduring
has either 120 or 240 days, depending on the
was medically repatriated for urgent treatment. the term of their contract. They must show that
circumstances, within which to complete the
OnApril1,2016,hearrivedinthePhilippinesand they experienced health problems while at sea,
assessment of the seafarer; otherwise, the
immediately went to the company-designated the circumstances under which they developed
disability claim should be granted.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page64of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he illness, as well as the symptoms associated octors beyond 120 or 240 days from their
d
here was nothing on record showing that the
T
with it. repatriation.
company-designated physician explained in
ere, petitioner was able to establish by
H detail the progress of petitioner's treatment and
substantial evidence that his illness was the approximate period needed for him to fully
compensable as it is work-connected and he agadia v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines
M recover.Instead,themedicalreportmerelystated
2019Lazaro-Javier, J.
suffered from it during the term of his contract, that petitioner suffered a disability grading of 11
especiallysowhenGriegPHfailedtoadduceany I spetitionerentitledtopermanenttotaldisability andthathehadreachedmaximummedicalcare.
evidence to refute his allegations. benefits? Clearly,thisishardlythe"definiteandconclusive
assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness
ased on the guidelines set forth in Orient Hope
B
to return to work" required by law.
Agencies, Inc. v . Jara, two (2) requisites must
emoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre
L concurforadeterminationofaseafarer'smedical hus,petitioner'sdisabilityisdeemedpermanent
T
Philippines2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
condition: and total by operation of law intheabsenceofa
an petitioner be declared as totally a
C nd final and definitive assessment from the
1) a
n assessment must be issued within the
permanently disabled by reason of h is company designated physician.
120/240 window, and
hypertension?
2) t he assessment must be final and
es.
Y Without a valid final and definitive definitive.
assessment from the company-designated alaugon v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils.2019
T
o be conclusive, company designated
T Lazaro-Javier, J.
doctors within the 120/240-day period, asinthis
case, the law already steps in to consider a physicians'medicalassessmentsorreportsmust ere,theMedicalReportcontainedthefollowing
H
seafarer's disability as total and permanent. By be complete and definite. A final and definite observations: "the prognosis of returning to (his)
operation of law, therefore, petitioner is already disability assessment is necessary in order to seadutiesisguarded"and"Ifpatientisentitledto
totally and permanently disabled. Besides, truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or a disability, his suggested disability grading is
jurisprudence grants permanent total disability injuries of theseafarerandhisorhercapacityto Grade 11 - slight rigidity or 1/3 loss of motion of
compensation to seafarers, who suffered from resume work as such. Otherwise, the lifting power of the trunk."
either cardiovascular diseases or hypertension, corresponding disability benefits awarded might
not be commensurate with theprolongedeffects his is hardly the "definite and conclusive
T
and were under the treatment of or even issued
assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness
fit-to-work certifications bycompany-designated of the injuries suffered.
to return to work" required by law from the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page65of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ompany-designated physician. For there was
c nlike "work-relatedness," no legal presumption
U s upplies in pantries, and exposure to extreme
nothing on record showing that the company of compensability is accorded totheseafarer.As temperature changes. Surely, under these
designated physician explained in detail the such, the seafarer bears the burden to prove prevailing conditions at work, petitioner's
progress of petitioner's treatment and the substantial evidence that the conditions of osteoarthritis could be considered as having
approximate period needed for him to fully compensability have been satisfied. This applies arisen in the courseofhisemploymenteitherby
recover. for both listed occupational disease and direct causationoraggravationduetothenature
non-listed illness. of his work.
onsequently, without a final and definitive
C
assessment from the company-designated I n Centennial Transmarine, Inc. V. Quiambao,
physician on petitioner's disability, the same is where the seafarer was diagnosed with
deemed permanent and total by operation of law. Osteoarthritis, the Court ruled that since the
Paglinawan v. Dohle Philman Agency, Inc.2022
seafarer's work involved carrying heavy loads etitioner is not entitled to permanent disability
P
t any rate, in disability compensation, it is not
A
the injury which is compensated, butratheritis andtheperformanceofotherstrenuousactivities, benefits.
the incapacity to work resulting in the it can reasonably be concluded that his work
ection 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC provides
S
causedoratleastaggravatedhisillness. DeLeon
impairment of one's earning capacity. Total that for an illness to be compensable, two
disability refers to an employee's inability to
v. Maunlad Trans., Inc. considered the
headwaiter's workasacontributoryfactorinthe elements must concur:
performhisorherusualwork.Itdoesnotrequire
development of his illness because he had 1. t he injury or illness mustbework-related;
total paralysis or complete helplessness.
already experienced its symptoms during his and
Permanent disability, on the other hand, is a
worker's inability to perform his or her job for employment contract with respondents therein
2. t he work-related injury or illness must
more than 120 days, or 240 days if the seafarer prior to his last employment contract with them. have existed during the term of the
required further medical attention justifying the ere, it cannot be denied that petitioner's work
H seafarer's employment contract.
extensionofthetemporarytotaldisabilityperiod, was contributory in causing or, at least,
he 2010 POEA-SEC defines a work-related
T
regardless of whether or not he loses the use of increasing the risk of contracting his illness. illness as any sickness as a result of an
any part of his body.
or one, a headwaiter's tasks involve carrying
F occupationaldiseaselistedunderSection32-Aof
heavy food provisions; cleaning the galley, this Contract with the conditions set therein
pantries,andstorerooms;washing,cleaningand satisfied.
estoso v. United Philippine Lines2019
S preparing tables; serving food; restocking
Lazaro-Javier, J. Section 20 (A) furtherprovidesthatillnessesnot
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page66of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l istedinSection32ofthisContractaredisputably hen not refuted by the seafarer's physician of
w ngage in sea duty or disability evenafter
e
presumed as work-related. own choice and a third doctor. thelapseofthe120-dayperiodandthereis
no indication that further medical
ection 32-A provides for the conditions of
S claim for total and permanent disability
A
treatment would address his temporary
compensability for listed occupational diseases: benefits may be considered prematurely filed if
there is no contrary opinion from the seafarer's total disability, hence, justify an extension
1. t he seafarer's work must involve risks of the period to 240 days;
physician of own choice, and a third doctor as
described therein;
required depending on the applicable scenario. 2. 40 days had lapsed without any
2
2. t he disease was contracted as a result of certification issued by the company
ere, petitioner did not have the required
H
the seafarer's exposure to the described designated physician;
risks; contrary opinion as he only availed of a second
opinion after he filed the complaint. Thus, 3. he
T company-designated physician
3. t hediseasewascontractedwithinaperiod petitioner's claim is premature. declared that he is fit for sea duty within
of exposure and under such other factors the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case
necessary to contract it; and I n sum, petitioner is not entitled to disability
benefitsforhisfailuretotimelyprocureasecond maybe,buthisphysicianofchoiceandthe
4. t here was no notorious negligence on the doctor chosen under Section20B(3)ofthe
physician's opinion, and for failing to show that
part of the seafarer. his illness is work-related or work-aggravated. POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
he seafarer mustprovebysubstantialevidence
T 4. he
T company-designated physician
that there is a reasonable causal connection acknowledged that he is partially
between his illness and the work for which he Singson v. Arktis Maritime2021 permanently disabled but other doctors
has been contracted. who he consulted, on his own and jointly
.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Taok, as
C
with his employer, believed that his
ere, petitioner failed to prove by substantial
H reiterated in Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management
disability is not only permanent but total
evidence the work-relatedness of his illness. Manila, distilled the principles laid down in
as well;
Records do not showhowhisworkinthevessel Vergara and clearly set out the conditions when
caused the development of his illness. On the anactionfortotalandpermanentdisabilitymay 5. he
T company-designated physician
other hand, the company-designated physician prosper: recognized that he is totally and
issuedamedicalreportwhichclearlystatedthat permanentlydisabledbutthereisadispute
1. he company-designated physician failed
T
petitioner'sillnessisnotwork-related.Thereport on the disability grading;
to issue a declaration as to his fitness to
of a company-designated physician is binding
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page67of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
6. he
T company-designated physician artI,RuleII(38)ofthe2003POEASeafarerRules
P owever, the employer may be exempted from
H
determined that his medical condition is defines "seafarer" by expressly including liability if he can successfully prove that the
not compensable or work-related under fishermen, cruise ship personnel and those seafarer'sdeathwascausedbyaninjurydirectly
thePOEA-SECbuthisdoctor-of-choiceand serving on foreignmaritimemobileoffshoreand attributable to his deliberate or willful act.
the third doctor selected under Section drilling units. Clearly, the intent was to exclude
20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise those employees working in non mobile vessels
and declared him unfit to work; or fixed structures from this definition. Kestrel Shipping Co. et al., v. Munar2013
7. he
T company-designated physician gga v. NLRC ruled that employees that have
A I fafterthelapseofthe120or240dayperiods,the
declared him totally and permanently nothing to do with manning vessels orwithsea seafarerisstillincapacitatedtoperformhisusual
disabled but the employer refuses to pay navigation are land-based workers. sea duties and the company- designated
him the corresponding benefits; and physicianhadnotyetdeclaredhimfittoworkor
ere, it is evident that Dominador, despite
H
8. he
T company-designated physician allegedly being a seafarer for 22 years, was not permanently disabled, whether total or
declared him partially and permanently engagedasaseafarerbutasaland-basedworker permanent, the conclusive presumption thatthe
disabled within the 120-day or 240-day in his latest employment contract with latter is totally and permanently disabled arises.
period but he remains incapacitated to petitioners. ON Munar is entitled to the maximum
W
performhisusualseadutiesafterthelapse compensation benefit as provided under the
hus, he is not entitled to any of the benefits
T
of said periods. reserved for seafarers underthelaw,suchasthe POEA Standard Employment Contract.
permanent and total disability benefits found in ES. Under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only
Y
the POEA-SEC. those injuriesordisabilitiesthatareclassifiedas
V People Manpower v. Buquid2021
Grade 1 may be considered as total and
onsidering the definition provided by law and
C permanent. However, if those injuries or
prevailing jurisprudence, Dominador cannot be reat Southern Maritime Service Corp., et al., v.
G disabilitieswithadisabilitygradingfrom2to14,
considered as a seafarer. Surigao hence,partialandpermanent,wouldincapacitate
he general rule is that the employerisliableto
T a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties
he capability of a vessel to engageinmaritime
T
pay the heirs of the deceased seafarer for death for a period of more than 120 or 240 days,
navigationiscrucialindeterminingwhetherone
benefitsonceitisestablishedthathediedduring depending on the need for further medical
can be considered as a "seaman."
the effectivity of his employment contract.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page68of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t reatment, then he is,underlegalcontemplation, r equirement.Work-relatedinjuryisdefinedasan orresponding impediment grade, r esort to
c
totally and permanently disabled. injury resulting in disability ordeatharisingout prognosis of other competent m edical
of and in the course of employment. professionals should be made.
I n addition, that it was by operation of law that
brought forth the conclusive presumption that n injury or accident is said to arise "in the
A ONunderSection20ofthesaidPOEA-SEC,the
W
Munaristotallyandpermanentlydisabled,there course of employment" disability of a seafarer can only be assessed by
is no legal compulsion for him to observe the
1. w
hen it takes place within the period of
the company-designated physician and not by
procedure prescribed under Section 20-B(3) of
the employment, the seafarer’s own doctor.
the POEA-SEC. A seafarer’s compliance with
2. a
t a place where the employee reasonably O. While it is the company-designated
N
such procedure presupposes that the physician who must declare that the seaman
company-designated physician cameupwithan may be, and
suffered a permanent disability during
assessment before the expiration of the 120-day 3. w
hile he is fulfilling his duties or is employment, it does not deprive the seafarer of
or 240-day periods. engaged in doing something incidental his right to seek a second opinion.
thereto.
he certification of the company-designated
T
t the time of the accident, AB Sy was onshore
A physician would defeat petitioner’s claim while
Sy v. Phil Transmarine Carriers Inc.2013
leave and there was no showing that he was theopinionoftheindependentphysicianswould
he qualification that death must be
T doing an act in relation to his duty asaseaman uphold such claim.Insuchasituation,theCourt
work-related has made it necessary to show a or engaged in the performance of any act adopts the findings favorable to petitioner. The
causalconnectionbetweenaseafarer’sworkand incidental thereto. Consequently, hisdeathcould law looks tenderly on the laborer.
his death to be compensable. Disability or death not be considered work-related to be
compensable. ON petitioner is entitled to disability benefits
W
must arise
based on the findings and conclusions, not only
1) out of employment, AND ofhispersonaldoctors,butalsoonthefindingsof
2) in the course of employment. azareno v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc.2013
N the doctors whom he consulted abroad.
ON Sy is entitled to death benefits under the
W En Banc ES. The medical certificate issued by Dr.
Y
POEA Standard Contract. I f serious doubt exists on the Campana cannot be given much weight and
company-designated physician's declaration of considerationagainsttheoverwhelmingfindings
O. Under the A
N mended P
OEA Contract,
the nature of a seaman's injury and its and diagnoses of different doctors, here and
work-relatedness i s now a n important
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page69of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
broad, that petitioner was not fit for work and
a
etitioner's working environment as chef
P
f orfeiture of his right to claim benefits
can no longer perform his duties as a seafarer. thereunder.
constantly exposed him to factors that could
aggravate his heart condition. izon’s coronary artery disease which rendered
D
him unfit for sea duty was diagnosed during a
Austria v. Crystal Shipping2016 ompensabilityofanailmentdoesnotdependon
C
whethertheinjuryordiseasewaspre-existingat pre-employmentmedicalexaminationandnotin
re-existence of an illness does not irrevocably
P the time of the employment but rather if the a post-employment medical examination as
bar compensability because disability laws still disease or injury is work-related or aggravated provided by law.
grant the same provided seafarer's working his condition. It is not necessary, inorderforan
conditions bear causal connection with his employee to recover compensation,thathemust
illness. have been in perfect condition or health at the
uizora v. Denholm Crew Management2011
Q
re Pre-Employment Medical Examination
ON Austria was entitled to permanent
W time he received the injury, or that he be free
disability benefits despite his pre-existing from disease. EME is NOT exploratory in nature. It was not
P
condition. intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough
examination ofanapplicant’smedicalcondition.
ES. For an occupational disease and the
Y
Dizon v. Naess Shipping Phils2016 The PEMEmerelydetermineswhetheroneis"fit
resulting disability or death to be compensable,
to work" at sea or"fitforseaservice,"itdoesnot
all of the following conditions must be satisfied: hethree-dayperiodfromreturnoftheseafarer
T
state the real state of health of an applicant. In
1. T heseafarer'sworkmustinvolvetherisks or sign-offfromthevessel,whethertoundergoa
short, the "fit to work" declaration in the
described herein; post-employment medical examinationorreport
respondent’s PEME cannot beaconclusiveproof
the seafarer's physical incapacity,shouldalways
2. T he disease was contracted as a result of to show that he was free fromanyailmentprior
be complied with to determine whether the
the seafarer's exposure to the described to his deployment.
injury or illness is work-related.
risks;
WON Dizon is entitled to disability benefits.
3. T he disease was contracted within a
O. The law specifically declares that failure to
N oroteo v. Philimare, Inc2017
D
period of exposure and under such other re Clear Nexus Rule
factors necessary to contract it; and comply with the mandatory reporting
requirement shall result in the seafarer's ere,thereisnoclearnexusbetweenthedisease
H
4. T here was no notoriousnegligenceonthe Doroteo acquired and the working conditions he
part of the seafarer.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page70of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ncountered.
e Therefore, the disputable ourt held that under Section 32-A of the POEA
C onnection with the illness or injury
c
presumption of work-relation cannot be applied, Standard Employment Contract, colon cancer is suffered during the seafarer’s contract.
since based on the evidence presentedtheCourt considered a work-related disease. This Court
I ntheabsenceoftheseconditions,theemployers
cannot reasonably conclude that his work asan explainedthattheseamanisentitledtodisability remain liable for work-related injury or illness
engineer in the engine room led to Dorotea's benefitsiftheseamanprovesthattheconditions consistent with their duties to provide a
throat cancer. inside the vessel increased or aggravated the seaworthy ship and to take precautions to avoid
riskof the seaman of colon cancer. the seafarer’s accident.
eoncio v. MST Marine Services2017
L
re Medical Procedure Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew2022 Marlow Navigation Phils. v. Heirs of Beato2022
othing can be plainer than the meaning of the
N onsistent with the constitutional policy
C he late Antonio's pancreatic cancer is not
T
word "illness" as referring to a disease or injury guaranteeingthefullprotectionoflabor,the2010 work-related and therefore, not compensable.
afflicting a person's body. By the doctrine of POEA-SEC provisions must be construed fairly,
noscitorasociis,"condition"likewisereferstothe ince Antonio was employed in 2012, Section
S
reasonably, and liberally in favor of the seafarer.
state of one's health. Neither of these words 20-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC applies in
refers to a medical procedure undergone by a he Court laid down the following conditions
T determining thefactualissuesofcompensability
seafarer in connection with an "illness or that must be complied with before an employer of his pancreatic cancer, and compliance with
condition" already known to the employer. can be freed from liability for a seafarer’s thePOEA-SECprescribedprocedurefordisability
disability arising from apre-concealedillnessor determination.
hus, the employer cannot validly decry his
T injury:
supposed concealment and fraudulent ntonio failed to comply with the procedures
A
misrepresentationofLeoncio'sillnessonaccount 1. T
he seafarer is suffering from a prescribed under the POEA-SEC, particularly
of the non-disclosure of the stenting procedure. pre-existing illness or injury as defined Section 20-A (3),paragraph3,whichrequiresthe
under Item 11(b) of the 2010 POEA-SEC; seafarer must submit himself to a
2. T
he seafarer intentionally concealed the post-employment medical examination within
ebsens Maritime v. Alcibar2019
J illness or injury; and three daysupon his return.
re Theory of Aggravation
3. T
he concealed p re-existing i llness or henhewasaskedtoreportbackforafollow-up
W
In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, this injury has a causal or reasonable check-up, not only did Antonio fail to do so, he
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page71of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
lso failed to notify in writing Marlow or Dr.
a illness is work-related.
I n sum, the late Antonio's pancreatic cancer is
Hosaka thathehadalreadygonehometoAklan. not work-related andtherefore,notcompensable owever, the three-day reporting requirement is
H
All that Antonio or his family had to do was because he or his heirs failed to prove, by not absolute. Paragraph 3, Section 20 (B) of the
makeawrittennotificationofhishospitalization, substantial evidence, its work-relatedness and POEA-SEC also provides that a seafarer who is
or his physical incapacity to report back to the hiscompliancewiththeparametersthatthelaw physically incapacitated to report for a
company-designated physician. has set out with regard to claims for disability post-employment examination may send a
aragraph 4 of the same section further states
P and death benefits. written notice to its agency within the same
that if the doctor selected by the seafarer period.
disagrees with the assessment of the
ere, Cabatan was repatriated due to the
H
company-designated physician, the parties may Cabatan v. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp.2022 expirationofhiscontract.Regardlessofthecause
jointly appoint a third doctor whose decision of his repatriation, he was required to submit
abatan's claim for disability benefits and other
C
shall be final and binding on both parties. himself to a post-employment medical
monetary awards prayed for by him must be
lso, pancreatic cancer is not an occupational
A denied. examination by the company-designated
disease. physician within three working days upon his
I n order to claim compensability under the
return in order to ascertain if he was really
ntonio failed to prove that h
A is illness is forgoing section, it is required that the seafarer
compensable as he failed to satisfy all the suffering from a work-related injury or illness.
must have:
conditions under Section 32-A.
1. s uffered a work-related illness or injury
1. ntonioorhisheirsdidnotenumeratehis
A during the term of his contract; and Benhur Shipping v. Riego2022
specific duties as an Able Seaman;
2. s ubmitted himself to a mandatory or a company-designated physician to avail of
F
2. hey did notshowthathisdutiesortasks
T post-employment medical examination the extended 240-day period, he or she must
caused, contributed to the developmentof, within three (3) working days upon his perform some complete or definite medical
or aggravated his pancreatic cancer; arrival. assessment toshowthattheillnessstillrequires
3. here was no mention of the specific
T ebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag explained that
J medical attendance beyond the120days,butnot
substancesorchemicalswhichheclaimed thepurposeofthethree-daymandatoryreporting to exceed 240 days. In such case, the temporary
he was exposedtoduringhisemployment requirementistoenablethecompany-designated total disability periodisextendedtoamaximum
contract. physician to ascertain if the seafarer's injury or of 240 days. Without sufficient justification for
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page72of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t heextensionofthetreatmentperiod,aseafarer’s seafarer finds it disagreeable. abalot's disability as total and permanent.
M
disability shall be conclusively presumed to be Held Mabalotremainedinneedofmedicalattention,a
permanent and total. sufficient justification for the extension of the
abalot is not entitled to permanent total
M 120-day period to the maximum period of 240
I f thecompany-designatedphysicianstillfailsto disability benefits.
give his assessment within the extended period days in order for the company-designated
of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability I f a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees physician to make a complete assessmentofhis
becomes permanent and total, regardless of any with the assessment, a third doctor may be injury and recommendtheappropriatedisability
agreed jointly between the Employer and the rating,ifany.InsteadofheedingtheadviceofDr.
justification.
seafarer.Thethirddoctor'sdecisionshallbefinal Alegre, Mabalot opted to consult Dr. Jacinto.
I t is the duty of the seafarer to notify his and binding on both parties.
employer that he or she intends to refer the n even date, or 142 days after his medical
O
conflict to a third doctor. Once notified, the s case law holds, a final and definite disability
A repatriation but within 240 days therefrom,
burden shifts to the employer to complete the assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect MabalotfiledtheComplaint.Mabalot'sComplaint
the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the was prematurely filed as hiscauseofactionhad
process of referral to a third doctor. When the
employer fails to act on the seafarer’s valid seafarer and his or her capacity to resumework yet to accrue. The company-designated doctor
requestforreferraltoathirddoctor,thetribunals as such. The law steps in and considers the stillhadaremainingperiodwithinwhichtogive
and courts are empowered to conduct its own seafarer'sdisabilityastotalandpermanentwhen his definitive assessment.
assessment to resolve the conflicting medical the company-designatedphysicianfailstoarrive he rule is that while a seafarer hastherightto
T
opinions. at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness seektheopinionofotherdoctors,suchrightmay
to work or permanent disability within the be availed of on the presumption that the
prescribed periods and if the seafarer's medical company-designateddoctorhadalreadyissueda
Mabalot v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing2021 condition remains unresolved. definite declaration on the medical condition of
ere, the Grade 11 disability rating given by Dr.
H the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it
Doctrinal Rule
Alegre on February 2, 2012, or 110 days from disagreeable. Given the lackofcertificationfrom
hileaseafarerhastherighttoseektheopinion
W Mabalot's repatriation, was merely an interim the company-designated doctor, Mabalot cannot
of other doctors, such rightmaybeavailedofon diagnosis. The failure of Dr. Alegre to issue a rely on the assessment made by his own doctor.
the presumption that the company-designated completeanddefinitemedicalassessmentwithin ence, the appellate court was correct in
H
doctor had already issued a definite declaration the 120-day period did not automatically render reinstating the ruling of the LA which awarded
on the medical conditionoftheseafarer,andthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page73of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
abalot compensation corresponding only to
M jointly between the employer and the seafarer, octor, stating that his illness was work-related,
d
Grade 11 disability rating. whosedecisionshallbefinalandbindingonboth was only issued about 30 months after his
parties.Failuretocomplytherewithisconsidered examination by the company-designated
a breach of the POEA-SEC, and renders the physician.
Idul v. Alster Int'l Shipping Services2021 assessment by the company-designated
hus, De Jesus is not entitled to disability
T
physician binding on the parties. benefits for his failure to validly and timely
he CA correctly concluded that a temporary
T
total disability only becomes permanentwhen hus, Dr. Chuasuan's assessment of a Grade 10
T question thefindingsofthecompany-designated
disability, which was a result of months of physician declaring his disability not
1. t he company-designated physician
consultations, examinations, and treatments, work-related or aggravated, and in view of the
declares it to be so within the 240-day
prevails. valid quitclaim which he himself executed
period; or
relinquishing all his rights against the
2. henafterthelapseofthe240-dayperiod,
w respondents.
the company-designated physician failsto e Jesus v. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises
D
make such declaration. 2021
ere, the medical reports issued by Dr. Lim and
H etitioner forfeited his right to claim any
P MS Crew Management Philippines v. Bauzon
E
Dr. Chuasuan reveal that Idul was examined, 2021
disability benefit.
treated, and rehabilitated for about seven (7) auzon's ailment is work-related and
B
he Medical Report issued by Dr. Urlanda of
T
months. Dr. Chuasuan's assessment of Idul's compensable; he is thus entitled to permanent
YGEIAMedicalClinicdeclaredpetitioner'sillness
disability grading was issued on the 207th day, and total disability benefits.
as not work-related. Although petitioner alleged
and therefore, well within the 240-day period.
that he did not receive a copy of the saidreport, auzon, as an Able Seaman on board thevessel,
B
Idul'sconditiondidnotbecomeapermanenttotal
the same was unsubstantiated by evidence. He was exposed to harsh sea weather, chemical
disability just by the mere lapse of the 120-day
never questioned the findingsofDr.Urlandaand irritants, dusts, heat, stress brought about by
period, especially since the extension was
her recommendation. At that point, petitioner being away from his family, long hoursofwork,
necessary for his rehabilitation.
clearly forfeited his right to claim any disability andlimitedanduncleanair/oxygen,allofwhich
nder Sec 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, if a
U benefit. invariablycontributedtohisillness.Therewasat
doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with least a reasonable connection between his job
hilepetitionerallegedlyconsultedhispersonal
W
the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed andhiscontractingthethroatailmentduringhis
doctors,theMedicalCertificateissuedbyhisown
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page74of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
mployment, which eventually developed into
e Destriza is not entitled to the award of US$20K. ille is not entitled to total and permanent
V
papillary cancer. disability benefits.
ection 20 of Memorandum Circular No. 9
S
oreover,petitionersassumedtheriskofliability
M provides that for an illness or injury to be contract between an employer and a seafarer
A
when Bauzon was re-hired and issued a compensable, it must be work-related and must ceases upon its completion, when the seafarer
fit-to-work certificationdespiteknowledgeofhis be incurred during the term of the seafarer's signs off fromthevesselandarrivesatthepoint
existing medical condition. Bauzon's contract. of hire. Thus, upon Ville's signing off from the
employment had contributedtothedevelopment vessel and repatriation due to the completion of
helistunderSec32-AdoesnotincludeChronic
T
of his illness, even if it was pre-existing at the CalculusCholecystitis.However,Section20ofMC his contract, his employment relationship with
time of his employment. the respondents correspondingly ceased.
No. 9 provides that "those illnesses not listed in
Consequently, no liability should attach to the
allemMaritimeServices,Inc.v.NLRC hasheld
W Section 32 of this Contract are disputably
thatitisnotrequiredthattheemploymentbethe presumed as work-related." respondents for any illness or incident thatmay
sole factor in the growth, development or have been acquired or transpireaftersigningoff
ince Chronic Calculus Cholecystitis and even
S or expiration of his contract, as in this case.
acceleration of the illness toentitletheclaimant contracting of gallstones are not included in
tothebenefitsprovidedtherefor.Itisenoughthat ven on the assumption that Ville's illness is
E
Section32-AofMCNo.9,Destrizahadtheburden
theemploymenthadcontributed,eveninasmall work-related and that the same was acquired
of establishing, by substantial evidence, that his
degree, to the development of the disease. If the illness was work-related or was at least on-boardandduringthetermofhisemployment
disease is the proximate cause, the previous contract,hissuitfordisabilitybenefitswouldstill
aggravated by work. However, Destriza failed to
physical condition of the employee is failduetohisnon-compliancewiththethree-day
establish work-relatedness relative to his illness.
unimportant and recovery may be had therefor reportorial requirement upon repatriation.
independent of any pre- existing disease. s the CA correctly found, the PVA has erred in
A
awardingUS$20Kontopofthemedicalexpenses ere,Villeneverreportedtohisemployerthathe
H
ere, Bauzon's duties and responsibilities as an
H alreadyshoulderedbyFSC.Inaddition,Destriza's
was suffering from an ailment while on board
Able Seaman, coupled with the constricted diet Adrian Maersk. He did not submit himself for
failure to resort to a third-doctor opinion proved
among seafarers, contributed to the aggravation post-employment medical examination within
fatal to his cause.
and development of his ailment. three working days after disembarkation.
dditionally, he did not secure the medical
A
Ville v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing2021 opinion of the company-designated physician
Destriza v. Fair Shipping Corporation2021 before consulting his own doctor in accordance
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page75of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ith Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.
w s ea duties should not be taken against
2. " permanently and totally disabled," which
Withouttheseassessments,hissuitfordisability petitioners.
then entitles him to permanent total
benefits was filed prematurely.
I n sum, respondent is not entitled to total and disability benefits.
permanent disability benefits.
recommendation to undergo surgery does not
A
C.F. Sharp Crew Management v. Jaicten2021 necessarily prove that petitioner was not fit to
work. Rather, such recommendation merely
aicten is not entitled to permanent total
J Singson v. Arktis Maritime2021 proves that further medical treatment is needed.
disability benefits. onnie is not entitled to the award of total and
R ere, the records show that there was no
H
s
A between the findings of the permanent disability benefits. declarationastopetitioner'sfitnesstoworkoras
company-designated physicians who conducted tothepermanentandtotalstatusofhisdisability
he mere lapse of the 120-day period under
T
extensive examination on respondent, on one Article 198(c)(l) of the Labor Code does not within the 120-day period. However, since
hand,andDr.Vicaldo,ontheother,whosawhim automatically give rise to a cause of actionfora petitioner's sickness required medical treatment
on only one occasion and did not even perform beyond the 120-day period, the temporary total
claim of permanent total disability benefits.
any medical test to support his assessment, the disabilityperiodwasextendeduptoamaximum
former's should prevail. hen a certain sickness or injury causes a
W
of240days.Theevidenceonrecordwouldreveal
temporary and total disability which lasts
oreover, Jaicten's signing of the Certificate of
M that petitioner was declared as asymptomatic
continuously for more than 120 days, then such
Fitness to Work effectively released petitioners and fit to work 134 days after the onset of the
total disability is considered to be permanent.
from any liability arising from his repatriation disability, well within the 240-day period.
due to medicalreasons.Also,Dr.Vicaldohimself owever, as an exception to this rule, if thesaid
H
herefore, petitioner cannot claim permanent
T
didnotdeclarerespondententitledtopermanent sickness or injury that caused the temporary
total disability benefits and is only entitled to
andtotaldisabilitybenefitsorGradeIbutonlyto total disability requires medical treatment
temporary total disability benefits until the time
disability benefits equivalent to Grade VII. beyond the 120-day period but nottoexceed240
when he was declared to be fit to work.
days, then the employee is only entitled to
urther, respondent failed to comply with the
F temporary total disability benefits until he is
third-doctor referral procedure before filing his
declared as either:
complaint which proved prejudicial to his case. hilippine Transmarine Carriers v. San Juan
P
Lastly, the fact that Jaicten was not employed 1. " fittowork,"whichstopshisentitlementto 2020
immediately after he was declared fit to resume disability benefits; or
San Juan is not entitled to his claim for
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page76of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
permanent and total disability benefits. tanyrate,thecertificationissuedbySanJuan's
A
enefits arise from the agreement(CBA,in
b
relation to the POEA-SEC) between the
herulingoftheCAisseriouslyflawedasitwas
T physician cannot prevail over theconclusionsof
rendered in flagrant disregard of established PTCI's company-designated physicians. seafarer and the employer,whichprovides
thattheemployerhastheobligationtopay
rules on permanent disability compensation.
he company-designated physicians were in a
T death benefits upon the seafarer's death
ere, the company-designated physiciansissued
H better position to assess the illness or disability during employment.
SanJuan’sfit-to-workcertifications89daysafter of San Juan consideringthattheirfindingswere
repatriation, which is well within the 120-day based on a number of tests i.e., stress test and 3. T
hus, the prescriptive period for claiming
period provided under Section 20(B)(3) of the CranialMRI,andmedicalevaluationdoneonSan death benefits under the CBA and the
2000POEA-SEC.Ashewasdeclaredfittoresume Juan. POEA-SEC startstorunfromtheseafarer's
death.
sea duties, there was, therefore, no basis for San
Juan to claim total and permanent disability 4. L
ike any other causes of action, the
benefits from PTCI. One Shipping v. Heirs of Abarrientos2022 prescriptive period for money claims is
subject to interruption. The prescriptionof
otably,thecomplaintwasalsoprematurelyfiled
N ursuanttoArticle1150oftheNewCivilCode,the
P
since at that time, San Juan was not yet armed an action is interrupted by
prescriptive period for claiming death benefits
with a medical certificate from his physician of under the CBA and the POEA-SEC starts to run a. a
claimfiledattheproperjudicialor
choice. from the seafarer's death. quasi-judicial forum;
ettledistherulethatwhenaseafarersustainsa
S I. W
ON respondents' claim was seasonably b. a
written extrajudicial demand by
work-related illness orinjurywhileonboardthe filed. the creditor; and
vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be
1. N
O. Respondents' claim is already barred c. a
written acknowledgment of the
determined by the company-designated
by prescription. debt by the debtor.
physician,andthatincaseofconflictingmedical
assessments, referral to a third doctor is 2. A
rticle 1150oftheNewCivilCodeprovides 5. N
one of these conditionsispresentinthis
mandatory; and that in the absence of a third that the time for prescription for all kinds case.
doctor's opinion, it is the medical assessment of of actions, when there is no special II. W
ON Ricardo's death was compensable
the company-designated physician that should provision which ordains otherwise, shall under the CBA and the POEA-SEC.
prevail. be counted from the day they may be
1. NO. Ricardo's death is not compensable
brought. Claims for seafarers' death
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page77of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
under the CBA and the POEA-SEC. 6. N
either was Ricardo's death the result of a
as merely based on surmises and not
w
2. I n order to avail of death benefits underthe supported by substantial evidence.
work-related illness. Respondents merely
CBA, thus, the death of the seafarer should made unsubstantiated sweeping assertions
occur while in the employment of the of stress due to being away fromthefamily
company.ThePOEA-SECismoreexactingas and long hours of work to support their Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc.2022
it requires,notonlythattheseafarer'sdeath claim that there is a reasonable causal he seafarers' intentional concealment of
T
occur during employment, but it must also connection between Ricardo's job and the pre-existing illnesses bars their claim for
resultfromawork-relatedinjuryorsickness illness that caused his death. disability benefits following Section 20(E) of the
for it to be compensable. 7. R 2010 POEA-SEC. However, the applicability of
azonable, Jr. v. Torm Shipping Phils., Inc.,
3. J
urisprudence has been liberal in clarified that while the Court acknowledges Section 20(E) should be limited to the disability
considering a post-contract death suchgeneralperilsencounteredbyseafarers resulting from the concealed illness.
compensable under the POEA-SEC if such at sea, such acknowledgment is not proof ON there is material concealment of a
W
death was proven to be caused by a that the illness or injury suffered by the pre-existing illness as contemplated bythe2010
work-related injury or illness for which the seafarerandtheresultingdeathordisability POEA-SEC; and Section 20(E) of the 2010
seafarer was medically-repatriated. are compensable. Claimants of death POEA-SEC is applicable because Mutia failed to
benefits has the burden to prove by disclosehispriorearillness,anunrelatedillness
4. R
icardo was no longer under petitioner's
substantial evidence that the seafarer's tohispresentclaimfordisabilitybenefits,inthe
employatthetimeofhisdeath.Hiscontract
of employment ceased when he arrived in death occurred during employment and/or PEME.
the Philippines, and he died 195 days resultedfromawork-relatedinjuryorillness
1. N
O. Mutia's acute otitis media does not fall
thereafter. There is also no showing that to establish their entitlement to the benefits.
under any of the conditions mentioned
Ricardowasmedically-repatriatedforhimto 8. H
ere, there was nothing on record,noteven constituting a pre-existing illness.
beconsideredstill"intheemployment"after inthediagnosesofRicardo'spersonaldoctor,
2. E
lburg Shipmanagement Phils. v. Quiogue,
repatriation. that will show the reasonable link between
Jr., set the following rules governing a
the duties discharged by Ricardo as Chief
5. T
here is absolutely no basis to liberally seafarer's claim for permanent total
Officer and the risk factors of pancreatic
consider Ricardo's post-contract demise as disability benefits, the periodtoissueafinal
death "while in the employment." cancer/liver cirrhosis.
medical assessment, and the effect of
9. In all, respondents' claim of compensability noncompliance with the period:
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page78of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e inapplicable because Mutia's prior ear
b
2.1. T he company-designated physician 7.3. t he concealed pre-existing illness or
mustissueafinalmedicalassessment illness is unrelated to his present medical injury has a causal or reasonable
on the seafarer's disability grading conditions. There is no proof that the ear connection with the illness or injury
within a period of 120 days from the condition,acute otitis media, caused or
suffered during the seafarer's contract.
aggravated Mutia's "L5-S1 desiccation with
time the seafarer reported to him; 8. I n the absence of these conditions, the
annular tear," "Multiple Sclerosis," "Blurring
2.2. I f the company-designated physician of Vision," and "Neuromyelitis optica" employers remain liable for work-related
failstogivehisassessmentwithinthe becausetherespondentsdidnotissueafinal injury or illness consistentwiththeirduties
period of 120 days, without any medical assessment and did not even to provide a seaworthy ship and to take
justifiable reason, then the seafarer's examine Mutia's ear. precautions to avoid the seafarer's accident,
disability becomes permanent and injury, or sickness.
total. 6. A
review of cases where the Court has
disallowed disability claims due to
3. H
ere, the respondents stopped paying for fraudulent misrepresentation of a prior
Mutia's treatment without issuing a final Skanfil Maritime Services v. Centeno2022
injury or illness would show that the
medical assessment. More than 120 days seafarers' concealed prior injuries or medical assessment that is not complete and
A
lapsed from the day Mutia was repatriated, illnesses were related to their pending definite must be ignored. The seafarer has
butnofinalmedicalassessmentwasissued. disability claims for injury or illness. nothing to contest in the absence of a final and
Following Elburg, Mutia's disability, or the validmedicalassessment.Theconflictresolution
inabilitytoworkresultingintheimpairment 7. I n sum, Section 20(E) of the 2010POEA-SEC
mechanism of referring the findings of the
of earning capacity, is deemed permanent is applicable if the following conditions are
company-designated physician to the seafarer's
and total. met:
physician of choice is unnecessary.
4. I tem11(a)ofthe2010POEA-SECdefinitionof 7.1. t he seafarer is suffering from a
ON Almario is entitled to permanent total
W
pre-existing illness or injury as
terms is not applicable because it disability benefits, moral and exemplary
presupposes that the seafarer is advised to defined under Item 11 (b) of the 2010
damages, and attorney's fees.
undergotreatmentforacontinuingillnessor POEA-SEC,
1. Y
ES. The company-designated physicians
condition. 7.2. t he seafarer intentionally concealed
failed to issue a valid medical assessment
the illness or injury,
5. Section20(E)ofthe2010POEA-SECwillstill within 120daysfromAlmario'srepatriation.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page79of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onsequently, Almario's disability
C is inalReportwasissuedonFebruary7,2014,
F
2.4. I f the CDP still fails to give his
considered permanent and total. or eight days beyond the prescribed period.
assessment within the extended
2. E However, the company-designated
lburgShipmanagementPhil.,Inc.v.Quioge, period of 240days,thentheseafarer's
Jr. summarized the rules on the prescribed disability becomes permanent and physicians failed to justify why the
period for the company-designated total, regardless of any justification. assessment must be issued beyond 120 days.
physician to issue a final medical 7. F
ollowing Elburg, Almario's disability is
3. P
astranav.BahiaShippingServicesclarified
assessment and the consequence forfailure thatthe120daysmustbereckonedfromthe deemed permanentandtotaluponthelapse
to observe these periods: date of the seafarer's repatriation.
of 120 days. Moreover, the 10th and Final
2.1. T Report is not final and valid medical
he company-designated physician 4. R
azonable v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc.
(CDP) must issue a final medical assessment. It did not categorically state
reiteratedthatthemedicalassessmentmust that Almario is fit to work.
assessmentontheseafarer'sdisability be final, conclusive, and definite. The
grading within a period of 120 days 8. I n Lemoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre
assessment must clearly state whether the
from the time theseafarerreportedto seafarer is fittowork,ortheexactdisability Philippines, Inc., a medical assessment
him; rating, or whether such illness is
stating that the "petitioner's blood pressure
is adequately controlled with medications,"
2.2. I ftheCDPfailstogivehisassessment work-related and without any further
within theperiodof120days,without and "patient is nowclearedcardiacwise,"is
condition or treatment.
considered too generic and equivocal on
any justifiable reason, then the
5. A
mpo-on v. Reinier Pacific International whether the seafarer has a clean bill of
seafarer's disability becomes
Shipping, Inc. held that a medical health.
permanent and total; assessmentthatisnotcompleteanddefinite
9. C
onsequently, Almario's disability is
2.3. I ftheCDPfailstogivehisassessment mustbeignored.Theseafarerhasnothingto
within the period of 120 days with a contest in the absence of a final and valid considered permanent and total.
sufficient justification,thentheperiod medical assessment.
of diagnosis and treatment shall be
6. H
ere, the company-designated physicians Junio v. Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc.2022
extended to 240 days. The employer had until January 30, 2014, to issue the
has the burden to prove that the CDP assessment unless there was a justifiable henever confronted by a positive assertion
W
has sufficient justification to extend fromtheseafarerthathewasabletocomplywith
reason to extend the period. The 10th and
the period; and the three (3)-day obligation to report to the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page80of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
anning agency but was not r eferred to a
m i nside the vessel's engine room. He
4. I t is undisputed that Celestino reported to
company-designated physician and a plain underwent a brain MRI and was later Pacific Manning within two (2) days from
denial of the manning agency, the s eafarer's diagnosed with posterior retinae partial repatriation. He asserted that he asked to
position is entitled more weight. tear, among other illnesses.
be referred to a company-designated
bsent a valid certification from the
A II. W
ON he complied with the three (3)-day physician but his request was rejected.
company-designated physician, the seafarer has mandatory reporting requirement. 5. W
henever confronted by a positive
nothing to contest and the law steps in to 1. Y
ES. Celestino complied with the three assertion from the seafarer that he was
conclusively consider his disability as total and (3)-day mandatory reporting requirement able to comply with the three (3)-day
permanent. under the POEA-SEC. obligationtoreporttothemanningagency
I. WON Celestino was medically repatriated. 2. A but was not referred to a
seafarer may claim disability benefits
1. Y company-designatedphysicianandaplain
ES. Celestino was repatriated because of arising from
denial of the manning agency, the
medical reasons and not due to end of
a. a
ninjuryorillnessthatmanifestsor seafarer's position is entitled more weight.
contract. is discovered during the term of the
2. H 6. H
ere, it is apparent that respondents did
e was only on the 8th month of his seafarer's contract, which is usually
contract when he was repatriated to the while the seafarer is still on board not refer Celestino to the
company-designated physician even
Philippines. Absent any justification why the vessel or
the contract was pre-terminated,Celestino though he reported to their office two (2)
b. a
n illness that manifests or is days after his arrival. Respondents'
wasnotsenthomeduetotheexpirationof discovered after the contract, which inaction is consistent with their main
his contract. is when the seafarer has defense that Celestino disembarked dueto
3. A
seafarer'sdisembarkationduetomedical disembarked from the vessel. end of contract.
reasons is amongthevalidgroundstoend
3. I f the illness or injury falls under the first 7. I nterorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v.
a duty or terminate employment under
scenario, as in this case, the procedure on Remo held that the absence of a
Section 18 of the POEA-SEC. Here, the how the seafarer can legally demand and
existence of Celestino's medical condition post-employment medical examination
claim disability benefits from the cannot be usedtodefeataseafarer'sclaim
was established by the incident report
employer/manning agency is found in especially when the failure to satisfy this
showing that he was found unconscious
Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. requirement was not due to his fault but
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page81of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ecause of the inadvertence or deliberate
b of this Resolution until fully satisfied.
4.1. A
fter that, the seafarer may consult
refusal of the employer.
his owndoctortodisputethefindings
III. W
ON his medical condition is considered of the company-designated physician.
work-related and compensable. Bacabac v. Nyk-Fil Shipmanagement Inc.2021
4.2. I f the findings of the
1. Y
ES. Celestino's medical condition is company-designated physician and hat the POEA-SEC requires is for thecompany
W
work-related and is compensable. the seafarer's doctor of choice are physician to justify the assessment using the
conflicting,thematteristhenreferred medical findings he had gathered during his
2. B
ased on Section 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC,
to a third doctor,whosefindingsshall treatment of the seafarer. A bare claim that the
therearetwo(2)elementsoncompensability
be binding on both parties. illness is notwork-related,orthattheseafareris
of a seafarer's injury or illness:
fitforseadutiesisinsufficient.TheCourtwillnot
2.1. t he injury or illness 5. H
ere, since there was no medical
must be hesitate to strike down an incomplete, and
assessment issued by a company doctor,
work-related; and doubtfulmedicalreportofthecompanyphysician
Celestino has no obligation to secure the
2.2. t hat the work-related injuryorillness and disregard the improvidently issued
opinion of his own doctor and is deemed
must have existed during the term of assessment.
totally and permanently disabled as of the
the seafarer's employment contract. date of the expiration of the 120-day period ON Joemar is entitled to total and permanent
W
3. H
ere, Celestino suffered from an illness counted from his repatriation. disability benefits and sickness allowance since
during the term ofhisemploymentcontract hecontractedhisillnessduringtheeffectivityof
6. A
bsent a valid certification from the
as his condition was not the same aswhen his employment contract and is presumed
company-designated physician, the seafarer
he boarded MCT Monte Rosa. work-related.
has nothing to contest and the law steps in
4. W
ith regard to the element of to conclusively consider his disability as 1. Y
ES.Joemarproperlyfiledhiscomplaintfor
work-relatedness, it is required that after total and permanent. payment of permanent and total disability
medical repatriation, the benefits against the respondents.
7. T
hus, thegrantofpermanenttotaldisability
company-designated physician must assess benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney's 2. V
entis Maritime Corporation v. Salenga
the seafarer's condition and determine his fees are warranted. Further, the total clarified that a seafarer's complaints for
fitness to work or the degree of disability monetary award shall earn legal interest of disability benefits arise from
within 120 days or 240 days. sixpercent(6%)perannumfromthefinality 2.1. injury or illness that manifests or is
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page82of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iscovered during the term of the
d t he company physician arrived at his and permanent.
seafarer's contract, which is usually conclusion that the illness is not
while the seafarer is on board the work-related. There is no other document
vessel or submitted to support such finding. Worse, PAL Maritime Corporation v. Dalisay2021
the company doctor made such report only
2.2. i llnessthatmanifestsorisdiscovered seafarer who is guilty of fraudulent
A
after the contract, which is usually two days after Joemar was medically
concealment in the PEME is disqualified from
after the seafarer has disembarked repatriated. More telling is Joemar's
claiming"any"compensationandbenefitswhich
continued hospital confinement for one
from the vessel. include sickness allowance.
whole month after such declaration.
3. J
oemar's employment contract is from ON a seafarer is disqualified from c
W laiming
6. C
onsidering that the company physician's
December 8, 2011 to September8,2012orfor "any" compensation and benefits d ue to
a period of nine months. On March 11, 2012, medical evaluation of the seafarer fellshort
concealment of a pre-existing illness.
Joemar suffered pain and symptoms while of the parameters provided by law and
jurisprudence,Joemarisdeemedtotallyand 1. Y
ES. A seafarer who is guilty of fraudulent
he is on board the vessel. On May 21, 2012,
permanently disabled as of the date of the concealment in the PEME is disqualified
Joemar was medically repatriated and was
expiration of the 120-day period counted from claiming "any" compensation and
diagnosed with Severe Acute Cholangitis
from his repatriation. benefits which include sickness allowance.
two days after disembarkation. Clearly,
Joemar's illness manifested or was 7. J
oemar has no obligation to secure the 2. U
nderSection20(A)ofthe2010POEA-SEC,a
discovered during the term of his contract. opinion of his own doctor. A seafarer's seafarerisentitledtoseveral"compensation
compliance with such procedure and benefits" for anywork-relatedillnessor
4. T
hus, Joemar's medical condition is
presupposes that the company physician injury that he may havesufferedduringthe
disputably presumed as work-related
came up with a valid assessment as to his term of the contract such as expenses for
although not listed as an occupational
fitness or unfitness to work before the medical treatment, sickness allowance and
disease. As such, it becomes incumbent
expirationofthe120-dayor240-dayperiods. disability benefits
upon the respondents to prove otherwise.
Absent a valid certification from the 3. H
owever,Section20(E)ofthe2010POEA-SEC
5. T
he respondents relied on the company company physician, the seafarer had is likewise explicit that a seafarer who
physician's opinion that Joemar's illness nothing to contest and the law steps in to "knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness
was not work-related.However,themedical conclusively consider his disability as total or condition" shall be disqualified from
report did not contain any explanation how
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page83of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
claiming "any compensation and benefits." oncealed his pre-existing illness affecting
c hiletheseafarerisstillonboardthe
w
4. M his spine and that he is disqualified from vessel; or
anansala v. MarlowNavigationPhils.,Inc.
ruled that knowing concealment involves claiming disability benefits.Thesefactsand 2.2. a
n illness that manifests, or is
conclusions are immutable and should not
bad faith. discoveredafterthecontract,whichis
be disturbed. when the seafarer has disembarked
5. I nLeronav.SeaPowerShippingEnterprises,
Inc., the petitioner answered "No" when 9. T
he fact that Darwin passed the PEME from the vessel.
asked if he had hypertension although he cannot excuse his willful concealment nor
3. I f the illness or injury falls under the first
hadbeentaking"Norvac,"amedicinetotreat can it preclude PALMaritimefromrejecting scenario, the procedure as to how the
such illness, for two years. his claims. Taken together, Darwin is seafarer can legally demand and claim
disqualified from all benefits including disability benefits from the
6. C
areer Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. sickness allowance.
Godinez held that knowing concealment employer/manningagencyunderSection20
must be intentional. (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC applies.
7. I nLeonciov.MSTMaritimeServices(Phils.), Blue Manila, Inc. v. Jamias 2021 4. B
oth the PVA and the CA found that while
Inc., the phrase "illness or condition" was Jamias' umbilical hernia was medically
here is nothing in Section 20 (A) of the
T resolvedbythepost-repatriationsurgery,the
strictly construed as not including medical
POEA-SEC that would suggest that the medical seafarer's back ailment was never attended
procedures. Also, in Philsynergy Maritime,
attentiontobeextendedtotheseafarermustonly to, by the company-designated doctor.
Inc.and/orTrimurtiShipmanagementLtd.v.
pertain to the cause of repatriation. Jamias was indeed medically repatriated
Galiano,Jr.,therespondentwasnotguiltyof
WON Jamias is entitled to the disability benefits. duetohisumbilicalhernia,butthisdoesnot
knowing concealment although "Isordil"
wasfoundinhisbelongingsonboard,which mean that the post-employment medical
1. Y
ES. Jamias is entitled to the disability
assessment and treatment should be
isamedicationusedfortreatingchestpains, benefits.
because there was no proof that he was confined to this ailment.
2. A
seafarer may claim disability benefits
previously diagnosed with hypertension. 5. A
nyillnesscomplainedof,and/ordiagnosed
arising from
during the mandatory PEME under Section
8. H
ere, it bears emphasis that this Court in
2.1. a
n injury or illness that manifests, or 20 (A)isdeemedexistingduringthetermof
G.R. No. 218170 affirmed with finality the
is discovered during the term of the theseafarer'semployment,andtheemployer
CA's findings that Darwin knowingly
seafarer's contract, which is usually is liable therefor. This is true, regardless of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page84of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hether the existing illness was the
w f or Jamias' back ailment issued by the from any compensation and benefits.
immediate cause of a medical repatriation. company-designated physician in this case, 3. U
nder the 2010 POEA-SEC, there is
6. H the disabilitygradingtobeissuedbyathird
ere, the company-designated physician a"'pre-existingillnessorcondition"ifpriorto
doctor is rendered unnecessary.
onlyattendedtoJamias'umbilicalhernia.A the processing of the POEA contract, any of
surgery was performed torelievehimofhis 9. T
he PVA, is thus, correct in ruling that the following is present:
abdominal pain. However, the Jamias is rightfully entitled to total and
3.1. t he advice of a medical doctor on
company-designated physician completely permanent disability benefits amounting to treatment was given for such
ignored Jamias' lower backpaindespitehis US$80,000.00inaccordancewiththeparties'
continuing illness or condition; or
owninitialrecommendationfortheconduct CBA.
of a lumbosacral MRI, and the subsequent 3.2. t he seafarer has been diagnosed and
finding that he indeed has back issues has knowledge of such illness or
consisting of broad-based herniated disc. Trans-Global Maritime Agency v. Utanes2020 condition but failed to disclose it
during the pre-employment medical
7. T
he issuance of afit-to-workcertificationto seafarer who knowingly conceals a
A examination, and such cannot be
Jamias, without first addressing, or without pre-existing illness or condition in the diagnosed during such examination.
any definite declaration as to his back Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME)
ailment, is an abdication of the 4. H
ere, Utanes' September 18, 2014 PEME
shall be liableformisrepresentationandshallbe
company-designated doctor's obligation indicatedthathewasnotsufferingfromany
disqualified from any compensation and benefits.
under the POEA-SEC. This effectively medical condition. On the other hand, the
ON Utanes is entitled to total and permanent
W company-designateddoctor'smedicalreport,
transforms the temporary total disability to
disability benefits. dated September 17, 2015,statedthatUtanes
permanent total disability, regardless of the
disability grade. 1. N
O. Utanes is not entitled to total and disclosed that he has a history of coronary
permanent disability benefits. artery disease for which he underwent
8. O
lidana v. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. explained percutaneous coronary intervention of the
thatthedisabilitygradingsunderSection32 2. S
ection 20, paragraph E of the POEA-SEC
left anterior descending artery in 2009.
of the POEA-SEC, only comes into play if clearly provides that a seafarer who
there is avalidandtimelymedicalreportof knowinglyconcealsapre-existingillnessor 5. E
vidently, Utanes obscured his pre-existing
a company-designated physician. Since condition in the PEME shall be liable for cardiac ailment. This concealment
there was no complete medical assessment misrepresentation and shall be disqualified disqualifies him from disability benefits
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page85of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
otwithstanding the medical attention
n i llness is work-related and, therefore, ismissalcasescannotbeundulyappliedin
d
extended by the company-appointed compensable. proving whether a seafarer was repatriated
physicians upon his repatriation. for medical reasons. Lloyd's claim that he
was medically repatriated is an affirmative
6. A
lso, Utanes failed to present sufficient
evidence to show how his working Maryville Manila, Inc. v. Espinosa2020 allegationandtheburdenofproofrestsupon
conditions contributed to or aggravated his the party who asserts and notuponhewho
ection 20-A of the POEA-SECisirrelevantifthe
S
illness. denies it.
seafarer didnotsufferanillnessorinjuryduring
7. V the term of his contract. Forillnessescontracted 4. L
loydfailedtodischargethisburdenanddid
entis Maritime Corporation v. Salenga
emphasized that to be entitled to disability after the term of the contract, itissufficientthat not present substantial evidence as to the
benefits for an occupation illness listed thereisareasonablelinkagebetweenthedisease causeofhisrepatriation.Hedidnotreportto
suffered by the employee and his work to leada the company-designated physician.
under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, a
seafarer must show compliance with the rational mind to conclude that his work may 5. A
bsentevidenceofmedicalrepatriationand
following conditions: have contributed to the establishment or, at the refusal to give treatment, it can be
very least, aggravation of any pre-existing reasonably deduced that Lloyd suffered
7.1. T he seafarer's work must involve the
condition he might have had. illnessesafterthetermofhiscontract.Tobe
risk described therein;
ON Lloyd was neither repatriated for medical
W sure, Lloyd consulted aclinicalpsychologist
7.2. T hediseasewascontractedasaresult on February 12, 2013 or after almost six
reason nor refused medical treatment.
of the seafarer's exposure to the months from his repatriation.
described risks; 1. Y
ES. The CA erroneously concluded that
Lloyd was medically repatriated and that 6. V
entis Maritime Corporation v. Salenga
7.3. T he disease was contracted within a clarified that Section 20-A of the POEA-SEC
Maryville Manila and Maryville Maritime
period of exposure and under such is irrelevant if the seafarer didnotsufferan
have the burden to establish otherwise.
other factors necessary to contract it; illness or injury during the term of his
and 2. H
ere, Lloyd's cause of action is for totaland
contract. Rather, it is Section 32-A of the
permanent disabilitybenefitsandnotillegal
7.4. T herewasnonotoriousnegligenceon POEA-SEC which will apply if the illness
dismissal or pre-terminationofhisoverseas
the part of the seafarer. manifests or is discovered after the term of
employment contract.
the seafarer's contract.
8. H
ere,noproofoftherequiredconditionswas
3. The rule on burden of proof in illegal
submittedbyUtanestodemonstratethathis 7. Here, Lloyd was diagnosed with conditions
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page86of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
fter the term of his contract which are not
a ermanent disability benefits for failure to
p
2. or thedurationofthetreatmentbutinno
F
listed as occupational illnesses under prove that he was repatriated for medical case to exceed 120 days, the seaman ison
Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. reasons and that a reasonable link exists temporary total disability.
between his illnesses and nature of work.
8. A
s such, Lloyd is required to prove the 3. I f the 120 days initial period is exceeded
reasonable link between his illnesses and and no such declaration is made because
nature of work. Lloyd must establish the the seafarer requires further medical
risksinvolvedinhiswork,hisillnesseswere 3 Rules on referral to third doctor
attention, then the temporary total
contracted as a result of hisexposuretothe disability period may be extended up to a
risks, the diseases werecontractedwithina maximum of 240 days, subjecttotheright
odriguez v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
R
period of exposure and under such other of the employer to declare within this
2021
factors necessary to contract them, and he period that a permanent partial or total
was not notoriously negligent. Yet, Lloyd Doctrinal Rule
disability already exists.
failed to pass the reasonable linkage test. The referral to athird doctoris mandatory when:
hus, as pointed out in KestrelShippingCo.,Inc.
T
9. A
t any rate, there is nosubstantialevidence 1) t here is a valid and timely assessment by v. Munar, a seafarer's inability to work and the
on the link between Lloyd's supposed the company-designated physician and failure of the company-designated physician to
illnessesandnatureofwork.Lloyd'sactions determinefitnessorunfitnesstoworkdespitethe
2) t heappointeddoctoroftheseafarerrefuted
after the hostage incident are incompatible
such assessment. lapse of 120 days will NOT automatically bring
with the clinical psychologist's findings. aboutashiftintheseafarer'sstatefromtotaland
Held
10. I t would be improbable forLloydtoproperly temporary to total and permanent.
perform his tasks as he claims if he had odriguezisNOTentitledtopermanentandtotal
R
claim for permanent and total disability
A
palpitations, chest pains, tremors, muscle disability compensation.
benefits may prosper after the lapse of the
tension, dizziness, upset stomach, fatigue, ergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.
V 120-day period, but less than 240 days, from the
irritability, restlessness and total lack of ruled: time the seafarer reported formedicaltreatment
sleep. Quite the contrary, these symptoms
1. heseafarer,uponsign-offfromhisvessel,
T if the company-designated physician failed to
were belied since Lloyd lasted for seven
must report to the company-designated declare within the 120-day period that the
months in M/V Iron Manolis. seafarer requires further medical attention.
physician within three (3) days from
11. All told, Lloyd is not entitled to total and arrival for diagnosis and treatment.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page87of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s eafarer after an extensive medical treatment, perations, and therapy over the course of
o
or amedicaltreatmentthatlastsmorethan120
F
whereas Dr. Garcia only assessed him once. three months from his repatriation.
days, but less than 240 days, an award for
permanent and total disability benefit is 4. T
hereafter, the company-appointed
unavailing if: physician issued a final assessment that
oehle-Philman Manning Agency v. Gatchalian,
D Jose was fit to work within the 120-day
1. t he failure to issue a timely medical Jr. 2021
assessment wasattendedbytheseafarer's period prescribed by law. Given the timely
seafarer seeking compensation for his
A fit-to-work assessment, there is no basisfor
fault; or
disability cannot file his claim before seeking a Jose toclaimtotalandpermanentdisability
2. t he company-designated physician opined second opinion. benefits from the petitioners.
withinthe120-dayperiodthattheseafarer
ON the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's
W 5. J
ose is bound by the findings of the
required further medical treatment.
finding that Jose was properly declared tobefit company-designated doctor.
ere, Rodriguez was still undergoing medical
H to work.
treatment and evaluation by Dr. Lim after the 6. H
ere, the company-designated doctor's
1. Y
ES.ThereisnobasisforJosetoclaimtotal assessment was based on examinations,
lapseofthe120-dayperiod.Heagreedtoafurther
and permanent disability benefits from operations, and therapy administered to
medical evaluation. Since Dr.Lim'sfinalmedical
petitioners. Jose,asrecommendedbythephysiatristand
assessment was justifiably issued beyond the
2. B
eforeaseafarermayclaimpermanenttotal orthopedic specialist who treated him. On
120-dayperiodbutwithin240daysfromthetime
Rodriguez first reported to him, this Court finds disabilitybenefitsfromhisemployer,itmust theotherhand,Joseonlyconsultedhisown
Rodrigueznotentitledtohisclaimforpermanent first be established that the company physician after he had filed a complaint.
and total disability benefits. designated physician failed to issue a 7. N
otably, Jose disregarded the provision on
declaration as to the seafarer's fitness to the joint appointment of a third doctor. The
oreover, since Dr. Lim and Dr. Garcia had
M
engage in sea-duty or disability grading referraltoathirddoctorismandatorywhen:
conflicting medical assessments, Rodriguez
within the 120-day or 240-day period (1)thereisavalidandtimelyassessmentby
failed to refer the mattertoathirddoctor,jointly
reckonedfromthetimetheseafarerreported the company designated physician and (2)
agreed upon theparties,asmandatedbySection
to the company-designated physician. the appointed doctor of the seafarer refuted
20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Also, Dr. Lim's
diagnosis is given more credence than Dr. 3. H
ere,thecompany-designateddoctorarrived such assessment.
Garcia's since the former was able to assess the at the assessment that Jose was fit to work 8. Without a binding third-party opinion, the
after he was subjected to examinations,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page88of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ndings of the company-designated
fi xists,wasnotactuallyrelayedtopetitioner.Itis
e hilman Marine Agency Inc. et al., v. Cabanban
P
physician shall prevail over the assessment the issuance and the corresponding conveyance 2013
made by the seafarer's doctor. to the employee of the final medical assessment hedoctorwhohashadapersonalknowledgeof
T
9. J
ose patently failed to comply with t he by the company-designated physician that the actual medical condition, having closely,
procedure to contest the findings of the triggers the application of Section20(A)(3)ofthe meticulously and regularly monitored and
company-designated doctor. 2010 POEA-SEC. actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more
rient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara held that the
O qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability.
10. C
ontrarytothefindingoftheCA,petitioners'
failure to rehire Jose does not militate third-doctorruledoesnotapplywhenthereisno ONArmandoisentitledtototalandpermanent
W
against the assessment that he is fit for valid final and definitive assessment from a disability benefits.
work. Petitioners are not required to rehire company-designated physician, as in this case.
O. Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC evidently
N
Jose after the termination of his shows that it is the company-designated
employment. physician who primarily assesses the degree of
anoa v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Phils.
R
11. U
nder Section 18-B(1) in relation to Section the seafarer’s disability.
2019Lazaro-Javier, J.
20(B)(5) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, the 1. U
pon the seafarer’s repatriation for
employment of the seafarer is terminated pon his repatriation, petitioner was diagnosed
U
medical treatment, and during the course
whenhearrivesatthepointofhirewhenthe to be suffering from hypertension and coronary
of such treatment, the seafarer is under
seafarer is medically repatriated. artery disease. The company-designated doctors
total temporary disability and receives
gave petitioner's illnessaGrade12rating.ButDr.
medical allowance until the
Pascual, petitioner's chosen doctor, found
company-designated physician declares
han v. Magsaysay Corporation2020
C petitioner to be suffering from Stage 2
his fitness to work resumption or
Lazaro-Javier, J. Hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease for
determines the degree of the seafarer’s
whichthelatterisfoundtobe"unfittoworkasa
here is no occasion here for the mandatory
T permanent disability — either total or
seaman."
third-doctor referral precisely because a partial.
complete, final, and definite medical assessment ernandez v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation,
H
2. T
he company-designated physician
from the company-designated physician is et al. clarified that the initiative for referral toa
should, however, make the declaration or
absent, aside from the fact that the so-called third doctor should come from the employee.
determination within 120 days, otherwise,
October 29, 2013 medical assessment, if at all it
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page89of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he law considers the seafarer’s disability t he certification of the company-designated nd arrangements for employees who may
a
as total and permanent. physician should prevail. need further medical attention due to their
disease:
3. S hould the seafarer still require medical
treatment for more than 120 days, the a. P
aid leave benefit on top of existing
period may be extended,butnottoexceed upplemental Guidelines on the
S leave benefits under the company
240 days. Implementation of the Mental Health policy, collective bargaining
4 Policy and Program in the Workplace agreement, the Labor Code of the
4. A t anytime during this latter period, the Philippines, and special laws;
Labor Advisory No. 19, September 15, 2023
company-designated physician may make
the declaration or determination. b. F
lexible work arrangements,
1. E
mployers and their employees shallhavea
re-scheduling of work hours, and
5. I n case of disagreement between the shared responsibility to ensure the effective
adoption of other work arrangements,
findings of the company-designated implementation of a mental health policy
including telecommuting; and
physician and the seafarer’s appointed and program in the workplace.
physician, the parties shalljointlyagreeto c. Other benefits.
2. E
mployers shall ensure that employees are
refer the matter to a third doctor whose provided with effective access to mental 6. M
edical records of concerned employees
findings shall be final and binding on both. health and self-care services. shall be handled in accordance with
ere, Armando, in fact, had no ground for a
H Republic Act No. 101735 to prevent
3. E
mployers shall refer employees requiring
disabilityclaimatthetimehefiledhiscomplaint, unauthorized access, accidental or unlawful
mental health services to the different
as he did not have any sufficient evidentiary destruction, alteration, disclosure, and any
facilitiesoftheDOH-retainedhospitalsorthe
basis to support his claim. other unlawful processing.
ruralhealthunitsforconsultation,screening,
ore than this, the disagreement between the
M diagnosis, medication, treatment, and 7. E
mployers shall submit to the DOLE
findings of the company-designated physician provision of psychosocial support. Regional/Provincial/Field Office, which has
and Armando’s chosen physicians was never jurisdiction over the workplace, the Annual
4. E
mployees requiring further examination
referred to a third doctor. Considering the Medical Report (AMR) Form indicating the
relative to their mental health needs may
absence of findings coming from a third doctor, number of cases handled or referred to
access healthcare services and facilities.
wesustainthefindingsoftheNLRCandholdthat providers, if any, and the activities and
5. E
mployers are likewise encouraged to programs to promote mental health in the
providethefollowingworkaccommodations workplace.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page90of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
erformance of the job involved. Exceptions
p
E Management Prerogative eld that Glaxo has a right to guard its trade
h
to BFOQ: secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
Occupational Qualifications a) E
mployment qualification is strategies and other confidential programs and
reasonably related to the essential information from competitors. The prohibition
Productivity Standards operation of the job involved; and against personal or marital relationships with
Change of Working Hours employeesofcompetitorcompaniesuponGlaxo's
b) T
here is a factual basis for believing
employees is reasonable under the
that all or substantially all persons
Transfer of Employees circumstances because relationships of that
meeting the qualification would be
nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo.
Discipline of Employees unable to properly perform the duties
of the job. I n PhilippineTelegraphandTelephoneCompany
Grant of Bonuses and Other Benefits v.NLRC,theemployeewasdismissedinviolation
Clearance Process Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank2022 of petitioner's policy of disqualifying from work
anywomanworkerwhocontractsmarriage.The
Post-Employment Restrictions tarPaperCorp.v.Simboldiscussedthebonafide
S
Court held that the company policy violates the
occupational qualification that may possibly
right against discrimination afforded all women
1 Occupational Qualifications justify an employer's policy prohibiting spouses
workers under Article 136 of the Labor Code.
from working in the same company or a
1) T o be considered a bona fide occupational "no-spouse employment policy." ere, respondents failed to demonstrate the
H
qualification, the policy must reasonable business necessity for its no-spouse
nless the employer can prove that the
U
a) Serve a legitimate business purpose; employment policy.
reasonable demands of the business require a
b) B e specific to the occupation at issue; distinction based on marital status and there is irst, the no-spouse q
F ualification is not
and no better available or acceptable policy which reasonably related to the bank's essential
would better accomplish the business purpose, operation of its business.
c) R eflect an inherentqualitythatwould
an employer may not discriminate against an econd, thereisnofactualbasistoconcludethat
S
reasonably guarantee work efficiency.
employeebasedontheidentityoftheemployee's all of their employees who marry each other
2) E
mployment may not be limited to persons spouse. wouldbeunabletoperformtheirduties,entailing
ofaparticularsex,religion,ornationalorigin
uncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and
D one's dismissal.
unless the employer can show that such
qualifications are necessary in the Pedro Tecson v. Glaxo WelcomePhilippines,Inc.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page91of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hus, the dismissal of petitioner can be
T 3 Change of Working Hours
Halagueña v. PAL2023 En Banc predicated on the bona fide occupational
qualification defense.
ere, respondent merely claims, without more,
H CBPIv.IloiloCoca-ColaPlantEmployeesUnion
C
that female flight attendants belong to a special 2018
class of occupation requiring special standards
2 Productivity Standards ONschedulingSaturdayworkhasripenedinto
W
forretirement.Thisfallsshortoftherequirement
a company practice, the removal of which
of provingreasonable business necessity.
constituted a diminution of benefits.
hile it is true that aging generally entails the
W Aliling v. Feliciano2012 O. In Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola
N
slowing down of all bodily functions,thereisno
n employer is entitled to impose productivity
A Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant, the Court
reasonableconnectiontoone'sageandhisorher
standards for its workers, and in fact, had the occasion to rule that the term"benefits"
sexvis-à-viscapacitytoperformhisorherduties
non-compliance may be visited with a penalty mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to
as flight attendant. To be sure, both female and
even more severe than demotion. monetary benefits or privileges given to the
malecabinattendantsareexposedtosametasks,
employee with monetary equivalents. Stated
work demands, stress, and dangers. ailure to observe prescribed standards of work,
F
otherwise, the employee benefits contemplated
or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to
by Article 100 are those which are capable of
inefficiency may constitute just cause for
being measured in terms of money.
Yrasuegui v. PAL dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood to
meanfailuretoattainworkgoalsorworkquotas, CBPI withdrew the Saturday work itself,
C
n board anaircraft,thebodyweightandsizeof
O
eitherbyfailingtocompletethesamewithinthe pursuant, as already held, to its management
a cabin attendant are important factors to
allotted reasonable period, or by producing prerogative.Infact,thismanagementprerogative
consider in case of emergency. Aircrafts have
unsatisfactory results. This management highlights the fact that the scheduling of the
constricted cabin space, and narrow aisles and
prerogative of requiring standards may be Saturday work was actually made subject to a
exit doors. Given the cramped cabin space and
availed of so long as they are exercised ingood condition, i.e., the prerogative to provide the
narrow aisles and emergency exit doors of the
faith for the advancement of the employer's company's employees withSaturdaywork based
airplane, any overweight cabin attendant would
interest. on the existence of operational necessity.
certainly have difficulty navigating thecramped
cabin area. I n the case at bar, CCBPI's employees were not
illegally prevented from working on Saturdays.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page92of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
he company was simply exercising its option
T c) Notprejudicialto the EE; d) O
ccasioned by the abolition of the
not to schedule work pursuant to the CBA position.
d) N
ot involve a demotion of rank or
provision which gave it the prerogative todoso.
status; 7) RefusalisINVALID
Itthereforefollowsthattheprincipleof"nowork,
no pay" finds application in the instant case. e) Not be motivated bydiscrimination; a) Due to parental obligations;
f) Not made inbad faith; b) Additional expenses;
g) N
ot be effected as a form of c) Inconvenience;
4 Transfer of Employees punishmentwithout sufficient cause. d) Hardship and anguish.
1) T he lateral movement from one position to 4) F
ailure to observe these requisites, the
another of equivalent rank, level or salary. transfer is deemed CONSTRUCTIVE Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket2013
Could be a movement: DISMISSAL. Same reliefs as that of illegal
oncerning the transfer of employees, these are
C
a) From onepositionto another; or demotion.
the following jurisprudential guidelines:
b) F rom one office to another withinthe 5) A
n EE who refuses to be transferred when
a) a
transferisamovementfromoneposition
same business establishment. such is valid, is guilty of insubordinationor
to another of equivalent rank, level or
willful disobedience of a lawful order of an
2) T his is an inherent right to control or salary without break in the service or a
ER underArt 297[282]of the LC.
manage by the ER. Consent of EE NOT lateral movement from one position to
required. 6) R
efusal to be transferred is VALID in the another of equivalent rank or salary;
following cases
3) T his is exercised by the ER in the best b) t he employer has the inherent right to
interest of the company to see where a a) Overseas assignment; transfer or reassign an employee for
particular EE can be best maximized. For a b) Consequent topromotion; legitimate business purposes;
transfer to be valid, the following c) a
transfer becomes unlawful where it is
his is a scalar transfer. The EE may
T
REQUISITESmust be observed: motivatedbydiscriminationorbadfaithor
refuse as this entails additional
a) M ust be reasonable or have a sound responsibilities. is effected asaformofpunishmentorisa
purpose; demotion without sufficient cause;
c) To avoid conflict of interest;
b) M ust not inconvenient the welfare of d) t heemployermustbeabletoshowthatthe
the EE; transferisnotunreasonable,inconvenient,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page93of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
or prejudicial to the employee. analo v. Ateneo de Naga University instructs
M ere, no similar evidence was presented to
H
that in a case forconstructivedismissalbrought support the claim of a prevailing company
about by the transfer of employees, this Court practice of transferring employees.
Teletech Customer Care v. Gerona, Jr.2021 must decide if, given the facts of the case, the
enerally, an objection to a transfer grounded
G
he Court cannot subscribe to such assertion
T employeractedfairlyinmakinguseofitsrightof solely on personal inconvenience or hardship
when the transfer is actually prejudicial to the management prerogative. cannot be seen as a "valid reason to disobey" a
Gerona. A careful review of the Transfer ere,petitionerattachedseveraldifferentSpecial
H transferorder,however,theassailedtransferhere
Agreement shows that an employee whofallsto Permits to Navigate from the Maritime Industry was arbitrary, as well as discriminatory and
pass the trainings will be dismissed. Authority to support its assertion that it was its marked with bad faith. Thus, respondents'
erona was a regular employee, hence, he was
G customary practice to reshuffle its employees to transfer cannot be said to have been a valid
entitledtosecurityoftenure.Byrequiringhimto address the exigencies of its maritime travel exercise of petitioner's management prerogative.
pass additional trainings and examination as a business. Contrary to what petitioner claimed, it
condition to retain his employment under the cannot be deduced from the permits that there
pain of dismissal, Teletech disregarded his right was a real need to transfer or reshuffle elus International Philippines v. De Guzman
T
to security of tenure. Teletech's failure to prove employees, or that these had long been 2019
redundancy, coupled with the imposition of a established as acompany practice. elus did not provide any valid justification or
T
prejudicial condition to retain employment, afra v. CA held that while PLDT Co.'s
Z presentedproofthattherewasindeedadeficitof
rendered the offer of transfer invalid. management prerogative includes the right to account that bars the immediate transfer of De
transfer employees to any branch, which their Guzman or that the company was sustaining
employees also agreed to in their applicationfor losses that would justify placing De Guzman on
Asian Marine Transport v. Caseres2021 employment, the employer's right to transfer floating status. Hence, the unwarranted acts of
should not be taken in isolation, but rather, in Telus evidently constitute proof of the
hetransferorassignmentofemployeesingood
T
faith is one of the acknowledged valid exercises conjunction with the established company constructive dismissal of De Guzman.
of management prerogative and will not, in and practice of notifying the employees of the
of itself, sustain a charge of constructive transfer first before sending them abroad for
dismissal. training. Sumifru Philippines Corporation v. Baya2017
Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. held
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page94of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t hat the burden is on the employer to provethat useful. 1) T
he right or prerogative to discipline covers
the transfer or demotion of an employee was a the following rights to:
ON the transfer of respondents to petitioner's
W
valid exercise of management prerogative and Manila office was a valid exercise of a) Discipline;
was not a mere subterfuge to get rid of an
management prerogative.
employee; failing in which, the employer willbe b) Dismiss;
found liable for constructive dismissal. ES.Thetransfercouldnotbevalidlyassailedas
Y
c) Determine who to punish;
a form of constructive dismissal, for, as held in
ere, the top management of both AMSFC and
H Benguet Electric Cooperative v. Fianza, d) Promulgate rules and regulations;
DFC, which were sister companies at the time, management had the prerogative to determine e) Impose penalty (proportionality rule)
were well-aware of the lack of supervisory the placewheretheemployeeisbestqualifiedto
positions in AMSFC. This notwithstanding, they f) Choose which penalty to impose; AND
serve the interests of the business given the
still proceeded to order Baya's return therein, qualifications, training and performance of the g) I mpose heavier penalties than what
thus, forcing him to accept rank-and-file the company rules prescribe.
affected employee.
positions. Thus, AMSFC and DFC are guilty of
ccording to Abbot Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. v.
A he proportionality rule means that the
2) T
constructively dismissing Baya.
NLRC, the employee who has consented to the penalty to be imposed must be
company's policy of hiring sales staff willing to commensurate with the offense committed.
hateau Royale Sports & Country Club v. Balba
C be assigned anywhere in the Philippines as
demanded by the employer's business has no Leus v. St. Scholastica's College2015
2017
reason to disobey the transfer order of SCW, as employer, undeniably has the right to
S
Theburdenofproofliesintheemployertoprove
management. Verily, therightoftheemployeeto discipline its employees and, if need be, dismiss
t hat the transfer of the employee fromonearea securityoftenuredoesnotgiveheravestedright them if there is a valid cause to do so. However,
of operation to another was for a valid and to her position as to deprive management of its there is no cause to dismiss the petitioner. Her
legitimate ground, like genuine business authority to transfer or re-assign her where she conduct is not considered by law as disgraceful
necessity. will be most useful. or immoral.
he right of the employee to security of tenure
T
doesnotgiveheravestedrighttoherpositionas
to deprive management of its authority to 5 Discipline of Employees 6 Grant of Bonuses and Other Benefits
transfer or re-assign her where shewillbemost
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page95of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Mega Magazine Publications v. Defensor2014 embers. There can be no conflict of interest
m equiring clearance before the release of last
R
wheretheemployerhimselfvoluntarilyagreesto payments to the employee is a standard
hegrantofabonusorspecialincentive,beinga
T
grant such benefits tomanagerialemployees.As procedure among employers, whether public or
management prerogative, is not a demandable
such, respondent can enter into an agreement private. Clearance procedures are instituted to
and enforceable obligation, except when the
with the other employees, managerial and ensure that the properties, real or personal,
bonus or special incentive
supervisoryemployees,andgivethesamebenefit belonging to the employer but are in the
1. i s made part of the wage, salary or as that which was given in the CBA. This is in possession of the separated employee, are
compensation of the employee, or fact what they did when they entered into the returned to the employer before the employee’s
2. i spromisedbytheemployerandexpressly K-VRR Program which was signed by their departure.
agreed upon by the parties. supervisors, technical and confidential
ur law supports the employers’ institution of
O
employees, and managers. It is within clearanceproceduresbeforethereleaseofwages.
Bonus isagratuityoractofliberalityofthegiver,
respondent's prerogative to grant benefits or Aslongasthedebtorobligationwasincurredby
nd cannot be considered part of an employee’s
a
bonuses to employees as they deem fit. But, to virtue of the employer-employee relationship,
wages if it is paid only whenprofitsarerealized clarify, the benefits given is not by virtue of the
oracertainamountofproductivityisachieved.If generally, it shall be included in the employee’s
CBA but in accordance with a separate
the desired goal of production or actual work is accountabilities that are subject to clearance
agreementorthosewhichhavebeenripenedinto
not accomplished, the bonus does not accrue. procedures.
practice.
owever, it must be noted that jurisprudence
H
imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L provides that even if a benefit or grant has 8 Post-Employment Restrictions
Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021 ripened into practice, it can still be removed or
1) A
n EE is prohibited after separation from
corrected.
herewasnowhereintheCBAthatprohibitsthe
T joining a competitor. VALID, subject to
respondent to give the same benefit to other limitations as to duration and place.
employeesnotcoveredbytheCBA.Thegrantofa
7 Clearance Process non-compete clause is not necessarily
2) A
bonus is basically a management prerogative
voidforbeinginrestraintoftradeaslongas
andthereisnothingtopreventtheemployerfrom
there are reasonable limitations as to three
granting benefits to managerialemployeesequal Milan v. NLRC2015 (3) things:time, placeandtrade.
to or higher than those afforded to union
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page96of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3) R estrictive covenant clauses. — In f rom accepting a competitive employment after
Employer-Employee Relations
determining whether the contract is retirement or resignation is notanunreasonable
reasonable or not, the following factors or oppressive, or in undue or unreasonable I ndependent Contractor – Trilateral
should be considered: restraint of trade, thus, unenforceable for being Relations
repugnant to public policy.
a) w hether the covenant protects a I ndependent Contractor – Bilateral
legitimate business interest of the errazzini v. Gsell stated that cases involving
F Relations
employer; contracts in restraint of trade are to be judged
b) w hether the covenant creates an
according to their circumstances. There are two A Employer-Employee Relations
principal grounds on which the doctrine is
undue burdenon the employee;
founded that a contract in restraint of trade is Definition
c) w hether the covenant is injurious to void as against public policy.
the public welfare; DO No.147-15, Sec. 3
1. T
he injury to the public bybeingdeprived
d) w hether the time and territorial of the restricted party's industry; and Tests
limitations contained in the covenant
arereasonable; and
2. T
he injury to the party himself by being urden of proving employer-employee
B
precluded from pursuing his occupation, relationship
e) w hether the restraint is reasonable and thus being preventedfromsupporting
from the standpoint ofpublic policy. Piercing the corporate veil
himself and his family.
post-retirement competitive employment
A ases involving television
C
Rivera v. Solidbank
restriction is designed to protect the employer broadcasters
n the face of the Undertaking, the
O against competition by former employees who
post-retirement competitive employment ban is 1 Definition
may retire and obtain retirement or pension
unreasonable because it has no geographical benefits and, at the same time, engage in 1) I t is in personam and involvestherendition
limits; respondent is barred from accepting any competitive employment. of personal service by the employee, and
kind of employment in any competitive bank
partakes of master and servant relationship.
within the proscribed period.
2) I tsexistenceisaquestionoflawandfact.In
espondent,asemployer,isburdenedtoestablish
R IV Work Relationships the2016CenturyPropertiescase,SCsaidthat
that a restrictive covenant barring an employee
theemploymentstatusofapersonisdefined
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page97of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nd prescribed by law and not by what the
a bsence
a of an employer-employee
partiessayitshouldbe.Itcannotbenegated relationship. Under the control test, an hree. Respondent company's power to hire
T
by expressly repudiating it in a contract. employer-employeerelationshipexistswhere included its inherent power to discipline
the person for whom the services are petitioner.
3) I n the 2011 Tongko case, SC aptly described
the primary and controlling test in performed reserves the right to control not our. Respondent company exercised the power
F
determining the existence of an ER-EE only the end achieved, but also the manner of control over petitioner's performance of his
relationship as the control over the and means used to achieve that end. task.
performanceofthetask oftheoneproviding havez v. NLRC declared Chavez a regular
C
pod v. Onon Trucking and Marketing2021
U
the service. employee despite having been engaged andpaid
Lazaro-Javier, J.
on a per trip basis.
2 DO No.147-15, Sec. 3 he elements of the four-fold test areallpresent
T
here.
The Four-Fold Test Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co.2020
ne. Respondent company hired petitioner as
O
3 Rule I-A Book VI Omnibus Rules.
§ hauler/driver. Except for the interruption in etitioners are regular employees of Shogun
P
Employer-Employee Relationship.— To
petitioner's service from 2009 until 2014, he had Ships.
ascertain the existence of an been with respondent company since 2004 until
employer-employeerelationship,thefour-fold he application of the four-fold test in this case
T
2017 or for about eight (8) years already.
testshall apply, to wit: shows that an employer-employee relationship
wo. Respondentcompanypaidpetitioner16%of
T did existbetween petitioners and Shogun Ships.
1. t he selection and engagement of the gross revenues per trip. The fact that petitioner
employee; 1. R
espondent have not categorically denied
was paid on per trip basis does not negate the
that sometime in May 2006, petitioners
2. the payment ofwages; existence of an employer-employee relationship;
were engaged, or at the least, were
for the same is simply a method for computing
3. the power ofdismissal; and permittedbyhereinrespondenttoworkon
compensation. One may be paid on the basis of
4. t he power to control the employee's repairs on one of the barges of Shogun
resultsortimeexpendedonthework,andmayor
conduct, or the so-called "control test." Ships.
may not acquire an employment status,
he so-called "control test" is commonly
T depending on the presence or absence of the 2. R
espondent did not also deny that
regarded as the most crucial and elements of an employer-employee relationship. petitioners worked for Shogun Ships until
determinative indicator of the presence or they were supposedly verbally dismissed
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page98of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
from employment on May 2008. ontrol, particularly over personnel working
c he broad extent to which t he services
1) T
3. R under the employer, is deemed inferred, more so performed are an integral part of the
espondent even admittedthatpetitioners
werecalledintodorepairsonthebargesof when said personnel are working at the employer’s business.
employer's establishment.
Shogun Ships. he limited extent of the worker’s
2) T
4. R espondent have not denied that ere, petitioners were working on the barges
H investmentin the equipment and facilities.
petitionersweredulycompensatedforany alongsideregularemployeesofShogunShipsand
3) T
henatureandhighdegreeofcontrolbythe
that they were taking orders from its engineers
work done by them on the barges. employer;
as to the required specifications on how the
5. R espondent categorically admitted that barges of Shogun Ships should be repaired. he worker’s limited opportunities for profit
4) T
Shogun Ships provided petitioners and growth;
financial assistance when they were
5) T
he small amount of initiative, skill,
hospitalized.
3 Tests judgment or foresight required for the
6. R espondent also have not disproved the success of the claimed independent
allegation ofpetitionersthatShogunShips Economic Reality or the Two-Tiered Test enterprise;
continued to pay petitioners' salaries after his test is used when there is no existing
T 6) T
he high degree of permanency and
they were discharged from hospitalization. employment contract. duration of relationship;
7. R espondent also have not categorically 1) T
heputativeemployer’spowertocontrolthe 7) T
he degree of dependency of the worker
denied that petitioners were verbally employee with respect to the manner and upon the employer for his continued
dismissed. methods by which the work is to be
employment.
espondentcontendedthatShogunShipsdidnot
R accomplished; and
direct the manner and method in which 2) T
he underlying economic realities of the Dusol v. Lazo2021
petitioners do their work. activity or relationship, i.e. employee’s he lack of guidelines or limitations, and close
T
he controltest callsmerelyfortheexistenceof
T economic dependenceon the employer. supervision as to the conduct of operations
therighttocontrolthemannerofdoingthework epends upon the circumstances of the whole
D cannot be construed as evidence of lack of
and NOT theactualexerciseoftheright. DyKeh economic activity: control. More so that there is no proof that the
Beng v. International LaborandMarineUnionof employees were allowed to engage in other
the Philippines held that anemployer'spowerof meansoflivelihood,andthattheyindeedworked
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page99of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
for or engaged in any other business. are considered: t he elements of an employer-employee
relationship are present.
ON Pedro and Maricel are employees or
W 4.1. t he selection and engagement of the
partners of Emmarck. employee; 7.1. F
irst, Ralco Beach engaged t he
services of Pedro as caretaker and
1. Y
ES. Pedro and Maricel are employees of 4.2. the payment of wages;
Emmarck. Maricel as a storekeeper.
4.3. the power of dismissal; and
2. T 7.2. S
econd, Emmarckpaidtheirwagesin
heexistenceofapartnershipisestablished 4.4. t he employer's power to control the the form of allowances and
when it is shown that: employee's conduct. commissions.
2.1. t wo or more personsbindthemselves 5. H
ere, there is no proof that a partnership 7.3. T
hird, Emmarck terminated their
to contribute money, property, or
existed between Pedro or Maricel, and employment when he notified them
industry to a common fund; and
Emmarck in relation tothebeachresort.No that he will be leasing the beach
2.2. t heyintendtodividetheprofitsamong documentary evidence was submitted by Resort,andthattheirserviceswereno
themselves. Emmarck to even suggest a partnership. longer needed.
Emmarck relied solely on his own
3. U
nder Article 1769 of the Civil Code, the 7.4. F
inally, and most importantly,
receiptbyapersonofashareoftheprofitsof statements that Pedro and Maricel did not
Emmarck had the power to control
receive wages, but merely allowances and
a business is a primafacieevidencethathe their conduct in the performance of
commission from the profits of their
is a partner in the business, [but] no such their duties. The existence of control
inferenceshallbedrawnifsuchprofitswere partnership.
is manifestly shown by Emmarck's
received in payment as wages of an 6. T
he allowances and commission which express admission that he left the
employee or rent to a landlord. In addition, were taken from the gross sales of Ralco entirebusinessoperationoftheResort
thesharingofgrossreturnsdoesnotofitself Beach, cannot be deemed as their share in to Pedro and Maricel. Even if
establish a partnership, whether or not the the profits. There is no showing that Pedro Emmarck claims that he did not
persons sharing them have a joint or and Maricel shared in the net profits, as control nor supervise their
common right or interest in any property defined by law. The absence of any actual performance of duties – which may
from which the returns are derived. sharing of the profits reinforces the finding indicate lack of control – Emmarck's
that there was no intention to do it. admissionrevealsthatcontrolresided
4. T
o determine whether an employment
relationship exists, the following elements 7. On the otherhand,therecordsshowthatall upon him.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page100of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r elationship,vicariousliabilityunderArticle2180 f or other hospitals strengthens the proposition
Lu v. Enopia2017 of the Civil Code cannot apply as against BSP. that petitioner was not wholly dependent on
Similarly, we find no EER between MCS and CDMC.
he fact that petitioner had registered the
T respondent guards. The guards were merely
etitioner likewise admitted that she receivesin
P
respondents with SSS is proof that they were assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS' premises full her 4% share in the Clinical Section of the
indeedhisemployees.ThecoverageoftheSocial pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. hospital regardless of the number of hours she
SecurityLawispredicatedontheexistenceofan Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for
worked therein.The rule is that
EER. damages caused by these guards' acts or
omissions. a. where a person who works for another
I t was established that petitioner exercised
controloverrespondents. Thecontroltestmerely b. p
erforms his job more or less at his own
callsfortheexistenceoftherighttocontrol,and pleasure,
not necessarily the exercise thereof. oreche-Amit v. Cagayan De Oro MedicalCenter
L c. in the manner he sees fit,
2019
hepaymentofrespondents'wagesbasedonthe
T d. n
ot subject to definite hours or conditions
percentage share of the fish catch would not be CONOMIC REALITY TEST. The benchmark of
E
of work, and
sufficient to negate the EER existing between economic reality is the economic dependence of
the worker on his employer. e. i s compensated according to the result of
them.
his efforts and not the amount thereof,
etitioner wielded the power of dismissal over
P WON Loreche-Amit was an employee of CDMC.
no employer-employee relationship exists.
respondents when he dismissed them after they O. CDMC doesnotexercisethepowerofcontrol
N
refused to sign the joint fishing venture over petitioner.
agreement.
etitioner was working for two other hospitals
P Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse2019
aside from CDMC, not to mention those other
ON Fernandez was an employee of Kalookan
W
hospitals which she caters to when her services
Reyes v. Doctolero2017 Slaughterhouse.
are needed. Such fact evinces that petitioner
I n Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the Philippines, controlsherworkinghours.Onthisnote,relevant ES. The Court in Masonic Contractor, Inc. v.
Y
there was no EER between BSP and thesecurity is the economic reality test. Madjos ruled that the fact that the company
guards assigned to it byanagencypursuanttoa provided identification cards and uniforms and
Thus, the fact that petitioner continued to work
Guard Service Contract. In the absence of such the vague affidavit of the purported employer
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page101of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
eresufficientevidencetoprovetheexistenceof
w olleagues,whoweresimilarlyaskedtoleavethe
c r einstatement, and the payment of back wages
EER. plantation, illustrate that they: and labor standards benefits from the time of
their dismissal from employment until the
alookanSlaughterhouse,throughTablit,wasthe
K 1) were required to work at set hours per day;
finality of this Decision.
one who engagedpetitioner,paidforhissalaries,
2) were paid a set rate per day of work;
and in effect had the power to dismiss him.
Further, Kalookan Slaughterhouse exercised 3) w
orked under the respondents' constant
control over petitioner's conduct through De supervision; and urden of proving employer-employee
B
4
Guzman. To the mind of the Court, Kalookan 4) c
ould be dismissed for violating the work relationship
Slaughterhouse was petitioner's employer and it standards set by respondents.
exerciseditsrightsasanemployerthroughTablit
lso, the testimonies submitted by petitioners
A Ginta-Ason v. J.T.A. Packaging Corp.2022
and De Guzman, who were its employees.
establish the totality of economiccircumstances
o employer-employee relationship existed
N
required by Francisco's economic reality test.
between petitioner and JTA. Here, JTA
Petitioners perform services integral to
Wahing v. Sps Daguio2022 maintained that petitioner is a stranger and was
respondents' business of running a rubber
never an employee of JTA.
espondents employed petitioners as farm
R plantation. When applied to the two-tier test in
workers and are, thus, subject to the rules Francisco, these circumstances show that onsidering such denial, it was incumbent upon
C
governing an employer-employee relationship. respondents exercised control over petitioners' petitioner to prove the fact of his employment
They consistently argued before the labor hours, means, and methods of work. Petitioners with JTA. However, petitioner presented no
tribunals that petitioners were not their were also shown to be economically dependent document setting forth the terms of his
employees because the latter only shared in the uponrespondentsfortheirlivelihood.Thus,there employment.
proceeds of rubber sales from their tapping exists an employer-employee relationship o prove the element of payment of wages,
T
activities instead of earning wages. between the parties. petitioner submittedpayslipsallegedlyissuedby
owever, there is sufficient corroborating
H I n view of the employer-employee relationship JTA. Significantly, the pay slips presented by
testimony to support petitioners' claim thatthey between the parties, respondents illegally petitioner bore no indication whatsoever as to
served as employees on respondents' rubber terminated petitioners' employment by ordering their source. Valenciav.ClassiqueVinylProducts
plantation. Testimonies from petitioners' them to stop their work without just or Corporation rejected the pay slips submitted by
authorized cause. Petitioners are entitled to thepetitioneremployeebecausetheydidnotbear
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page102of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he name of the respondent company.Also,there crime. Lastly,themerefactthatCyberOnePH's
a
were no deductions from petitioner's supposed Gesolgon v. CyberOne PH2020 major stockholders are CyberOne AU and
salarysuchaswithholdingtax,SSS,PhilHealthor respondent Mikrut does notprovethatCyberOne
Pag-IBIG Fund contributions which are the usual esolgon and Santos were hired as home-based
G PH was organized and controlled and its affairs
deductions from employees' salaries. Customer Service Representatives of CyberOne conducted in a manner that made it merely an
AU, a corporation organized and existing under instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of
I n contrast, the voluminous documentary
thelawsofAustralia.However,theywerenotified CyberOne AU. Hence,thedoctrineofpiercingthe
evidence adduced by JTA, i.e., alpha list of
by CyberOne AU of their dismissal through corporate veil cannot be applied.
employees submitted to the BIR for the years
Furlough Notifications.
during which petitioner claims to have been etitioners are not employeesofCyberOnePHso
P
employed by JTA, the payroll monthly reports as hile it is true thatCyberOneAUownsmajority
W there is no dismissal to speak of, much more
well as the remittances made by JTA of its of the shares of CyberOne PH, this, nonetheless, illegal dismissal. Other than the payslips
employees' monthly contributions which were does not warrant the conclusion that CyberOne mentioned, no other documentstendingtoprove
duly signed by JTA's authorized representative PH is a mere conduit of CyberOne AU. The their employment with CyberOne PH, were
andstampreceivedbytheconcernedgovernment doctrine of piercing the corporate veil applies submitted.
agencies, indubitably show that petitioner was only in three basic instances, namely: (a) when
s to the power of dismissal, the records reveal
A
not among its employees. the separate distinct corporate personality
that petitioners submitted letters of resignation
defeats public convenience, as when the
stothepowerofcontrol,whileitistruethatthe
A as directors of CyberOne PH and not as
corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the
purported driver's itineraries presented by employees thereof. Petitioners failedtoprovethe
evasion of an existing obligation; (b) in fraud
petitioner prescribed the manner by which his manner by which CyberOne PH allegedly
cases; or (c) is used inalter ego cases.
work as a driver is to be carried out, the said supervised and controlled their work.
itineraries were not signed by JTA's authorized ere, the application of the doctrine of piercing
H
hereexistednoemployer employeerelationship
T
personnel. the corporate veil is unwarranted. First, no
between petitioners and CyberOne PH.
evidence was presented to prove that CyberOne
I n all, no employer-employee existed between
PH was organized for the purpose of defeating
petitioner and JTA.
public convenience or evading an existing
Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co.2020
obligation. Second,petitionersfailedtoallegeany
fraudulent acts committed by CyberOne PH in etitioners, in a
P sking t he Court to treat
5 Piercing the corporate veil ordertojustifyawrong,protectafraud,ordefend Oceanview and Shogun Ships as one entity,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page103of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i nsisted that the obtaining facts which would merican Power Conversion Corp v. Lim2018
A ecuritySystem(SSS),Pag-ibigFunddocuments,
S
justify the application of piercing the veil of reQuasi-Contract and Health Maintenance Cards, which all
corporate fiction,i.e.,thatOceanviewchangedits e have this uniquesituationwhererespondent
W
indicate that they are employed by ABS-CBN.
corporate name to Shogun Ships, have been was hired directly by APCC of the USA, but was I n the same vein, the workers received their
properly pleaded and proved. being paid his remuneration byaseparateentity salariesfromABS-CBNtwiceamonth,asproven
he records, however, are bereft of evidence
T — APCP BV of the Philippines, andissupervised through the pay slips bearing the latter's
which would show that Shogun Ships was and controlled byAPCSfromSingaporeandAPC corporate name. Their rate of wages was
formerlyknownasOceanvieworthatOceanview Japan — all infurtheranceofAPCC'sobjectiveof determined solely by ABS-CBN. Likewise,
changed its corporate name to Shogun Ships. doing business here unfettered by government ABS-CBN wielded the power to discipline, and
Other than their bare allegations, petitioners regulation. For all legal purposes, APCC is correspondingly dismiss, any errant employee.
could have presented before the labor tribunals respondent's employer. The workerswerecontinuouslyunderthewatch
Oceanview's amended Articles of Incorporation of ABS-CBN and were required to strictly follow
indicating that it changed its name to Shogun company rules and regulations in andoutofthe
Ships, which petitioners, however, failed to do. 6 Cases involving television broadcasters company premises.
he doctrine of piercing the veil ofcorporate
T inally, consistent with the most important test
F
entitywillonlycomeintoplayoncethecourt in determining the existence of an
Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN2020 En Banc
has already acquired jurisdiction over the employer-employee relationship, ABS-CBN
corporation. Onlythenwoulditbeallowedto ON the workers are regular employees of
W wielded the power to control the means and
ABS-CBN. methods in the performance of the employees'
present evidence for or against piercing the
work. The workers were subject to the constant
veil of corporate fiction. Thus, if the Labor eginov.ABS-CBNruledthatcameramen/editors
B
and reporters are employees of ABS-CBN watch and scrutiny of ABS-CBN, through its
Arbiter or the NLRC in this case have not
following the four-fold test. TheCourt'srulingin productionsupervisors.Infact,theworkerswere
acquired jurisdiction over the corporation, it required to comply with ABS-CBN's company
Beginois applicable here.
wouldbeimproperforthisCourttopiercethe policies which entailed the prior approval and
corporate veil as this would offend the ere, the workers were hired by ABS-CBN
H evaluation of their performance. They were
corporation's right to due process. through its personnel department. They further mandated to attend seminars and
presented certificates of compensation, workshops to ensure their optimal performance
payment/tax withheld (BIR Form 2316), Social
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page104of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t work. Likewise, ABS-CBN controlled their
a roductionofsuchshowswereperformedbythe
p Paragele v. GMA2020
schedule and work assignments (and workers herein.
nly casual employees performing work that is
O
re-assignments). Furthermore, the workers did
hus, the workers are regular employees of
T neither necessary nor desirable to the usual
not have their own equipment to perform their ABS-CBNgiventhetasksthattheywereengaged business and trade of the employer are required
work. ABS-CBN provided them with the needed
in. to render at least one (1) yearofservicetoattain
tools and implements to accomplish their jobs.
regularstatus.Employeeswhoperformfunctions
ust like in Begino, the fact that the workers
J which are necessary and desirable to the usual
signed a "Talent Contract and/or Project ABS-CBN v. Magno2022 businessandtradeoftheemployerattainregular
AssignmentForm"doesnotipsofactomakethem status from the time of engagement.
elRosariov.ABS-CBNBroadcastingCorporation
D
talents. The nature of the employment does not
already established that there is an
dependonthewillorwordoftheemployeroron
employer-employee relationship between
the procedure for hiring and the manner of Ditiangkin v. Lazada e-Services Philippines2022
ABS-CBN and its talents under the IJM system.
designating the employee, but on the activities
hese IJM talents hired by ABS-CBN were
T ur laws and jurisprudence recognize twotypes
O
performed by the employee in relation to the
regular employees of ABS-CBN pursuant to of contractors:
employer's business.
Article 280 of the Labor Code. This is mainly 1) legitimate job contractors and
he recording and reproduction of moving
T
becausetheyperformedfunctionsnecessaryand
pictures,visuals,andstillsofeverynature,name, 2) i ndependent contractors who possess
desirable to ABS-CBN's overall business and
and description — or simply, the production of unique skills and talent.
trade.
shows — are an important component of
ABS-CBN'soverallbusinessscheme.Theworkers agno is deemed a regular employee of
M
— who were cameramen, light men, gaffers, ABS-CBN. She was similarly situated with the I ndependent Contractor – Trilateral
lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, petitionersinDelRosariowhowereplacedunder Relations
system engineers, VTR men, video engineers, the IJM system and continuously rehired for
B Labor Code; Department Order No. 174,
technical directors, and drivers — all played an various programs. As a VTR Playback Operator,
xecutive Order No. 51, Department Circular
E
indispensable role in the production and sherenderedservicesnecessaryanddesirableto
1 s. 2017
reproductionofshows,aswellaspost-production the overall business and trade of ABS-CBN.
services. The necessary jobs required in the
rilateral relationship; requirements
T
for independent contractor
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page105of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1) t heprincipalwhichdecidestofarmouta f orm of tools, equipment, machineries,
ermissible contracting or
P
job or service to a contractor or work premises, among others, supplies
subcontracting; not covered
subcontractor, workers to an employer to perform
ights of contractor’s/subcontractor’s
R activities which are directly related to the
2) t he contractor or subcontractor which
employees principal business of the employer.
has the capacity to independently
Effect of termination of employment undertake the performance of the job, 3. N
otallformsofcontractingareprohibited.
work or service, and Contracting or subcontracting shall be
rohibited contracting – Labor-only
P legitimate if all the following
contractor 3) t he contractual workers engaged by the
circumstances concur:
contractororsubcontractortoaccomplish
Registration of contractor the job work or service. a. t he contractor must be registered in
accordancewiththeruleandcarries
Other prohibitions
Ortiz v. Forever Richsons Trading2021 a distinct andindependentbusiness
Solidary liability hile the existence of registration in favor of a
W and undertakes to perform the job,
work or service on its own
Retaliatory measures contractor is a strong badge of legitimacy, the
responsibility, according to its own
elementsofsubstantialcapital,orinvestmentand
Applicability/non-applicability control over the workers may be examined to manner and method, and free from
controlanddirectionoftheprincipal
rebut the presumption of regularity toprovethat
rilateral relationship; requirements
T in all matters connected;
1 a contractor is not a legitimate one.
for independent contractor
I. W b. w
ith the performance of the work
ON Workpool Manpower is a legitimate
I n legitimate contracting, there exists a except as to the results thereof;
labor contractor.
trilateral relationship under which there is a c. T
he contractor has substantial
1. N
O. Workpool Manpower is a labor-only
contract for a specific job, work or service capital and/or investment; and
contractor.
between the principal and the contractor or
d. T
he Service Agreement ensure
subcontractor, and a contract of employment 2. A
rticle 106 of the Labor Code, defines
compliance with all the rights and
between thecontractororsubcontractorandits labor-only contracting as an arrangement
where a person, who does not have benefits under Labor Laws.
workers.Hence,therearethreepartiesinvolved
in these arrangements, substantial capital or investment in the 4. Whiletheexistenceofregistrationinfavor
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page106of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f a contractor is a strong badge of
o aymaster, Paulino Tinoy, who paid his
p
8. O
therthantherespondents'bareallegation
legitimacy, the elements of substantial and mere presentation of certificates of
wages.
capital, or investment andcontroloverthe registration to show that Workpool 11. Evidently, Workpool Manpower is a mere
workers may be examined to rebut the Manpowerisalegitimatejobcontractor,no supplier of labor.
presumption of regularity to prove that a other proof demonstrates that Workpool
contractor is not a legitimate one. Manpower had substantial capital or
5. H ere, the agreement between Workpool investment to be utilized in providing the artinez v. Magnolia Poultry Processing Plant
M
Manpower and the respondents was contracted services. Neither was it shown 2021Lazaro-Javier, J.
entered into on January 22, 2013, effective that Workpool Manpower provided its
I s Romac a legitimate labor contractor or a
until January 22, 2014. workerswithtoolsorequipmentnecessary
labor-only contractor?
6. H to carry out the services required by the
owever, Oscar started working for the
respondents. sageneralrule,acontractorispresumedtobea
A
respondentsinJune2011,whenheapplied
labor-only contractor, unless such contractor
forajobdirectlywiththerespondents,and 9. A
nother conclusive indicator oflabor-only
overcomes the burden of proving that it has
signedhisemploymentcontractwithinthe contracting is the fact that the contractor
substantialcapital,investment,tools,andthelike.
workpremisesoftherespondents.Thatthe doesnotexercisecontroloveritspurported
As a regulated industry, the law requires
contract he signed was with Workpool employees.
registration of labor contractors with the DOLE.
Manpowerasemployer,doesnothavealeg
10.The duties of Oscarinvolvetheproduction Failure to register shall give rise to the
to stand on since the document was not and manufacturing of the respondents' presumption that the contractor is engaged in
presented asevidence.Consequently,there mainproduct,plywood.Thus,hisfunctions labor-only contracting.
is nothing to support the allegation that
are necessary and desirable to the usual
Oscar was hired and employed by ere, there is no dispute that Romac held a
H
business and trade of the respondents. In
Workpool Manpower. Certificate of Registration as a legitimate and
addition, the machines operated by Oscar
independent labor contractor per DO 18-02.
7. M oreover, a careful perusal of the were owned by the respondents. Also, it
agreement between the respondents and was the respondents' leadmen in the I n 2001 alone, Romac already had on record a
Workpool Manpower, shows that the sections/departments who taught and capital stockofP20Mandownershipofanoffice
latter's obligation was solely to provide trained Oscar to use and operate the building, a commercial lot, various office
workers and nothing more. machineries. Finally, it was respondents' equipment, furniture and fixtures,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page107of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ommunication equipment, various service
c presumption. nd result of the petitioners' work. The
a
vehicles, and janitorial tools and equipment. petitioners, despite working in Sunpower's plant
ON Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent
W
Verily,Romachadsufficientcapitaltocarryonits contractor. for most of the time, admit that whenever they
independent on-going business as a legitimate file their leave application, or wheneverrequired
contractor or provider of services to its various YES. Since the petitioners do not dispute that bytheirsupervisorsinJobcrest,theyreporttothe
clients, including SMFI-MPPP pursuant to the obcrest was a duly-registered contractor under
J Jobcrest office. Designated on-site supervisors
standard of substantial capital under DO 18-A. Section 11 of DOLE DO No. 18-02, there is no from Jobcrest were the ones who oversaw the
operative presumption that Jobcrest is a performance of the employees' work within the
an Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Rivera held that the
S labor-only contractor. premises of Sunpower.
A-list clients listed in the roster of the labor
contractor apart from petitioner, which onversely, the fact of registration with DOLE
C
incidentally is the same company involved here, does not necessarily create a presumption that
Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent Nestle Philippines Inc. v. Puedan, Jr 2017
strongly indicates that the concerned labor
contractorcarriedonlegitimateandindependent contractor. The petitioners must overcome the ON ODSI is a labor-only contractor of NPI, and
W
business operations distinct from the operations presumption ofregularityaccordedtotheofficial consequently, NPI is respondents' true employer
of petitioner itself. act of DOLE. and,thus,deemedjointlyandseverallyliablewith
lltold,theCourtfindsandholdsthatRomacisa
A Jobcrest has substantial capital. ODSI for respondents' monetary claims.
legitimate labor contractor and truly the obcrest had substantial capital to perform the
J NO. A closer examination of the Distributorship
employer of Martinez, et al. Romac could not be business process services it provided Sunpower. greement reveals that t he relationship of NPI
A
said to have dismissed Martinez, et al. just It has its own office, to which the petitioners and ODSI is not that of a principal and a
becauseofitsservicecontractswithSMFI-MPPP admittedly reported to, possessed numerous contractor, but that of a seller and a
had expired. assets for the conduct of its business, and even buyer/re-seller.
continuously earned profit as a result.
hestipulationsintheDistributorshipAgreement
T
unpower does not control the manner by which
S donotoperatetocontrolorfixthemethodologyon
Mago et al. v. Sunpower Manufacturing Ltd.2018 the petitioners accomplished their work. howODSIshoulddoitsbusinessasadistributorof
contractor is presumed to be a labor-only
A hefactthatthepetitionerswereworkingwithin
T NPI products,butmerelyproviderulesofconduct
contractor, unless the contractor is able to the premises of Sunpower, by itself, does not or guidelines towards the achievement of a
discharge the burden of overcoming this negateJobcrest'scontroloverthemeans,method, mutuallydesiredresult—whichinthiscaseisthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page108of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
sale of NPI products to the end consumer. d) T
he Service Agreement ensurescompliance 1) T
he termination of employment of the
hus, the foregoing circumstances show that
T with all the rights and benefits for all the contractor's/subcontractor's employee prior
ODSI was not a laboronly contractor of NPI. employeesofthecontractororsubcontractor to the expiration of the Service Agreement
under the labor laws. shall be governed by Articles 297, 298 and
299 of the Labor Code.
ights of contractor’s/subcontractor’s
R
ermissible contracting or
P 3 2) I n case the termination of employment is
2 employees
subcontracting; not covered caused bythepre-terminationoftheService
llcontractor's/subcontractor'semployees,shallbe
A Agreement not due to authorized causes
ontracting or subcontracting shall only be
C
entitled to security oftenureandalltherightsand under Article 298, the right of the
ALLOWED if all the following circumstances
privileges as provided for in the Labor Code, as contractor's/subcontractor's employee to
concur:
amended, to include the following: unpaid wages and other unpaid benefits
a) T he contractor or subcontractor is engaged including unremitted legal mandatory
a) Safe and healthful working conditions;
in a distinct and independent business and contributions, e.g., SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG,
undertakes to performthejoborworkonits b) L
abor standards such as but not limited to ECC, shall be borne by the party at fault,
own responsibility, according to its own service incentive leave, rest days, overtime without prejudice to the solidary liability of
manner and method; pay, holiday pay, 13 month pay, and the parties to the Service Agreement.
separation pay;
b) T he contractor or subcontractor has 3) Where the termination results
substantial capital to carry out the job c) R
etirement benefits under t he SSS or
a) f rom the expiration of the Service
farmed out by the principal on his account, retirement plans of the
Agreement, or
mannerandmethod,investmentintheform contractor/subcontractor;
of tools, equipment, machinery and b) f rom the completion of the phase of
d) Social security and welfare benefits; and
supervision; the job or work for which the
e) S
elf-organization, collective bargaining and employee is engaged,
c) I n performing the work farmed out, the peaceful concerted activities including the
contractor or subcontractor is free from the t helattermayopttowaitforre-employment
right to strike.
control and/or direction of the principal in within three (3) months to resign and
all matters connected with theperformance transfer to another contractor-employer.
4 Effect of termination of employment
of the work except as to the result thereto;
and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page109of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ailure of the contractor to provide new
F 2) L
abor-only contracting, which is totally ere, Conqueror is presumed to have complied
H
employment for the employee shall entitle prohibited, refers to: with all the requirements of a legitimate job
the latter to payment of separation benefits a) an arrangement where contractor considering the Certificates of
as may be provided by law or the Service Registration issued to it bytheDOLE.Atanyrate,
Agreement, whichever is higher, without i) he contractor or subcontractor does
T
Conqueror has a substantial capital of morethan
prejudice to his/her entitlement to not have substantial capital, OR
P3M. Having substantial capital and work
completion bonuses or other emoluments, ii) he contractor or subcontractor does
T premises of its own, Conqueror cannot be
including retirement benefits whenever not have investments in the form of considered as a labor-only contractor by the
applicable. tools, equipment, machineries, allegedfactthatrespondentsperformedactivities
he mere expiration of the Service
T supervision, work premises, among directly related to the main business of Sagara.
Agreement shall not be deemed as a others,AND
hile it may be argued that Conqueror did not
W
termination of employment of the iii) he contractor's or subcontractor's
T have investment in the form of tools, equipment,
contractor's/subcontractor's employees who employees recruited and placed are and machineries, it is sufficient that it has a
are regular employees of the latter. performing activities which are substantial capital of more than P3M. The law
directly related to the main business does not require a contractor to have both
rohibited contracting – Labor-only
P operationof the principal;OR substantial capital and investment intheformof
5
contractor tools, equipment, machineries, etc. This can be
b) T
he contractor or subcontractor does not
1) T here is "labor-only" contracting where exercise the right to control over the gleaned from the use of the conjunction "o
r" in
the person supplying workers to an employer performance of the work of the employee. Article106oftheLaborCodeandSection5(i)ofDO
18-02.
a) d oes not have substantial capital or
onqueror Industrial Peace Management
C
investment in the form of tools, Cooperative v. Balingbing2022 3) "Substantial capital" — refers to paid-up
equipment, machineries, work premises, apitalstock/sharesatleastP5Minthecase
c
among others, and To be considered as a labor-only contractor, the
of corporations, partnerships and
lack of substantial capital ofthecontractor must
b) t heworkersrecruitedandplacedbysuch cooperatives; in the case of single
concur with the fact that the employees' work
person are performing activities which proprietorship, a net worth ofat leastP5M.
irectly relates to the main business of the
d
are directly related to the principal Effects of Labor-only Contracting
principal.
business of such employer.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page110of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1) P rincipal is deemed direct employer of ere, Interserve and Hotwired are engaged in
H I n all, CCBPI is the direct employer of the
contractor’s employees; labor-only contracting under the first instance. petitioners, thus it is liable for their claims.
2) C ontractor will be treated as agent of They do nothaveinvestmentorcapitalizationin
principal; tools, equipment, machineries, supervision and
work premises. Petitioners worked in the Monsanto Philippines v. NLRC2020
3) P rincipal’s liability is comprehensive —
premises owned by CCBPI. The tools,
allliabilitiesunderlaborlaws,notonlyto I findeedEastStaristherealemployerofprivate
machineries and equipment they use all belong
unpaid wages. respondents,itshouldbeexercisingthepowerof
to CCBPI. These facts belie the claim that
control over them and not Monsanto. The
Luces v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.2020 Interserve or Hotwired has substantial
evidence points to the conclusion that East Star
capitalization in tools, machineries, equipment,
here are two instances when a contractor or
T isnotalegitimatejobcontractor,butalabor-only
supervision and work premises.
subcontractor is deemed to be engaged in contractor. East Star is not the employer of
finding that a company has substantial
A private respondents.
labor-only contracting.
capitalization does not automatically result to a
In thefirst instance, there are two indicators: lthough East Star has a subscribed capital of
A
findingthatitisanindependentjobcontractoras
P10M as stated in its ArticlesofIncorporation,it
1) t he contractor or subcontractor does not was in the case of San Miguel Corp. v. MAERC
does not have substantial capital or investment
have substantial capitalization or it does IntegratedServicesInc.,andin DOLEPhilippines
in the form of tools, equipment, implementsand
not have investment in tools, equipment, Inc. v. Esteva.
machines to use in the performance of the
machineries, supervision and work oreover, the fact that the petitioners are
M private respondents' work. Clearly, one of the
premises and performing activities directly related and elements of labor-only contracting is present. It
2) i ts employees are performing activities or indispensable to the main business of CCBPI is has also been established that East Star did not
jobs which are directly related and well-established. According to CCBPI, it is exercise the right to control the performance of
indispensable to the main business of the engaged in the business of manufacturing, private respondents' work. Hence, another
principal. distributing and marketing of soft drinks and element of labor-only contracting exists.
beverageproducts.Meanwhile,thepetitioners,as
I n the second instance, the principal, not the I n all, Monsanto is the employer of the private
route helpers, delivery truck drivers and forklift
contractor or subcontractor, exercises the power respondents. It hired private respondents way
operators are doing tasks necessary, pertinent
of control over the manner and method of the before it entered into a service agreement with
and vital to the operations of CCBPI.
employees' work. East Star. After reorganizing, Monsanto
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page111of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t ransferred private respondents to East Star in ere its regular employees. In this case,
w
WON STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting.
violation of their right to security of tenure. As petitioners had similarly undertook to bring
the real employer of private respondents, it is YES. STEP merely acted as a placement agency CCBPI'sproductstoitscustomersattheirdelivery
liable for violation of labor laws. rovidingmanpowertoLingnamRestaurant.The
p points.
service rendered by STEP in favor of Lingnam
ON MDTC is an independent contractor and
W
Restaurantwasnottheperformanceofaspecific
employers of petitioners.
Abuda et al. v. L. Natividad Poultry Farms2018 job, but the supply of personnel.
O. CCBPI's contention that MDTC was a
N
ON the maintenance personnelinL.Natividad
W legitimate labor contractor and was the actual
Poultry Farms can be considered as its regular Lingat v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils, Inc2018 employer of petitioners does not hold water.
employees.
o determine whether one is an independent
T
YES. San Mateo and petitioner Del Remedios
contractor, the possession of substantial capital
ere not independent contractors butlabor-only
w 6 Registration of contractor
is only one element. It is necessary to prove not
contractors since they did not have substantial only substantial capital or investment in tools, 1) I t shall be mandatory for all persons or
investment in the form of tools, equipment, or
equipment, work premises, among others, but entitiesactingascontractorstoregisterwith
work premises. As labor-only contractors, they ALSO that the work of the employee is directly the Regional Office of the Department of
were considered to be agents of L. Natividad. related to the work thatcontractorisrequiredto Labor and Employment (DOLE) where it
perform for the principal. principally operates.
ingnam Restaurant v. Skills & Talent
L ON petitioners were regular employees of
W 2) F
ailure to register shall give rise to the
Employment2018 CCBPI. presumption that the contractor is engaged
in labor-only contracting.
he legitimate job contractor provides services,
T ES. Petitioners' duties were reasonably
Y
while the labor-only contractor provides only connected to the very business of CCBPI. They
Añonuevo v. CBK Power Company2023
manpower. The legitimate job contractor were indispensable to such business because
undertakes to perform a specific job for the without them the products of CCBPI would not BK failed to present Rolpson's Certificate of
C
reach its customers. Registration with the DOLE. There being no
principal employer, while the labor-only
Certificate of Registration, a presumption arises
contractormerelyprovidesthepersonneltowork I n Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc., the
that Rolpson is engaged in labor-only
for the principal employer. Court ruled that the sales route helpers ofCCBPI
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page112of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ontracting.Thispresumptionwillprevailunless
c prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of inally,withregardtothepowerofdismissal,itis
F
the contractor overcomes the burden of proving circumstances must be considered, and all undisputedthatVikingshadthepowertodismiss
that it has substantial capital, investment, tools f eaturesoftherelationshipevaluatedaccordingto the petitioner. Both parties in their respective
and thelike.Here,CBKfailedtoadduceanyproof the criteria set by law. An employee repeatedly pleadings admit that Vikings recommends the
that Rolpson had any substantial capital, and continuously hired for the same work under dismissal of employees.
investment or assets to perform the work short-term contracts for at least one year is
contractor for. Thus, the presumption that hetotalityofcircumstancesleadsustoconclude
T
considered a regular employee of the principal.
Rolpson is a labor-only contractor stands. that notwithstanding Hardworkers' registration
ere, Hardworkers was engaged in labor-only
H as an independent contractor, it has engaged in
finding that a contractor is a labor-only
A contracting. prohibited labor-only contracting with Vikings.
contractorisequivalenttoadeclarationthatthere
irst, while it had a paid-up capital of P3M,
F
is an employer-employee relationship between
Hardworkers did not present any other proof
the principal and the workers of the labor-only
showing its equipment, assets, and tools for the Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corp2017
contractor; the labor-only contractor is deemed
conduct of itsbusiness.Petitionerherselfworked ON Valencia is an employee of CMS and not
W
only as the agent of the principal.
on the premises of Vikings, using equipment
Classique Vinyl.
ith the finding that Rolpson is a labor-only
W provided and owned by Vikings; and performed
contractor, Añonuevo isthereforeconsideredasa activitiesaccordingtotheinstructionsofVikings, YES. Valencia's selection and engagement was
regular employee of CBK. first as a packer and then as a dim sum maker. ndertaken by CMS and conversely, this negates
u
theexistenceofsuchelementinsofarasClassique
econd,therewasnoproofofwhatparticularjob,
S
Vinyl is concerned.
work, or service Hardworkers was supposed to
Caballero v. Vikings Commissary2022 ere, Classique Vinyl presented the CMS’s
H
perform for Vikings.
certificate of registration issued by the
A Certificate of Registration with the DTI and
hird, petitioner’s job as a dim sum maker is
T
Department of Labor and Employment is not license as a private recruitment and placement
directly related to Vikings' food business.
conclusive proofofthestatusofthecontractoras agency from the DOLE. Indeed, these documents
anindependentcontractororthelegitimacyofits ourth, Hardworkers failed to show that it, and
F are not conclusive evidence of the status of CMS
operations.Todeterminewhetherthecontractual not Vikings, established petitioner's working as acontractor.However,suchfactofregistration
relationshipbetweentheprincipalandcontractor procedure and methods and supervised her work. of CMS prevented the legal presumption of it
is one of permissible job contracting or the being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page113of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
enefits; or a quitclaim releasing the
b
he facts failed to establish that there is any
T a) W
hen the principal farms out work to a
"Cabo" principal or contractor from liability as to
circumvention of labor laws as to call for the payment of future claims; or require the
creation by the statute of an EER between b) C
ontracting out of job or work through an employee to become member of a
Classique Vinyl and Valencia. in-house agency. cooperative.
c) C
ontracting out of job or work through an h) Repeated hiring by the
in-house cooperative which merelysupplies contractor/subcontractorofemployeesunder
Phil. Pizza Inc. v. Porras2018 workers to the principal. an employment contract of short duration.
lthoughnotaconclusiveproofoflegitimacy,the
A d) C
ontractingoutofajoborworkbyreasonof i) R
equiring employees under a
certification by the DOLE nonetheless prevents a strike or lockout whether actual or contracting/subcontracting arrangement to
the presumption of labor-only contracting from imminent. sign a contract fixing the period of
arising. It gives rise to a disputable presumption
e) C
ontracting out of a job or work being employment to a termshorterthantheterm
that the contractor's operations are legitimate.
performed by union members andsuchwill oftheServiceAgreement,unlessthecontract
BMI is a legitimate job contractor, and
C interfere with, restrain or coerce employees is divisible into phases for which
consequently,theemployerofrespondents.CBMI in the exercise of their rights to substantiallydifferentskillsarerequiredand
retained control over respondents, as shown by self-organization as provided in Article 259 this is made known to the employee at the
the deployment of at least one (1) CBMI of the Labor Code, as amended. time of engagement.
supervisor in each Pizza Hutbranchtoregularly
f) R
equiring the contractor's/subcontractor's j) S
uch other practices, schemes or
oversee, monitor, and supervise the employees'
employees to perform functions which are employment arrangements designed to
attendance and performance. Respondents
currently being performed by the regular circumventtherightofworkerstosecurityof
applied for work with CBMI and were
employees of the principal. tenure.
consequently selected and hired by the latter.
g) R
equiring the contractor's/subcontractor's
8 Solidary liability
employees to sign, as a precondition to
7 Other prohibitions employment or continued employment, an I n the event of violation of anyprovisionofthe
antedated resignation letter; a blankpayroll; Labor Code, including the failure to pay wages,
he following are hereby declared prohibited for
T a waiver of labor standards including thereexistsasolidaryliabilityonthepartofthe
being contrary to the law or public policy: minimum wages and social or welfare principal and the contractor for purposes of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page114of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nforcing the provisions of the Labor Code and
e
ursuant to Article 118 of the Labor Code, as
P c) D
OLE-DPWH-DILG-DTI and PCAB
other social legislations, to the extent of the
amended, it shall be unlawful for theprincipal, Memorandum of Agreement-Joint
work performed under the employment contractor, or any party privy to thecontractor Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
contract.
services provided to refuse topayorreducethe 2011 (on coordination and
The Red Systems Company v. Macalino2022 wages and benefits, and discharge or in any harmonization of policies and
manner discriminate against any worker who programs on occupational safety and
aving been declared as a labor-only contractor,
H has filed any complaint or instituted any health in the construction industry).
petitioner is solidarily liable with Coca-Cola for proceeding onwages,laborstandardsviolation,
2) I n industries covered by a separate
the monetary benefits awarded by the LA to or has testified or is about to testify in such regulation of the DOLE or other government
respondents.ItdoesnotmatterthattheLAdidnot proceedings.
agency, contracting therein shall be
specifically rule to this effect, since the solidary
governed by these Rules unless expressly
liability between the principalandthelabor-only 10 Applicability/non-applicability
provided otherwise.
contractor is mandated by the law itself. The
1) C
ontracting or subcontractingarrangements
practical consequence of this solidary liability,to
in the Construction Industry, under the Conjusta v. PPI Holdings, Inc.2022
note, is that respondents may demand the
licensing coverage of the Philippine
paymentofthemonetaryawardsgrantedtothem revious declarations that a company is an
P
Construction Accreditation Board (PCAB),
by the LA from either Coca-Cola or petitioner. independent job contractor cannot validlybethe
shall not be covered by the provisions of
basis in concluding its statusassuchinanother
these Rules and shall continue to be
case involving a different employee. The totality
governed by
Paje v. Spic N' Span Service2022 of the facts and surrounding circumstances,
a) D
epartmentOrderNo.19,Seriesof1993 distinct in every case, must be assessed in
quitclaim executed in favor of the employer
A
(Guidelines Governing the determiningwhetheranentityisalegitimatejob
does not operate to discharge the labor-only
Employment of Workers in the contractor or a labor-only contractor.
contractorfromliabilityfortheremainingbalance
Construction Industry) and
of the workers' money claims. ON the CA erred in ruling that CBMI was a
W
b) D
epartmentOrderNo.13,Seriesof1998 legitimate job contractor and, consequently,was
(Guidelines Governing the Conjusta's direct employer.
Occupational Safety and Healthinthe
9 Retaliatory measures 1. Y
ES. PPI and CBMI were engaged in the
Construction Industry); and
proscribed labor-only contracting.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page115of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. T
here is "labor-only" contracting where the predetermined period; and contracting.
person supplying workers to an employer 3.5. t he exercise of the righttocontrolthe 7. W
ith the finding that CBMI is a labor-only
does not have substantial capital or performance of the employees' work. contractor,itisconsideredasamereagentof
investment in the form of tools, equipment, PPI,whichinturnisdeemedtobeConjusta's
he principle of stare decisis cannot be
4. T
machineries, work premises, among others, applied in determining whether one is employer.
and the workers recruited and placed by engaged in the permissible job contracting
suchpersonareperformingactivitieswhich or otherwise since such characterization
are directly relatedtotheprincipalbusiness should be based on the distinct features of I ndependent Contractor – Bilateral
of such employer. C
therelationshipbetweentheparties,andthe Relations
3. T
he following must be considered in totality of the facts and attendant
1. Anindependent contractoris one who
determining whether CBMI is a legitimate circumstances of each case, measured
job contractor or is engaged in labor-only against the terms of and criteria set by the a. c
arries on a distinct and independent
contracting: statute. business and
3.1. r egistration with the proper 5. I t has been consistently ruled that a b. u
ndertakes to perform the jobortodo
government agencies; certificate of registration as an independent a piece of work on its own account
contractorisnotconclusiveevidenceofsuch and under its own responsibility,
3.2. e xistence of substantial capital or
status.Suchregistrationmerelypreventsthe c. a
ccording to its own manner and
investment;
legal presumption of being a labor-only methods and
3.3. s ervice agreement that ensures contractor from arising.
compliance with all the rights and d. f ree from the control and direction of
benefits under labor laws; 6. I ndeed, the element of control is a strong the principal in all mattersconnected
indicator of the nature of a contractor's with the performance of the work
3.4. n
ature of the activities performed by activity and its relationship with the exceptas to theresultsthereof.
the employees, i.e., if they are usually employee. Whenever it is established, as in
necessaryordesirabletotheoperation 2. A
mere statement in a contract with a
this case, that the principal, not the
of the principal's company or directly company that laborers who are paid
contractor, actually controls the manner of
related to the main business of the accordingtotheamountandqualityofwork
the employee's work, such contractor is
principal within a definite areindependentcontractorsdoesnotchange
considered as engaged in labor-only
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page116of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t heir status as mere employees in r elationship in this case, considering that the
fter the quality of service that petitioners, who
a
contemplation of labor laws. independent contractor directly performs the
weredeemedasindependentcontractors,deliver
to their clients. work for the principal. As such, the relationship
scauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil., Inc.2024
E is bilateral.
Lazaro-Javier, J. storighttocontrol,respondents'righttoassign
A
petitioners to any ofitsmanagedhealthclubsas ere, petitioners do not fall under the first
H
he independent contractor consists of
T category of independent contractor as there
it maydeemnecessaryandrighttoimposerules
individualswhopossessuniqueskillsandtalents existsnotrilateralrelationshipinthiscase.From
and regulations, particularly the procedure to be
which set them apart from ordinary employees theparties'submissions,itisclearthattheywere
followed are manifestations of its exercise of
and whose means and methods ofworkarefree nothiredbyanycontractortodoworkforLazada.
control, if not management prerogative.
from the control of the employer.
PetitionersdirectlysignedacontractwithLazada
nder this arrangement, there is no trilateral
U after their contract with RGServe and Dynamic
relationship but a bilateral relationship because Borromeo v. Lazada e-Services Philippines2024 expired. It is also Lazada who personally paid
independent contractors are directly engaged by themfortheirservices.Petitionerscannotalsobe
hisisacaseregardingpick-upridersofLazada.
T
theprincipal.Underthefour-foldtest,therightto considered as independent contractors in a
Lazada contends that they are independent
control is the dominant factor in determining bilateral relationship inasmuch as the delivery
contractors and not its employees for the
whether one is an employee or an independent service they performed for Lazada does not
followingreasons:(a)theymakeuseoftheirown
contractor. require unique skills and talents as would set
vehicles in providing the contracted services;(b)
them apart from ordinary employees.
irst, as personal trainers, petitioners performed
F theyweredulyregisteredandlicensedtoperform
tasks necessary and desirable to respondents' delivery and transportation services with the
principal business of providing health pertinent business permits; and (c) their
programs/packages—toconductphysicaltraining Ditiangkin v. Lazada e-Services Philippines2022
individualcontractsexplicitlyprovidedthatthere
to respondents' clients. will be no employer-employee relationship ermissible contracting or subcontracting is
P
econd, to ensure the quality of services that
S between the parties. governed by a trilateral relationshipwhereinthe
respondents provide,petitionerswererequiredto principal engages the contractor's services. In
notherkindofindependentcontractorhasbeen
A
attendalleducationaltrainingsessionsandother turn, the contractor hires workers toaccomplish
recognized by jurisprudence—individuals with
such events pertaining to Fitness First the work for the principal.
uniqueskillsandtalentsthatsetthemapartfrom
Department. This shows that respondents were ordinary employees. There is no trilateral
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page117of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
he second type of independent contractor
T V Labor Standards Service charge
consistsofindividualswhopossessuniqueskills
EmployeesNOTcovered
and talents which set them apart from ordinary Conditions of Employment
employees and whose means and methods of 1) Government employees
Wages
work are free from the control of the employer. 2) M
anagerial EEs — Meet the following
Examples can include Leaves conditions:
1. a columnist whowashiredbecauseofher Working conditions for special workers a) Formulate policies;
talent, skill, experience, and feminist
orking Conditions for special groups
W b) Execute management policies;
standpoint,
of employees c) Impose disciplinary actions
2. a basketball referee who hasspecialskills
and independent judgment, and exual Harassment in the Work
S eason for exclusion Not usually employed
R
Environment by the hour, but by their special training,
3. a masiador or sentenciador who had
experience or knowledge.
expertise in cockfight gambling.
A Conditions of Employment From Omnibus Rules:
I n these instances, there is no trilateral
relationship but a bilateral relationship because Hours of Work a) T
heir primary duty consists of the
theindependentcontractorsaredirectlyengaged management of the establishment in
by the principal. With this type of contracting, Flexible Work Arrangements which they are employed or of a
there is no employer-employee relationship department or subdivision thereof.
The Bunkhouse Rule
between an independent contractor and the hey customarilyandregularlydirect
b) T
principal,andtheircontractsaregovernedbythe The Personal Comfort Doctrine the work of two or more employees
CivilCode.Whenthestatusoftheemploymentis therein.
Overtime Work
indispute,theemployerbearstheburdentoprove
c) T
hey have the authority to hireorfire
that the workers are independent contractors on-compensable hours; when
N
employees of lower rank; or their
rather than regular employees. compensable
suggestions and recommendations as
Rest periods to hiring and firing and as to the
promotion or any other change of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page118of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s tatus of other employees, are given
iii) xecute,
e under general orkers paid by results whose time and
8) W
particular weight.
supervision, special performance are NOT supervised — Piece
3) O fficers or members ofamanagerialstaffif assignments and tasks; and rate or job or task based.
they perform the following duties and
d) W
ho do not devote more than 20
responsibilities: percent of their hours worked in a
1 Hours of Work
a) T he primary duty consists of the work week to activitieswhicharenot 1. A
ll hours are hours worked which the
performance of work directly related directly and closely related to the employee is required to give his employer,
to management policies of their performance of the work described in regardless of whether or not such hours are
employer; paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above. spent inproductivelabororinvolvephysical
b) C ustomarily and regularly exercise 4) Field personnel —If they: or mental exertion.
discretion and independentjudgment; a) R 2. A
n employee neednotleavethepremisesof
egularly perform duties away from the
and principal or branch office or place of the workplace in order that his rest period
c) business of employer;and shallnotbecounted,itbeingenoughthathe
stopsworking,mayrestcompletelyandmay
i) egularly and directly assist a
R b) W
hose actual hours of work in the field
leave his work place, to go elsewhere,
proprietor or a managerial cannot be determined with reasonable
whether within or outside the premises of
employee whose primary duty certainty.
his work place.
consists of the management of
5) M
embersofthefamilyofemployerwhoare
the establishment in which he 3. I f the work performed was necessary, or it
dependentuponhimforsupport—Employer
is employed or subdivision benefited the employer, or the employee
has already taken care of the employee’s
thereof; or couldnotabandonhisworkattheendofhis
sustenance.
normal working hours because he had no
ii) xecute
e under general 6) D
omestic helpers — coveredinKasambahay replacement, all time spent for such work
supervision work along
Law; shall be considered as hours worked, if the
specialized or technical lines
7) P
ersonsinthepersonalserviceofanother— work was with the knowledge of his
requiring special training,
Alreadyprovidedwithlivingquarters;nature employer or immediate supervisor.
experience, or knowledge; or
of work; plus they are not employed in a 4. T
he time during which an employee is
business undertaking. inactive by reason of interruptions in his
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page119of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ork beyond hiscontrolshallbeconsidered
w
1 5-18: 40H/W, 8H/D, not allowed between 3. T
he employer shall ensure that the
working time either 10pm to 6am the next day. telecommuting employees are given the
a. i f theimminenceoftheresumptionof 2) D same treatment as that of comparable
omesticworker.— entitleddailytoatleast
workrequirestheemployee'spresence employeesandaregiventhesametreatment
8 hours aggregate rest per day.
at the place of work or as that ofcomparableemployeesworkingat
3) Health personnel. —in the time employer's premises.
b. i ftheintervalistoobrieftobeutilized
a) C
ities and municipalitieswithatleast
effectively and gainfully in the 4. F
lexible work arrangements refer to
employee'sowninterest.(Sec.4,RuleI, 1M population;or
alternative arrangements or schedulesother
Book III, IRR) b) H
ospitals with at least 100 bed than the traditional or standardworkhours,
capacity, workdays and workweek. The followingare
Normal hours of work
egularofficehoursfor8hoursaday,5days
R the flexible work arrangements which may
he normal hours of work of any employee shall
T be considered, among others:
a week, except where exigencies of service
not exceed eight (8) hours a day.Itincludes
require such personnel to work on the 6th a. C
ompressed Workweek refers to one
1) Hours worked under Art 84 day, in which case he is entitled to the 30% where the normal workweek is
a. A lltimeduringwhichEEisrequiredtobe premium pay.seeDOLE D.O. No. 182 s. 2017. reduced to less than six (6) days but
on duty or to be at a prescribed the total number of work-hours of 48
workplace; Flexible Work Arrangements hours per week shall remain. The
2 normal workday is increased to more
b. A ll the time during which an EE is R.A. No. 11165
than eight hours but not to exceed
sufferedorpermittedto work; 1. T
elecommuting refers t o work from an twelve hours, without corresponding
2) Rest periodsof short interval (5-20 minutes) alternative workplace with the use of overtime premium. The concept can
telecommunications and/or computer be adjusted accordingly dependingon
3) Meal period of less than 20 minutes;
technologies. the normalworkweekofthecompany
4) R easonable time to withdraw wages from
2. A
nemployerintheprivatesectormayoffera pursuant to the provisions of
bank or ATM, or by check.
telecommuting program to its employeeson Department Advisory No. 02, series of
Other hours of work a voluntary basis, and upon such termsand 2004, dated 2 December 2004.
1) C hildren. — below 15: 20H/W, 4H/D, not conditions as they may mutually agree upon.
allowed between 8pm to 6am of next day;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page120of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b. R eduction of Workdays refers to one here the employee is required to stay in the
W b. Night shift differential
wherethenormalworkdaysperweek premises or in quarters furnished by the
2. Night shift differential. — An employee
1) §
are reduced but should not last for employer, injuries sustained therein are in the
shallbepaidnightshiftdifferentialofnoless
more than six months. courseofemploymentregardlessofthetimethe
t han ten percent(10%) ofhisregularwage
c. R same occurred.
otation of Workers refers to one foreachhourofworkperformedbetween 10
where the employees are rotated or p.m. and 6 a.m.
alternately provided work within the
The Personal Comfort Doctrine
3. Additional compensation. — Where an
2) §
workweek. 4 Normal hours of work employeeispermittedorsufferedtoworkon
d. F orced Leave refers to one where the the period covered after his work schedule,
Night shift differential
employees are required to go onleave he shall be entitled
for several days or weeks utilizing a. Normal hours of work a) t o his regular wage plus at least
their leave credits if there are any.
(ECC Board Res. 15-04-15) twenty-five per cent (25%)and
e. B roken-time schedule refers to one
Acts performed by an employee: b) a
n additional amount of no less than
where the work schedule is not
1. w
ithin the time and space limits of his ten per cent (10%) of such overtime
continuous butthework-hourswithin
employment to minister personal comfort rate for each hour or work performed
the day or week remain.
such as satisfaction of his thirst, hunger or between10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
f. F lexi-holidays schedule refers to one
personal demands; 4. Additional compensation on scheduled
3) §
wheretheemployeesagreetoavailthe
2. w
hileontheplacesofrecreationwithinER’s rest day/special holiday. — An employee
holidays at some other days provided
premises, or who is required or permitted toworkonthe
there is no diminution of existing
period covered during rest days and/or
benefits as a result of such 3. t o protecthimselffromextremetemperature
special holidays not falling on regular
arrangement. in a place within ER’s premises
holidays, shall be paid a compensation
SeeDOLE DA No. 2 s. 2009 hallbedeemedincidentaltohisemploymentand
S equivalent
injuries which the EE suffered in theperformance
a) t ohisregularwageplusatleastthirty
3 The Bunkhouse Rule of such acts shall be considered COMPENSABLE
(30%) per centand
and arising out of and in the course of employment.
(ECC Board Res. 12-01-02)
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page121of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r emains at 48. Thus, the workweek may be ompensation for the overtime work in the
c
b) a n additional amount of not lessthan
compressed only up to4 days. amountequivalenttohisregularwageplusat
ten (10%) per cent of such premium
least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof.
pay rate for each hour of work 3. C
WW results from an express voluntary
performed. agreement of majority of the covered 9. Premium and overtime pay for holiday
§
4) § 5. Additional compensation on regular
employees or their duly authorized and rest day work. — An employee who is
holidays. — For work on the period covered representatives. permitted or suffered to work on special
during regular holidays, an employee shall holidays or on his designated rest days not
4. A
three-day work week is illegal. — Illegal
fallingonregularholidays,shallbepaidwith
be entitled compressed workweek when work days
were reduced from 6 to 3 days a week, an additional compensation as premiumpay
a) t o his regular wage during thesedays of not less than thirty percent (30%) of his
resulting to illegal reduction of work hours,
plusanadditionalcompensationofno regular wage. For work performed in excess
less than ten (10%) per cent of such as there was no adequate proof of losses.
Financial losses must be shown before a ofeight(8)hoursonspecialholidaysandrest
premium rate for each hour of work days not falling on regular holidays, an
companycanvalidlyopttoreducethework
performed. employee shall be paid an additional
hours of its employees. (L
inton Commercial
compensation for the overtime work
Overtime Work v. Hellera)
equivalent to his rate for thefirsteighthours
5. W
aiving of OT in CWW is valid. D.O. No. 21 on a special holiday or rest day plus at least
5 Compressed work week
sanctions the waiver of overtime pay in thirty percent (30%) thereof.
Built-in overtime consideration of the benefits that the
employeeswillderivefromtheadoptionofa GR: o employee may be compelled to
N
a. Compressed work week compressed workweek scheme. (Bisig ng render OT against his will;
1. N ormal workweek — 6 consecutivedays,48 Manggagawa sa Tryco v. NLRC) EXC: Art 89,§10
hours per week; SeeDOLE DA No. 2 s. 2004 a) C
ountry is at war or there is a declared
2. C
ompressed —lessthan6days,butmaynot national or local emergency;
b. Built-in overtime
exceed 12 hours per day. It is an alternative b) O
Tisnecessarytopreventlossoflifeor
arrangementwherebythenormalworkweek 8. Overtimepay.—Anyemployeecoveredby
§
property or in case of imminentdanger
is reduced to less than 6 days but the total thisRulewhoispermittedorrequiredtowork
to public safety due to calamities;
number of normal work hours per week beyond eight (8) hours on ordinary working
days shall be paid an additional
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page122of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c) T hereisurgentworktobeperformedon t hemanagement.Withoutthepriorauthorization, 3) I ncasesofactualorimpendingemergencies
machineries in order to avoid serious therefore, Villa could not validly claim having or there is urgent work to be performed on
loss or damage to the employer; performed work beyond the normal hours of machineries; and
work.
d) W ork is necessary to prevent loss or 4) W
ork is necessary to prevent seriouslossof
damage of perishable goods; perishable goods.
e) C ompletion or continuation of work
on-compensable hours; when
N onpack Corporation v. Nagkakaisang
B
startedbeforethe8thhournecessaryto compensable Manggagawa sa Bonpack2022
prevent serious obstruction or prejudice
to the business; and Meal break he normal eight-hour w
T ork period does not
include the statutory and non-compensable
f) N ecessary to avail of favorable weather Power interruptions or brownouts
one-hour meal break.
conditions. 6
Idle time evertheless, the hours of work of theemployees
N
nder Art 88 and jurisprudence, undertime is
U
Travel time maybemodifiedorregulatedinadulysignedCBA
strictly not offset by overtime.
between the employer and its employees.
Commuting time
Robina Farms Cebu v. Villa2016 he short rest periods of meal time, or those
T
Waiting time periods shorter than one-hour, have been
irstly, entitlement to overtime pay mustfirstbe
F
purposely integrated bythepartiesinthenormal
established by proof that the overtimeworkwas
a. Meal break eight-hour workday. The intent of the parties is
actually performed before the employee may
At least one-hourof non-compensable meal period. readily ascertainable. The CBA divided the meal
properlyclaimthebenefit.Theburdenofproving
time of the employees into three parts, i.e., the
entitlement to overtime pay rests on the aybeshortened(B
M ookIIIRule1Sec7)toatmost,
30-minute lunch break and two 15-minute coffee
employee because the benefit is not incurred in 20 minutesprovided:
breaks. Evidently, the meal time wasdividedinto
the normal course of business. 1) Work is non-manual; shorter rest periods so that these periods can be
nd, secondly, the DTRs did not substantially
A 2) E
stablishment regularly operates not less considered ascompensable.
prove the actual performance of overtime work. than 16 hours a day; heCAcorrectlyruledthatpetitioner'semployees
T
Any employee could render overtime work only
who worked for 12 hours in an eight-hour
whentherewasapriorauthorizationthereforby
workday, and took the 30-minute and two
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page123of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1 5-minute rest breaks as their meal time in 2. C
onsidered as hoursworked —ifrequiredto n on-call employee is considered working if,
A
accordance with the CBA, must be compensated deviate from his normal while required to beintheemployer’spremises
for four hours of overtime pay. home-to-work-work-to-home travel. or so close thereto, he cannot use the time
effectively or gainfully for his own purpose.
3. T
ravel that is all in the day’s
b. Power interruptions or brownouts
work—compensable hours worked.
1. If not exceeding 20 minutes,compensable; 7 Rest periods
e. Commuting time
2. If more than 20 minutes,not compensableif: mployees working for 6 consecutive days are
E
1. T
ravel from home to work is NOT entitled to a rest day of at least 24 consecutive
a. Employees can leave; or compensable working timeexcept: hours.
b. E mployeescanusetimeeffectivelyfor a. w
hen called to travel during GR: mployer schedules employee’s rest
E
their own interest. emergency; day.
3. I n each case, employer may extend normal
b. w
hen travel is done t hrough a EXC: E
mployee preference based on
working hours to make up for lost time. conveyance furnished y
b the religious ground;
c. Idle time employer;
Emustmakeknownhispreference7
E
he idle time that an employee may spend for
T c. t ravel is done under the supervision days before initial rest day.
restingandduringwhichhemayleavethespot and control of the employer;
EXC to the EXC:
or place ofworkthoughnotthepremisesofhis d. t ravel is done under vexing and
employer, is not counted as working time only dangerous circumstances. henitwillcauseseriousobstruction
W
where the work is broken or isnotcontinuous. or prejudice totheemployer,employer
(N
ationalDevelopmentCompanyv.CIR,G.R.No. f. Waiting time shall schedule the rest day of
L-15422, November 30, 1962) aiting Time spent by an employee shall be
W employee’s choice at least 2 days in a
considered as working time if month.
d. Travel time
a. it is integral to his work and GR: mployer cannot compel employee to
E
1. H ome-to-work-work-to-home travel — not
work on a rest day.
considered as hours worked because it is a b. t hat the employee is required by the
normal incident of employment. employer to wait. EXC: U
nder Art 92 and Book IIIRuleIIISec
6:
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page124of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
a. I n case of actual or impending b. S
hift engineer, no right to overtime c) seeDOLE Labor Advisory No. 14, S. 2019.
emergencies due to calamities, or in andpremiumpayasheisanofficeror
case of force majeure or imminent member of managerial staff Wages
danger to public safety; (Peñaranda v. Baganga Plywood) abor Code, Implementing Rules and
L
B
b. U rgentworkneedstobeperformedon Regulations (IRR), R.A. No. 6727, R.A. No.
machineries to avoid serious loss;
Service charge 9504, R.A. No. 9178
8
R.A. No. 11360, Department Order No. 242-24
c. A bnormal pressure of work due to
special circumstance;
efinition, components, and
D
1) S
ervice charge refers to the amount that is
exclusions
d. P revent serious loss of perishable added to the bill for work or service
goods; rendered. Principles
e. N ature of work requires 7 days 2) A
ll service charges actually collected by Minimum wage
continuouswork,i.e.crewmembersin covered establishments shall be distributed
vessels; COMPLETELY and EQUALLY, based on Payment of wages
actual hours or days of work or service
f. W orkisnecessarytoavailoffavorable Prohibitions regarding wages
rendered among the covered employees,
weatherconditions.
includingthosealreadyreceivingthebenefit Wage determination
NO rest day for of sharing in the service charges.
efinition, components, and
D
a. E mployees excluded from labor 3) C
overed employees refer to all employees,
exclusions
standards (Art. 82) except managerial employees, under the
nion members who are supervisory
U direct employ of the covered establishment. 1 Wage vs. Salary
employees considered as officers and 4) Relevant laws and rules: Bonus, 13th month
members of the managerial staff are
a) a
s amended byRA No. 11360, effective on
exempt from the coverage of Article Holiday pay
September 4, 2019 perDOLE Labor
82. Perforce, they are not entitled to
Advisory No. 10 s. 2020; Wagepaid to an employee shall mean
overtime, rest day and holiday.
(N ational Sugar Refineries v. NLRC) b) seeDOLE DO No. 206 s. 2019; 1. t he remuneration or earnings, however
designated,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page125of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. c apable of being expressed in terms of 1. COLA; Facilities Supplements
money,whether fixed or ascertained on a 2. Profit sharing payments; ecessary expenses of
N xtra benefit or special
E
a. time, 3. Premium pay; laborer and his family privilege
b. task, 4. 13th month pay; or ( Purpose Test)
c. piece, or 5. Other monetary benefits. For the benefit of or the benefit of
F
d. commission basis, or Employee Employer
Facilities
e. o ther method of calculating the Part of Wage Independent of Wage
Requisites for Deductibility:
same,
i. ust be customarily furnished by the
M ot deductible from
N
3. w hich is payable by an employer to an Deductible from wage
employer; wage
employee under a written or unwritten
contract of employment ii. ust be charged atafairandreasonable
M a. Wage vs. Salary
value;and
a. for work done or to be done, or Wage Salary
iii. ust be voluntarily accepted by the
M
b. f or services rendered or to be
employee in writing. ompensation paid f or C
C ompensation for
rendered
manual skilled r higher or superior
o
4. a nd includes the fair and reasonable Supplements unskilled labor level of employment
value of board, lodging, orotherfacilities onstitute extra remuneration or special
C
customarily furnishedbytheemployerto privilegesorbenefitsgiventoorreceivedbythe elates to a position
R
Compensation for labor
the employee. laborers overandabove theirordinaryearnings or office
or wages.
" Fair and reasonable value" shall not include hallnotbe subject to
S
any profit to the employer, or to any person eals and lodging provided to employees in
M execution, attachment or
affiliated with the employer. order to maintain their efficiency and health garnishmentexceptfor
NOT exempt
asicWage.— Alltheremunerationorearnings
B while working at their respective project sites, debts incurred for food,
paid by an employer to a worker for services are supplements, and not facilities (S LL shelter, clothing and
rendered on normal working days and hours International Cable Specialists v. NLRC2011) medical attendance.
but does not include:
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page126of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b. Bonus, 13th month 3. E
mployees paid a fixed or guaranteed wage n employee, shall be included in determining
a
plus commission are entitled based ontheir the retirement pay. In fine, the commissions
Bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the
total earnings for the calendar year. which petitioner received were not part of his
iver, and cannot be considered part of an
g
salary structure but were profit-sharing
employee’s wages ifitispaidonlywhenprofits asic salary means nottheamount actually
4. B
payments and had no clear, direct or necessary
are realized or acertainamountofproductivity received by an employee, but 1/12 of their
relation to the amount of work he actually
is achieved. If the desired goal ofproductionor standard monthly wage multiplied by their
performed. The collection madebythesalesmen
actualworkisnotaccomplished,thebonusdoes length of service within a given calendar
from the sale transactions was the profit of
not accrue. year.
private respondent from which petitioner had a
he grant ofabonusorspecialincentive,being
T R&E Transport v. Latag share in the form of a commission.
amanagementprerogative,isnotademandable
ince Pedro was paid according to the
S
and enforceable obligation, except when the
"boundary" system, he is not entitled to the 13th etran Calamba Faculty & Employees
L
bonus or special incentive
month and the service incentive pay; hence, his Association v. NLRC
1. i s made part of the wage, salary or retirement pay should be computed on the sole
compensation of the employee, or N OVERLOAD PAY. Overload pay should be
O
basis of his salary.
excluded from the computation of the
2. i s promised by the employer and expressly
13th-month pay.
agreeduponbytheparties.(MegaMagazine
Publications v. Defensor2014) Reyes v. NLRC I n the same manner that payment for overtime
work and work performed during special
.D. No. 851; Revised Guidelines on
P the N COMMISSIONS. The Courtthusclarifiedthat
O
holidays is considered as additional
Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law in Philippine Duplicators, the salesmen’s
compensation apart and distinct from an
commissions, comprising a predetermined
1. R esigned or separated employees to be paid employee's regular wage or basic salary, an
percentage of the selling price of the goods sold
pro rata; overload pay, owing to its very nature and
by each salesman, wereproperlyincludedinthe
2. N on-payment shall be treated as money definition, may not be considered as part of a
term basic salary for purposes of computingthe
claims. teacher's regular or basic salary, because it is
13th month pay.
being paid for additional work performed in
ales commissions which are effectively an
S excess of the regular teaching load.
integral portion of the basic salary structure of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page127of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
erily,overloadpaymaynotbeincludedasbasis
V a) P
rivate school teachers: during 7) S
upervised workers paid by results are
for determining a teacher's 13th-month pay. semestral vacations — not entitled; entitledto holiday pay.
Christmas breaks —entitled.
Asian Transmission Corp v. CA
c. Holiday pay b) P
aid by results or output = entitled to
abor Code, Executive Order 203, IRR, R.A.
L not less than the average of daily olidaypayisalegislatedbenefitenactedaspart
H
No. 9492, R.A. No. 9849, R.A. No. 10966 earnings of last 7 days actually worked of the Constitutional imperative that the State
preceding the holiday, provided it isnot shall afford protection to labor. Its purposeisnot
r efers to the payment oftheregulardailywagefor
less than the statutory minimum wage. merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly
any unworked regular holiday.
income of the workers on account of work
c) S
easonal workers: during off-season —
1) Effect ofabsences: interruptions.Inotherwords,althoughtheworker
not entitled.
a) On leave with pay —entitled; is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should
d) W
orkers with no regular working days earn,thatis,hisholidaypay."Itisalsointendedto
b) O n leave without pay on the day —entitled. enable the worker to participate in the national
immediately preceding — not entitled,
4) S
uccessive Holiday Rule.— Notentitledfor celebrations held during the days identified as
unlessworked on regular holiday;
both holiday pay if absent on the day with great historical and cultural significance.
c) O n leave while on SSS or EC benefits — preceding the first holiday, unless working inceaworkerisentitledtotheenjoymentoften
S
entitled. on the first holiday, in which case, he is paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays
d) I f day preceding holiday is nonworking entitledholiday pay for the 2nd. fallonthesamedateshouldnotoperatetoreduce
day — entitled if worked the day 5) Double Holiday Rule to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is
immediately preceding the nonworking entitled to receive.
a) If unworked =200%;
day.
b) If worked =300%;
2) Effect ofbusiness closure
c) If falls on a rest day =390% Principles
a) In case of temporary shutdown —entitled;
6) F
lexi-holiday Schedule — employee agrees No work, no pay
b) I f cessation due to business reverses as 2
to avail of holidays at some other days
authorized by SOLE —not entitled. qual pay for equal work/Equal Pay
E
provided there is no diminutionofexisting
3) Holiday pay of certain employees benefits resulting therefrom. for Work of Equal Value
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page128of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
whom to consider as still "on leave." ages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Art.
w
Fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work 135, for example, prohibits and penalizes the
I ndeed, under such principle, the employer has
Non-diminution of benefits the inherent right to regulate, according to his payment of lesser compensation to a female
own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employeeasagainstamaleemployeeforworkof
a. No work, no pay employment, including hiring, work equal value.
GR: I f the worker does not work, heearnsno assignments, working methods, the time, place heneveranemployergivesemployeesthesame
W
pay. and manner of work, work supervision, transfer position and rank, the presumption is thatthese
EXC: Worker is still entitled to be paid if: of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, employees perform equal work. Such
dismissal, and recall of employees. Still, the presumption is borne by logic and human
a. E mployer unduly prevented him from
employermustusefairandreasonablestandards experience.
workingdespitehisableness,willingness
in deciding, e.g., experience, skills-match,
and readiness; I n Philex Gold Phils., Inc. v. Philex Bulawan
availability. Supervisors Union, the Court found that the
b. H e is legally locked out or illegally
araguinot pointed to the "no work, no pay"
M employerfailedtodischargeitsburdentoexplain
suspended or dismissed;
principle as relief for such down-turns, whereby the difference in the salaries received by an
c. He is illegally prevented from working. employers need not pay idle workers and the absorbed supervisor and a locally hired
I n Odangov.NLRC,SCheldthatnoworknopay latter, even if regularized, may seek gainful supervisor despite their havingsimilarrankand
also applies to monthly-paid workers, if absent employment elsewhere in the meantime. classification and doing parallel duties and
without pay. functions.
b. Equal pay for equal work/Equal Pay for owever, the rule that employees with the same
H
Carpio v. Modair Manila2021 Work of Equal Value
rank and position shall receive the same pay is
indanao International Container Terminal
M not absolute. As an exception, jurisprudence
s discussed in Maraguinot v. NLRC, idle
A
Services (MICTSI) v. MICTSI Labor Union2022 provides that the employer may satisfactorily
constructionworkers,evenifregularized,arestill
subjecttothe"nowork,nopay"principle.Incase justify,basedonitsmanagementprerogative,that
heconceptof"equalpayforequalwork"means
T
its employees, who have the same rank and
the contractor is faced with an oversupply of that persons who work with substantially equal
position, may receive different salaries based on
regularized construction workers, then it can qualifications, skill, effort, and responsibility,
exercise itsmanagementprerogativeindeciding reasonable factors or criteria.
under similar conditions, should be paid similar
whom to engage for the limited projects and salaries. Discrimination, particularly in terms of In Prubankers,thereasonablejustificationforthe
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page129of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i mposition of unequal salaries to employees in t o seniority, length of service, performance, and ince the affected employees are daily-paid
S
the same position was thedistinction in regions. implementation of wage orders. employees,theyshouldbegiventheirwagesand
corresponding premiumsforSaturdayworkonly
I n Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC,
if they are permitted to suffer work.
the intentional quantitative differences in wage
or salary rates between and among employees I nternational School Alliance of Educators v. he age-old rule governing the relation between
T
Quisumbing
with the same position, due to the fact that the labor and capital, or managementandemployee,
employees had beenhiredondifferentdatesand ersons who work with substantially equal
P of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor"
were thus receiving different salaries, were qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, remains the basic factor in determining
considered a valid differentiation. under similar conditions, should be paid similar employees' wages.
salaries. This rule applies to the School, its
I n Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union 1. I f there is no work performed by the
"international character" notwithstanding.
v. Chevron Geothermal Phils. Holdings, Inc., it employee, there can be no wage.
was held that the apparent increase in the new he School cannot invoke the need to entice
T
2. I n cases where the employee's failure to
employees' salaries occupying thesameposition foreign-hirestoleavetheirdomiciletorationalize
work was occasioned neither by his
as compared with those of the employees who the distinction in salary rates without violating
abandonment nor by termination, the
have been with the corporation for a period of the principle of equal work for equal pay.
burden of economic loss is not rightfully
time, was a result of the management's offer of eceiving salaries less than their counterparts
R shifted to the employer; each party must
different hiring rates for different periods tolure hired abroad, the local-hires of private bear his own loss.
more applicants for the position. respondent School, mostly Filipinos, suffered
3. I n other words, where the employee is
hedoctrineof"equalpayforequalwork"should
T discrimination. That the local-hires are paid
willingandabletoworkandisnotillegally
not remove management prerogative toinstitute more than their colleaguesinotherschoolsis,of
preventedfromdoingso,nowageisdueto
differences in salary on the basis of seniority, course, beside the point. The point is that
him.
skill,andexperienceinthesameclassofworkers employeesshouldbegivenequalpayforworkof
doing the same kind of work. equal value.
ere, petitioner was able to adduce evidence to
H &S Transport v. Infanteas reiterated in
G
c. Fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work Ergonomic Systems v. Enaje2017;VCMC v.
show that the difference in the salaries of its
employees occupying the same position wasthe Yballe2014
Coca-Cola Bottlers v. ICCPELU2018
resultofseveralfactorsincluding,butnotlimited Withrespecttobackwages,theprincipleofa"fair
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page130of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ay's wage for a fairday'slabor"remainsasthe
d ntitled to backwagesfortheperiodofthestrike
e 2) A
pplicable if the following conditions are
basicfactorindeterminingtheaward thereof. If eveniftheyarereinstatedbyvirtueoftheirbeing met:
there is no work performed by the employee merely members of the striking union who did
a) T
hegrantofthebenefitisbasedonan
therecanbenowageorpayunless,ofcourse,the not commit any illegal act during the strike.
express policy or has ripen into
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but
I n Philippine Diamond Hotel & Resort, Inc. v. practiceover a long period of time;
was illegally lockedout,suspendedordismissed Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, the
or otherwise illegally prevented from working. b) Practice isconsistentanddeliberate;
Court laid down theexceptionsto this rule:
While it was found that respondents expressed c) I t is not due to error in the
their intention to report back to work, the latter 1. w
hen the employees were illegally locked
construction or application of a
exception cannot apply in this case. In to thus compel them to stage a strike;
doubtful or difficult questionoflawor
Philippine Marine Officers' Guild v. Compañia 2. w
hentheemployerisguiltyofthegrossest provision in the CBA;
Maritima, as affirmed in Philippine Diamond form of ULP;
d) T
hediminutionisdoneunilaterallyby
Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel
3. w
hen the employer committed the employer.
EmployeesUnion,theCourtstressedthatforthis
discrimination in the rehiring of strikers
exceptiontoapply,itisrequiredthatthestrikebe 3) C
ompany practice is a custom or habit
refusing to readmit those against whom
legal, a situation thatdoesnotobtaininthecase shown by an employer’s repeated, habitual
there were pending criminal cases while
at bar. customary or succession of acts of similar
admitting non-strikers who were also
kind by reason of which, it gains the status
nder
U the circumstances, respondents' criminally charged in court; or
of a company policy that can no longer be
reinstatementwithoutbackwagessufficesforthe
4. w
hen the workers who stagedavoluntary disturbed or withdrawn.
appropriate relief.
ULP strike offered to return to work
4) T
he rule on company practice is generally
unconditionally but the employer refused
used with respect to grant of additional
to reinstate them.
Bigg's Inc. v. Boncacas2019 benefitstoemployees,nottoissuesinvolving
diminution of benefits.
InEscario v. NLRC, the Court held: d. Non-diminution of benefits
onformablywiththelonghonoredprincipleofa
C 1) B
enefits giventoemployeescannotbetaken ome Credit Mutual Building and Loan
H
backorreducedunilaterallybytheemployer Association v. Prudente2020
fair day's wage for a fair day's labor, employees
dismissed for joining an illegal strike are NOT because the benefit has become part of the
The non-diminution rule applies only if the
employment contract.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page131of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
enefit is based on an express policy, a written
b enefitmustbeconsistentlyanddeliberately
b i ts employees starting 2013. True, between 1992
contract, or has ripened into a practice. granted by the employer over a long period and 2011, PNCC invariably granted thisbenefitto
of time. It requires an indubitable showing itsemployeesandneverbeforerevokedthisgrant
ON Home Credit violated the rule against
W
that the employer agreed to continuegiving in strict adherence to the non-diminution rule
diminution of benefits.
the benefit knowing fully well that the under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
1. N
O. The car plan has not ripened into a employee is not covered byanyprovisionof
company practice. onetheless, with the subsequent enactment of
N
law or agreement for its payment. RA 10149 in 2011, PNCCmaynolongergrantthis
2. G
enerally, employees have a vested right 6. H
ere, the labor tribunals correctly held that benefit without first securing the requisite
over existing benefits that the employer Home Credit's act of giving service vehicles authority from the President. As borne by the
voluntarily granted them. These benefits toRollettehasbeenacompanypractice-but records, PNCC failed to obtain this authority in
cannotbereduced,diminished,discontinued notastothenon-participationaspect.There view of the position taken by the GCG not to
or eliminated consistent with the was no substantial evidence to prove that forward the request to the President.
constitutional mandate to protect the rights the car plan at full company cost had
of workers and promote their welfare. ripened into company practice.
3. T
he non-diminution rule applies only if the 7. T
he elements of consistency and illafuerte v. Disc Contractors2022
V
benefit is based on an express policy, a applying PNCC v. NLRC
deliberateness are not present — the only
written contract, or has ripened into a time Rollette was given a service vehicle isc Contractors didnotviolateArticle100ofthe
D
practice. fully paid for by the company was for her Labor Code when it did not. grant Villafuerte et
4. H
ere, Rollette's claim that the car plan was firstcar.Forthesecondvehicle,thecompany al.'s midyear bonus for the years 2013 to 2015 as
part of her hiring package was already imposed a maximum limit which the same did not bear the approval of the
unsubstantiated. Home Credit has no Rollette did not question. President, a requisite imposed by Section 5 of
existing car plan at the time Rollette was PresidentialDecreeNo.1597aswellasSection10
hired. Rollette's employment contract does of Republic ActNo.10149.Itmustbeemphasized
not even contain any express provision on hilippine National Construction Corp. v. NLRC
P that as a government-owned and controlled
her entitlement to a service vehicle at full 2021 corporation, Disc Contractors funds are
company cost. considered publicfunds;henceitisnotatliberty
NCC did NOT violate the non-diminution rule
P
to disburse such asitsawfit,especiallysowhen
5. To be considered a company practice, the whenitdesistedfromgrantingmid-yearbonusto
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page132of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t herearelawsimposingspecificrequirementsfor rant of the funeral and bereavement aid to
g
its lawful spending. regular employees for the death of their legal Payment by results
dependents has undoubtedly ripened into a he minimum wage rates prescribed by law
T
company policy. shall be the basic cash wages without
hilippine Journalists Inc. v. Journal Employees
P deduction therefrom of whatever benefits,
Union2013 supplements or allowances which the
he argument of petitioner that the grant of the
T Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022 employees enjoy free of charge aside from the
funeral and bereavement benefit was not basic pay.
espondent is entitled to salary differential as a
R
voluntary but resulted from its mistaken result of diminution of benefits during her egional Minimum Wage Rates. — The lowest
R
interpretation as to who was considered a legal reappointment as school registrar. Here, basic wage rates that an employer can pay his
dependent of a regular employee deserves scant respondent claims that there has been a workers, as fixed by the Regional Tripartite
consideration.Tobesure,NOdoubtfulordifficult reduction of her basic pay. Wages and Productivity Boards (RTWPB) and
question of law was involved in as much asthe which shall not be lower than the applicable
1. C
SA-Bacolod explains that the school just
several cogent statutes existing at the time the statutory minimum wage rates.
optedtoseparatethereportingofthebasic
CBA was entered into already defined who were
pay from the honorarium in the 1. IncludesCOLAas fixed by RTWPB.
qualified as the legal dependents of another.
computation slip. 2. Excludesother wage-related benefits.
I tisfurtherworthytonotethatpetitionergranted
2. H
owever, there was no showing in these
claims for funeral and bereavement aid as early a. Payment of hours worked
proceedings that respondent received
as 1999, then issued a memorandum in 2000 to
honorarium prior to her reappointment as nce an agreed period of work is completed,
O
correct its erroneous interpretation of legal
school registrar. compensation is earned regardless of result.
dependent undertheCBA.Thisnotwithstanding,
the 2001-2004 CBA still contained the same he Court therefore awards salary differential
T 1. D
aily-paid employees are paid on the days
provision granting funeralorbereavementaidin due to diminution of benefits. actually worked except unworked regular
caseofthedeathofalegaldependentofaregular holidayswhentheyarepaidtheirbasicwage
employee without differentiating the legal iftheyarepresentoraleavewithpayonthe
dependents according to the employee’s civil Minimum wage working day preceding the regular holiday.
statusasmarriedorsingle.Thecontinuityinthe 3 2. M
onthly-paid employees are paid everyday
Payment of hours worked
of the month, including unworked days.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page133of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Estimated Equivalent Monthly Rate (EEMR) a. O
fapprenticesorlearnersshallbe75%ofthe t est, and the attendant circumstances of each
statutory minimum wage. case.
i. ForMonthlypaid: (365)
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
65 b. O
f PWDs, 100% of the applicable minimum
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = 12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 wage.
4 Payment of wages
ii. ForDailypaid:
Pablico et al. v. Cerro2019
GR: Legal Tender (Art 102, LC; Art1705NCC)
1. Required to work everyday (393.5)
I n order to be exempted under the Wage i s that currency which has been made
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
93.5
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = Rationalization Act, two elements must concur — suitablebylawforthepurposeofatender
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
of payment of debts, i.e. coins and notes
rst, it mustbeshownthattheestablishment
fi
2. Do not work and not considered issued by BSP.
is regularly employing notmorethanten(10)
paid on Sundays or rest days (313)
workers, and trictly not allowed — other objects other than
S
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
3
13
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = legal tender, even when expresslyrequestedby
12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 s econd,thattheestablishmenthadappliedfor
and was granted exemption by the EE.
3. Do not work and not considered
paid on weekends or rest days (261)
appropriate Regional Board.. Exceptions
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦𝑅 𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐷𝑅)𝑥
2
61 ON petitioner is exempt from the Minimum
W a) Bank Check
𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑅 = 12𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 Wage Law. b) Money Order
b. Payment by results NO. As the petitioner failed to apply for an c) Postal Checks,provided
xemption, and it is undisputed that the
e
llworkerspaidbyresult,includingthosewhoare
A i. I t is customary practiceonthedateof
respondents are MPRB's employees and arepaid
paid on piecework, takay, pakyaw or task basis, effectivity; or
shall receive not less than the prescribed wage less than the prescribed minimum wage, the
petitioner's liability for wage differential cannot ii. ostipulatedinCBA;andthefollowing
S
rates per eight (8) hours of work a day, or a
be denied. are met:
proportion thereof for working less than eight (8)
hours. etitioner is employing more than ten (10)
P iii. There is a bank within 1 KM radius;
employees in his establishment. To be sure, iv. mployer or agents d
E o not r eceive
Other Wage Rates
employmentstatusisdeterminedbythefour-fold pecuniary benefits f rom s uch
arrangement;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page134of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
v. mployee given reasonable time to
E a. W
ith written permission of majority of Payee
withdraw and shall constitute employees;
GR: Direct to Employee;
compensable hours if done within b. I nallprivateestablishmentsofatleast25
working hours; and EXC:
EEs;
vi. ith written consent of theemployee
W a. F
orcemajeure,inwhichcaseworkermay
c. Located within 1KM radius to a bank;
if without CBA. be paid through another person under
d. W
ithin the period of payment of wages written authority for such purpose; or
Place and Medium of Payment fixed by the LC.
b. W
orker has died, in which case, paid to
GR: At or near place of undertaking; Payment thruATMallowedprovided: heirs without need of intestate
EXC: (B
ook III Rule VIII Sec 4) a. W
ith written consent of employees proceedings, onlyaffidavit of heirship.
a. Deterioration of peace and order; concerned;
Time and Frequency
b. A ctual or impending emergencies due to b. G
iven reasonable time to withdraw GR: t least every 2 weeks or twice a month
A
calamities; during working hours and is considered at intervals not exceeding 16 days.
compensable;
c. E mployer provides free transportation EXC: Force majeure.
back and forth; and c. W
ithin period of payment of wagesfixed
by LC; 5 Prohibitions regarding wages
d. Other analogous circumstance,provided
d. T
here is a bank or ATM within 1KM
ime spent collecting wages is
T 1) From the Civil Code
radius;
considered compensable hours worked. a) A
rt 1705. The laborer's wages shall be
e. Payslip be provided, upon request;
e. P rohibited places: bar, club, drinking paid in legal currency.
establishment, similar places where f. N
oadditionalexpensesanddiminutionof
b) A
rt 1706. Withholding of the wages,
games are played with stakes of money, benefits resulting from the scheme;
exceptforadebtdue,shallnotbemadeby
except if employee employed in such g. E
mployer shall assume responsibility in the employer.
establishment. case the wage protection provisions of
c) A
rt 1707. The laborer's wages shall be a
ayment thru Banks allowed (RA 6727)
P law and regulations are not complied
lien on the goods manufactured or the
provided with under the arrangement.
work done.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page135of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
d) A rt 1708. The laborer's wages shall NOT d) False reporting (Art 119) e) F
or loss or damage under Art 114 LC;
be subject to execution or attachment, 3) N DOLE LA 11-14,Private Security Agencies:
on-interferenceinthedisposalofwages.—
except fordebtsincurredforfood,shelter, Art 112. No employer is allowed to limit or i) Following must be observed:
clothing and medical attendance.
otherwise interfere with how an employee
1) E
E is clearly responsible for the
e) A rt1709.Theemployershallneitherseize should dispose or make use of the latter’s
loss or damage;
nor retain any tool or other articles wages.
belonging to the laborer. 2) H
e is givenreasonableopportunity
eshallnotinanymannerforce,compel,or
H to show cause why deductions
2) Other prohibitions oblige his employees to purchase
should not be made;
merchandise, commodities or any other
a) K ickbacks — induce a worker to give up 3) D
eduction is fair and reasonable
property.
any part of his wages by force, stealth, and should not exceed the actual
intimidation, threat; Wage Deduction loss or damage; and
b) Deduction to ensure employment (Art 117); GR: o employer, in his own behalf or in
N 4) D
oes notexceed20%ofEE’swages
behalf of any person, shall make any in a week.
c) Retaliate against an employee who has
deduction from the wages of his
i) Filed any complaint, or ii) ash Deposit — must not exceed one
C
employees.
month's basic salary of EE. May be
ii) Instituted proceedings, or EXC: deducted from wages in an amount
iii) as testified or is about to testify in
H a) Facilities; not to exceed 20% of EE’s wages in a
said proceedings; week.
b) A
mount paid by ER as premiums on
by: insurance,consentedto by EE; iii) efund — within 10 days from
R
1. Refusing to pay the wages; or separation from service.
c) F
or union dues, where the right of EE or
2. Reducing such wages; or his union to checkoff has been
Jardin v. NLRC
recognized by the ER or authorized in
3. D ischarginghimfromemployment; ith regard to the amount deducted daily by
W
writing by the EE concerned;
or private respondent from petitioners for washing
d) W
here ER is authorized by law or
4. D iscriminate against him in any
regulations issued by SOLE;
manner. (Art 118)
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page136of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f the taxi units, we viewthesameasnotillegal
o j) P
ursuant to a court judgment where
rovided, That the latterdoesnotreceive
P
in the context of the law. any pecuniary benefit, directly or
wages may be the subject of attachment
indirectly, from the transaction.
or execution but only for debts incurred
for
iña Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts v.
N Wage determination
i) food,
Montecillo2011 abor Code, R.A. No. 6727, R.A. No. 8188, R.A.
L
ii) clothing, No. 9178, Latest Wage Order from
mployers should first establish that the making
E
of deductions from the salaries is authorized by iii) shelter and http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/
6
law, or regulations. Further, the posting of cash iv) medical attendance; Wage order
bonds should be proven as arecognizedpractice
k) Ordered by the court. Wage distortion
in the jewelry manufacturing business, or
alternatively, the employer should seek for the l) U
nderthePHCooperativeActof2008.RA
Two Methods of Determining Wages
determination by the SOLE that the policy the 9520 - A member of a cooperative may
former seeks to implement is necessary or execute an instrument in favor of the 1. F
loor Wage Method which involves the
desirable in the conduct of business. cooperative authorizing his employer to fixingofadeterminateamounttobeaddedto
deduct from his wagesandremitsuchto the prevailing statutory minimum wage
f) F or Agency Fees from non-union the cooperative to satisfy any incurred rates.
members who accept the benefits under debt or other demands. 2. S
alary Ceiling Method wherein the wage
the CBA negotiated by the bargaining
m)DO No. 195, S. 2018, amending Sec. 10, adjustment was to be applied to employees
union. Does not need authorization from
Rule VIII, Book III, IRR. receiving a certain denominated salary
concerned member;
ceiling.Used in RA 6727.
10. Wages deduction. — Deductions from
§
g) P remiumsforSSS,PhilHealth,employee’s
thewagesoftheemployeesmaybemadeby a. Wage order
compensation and Pag-IBIG;
the employer in any of the following cases:
I n Pag-asaSteelWorksv.CA,thereisnorightto
h) Withholding tax;
b)Whenthedeductionsarewiththewritten a wage increase from a wage order if the
i) W here EE is indebted to ER that has authorization of the employees for employees have been receiving salaries above
become due and demandable (Art 1706 payment to the EMPLOYER or a third the minimum wage.
CC); person and the employer agrees to doso;
Exemptionsfrom Wage Orders
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page137of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rovided in NWPC Guidelines 02-07, as further
P a) T
he establishment must be located in c. P
ersons working in their respective homes
AMENDED byNWPC Resolution No. 1, S. 2014. an area declared by a competent inneedle work;
Categories of Exemptible Establishments: authority as under a state of calamity. d. P
ersons working in any cottage industry
1) Distressed establishments; b) T
he natural calamities, such as duly registered in accordance with the law.
earthquakes, lahar flow, typhoons,
2) N ew businessenterprises(NBEs)—refersto
Exemptions Under Special Laws
volcanic eruptions, fire, floods and
establishments, including non-profit similar occurrences, must have a. R
A 9178. Barangay Micro Business
institutions,established withintwo(2)years occurred within 6 monthspriortothe EnterprisesActof2002.TheBMBEsshallbe
from effectivity of the Wage Order based on effectivity of the Order. However, if exempt from the coverage of the Minimum
the latest registration with the appropriate based on the assessment by a Wage Law:
government agency such as SEC, DTI, CDA competent authority, the damage to rovided, That all employees covered under
P
and Mayor's Office. properties is at least 50% and the thisActshallbeentitledtothesamebenefits
3) R etail/Serviceestablishmentsemployingnot period of recovery will exceed 1 year, giventoanyregularemployeesuchassocial
more than ten (10) workers. the 6-month period may be extended security and healthcare benefits.
to 1 year. (A
s amended by NWPC
a) R etailestablishmentreferstoanentity MBEs refer to any business entity or
B
Resolution No 01-14)
principally engaged in the sale of enterprise engaged in the production,
goods to end users for personal or c) L
osses suffered by the establishment processing or manufacturing of products or
household use. A retail establishment as aresultofthecalamitythatexceed commodities, including agro-processing,
that regularly engages in wholesale theinsurancecoverageshouldamount trading and services, whose total assets
activities loses its retail character. to 20% or more of the stockholders' including those arising from loans but
equity. exclusiveofthelandonwhichtheparticular
b) S ervice Establishment refers to an
Exemptions Under the Labor Code business entity's office,plantandequipment
entity principally engaged in the sale
ofservicestoindividualsfortheirown are situated, shall not be more than Three
a. Farmtenancy or leasehold;
or household use and is generally Million Pesos.
recognized as such. b. D
omestic service — already covered in b. RA 10644. Go-Negosyo Act.
DomesticWorkersActorBatasKasambahay,
4) E stablishments adversely affected by RA 10361; Violation of Wage Order
natural calamities.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page138of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1. Fine of P25K-100K; OR c. U
npaid benefits refer to the prescribed
2. N wage rates which the employer failed to
on-probationable Imprisonment of 2-4
Years; (Filed with the MTC); OR pay upon effectivity of a wage order and
shallbetheprincipalbasisforcomputing
3. Both, at the discretion of the court. thedouble indemnity.
4. D
ouble indemnity — paying double the d. D
ouble indemnity is the payment to a
unpaid benefits/amounts owing the concerned employee of twice the
employees, provided thatsuchpaymentdoes prescribed increases or adjustments in
not absolve employer from criminal liability thewagerates,whichwasnotpaidbythe
imposable under LC. employer.
OLE DO 10-98 on Guidelines ontheImpositionof
D 2. Two types of inspection:
Double Indemnity for Non-Compliance with the
PrescribedIncreasesorAdjustmentinWageRates. a. R
outine inspection—wheretheviolation
hasbeenestablishedafterduenoticeand
See also Philippine Hoteliers v.
hearing where appropriate, the RD shall,
NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF.
after7calendardaysfromtheemployer’s
receipt of the NIR, issue a compliance
1. Important Definitions: order.
a. W
ageRatesreferstothelowestbasicpay b. C
omplaintinspection—RDshallcallfora
that the employer can pay his workers summary investigation and after due
including COLA as fixed by the Board notice and hearing issue a compliance
(RTWPB),butexcludesotherwage-related order.
benefits such as OT, bonuses, night-shift
mployer shall pay the amountdueeach
E
differential,holiday,premium,13thmonth
worker within 10 days from receipt of
pays, leave benefits, among others.
such order and submit proof of
b. W
age Order refers to the order compliance.
oubleIndemnityandImprisonmentunderRA
D
promulgated by the RTWPB pursuant to
6727.
its wage-fixing authority.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page139of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iring rates of new employees without
h
ponfinalityofthecomplianceorder,the
U d) E
xistenceofthedistortioninthesame
increasing the salary rates of oldemployees
RD shall cause the issuance of a writ of region.
executionfor its enforcement. DOESNOTRESULTinwagedistortionwithin
3. Possible causes thecontemplationofArticle124oftheLabor
SeeNLRC En Banc Resolutions 01-19. Code, as the increase in the wages and
a. G
overnment decreedincreasethrough
b. Wage distortion WOs; salaries ofthenewly-hiredwasnotduetoa
prescribed law or wage order.
1. A situation where an increase in prescribed b. Merger of establishments;
wage rates results in the elimination or
c. Increase granted by employers; indanao International Container Terminal
M
severecontractionofintentionalquantitative Services (MICTSI) v. MICTSI Labor Union2022
differences in wage or salary rates between d. Passage of RA 6727.
he "wage distortion" specified under Art. 124 of
T
and among employee groups in an 4. Wage Distortion Resolution
theLaborCodeonlycoverswageadjustmentsand
establishment as to effectively obliteratethe
increasesduetoaprescribedlaworwageorder.It
distinctions embodied in such wage
shouldnotapplytovoluntaryandunilateralwage
structurebasedonskills,lengthofservice,or
increases undertaken by the employer.
otherlogicalbasesofdifferentiation.(Art124
LC) ere,thereisnoprescribedlaworwageorderthat
H
created the purported wage adjustments and
2. Elements
increases.Instead,respondentsmerelyclaimthat
a) A n existing hierarchy of positions petitioner cannot impose different wages on
with corresponding salary rates; employees occupying the same position. The
b) A significantchangeinthesalaryrate different wageincreasesimposedbypetitionerto
of a lower pay class w/o concomitant its employees occupying the same position were
increase in the salary rate of ahigher voluntarily and unilaterally made. Accordingly,
one; the different wage increases imposed by
petitioner in this case do not contemplate "wage
c) E liminationofthedistinctionbetween
distortion" under Art. 124 of the Labor Code.
the two levels; 5. I n Bankard Employees Union v. NLRC, the
unilateral adoption by an employer of an ankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance
B
upgraded salary scale that increased the Trade Unions v. NLRC clarified that mere factual
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page140of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
xistence of wage distortion does not, ipso facto,
e s alaries as compared to the other company a. Service incentive leave
resultinanobligationtorectifyit,absentalawor workerswhoalsohavethesamesalary/paygrade
Every employee who has rendered at least one
other source of obligation which requires its withthemshouldnotbeinterpretedtomeanthat
(1) year of service is entitled to Service
rectification. they were given a premature increase for
November 1, 2008, thus resulting to a wage Incentive Leave(SIL) of five (5) days with pay.
distortion. The alleged increase in their salaries he phrase “one year of service” of the
T
Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank was not a result of the erroneous application of employee means service within twelve (12)
Article VII andAnnexDoftheCBA,rather,itwas months, whether continuous or broken,
age distortion presupposes an increase in the
W
because when they were hired by respondent in reckoned from the date the employee started
compensation of the lower ranks in an office
2009,whenthehiringrateswererelativelyhigher working. The period includes authorized
hierarchy without a corresponding raise for
ascomparedtothoseofthepreviousyears.Verily, absences, unworked weekly restdays,andpaid
higher-tieredemployeesinthesameregionofthe
the setting and implementation of such various regular holidays.
country,resultingintheeliminationorthesevere
engagement rates were purely an exercise of the
diminution of the distinction between the two
respondent's business prerogative in order to Tan v. Lagrama
groups.
attract or lure the best possible applicants in the
I f a piece worker is supervised, there is an
uchdistortiondoesnotarisewhenawageorder
S market and which the Court will not interfere employer-employee relationship. However, such
gives employees in one branch of a bank higher with,absentanyshowingthatitwasexercisedin
an employee is not entitled to service incentive
compensation than that given to their bad faith. leave pay since, as pointed out in Makati
counterpartsinotherregionsoccupyingthesame
Haberdashery v. NLRC and Mark Roche
payscale,whoarenotcoveredbysaidwageorder.
International v. NLRC, he is paid a fixed amount
In short, the implementation of wage orders in
C Leaves for work done,regardlessofthetimehespentin
one region but not in others does not in itself
accomplishing such work.
necessarily result in wage distortion. Labor Code
Special Laws
hilippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union v.
P Special Laws
Chevron Geothermal Phils. Holdings2018 1 Labor Code
2 Parental leave for solo parents
The apparent increase in Lanao and Cordovales'
Expanded maternity leave
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page141of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
5. A
solo parent shall be entitled to parental
3. A
dditional fifteen (15) days with full pay for
Paternity leave leave provided that: solo parents;
Gynecological leave a. H
e/Shehasrenderedatleast6months 4. C
ombinations of prenatal and postnatal
of service whether continuous or leave;
attered Woman Leave (VAWC
B
broken at the timeoftheeffectivityof
Leave) Compulsory postnatalat least 60 days.
the Act;
5. Maternity leaveregardless of frequency;
a. Parental leave for solo parents b. H
e/She has notified his/her employer
R.A. No. 8972, as amended by R.A. No. 11861 6. Allocation of maternity leave credits;
of the availment thereof within a
1. I nadditiontoleaveprivilegesunderexisting reasonable time period; and a. a
llocate up to seven (7) days of said
laws, a forfeitable and noncumulative benefits to the child's father, whether
c. H
e/She has presented a
Solo Parent
parental leave of not more than seven (7) or not the same is married to the
Identification Card t o his/her
working days with pay every year shall be female worker.
employer.
granted to any solo parent employee, b. a
lternate caregiver who may be a
regardless of employment status, who has b. Expanded maternity leave relative within the fourth degree of
rendered service ofat least six (6) months: 105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law consanguinity or the current partner
ofthefemaleworkersharingthesame
2. T he parental leave benefitmaybeavailedof 1. Increased maternity leave with full pay;
by the solo parent employees in the household.
a. 1 05 days for natural or cesarean
government and the private sector. c. I n the event the beneficiary female
delivery;
worker dies or is permanently
3. T he seven-day parental leave shall be
b. 6
0 days for miscarriage oremergency incapacitated, the balance of her
non-cumulative.
termination of pregnancy. maternity leave benefits shall accrue
4. I n the event that the parental leave is not to the father of the child or to a
2. O
ption to extend maternity leave for
availedof,saidleaveshallnotbeconvertible qualified caregiver.
additional thirty (30) days without pay;
to cash unless specifically agreed upon
otify ER at least 45 days before end of
N 7. Maternity leaveafter termination of service;
previously.
maternity leave to avail of extension. a. o
ccurs not more than fifteen (15)
calendar days aftertheterminationof
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page142of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
n employee's service, as her right
a HRET v. Panga-Vega2021
4. I n the event that the paternity leave is not
thereto has already accrued.
availed of, it shallnotbeconvertibletocash
I t is just and more in accord with the spirit and
b. s uchperiodisnotapplicablewhenthe and shallnot be cumulative.
intent of RA No. 9710 to suppletorily apply the
employment of the pregnant woman
d. Gynecological leave rule on maternity leave to the special leave
worker has been terminated without
benefit.
just cause. .A. No. 9710, Sec 18; Department OrderNo.
R
112-11;CSCResolutionNo.1000432,November ON it was proper to suppletorily applytherule
W
8. V oluntary working arrangement during the
22, 2010 on maternity leave to the special leave benefit.
maternity leave period.
ny female employee in the public and private
A 1. Y
ES. It is just and more in accord with the
c. Paternity leave sectorregardlessofageandcivilstatusshallbe spirit and intent of RA No. 9710 to
R.A. No. 8187, as amended by R.A. No. 11210 ntitled to a special leave of two (2) months
e suppletorily apply the rule on maternity
with full pay based on her gross monthly leave to the special leave benefit.
1. G rantedtoallmarriedmaleemployeesinthe
private sector, regardless of their compensation subject to existing laws, rules 2. S
ection 18 of RA No. 9710 entitlesawoman,
employment status. and regulations due to surgery caused by who has rendered a continuous aggregate
gynecological disorders under such terms and employment service of at least six months
2. G overnment employees are also entitled to
conditions: forthelast12months,aspecialleaveoftwo
the paternity leave benefit.
a) S
he has rendered at least six (6) months months with full pay based on her gross
3. E ntitledtofullpay,consistingofbasicsalary, monthly compensation following surgery
continuous aggregate employment
forthe7daysofpaternityleave,foruptothe caused by gynecological disorders.
service for the last twelve (12) months
first four (4) deliveries.
priorto surgery; 3. I n fulfillment of the obligation under the
a. Amarried maleemployee; CEDAW,andthe1987PhilippineConstitution
b) I n the event that an extended leave is
b. Cohabiting with spouse; necessary, the female employee may use toadvancetherightsofwomen,RANo.9710
her earned leave credits; and was enacted.
c. Has applied for PL;
c) T
his special leave shall be 4. T
he special leave benefit shouldbeliberally
d. L
egitimate spouse gave birth or had a
non-cumulative and non- convertible to interpreted to support the female employee
miscarriage.
cash. so as togiveherfurthermeanstoaffordher
needs, may it be gynecological, physical, or
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page143of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
sychological, for a holistic recuperation.
p orking conditions for special
W rovided thosewhoareatleastfifteen
p
The recovery period may be a trying time D
workers years of age but less than eighteen
that she needs much assistance and maybeeligibleforapprenticeshiponly
compassion to regain her overall wellness. Apprentices and learners in non-hazardous occupations;
Nothing in RA No. 9710 and the CSC
Persons with disabilities b) Be physically fit;
Guidelines bar this more humane
interpretation of the provision on special c) P
ossess vocational aptitude and
Apprentices and learners capacity; and
leave benefit.
he Dual Training System Act: the
T d) P
ossesstheabilitytocomprehendand
e. Battered Woman Leave (VAWC Leave) 1
Jobstart Philippines Act follow oral and written instructions.
R.A. No. 9262 4) Compulsory apprenticeship
Tulong-Trabaho Act
he qualified victim-employee shall be entitled
T a) W
hen grave national emergencies,
to a leave of up to ten (10) days with full pay, 1) A
pprenticeship means any training on the
particularly those involving the
consisting of basic salary and mandatory job supplemented by related theoretical
securityofthestate,ariseorparticular
instructions involving apprenticeable
allowances fixed by RTWPB. requirements of economic
occupations and trades.
equirement. — To be entitled to the leave
R development so demand.
benefit, the only requirement is for the 2) Coverage. —
b) W
here services of foreign technicians
victim-employee to present to her employer a a) A
ny enterprise duly registered with are utilized by private companies in
certification from the TESDA with 10 or more regular apprenticeable trades.
workers. The number of apprentices
a) barangay chairman or 5) Q
ualified Employers. — Only employers in
shall not be more than20%ofitstotal
b) barangay councilor or highly technical industries may employ
regular workforce.
apprentices and only in apprenticeable
c) prosecutor or b) A
ny unemployed person 15 years old occupations approved by the SOLE.
d) the Clerk of Court, as the case may be, and above may apply.
6) D
eductibility of Training Costs. — An
that an action relative to the matter ispending. 3) Q
ualifications.— Toqualifyasapprentice,an additional deduction fromtaxableincomeof
applicant shall: one-half (1/2) of the value of labor training
a) Beat least fifteenyears of age; expenses incurred for developing the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page144of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
roductivity and efficiency of apprentices.
p ours a day may be requested by his
h Learner Apprentice
Provided employer to work overtime and paid
a) s uch program is duly recognized by accordingly,provided earnable
L
ny trade, form
A
the DOLE; a) t here are no availableregularworkers occupations
of employment
to do the job, and consisting of
b) s uch deduction shall not exceed ten or occupation
Occupation semi-skilled
(10%) percent of direct labor wage: and b) t he overtime work thus rendered is approved for
and other
duly credited toward his training time. apprenticeship
c) a pprentices are paid the minimum industrial
by SOLE
wage. 11) Learners are persons hired as trainees in occupations
7) A pprentices without Compensation. — The s emi-skilled and other industrial
heoretical
T
SOLEmayauthorizethehiringofapprentices occupations which are non-apprenticeable Not required Required
instruction
withoutcompensationwhosetrainingonthe andwhichmaybelearnedthroughpractical
job is training on the job in a relatively short ompetency-
C
period of time which shall not exceedthree
✔ ✘
based system
a) r equired by the school or training
(3) months.
program curriculum or ot exceeding 3
N
12)Learners may be employed Duration 3-6 months
b) a s requisite for graduation or board months
examination. a) w
hen no experienced workers are
available, 0% of total
2
8) A pprenticeship period. — The period of Limitation NONE regular
apprenticeship shall not exceed six (6) b) t he employment of learners i s workforce
months. necessary to prevent curtailment of
employment opportunities, and ption to
O R Obliged to
E
9) W ages. — The wage rate of the apprentice Optional
c) t heemploymentdoesnotcreateunfair employ hire learner
shall start at 75% of the statutory minimum
wage for the first six (6) months; thereafter, competition in terms of labor costsor ispute
D OLE Regional
D
impair or lower working standards. Labor Arbiter
he shall be paid the full minimum wage, Resolution Director
including the full cost of living allowance. 13)The wages or salary rates of the learners
10)Hours of work. — An apprentice not whichshallbeginatnotlessthan75%ofthe
otherwise barred by lawfromworkingeight applicable MW.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page145of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
3. T
he word "dual" refers to the two parties stablishment's trainees. Such expenses
e
a. T
he Dual Training System Act: the providing instruction: the concept "system" shall not exceed five percent (5%) of their
Jobstart Philippines Act
meansthatthetwoinstructingpartiesdonot total direct labor expenses but in no case to
R.A. No. 7686;R.A. No. 10869 operate independently of one another, but exceed Twenty-five million pesos
s ee TESDA Resolution No. 2019-01, Revised rather coordinate their efforts. (P25,000,000) a year.
Dual Training System IRR)
4. S
tatus of Trainee. — For the duration of the 7. J
obStart refers to the DOLE program
1. " Dual Training System" refers to an training under the System, the trainee is to designed to enhance the employability of
instructional delivery system of technical be considered not an employee of the at-risk youth to improve their integration
and vocational education and training that business/industrial establishmentbutrather into productive employment through the
combines in-plant training and in-school a trainee of both the Accredited Dual provision of full cycle employment
training based on a training plan TrainingSystemEducationalInstitutionand facilitation services including job search
collaboratively designed and implemented the agricultural, industrial and business assistance, free technical and life skills
by an accredited dual system educational establishments. trainings, placement in internships, and job
institution/training center and accredited referral from the PESOs.
5. A
trainee who has successfullycompleteda
dual system agricultural, industrial and
trainingprograminaparticularagricultural, 8. T
o qualify as a JobStart trainee, a person
business establishments with prior notice
industrialorbusinessestablishmentshallbe shall:
and advise to the local government unit
given priority of employment in that
concerned. a. B
e a Filipino citizen either natural,
establishment. The appropriate authority
naturalized or dual citizen;
2. U nder this system, said establishments and shall keep a rollofthesesuccessfultrainees
the educational institution share the for purposes of identifying them for b. B
e 18 to 24 years of age at thetimeof
responsibility of providing the trainee with employment. the registrationperiod.Thosewhoare
the best possible job qualifications, the 17yearsoldmayalsoregisterprovided
6. I ncentives for Participating Establishments.
formeressentiallythroughpracticaltraining thattheywillbe18yearsoldbeforethe
—Theyshallbeallowedtodeductfromtheir
and the latter by securing an adequatelevel technical training stage;
taxable income the amount of fifty percent
of specific, general and occupation-related
(50%) of the system expenses paid to the c. H
ave reached at least high school
theoretical institution.
Accredited Dual Training System level;
Educational Institution for the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page146of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
d. N otbeineducation,inemployment,or ust achieve and as determined by
m robationary period should the trainee be
p
in training (NEET) at the time of the the participating employer. hired by the employer, provided that the
registration; and traineealsocompletedthetechnicaltraining
I t shall allow the trainee to acquire a
with the same employer.
e. H ave no workexperienceorhaveless qualification or a set of competencies
thanone(1)yearofaccumulatedwork aligned with the appropriate TESDA 11. Internship Stipend. — Partner employers
experience. The 0-12 months of trainingregulations,asapplicable,and shall provide the JobStart trainee with a
accumulated experience in wage be qualified to get a National daily stipend of not less than 75% of the
employment includes part-time and Certificate (NC) or Certificate of prevailing minimum wage in the region as
full time work in the formal sector. Competency (COC). prescribed by the RTWPB.
9. T heJobStarttrainingperiodshallbedivided c. J
obStart Internship. — shall not be b. Tulong-Trabaho Act
into three (3) phases, namely: more than three (3) months or six R.A. No. 11230
hundred (600) hours. The total daily
a. J obStart Life Skills Training. — shall 1. T
echnical-Vocational Education and
training hours shall be eight(8)hours
be developed by the DOLE in Training (TVET) refers to the education or
exclusive of not less than sixty (60)
consultation with the DepEd, CHED, trainingprocessinvolvinggeneraleducation,
minutes time off for the regular meals.
TESDA and other stakeholders. the study of technologies and related
JobStart trainee shall no longer be
A sciences, acquisition of practical skills
b. J
obStart Technical Training. — shall
required to undergo a probationary relating to occupations in various sectors of
be for a period of up to three (3)
period at the end of the internship economic and social life, and comprises
months. Upon therecommendationof
phase should the trainee be hired in formal (organized programs as part of the
the participating employer and as
the same establishment upon school system) and nonformal (organized
approved by the PESO, a JobStart
completion of the program: Provided, classes outside the school system)
trainee can skip or be exempted from
Thatsaidtraineealsocompletedhisor approaches.
undergoing the technicaltrainingand
her technical training within the
transition directly to internship stage. 2. T
ulong-Trabaho Fund. — shall provide
training plan prepared by the same
Thetechnicaltrainingperiodmayalso qualified recipients with access to TVET
participating employer.
be less than three (3) months programs under the Selected Training
depending on the skills and 10.The JobStart internship shall be considered Programs (STPs) covered by the TESDA
competenciesthattheJobStarttrainee part of the required six (6) months Board.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page147of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ncluding denial of reasonable
3. Q ualified Recipients. — Access to the qual opportunity. — No disabledpersonsshall
E
accommodation. Special measure solely to
Tulong-Trabaho Fund shall be made be denied access to opportunities for suitable
available to employment. A qualified disabled employee protecttherightsorsecuretheadvancement
shall be subject to the same terms and of persons with decision-making
a. a nypersonatleastfifteen(15)yearsof impairment capacity shall not bedeemedto
age who are not employed, not in conditions of employment and the same
compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe be discriminatory.
education and not in training (NEET),
benefits, incentives orallowancesasaqualified Incentives for Employers
and
able-bodied person.
b. e mployed workers who intend to 1) P
rivateentitiesthatemploydisabledpersons
develop and expand their current Discrimination who meet the required skills or
skills and trainings. (a) Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277) qualifications, either as regular employee,
apprentice or learner, shall be entitled to an
4. E xisting workers in enterprise-based o entity, whether public or private, shall
N
additional deduction, from their gross
companiesorindustriescurrentlytrainedby discriminate against a qualified disabled
income, equivalent to twenty-five percent
their employers shall be excluded from the personbyreasonofdisabilityinregardtojob
(25%) of the total amount paid as salaries
coverage of this Act. application procedures, the hiring,
promotion, or discharge of employees, and wages to disabled persons.
Persons with disabilities employee compensation, job training, and 2) P
rivate entities that improveormodifytheir
2 R.A. No. 7277, as amended by R.A. No. 9422, other terms, conditions, and privileges of physical facilities in order to provide
R.A. No. 10070 and R.A. No. 10524 employment. reasonable accommodation for disabled
personsshallalsobeentitledtoanadditional
(b)Mental Health Act (RA 11036)
Handicapped workersmay be employed deduction from their net taxable income,
iscrimination refers to any distinction,
D
1) w hen their employment is n
ecessary to quivalent to fifty percent (50%) of t he
e
exclusion or restriction which has the
prevent curtailment of e mployment direct costs of the improvements o r
purpose or effect of nullifying the
opportunitiesand modifications.
recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an
2) w hen it does not create unfair competition equal basis with others, of all human rights
in labor costs or impair or lower working and fundamental freedoms in the political,
standards. economic, social cultural, civil or any other
field. It includes all forms of discrimination,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page148of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
orking Conditions for special
W 1. P
ayment of a lesser compensation t o a r elations that would subvert the sacrament of
groups of employees female employee as against a male marriage."
employee, for work of equal value; and he Magna Carta of Women protects women
T
E Labor Code, IRR, R.A. No. 10151, R.A. No. 7877,
.A. No. 9710, R.A. No. 7192, Social Security
R 2. F
avoring a male employee over a female against discrimination in all matters relating to
Act, R.A. No. 11210, R.A. No. 8187, R.A. No. employeewithrespecttopromotion,training marriageandfamilyrelations,includingtheright
10028 and implementing rules opportunities, study and scholarship grants to choose freely a spouse and to enter into
solely on account of their sexes. marriage only with their free and full consent.
Gender rent's condition is coercive, oppressive and
B
b. Stipulation against marriage
discriminatory. There is no rhyme or reason for
Minors It shall beunlawfulfor an employer
it. It forces Cadiz to marry foreconomicreasons
Nightworkers 1) t o require as a condition of employment or and deprives her of the freedom to choose her
continuation of employment that a woman status,whichisaprivilegethatinheresinheras
Kasambahays
employee shall not get married, or an intangible and inalienable right. While a
Homeworkers 2) t o stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon
marriage or no-marriage qualification may be
justified as a "bona fide occupational
getting married,awomanemployeeshallbe
Gender qualification," Brent must prove two factors
deemed resigned or separated, or
necessitating its imposition,viz:
Discrimination 3) t o actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate
1) that the employment qualification is
Stipulation against marriage or otherwise prejudice a woman employee
r easonably related to the essential
1 merely by reason of her marriage.
Prohibited acts operation of the job involved; and
Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges2016 2) t hat there is a factual basis for believing
Facilities for women
rent imposed on Cadiz the condition that she
B that all or substantially all persons
Women working in nightclubs, etc. subsequently contract marriage with her then meeting the qualification would be unable
boyfriend for her to be reinstated. According to to properly perform the duties of the job.
a. Discrimination
Brent, this is "in consonance with the policy rent has not shown the presence of neither of
B
The following are acts of discrimination: against encouraging illicit or common-law these factors.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page149of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f preventing her from enjoying any of the
o
benefits;
e. Women working in nightclubs, etc.
PT&T v. NLRC ny woman who is permitted or suffered to
A
2. T
o dischargesuchwomanonaccountofher
etitioner’spolicyofnotacceptingorconsidering
P work, with or without compensation, in any
pregnancy, or while on leave or in
as disqualified from work any woman worker night club, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar
confinement due to her pregnancy;
who contracts marriage runs afoul ofthetestof, or similar establishments under the effective
3. T
odischargeorrefusetheadmissionofsuch control or supervision of the employer for a
andtherightagainst,discrimination,affordedall
woman upon returning to her work for fear substantial period of timeasdeterminedbythe
womenworkersbyourlaborlawsandbynoless
that she may again be pregnant. SOLE, shall be considered as an employee of
than the Constitution. Contrary to petitioner’s
assertion that it dismissed private respondent such establishment for purposes of labor and
d. Facilities for women
from employment on account of her dishonesty, social legislation.
I nappropriatecases,theSOLEshall,byregulations,
therecorddisclosesclearlythathertieswiththe
require any employer to: Minors
company were dissolved principally because of
the company’s policy that married women are 1. P
rovide seats proper for women and permit
.A. No. 7610, as amended by R.A.
R
not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not them to use such seats when they are free
No. 7658, R.A. No. 9231,
merely because of her supposed acts of from work and during working hours,
dishonesty. provided they can perform their duties in 2 OLE Department Advisory 01-08
D
this position without detriment to efficiency; Series of 2008
rivaterespondentwaspracticallyforcedbythat
P
very same illegal company policy into 2. T
o establish separate toilet rooms and epartment Order No. 149 series of
D
misrepresenting her civil status forfearofbeing lavatories for men and women and provide 2016, Department Order No. 149-A
disqualified from work. at least a dressing room for women; (2017)
3. T
oestablishanurseryinaworkplaceforthe
1) C
hild labor refers to any work or economic
c. Prohibited acts benefit of the women employees therein; and
activity performed by a child that subjects
It shall be unlawful for any employer: 4. T
o determine appropriateminimumageand him/her to any form of exploitation or is
1. T
o deny any woman employee the benefits otherstandardsforretirementortermination harmful to his/her health and safety or
provided for in this Chapter or to discharge inspecialoccupationssuchasthoseofflight physical, mental or psychosocial
anywomanemployedbyhimforthepurpose attendants and the like. development.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page150of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2) W orkingchildreferstoanychildengagedas rovided further t hat said child is
P 3) P
rohibition on the Employment of Children
follows: provided with t he prescribed
in Worst Forms of Child Labor. — No child
education; shall be engaged intheworstformsofchild
a) w hen the child is below eighteen (18) labor. The phrase “worst forms of child
yearsofage,inworkoreconomicactivity b. O
rparticipatesinpublicentertainment labor” shall refer to any of the following:
that is not child labor; and or information
a) A
ll forms ofslavery,asdefinedunderthe
b) w hen the childisbelowfifteen(15)years rovided that the employment
P “Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”,
of age, contractisconcludedbychild’sparent or practices similar to slavery such as
i) with express agreement of said child sale and trafficking of children, debt
i nworkwherehe/sheisdirectlyunder
theresponsibilityofhis/herparentsor rovided furtherthatthefollowingare
P bondage and serfdom and forced or
legal guardian and where only met: compulsory labor, including recruitment
members of the child ‘s family are of children for use in armed conflict.
i) rotection,health,safety,morals
P
employed; or and normal development of b) T
heuse,procuring,offeringorexposingof
ii) i n public entertainment or child is ensured; achildforprostitution,fortheproduction
information. of pornography or for pornographic
ii) easures are instituted t o
M
performances;
Below 15 years of age prevent child’s exploitation or
discrimination; and c) T
he use, procuring or offering of a child
GR: Shall not be employed
forillegalorillicitactivities,includingthe
EXC: When a child works iii) continuing program for
A
production or trafficking of dangerous
training and skills acquisition
a. D irectly under the sole responsibility drugs or volatile substances prohibited
of the child is formulated and
of his parents/ legal guardian and under existing laws; or
implemented.
where onlymembersofhisfamilyare d) W
ork which, by its nature or the
employed. work permit shall be secured from DOLE
A
circumstances in which it is carried out,
in both instances.
rovided his employment neither
P ishazardousorlikelytobeharmfultothe
endangers his life, safety, health, and ★
Hours of Work. up to 4H/D, 20H/W; 6am health, safety or morals of children, xxxx.
morals nor impairs his normal to 8pm only.
4) P
rohibition on the Employment of Children
development. in Certain Advertisements. — No child shall
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page151of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e employed as a model in any
b
b. i s a foreign national and will be d. i s picked or chosen as a contestant
advertisement directly or indirectly
engaged in public entertainment or from the audience of a live television
promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating information in the Philippines; or show; or
drinks,tobaccoanditsbyproducts,gambling
or any form of violence or pornography. c. w
ill be featured in a documentary e. i s a contestant of a singing, dance or
material unless it is a school-related talent contest for a television show
a. R
.A. No. 7610, as amended by R.A. No. requirement or project; or before being selected as a
7658, R.A. No. 9231. semi-finalist; or
d. w
ill be engaged as regular extraoras
epartment Circular No. 2 Series of 2017 as
D part of a crowd and isincludedinthe f. i sarecipientofgift-givingactivitiesin
amended by Department Circular No. 2 script or storyboard; or television; or
Series of 2018
e. h
as been selected for a
project after g. i s a participant in s chool-related
epartment Order No. 65-04 defines public
D undergoing auditions, workshops or performance such as play, skit, or
entertainment or information as artistic, literary, VTR screenings; or recital;
and cultural performances for television show,
radio program,cinemaorfilm,theater,commercial f. h
as beenselectedassemi-finalistina h. i s a participant in sports activities,
singing, dance or talent contest for a trainings or workshops aimed at
advertisement, public relations activities or
campaigns, print materials, internet, and other television show. developing the child's talent or skills.
media. 2. A
Working Child Permit is not required if a 3. H
oursofWorkofaWorkingChild.—achild
child below 15 years of age: below15yearsofagemaybeallowedtowork
1. A WorkingChildPermitisrequiredifachild
fornotmorethanfour(4)hoursinanygiven
below 15 years of age: a. i saspotextraoriscastoutrightonthe
day and not more than 20 hours a week.
a. w day of filming or taping of a project;
ill be engaged in public Such child is not allowed to work between
entertainmentorinformation,whether b. w
ill join auditions or VTRscreenings; 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day.
localoroverseas,regardlessofhis/her or
role in a project, such as lead, b. DOLE Department Advisory 01-08 Series
c. i s part of the audience of a
live
supporting, guest, or regular extra. of 2008
television show unless the child's
This includes projects which are 15 and above, but below 18 years of age
participation is expected; or
non-profit, advocacy materials or
GR: May be employed
political advertisements; or
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page152of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
EXC: I nanundertakingwhichisdeleterious f. I s performed in an unhealthy environment viii. Security and Investigation;
or hazardous in nature. exposing the child to hazardous working ix. Manufacturing
conditions, elements, substances, co-agents
c. D
epartment Order No. 149 series of 2016, or processes involving ionizing, radiation, b) Occupational Classification
Department Order No. 149-A (2017)
fire, flammable substances, noxious i. Farmers
he employmentofapersonbelow18yearsofage
T components and the like, or to extreme
is prohibited in any work which, by its nature or ii. Animal Producers;
temperatures,noiselevels,orvibrations;org.
the circumstances in which it is carried out, is Is performed under particularly difficult iii. hysical, Life Sciences and Health
P
hazardous or likely to be harmful to the health, conditions; or Associate Professionals;
safety or morals of children, such that it: iv.
g. E
xposes the child to biological agents such ales and
S Services Elementary
a. D ebases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic as bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoans, Occupations;
worth and dignity of a child as a human nematodes, and other parasites; or v. ersonal and Protective Services
P
being; or Workers;
h. I nvolves the manufacture or handling of
b. E xposes the child to physical, emotional or explosives and other pyrotechnic products. vi. Customer Services Clerks;
sexual abuse, or is found to be highly
Based on Two Classifications: vii. ther Craft
O and Related Trade
stressful psychologically or may prejudice
morals; or a) Industrial Classification Workers.
c. I s performed underground, underwater orat i. Mining and Quarrying; ★
Hours of Work. up to 8H/D, 40H/W; 6am
dangerous heights; or to 10pm only.
ii. Construction;
d. I nvolves the use of dangerous machinery, iii. Transportation and Storage; Night workers
equipment and tools, such as power-driven
iv. ater Supply, Sewerage, Waste
W 3 R.A. No. 10151 (2011), DOLE DO No. 119-12 s.
or explosive power-actuated tools; or
management and remediation 2012
e. E xposesthechildtophysicaldangersuchas, activities;
but not limited to the dangerous feats of 1) C
overage andExclusion.— Shallapplytoall
balancing,physicalstrengthorcontortion,or v. Forestry and Logging; persons,whoshallbeemployedorpermitted
which requires the manual transport of vi. Fishing and Agriculture; or suffered to work at night, except those
heavy loads; or employed in agriculture, stock raising,
vii. Hunting, Trapping;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page153of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
shing, maritime transport and inland
fi i) here there is an existing agreement
W
ot less than six (6) months or both, at the
n
navigation, during a period of not less than between management and workers
discretion of the court.
seven (7) consecutive hours, including the providingforanequivalentorsuperior
interval from midnight to five o'clock in the benefit; or
Kasambahays
morning. 4
RA No. 10361
ii) here the start or end of the night
W
2) R ight to Health Assessment. — At their work does not fallwithin12midnight 1) C
overage. — Apply to all parties to an
request, workers shall have the right to
to 5 o'clock in the morning; or employment contract for the services of the
undergoahealthassessmentwithoutcharge
iii) here the workplace is located in an
W following Kasambahay, whether onalive-in
and to receive advice on how to reduce or
areathatisaccessibletwentyfour(24) or live-out arrangement, such as but not
avoid health problems associated with their
hours to public transportation; limited to:
work.
iv) here the number of employees does
W a) General househelp;
3) R ight to Mandatory Facilities. — Mandatory
facilitiesshallbemadeavailableforworkers notexceedaspecifiednumberasmay b) Yaya;
performing night work which include the be provided for by the SOLE.
c) Cook;
following: 4) R
ight to Transfer. — Night workers who are
d) Gardener;
a) Suitable first-aid and emergency facilities; certified by competent physician, as unfit to
render night work, due to health reasons, e) Laundry person; or
b) Lactation station in required companies; shall be transferred to a job for which they f) A
ny person who regularly performs
c) S eparate toilet facilities for men and are fit to work whenever practicable. domesticworkinonehouseholdonan
women; 5) W occupational basis.
omenNightWorkers. —Measuresshallbe
d) F acility for eating with potable drinking taken to ensure that an alternative to night 2) The following arenot covered:
water; and work is available to women workers who
a) Service providers;
would otherwise be called upon to perform
e) F acilities for transportation and/or
such work. b) Family drivers;
properlyventilatedtemporarysleepingor
resting quarters, except where anyofthe 6) C
riminal liability of Employer. — Any c) C
hildren under foster family
following circumstances is present: violation of this Rule shall be punishable arrangement; and
with a fine of 30K - 50Korimprisonmentof
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page154of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
d) A ny other person who performs work c) C
overage under the SSS, PhilHealth 1) “ Industrial Homework” is a system of
occasionally or sporadically and not and Pag-IBIG laws; production under which work for an
on an occupational basis. d) B employer or contractor is carried out by a
oard, lodging and medical
homework at his/her home. Materials may
3) E mployment contractandrenewal.— Before attendance;
the commencement of theservice,awritten or may not be furnished by the employer or
e) Right to privacy; contractor. It differs from regular factory
employment contract between the
Kasambahay and the employer shall be f) Access to outside communication; production principally in that, it is a
accomplished in three (3) copies. The decentralized form of production where
g) Access to education and training;
contract shall be in a language or dialect there is ordinarily very little supervision or
h) Right to form, join, or assist labor regulation of methods of work.
understoodbyboththeKasambahayandthe
organization;
employer. 2) E
xemption from minimumWageifengaged
i) R
ight to be provided a copy of the in needlework. The title on Wages shallnot
4) R enewal of Contract. — Should the parties
employment contract; applytofarmtenancyorleasehold,domestic
mutuallyagreetocontinuetheiremployment
relationship upon expiration of thecontract, j) Right to certificate of employment; and service and persons working in their
respective homes in needle work or in any
they shall execute a new contract to be k) R
ight to exercise their own religious
registered with the concerned barangay. cottage industry duly registered.
beliefs and cultural practices.
However, if the parties fail to executeanew 3) N
o homework shall be performed on the
contract, the terms and conditions of the Atienza v. Saluta2019 following:
original contract and other improvements
ONtheLaborCodegovernstherightsoffamily
W a) e
xplosives, fireworks and articles of like
granted during the effectivity of said drivers. character;
contract are deemed renewed. NO. The Civil Code shall govern the rights of
b) drugs and poisons; and
5) T he rightsandprivilegesoftheKasambahay family drivers.
are as follows: c) o
ther articles, the processing of which
requires exposure to toxic substances.
a) Minimum wage;
Homeworkers
b) O ther mandatory benefits, such asthe 5
DOLE DO No. 5 s. 1992
daily and weekly rest periods,service
incentive leave, and 13th month pay;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page155of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
he crime of gender-based sexual harassment
T scandor v. Carpio Morales2022
E
exual Harassment in the Work
S
in the workplace includes the following: Related case ofEscandor v. People2020
Environment
F 1) An act or series of acts involving here is no gainsaying that the Office of the
T
.A. No. 7877;Safe Spaces Act, R.A. No. 11313,
R
Article IV a) a
ny unwelcome sexual advances, Ombudsman has jurisdiction as well over the
requestsor demand for sexual favors or administrative complaint filed by private
Sexual harassment is committed when: respondent Gamallo against petitioner, a public
b) a
ny act of sexual nature, whether done
1) Thesexual favoris made as a condition officerwhocommittedactsofsexualharassment
verbally, physically or through the use of
amounting to grave misconduct.
a) i n the hiring or in the employment, technology,
re-employmentorcontinuedemployment rivaterespondentwaspracticallyforcedbythat
P
t hathasorcouldhaveadetrimentaleffecton
of said individual, or very same illegal company policy into
the conditions of an individual's
misrepresenting her civil status forfearofbeing
b) i n granting said individual favorable employment or education, job performance
disqualified from work.
compensation, terms of conditions, or opportunities;
promotions, or privileges; or nthefirstrequisite,Escandorhadauthorityover
O
2) A
conduct of sexual nature and other
Gamallo. He was the Regional Director of the
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results conduct-basedonsexaffectingthedignityof
NEDARegion7,whileGamallowasacontractual
aperson,whichisunwelcome,unreasonable,
c) i n limiting, segregatingorclassifyingthe employeeinthatoffice.Escandor'sauthorityalso
and offensive to the recipient, whetherdone
employee which in any way would existed in a work-related environment; thereby
verbally, physically or through the use of
discriminate, deprive or diminish satisfying the second requisite for sexual
technology;
employment opportunities or otherwise harassment.
adversely affect said employee; 3) A
conduct that is unwelcome andpervasive
hile the third requisite calls for a "demand,
W
and creates an intimidating, hostile or
2) T he aboveactswouldimpairtheemployee's request, or requirement of a sexual favor," the
humiliating environment for the recipient.
rights or privileges under existing labor Courthasheldin Domingov.Rayala thatitisnot
laws; or hismayalsobecommittedbetweenpeersand
T necessary that these be articulated in a
those committed to a superior officer by a categorical oral or written statement. It may be
3) T he above acts would result in an
subordinate, or toateacherbyastudent,ortoa discerned from the acts of the offender.
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
trainer by a trainee.
environmentfor the employee. hus, the Court found that the accused's acts of
T
holding and squeezing Domingo's shoulders,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page156of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r unning his fingers across herneckandtickling nough that the respondent's actions created an
e dvances are made to constitute an act of
a
her ear, havinginappropriateconversationswith intimidating,hostile,oroffensiveenvironmentfor sexualharassment.ItisenoughthatYañez's
her, giving her money allegedly for school the employee. inappropriate conduct towards Sarte and in
expenseswithapromiseoffutureprivileges,and other instances, created a hostile work
ON PALcompliedwiththerequirementsofRA
W
making statements with unmistakable sexual No. 7877 on the procedure for investigating environment anduneasyfeelinguponSarte,
overtones satisfy thethirdrequisite. sexual harassment complaints. which affected her job.
t the core of sexual harassment in the
A 1. Y
ES.PALcompliedwiththerequirementsof
5. A
lso, PAL substantially complied with the
workplaceispowerexercisedbyasuperiorovera RA No. 7877 on the procedure for rules provided by Section 4 of RA No. 7877
subordinate. The power emanates from how the investigating sexual harassment complaints. concerning the resolution, settlement, or
superior can remove or disadvantage the prosecution of acts of sexual harassment.
subordinateshouldthelatterrefusethesuperior's 2. S
exual harassment under Section 3 of RA
No.7877maygiverisetocivil,criminal,and 6. T
he records show that PAL has its own
sexual advances. Thus, sexual harassment is Sexual Harassment Policy embedded in its
committed when the sexual favor is made as a administrative liability, and an action for
each can proceed independently of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual
condition in the hiringofthevictimorthegrant in relation to its Revised Code of Discipline.
ofbenefitsthereto;orwhenthesexualactresults others. Moreover, Section 6 authorizes the
PAL created a committee on decorum and
in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive institutionofanindependentcivilactionfor
investigation following the parameters set
environment for the employee. damages and other affirmative relief.
forth by RA No. 7877. The committee
3. T
he instant case is an administrative case, received and evaluated the testimony ofthe
not a criminal infraction, of sexual parties and even advocated for their
PAL v. Yañez2022 harassment. Domingo v.Rayalaemphasized settlement. The decision to suspend Yañez
that the employee's liability for an was made only after the committee
he employee's liability for an administrative
T
administrativeoffenseofsexualharassment concluded that he committed acts
offense of sexual harassment should not be
should not be determined solely based on constitutive of sexualharassmentunderthe
determined solely based on Section 3 of RA No.
Section 3 of RA No. 7877. Substantial PAL Revised Code of Discipline.
7877. Thus, the"demand,request,orrequirement
evidence to support the administrative
of asexualfavor"requirementinSection3isnot
charge is sufficient.
essential before anactcanbequalifiedassexual
harassment in an administrative charge. It is 4. It is not necessary that sexual favors or
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page157of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Post-Employment b) w
here the work or service to be 3. Two kinds of regular employees
VI performed is seasonal in nature and a. B
y the nature of their work. Usually
Kinds of Employment
the employment is for the duration of necessary or desirable in the usual
the season.
Regular Employees trade or business of an employer.
nemploymentshallbedeemedtobecasual
A b. B
y the length of service. Have
Casual Employees if it is not covered by the preceding rendered at least 1 year of service
paragraph: whether continuous or not.
Project Employees
rovided, That any employee who has
P 4. T
EST of regularity. Reasonable connection
Fixed Term Employees renderedatleastoneyearofservice,whether betweentheparticularactivityperformedby
Seasonal Employees suchserviceiscontinuousorbroken,shallbe the employee in relation to the employer.
considered a regular employee with respect
5. R
epeated rehiring of a job for a fixed period
Probationary Employees to the activity in which he is employed and
and the continuing need for an employee’s
his employment shall continue while such
service are sufficient evidence of the
RT295. RegularandCasualEmployment. —
A activity exists.
necessity and indispensability of an EE’s
The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of service to the ER’s trade or business.
A Regular Employees
the oral agreement of the parties, an 6. Exceptionsto regular employment
employment shall be deemed to be regular 1. E
mployment is regular where the employee a) Project;
where the employee has been engaged to has been engaged to perform activities
perform activities which are usually which are usually necessary or desirable in b) Seasonal; and
necessary or desirable in the usual business the usual business or trade of the employer. c) Fixed Term.
or trade of the employer,except
2. A regular employee may either be:
ampana v. Maritime Training Center of the
S
a) w here the employment has been fixed a. P
ermanent.Onewhohasanindefinite Philippines2024Lazaro-Javier, J.
foraspecificprojectorundertakingthe employment, whether passing the
completion or termination of which I s Sampana a regular employee of TMTCP? Yes,
probationary stage or not; or
has been determinedatthetimeofthe Sampana is a regular employee of TMTCP.
b. Probationary.
engagement of the employee or
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page158of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s uccessive and uniformly worded "Consultancy
MTCP admitted that it is an educational
T b) t hose who have rendered atleastoneyear
Agreements" with TMTCP.
institution that provides basic safety courses of service, whether continuous or broken,
and/or programs in order to ensure efficiency in MTCPdidnotdealwithSampana,withmoreor
T with respect to the activity in which they
operationandsafetyinnavigationofthegrowing lessequaltermsastonegateexertionofitsmoral are employed (second category).
national fleet and foreign ships manned by dominance on the latter. For one, the fact that
uji Network Television, Inc. v. Espiritu decreed
F
Filipino seafarers, and conducts assessment ofa Sampanaisaprofessionaldoesnotautomatically thattherepeatedengagementunderafixed-term
seafarer's competence. Indeed, to carry out its establish that he and TMTCP dealt with each contract is indicative of the necessity and
businessasanMTI,TMTCPhiredSampanatobe other on more or lessequaltermswithnomoral desirability of the employee's work in the
one of its instructors. Per the so-called dominance exercised by TMTCP.
employer's business. And where the employee's
ConsultancyAgreementsoftheparties,Sampana
hus, in truth, Sampana was notinapositionto
T contract has been continuously extended or
wasengagedasan"Instructor"ofTMTCP.Calling bargain on the terms of his employment with renewed to the same position, with the same
the contract as a Consultancy Agreement is a TMTCP.Theso-called"ConsultancyAgreements," duties and remained in the employ without any
misnomer. A consultant is a person "who gives as well as the "Employment with a Fixed Term" interruption, then such employee is a regular
expert or professional advice" and "possesses
contracts were but a ruse to prevent him from employee.
special knowledge or skills and provides that
attaining the status of a regular employee. His
expertise to a client for a fee." ampana is deemed a regular employee under
S
repeated engagement under a three-month
both categories. As an instructor of TMTCP, the
I n the case of Sampana, he was engaged to contract each time was undeniably a nature of Sampana's work is necessary and
provide training to seafarers enrolled in TMTCP. circumvention of his right to security of tenure. desirable to TMTCP's usual business as an
Noticeably, he didnotgiveexpertorprofessional Hence,theCourtstrikesdownthesecontractsfor
educational institution providing training to
advice nor help to find and implement solutions being contrary to law and public policy. seafarers. Too, the repeated hirings of Sampana
to a widevarietyofbusinessproblems.Indeed,it
There are two types of regular employees: for over five years indicates the necessity of his
is not the title of the contract or the designation
work.
of the position given to Sampana which a) t hose who are engaged to perform
determines the nature of his engagement. It is activities which are usually necessary or
how the law defines it. Clearly, it was an desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer (first category); and teelweld Construction v. Echano2021
S
employment contract and Sampana was an Lazaro-Javier, J.
employee who was issued not one, but seven
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page159of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
project employee is assigned to a project that
A ( onaccountofprojectcompletion)totheDOLE,in s tatus had already ripened to regular
starts and ends at a determined ordeterminable violation of Department Order No. 19. employment.
time.Theprincipaltesttodetermineifemployees
urther, it is undisputed that Steelweld is
F o be valid, petitioner's dismissal should have
T
are project employees iswhethertheyhavebeen engaged in the construction business and been for justorauthorizedcausesandonlyupon
assigned to carry out a specific project or
respondents had been continuously employed compliance with procedural due process. As it
undertaking, the durationorscopeofwhichwas withthecompanyformanyyearsasconstruction was, respondentcompanycompliedwithneither
specifiedatthetimetheemployeeswereengaged workers in its various projects. Their conditions in effecting petitioner's dismissal. It
for that project. employment had not beeninterruptedeversince just abruptly stoppedgivingdeliveryassignment
I nocentes, Jr. v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., they got hired. Too, petitioners never required to petitioner.
Lazaro-Javier, J. stressed that to ascertain themtoexecuteanewemploymentcontractwith
whether employees were project employees, it is the company each time they got assigned to a
necessarytodeterminewhethernoticewasgiven new project. Under the law, this is competent Espina v. Highlands Camp2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
them at the time of hiring that they were being evidence of necessity, if not indispensability, of
he fact that Highlands required petitioners to
T
engaged just for a specific project. Here, there is such activities to Steelweld's business.
apply for reemployment every year does not bar
no showing that upon their engagement,
them from being regularized. Further, even if it
respondents were informed that they would be
were true that petitioners worked for three (3)
assigned to a specific project or undertaking. pod v. Onon Trucking and Marketing2021
U
Lazaro-Javier, J. monthsonlyinagivenyear,theirrepeatedhiring
Neither was it established that they were made
for the same services for the past ten (10) years
awareofthedurationandscopeofsuchprojector
s an entity engaged inthewholesaleandretail
A confers upon them the status of regular
undertaking.
of various products, respondent company must employment.
reyssinetFilipinasCorp.v.Lapuzexplainedthat
F necessarily engage the services of delivery
I ndeed, Highlands' cyclicalschemeofhiringand
thefailureonthepartoftheemployertofilewith drivers, suchashereinpetitioner,forthepurpose
rehiring petitioners year after year manifests its
the DOLE a termination report every time a of getting its products delivered to itsclients.To
intent to prevent them from attaining regular
project or its phase iscompletedisanindication be sure, since petitioner had performed acts
employment. Highlands' continuing need forthe
that the workers are not project employees but necessaryanddesirabletorespondentcompany's
sameservicesoriginallyperformedbypetitioners
regular ones. Petitioners did not report the business and trade for more than a year, his
istestamenttotheirnecessityanddesirabilityin
termination of the supposedprojectemployment
its business. Without cooks, cook helpers, utility
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page160of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
orkers, and service crew, etc., it would be
w t he employee in relation to the usual
7. I n sum, the Courtaffirmsthefindingsofthe
difficult, nay impossible, for Highlands to business of the employer.
LAthatFreddieisillegallydismissed,andon
maintain its camping facilities and cater to its 3. H
ere,respondentsareprincipallyengagedin accountofthestrainedrelationshipbetween
campers' needs. It would not have been able to the construction business. Freddie, as a theparties,themoreequitabledispositionof
provide a suitable venue for religious training, painter, is tasked with preparing, sanding the case would be an award of separation
spiritual growth, and evangelization. Petitioners' and painting various construction works. pay in lieu of reinstatement.
services, therefore, are necessary and directly Inarguably, the nature of Freddie's job
related to Highlands' camping site business. required him to perform activities, which
Verily, they were in factregularemployees. were deemed necessary in the usual Lu v. Enopia2017
business of respondents.
he primary s tandard f or determining regular
T
4. A
t any rate, respondents as well as the employment is the reasonable connection
Laurente v. Helenar Construction2021
supposedsubcontractordidnotcomplywith between
hat determines regular employment is not the
W the requirements of the law with respect to
1. t he particular activity performed by the
employment contract, written or otherwise, but the hiring of project employees.
employee
the nature of the job. The standard supplied by
5. T
he principal test in determining
the law itself is whether theworkundertakenis 2. i nrelationtotheusualtradeorbusinessof
project-based employment is whether he
necessary or desirable in the usual business or theemployer.
was assigned to carry out a specific project
trade of the employer. espondents'jobsasfishermen-crewmembersof
R
or undertaking, the duration and scope of
ON Freddie is a regular employee of
W which was specifiedat,andmadeknownto F/BMG28weredirectlyrelatedandnecessaryto
respondents and was illegally terminated. him, at the time of his engagement. petitioner's deep-sea fishing business and they
had been performing their jobformorethanone
1. Y
ES. The LA correctlyheldthatFreddieisa 6. H
ere, there is no substantial evidence that
year.
regular employee of respondents. Freddie was adequately informed of his
2. W
hatdeterminesregularemploymentisnot status as a project employee at least at the
the employment contract, written or time of his engagement. Also, Freddie was
Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co.2020
otherwise, but the nature of the job. The not fully apprised of thedurationandscope
applicable test is the reasonable connection of the projects. The provision of law dictates that petitioners
betweentheparticularactivityperformedby wereregularemployees of Shogun Ships.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page161of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s panning theyears1990-1999.Pontesor,etal.fall
1. I n the absence of a clear agreement or hird, Expedition's power to dismiss was
T
contract, whether written or otherwise, under the second categoryofregularemployees. apparent when work was withheld from
which would clearly showthatpetitioners Accordingly, they should be deemed as regular respondents as a result of the terminationofthe
were properly informed of their employees but only with respecttotheactivities
contracts with LGUs.
employment status with Shogun Ships, forwhichtheywerehiredandforaslongassuch
activities exist. inally, Expedition hasthepowerofcontrolover
F
petitioners enjoy the presumption of
respondents in the performance of their work.
regular employment in their favor. ontesor, et al. were not project employees of
P
petitioner. The specific undertakings or projects herefore, respondents should be accorded the
T
2. P etitioners were performing activities presumption of regular employment.
whichareusuallynecessaryordesirablein for which they were employed were not clearly
the business or trade of Shogun Ships. delineated.Thisisevidencedbythevaguenessof
the project descriptions set forth in their
3. T he fact alone that petitioners were respective CEAs, which states that they were Gerardo v. Bill Sender Corp2018
allowed to work for it for aperiodofmore tasked "to assist" in variouscarpentry,electrical, ON Geraldo was a regular employee of
W
thanone(1)year,albeitintermittentlysince and masonry work. respondent.
May 2006 until they were dismissed from
employment on May 2008, was indicative YES. eraldo was performing activities
G
of the regularity and necessity of welding necessary or desirable in its usual business or
Expedition Construction Corp. v. Africa2017
activities to its business. trade for without his services, its fundamental
irst, respondents were engaged/hired by
F purpose of delivering bills cannot be
Expedition as garbage truck drivers. accomplished. He has been delivering mail
UST v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST2017 econd, respondents received compensation
S matters for the company for more than fourteen
from Expedition for the services that they (14) years.
ON the CA correctly ruled that Pontesor, et al.
W
rendered to the latter. The fact that respondents I n Gamboa, Jr. v. Villegas, We held that the
are regular employees and, consequently, were
were paid on a per trip basis is irrelevant in payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate
illegally dismissed by petitioner.
determining the existence of an regularemployment.Paymentbythepieceisjust
YES. Petitioner repeatedly rehired respondents employer-employee relationship because this a method of compensation and does not define
f or various p
ositions in the nature of was merely the method of computingtheproper the essence of the relations.
maintenance workers, f or v arious periods compensation due to respondents.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page162of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
here the duties of the employee consist of
w
1. T
he fixed period of employment was
Regala v. Manila Hotel2020 activities usually necessary or desirable in the knowingly andvoluntarilyagreeduponby
usual business of the employer, the parties are the parties without any force, duress, or
egalaisaregularemployeeofMHC.Therecords
R forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for improper pressure being brought to bear
ofthecasearebereftofevidencethatRegalawas the performance of such activities. However, the upon the employee and absent any other
duly informed of the nature and status of his Court also held that if it is apparent from the
circumstances vitiating his consent; or
engagement with the hotel. circumstancesofthecasethatperiodshavebeen
imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial 2. I t satisfactorily appears that the employer
I n the absence of a clear agreement or contract,
security by the employee, such fixed term andtheemployeedealtwitheachotheron
whether written or otherwise, which would
contracts are disregarded for being contrary to more or less equal terms with no moral
clearly show that Regala was properly informed
law and public policy. dominance exercised by the former or the
of his employment status with MHC, Regala
latter.
enjoys the presumption of regular employment ere, the Service Agreements and fixed-term
H
in his favor. service contracts executed between MHC and s to the first guideline, the Service Agreements
A
Regala are invalid and are not true fixed-term signed by Regalado not even prove that he
he circumstances and evidence on record, and
T
employmentcontracts.Thedecisivedeterminant knowingly agreed to be hired by MHC for a
provision of law dictate that Regala is MHC's
in term employment should not be the activities fixed-term way back in February 2000. Astothe
regular employee.
that the employee is called upon to perform, but second guideline, Regala can hardly be on equal
1. R egala is performing activities which are termswithMHCinsofarasnegotiatingtheterms
thedaycertainagreeduponbythepartiesforthe
usually necessary or desirable in the and conditions of his employment is concerned.
commencement and termination of their
business or trade of MHC.
employment relationship. I n all, Regala has beenaregularemployeeofthe
2. T he fact alone that Regala was allowed to hotel since February 2000.
ere, the Service Agreements do not
H
work for MHC on several occasions for
unequivocally specify the periods of their
several years under various Service
expiration. Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora laid out
Agreements is indicative of the regularity ngineering & Construction Corporation of Asia
E
parameters or criteria under which a "term
and necessity of his functions to its v. Palle2020
employment" cannot be said to be in
business.
circumvention of the law on security of tenure, espondents were regular employees who were
R
t.Theresa'sSchoolofNovalichesFoundationvs.
S namely: illegally terminated.
NLRC heldthatitdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthat
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page163of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nd indispensable to the
a usual
ere,ECCAfailedtopresentsubstantialevidence
H 3. T
here is no security of tenure for casual
employees. business or trade of ER.
to show that it informed respondents of the
duration and scope of their work at the time of 4. hile there was repeated re-hiring, the
W
theirhiring.Itislikewisenotedthatthecompany C Project Employees hiring was NOT, however, continuous, as in
did not submit a report with the DOLE of the facttherewasalapseof33monthsafterthe
1. W
here employment has been fixed for a
termination of respondents' employment every ext project, the employee is a project and
n
specific project or undertaking, the
time a project is completed, which is an not regular. (Alcatel PH v. Relos)
completionofwhichhasbeendeterminedat
indication that the workers were not project the time of engagement of EE. Elements are 5. H
owever, if the employee is successively
employees but regular ones. as follows: re-engagedtoperformthesamekindofwork
notintermittently,butcontinuously,contract
a. e
mployment has been fixed for a
after contract, month after month involving
specific project or undertaking; AND
B Casual Employees the same task indicates the necessity and
b. t he completion or termination of desirabilityoftheworkintheusualbusiness
1. An employee is consideredcasualif: which has been determined at the of the company. (Manalo v. TNS Phil.2014)
a. E mployed t o perform w ork merely time of engagement of EE.
incidental to t he trade or b
usiness of 2. S
pecificprojectorundertaking isanactivity acific Metals Co., Ltd. v. Tamayo2019
P
employer; Lazaro-Javier, J.
which is NOT commonly or habitually
b. Employment is for adefinite period; performedorsuchtypeofworkwhichisnot he controversy hinges onTamayo'ssubsequent
T
done on a daily basis, but onlyforaspecific employment or his re-hiring and assignment as
c. E mployment status was made known at
duration of time until the completion of the exploration manager for the ERAMEN/PAMCO
the time of engagement.
project. Exploration Project. This engagement was not
2. I f employed for a continuous or broken covered by any employment contract.
3. When project EE deemed regular?
periodofatleast1year,heisdeemedregular
a. W
hen there is continuous rehiring he lack of an employment contract would not
T
but only with respect to the activity he is
even after cessation of a project; hinder the determination of the status of
employedandaslongassuchactivityexists.
Tamayo's employment. In connection with
The status of being regular casual is b. W
hen the tasks performed by the Tamayo's subsequent engagement for the
coterminousto the existence of the activity. alleged project EE are vital, necessary
ERAMEN/PAMCO Exploration Project, he
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page164of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r endered services therefor from January 2011 rocedural due process if the termination is
p
I n this case, the three project employment
until December 2011whenhegotterminateddue brought about by the completion of the contract contractssignedbyAndoexplicitlystipulatedthe
to alleged project completion. It is common or phase thereof for which the project employee agreement "to engage his services as a Project
practice for employers to set the duration of an was engaged.
Worker."
employmentcontracttoaperiodshorterthanone ON Ando was a regular employee and was
W he fact that Ando was required to render
T
year to prevent an employee from attaining thereby illegally dismissed by EGI. services necessary or desirable in the operation
regular employment status, conformably with
Article 295 of the Labor Code. NO. The activities of project employees may or ofEGI'sbusinessformorethanayeardoesnotin
ay not be usually necessaryordesirableinthe
m any way impair the validity of his project
AMCO is engaged in the business of nickel ore
P usual business or trade of the employer. In employment contracts. The rehiring of
importation. It does not simply involve sourcing ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, two (2) categories of project construction workers on a project-to-project
out suppliers of raw materials; for sure, mineral employees were distinguished: basis does not confer upon them regular
importationtakesmoreeffort.Toaccomplishthis employment status as it is only dictated by the
step by step process, PAMCO must rely on the irstly, aprojectcouldrefertoaparticularjob
F
practical consideration that experienced
expertise of a geologist with knowledge of or undertaking that is within the regular or
construction workers are more preferred.
Philippine soil and its rich sources of minerals. usual business of the employer company, but
The tasks ordinarily performed by a geologist, whichisdistinctandseparate,andidentifiable
therefore, are necessary to the business which as such, from the other undertakings of the
Herma Shipyard Inc. v. Oliveros2017
PAMCO was engaged in. It is, thus, undeniable company. Suchjoborundertakingbeginsand
that TamayoisaregularemployeeofPAMCO,for ends at determined or determinable times. he principal test in determining whether
T
he performs work that is usually necessary and Thetypicalexampleofthisfirsttypeofproject particular employees were engaged as
desirable to PAMCO's business. is a particular construction job or project ofa project-based employees, as distinguished from
construction company. regular employees, is whether they were
econdly, a particular joborundertakingthat
S assigned to carry out a specific project or
E. Ganzon Inc. v. Ando, Jr.2017 Special En Banc is not within the regular business of the undertaking, the duration and scope of which
corporation. Such a job or undertaking must wasspecifiedat,andmadeknowntothem,atthe
he decisivedeterminantinprojectemployment
T time of their engagement.
also beidentifiablyseparateanddistinctfrom
istheactivitythattheemployeeiscalleduponto
the ordinaryorregularbusinessoperationsof epeated rehiring of p
R roject employees to
perform.Priornoticeofterminationisnotpartof
the employer. different projects does NOT ipso facto make
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page165of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
them regular employees. I n order to safeguard the rights of workers loomberg project, without signing a new
B
against the arbitrary use of the word "project" contract for that purpose, it was already outside
ON respondents are regular employees of
W
petitioner and not project employees. which prevents them from attaining regular of the scope of the particular undertaking for
status,employersclaimingthattheirworkersare which they were hired; it was beyond the scope
NO. Here,foreachandeveryprojectrespondents project employees have the burden of showing of their employment contracts. This act by IKSI
ere hired, they were adequately informed of
w that: indubitably brought respondents outside the
their employment status as project-based realm of the project employees category.
a) t he duration and scopeoftheemployment
employees at least at the time they signed their
was specified at the time they were
employment contract. While the tasks assigned
engaged; and
to the respondents were indeed necessary and Jovero v. Cerio2021
desirable in the usual business of Herma b) there was indeed a project.
Shipyard, the same were distinct, separate, and espondents were regular employees of Sigma.
R
ON respondent employees, as mere project
W
identifiable from the other projects or contract Jovero only presented Sigma's Service Contracts
employees,werevalidlyplacedonfloatingstatus
with PGI. Nowhere in the contracts did it show
services. and, therefore, were validly dismissed.
that respondents were parties to such contract.
he rule that employees initially hired on a
T NO.WhileIKSIwasabletoshowthepresenceof More importantly, it did not prove that
temporary basis may become permanent respondents were hired for the projects with PGI.
specificproject,theACTProject,inthecontract
a
employees by reason of their lengthofserviceis and the alleged duration of the same, it failedto
not applicable to project-based employees. true project employee should be assignedtoa
A
prove, however, that respondents were in reality project which begins and ends at determined or
I n Mercado Sr. v. NLRC, this court ruledthatthe made to work only for that specific project determinable times, and be informed thereof at
proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280, indicated in their employment documents and the time of hiring.Intheinstantcase,therecord
providingthatanemployeewhohasservedforat that it adequately informed themoftheduration is bereft of proof that the respondents'
least one year, shall be considered a regular and scope of said project at the time their engagement as project employees has been
employee, relates only to casual employees and services were engaged. predetermined, as required by law.
not to project employees.
he fact is IKSI actually hired respondents to
T here was no other substantial evidence offered
T
work, not only on the ACT Project, but on other to prove that respondents were informed at the
similar projects such as the Bloomberg. When time of their hiring, that they were project
Innodata Knowledge Services v. Inting2017 respondents were required to work on the employees. Moreover, petitioner's failure to file
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page166of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t ermination reports at the end of each project r less equal terms with no moral
o ircumstances that the periods have been
c
wasanindicationthatrespondentswereregular dominance exercised by the formerto imposed to circumvent thelawsonsecurity
employees. the latter. of tenure.
4. W
hy allow fixed term employment? It is an 3. P
ure Foods Corporation v. NLRC laid down
essential and natural appurtenance the criteria of a valid fixed-term
D Fixed Term Employees recognized by SC. i.e. employment, to wit:
a. Overseas workers; 3.1. T
he fixed period of employment was
1. E E performing work that is usually
necessary and desirable in the business of b. College Deans and Department Heads. knowingly and voluntarily agreed
ER wherein the employment contract upon bythepartieswithoutanyforce,
5. W
hat determines term employment? The
stipulates the duration or term of duress, or improper pressure being
decisive determinant should not be the
employment. brought to bear upon the employee
activities the EE is called upon to perform,
and absent any other circumstances
2. N otpermanent,butEEstillenjoyssecurityof but the day certain agreed upon for the
vitiating his consent; or
tenureduring the pre-determined term. commencement and termination of the
employment relationship. 3.2. I t satisfactorily appears that the
3. T erm employment should not circumvent
employerandtheemployeedealtwith
security of tenure. This is shown by the
Tuppil, Jr. v. LBP Service Corporation2020 eachotheronmoreorlessequalterms
criteria laid by theBRENT DOCTRINE:
he fact that anemployeeisengagedtoperform
T with no moral dominance exercised
a. M ust not be entered merely to by the former or the latter.
activities that are necessaryanddesirableinthe
circumventtheEE’srighttosecurityof
usual business of the employer doesnotprohibit 4. H
ere, Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al. were
tenure;
the fixing of employment for a definite period. employed on a contract basis to meet the
b. T he fixed period was knowingly and LBP Service's commitment to its client. At
ON Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al. are regular
W
voluntarily agreed upon without any the time of their hiring, they wereinformed
employees of LBPSC.
force,duressorimproperpressureand that their engagement was for a specific
absent any other circumstances 1. N
O. They are fixed-term contractual period. To be sure, their employment
vitiating consent; employees. contracts expressly stipulated the duration
c. M
ust satisfactorily appear thattheER 2. C
ontractsofemploymentforafixedtermare of their services.
and EE dealt witheachotheronmore not unlawful unless it is apparent from the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page167of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
5. M
oreover, there was no evidence indicating E. Ganzon Inc. v. Ando, Jr.2017 Special En Banc permanent status, namely:
that Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al. were roject employment should not be confused and
P 1. The teacher serves full-time;
pressured into signing their fixed-term interchangedwithfixed-termemployment:While 2. h
e/she must have rendered three
contracts or that LBP Service exhibited the former requires a project as restrictively consecutive years of service; and
dominance over them. defined above, the duration of a fixed-term
3. such service must have been satisfactory.
6. S
imilarly, Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al.'s employment agreed upon by the parties may be
claim that they are regular employees are any day certain, which is understood to be "that ere, while petitioner has rendered three
H
untenable. The fact that an employee is which must necessarily come although it may consecutive years of satisfactory service, she
engaged to perform activities that are not be known when." was, however, NOT a full-time teacher at the
necessary and desirable in the usual College of Nursing of HNU. Only a full-time
business of the employer does not prohibit teaching personnel can acquire regular or
the fixing of employment for a definite Palgan v. Holy Name University2021 permanent status.
period. he evidence on record would show that
T ull-time academic personnel are those meeting
F
7. C
onsequently,therewasnoillegaldismissal petitioner was not illegally dismissed since no all the following requirements:
whenTuppil,etal.andBorja,etal.'sservices dismissal occurred in the first place. Her 1. W
ho possess at least the minimum
were terminated after the contract between fixed-term contract merely expired. academic qualifications prescribed by the
LBP Service and Land Bank expired. There he governing law for the employment statusof
T Department under this Manual for all
wasevennoneedforanoticeoftermination teachers/professors/instructors are the manuals academic personnel;
because they knew exactly when their of regulations for private schools. Lacuesta v. 2. W
ho are paid monthly or hourly, basedon
contracts would end. Contracts of Ateneo de Manila University held that the the regular teaching loads as provided for
employment for a fixed period terminate on Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and in the policies, rules and standards of the
their own at the end of such period NOTtheLaborCodedetermineswhetherornota Department and the school;
8. I n sum, the CA and the labor tribunals did faculty member in a private educational
3. W
hose total workingdayofnotmorethan
not commit grave abuse of discretion in institution has attained a permanent or regular
eight hours a day is devoted to the school;
denying the complaint for illegal dismissal. status.
4. W
ho have no other remunerative
acuesta laid down the following r equisites
L
occupation elsewhere requiring regular
before a private school teacher a cquires
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page168of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ours of work that will conflict with the
h HNU. b. A
ctivity is agricultural where the
working hours in the school; and crops are available only at certain
o dismissal, whether illegal or not, ever
N
5. W hoarenotteachingfull-timeinanyother happened. times of the year.
educational institution. 3. D
eep sea fishing business is not a seasonal
he three-year or one-year clinical practice
T undertaking. Catching fish is not seasonal
experience is a minimum academicrequirement E Seasonal Employees especially where the boat crew, although
to qualify as a faculty member in a college of employed on a per trip basis, has been
1. E
mployment is for the duration of a certain working for 12 years. (Poseidon Fishing v.
nursing, and is therefore, required for one to be
season. NLRC)
considered as a full-time faculty of such. Here,
Arlene failed to meet the required minimum a. T
hey are considered regular EEs if
clinical practice experience under the law and called to work from time to time, Espina v. Highlands Camp2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
the relevant regulations. during off-season and are merely
o exclude the asserted "seasonal" employee
T
considered as on leave of absence
eing unqualified as a nursing faculty from the
B from those classified as regular employees, the
without pay until they are reemployed.
start, petitioner cannot possibly be considered a employer must show that:
full-time faculty and thus, could not, even after b. I f EE has workedonlyfor1season,he
1) t he employee must be performingworkor
rendering satisfactory service for three years, be is not regular.
services that are seasonal in nature; and
entitled to permanency. c. E
njoys security of tenure within the
2) h
e had been employed for the duration of
herewasnointentionforpetitionertobeplaced
T duration of the season.
the season.
under probation, as she cannot acquire d. T
heiremploymentisneverterminated
ence, when the "seasonal" workers are
H
permanency anyway. Rather, the intent of the but merelysuspended.
continuouslyandrepeatedlyhiredtoperformthe
partieswastoenterintoanemploymentcontract
2. Requisites for SEASONAL undertaking same tasks or activities for several seasons or
for a fixed-term.
a. D
ependent on climatic or natural evenafterthecessationoftheseason,thislength
ere, the fixed-term contracts should be
H of time may likewise serve as badge of regular
causes. Operations must be limited to
presumed as having been knowingly and employment.
aregular,annual,orrecurringpart/sof
voluntarily entered into by both parties and
each year and regularly closes during ecords show that Highlands' business is not
R
petitionerwasmoreorlessonequalfootingwith
the remainder of the year. seasonal. Highlands may have high or low
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page169of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
arket encounters within a year, or by its own
m otwithstanding the stipulations in an
N RT 296. Probationary Employment. —
A
terms, "peak and lean seasons" but its camping employment contract or a duly negotiated CBA, Probationary employment shall not exceed
site does not close at any given time or season. the employment status of an employee is six (6) months from the date the employee
Philippine Fruit & Vegetable Industries, Inc. v. ultimately determined by law. started working, unless it is covered by an
NLRC emphasizedthatanemployer'scontinuous ONURSUMCO'sregularseasonalemployeesare
W apprenticeship agreement stipulating a
operation throughout the year negates the claim regular employees. longer period. The services of an employee
that its business is seasonal in nature. who has been engaged on a probationary
YES. Seasonal employment becomes regular basis may be terminated
etitioners didnotperformworkorservicesthat
P
s easonal employment when the employees are
are seasonal in nature; nor for just a specific 1. for ajust causeor
called to work from time to time. On the other
period.Theyservedascooks,cookhelpers,utility 2. w
hen he fails to qualify as a regular
hand, those who are employed only for a single
workers,andservicecrewinHighlands'camping employee in accordance with
season remain as seasonal employees. As a
site regardless if it was the peak or lean season reasonable standards made known by
consequence of regular seasonal employment,
for campers. the employer to the employee at the
theemployeesarenotconsideredseparatedfrom
ecords are bereft of any evidence showing that
R serviceduringtheoff-millingseason,butareonly time of his engagement.
petitionersfreelyenteredintoanagreementwith temporarilylaidofforonleaveuntilre-employed. n employee who is allowed to work after a
A
Highlands to perform services for a specific Nonetheless, in both regular seasonal probationary period shall be considered a
period or season only. Omni Hauling Services, employment and seasonal employment, the regular employee.
Inc. et al. v. Bon, et al. held that the absence of employee performs no work during the
employment contracts raises a serious question Notes
off-milling season.
whether the employees were properly informed 1) A
probationary employee is one, who, for a
ere, the concerned URSUMCO employees are
H
of their employment status at the time of given period of time, is being observed and
performing work for URSUMCO even during the
engagement. evaluated to determine whether or not heis
off-millingseasonastheyarerepeatedlyengaged
qualified for apermanentposition(P asamba
to conduct repairs on the machineries and
v. NLRC)
equipment.
niversal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v.
U
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Ursumco-NF2018 Arcilla v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos2022
F Probationary Employees
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page170of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hen a full-time employee's probationary status
W 3) I f the employee is not apprised of the I n Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., the Court
overlaps with a fixed-term contract not STANDARDS that he must meet in order to held that the rule on reasonable standards in
specifically used for the fixed term it offers—as hurdle probation, then he is deemed regular probationary employment should not be used to
when the fixed term is merely for a convenient after 6 months. exculpate a probationary employee who actsina
arrangement to coincide with the school's manner contrary to basic knowledge and
academic year—the probationary nature of the ambil v. Kabalikat Para Sa Maunlad Na Buhay,
C
common sense in regard to which there is no
employment prevails. The employer cannot Inc.2022
need to spell out a policy or standard to be met.
simply invoke the expiration of the fixed term. I n Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Gatbonton, the Court
erily, the NLRC's ruling that petitioner's
V
hus, the employee may not be dismissed solely
T clarifiedtherequisitesforavalidterminationofa
dismissalwasnotduetoherfailuretoqualifyasa
because the fixed term expired. The employment probationary employee on the basis of failure to
regular employee was not supported by
may only be terminated for a just or authorized meet the employer's reasonable standards:
substantial evidence.
cause or when the employee fails to meet the 1. t hispowermustbeexercisedinaccordance
reasonable standards made known to the with the specific requirements of the 4) When probationary EE considered regular?
employee at the time of the engagement. contract; a) A
llowed to continue work beyond
2) O ne who is placed in a trial period whose 2. t he dissatisfaction on the part of the probationary period;
performance is assessed whether employermustberealandingoodfaith,not b) N
Oevaluationconductedandnobasisfor
satisfactory or not. Duration is generally 6 feigned so as to circumventthecontractor termination; presumed to have been
monthsexcept the law; and satisfactorily complied;
a) C overed by an apprenticeship agreement 3. t here must be no unlawful discrimination c) P
roby NOT informed of the standards
stipulating a longer period; in the dismissal. required to qualify as regular EE;
b) M anual of regulations of private schools ere, petitioner was negligent when she took
H d) E
E successfully passes the period of
which provide for a longer period. three days of sick leave without notifying any of probation.
her superiors. More, it goes without saying that
i) lementary and Secondary. Not more
E 5) T
he adequate performance of such duties
shouting and hurling threats at one's superior is
than3 yearsof satisfactory service; and responsibilities constitute the inherent
disrespectful. Petitioner cannot brush aside her
ii) ertiary.Notmorethan6semestersor
T and implied standard for regularization.
misconduct by faulting KMBI for its one-page
9 trimestersof satisfactory service. (Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz2014 En Banc)
Code of Ethics.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page171of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
6) W hen probationer informed of required he alleged decline in the performance of
T
standards. — Ideally, employers should Simon v. The Results Company2022 respondents and the imputed violations against
immediately inform a probationary themwhilerespondentswereunderthesupposed
employee of the standards for his aving admitted that petitioner was its
H
probationary period would not justify their
regularization from day one. However strict probationary employee, it was incumbent upon
termination from work. However, respondents
compliance is not required. The true test of Results to prove or at least allege that it
werealreadyregularemployeesandtherewasno
compliance is one of reasonableness. As communicated to petitioner the standards under
reason for them to be placed under probationary
long as he is given a reasonable time and which she would qualify as a regular employee.
statusafteralreadyattainingregularemployment
opportunity to be made fully aware of what owever, Results neither presented any evidence
H status. In fine, there was no apparent and
isexpectedofhimduringtheearlyphasesof such as policy handbook, operations manual, sufficientreasonsupportingpetitioners'viewthat
the period, the law is met. (Enchanted performance appraisal document nor at least respondents were validly dismissed for failureto
Kingdom v. Verzo2015) alleged that it informed petitioner of the criteria abide by the requirements necessary to attain
for regularization. Indubitably, the ruling of the regular employment status.
ambil v. Kabalikat Para Sa Maunlad Na Buhay,
C NLRC that petitioner was a mere probationary
Inc.2022 7) W
hen probation may exceed 6 months. —
employee was not supported by substantial
I deally, employers should immediately inform evidence. When the parties agree otherwise, such as
probationary employeesofthestandardsfortheir when the same is established by company
regularization from day one; however, strict policy or when the same is required by the
compliance thereof is not required. Adstratworld Holdings v. Magallones2022 nature of work as where one must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or
I nthecaseof Alcirav.NLRC, theCourtruledthat ven assuming that the engagement of
E
when the job requires certain qualifications,
an employer would have substantially complied respondents in January 2012 was merely
skills, experience or training.
with the rule on notification of standards if it probationary, by July 16, 2013,oratthetimetheir
apprises its employee that they will be subjected probationary contracts were issued, they were heretheextensionofemployee’sprobation
W
to a performance evaluation on aparticulardate. already regular employees. Considering that was exgratia,anactofliberalityonthepart
At any rate, it is ludicrous to rule that petitioner respondents were in the service of Adstratworld of his employer to afford the employee a
was deprived of due process considering that for more than a year doing the usual tasks that second chance to make good after having
there is only athree-daydifferencebetweenMay they were engaged to perform, then they are initially failed to prove his worth as an
30, 2016 and June 2, 2016. regular employees of the company. employee. (Mariwasa v. Leogardo, Jr.)
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page172of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Umali v. Hobbywing Solutions Inc.2018 c) J
obStartInternship.Upto3monthsor etitioners were dismissed fromtheirrespective
P
600 hours. positions upon the alleged termination of the
he general rule remains that an employee who
T
Warehousing Management Agreement and
was suffered to work for more than the legal 9) R
A 10917 amending RA 9547, 7323 or SPES
ServiceAgreementwithHotwiredandInterserve,
period of six (6) months of probationary Act. — Period of employment shall be from
respectively.Theywererefusedentrytothework
employment or less shall, by operation of law, twenty (20) to seventy-eight (78) working
premises of CCBPI. CCBPI argues that it was
become aregular employee. days only, except that during Christmas
because of the expiration of the contract with
vacation, employment shall be from ten (10)
ON Umali was terminatedwithoutcausewhen
W Interserve and Hotwired that petitioners no
to fifteen (15)dayswhichmaybecountedas
she was informed that the period of her longer reported to work. However, this is not a
part of the students’ probationary period
probationary employment hadalreadyendedand just or authorized cause to dismiss petitioners'
should they apply in the same company or
her services were no longer needed. services.
agencyafter graduation.
YES. Petitioner commenced working for the owhere in these just or authorized causes
N
r espondent on June 19, 2012 until F
ebruary 18, Termination by Employer mention expiration of contract. Thus, it was
2013. By that time, however, she has already VII illegal for CCBPI to terminate the petitioners. At
Seealso Department Order No. 147-15
become a regular employee. the same time, there was no clear showing that
petitioners wereaffordeddueprocesswhenthey
8) R A 10869 (JobStart Trainee). — A JobStart Generally
were terminated.
trainee shall no longer be required to
Just Causes
undergo a probationary period at the end of
the internship phase should the trainee be Preventive Suspension
artolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc.2024
B
hired in the same establishment upon
Constructive Dismissal vs. Demotions Lazaro-Javier, J.
completion of the program.Three (3) Phases
Authorized Causes n illegally dismissed employee is ordinarily
A
a) J obStart Life Skills Training. 10 days
entitled to:
with one life skill taught each day;
A Generally a) r einstatement without loss of seniority
b) J obStart Technical Training. Up to 3
rights and other privileges, or in lieu
months and isoptional.
thereof, separation pay equivalent to one
Luces v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.2020 monthpayforeveryyearofservice,witha
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page173of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f raction of at least six months considered is rights and interests. RNB Garments
h r eport for work is uttered by a person who has
as one whole year, from the time of the Philippines, Inc. v. Ramrol Multi-Purpose the capacity and authority to terminate an
employee's illegal dismissal up to the Cooperative held that corporate officers are employee, the same could be construed as an
finality of the judgment; and solidarily liable with the corporation for the overt act of dismissal.
termination of employment ofemployees,onlyif
b) f ull backwages inclusive of allowances hat no one among his co-employees
T ame
c
and other benefits or their monetary such is done with malice or in bad faith. forward to support his complaint is quite
equivalent computed from the time understandable. Tapia's co-employees were
compensation was not paid to the time of naturally beholden to GA2 because their
his actual reinstatement. apia v. GA2 Pharmaceutical2022
T employment depended on the company.
Lazaro-Javier, J.
oral damages are recoverable when the
M
dismissalofanemployeeisattendedbybadfaith I nillegaldismissalcases,theemployeemustfirst
or fraud or constitutes anactoppressivetolabor establishbysubstantialevidencethefactofhisor oll v. Convergys Philippines2021
M
her dismissal from service before the employer Lazaro-Javier, J.
or is done in a manner contrary to good morals,
good customs, or public policy. Exemplary bears the burden of proving that the dismissal
I n illegal termination cases, the employee must
damages, on the other hand, are recoverable was legal. The evidence to prove the fact of establish the fact of dismissal through the
when the dismissal was done in a wanton, dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing. positive and overtactsofanemployerbeforethe
oppressive, or malevolent manner. ere,TapiarecalledindetailthatonJune11,2015,
H burden is shifted to the latter to prove that the
s found by the labor arbiter, bad faith attended
A he was not feeling well and hecouldnotdeliver dismissalwaslegal.Ifthereisnodismissal,then
the constructive dismissal of petitioner. Thefact the merchandise of GA2 because the vehicle there can be no question as to the legality or
thatthetopofficialsoftheTQAIfollowedthecue assigned to him was covered by the number illegality thereof.
of their president sends a chilling effect on its coding scheme. Saldanha then ordered Zuniega
ccordingtopetitioner,hepeacefullyreportedfor
A
current employeesthattheyshouldnotbetrifled topreparearesignationletterforTapia.Whenthe work for three (3) years until March 24, 2018 –
with. latter refused to sign the resignation letter,
when he was suddenly not given any work
Saldanha shoutedandabasedhiminaveryloud
ollowing both statutoryandcaselaw,petitioner
F schedule anymore. Petitioner sufficiently
voice and ordered him to go home and never
shouldbepaidattorney'sfeesequivalentto10%of established the fact of his dismissal.
come back. Reyes v. Global Beer Below Zero,Inc.
thetotalmonetaryaward.Thisisbecausehewas onsidering
C that petitioner sufficiently
ordained that when a verbal command not to
forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect established the fact of his dismissal, the burden
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page174of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s hiftedtoConvergystoprovethatsuchdismissal r longevity or the company's financial status
o mployer or anyimmediatememberof
e
was for just or authorized cause. As it was, shall not be included in the award. his family or his duly authorized
however, Convergys never offered any representatives; and
his ruling is consistent with theConstitutional
T
justification therefor. e) O
ther causes analogous to the
command that the State shall afford full
protection to labor. foregoing.
umapisv.LepantoConsolidatedMining2020En
D
BancLazaro-Javier, J. 1) S
erious Misconduct. — Misconduct is
B Just Causes
I t is simply unjust and contrary to the improper or wrong conduct. It is a
overarching purpose of making illegally transgression of some established and
RT 297. Termination by Employer. — An
A
dismissedemployeeswholeagaintodeductfrom definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
employer may terminate an employment for
their accrued backwages the increases in the dereliction of duty, willful in character and
any of the following causes:
compensation that they would have received if implieswrongfulintentandnotmerelyerror
not for their illegal dismissal. a) Serious isconduct or willful
m in judgment. It must be in connection with
disobedience by the employee of the the EE’swork toconstitutejustcauseforhis
erily, the Court now ordains the uniform rule
V separation.
l awful orders of his employer or
that the award of backwages and/or separation
representative in connection with his a) There must bemisconduct;
pay due to illegally dismissed employees shall
work;
include all salary increases and benefitsgranted b) The misconduct must be of such
under the law and other government issuances, b) G
ross and habitual neglect by the grave and aggravatedcharacter;
Collective Bargaining Agreements, employment employee of his duties;
c) I t must relate to the performance of
contracts, established company policies and
c) F
raud or willful breach by the the employee's duties; AND
practices, and analogous sources which the
employeeofthetrustreposedinhimby
employees would have been entitled to hadthey d) There must be showing that the
his employer or duly authorized
not been illegally dismissed. On the other hand, mployee becomes unfit to continue
e
representative;
salary increases and other benefits which are working for the employer.
contingent or dependent onvariablessuchasan d) C
ommissionofacrimeoroffenseby
employee's merit increasebasedonperformance the employee against thepersonofhis Globe Telecom v. Ebitner2023
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page175of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ere, the dismissal was predicated on "serious
H misconduct. v. Mamac.
misconduct"and"fraudagainstthecompany,"as 2. R
espondents terminated Mariano's 5. R
espondents failed to afford Mariano the
stated in the Notice to Explain sent to respondent.
employment on the ground of serious first written notice containing the specific
he alleged serious misconduct must havebeen
T misconduct. For serious misconduct to be a causes or grounds for termination against
done with wrongful intent. Here, however, just cause for dismissal, the concurrence of him. It was erroneous for the CA to "safely
petitioner failed to convincingly prove that the the following elements is required: infer" that respondents duly notified
credit adjustment madebyrespondentwasdone Mariano and apprised him of the particular
2.1. the misconduct must be serious;
with wrongful intent. In all, what is only firmly act for which his dismissal was sought just
established by the proceedings below is that 2.2. i t must relate to the performance of because Mariano submitted an explanation
respondent made a credit adjustment on her the employee's duties showing that letter.
father's account in the amountofP998.99.Byno the employee has become unfit to
continue working for the employer; 6. L
oadstar Shipping Co., Inc. v. Mesano held
stretch of imagination can this be considered that the employee's written explanation did
serious misconduct. and
notexcusethefactthattherewasacomplete
2.3. i t must have been performed with absence of the first notice.
wrongful intent.
Mariano v. G.V. Florida Transport 2020 7. W
herethedismissalisforajustcause,asin
3. H
ere, respondents presented sufficient this case, the lack of statutory due process
herethedismissalisforajustcause,thelackof
W evidence to prove that Mariano committed will not nullify the dismissal, or render it
statutory due process will not nullify the numerous infractions of company rulesand illegal or ineffectual. The employer will not
dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. The regulations since he started working with berequiredtopaytheemployeebackwages.
employerwillnotberequiredtopaytheemployee Florida Transport. Taking into account the However,theemployershouldindemnifythe
back wages. However, the employer should nature of Mariano's job, the infractions are employee for the violation of his statutory
indemnify the employee for the violation of his toonumeroustobeignoredortreatedlightly right in the form of nominal damages.
statutory right in the form of nominal damages. and may already be subsumed as serious
misconduct.
ON there was just cause to dismiss Mariano
W
from employment. 4. H
owever, respondents did not comply with terling Paper Products Enterprises v.
S
the procedural requirements of due process KMM-Katipunan2017
1. Y
ES. Mariano was validly dismissed from
aslaiddowninKingofKingsTransport,Inc. The utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive
employment on the ground of serious
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page176of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ords against a superior is not only destructive
w t owards his employer or superior can be a
he totality of infractions or the number of
T
ofthemoraleofhisco-employeesandaviolation ground for dismissal or termination.
violations committed during the period of
of the company rules and regulations, but also employment shall be considered in
constitutes gross misconduct.
determining the penalty to be imposed upon
ON Esponga was validlydismissedforserious
W Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express 2017 an erring employee. The offenses committed
misconduct. ismissal fromemploymenthastwofacets: first,
D by petitioner should not be taken singly and
the legality of the act of dismissal, which separately.
YES. In de La Cruz v. NLRC, the dismissed
mployee
e shouted, "Sayang ang constitutes substantivedueprocess;and, second, ere, respondent cannot invoke the principle of
H
pagka-professional mo!" and "Putang ina mo" at the legality of the manner of dismissal, which totality of infractions considering that
constitutes procedural due process. petitioner's alleged previous acts of misconduct
thecompanyphysicianwhenthelatterrefusedto
give him a referral slip. ON SERIOUS MISCONDUCT were not established in accordance with the
requirements of procedural due process.
ikewise, in Autobus Workers' Union (AWU) v.
L hile this Court held in past decisions that
W
NLRC, the dismissed employee told his accusatory and inflammatory language used by
supervisor "Gago ka" and taunted the latter by anemployeetotheemployerorsuperiorcanbea
Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
saying, "Bakit anong gusto mo, tang ina mo." ground for dismissal or termination, the
circumstances peculiar to this case find the espondent was
R validly dismissed from
oreover, in Asian Design and Manufacturing
M
previous rulings inapplicable. The admittedly employment.
Corporation v. Deputy Minister of Labor, the
insulting and unbecoming language uttered by
dismissed employee made false and malicious SA-Bacolod alleges that respondent committed
C
petitioner to the HR Manager should be viewed
statements against the foreman (his superior). serious misconduct and breach of trust and
with reasonable leniency in lightofthefactthat
confidence in undisputedly allowing students
I n Reynolds Philippines Corporation v. Eslava, it was committed under anemotionallycharged
thedismissedemployeecirculatedseveralletters with incomplete requirements to march in the
state. Indeed, there was only lapse in judgment graduation rites of the school.
to the members of the company's board of rather than a premeditated defiance of authority.
directorscallingtheexecutivevice-presidentand ase law provides that misconduct is a
C
general manager a "big fool," "anti-Filipino". ON TOTALITY OF INFRACTIONS transgression of some established and definite
I n Merin v. NLRC, this Court expounded on the rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
ence, it is well-settled that accusatory and
H
inflammatory language used by an employee principle of totality of infractions as follows: duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page177of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i ntent and not mere error in judgment. To committed aserious misconduct. t otality of his offenses revealed that Lacanaria
constitute a valid cause for dismissal, the has a penchant for impertinent behavior which
I ndisputably, the incident was associated with
employee's conduct must be serious — of such renders him unsuitable for employment in the
Lacanaria's work as a professor.
grave and aggravated character and not merely Universitywhichisresponsiblefortheeducation
trivial or unimportant. 1. is actuationsclearlyshowedhimunfitto
H and rearing of the youth.
continue working for the University,
I ndeed, respondent ommitted
c serious
considering his daily interaction with the 2) W
illful Disobedience or Insubordination.
misconduct in allowing ineligible students to
students. —
march.
2. e acted with wrongful intent and not
H a) T
here must be disobedience or
heexcusethatshemerelyfollowedthepractice
T
mere error of judgment since his insubordination;
of allowing some ineligiblestudentstomarchas
statementsweretaintedwithmockeryand b) T
observed by previous registrars is unacceptable. he disobedience or i nsubordination
insult. must be willful or intentional
1. F irst, the existence of that practice is not
ven if the Code of Ethics for Professional
E characterized by a wrongful and
proven.
Teachers would not apply because Lacanaria perverse attitude;
2. S econd, whether following a previous taught in the tertiary level, thefactremainsthat
c) T
heorderviolatedmustbereasonable,
practice or not, respondent nonetheless his actions were inappropriate. lawful, and made known to the
committed a violation of a school rule.
he totality of infractions or the number of
T employee; and
3. F urther, the letters signed by the students violations committed during the period of d) T
he order must pertain to the duties
and their parents and indorsed by the employment shall be considered in determining which he has been engaged to
deans do not absolve respondent from the penalty to be imposed upon an erring discharge.
misconduct. employee.
onsidering that Lacanaria committed a serious
C dor v. Jamila and Company Security Services
A
misconduct, there is no impediment which bars 2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
University of the Cordilleras v. Lacanaria2021
the Court from taking into account his previous illful disobedience orinsubordinationrequires
W
he University maintained that it dismissed
T offenses.ItisundisputedthatLacanariahasbeen the concurrence of two (2) requisites:
Lacanaria based on a just cause pursuant to warned in the past, verbally and in writing, as
Article 297 [282] (a) of the Labor Code since he regardshisdeliveryof"greenjokes"inclass.The
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page178of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r equired him to report to work and explain why mployee, and must pertain to the
e
1) t heemployee'sassailedconductmusthave
he had failed to do so. duties which he had been engaged to
been willful which is characterized by a
discharge.
wrongful and perverse attitude; and
3. H
ere, Relucio was given specific
2) t he order violated must have been Bicol Isarog Transport System v. Relucio2020 instructions, by the OIC for Operations in
reasonable, lawful, made known to the
n employer enjoys a wide latitudeofdiscretion
A Masbate,nottopushthroughwithhistripto
employee, and must pertain to the duties
in the promulgation of policies, rules and Manila since he only had five passengers.
which he had been engaged to discharge.
regulations on work-related activities of the The OIC reminded Relucio that itisapolicy
Both requisites are not present here. to transfer passengers to another bus with
employees so long as they are exercised in good
irst. Respondents allegedly notified petitioner
F faith for the advancement of the employer's more passengers to save an operational
thrice(June29,2013,July31,2013,andAugust31, interest and not for the purpose of defeating or costs. However, he insisted on pursuing his
2013) to submit his updated requirements so he circumventing the rights oftheemployeesunder trip.
can be given a new posting assignment. But special laws or under valid agreements. 4. T
he order not to continue with the trip is
petitioner continuously ignored these notices. reasonable, lawful, made know to Relucio
ON Relucio was validly dismissed for
W
Nothingisfarthestfromthetruth.Petitionerwas and pertained to his duty as a bus driver of
insubordination.
notabletoimmediatelyreplybecausethenotices BicolIsarog.Reluciodidnotdenynoroffered
were only sent to him on August 23, 2013, 1. Y
ES. Relucio committed insubordination
any explanation for his disobedience. Thus,
September 6, 2013, and October 4, 2013 asshown and was validly dismissed.
there is just cause to terminate his
in the stamps of the registered mails. 2. I nsubordination, as a just cause for the employment.
econd. The three (3) notices to report for work
S dismissal of an employee, necessitates the
5. A
s totheproceduralaspect,thememoranda
sent to petitioner were merely general concurrence of the following requisites:
issuedbyBicolIsarogneverreachedRelucio.
return-to-work orders which did not specify the 2.1. t he employee's assailed conductmust Thenoticeofterminationwasonlygivenby
required details of his posting assignment. have been willful, that is, Bicol Isarog to Relucio during the Single
I n Padilla v. Airborne Security Service, Inc., the characterized by a wrongful and Entry Approach conference before the
securityagencypresentedaseriesofnoticessent perverse attitude; DOLE-NCR.
to Padilla to prove he was offered a new 2.2. t he order violated must have been 6. B
icolIsarogfailedtocomplywiththeproper
assignment. The notices, however, merely reasonable,lawful,madeknowntothe procedural requirements, despite having a
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page179of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
just cause to dismiss Relucio. Thus, Relucio
hile it is true that Reyes was given sufficient
W
is entitled to nominal damages in the opportunity to explain his side during the
Mamaril v. Red System Company2018
amount of P30,000.00 in accordance with investigation, the Court cannot help but notice
prevailing jurisprudence. ON Mamaril was illegally dismissed by Red
W
the muddled and vague charges against him.
System, and is consequently entitled to
Neither is there any mention of which specific
reinstatement and full backwages; and
rule or policy Reyes allegedly violated.
Transglobal Maritime Agency v. Chua2017 O. Mamaril was validly dismissed on account
N
lso, there was no valid cause todismissReyes.
A
here must be reasonable proportionality
T ofhiswillfuldisobedienceofthelawfulordersof
Reyes'refusaltocertifytheReportonCrimesand
between, on the one hand, the willful Red System.
Losses was intentional. This is clearly
disobedience by the employee and, on the other ed System was not remiss in reminding its
R disobedience. However, the sameisnotattended
hand, the penalty imposed therefor. drivers of the importance of abiding by their by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude
ON Chua was
W validly dismissed for safetyregulations.Notably,MamarilviolatedRed which warrants the ultimate penalty of
insubordination. System's safety rules twice, and caused damage dismissal.
amounting to over Php 40,000.00. To make
O. By virtue of the POEA-SEC, Chua is indeed
N he penalty of dismissal imposed upon Reyes
T
mattersworse,heevendeliberatelyandwillfully
bound to obey the lawful commands of the was terribly disproportionate to his alleged
concealed his transgressions.
captain of the ship, but only as long as these infraction.
pertain to his duties.Thereisnorelevancetothe
3) Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty. —
order to sign the documents in Chua's eyesv.RuralBankofSanRafael(Bulacan),Inc.
R
performance of his duty as a seaman. 2022 a) G
ross Neglect refers to the absence of
that diligence that an ordinary
oamounttoavaliddismissal,anerringseafarer
T eyes was illegally dismissed by RBSR. Reyes
R
prudent man would use in his/her
must be handed a written notice of the charge was being charged with either willful
own affairs.
againsthimandmustbegiventheopportunityto disobedience or insubordination, or gross and
explain himself — unless, of course, there is a habitual neglect of duty. Later, based on a show b) H
abitual Neglect refers to repeated
clear and existing danger against the safety of cause order, it would appear that the charges failure to perform one's duties over a
the crew or the vesselinwhichcasenoticemay against Reyes changed from eitherdisobedience period of time, depending upon the
be dispensed with. or neglect, to commission of a crime or offense. circumstances.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page180of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
GR: eglect of duty must be BOTH
N ence, he belongs tothefirstclassofemployees
H asanhonestmistake.Inanycase,thesupposed
w
Gross and Habitual. who occupy a position of trust and confidence. infractionofCopillowashardlygross,muchless,
EXC: E ven if NOT habitual, but there he Court rules that his dismissal from
T habitual. Petitioners do not dispute that it
is SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE or employment is justified. First, The opening happened only once.
injury to the ER. sentence of Ponce's R/A e-mail readily exposes
the attendant willfulness in his act. Second, the
Alaska Milk v. Ponce2017 act of soliciting receipts from colleagues I ntercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v.
constitutes dishonesty, inimical to AMC's Guerrero2020Lazaro-Javier, J.
ON Ponce was guilty of gross and habitual
W
interests,forthesimplereasonthatPoncewould etitioner failed to establish by substantial
P
neglectof duties.
be collecting receipted allowancefromexpenses evidence that respondent committed gross
O. Fault cannot rest upon Ponce's shoulders
N he did not actually incur. Third, the R/A e-mail negligence or serious misconduct in the
alone,inasmuchassatisfactorycompletionofthe betraysatrulysinisterpurposewhichAMChada performance of his duties.
assigned tasks was subject to an interplay of right to guard against.
factors beyond his sole control. The fact that ne. It was not shown that respondent failed to
O
Ponce admitted to having been delayed in some exercise slight care or diligence and had
of the tasks assigned to him does not establish deliberate or thoughtless disregard of
teelweld Construction v. Echano2021
S
gross and habitual neglect of duties. consequences in the performance of his duties.
Lazaro-Javier, J.
More,respondentadmittedhehadlimitedskillin
ON Ponce can be terminated for loss of trust
W s to Copillo's termination,petitionerspointthat
A logos superimposition since it was not really a
and confidence. he got dismissed on December 12, 2009 due to, part ofhisjobdescriptionwhenhegothiredand
ES.Asregardsamanagerialemployee,themere
Y first – his negligence in using a wrong paint on itwasonlymeanttobeatemporaryassignment.
existence of a basis for believing that such Unit 33 of the Patio Rosario Townhomes; and Under these circumstances, respondent's lapses,
employee has breached thetrustofhisemployer second–therewereothercomplaintsagainsthis ifatall,appearmoreofhislimitedcapacityforan
would suffice for his dismissal. poor performance. To warrant removal from additional technical task for which he was not
employment on ground of negligence, the skilledortrained.Inthissense,hislapsesdidnot
once held the position of Director for
P
negligence must not only be gross but habitual. equate to gross negligence.
Engineering Services and that he was in charge
While Copillo admitted that he used a wrong
of managing AMC's Engineering Department. wo. Respondent was not shown to have
T
paint on Unit 33, he convincingly explained it
willfullyorwrongfullyintendedtocauseharmto
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page181of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
is employer when he made mistakes in
h t o the NLRC were mere photocopies and
rossnegligencehasbeendefinedasthewantor
G
superimposing logos during commercial breaks. unauthenticated.
absence of even slight care or diligence as to
MP Federal Security Agency, Inc. v. Reyes, Sr.
C amounttoarecklessdisregardofthesafetyofthe or willful disobedience to be a valid cause for
F
ruled that a finding of serious misconduct is person or property. Only habitual absenteeism dismissal, these two elements must concur:
incompatible with the charge of negligence without leave constitutes gross negligence. 1. t heemployee'sassailedconductmusthave
which, by definition, requires lack of wrongful he rudimentary requirements of due process
T been willful or intentional, thewillfulness
intent. requirethatanemployerdismissinganemployee being characterized by "a wrongful and
must furnish the latter with two writtennotices perverse attitude"; and
before the termination of employment can be 2. t he order violated must have been
ystems and Plan Integrator and Development
S effected:
Corp. v. Ballesteros2022 reasonable, lawful, made known to the
1. t he first notice apprises the employee of employee, and must pertain to the duties
ere, the company dismissed Ballesteros based
H
the particular acts or omissions forwhich which he had been engaged to discharge.
on three just causes:
the dismissal is sought; and
ere, records show no proof that the company
H
1. abitual leaves of absence or gross
h 2. t he secondnoticeinformstheemployeeof made known to Ballesteros instructions on
habitual neglect of duty; the employer's decision to dismiss him or preparation of deposit slips. Neither did the
2. open and willful disobedience; and her. company present proof that Ballesteros'
transgression was coupled with a wrongful
3. oney shortage, thus, loss of trust and
m abitual tardiness alone is a just cause for
H
intent, or a wrongful and perverse attitude.
confidence. termination.Punctualityisareasonablestandard
imposed on every employee, whether in oss of trust and confidence may be a just case
L
stoherhabitualleavesofabsence,theCAruled
A
that the company failed to present substantial government or private sector, whereas habitual for termination of employment only upon proof
tardiness is a seriousoffensethatmayverywell that:
evidence to prove that Ballesteros, indeed, was
constitutegrossorhabitualneglectofduty,ajust
habitually absent, thus, neglected her duty. 1. t he dismissed employee occupied a
Ballesteros only incurred 1.5vacationleavesand cause to dismiss a regular employee.
position of trust and confidence; and
11 sick leaves during the period covered by the owever, the company failed again to
H 2. t he dismissed employee committedanact
notice of termination, which were alsodeducted substantiate Ballesteros' habitual tardiness and
justifying the loss of trust and confidence.
from her earned leave credits. undertime, as thegeneratedprint-outspresented
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page182of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
allesteros, an administrative officer at the time
B nder the circumstances pertaining herein, it
U i) here must be anact,omission,or
T
of her termination, held a position of trust and was just andreasonableforpetitionertodismiss concealment;
confidence. However, the second element, respondents even assuming that it was the first ii) he act, omission or concealment
T
pertainingtotheactthatbreachedthecompany's time that they committed the infraction. The involves a breach of legal duty,
trust and confidence, was neverestablished.Not Court takes into account two important factors. trust, or confidence justly reposed;
onlydidBallesterosadmitthatshewasnegligent First is the quantity and the substantial amount
iii) I t must be committed against the
in not counting the money before returning the or value of the merchandise lost, amounting to
employer orhis/herrepresentative;
same, the amount was even deducted from her P509,044.00. Second, respondents' position is
and
salary and returned to the company. To dismiss necessarily one of trust and confidence.
Ballesteros over such an insignificant amount iv) I t must be in connection with the
whichshedulyreturnedwouldamounttoaclear 4) Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust.— employees' work.
injustice. a) There are two (2)classesof positions c) Requisites of Breach of Trust
of trust. i) he employee holds a position of
T
i) he first class consists of
T trust and confidence;
Rustan Commercial v. Raysag2021
managerial employees, or those ii) here exists an act justifying the
T
he petitioner dismissed respondents on the
T vested with the power tolaydown loss of trust and confidence;
ground of gross neglect of duty in the management policies; and
iii) he employee’s breach must be
T
performance of their functions as Inventory
ii) he second class consists of
T willful;
Specialists,whichresultedtothelossofhigh-end
cashiers, auditors, property
cosmetic merchandise, La Prairie, worth iv) he act must be in relation to his
T
custodians or those who, in the
P509,004.00. work which would render him
normal and routine exercise of
unfitto continue.
hile the rule is that a single or isolated act of
W their functions, regularly handle
negligence is not sufficient to constitute a just significant amounts of money or d) Requisites of Loss of Confidence
cause for the dismissal of the employee, the property. i) here must be an act, omission or
T
same, however, is not absolute. An infraction, concealment;
b) Requisites of Fraud
even if not habitual, may warrant a dismissal
under appropriate circumstances. ii) he act, omission or concealment
T
justifies the loss of trust and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page183of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onfidence of the employer to the
c ank'sproperty;shethereforeoccupiesaposition
b
employee; of trust and confidence within CSI, as she is Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc.2020
iii) he employee concerned must be
T charged with overseeing the proper flowofcash
holding a position of trust and transfers within her branch. he determination of the presence of a
T
confidence; "meritorious ground" is a matter fullywithinthe
here is substantial evidence of several
T
discretion of the NLRC.
iv) he loss of trust and confidence
T noncompliant transactions that were processed
shouldnot be simulated; in CSI's Legaspi Village Branch under Rogan's espite the less stringent degree of proof
D
watch. Verily, Rogan was remiss in the involvingmanagerialemployees,jurisprudenceis
v) I t should not be used as a
implementationofCSI'sMIFTPolicywithrespect firmthatlossoftrustandconfidenceasaground
subterfuge for causes which are
to the transactions inquestion,evenifshecould for dismissal has never been intended to afford
improper, illegal, or unjustified; and
havebeenmerelymotivatedbythedesiretobuild anoccasionforabuseduetoitssubjectivenature.
vi) I t must be genuine and notamere customer loyalty and did not cause loss or It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought
afterthought to justify an earlier damage to any party. In fact, she acknowledged intended to justify an earlier actiontakeninbad
action taken in bad faith. committing lapses and even offered to resign. faith.
While Rogan's lapses with respect to the subject ON Manrique was validly dismissed due to
W
Citibank Savings v. Rogan2023 transactions do not, by themselves, constitute loss of trust and confidence.
ogan's lapses with respect to the subject
R gross and habitual neglect, they were enough to
1. NO. Manrique was illegally dismissed.
transactions do not rise to thelevelofgrossand finally breach the trust and confidence reposed
habitualneglect.TheShowCauseOrderidentifies in her by CSI. 2. T
o justify a valid dismissal based onlossof
three distinct incidents of transaction trustandconfidence,theconcurrenceoftwo
iven the extraordinary level of diligence
G
mishandling on Rogan's part. (2) conditions must be satisfied:
demanded by law from banks and the sensitive
s to breach of trust and confidence, Rogan’s
A nature of Rogan's duties, her accumulated 2.1. t he employee concerned must be
functions relate to the implementation of CSI's violationsofcompanypolicies,whichallrelateto holding a position of trust and
policies on tellering and transaction the proper management and disposition ofcash, confidence; and
management. As her job involves ensuring the were enough for CSI tolosetrustandconfidence 2.2. t here must be an act that would
promptness and accuracy of the bank's cash inher.Thus,herdismissalonthebasisoflossof justify the loss of trust and confidence.
transfers, Rogan is essentiallyacustodianofthe trust and confidence is justified.
3. The firstrequisiteispresentsinceManrique
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page184of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i s a managerial employee, thus holds a supervisor. i nformingrespondent'sinternalauditoraboutthe
position of trust and confidence. 8. M incident.ThiscastsdoubtonJara'srealintention
oreover, Delta Earth failed to comply with
4. A
s to the second requisite, the mere the two-notice rule under Article 292(b) of and compromised his alleged good faith.
existence of a basis for believing that such the Labor Code.
employee has breached the trust of his
employer is enough. It must begenuine,not Bravo v. Urios College2017
a mere afterthought intended to justify an he Peninsula Manila v. Jara2019
T ON Bravo was properly dismissed for a just
W
earlier action taken in bad faith. Lazaro-Javier, J. cause.
5. H
ere, the LA quickly identified several araneverdeniedthatuponhisfailuretobalance
J YES. Petitioner's act in assigning to himself a
markers of bad faith on the part of Delta the cash transaction receipts and cash on hand, ighersalaryratewithoutproperauthorizationis
h
Earth, which made Manrique's dismissal he remedied thediscrepancybypostingonlythe a clear breach of the trust and confidence
questionable. P613.00 payment, not the P7,113.08 actually paid reposed in him. Inaddition,therewasnoreason
6. T
he Performance Evaluation is suspect. by thecustomerandkepttheexcessofP6,500.00 for the Comptroller's Office to undertake the
First, the date of evaluation and period inhisofficelocker.Hemerelyjustifiedhisactions preparation of its own summary table because
coveredarenotindicated.Second,Gaddi,the by saying that he believed there was only a this was a functionthatexclusivelypertainedto
one who conducted the same, is not micros system error and that he did not bring the Human Resources Department.
competent to conduct the evaluation since home the excess money with him anyway and
he was not the immediate supervisor of turned it over when he reported for work two
Complainant. Third, it was not shown that days later. Aluag v. BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative2017
the copy of the same was given to oss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause
L
ONBIRMPChadjustcausetoterminateAluag's
W
Complainant. fordismissalmustbebasedonawillfulbreachof
employment.
7. T
he performance evaluation and the trust and founded on clearly established facts.
The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and ES. One of theinfractionsthatBIRMPCcitedin
Y
memoranda deserve no merit as thesewere
convincingly established but proof beyond justifying Aluag's dismissal is her failure to
not even furnished to Manrique. The
reasonable doubt is not necessary. Jara did not deposit checks on due dates, pursuant to a
documentsappeartobeabelatedattemptto
immediately reporttheoveragewhichhekeptin member/debtor's request. The task of depositing
justifyManrique'sdismissalwhichwasonly
verbally relayed to him by his on-site hiscustody.Hewaitedfortwodaysbeforefinally
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page185of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
hecks on due dates definitely falls within
c mployment on the ground of loss of trust and
e etitioner Nepomuceno's first infraction in his
p
Aluag's scope of responsibilities. confidence. nine (9) years of servicewithrespondents.None
of these circumstances constitutes a willful
IRMPC had ample reason to lose the trust and
B
confidence it reposed upon her and thereby, breach of trust on his part. The penalty of
Malcaba et al. v. Prohealth Pharma Phils.2018 dismissal, thus, was too severe for this kind of
terminate her employment.
infraction.
hile this Court recognizestheinherentrightof
W
employers to discipline their employees, the alit-Ang'sfailuretoimmediatelygivethemoney
P
Gaite v. Filipino Society of Composers2018 penalties imposed must be commensurate with to Gamboa was not the result of a perverse
the infractions committed. Dismissal of mental attitudebutwasmerelybecauseshewas
ON Gaite was validly dismissed due to loss of
W
employeesforminorandnegligibleoffensesmay busy at the time. Neither did she profit fromher
trust and confidence.
be considered as illegal dismissal. failure to immediately give thecashadvancefor
ES. Gaite's actuations constitute serious
Y the car tune-up nor did respondents suffer
misconduct. First, not only is the amount ON Nepomuceno and Palit-Ang were illegally
W
financial damage by her failure to comply. The
involved herein a staggering amount of P17.7M, dismissed.
severe penalty of dismissal was not
the alleged reallocation violated an express ES. For an act to be considered a loss of trust
Y commensurate to her infraction.
provision of the company's Distribution Rules. andconfidence,itmustbefirst,work-related,and
Second, Gaite committed said transfer in the second, founded on clearly established facts.
performanceofherdutiesasGeneralManagerof Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
he breach of trust must likewise be willful.
T
FILSCAP. Third, because of this grave infraction Nepomuceno alleges that he was illegally espondent's act constitutes a breach of trust
R
causing the depletion of the company's Special
dismissed merely for his failure to inform his and confidence.
Accounts held in trust for the rightful copyright
superiors of the actual dates of his vacation leave.
owners, Gaite's ability to duly perform and here is loss of trust and confidence when an
T
accomplish her duties and responsibilities as epomucenoturnedoverallofhispendingwork
N employee fraudulently and willfully committed
General Manager has been seriously put into to a reliever before he left for Malaysia. He was actsoromissioninbreachofthetrustreposedby
question. able to reach his sales quota and surpass his the employer.
salestargetevenbeforetakinghisvacationleave.
n the second ground for termination, the Court
O 1. F
irst, the employee must be holding a
Respondentsdidnotsufferanyfinancialdamage
finds that FILSCAP validly terminated Gaite's position of trust; and
as a result of his absence. This was also
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page186of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
verseeing the custody of the raw materials she
o t o employees who are duefordismissal.Itfailed
2. S econd, the employer shall sufficiently
establish the employee's act that would tried to steal. As a supervisor, greater trust was to prove with substantial evidencethathearings
justify loss of trust and confidence. placed on her byQHI.Herinfractionaffectedthe and interviews of respondents were actually
very essence of loyalty and honesty which all conducted.
ere, respondent's willful transgressionofarule
H employeesowetotheiremployers.Itwasserious,
indeed results to the loss of the trust and espondents are entitled to all the consequent
R
grave, and reflected adversely on her character. backwages and attorney's fees that they have
confidence CSA-Bacolod has reposed on her.
duly proved.
Pacific Royal Basic Foods v. Noche2021
Belarso v. Quality House2021
he silence of an employee against the
T Sps Maynes v. Oreiro2020
Loss or breach of trust and confidence, as a allegations of an employer, by its lonesome, onte was validly dismissed on the ground of
M
just cause for termination by an employer, is shouldnotdisadvantagetotheformer.Itremains loss of trust and confidence. Monte's position is
based on Article 297 of the Labor Code. incumbent upon the employer as the party clearlyimbuedwithtrustandconfidence.Shedid
elarsoneverdeniedinherPetitionthatsheheld
B making the allegations to demonstrate the truth
not even offeranyjustificationfortheuncovered
a position of trust and confidence. QHI was able of the same by presenting substantial evidence. anomalies.
to establish the basis of its loss of trust on RBFI had never really proved with substantial
P Thus, Oreiro dismissed Monte with just cause.
Belarso: her violation of the company rule evidence theallegedinvolvementofrespondents
prohibiting the stealing or attempting to steal in the contamination of its products. owever, Monte was denied procedural due
H
company property. Records show that Belarso process. The employer must furnish the
oss of trust and confidence as a ground to
L employee with two (2)writtennoticesbeforethe
had a propensity to violate company rules and
dismiss an employee is inapplicable to herein
regulations. She had committed a total of 19 termination of employment can be effected:
respondents. Respondents' positions as coconut
infractions from 1986 to 2005. 1. t he first apprises the employee of the
parers are essential in PRBFI's business of
ength of service is not a bargaining chip that
L coconut products, but in no case do they fit the particular acts or omissions for which his
can simply be stacked against the employer. job description of managerial employees and dismissal is sought; and
Under the present circumstances, length of fiduciary rank-and-file employees. 2. t he second informs the employee of the
service only aggravates Belarso's offense. She employer's decision to dismiss him.
RFBI also failed to comply with the guidelines
P
held a position of trust and confidence,
forproceduraldueprocessthatmustbeaccorded Here, Monte was not given anynoticetoexplain
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page187of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r the opportunity to be heard before her
o accidental lightup and the towing incident.
2. he affidavit of Figuracion was
T
dismissal. She only learned about her dismissal corroborated by SMC's audit findings heeffortsofCuizonshowedthathefollowedthe
T
from service when notices were posted in the where it was discovered that Gomez's rules of procedure of LTP and that there was no
premises of the outlet stating thatsheisalready anomalies caused and tremendous losses act of deliberately giving false, inaccurate, and
terminatedfromherwork.Thus,sheisentitledto
to SMC. misleadinginformationtopetitioners.Cuizondid
an award of nominal damages in the amount of not willfully, purposely, and without justifiable
P30K. hus, Gomez was validly terminated on the
T
excuse disregard the towing precautions during
ground of loss of trust and confidence.
the towing incident. Towing is a shared
responsibility of the towing crew. Cuizon could
San Miguel Corporation v. Gomez2020 notbefaultedifunknowntohim,somemembers
Lufthansa Technik Philippines v. Cuizon2020
he Court reinstates the Labor Arbiter's findings
T of thetowingcrew,specificallythetailandwing
thatGomezwasvalidlyterminatedontheground Cuizon was illegally terminated. guides, decided to leave their posts.
ofloss of trust and confidence. ith respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of
W rossnegligenceimpliesawantorabsenceofor
G
irstly,Gomezwasaccordedwithproceduraldue
F trust and confidence, as ground for valid afailuretoexerciseslightcareordiligence,orthe
process since she was given both notice and dismissal, requires proof of involvement in the entire absence of care. Here, petitioners
hearing where she was able to present her alleged events in question, and that mere miserably failed to show that Cuizon did not
evidence and witnesses to disprove the charges uncorroborated assertions and accusations by exercise even a slight care or diligence which
against her. the employer will not be sufficient. As regards a caused the grounding of and damage to the
managerial employee, the mere existence of a aircraft during the towing operation.
ere, Gomez occupied a position of trust and
H basis for believing that such employee has
confidence since she was entrusted with SMC's 5) C
ommissionofaCrime.—Bytheemployee
breached the trust of his employerwouldsuffice
property, in particular its mail matter which
for his dismissal. against the person of his employer or his
included weighing and determining volumes of immediate family or authorized
documents to be shipped. ere, petitioners failed tosubstantiallyprovethe
H
second requisite — there must be an act that representatives.
1. omez willfully, intentionally, knowingly,
G would justify the loss of trust and confidence. a) T
here must be an act or omission
purposely, and without justifiable excuse
Cuizon has substantially refuted petitioners' punishable/prohibited by law; and
disregardedSMC'srulesandregulationsin
claim on the alleged concealment of the
the workplace.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page188of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b) T heactoromissionwascommittedby s tandard benefits. Such an act is proscribed by
2.3. i t must have been performed with
the employee against the person of Article 118of the Labor Code. wrongful intent.
i) employer, 3. O
n the other h and, loss of trust and
ii) ny immediate member of his/her
a Universal Robina v. De Guzman2022 confidence can be a ground for dismissal
family, or when:
he following factors should be considered in
T
iii) is/her
h duly authorized 3.1. t he employee concerned must be
determining whether theft of company property
representative. holding a position of trust and
by an employee warrants the penalty of
confidence; and
dismissal:periodofemploymentandexistenceof
Panaligan v. Phyvita Enterprises 2017
a derogatory record; value of the property 3.2. t heremustbeanactthatwouldjustify
ON there exists just and valid cause for the
W involved; cost of damage to the employer; effect the loss of trust and confidence. And
termination of PANALIGAN, et al.'s, employment on the viability of employer's operation or in order to constitute a just cause for
by PHYVITA. company's interest; and employee's position. dismissal, theactcomplainedofmust
be work-related such as would show
NO. No direct evidence was presented to link ON Roberto was validly dismissedbyURCfor
W
the employee concerned to beunfitto
ANALIGAN,etal.,tothetheftthattheyallegedly
P allegedly stealing a P60.00 alcohol.
continue working for the employer.
committed. 1. N
O. The penalty of dismissal is not
4. T
he following factors should be considered
aking into consideration the fact that the
T proportional with Roberto'smisconduct.His
in determining whether theft of company
DOLE-NCR conducted an inspection of the preventive suspension was a sufficient
property by an employee warrants the
respondent's premises on as aresultofthelabor penalty for the misdemeanor.
penalty of dismissal:
complaint filed by PANALIGAN, et al., and they 2. To be a just cause for dismissal,
wereimplicatedintheallegedtheftincidentonly 4.1. p
eriod of employment and existence
thereafter, a reasonable inference can be made 2.1. the misconduct must be serious; of a derogatory record;
that PANALIGAN, et al.'s, termination of 2.2. i t must relate to the performance of 4.2. value of the property involved;
employment may havebeenindeedaretaliatory the employee's duties showing that
4.3. cost of damage to the employer;
measure designed to coerce them into the employee has become unfit to
withdrawing their complaint for underpayment continue working for the employer; 4.4. e
ffect on the viability of employer's
of wages and nonpayment of other labor and operation or company's interest; and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page189of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ii) clear intention to sever EER —
a i nclusive of allowances and other benefits, or
4.5. employee's position.
manifested by overt acts from their monetary equivalent computed from the
5. H
ere, Roberto had been in URC's employfor time the compensation was not paid up to the
which it may be deduced that the
18years,andthisisthefirsttimethathehad employees have no more intention time of their actual reinstatement.
been involved in taking company property.
to work.
ThebottleofethylalcoholvaluedatP60.00is
very minimal. URC did not loseanythingas Philippine Pizza v. Oraa2023 Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
the bottle was timely retrieved. Further, it
was not shown that Roberto's retention hatCBMIisalegitimatejobcontractorhadlong
T I n abandonment, absence must be accompanied
would work undue prejudice to theviability been settled in the case laws of Consolidated by overt acts unerringlypointingtothefactthat
ofURC'soperations,orispatentlyinimicalto Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Asprec, Philippine the employee simply does not want to work
its interest. Neither does Roberto occupy a Pizza,Inc.v.Cayetano,and Borcev.PPIHoldings, anymore. Mere absence or failure to report for
position of trust and confidence, the loss of Inc.. work, even after a notice to return to work has
which would justify his dismissal. BMI argues that respondents' unauthorized
C been served, is not enough to amount to an
absencesfromDecember21toDecember27,2014 abandonment of employment.
6. Therefore, Roberto was illegally dismissed.
weretantamounttoabandonmentofworkwhich ere, there was no abandonment on the part of
H
6) A nalogous Causes. — No act or omission is a just cause to terminate their employment. respondent. Records are bereft of any indication
shall be considered as analogous cause However, CBMI failed to prove that respondents thatTanguin'sfailuretoreportforworkwaswith
unless expressly specified in the company clearly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned a clear intent to sever her employment
rules and regulations or policies. their work with no intention of returning. Other relationship with the petitioners. Moreover,
thanrespondents'allegedabsencefromworkfor Tanguin's act of filing a complaint for illegal
a) A bandonment is the deliberate and
a fewdays,CBMIfailedtoproveanyovertacton dismissal with prayer for reinstatement negates
unjustified refusal of an employee to
the part of respondents to show their deliberate any intention to abandon her employment.
resume his employment. Two factors
and actual intent to abandon their employment.
should be present:
or having been illegally dismissed from
F
i) t he failure to report for work or
employment, respondents are entitled to Mehitabel Inc v. Alcuizar2017
absencewithoutvalidorjustifiable
reinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsand he filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal
T
reason; and
other privileges, as well as full backwages, does not ipso facto foreclose the possibility of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page190of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
bandonment. It is not the sole indicator in
a t he gun on petitioner by lodging a baseless Petitioner is not guilty ofabandonment.
determining whether ornottherewasdesertion. complaint for illegal dismissal even though it
irstly, petitioner never proved that he was
F
Other circumstances surrounding the case must was he who abandoned his employment.
dismissed in the first place. He simply alleged
be taken into account in resolving the issue of that upon his refusal to sign a document
whether or not there was abandonment. prepared by respondent Yu, the latter "flared up
WON Alcuizar was dismissed by Mehitabel. aria De Leon Transportation Inc., et al. v.
M with his usual hot temper and told that he is
Macuray2018
terminated from work on that very day." Mere
NO. The publications were made through sheer
n employee can not besaidtohaveabandoned
A actsofhostility,howevergrave,committedbythe
i nadvertence,andthatthevacancyisactuallyfor
his employment when he merely availed of a employer towards the employee cannot on their
the position of Purchasing Officer, rather than
company practice of taking sabbaticals in order lonesome be construed as an overt directive of
Purchasing Manager.
to afford them the opportunity to recover from dismissal from work.
lcuizar was informed of the error committed,
A the stresses of driving the same long and
octor v. Nii Enterprises defined constructive
D
and that it was made clear to him that he was monotonous bus routes by accepting jobs
dismissal as a "dismissal in disguise" or "an act
never terminated from service at that time in elsewhere. amounting to dismissal but madetoappearasif
spite of his poor performance.
ON there was just cause for dismissing
W it were not."
WON Alcuizar abandoned his employment. Macuray due to abandonment. ere,Yu'srebukeofpetitioner,whileoverbearing
H
ES. Respondent's non-compliance with the
Y O. Macuray was not dismissed from work and
N and intimidating, was reasonably incited by the
directive in the Return to Work to Our mind, he did not abandon his employment. latter's violations of respondent Leyte Lumber's
signifies his intention to sever the employment company practices. The Court finds no working
ven assuming that respondent was indeedtold
E
relationwithpetitioner,andgivescredencetothe basis to declare that petitioner had been
byrespondent'sbusdispatcherRogerPasionthat
latter's claim that it was respondent who dismissed, whether legally, illegally, or
he was AWOL, this was not tantamount to
abandoned his job. constructively.
dismissal, actual or constructive. An ordinary
I t can be gathered that respondent's departure bus dispatcher has no power to dismiss an bandonment requires the concurrence of the
A
wasmerelyaprecursortohisschemetoturnthe employee. following:
table against petitioner. Realizing that his
1. t heemployeemusthavefailedtoreportfor
employment was at serious risk due to his
work or must have been absent without
habitualneglectofhisduties,respondentjumped Gososo v. Leyte Lumber Yard and Hardware2021
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page191of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
valid or justifiable reason; and employment. 7. s trained relations between the employer
2. t here must have been a clear intention to he totalityofBulatao'sacts,coupledwithPNB's
T and employee.
sever the employer-employee relationship inaction, led to the conclusion that he did not
aking into account the lapse of time aswellas
T
manifested by some overt acts. intend to summarily cut his ties with PNB. It is the age and capacity to work of Bulatao,
also important to note that filing an illegal
ere, respondents just surmised that petitioner
H reinstatement is no longer feasible.
hadnointenttoreturntoworkwhenheallegedly dismissal case is inconsistent with
went on an unapproved leave of absence. Mere abandonment, as in fact, in his complaint with b) S
exual Harassment. — The gravamen
absenceorsimplefailuretoreportforworkisnot the RTC, Bulatao prayed for reinstatement. oftheoffenseisnotthemereviolation
abandonment, more so if the employee wasable lthough reinstatement is a matter of right, the
A of one’s sexuality, but the abuse of
to lodge his complaint before the labortribunals award of separation pay is an exception tosuch powerbytheemployerwhohasaduty
withhaste.Wheretheemployeefailstoprovethe rule, as it is awarded in lieu of reinstatement in to protect his employee against
fact of his or her illegal dismissal, and the the following circumstances over-sex.
employer has also not demonstrated that the c) G
ross Inefficiency or poor
1. hen reinstatement can no longer be
w
employee abandoned his or her work, the case performance. —
effected in view of the passage of a long
usually ends with the employee's reinstatement
periodoftimeorbecauseoftherealitiesof i) mployer has set standards of
E
without the payment of backwages.
the situation; performance;
ightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v.
N 2. r einstatementisinimicaltotheemployer's ii) tandards are reasonable and in
S
Lumahan teachesthatifaconsiderablelengthof interest; connection with employee’s work;
time had already passed, and reinstatement of
3. reinstatement is no longer feasible; AND
the dismissed employee is rendered impossible,
an award of separation pay is proper in lieu of 4. r einstatement does not serve the best iii) roof that EE failed to meet the
P
reinstatement. interests of the parties involved; standards despitegivenreasonable
opportunity to meet the same.
5. t he employer isprejudicedbytheworkers'
continued employment; Evic Human Resource Mgmt v. Panahon2017
PNB v. Bulatao2019
6. f acts that make execution unjust or
ulatao w
B as illegally dismissed. Bulatao could ON there was just cause in dismissing
W
inequitable have supervened; or
not be considered as having abandoned his Panahon.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page192of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
O. The Court finds the Crew Behavior Report
N etitioners failed to show that respondent
P i) worker merely participating in
A
sorely inadequate in meeting the required willfully or deliberately caused the alleged an illegal strike may not be
quantum of proof to discharge petitioners' accident during the mooring operations or that terminated from employment. It is
burden.Forone,thestatementscontainedtherein respondent repeatedly committed mistakes or only when he commits illegalacts
were uncorroborated and self-serving. No other repeatedly failed to perform his duties. As during a strike that he may be
evidence was presented to support the regards the charge of intoxication, Section 33(6) declared to have lost employment
statements of the Captain. In Skippers United ofthePOEASECprovidesthatdrunkennessmust status. (Solidbank v. Gamier2010)
Pacific, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court did not give be committed while on duty to merit dismissal ii) union officer who knowingly
A
weight andcredencetotheuncorroboratedChief from employment. Here, respondent was participates in an illegal strike is
Engineer's Report which purportedly specified admittedly off duty when he was allegedly deemed to have lost his
the causes for the seafarer's dismissal. In caught by the master drinking on board. employment status, but a union
Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Avestruz, the member who is merely instigated
Court likewise disregarded the uncorroborated d) D
ruguseorabuse. —thelawspecifies or induced to participate in the
and self-serving electronic mails of the ship that the procedure shall employ two
illegal strike is more benignly
captain as proof of the seafarer's supposed testingmethods,i.e.,thescreeningtest
treated. (Escario v. NLRC2010)
neglect of duty and perverse and wrongful and the confirmatorytest.(N
acaguev.
attitude. Sulpicio Lines2010) Guinto v. Sto. Niño Long-Zeny Consignee2022
ere,whilethereportwassignedbyfour(4)crew
H e) A
ttitudeProblem.—Anemployeewho
I n illegal dismissal cases, it follows that when
members,thestatementscontainedthereinwere, cannot get along with his
the employer fails to specifically deny the
as correctly observed by the CA, based on acts co-employees is detrimental to the
complainantemployee'smaterialavermentsasto
witnessed only by Captain Buton. company for he can upset and strain
the circumstancesofhisdismissal,theemployer
the working environment. It is a
I ncompetence or inefficiency, as a ground for is deemed to haveadmittedthefactofdismissal
s ituation analogous to loss of trust and must then discharge his burden of proving
dismissal, is understood to mean the failure to
and confidence that must be duly that the dismissal of the employee was valid.
attain work goals or work quotas, either by
proved by the employer. (H
eavylift
failing to complete the same within the allotted ere, respondents did not specifically deny and
H
Manila v. CA)
reasonableperiod,orbyproducingunsatisfactory rebut petitioner's allegations as to the factofhis
results. f) C
ommission of prohibited actsduring dismissal from employment. In an attempt to
strike. —
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page193of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r elieve themselves from liability, respondents involvement in such case. s ubject offense upon whichherterminationwas
raised the defense that there was no decreedwereinnowayrelatedtoeachother. Sy
o be liable under the subject infraction, i.e.,
T
employer-employee relationship between the "knowingly giving false or misleading v. Neat,Inc. ruledthatthePrincipleofTotalityof
Consignee and petitioner. Thus, petitioner, who information in applications foremploymentasa Infractions cannot be usedagainsttheemployee
wasaregularemployeeofrespondents,hadbeen result of which employment is secured," the because his transgression for wearing an
illegally dismissed from his employment employee must have performed an overt or improper uniform was not related to his latest
considering: first, the latter's deemed admission positive act, i.e., giving false information in the infractions of insubordination and purported
of the fact of dismissal; and second,theabsence application for employment. Considering that poor performance evaluation.
of any clear showing of a just or valid cause for petitioner did not actually state any false
such dismissal.
information in her job application but merely
ith respect to petitioner's prayer for theaward
W omitted to reflect her past employment with the
Santos, Jr. v. King Chef2020
of13thmonthpay,underSection3(e)oftheRules BankofPlacer,shecouldnothavecommittedthe hereisnosubstantialevidencetoestablishthat
T
andRegulationsImplementingPD851,employers alleged infraction. petitioners were in fact dismissed from
of those who are paid on purely commission, employment.
I napplicability of the
boundary, or task basis, among others, are
Principle of Totality of I n cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears
exempted fromthepaymentof13thmonthpayto Infractions the burden to prove thattheterminationwasfor
itsemployees.Petitionerisnotentitledtheretoas
hile petitioner had committed two previous
W a valid or authorized cause. But before the
he was paid on a commission basis.
offenses, the Principle of Totality of Infractions employer must bear the burden of proving that
cannot be utilized against her as shecommitted thedismissalwaslegal,itiswell-settledthatthe
no subsequent violation of respondent's Code of employees must first establish by substantial
Celis v. Bank of Makati2022
Conduct. Simply put, there is no subsequent evidence that indeed they were dismissed.
ccording to respondent, petitioner did notstate
A offense which petitioner's previous infractions n thecontrary,theevidenceonrecordpointsto
O
in her job application that she was once could aggravate. the fact that after petitioners failed to report on
employed with theBankofPlacertoconcealher December 25, and after they went back to their
ut even assuming that petitioner had
B
implication in the embezzlement case thereat. workplace merely to get their share in the tips
committedthesubjectinfraction,thePrincipleof
Respondent further explained that it could not the following day, they refusedtoreturntowork
TotalityofInfractionsisinapplicableconsidering
have hired petitioner had it known about her and continued to be on AWOL thereafter. Before
that petitioner's previous infractions and the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page194of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r espondents could even impose disciplinary substantial evidence — which only entails confidence on the dismissed employee.
action upon the petitioners, the latter already vidence to support a conclusion, "even if other
e he facts of the case reasonably establish with
T
filedthecomplaintforillegaldismissal.However, minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably certainty:
respondents arenotcorrectinarguingthatthere opine otherwise."
was abandonment on the part of the petitioners. 1. t hat excess broilers and crates werebeing
s to shortages in broiler deliveries, petitioners
A illegally sold in Tarlac; and
The employer must prove that furnishedacopyofanunsignedandunilaterally
2. t hat respondents were involved in the
1. rst,theemployee"failedtoreportforwork
fi prepared summary of short broilers delivery
anomalous transaction.
for an unjustifiable reason," and supposedlyissuedbySMFI.Thesummaryafford
no assurance of their authenticity as they were lso, the unauthorized sale ofexcessbroilerand
A
2. s econd, the "overt acts s howing the
unsigned. It is uncertain as to its origin and broiler crates constitutes an act of dishonesty, a
employee's clear intention to s ever their breach of trust and confidence reposed by JR
authenticity and therefore inadmissible to prove
ties with their employer." Haulinguponthem.Infine,thereisjustcausefor
respondents' involvement in the deficiencies
here was no showing here that petitioners'
T indicated therein. Thus, there is no cogent basis respondents' dismissal from the service on the
absenceswereduetounjustifiablereason,orthat to impute such transgression on respondents. ground ofserious misconduct.
petitioners clearly intended to terminate their
stotheunauthorizedsaleofexcessbroilersand
A s to procedural due process, petitioners admit
A
employment. In cases where there is both an
broiler crates,petitionerspresentedtheaffidavits that no written notice to explain and written
absence of illegal dismissal on the part of the notice of termination were served upon
ofMapue,Pedro,andrespondents'co-employees.
employerandanabsenceofabandonmentonthe
The Courthasheldthatinlaborcases,affidavits respondents. There being just cause for the
part of the employees, the remedy is dismissal but considering petitioners'
may be sufficient to establish substantial
reinstatement but without backwages. non-compliancewiththeproceduralrequisitesin
evidence. The Court finds that the affidavits
executed by various co-employees constitute terminating respondents' employment, the latter
substantial evidence to prove respondents' areentitledtonominaldamagesintheamountof
JR Hauling Services v. Solamo2020 P30K.
involvement in the unauthorized sale of excess
he unauthorized sale of excess broilers and
T broilers and broiler crates.
broiler crates is supported by substantial unongbayan and Araullo (P&A) v. Lepon held
P
evidence. that the affidavits of co-employees are sufficient C Preventive Suspension
The quantum of proof required is merely basis for the employer's loss of trust and
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page195of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
1) M ay be defined asthetemporaryremovalof mployertopreventivelysuspendanemployeeif
e
ere, it cannot be said that petitioner posed a
H
anEEchargedforviolationofcompanyrules continued employment poses a serious and dangeronthelivesoftheofficersoremployeesof
fromhispresentstatusorposition.Itisnota imminent threat to the life or property of the respondent or their properties. Being one of the
disciplinary measure and should not be employer or co-workers.
Operation Staff, which was a rank and file
confused with suspension imposed as a ere, the threat raised by the school was not
H position, he could not and would not be able to
penalty. It shall not last longer than thirty unfounded as respondent was school registrar, sabotage the operations of respondent.
(30) days. whose functions include evaluation of subjects
2) T hismaybeimposedwhileaninvestigation and credits earned by studentsandenforcement
is ongoing. of graduation requirements. With her continued Mamaril v. Red System Company2018
presence during the investigation, it is not
3) T he notice of preventive suspensioncannot ON Red System was guilty of imposing a
W
impossible that the school records under her
be considered asadequatenoticetoexplain. double penalty against Mamaril.
custody may be tampered; it is also not
(T
anala v. NLRC)
impossible that the investigation may be O. Mamaril's preventive suspension and
N
4) R eassignment or transfer as remedial influenced given the nature and ascendancy of subsequent dismissal from the service do not
measure.—Thepurposeofreassignmentsis her position. partake of a double penalty; neither may his
no different from that of preventive dismissal be regarded as harsh and excessive.
suspension which management could
amaril's initial suspension was a preventive
M
validly imposeasadisciplinarymeasurefor Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express2017 suspension that was necessary to protect Red
the protection of the company's property
reventive suspension may be legally imposed
P System'sequipmentandpersonnel.Mamarilwas
pending investigation of any alleged
against an employee whose alleged violation is placed under preventive suspension considering
malfeasance or misfeasance committed by
the subject of an investigation. Preventive that during the pendency of the administrative
the employee. (R
uiz v. Wendel Osaka Realty
suspension is justified where the employee's hearings, he was noticed to have several
2012)
continued employment poses a serious and near-accidentmissesandhehadexhibitedalack
imminent threat to the life or property of the of concern for his work. His inattentiveness
Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño2022
employer or of the employee's co-workers. posed a serious threat to the safety of the
SA-Bacolod acted well within its right to
C company equipment and personnel.
Without this kind of threat, preventive
preventively suspend respondent. The
suspension is not proper.
implementing rules of the Labor Code allows an
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page196of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Philam Homeowners v. De Luna2021 e isobligedtopaythewagesandotherbenefits
h ever showed proof that they actually called
n
due to the employee. respondents back to work on May 2010. They
he CA acted well within its prerogatives in
T
merely asserted that respondents were not
modifying the award of nominal damages and ection4,RuleXIV,BookVoftheOmnibusRules
S
prevented from coming to work in May 2010.
ordering payment of De Luna's 10-day salary, providesthatnopreventivesuspensionshalllast
allowances and other benefits. longer than thirty (30) days. The employer must espondents' employment was thus terminated
R
pay the corresponding wage of his employee if by operation of law because their work
n employee cannot be terminated without just
A
the preventive suspension had been extended suspension extended beyond the statutory
or authorized cause. The twin-notice rule must
beyond the 30-day period. Here, De Luna's six-month period.
be observed, and the erring employee must be
preventive suspension lasted for 40 days.
given the opportunity to present his/her side of I n termination cases either by retrenchment or
the controversy. I n fine, the CA acted within its jurisdiction in closure, the burden of proving that the
affirmingtheNLRC'sjudgmentwithmodification termination of services is for a valid or
1. t he first apprises the employee of the
as totheawardofnominaldamagesinBundoc's authorized cause rests upon the employer.
particular acts or omissions for which his
favor, and payment of DeLuna's10-daysalaryin
dismissal is sought; and etitioners failed to show proof of compliance
P
excess of the mandated 30 days of preventive
with the procedural requirements for a valid
2. t he second informs the employee of the suspension. termination of employment.
employer's decision to dismiss him.
irst, Keng Hua failed to show any proof of
F
ere, Bundoc was not notified of the charges
H
such written notice toanyoftherespondents
leveledagainstherorofhertermination.Bundoc Keng Hua Paper Products v. Ainza2023
or to the DOLE.
is thus entitled to nominal damages of P30,000.
rticle 301 of the Labor Code decreed that a
A
econd, Keng Hua failed to show proof of
S
hen the dismissal is based on a just cause
W suspension of operations will not lead to
payment of termination pay to respondents.
under Article 282 oftheLaborCode,suchasloss termination of employment if the suspension
of trust and confidence, but theterminationwas does not exceed six months.
procedurally infirm, the sanction against the
ere,thereismorethansixmonthsbetweenthe
H
employerforsuchaviolationistempered;hence, onstructive Dismissal vs.
C
onslaught of typhoon Ondoy in September 2009 D
the award of P30K instead of P50K as nominal Demotions
and the resumption of Keng Hua's operations in
damages. When the employer extended the
May 2010. Respondents filed their complaint for 1) C
onstructive dismissal occurs when an
period of preventive suspension beyond30days,
illegal dismissal on 31 March 2011. Petitioners employee quits because continued
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page197of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
mployment is rendered impossible,
e
5) T
he unilateral andarbitraryreductionofthe sed to discharge as manager in his former
u
unreasonableorunlikelyasinthecaseofan
work day scheme that significantly reduced position had been significantlyreduced.Records
offer of demotion in rank and a diminution employees’ salaries isaformofconstructive show that Management Internal Auditor carries
in pay. dismissal. (Intec Cebu v. CA2016) Salary Rank 20, while the position of Area
2) T here is constructive dismissal in the 6) A Operations Head, Salary Rank 19.
college professor that was laterappointed
following: as a laboratory custodian, divesting him of ven if there was no diminution in salary, there
E
a) I NVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION when his teaching load, was constructively hasstillbeenademotionintermsofrespondent's
continued employment is rendered dismissed. (D ivine Word College of Laoag v. rank, responsibilities, and status. There is
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; Mina2016) demotion when an employee is appointed to a
b) D EMOTION in rank and/or DIMINUTION position resulting to a diminution in duties,
I sabela-I Electric Coop. v. Del Rosario, Jr.2019 responsibilities,statusorrankwhichmayormay
of pay;
Lazaro-Javier, J. not involve a reduction in salary.
c) C lear DISCRIMINATION, INSENSIBILITY
as respondent constructively dismissed when
W ndeniably, when petitionermovedorappointed
U
or DISDAIN by an ER to his EE.
he got appointed to the new position of Area respondent to a lower position without any
3) T he TEST of constructive dismissal is Operations ManagementDepartmentManagerin justifiable cause, petitioner was deemed to have
whether a reasonable person intheposition lieu of his former position as Management acted in bad faith. Consequently, the award of
of the EE would have felt compelled to give Internal Auditor? moral and exemplary damages to respondent is
uphispositionunderthecircumstances.Itis
emotion involves a situation in which an
D in order.
an act amounting to dismissal but made to
employee is relegated to a subordinate or less ll told, respondent was demoted, hence, was
A
appear it is not.Itisthereforeadismissalin
important position constituting a reduction to a considered to have been constructively
disguise.
lower grade or rank, with a corresponding dismissed.
4) C onstructivedismissalisdistinguishedfrom decrease in duties and responsibilities, and
illegal dismissalinthatinthelatter,intentto usually accompanied by a decrease in salary.
dismissisclearlyexpressedbytheER.Inthe This was exactly what happened to respondent. artolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc.2024
B
formerhowever,ERNEVERindicatesthathe Lazaro-Javier, J.
ontrary to petitioner's claim, although
C
is terminating the EE.
respondent's present position bears the etitioner Bartolome asserts that he was
P
appellation "manager," the responsibilities he constructively dismissed basedonthetotalityof
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page198of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he circumstances prior to and after his ould have felt compelled to give up their
w " avoid fraternization," then why did it take them
involuntary resignation. employment under the circumstances. too long to reassign private respondents
Constructive dismissal arises elsewhere?
ere, petitioner's account of the events was
H
1. w hen continued employment is rendered
"candid,straightforward,andcategorical."Itcame I CT Marketing, Services, Inc. v. Sales found that
from matters of his own personal knowledge. It petitioner therein acted in bad faith and with
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
shouldnotbebrushedaside,moresosinceitwas discrimination, insensibility, and disdain in
2. w hen thereisademotioninrankand/ora unrefutedbytheotherpartyandwasevenamply reassigning respondent Mariphil Sales to a
diminution in pay; or corroborated by documentary evidence. Verily, differentpost.FollowingICT,privaterespondents,
3. w hen a clear discrimination, insensibility petitioner was constructively dismissed. too, were constructively dismissed.
or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee.
I n such cases, the impossibility, eliable Industrial and Commercial Security
R antogon v. PVC Master Mfg. Corp.2020
B
Agency v. CA2021Lazaro-Javier, J. Lazaro-Javier, J.
unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued
employment leaves an employee with no other etitioner RICSA unfairly wieldeditsprerogative
P he sole argument of PVC is that it acquired
T
viable recourse but to terminate his or her when it transferred respondents Cañete and Boatwin's assets through the so-called assets
employment. Auguis from Pier 12 to C4 Shell and CY-08, sale. But what clearly happened was simply a
I t is settled that acts of disdain and hostile respectively.Thoughsaidtransfersdidnotresult change of corporate name from Boatwin to PVC.
behavior such as demotion, uttering insulting in the reduction of private respondents' salaries,
uellig Freight and Cargo Systems v. NLRC held
Z
words, asking for resignation, and apathetic duties, or responsibilities, the other that the mere change in the corporate name is
conduct toward an employee constitute circumstances surrounding the transfers reveal notconsideredunderthelawasthecreationofa
constructive illegal dismissal whenever by that the same were implemented as a form of
newcorporation.Hence,therenamedcorporation
reason thereof, one's employment becomes so punishment. remains liable for the illegal dismissal of its
unbearableheorsheisleftwithnochoiceexcept incetheemploymentofrespondentsCañeteand
S employee separated under that guise.
to resign. The Court has held that the standard Auguis in 1994 and 1997, respectively, they were
ndoubtedly, PVC is the employer of petitioner.
U
for constructive dismissal is whether a onlyassignedatPier12andnowhereelse.Now,if
Hence,aspetitioner'semployer,ithadtheburden
reasonable person in the employee's position the transfer had truly been part of petitioners'
to prove that petitioner's termination of
standardproceduretorotateitssecurityguardsto
employment was valid. This PVC failed to do.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page199of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
oth parties must therefore bear
B the epartments. According to her, the removal of
d
ere, it is clearly proventhatPVCconstructively
H
consequences of their respective actions. thesefunctionswastantamounttoademotionin
dismissed petitioner when it abruptly prevented
rank, thus proving the existence of constructive
him from reporting for work without just or
dismissal.
authorized cause.Itfailedtoaccordpetitioneran
opportunity to be heard and defend himself Lugawe v. Pacific Cebu Resort International2023 n the other hand, PCRI has consistently
O
which is a basic requirement of due process in ONLugawewasconstructivelydismissedfrom
W maintained that the transfer of functions from
the termination of employment. PVC is, thus, employment. the HR Department to other departments was
guilty of illegal dismissal. done in good faithandtocorrectandstreamline
O. PCRI's act of removing basic HR functions
N
the previous management's previous
from Lugawe was a valid exercise of its
organizational deficiencies. Having discovered
management prerogative in the pursuit of its
S Unitrade Merchandise v. Samson, Jr.2020
J that Lugawe's officehandledseveraloverlapping
legitimate business interest. The circumstances
Lazaro-Javier, J. functions, such as preparation of payroll and
alleged by Lugawe to demonstrate the
payment of salaries, PCRI transferred these
mployees who take steps to protest their
E discriminatory, insensible, and disdainful
duties to more appropriatedepartmentswiththe
dismissal cannot logically be said to have treatment of PCRI are self-serving and
goal of improving performance, introducing an
abandonedtheirwork.Achargeofabandonment uncorroborated by documentary or testimonial
internal checks and balances system, and
is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing evidence. Instead, the evidence on record would
increasing transparency in business operations.
of a complaint for illegal dismissal. The filing show that Lugawe voluntarily abandoned her
This explanation, coupled with the fact that
thereofisproofenoughofone'sdesiretoreturnto employment.
LugaweretainedherrankasHROfficer/Manager
work, thus negating any suggestion of
I n constructive dismissal cases, before the and did not suffer any diminution in salaries,
abandonment.
legality or illegality of the dismissal can be privileges, and other benefits, would show that
hat happened here was a case of
W determined, the employee must first discharge the transfer of functions was not done in bad
misunderstanding between management and the burden to prove the fact of dismissal by faith, but in the pursuit of legitimate business
employee. This being the case, the Court holds substantial evidence. Here, Lugawe failed to objectives. Accordingly, the transfer was a valid
that although there was no constructive prove the fact of her dismissal. exercise of management prerogative.
dismissal by private respondents, neither was
ugawe's primary evidence to support herclaim
L
there any abandonment of work by petitioner.
for constructive dismissal is the transfer of
certain functions from her office to other Traveloka Philippines v. Ceballos, Jr.2022
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page200of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
raveloka claims that respondent was validly
T I t is well-settled that an employee's claim of
O. Respondent was excluded from important
N
terminatedonthegroundsofseriousmisconduct constructive dismissal should be established HRdecisionswhichshewasexpectednotonlyto
and loss of trust and confidence. As evidence,it withclear and convincing evidence.
be privy to, butalsotohaveasayin,byvirtueof
submitted four (4) affidavits executed by its
agno claimed she was constructively
M her position in the company.
employees to attest to respondent's poor work dismissed because her superiors forced her to
behavior and management style. However, all here is constructive dismissal when an
T
resign and she was denied access to the work employee's functions, which were originally
affidavits submitted by Traveloka were not premises despite her active work assignments.
personally executed by the named affiants, but supervisory in nature, were reduced; and such
However, upon closer scrutiny, Magno's claim of reduction isnotgroundedonvalidgroundssuch
merely pre-drafted by the company's lawyers.
constructive dismissal was utterly as genuine business necessity.
ore significantly, it has not been denied that
M unsubstantiated. She did not name any of her
respondent was already relieved of his duties superiors who allegedly forced her to resign or he reduction in respondent's duties and
T
prior to the disciplinary hearings by the provide any details on how this incident responsibilities as HR Manager amounted to a
immediate hiring of his replacement. He was transpired. She likewise did not present any demotion that was tantamount to constructive
promised an alternative but unguaranteed evidencethatsheattemptedtoworkonherother dismissal.
position in Indonesia, and was, without prior active assignments butwasdeniedaccesstothe he above-cited circumstances indubitably
T
warning, demanded to return his assigned work premises. In the absence ofsuchevidence, present a hostile and unbearable working
company paraphernalia in full view of his her claim of constructive dismissal was bare, environment that reasonably compelled
subordinates. Constructive dismissalexistsifan self-serving, and unworthy of credence. respondent to leave her employment.
act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or Respondent, therefore, was constructively
disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable dismissed.
onthepartoftheemployeethatitcouldforeclose Diwa Asia Publishing et al. v. De Leon2018
anychoicebyhimexcepttoforegohiscontinued
ON the issuance of communications to
W
employment. The foregoing unrebutted Del Rio v. DPO Phils.2018
reprimand and/or correct an erring employee
circumstances sufficiently demonstrate that
forms part of the employer's management ON the CA is correct in deleting the award of
W
respondent was constructively dismissed.
prerogatives and is not tantamount to separation pay in favor of petitioner.
harassment, let alone illegal dismissal.
ES. There was no employment contract, much
Y
ABS-CBN v. Magno2022 less a CBA, which contained the stipulationthat
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page201of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ould grant separation pay to resigning
w ON Cosue was constructively dismissed
W Philippine Pan Asia Carriers Corp v. Pelayo2018
employees.Neitherwasthereacompanypractice because he reported to work immediately after
ON Pelayo's involvement in the investigation
W
or policy that was proven to exist in the instant his suspension but was not anymore allowed to
conducted by petitioner amounted to
case. work.
constructive dismissal.
O. Bare allegations of constructive dismissal,
N
O. An employer who conducts investigations
N
when uncorroborated by the evidenceonrecord,
Sumifru Corp v. Baya2017 following the discovery of misdeeds by its
as in this case, cannot be given credence.
employees is not being abusive when it seeks
he burden is on the employer to prove that the
T ecords do not show any demotion in rank or a
R information from an employee involved in the
transfer ordemotionofanemployeewasavalid diminution in pay made against petitioner. workflow which occasioned the misdeed. An
exerciseofmanagementprerogativeandwasnot Neitherwasthereanyactofcleardiscrimination, employee's involvement insuchaninvestigation
a mere subterfuge to get rid of an employee; insensibility or disdain committed by willnaturallyentaildifficulty.Thisdifficultydoes
failinginwhich,theemployerwillbefoundliable respondents against petitioner. not mean that the employer is creating an
for constructive dismissal. inhospitable employment atmosphere so as to
espondents' decision to give petitioner a
R
ON AMSFC and DFC constructively dismissed
W graceful exit is perfectly within their discretion. ease out the employee involved in the
Baya. Itissettledthatthereisnothingreprehensibleor investigation.
YES. The top management of both AMSFC and illegal when theemployergrantstheemployeea hus, subject to the limits of ethical and lawful
T
FC, which were sister companies at the time,
D chancetoresignandsavefaceratherthansmear conduct, an employer isfreetoadoptanymeans
were well-aware of the lack of supervisory the latter's employment record. forconductingtheseinvestigations.Theycan,for
positions in AMSFC. This notwithstanding, they ince there was neither dismissal nor
S example, obtain information from the entire
still proceeded to order Baya's return therein, abandonment, the CA correctlysustainedtheLA roster of employees involved in a given workflow.
thus, forcing him to accept rank-and-file and the NLRC's decision to order petitioner's his Court fails to see how the petitioner's
T
positions. Thus, AMSFC and DFC are guilty of reinstatementbutwithoutbackwages,consistent investigation amounted to respondent's
constructively dismissing Baya. with the following pronouncement in Danilo constructive dismissal. Other than respondent's
Leonardo v. NLRC and Reynaldo's Marketing bare allegation, there is nothing to support the
Corporation, et al. claim that her interviewers were hostile,
osue v. Ferritz Integrated Development Corp
C distrusting, andcensorious,orthattheinterview
2017 wasamerepretexttopinherdown.Respondent's
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page202of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r ecollection is riddled with impressions, ismissal and threatening her with possible
d f rom that of other employees or workers. The
unsupported by independently verifiable facts. revocation of her teaching license. employment of security guards generally
depends on their employers' contracts with
I n the case of Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospitaland
clients who are third parties to the employment
Colleges, Inc. it is held that:
Union School International et al. v. Dagdag2018 relationship, and the requirements of the latter
urisprudencehasalreadysetthestandardof
J for security services and what will be beneficial
he standard of morality with which an act
T moralitywithwhichanactshouldbegauged to them dictate the posting of the security guards.
should be gauged is public and secular, not — it is public and secular, not religious.
religious. I n otherwords,theirsecurityoftenure,thoughit
he totality of evidence in this case does not
T shields them from demotions in rank or
regnancy of a school teacher out of wedlock is
P justify the dismissal of Dagdag from her diminutions of salaries, benefits and other
not a just cause for termination of an employment considering that therewasnolegal privileges, does not vest them with the right to
employment absent any showing that the impediment to marry between Dagdag and the their positions or assignments that will prevent
pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, father of her child at the time of the conception. their transfersorre-assignments.Onlywhenthe
pregnancyoutofwedlock,areindeedconsidered
period of their reserved or off-detail status
disgraceful or immoral.
exceeds the reasonable period of six months
ON Dagdag was constructively dismissed by
W pectrum Security Services Inc v. Grave et al.
S without re-assignment should the affected
Union School. 2017re Suspension of Business Operations
securityguardsberegardedasdismissed.Indeed,
ES. Mandapat's act of suggesting that Dagdag
Y securityguardplacedonreservedoroff-detail
A there should be no indefinite lay-offs. After the
should simply tender her resignation, as the statusisdeemedconstructivelydismissedonlyif periodofsixmonths,theemployersshouldeither
schoolmayimposeharsherpenalties,leftDagdag t he status should last more than six months. recall the affected security guards to work or
with no choice but to discontinue working for Any claim of constructive dismissal must be consider thempermanentlyretrenchedpursuant
Union School. Although there was a conduct of established by clear and positive evidence. to the requirements of the law; otherwise, the
grievance meeting, its outcome was already employerswouldbeheldtohavedismissedthem,
ON
W Spectrum Security constructively
predetermined as petitioners were already and would be liable for such dismissals.
dismissed its employees.
resolute in their decision to terminate Dagdag's nder DOLE Department Order No. 014-01, the
U
O. Security guards, like other employees in the
N
employment. This is evident by the fact that tenure of security guards intheiremploymentis
private sector, are entitled to security of tenure.
Dagdagwasleftwithtwochoices—resignationor
However, their situation should be differentiated
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page203of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
nsuredbyguaranteeingthattheirservicesareto
e r espondents' group of companies. Esico'sunpaid employment.
be terminated only for just or authorized causes. salaries are thus recomputed under the various
hat is clear to the Court is that MHC failed to
W
contracts he signed with respondents' group of deny Regala's allegation of constructive
companies.
dismissal.
Esico v. Alphaland Corporation2021
or did it present any controverting evidence to
N
sico failed to establish his constructive
E proveotherwise.Section11,Rule8oftheRulesof
ela Torre v. Twinstar Professional Protective
D
dismissalby substantial evidence. Court, which supplements the NLRC Rules of
Services2021
he test of constructive dismissal is whether a
T Procedure, provides that allegations which are
There was no constructive dismissal in this case.
reasonable person in the employee's position not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
wouldhavefeltcompelledtogiveuphisposition etitioner utterly failed that he was
P
here is constructive dismissal where there is
T
underthecircumstances.Whatisfairlyapparent constructively dismissed by Twinstar. Here,
cessation of work because continued
isthatEsicoresignedbecausehewasdissatisfied petitioner never presented any evidence, aside
employment is rendered impossible,
andunhappywithrespondentsAlphalandforthe from his self-serving allegations, that he was
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involvinga
cited reasons in his resignation letter. There is forced to be on floating status for more than six
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and
nothing on the recordthatpointstorespondents (6) months without being given new assignment.
other benefits.
Alphaland'sovertandpositiveacttodismisshim ontrarily, Twinstar was able to establish that
C
ere, Regala's change in his work schedule
H
or that they intended his separation from them. Jose went on absence without leave and that it
resulting to the diminution of his take home
Considering that Esico was not constructively had subsequently sent several notices to
salary is, therefore, tantamount to constructive
dismissed, he is not entitled to backwages and petitioner. As correctly found by the NLRC and
dismissal.
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. affirmed by the CA, petitioner himself admitted
he employment contract betweenthepartiesis
T declining the assignment offered to him by the
ambiguous and should be construed strictly Twinstar withinsix(6)monthsfromthetimehe
Italkarat 18 v. Gerasmio2020
against the party that caused the ambiguity, was placed on floating status.
Alphaland. Esico had rendered services for his Doctrinal Rule
concurrentdesignationaspilotandRSMOwhich I f the fact of dismissal is disputed, it is the
he understoodwouldbeseparatelycompensated Regala v. Manila Hotel2020 complainant who should substantiate his claim
by either of the two corporationsthatarepartof Regala was constructively dismissed from for dismissal and the one burdened with the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page204of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r esponsibility of proving that he was dismissed i nvoluntary and that he was constructively
3. fter his leave credits were consumed, he
a
from employment, whether actually or dismissed. was placed on a floating status;
constructively. an v. Galderma Philippines heldthatwherethe
G 4. e Guzman was required to undergo a
D
bsent any evidence that Juraldine was
A employee alleges that he involuntarily resigned
profile interview.
dismissed, the complaint for illegal dismissal duetocircumstancesinhisemploymentthatare
should not have prospered. tantamount to constructive dismissal, the elus fostered a working environment that was
T
employee must prove his allegations with hostile, discriminatory, unreasonable, and
he fact of dismissal must first be proven by
T inequitable that naturally compelled DeGuzman
Juraldine,especiallyconsideringtheexistenceof particularity.
to give up his employment thereat to avoid the
a resignation letter signed by him. lso, theevidenceonrecordshowthatJuraldine
A difficulties he had to face just to keep his
had already intended to resign in 2008, even
I n illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is employment.
on the employer in proving the validity of earlier than October. Juraldine in fact requested
for multiple leaves onvariousoccasions,usually he floating status principle does not find
T
dismissal. However, the fact of dismissal, if application in theinstantcase.Whilethereisno
disputed, must be duly proven by the for processing of his papers for work abroad.
specific provision in the Labor Code which
complainant. governs the "floating status" or temporary "off
ere, Juraldine failed to prove the fact of
H elus International Philippines v. De Guzman
T detail" of workers employed by agencies, it is
dismissal. He relied primarily on his allegations 2019 implicitly recognized in Article 301 of the Labor
that he was misled by the Company into Code which speaks of situations of temporary
e Guzman was constructively dismissed. The
D
resigning and that he was actually retrenched. retrenchment or lay-off due to valid operation
seriesofactionsdonebyTelusmanifeststhatDe
These uncorroborated and self-serving issues.
Guzman was terminated in disguise and such
allegations, especially considering the existence
actions amount to constructive dismissal. I t has been held that in all cases, the temporary
of a resignation letter and a quitclaim both lay-off wherein the employees cease to work
bearing Juraldine's signature, fall short of the 1. fter finding De Guzman not liable for the
a
should not exceed six months.Aftersixmonths,
evidence required under the law to discharge offensecharged,Telusdidnotimmediately
the employees should either be recalled to work
Juraldine's burden to prove that he was reinstate him to his former position;
or permanently retrenched following the
dismissed by the Company. 2. hile waiting for the promised new
w requirements of the law. Otherwise, the
Juraldinefailedtoprovethathisresignationwas account, De Guzman was compelled to employees are considered as constructively
utilize his leave credits;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page205of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
dismissed. onstructivelydismissedlongbeforethesecurity
c
emex Rattancraft, Inc. v. Leron decreed that an
D
he Court has held that placing employees in a
T agency served him a notice of termination.
employee's absences and non-compliance with
valid "floating status" presupposesthatthereare return-to-worknoticesdonotconvincinglyshow
more employees than work. Here, Telus did not a clear and unequivocal intention to sever one's
provide any valid justification orpresentedproof iñano v. Sto. Tomas General Hospital2020
M employment. For strained relations caused by
that there was indeed a deficit of account that Lazaro-Javier, J.
being legitimately disappointed after being
barstheimmediatetransferofDeGuzmanorthat etitioner had all the reason to believe that he
P unfairly treated could explain the employee's
the company was sustaining losses that would had beendismissedfromemploymentduetothe hesitation to report back immediately. Ifany,his
justify placing De Guzman on floating status. eventsthattranspiredpriortoandafterhisillegal actuations only explain that he has a grievance,
In all, De Guzman was constructively dismissed. suspension. The foregoing circumstances would not that he wanted to abandon his work entirely.
lead petitioner to believe that his employment oo, petitioner's immediate filing of the
T
had been terminated. Anyone with a reasonable complaint below after his superior Chief Nurse
dor v. Jamila and Company Security Services
A mind would. The callous treatment he received DelaCuevatoldhimhewasalreadyterminatedis
2020Lazaro-Javier, J. from respondents, his superior, and co-workers a clear indication that he had the desire to
left petitioner with no choice but to cry foul. continue with his employment.
rior to petitioner's dismissal,hewasalreadyon
P
Hence, his recourse of filing an illegal dismissal
"floating status" from May 12, 2012 to April 11,
case against respondents could not have been
2013 or for a period of almost one (1) year.
premature.
Authorized Causes
lthough the Labor Code does not provide a
A
aguinod v.SouthgateFoods,Inc. elucidatedthat
D E
specific provision for temporary "off-detail" or Labor Code, Department Order No. 147-15
the employer's failure to issue a return-to-work
"floating status," the Court has consistently
order to the employee negates its claim that the
appliedArticle292[43]oftheLaborCodetosetthe Retrenchment
latter was not yet terminated. The employer's
period of employees' temporary "off-detail" or Redundancy
excuse that it was the employee who wrongly
"floatingstatus"toamaximumofsix(6)months.
presumed he was dismissed from employment
Petitioner's "floating status" beyond six (6) Closure
was rejected.Theemployeewasthusdeclaredto
months sans any valid justification amounted to
have been illegally dismissed. Disease
constructive dismissal. He had already been
Union Security Clause
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page206of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f establishment or undertaking not due to
o iv) CBA provision shall prevail.
Illegal Strike
serious business lossesorfinancialreverses,
e) Fair and reasonable criteria.
RT 298. Closure of Establishment and
A the separation pay shall be equivalenttoone
(1) monthpayoratleastone-half(1/2)month
ReductionofPersonnel. —Theemployermay 1 Retrenchment
also terminate the employment of any pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher. — or downsizing is a mode of terminating
employee due to
mployment initiated by the employer
e
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be
A
1. t he installation of labor-saving throughnofaultoftheemployeeandwithout
considered one (1) whole year.
devices, prejudice to the latter, resorted to by
Common Requisites management during periods of business
2. redundancy,
a) Good faith; recession, industrial depression or seasonal
3. retrenchment to prevent losses or fluctuations or during lulls over shortage of
b) Termination is matter oflast resort;
materials.
4. t heclosingorcessationofoperation
c) T
wo (2) Separate notices served on the
of the establishment or undertaking a) T
he retrenchmentmustbereasonably
affected EE and DOLEONEMONTHprior
necessary and likely to prevent
nless the closing is for the purpose of
u to intended date of termination;
business losses;
circumventing the provisions of this Title,by d) Separation pay;
serving a written notice on the workers and b) T
he losses, ifalreadyincurred,arenot
i) I nstallation of labor saving Device merely de minimis, but substantial,
the DOLE at least one (1) month before the
orRedundancy—1monthpayorat serious, actual and real, or, if only
intended date thereof.
least 1 month pay foreveryyearof expected, are reasonably imminent;
I n case of termination due tothe installation service whichever is higher;
of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the c) T
he expected oractuallossesmustbe
ii) etrenchmentorclosurenotdueto
R proved by sufficient and convincing
worker affected thereby shall be entitledtoa
serious losses — 1 month pay or at evidence;
separation pay equivalent to at least his one
least 1/2 month pay for every year
(1) monthpayortoatleastone(1)monthpay d) T
he retrenchment must be in good
of service whichever is higher;
for every year of service, whichever is higher. faith for the advancement of its
iii) losure due to serious losses —
C interest and not to defeat or
I ncaseofretrenchmenttopreventlossesand
NONE.
incasesofclosuresorcessationofoperations
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page207of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ircumvent the employees' right to
c etitionersdidnotcomplywiththerequirements
p
security of tenure; and c) t he employer was fair and reasonable in
of retrenchment under law and jurisprudence.
selecting the employees who will be
e) T here must be fair and reasonable retrenched.
criteria in ascertaining who wouldbe
dismissed and whowouldberetained I ndependently audited financial statements are light Attendants and Stewards Association v.
F
among the employees, such as status, of high evidentiaryvalueintermsofprovingthe PAL2018 En Banc
efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, employer's serious business losses. It has
likewise been ruled that presenting the audited I n determining the validity of a retrenchment,
age, andfinancialhardshipforcertain judicial notice may be taken of the financial
financial statement for the year of retrenchment
workers. losses incurred by an employer undergoing
may not be sufficient. The employer must prove
thatthelossesincreasedorhavebeenincreasing corporate rehabilitation. In such a case, the
I-People Manpower Resources v. CA2023
for a periodoftimeandthecompany'scondition presentationofauditedfinancialstatementsmay
I PMR et al. argue that Monton's dismissal was notbenecessarytoestablishthattheemployeris
will not improve in the near future.
due to retrenchment because of the low activity suffering from severe financial losses.
ere, the Labor Arbiter did not consider any
H
in the company and the lack of projects. Such
auditedfinancialstatementoranyotherevidence
alone would not validate retrenchment.
in determining whether there were business aConsolacionCollegeofManila,etal.v.Pascua
L
losses.HeonlyreferredtotheTerminationLetter, 2018
as if its bare allegations are enough to be given
Team Pacific Corporation v. Parente2020 hen termination of employment is occasioned
W
full faith and credence. He merely assumedthat
by retrenchment to prevent losses, an employer
a Consolacion College of Manila v. Pascua
L the global economic crisis affected petitioners,
enumerated three substantive requisites for a must declare a reasonable cause or criterion for
and thus concluded that respondent was
retrenching an employee. Retrenchment that
validretrenchment: rightfully dismissed.
disregards an employee's record and length of
a) r etrenchment was anecessarymeasureto dditionally, petitioners failed to prove that it
A service is an illegal termination of employment.
prevent substantial and serious business used fair and reasonable criteria in carrying out
losses; ON Pascua's retrenchment was valid basedon
W
the retrenchment program. They likewise failed
the criteria that she had the highest rate of pay.
b) i t wasdoneingoodfaithandnottodefeat to explain why it included respondent, who had
employees' rights; and already been employed for 10 years. Clearly, O. Jurisprudence requires that the necessityof
N
retrenchmenttostaveoffgenuineandsignificant
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page208of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
business losses or reverses be demonstrated by exists when "the services of an employee
— nancialstatementspreparedbyanindependent
fi
anemployer's independentlyauditedfinancial are in excess of what is reasonably auditor. The continued business losses and
statements. Documents that have not been the demanded by the actualrequirementsofthe volatile sugar market prompted the company to
s ubjectofanindependentauditmayverywellbe enterprise." implement a restructuring of its labor force to
self-serving. preventfurtherfinanciallosses.Thisentailedthe
a) w
ritten notice served on both the
determination of non-essential workers and the
herecordsindicatethatLaConsolacionsuffered
T employees and the DOLE at least one
abolition of their departments due to redundancy.
serious business reverses or an aberrant drop in month prior to the intended date of
its revenue and income, thus, compelling it to retrenchment; he guest houses inthecompanycompoundare
T
retrench employees. used as residence oftheresidentmanagerofthe
b) p
ayment of separation payequivalent
company and a temporary home for transient
a Consolacion's failure was non-compliance
L to at least one month pay or at least
workers.Itsoperationisnotnecessarytothecore
with using fair and reasonable criteria that one month pay for every year of
business of the company but is a mere
considered the status and seniority of the service, whichever is higher;
convenience afforded to several employees. The
retrenched employee. c) g
oodfaithinabolishingtheredundant existence of the guest housesdoesnotaffectthe
a Consolacion's disregard of respondent's
L positions; and production or distribution of sugar, which is the
seniority and preferred status relative to a d) f air and reasonable criteria in main business of the company. Consequently,
part-time employee indicates its resort to an ascertaining what positions are to be petitioners' positions weredeemedredundantas
unfair and unreasonable criterion for declared redundant and accordingly the task of maintaining the guest house was in
retrenchment. abolished. no way essential to the business of respondent
mployees who have earned their keep by
E and such function has since been delegated to
demonstrating exemplary performance and Morales v. Central Azucarera de la Carlota2022 those residing in the guest house.
securing roles in their respective organizations his jurisdiction recognizes redundancy as an
T ccordingly,respondentwasabletocomplywith
A
cannot be summarily disregarded by nakedly authorized cause for termination when it is the substantial requirements for a valid exercise
pecuniary considerations. determinedthatapositionisnolongernecessary of dismissal due to redundancy.
for the operation of a business.
I n proving the validity of its redundancy
2 Redundancy guilera v. Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines2021
A
program, respondent presented its audited
Lazaro-Javier, J.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page209of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
aspetitionervalidlydismissedonthegroundof
W mployees is inconsistent with the termination
e
ll told, respondent's employment was validly
A
redundancy? on the ground of redundancy; it exhibits the terminated on ground of redundancy. Time and
employer's intent to circumvent the employee's
edundancyexistswhentheservicecapabilityof
R again, it has been ruled thatanemployerhasno
the workforce is in excess of whatisreasonably right to security of tenure. Also, it has been legalobligationtokeepmoreemployeesthanare
invariably held in a plethora of cases that the
needed to meet the demands of the business necessary for the operation of its business. In
enterprise. A position is redundant where it had employer's subsequent act of hiring additional fact,evenifabusinessisdoingwell,anemployer
become superfluous. Adequate proof of employees is inconsistent with the termination can still validly dismiss an employee from the
redundancy and criteria in the selection of the on the ground of redundancy. service due to redundancy if that employee's
employees to be affected must be presented to ll told, the termination of petitioner's
A position has already become in excess of what
dispel any suspicion of bad faith on the part of employment on ground of redundancy is the employer's enterprise requires.
the employer. declared void. He was illegally dismissed.
ere,CCFPIpresentedtheself-servingaffidavitof
H
its HR Manager Del Rosario that the department paricio v. Manila Broadcasting Company2019
A
3M Philippines v. Yuseco2020Lazaro-Javier, J. Lazaro-Javier, J.
where petitioner belonged was restructured and
that after assessmentsandmeetings,petitioner's ecords show that the company called
R etitioners' employment was validly terminated
P
position was found to be redundant. Applying respondent to a meeting preciselytoinformhim on ground of redundancy.
FeatiUniversityv.PanganandYulov.Concentrix of the merger of the Industrial Business Group ere, petitioners were duly served notices of
H
Daksh Services Philippines, Inc., the bare with the Safety & Graphics Business Groups,one retrenchment which took effect thirty (30) days
declarationofCCFPI'sHRManager,withoutmore, ofwhichheusedtobethedepartmenthead.The later. MBC also submitted its Establishment
does not comply with the requirements of good separationofcomplainantfromemploymentwas Termination Report to the DOLE containing the
faith and necessity. Neither does petitioner's due to redundancywhichwascarriedoutaftera reasons for its adoption and implementation of
"belowideal"IQscoreconformwiththepresence serious study. the redundancy program. Petitioners were
of criteria in determining who among the
etitioner set the reasonable criteria for
P likewise promptly given their separation pay.
employees should be dismissed.
determining whobetweenLopezandrespondent FES Bacolod was shut down as relay station of
F
bbott Laboratories (Philippines),Inc.v.Torralba
A shouldheadthenewlycreatedofficewhichcame DZRH. Its continued operation was deemed
ordained that an employer's subsequentcreation about as a result of the merger. unnecessary because DZRH anyway could be
of new positions or the hiring of additional
heard in Bacolod through FFES Iloilo.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page210of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onsequently, petitioners who were both
C t hat fair and reasonable criteria were used to mployment on the ground of redundancy, his
e
assigned at FFES Bacolod had to go, as well. determine which positions or who among the dismissal was valid. In addition, Guarin, Jr.
Courts will not interfere unless management is employees should be redundated. Neither do the executed a valid release, waiver and quitclaim.
shown to have acted arbitrarily or maliciously. Organizational Charts presented by MacDow Consequently, Guarin, Jr. is not entitled to
prove that there was a valid redundancy backwages, much more moral damages and
program. attorney's fees.
McConnell Dowell Phils. v. Bernal2021
ON Bernal's separation from MacDowwasdue
W
HCL Technologies Philippines v. Guarin, Jr.2021 Monsanto Philippines v. NLRC2020
to a valid redundancy program.
lltherequisitesforavalidredundancyprogram
A rivate respondents were dismissed from the
P
O. Bernal was illegally dismissed because
N
are present in this case. service after Monsanto reorganized its company
MacDow failed to prove, bysubstantialevidence,
to streamline operations.Monsantoclaimedthat
that it implemented a valid redundancy program. irst, HCL sent an Establishment Termination
F
their positions and functions were redundant.
Report totheDOLEonOctober11,2016.Itnotified
ejila v. Wrigley Philippines,Inc. explainedthat
M However,thereisneitherallegationnorevidence
Guarin,Jr.ofhisterminationeffectiveNovember
redundancy exists where the services of an that Monsanto suffered losses or would suffer
15, 2016 through a Letter dated October 15, 2016.
employee are in excess of what is reasonably losses that justifies the reduction of workforce.
demanded by the actual requirements of the Second, Guarin, Jr. received his separation pay. Without evidence to substantiate redundancy,
enterprise. To establish a valid redundancy hird, HCL exercised good faith and employed
T the dismissal cannot be characterized as just or
program, the following evidence may be fair and reasonable criteriainabolishingGuarin, authorized.
proffered: the new staffing pattern, feasibility Jr.'s position. Guarin, Jr. was hired by HCL
studies/proposal on the viability of the specifically for its Salesforce account. However,
newly-created positions, job description and the Salesforce's account was terminated effective anggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v.
M
approval by the management of the restructuring. October 15, 2016. This rendered Guarin, Jr.'s PLDT 2017
ere, MacDow failed to prove with substantial
H position in HCL redundant. The very reason for n order of reinstatement is different from a
A
evidence that a valid redundancy program was his position has ceased to exist. return-to-work order.
implemented. While financial losses may be a onsidering that H
C CL complied with all the he award of reinstatement, including
1. T
reasontoterminateemployees,thatalonecannot requisites for terminating Guarin, Jr.'s backwages, is awarded by a Labor Arbiter
justify termination due to redundancy, norshow
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page211of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t o an illegally dismissed employee herewithal during the period that he is
w f supplies, it should have been specifically
o
pursuant to Article 294. looking for another employment. statedinhisjobdescription.Therewas,henceno
basis for respondents to consider his position
2. O n the other hand, a return-to-workorder 2. R
etirement benefits, where not mandated
is issued by the SOLE when he or she by law, may be granted by agreement of irrelevant when the shipments had been
assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute the employees and their employer or as a completed.
in an industry that is considered voluntary act on the part of the employer. ikewise, respondents failed to show that they
L
indispensable to the national interest. Retirement benefits are intended to help used fair and reasonable criteria indetermining
the employeeenjoytheremainingyearsof what positions should be declared redundant.
ONthe2002redundancyprogramofPLDTwas
W
valid. his life.
I n Panlilio v. NLRC, this Court held thatfairand
reasonable criteria may take into account the
YES. To establish good faith, the companymust
preferred status, efficiency, and seniority of
rovide substantial proof that theservicesofthe
p Acosta v. Matiere SAS2019 employees to be dismissed due to redundancy.
employeesareinexcessofwhatisrequiredofthe
company, and that fair and reasonable criteria I n redundancy, an employer must show that it
were used to determine the redundant positions. applied fair and reasonable criteria in
determining what positions have to be declared eletech Customer Care Management v. Gerona,
T
LDT'sdeclarationofredundancywasbackedby
P Jr.2021
redundant. Otherwise, it will be held liable for
substantial evidence showing a consistent
illegally dismissingtheemployeeaffectedbythe To successfully invoke a valid dismissal due to
decline for operator-assisted calls for both local
redundancy. redundancy, there must be:
and international calls because of cheaper
alternatives. ON Acosta was validly dismissed from
W 1. written notice served on both the
a
employment on the ground ofredundancy. employees and the DOLE at least one
quino v. NLRC differentiated between
A
O. Respondents' only basis for declaring
N month prior to the intended date of
separation pay and retirement benefits:
petitioner's position redundant was that his termination of employment;
1. S
eparation pay is required in the cases
function, which was to monitor the delivery of 2. aymentofseparationpayequivalenttoat
p
enumerated in Articles 283 and 284. We
supplies, became unnecessary upon completion least one month pay for every year of
have held that it is a statutory right
oftheshipments.However,therewasnomention service;
designed toprovidetheemployeewiththe
of monitoring shipments as part of petitioner's
3. good faith in abolishing the redundant
tasks.Ifhisworkpertainsmainlytothedelivery
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page212of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
positions; and b) T
he decision was made in good faith; s hould properly be evaluated to determine
4. and whether it was done in good faith or otherwise
f airandreasonablecriteriainascertaining
what positions are to be declared resulting inthecircumventionoftherightsofits
c) T
here is no other option available to
workers.
redundant and accordingly abolished. the employer except to close or cease
hecompanymustprovidesubstantialproofthat
T operations. etrenchment or lay-off is the termination of
R
the services of the employees are in excess of employment initiated by the employer, through
Dusol v. Lazo2021 no fault of the employees and without prejudice
what is required of the company. Here,
redundancy was not proven. No other evidence tothelatter,duringperiodsofbusinessrecession,
rticle298oftheLaborCodeconsidersclosureof
A
was offered to prove the alleged low volume of industrialdepression,orseasonalfluctuations,or
businessasanauthorizedcauseforthedismissal
calls or how the officers of Accenture and during lulls occasioned · by lack of orders,
ofemployees,whetherornottheclosureisdueto
Teletech came to a conclusion that its business shortage of materials, conversionoftheplantfor
serious business losses.
a new productionprogramortheintroductionof
was slowing down.
ere, the closure of the business is not disputed
H new methods or more efficient machinery, or of
eletech should have presented any document
T by Pedro and Maricel. While closure of the automation. It is an exercise of management
proving the decline in Accenture's volume of businessisanauthorizedcause,thereisnoproof prerogativewhichtheCourtupholdsifcompliant
calls for the past months, or affidavits of the that it was due to serious business losses. In with certain substantive and procedural
Accenture and Teletech officerswhodetermined effect, Pedro and Maricel are entitled to requirements.
that business was slowing down andtheirbasis separation pay. In addition, since Emmarck
thereof. eanwhile, closure or cessation of business is
M
clearlyfailedtocomplywiththerequirednotices,
the complete or partial cessation of the
Pedro and Maricel are each entitled to nominal
operations and/or shut-down of the
damages in the amount of P30,000.
establishmentoftheemployer.Itiscarriedoutto
3 Closure
either stave off the financial ruinorpromotethe
Refers tothecompleteorpartialcessation
— businessinterestoftheemployer.Itmayeitherbe
Unera v. Shin Heung Electrodigital2020
of the operations and/or shut-down of the due to
establishment of the employer. company's decision to resume part of its
A
1. s erious business losses or financial
previousoperationdoesnotautomaticallynegate
a) T here must be a decision to close or reverses or
cease operation of the enterprise by good faith in its prior action to close shop. The
circumstances leading to the company's closure 2. any other underlying reason or motivation.
the management;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page213of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
anufactured product and the pullout ofitssole
m obeavalidgroundfortermination,thefollowing
T
nder the first kind, the employer must
U
sufficiently andconvincinglyproveitsallegation client, Shin Heung was left with nootheroption must be present:
but to close shop.
of substantial losses, while under the second a) T
he employee must be suffering from any
kind, the employer can lawfully close shop eralde v. Lapanday Agricultural and
B disease;
anytime as long as cessation of or withdrawal Development Corp. did not accord bad faith on
b) T
he continued employment of the employee
from business operations was the subsequent acts of the employer to rehireits
is prohibitedbylaworprejudicialtohis/her
retrenched workers or to hire new employees
1. b onafide incharacterandnotimpelledby health as well as to the health of his/her
a motive to defeat or circumvent the since the employer had already sufficiently
co-employees; and
tenurial rights of employees, and proven economic or business losses. Similarly,
Shin Heung had already sufficiently proven c) T
here must be certification by a competent
2. a s long as he pays his employees their substantial business losses on its part thereby public health authority that the disease is
termination pay in the amount necessitating the closure of the company. Its incurable within a period of six (6) months
corresponding to their length of service. decision to continue a part of its previous even with proper medical treatment.
ere, Shin Heung's intention wastototallyclose
H operations did not negate good faith in its d) A
s to procedural due process. — The
thebusiness.Notwithstandingitsuseoftheword decision to close shop,butisseenasanexercise employer must furnish the employee two
"retrenchment" in its communications to the ofitsrighttocontinueitsbusiness.Aslongasno written notices in terminations due to
DOLE and to its employees, Shin Heung arbitrary or malicious action on the part of the disease, namely:
consistently informed its stakeholders of the employer is shown, the wisdom of a business
i) t he notice to apprise the employee of
complete cessation of operations. judgment to implement a cost saving device is
the ground for which his dismissal is
beyond the court's determination. After all, the
ccording to petitioners, thesupposedclosureof
A sought; and
free will of management to conduct its own
Shin Heung's business was a pretext for the
business affairs to achieveitspurposecannotbe ii) t he notice informing the employee of
companytomerelyreduceitsmanpowerwithout
denied. his dismissal, to be issued after the
considering the employees' tenurial rights.
employee has been given reasonable
However, there is no indication thatShinHeung
opportunitytoanswerandtobeheard
was impelled by any unlawful or dishonest
Disease on his defense.
motive aimed to circumvent the rights of its
4
workers. With the declining demand for its Labor Code, Article 299 RL International Manpower Agency v. Yarza,
S
Jr.2022
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page214of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
arza was illegally dismissed.First,the"Offerof
Y t he petitioners should accord Yarza dueprocess,
lso,AkkiladidnotaccordYarzaproceduraldue
A
Employment"isinvalidsinceitwasnotapproved both substantial and procedural, before process.Here,AkkiladidnotgiveYarzaanyform
by the POEA. terminating his employment. of notice or opportunity to explain his side.
nless the employment contract of an OFW is
U nder Art 299[284] of the Labor Code, an
U
he petitioners are solidarily liable to Yarza.
T
processed through the POEA, the same does not employer would be authorized to terminate the Corpuz,Jr.v.GerwilCrewingPhils.,Inc.instructs
bind the concerned OFW because if thecontract services of an employee found to be suffering thatSec10RA8042providesforthesolidaryand
is not reviewed by the POEA, certainly the State from any disease if the employee's continued continuing liability of recruitment agencies
has no means of determining the suitability of employmentisprohibitedbylaworisprejudicial against monetary claims of migrant workers.
foreign laws to our overseas workers. The"Offer to his health or to the health of his fellow These pecuniary claims may arise from
of Employment" states that the rules and employees.
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of
regulations found in UAE's labor laws should
o be considered valid, the dismissal on the
T law or contract, and may include claims of
apply, which iscontrarytoourcountry'spolicies
ground of diseasemust satisfy two requisites: overseas workers for damages.
concerning labor contracts and security of
tenure. 1. t heemployeesuffersfromadiseasewhich arza is entitledtohissalariesfortheunexpired
Y
cannot be cured within six months and portion of his contract. Sameer Overseas
otwithstanding the invalidity of the "Offer of
N his/her continued employment is Placement Agency, Inc. v.Cabiles againdeclared
Employment," an employer-employee prohibited by law or prejudicial to his/her unconstitutional the cap of three-month pay for
relationship exists. Akkila selected andengaged
health or to the health of his/her every year of service. It also upheld the
the services of Yarza, precisely because he was
co-employees, and imposition of interest rate of 12% per annum on
deployed through a visit visa under Akkila's the placement fee specifically set by law, nay,
instruction. Akkila paid Yarza's wages. Akkila 2. certificationtothateffectmustbeissued
a
unaffected by BSP Circular No. 799 setting the
hasthepowertodismissYarzaasitdidsowhen by a competent public health authority.
rate of interest at 6% per annum. Thus, Yarza
it issued the termination letter. Akkila had ere, Akkila did not present any certification
H shouldreceivehisunpaidsalariescorresponding
control over Yarza's work conduct, which from a competent public health authority citing to the unexpired portion of his contract.
included the means and methods he would that Yarza's disease cannot be cured within six
employ to produce the results required by the months, or that his employment is prejudicialto arza is also entitled to moral and exemplary
Y
company. his health or that of his co-employees. Thus, damagesaswellasattorney'sfees.Heisentitled
to attorney's fees at the rateof10%underArticle
Since an employer-employee relationship exists, Yarza's dismissal was not based on a just cause.
2208 of the Civil Code for the following reasons:
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page215of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i llness,andthesubmissionoftheemployee's
1. exemplary damages are also granted; 6. E
ven though it is basic in labor law thatan
proof of illness on his return date.
2. illegally dismissed employee is entitled to
kkila and SRL acted in bad faith in
A
dealing with Yarza; 3. B
ased on the records, Laurence sent his reinstatement, or separation pay if
immediatesupervisor,JosephQuintal,atext reinstatement is not viable, and payment of
3. this involves recovery of wages and message, on February 3, 2012, informingthe fullbackwages,insomeinstances,theCourt
4. arza was compelled to litigate and to
Y latter that he willbeabsentbecausehewas has carved out exceptions where the
incur expenses to protect his rights. sick with pulmonary tuberculosis, a reinstatement of an employee was ordered
contagious disease, and wasadvisedtotake without an award of backwages. This is on
medication. account of:
erizon Communications Philippines v. Margin
V 4. W
hile Verizon ostensibly afforded Laurence 6.1. t hefactthatdismissaloftheemployee
2020
theopportunitytorefutethechargeofAWOL would be too harsh of a penalty; and
n employee cannot anticipate when an illness
A andabandonmentagainsthim,thecompany
6.2. t hattheemployerwasingoodfaithin
may happen, thus, he may not be able to give deprived him of due process when he was
terminating the employment.
priornoticeorseekpriorapprovalofhisabsence, not given ample timetopreparehisdefense
but could only do so after the occurrence of the and later on, when his explanation wasnot 7. H
ere, Verizon is absolved from the payment
incident. given consideration on the ground that it of backwages.
ON Laurence was validly dismissed due to
W was submitted beyond the 48-hour period. 8. W
hile Laurence did not violate Verizon's
absenteeism. Thus, Laurence's right to procedural due rules on authorized and unauthorized
process was violated. absences, he cannot be deemed entirely
1. N
O. Laurence did not violate Verizon's rules
5. C
onsidering, therefore, that Laurence was faultless. Aside from the text message he
on authorized and unauthorized absences.
illegally terminated, he is entitled to sent, he didnothingelsetocomplywiththe
2. U
nder Verizon's rules, the absence of an reinstatement without loss of seniority company's rules.
employee may be authorized or
rights and other privileges and to full
unauthorized.Anauthorizedabsence,dueto backwages.However,ifactualreinstatement
sickness, requires that the employee send is nolongerpossible,theemployeebecomes mafil International Manpower Development v.
O
his manager notice four hours before his Mesina2020
entitled to separation pay in lieu of
shift, with a reasonable description of his MAZCO repatriated Mesina to the Philippines
reinstatement.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page216of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ithout any showing that he had a prolonged
w Fuji Television v. Espiritu2014 2) t he union is requesting for the enforcement
and permanent disease. When Mesina was of the union security provision in the CBA;
here is no evidence showing that Arlene was
T
repatriated, none of his medical records showed and
accorded due process. After informing her
that his ailment was permanent or that he
employer of her lung cancer, she was not given 3) t here is sufficient evidence to support the
sufferedfromadiseasewhichcouldnotbecured
the chance to present medical certificates. Fuji union's decision to expel the employeefrom
within six months and that his continued
immediately concluded that Arlene could no the union or company.
employmentwasprohibitedbylaworprejudicial
longer perform her duties because of
tohishealthortothehealthofhisco-employees. Slord Development v. Noya2019
chemotherapy. It did not ask her how her
This is validated by the absence of the required
condition would affect her work. Neither did it hilenotexplicitlymentionedintheLaborCode,
W
Certification from a competent public authority
suggest for her to take a leave, even though she case law recognizes that dismissal from
certifying to such a health condition on his part.
was entitled to sick leaves. Worse, it did not employmentduetotheenforcementoftheunion
he very nature of petitioner's work as an
T present any certificate from a competent public security clause in the CBA is another just cause
Expediter had contributed to the aggravation of healthauthority.WhatFujididwastoinformher for termination of employment. Similar to the
his illness - if indeed it was pre-existing at the that her contract would no longer be renewed, enumerated just causes in the Labor Code, the
time of his employment. and when she did not agree, her salary was violationofaunionsecurityclauseamountstoa
e Leon v. Maunlad Trans, Inc. have heldthatit
D withheld. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly commission of awrongfulactoromissionoutof
is not required that the employment be the sole upheld the finding oftheNLRCthatforfailureof one's own volition; hence, it can besaidthatthe
factorinthegrowth,developmentoracceleration Fuji to comply with due process, Arlene was dismissal process was initiated not by the
of the illness to entitle the claimant to the illegally dismissed. employer but by the employee's indiscretion.
benefits provided therefor. It is enough that the Further, a stipulation in the CBA authorizingthe
employment had contributed, even to a small dismissal of employees is of equal importasthe
degree, to the development of the disease. 5 Union Security Clause statutory provisions on dismissal under the
Labor Code, since a CBA is the law between the
esina's immediate filing of a case of illegal
M I n terminating the employment of anemployeeby
dismissal negates petitioners' claim that he company and the union and compliance
enforcing the Union Security Clause, the employer
voluntarily agreed to his repatriation to seek therewith is mandated by the express policy to
needs only to determine and prove that:
give protection to labor; thus, there is parallel
medical treatment in his home country.
1) the union security clause is applicable;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page217of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t reatment between just causes and violation of lause to maintain their membership in good
c b) Detailed narration of the facts and
the union security clause. standing during the term thereof. ircumstancesthatwillserveasbasis
c
ere, the Court finds the confluence of the
H hus, the NLRC did not gravely abuse its
T forthechargeagainsttheemployee.A
foregoing requisites, warranting the termination discretion in ruling that there existed just cause general description of the charge will
of respondent's employment. to validly terminate respondent's employment. not suffice; and
I t is undisputed that the CBA contains a closed directive thattheemployeeisgiven
c) A
shop agreement stipulating that petitioner's opportunity to submit a written
employeesmustjoinNLM-Katipunanandremain Illegal Strike explanation within a reasonable
to be a member in good standing; otherwise, period.
6 Procedure
through a written demand, NLM-Katipunan can " Reasonable period" should be construed as
insist the dismissal of an employee.Notably,the Quitclaim a period of at least five (5) calendar days
Court has consistently upheld the validity of a from receipt of the notice.
closed shop agreement as a form of union Liability of union officers and members
nowingly
K ommitted
C 2) A
fter determining that termination of
security clause.
Participated Illegal Acts employment is justified, the employer shall
urther, records show that NLM-Katipunan
F serve the employee a written notice of
requested the enforcement of the union security Union Officer DISMISSED DISMISSED
terminationindicating that:
clausebydemandingthedismissalofrespondent nion
U - DISMISSED
from employment. a) a
llcircumstancesinvolvingthecharge
Member
against the employee have been
inally,thereissufficientevidencetosupportthe
F
a. Procedure considered; and
union'sdecisiontoexpelrespondent.Asanactof
loyalty, a union may require its members not to Labor Code, Department Order No. 147-15 b) t he grounds have been established to
affiliate with any other labor union and to justify the severance of their
Twin Notice Requirement
consider its infringement as a reasonable cause employment.
1) Thefirstwritten notice should contain:
for separation, pursuant to the union security The foregoing notices shall be served
clause in its CBA. Having ratified the CBA and a) T
he specific causes or grounds for
personally totheemployeeortotheemployee's
beingmembersoftheunion,unionmembersowe termination;
last known address.
fealty and are required under the unionsecurity
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page218of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Hearing t he employee's rights were violated or not in an ance's dismissal was valid, but procedural due
B
3) After serving the first notice, the employer illegal dismissal case cannot be deemed to be process was not observed, entitling her to
should afford the employee mple
a covered by a Quitclaim. nominal damages.
pportunity to be heard and to defend
o ose's right to procedural due process was
J he willfully breached the trust that the
S
imself with the assistance
h of his violated. University has reposed on her. Her act of
representative if he so desires. accommodating into the University's group
ere, Twinstar found the petitioner guilty of
H
" Ample opportunity to be heard"meansany insubordination or willfuldisobedience.Thereis enrollment incentive program unqualified
meaningful opportunity given to the nothing in the records that would show that beneficiaries,includingthechildrenandrelatives
employeetoanswerthechargesagainsthim Twinstargavepetitioneramplechancetoexplain of the petitioners, constitute willful breach of
and submit evidence in support of his and be heard on the allegations against him. trust.Bance'spositionasSeniorAccountsOfficer,
defense, whetherinahearing,conferenceor beingsupervisoryinnature,canbeconsideredas
some other fair, just and reasonable way. A hus, Twinstar's patent violation of petitioner's
T a position of trust.
formal hearing or conference becomes right to procedural due process necessitates the
awardofnominaldamagestothelatter.Whilean owever, to comply with the requirement of
H
mandatoryonly proceduraldueprocess,twowrittennoticesmust
employee may indeed accept his dismissal and
a) w hen requested by the employee in be issued. Here, the records show that no first
agree to waive his claims or right to initiate or
writing or continue any action against his employer, both written notice was given to Bance. Conferences
and verbal announcements do not suffice as
b) s ubstantial evidentiary disputes exist partiesdonothavethejurisdictionorauthorityto
determine whether such termination is legal or substitute for the requisite first written notice.
or a company rule or
Bance is therefore entitled to nominal damages
not.
c) practice requires it, or in the amount of P30K.
I t follows then that the award of nominal
d) when similar circumstances justify it.
damages, which by its nature, arises from the
ela Torre v. Twinstar Professional Protective
D determination of whether the employee's rights Del Pilar v. BATELEC II2020
Services2021 were violated or not in an illegal dismissal case
cannot be deemed to be covered by the Quitclaim. There was no actual notice of termination.
Doctrinal Rule
hepurposeofawrittennoticeunderArticle283
T
he award of nominal damages, which by its
T of the Labor Code is to give employees time to
nature, arisesfromthedeterminationofwhether Bance v. University of St. Anthony2021 prepare for the eventuallossoftheirjobsaswell
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page219of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s to give the DOLE the opportunity to ascertain
a r esults in the circumvention of proper legal iven
g to petitioners during the
the veracity of the alleged cause of termination. procedures and the evasion of payment of a conciliation-mediation conference covered only
worker's legitimate claims. their trust fund savings and cash bond. In
ATELEC II merely assumed that complainants
B
knewabouttheretrenchmentwhentheyactively asserting that the quitclaims are valid and
owever, not all waivers and quitclaims are
H
participated in the proceedings before the LA. invalid as against publicpolicy.Iftheagreement binding, CORPS is asking petitioners to forego
Theoffertopayseparationpayisnotsufficientto was voluntarily entered into and represents a theirbenefitstowhichtheyarelegallyentitledto
under the Labor Code.Regardlessofwhetherthe
replace the formal requirement of written notice. reasonablesettlement,itisbindingontheparties
andmaynotlaterbedisownedsimplybecauseof quitclaims were executed before or after the
ursuant to Serrano, complainants were entitled
P petitioners were given the checks, or before
a change of mind.
to separation pay and backwages up to whom they were executed, such quitclaims are
September 13, 2001. However, in the subsequent or a deedofrelease,waiver,andquitclaimtobe
F VOIDastheyweresignedbypetitionerswiththe
cases of Agabon v. NLRC and Jaka Food valid, it must be shown that: honest belief, based on assurances made, that
Processing Corporation v. Pacot, the Court now a) t here was nofraudordeceitonthepartof they would be paid their money claims in full.
orders payment of nominal damages for valid
any parties;
dismissalsduetojustorauthorizedcausebutnot
compliant to statutory due process. b) t hat the consideration for the quitclaim is
credible and reasonable; and guilera v. Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines2021
A
Lazaro-Javier, J.
b. Quitclaim c) t hat the contract is not contrary to law,
public order, public policy, morals or good eforethecourtscanconsiderawaivervalid,the
B
Naldo, Jr. et al. v. CORPS2024 customs, or prejudicial to a third person legalityoftheterminationitselfshouldbeableto
with a right recognized by law. withstand judicialscrutiny.Shouldthecourtfind
ase law looks upon quitclaims, waivers, or
C
that either of the foregoing exceptions is
releases with disfavor. They are deemed to be he burden rests on the employer to prove that
T attendant, the dismissed employee cannot be
largely ineffective to bar recovery of the full the quitclaim constitutes a credible and deemedbarredfromcontestingthevalidityofthe
measureofaworker'srights,andtheacceptance reasonable settlement of what an employee is
termination.
of benefits therefrom does not amount to entitled to recover, and that the one
estoppel. This is especially true in instances accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and ere, as early as one (1) month before the
H
where instead of promoting the orderly with a full understanding of its import. effectivity of hisdismissal,petitioneralreadygot
settlement ofdisputes,theexecutionofthesame informed by CCFPI of his separation package
Here, it has been established that the checks
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page220of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f ollowing the abolition of his position due to its a) I t is to be given at least 1 month before
esignation is the voluntary act of an employee
R
redundancy. But, despite the enticing package, effectivity date of resignation.
who is in a situation where he or she believes
petitioner signified his interest to continue b) The notice is for the benefit of the ER. that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in
working with the company even in a different favor of the exigency of the service and has no
capacity or for another position. c) ER has discretion to shorten the period.
other choice or is otherwise compelled to
d) F
ailuretofilenoticewillholdEEliablefor
ecton DickinsonPhils.,Inc.v.NLRC declaredas
B dissociate himself or herself from employment.
invalid the quitclaims signed by the dismissed damagesfor losses.
1. I t is a formal pronouncement of
employees due to a supposed redundancy. The 3) A
cceptance of resignation is not necessary. relinquishment of an office and must be
Court recognized the fact that the risk of not Resignation may however be withdrawn made with the intention of relinquishing
receivinganything,whatsoever,coupledwiththe even if EEcalleditirrevocable.IftheERhas the office, accompanied by the act of
probability of not being able to immediately accepted and approved the tendered relinquishment or abandonment.
secureanewjobormeansofincome,constitutes resignation, withdrawal thereafter requires
enough pressure upon anyone who is asked to the ER’s consent. 2. I t must be unconditional and with the
sign a release and quitclaim in exchange for intent to operate as such.
4) G
enerally, an EE who voluntarily resigns is
some amount of money. NOT entitled to separation pay. There are 3. T
he act of the employee before and after
however twoexceptions: the alleged resignation must be
considered.
a) When stipulated in CBA;
VIII Termination by Employee he rule iswhenanemployerraisesthedefense
T
b) S
anctioned by established ER practice or of resignation, the burden to establish the
1) R esignation is the VOLUNTARY act of an policy. voluntariness of such resignation rests on the
employee dissociating fromhisemployment
employer.
in the belief that personal reason cannot be acob v. Villaseran Maintenance Service 2021
J
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the Lazaro-Javier, J. ere,petitionersassertthatwhiletheywroteand
H
service. Personal reasons may be due to signed the supposed resignation letters and
oluntary
V Release and Quitclaim forms, before they could
health concerns.
Resignation vis-à-vis receivetheirlastpayandbenefitsfromMCUthey
2) T he law requires the EE to submit an Illegal Dismissal did not freely, intelligently, and voluntarily do so.
advance notice to the ER known as a
RESIGNATION NOTICE.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page221of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
uress, intimidation, or undue influence
d mployee in his own handwriting, hinting the
e
arolina's Lace Shoppe v. Maquilan elucidates
C
that in order to prevent disputes on the validity
exerted on their person. absenceofvoluntariness.ICTMarketingServices
and enforceability of quitclaims and waivers of The above requirements are absent here. Inc. v. Sales emphasized that resignation is
inconsistent with the filing of a complaint.
employees under Philippine laws, said
1. T
he amounts stated in petitioners'
agreementsshould contain the following: respective Release and Quitclaims ince petitioners' resignations were shown to
S
have been forced upon them through
1. A fixed amount as full and final pertained to their salary adjustments
respondents' deceptive scheme, petitioners are
compromise settlement; which they were entitled to receive
without any need for them to terminate deemed to have been illegally dismissed. This
2. T he benefits of the employees if possible holds true even for petitioners Sitjar and
their employment.
with the corresponding amounts, which Talamantewhohadadmittedlybeenabsorbedby
the employees are giving up in 2. T
here was no trade off of benefit and MCU's new manpower agency. FVR Skills and
consideration of the fixed compromise compromise amount. Services Exponents, Inc. (Skillex) v. Seva ruled
amount; 3. T that absorption of employees bythenewagency
here was no statement that respondents
3. A statement that the employer hasclearly clearly explained the repercussions and hired by a principal does not negate the fact of
explained to the employee in English, effects of signing the form to petitioners. illegal dismissal.
Filipino, or in the dialect known to the
4. T
here was no statement that petitioners
employees —thatbysigningthewaiveror
signed and executed the documents
quitclaim, they are forfeiting or voluntarily and fully understood the Doble, Jr. v. ABB Inc.2017
relinquishing their right to receive the contents thereof and that their consent Constructivedismissal isdefinedasquittingor
benefitswhichareduethemunderthelaw;
was freely given. essation of work because
c continued
and
lso, the six (6) resignation letters handwritten
A employment is rendered impossible,
4. A
statementthattheemployeessignedand bypetitionersherewerealmostidenticalinform unreasonable or unlikely. There is involuntary
executed the document voluntarily, and and substance, as if copied from a template or resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and
had fully understood the contents of the unfavorable conditions set by the employer.
dictated on them.
document and that their consent was
obile Protective & Detective Agency v. OMPAD
M n the other hand, resignation is the voluntary
O
freely given without any threat, violence,
notedthattheresignationlettersinvolvedtherein act of an employee who is in a situation where
were pro forma and entirely copied by the one believes that personal reasons cannot be
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page222of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s acrificed in favor of theexigencyoftheservice, hey accepted the retirement pay andmonetary
T i llegalandentitlestheemployeetoreinstatement
and one has no other choice but to dissociate benefits given them by the Company and without loss of seniority rights and other
oneself from employment. It is a formal executed a Quitclaim, Release and Waiver privileges, full backwages inclusive of
pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, therefor.Theircontentionthattheywereinduced allowances, and other benefitsortheirmonetary
with the intention of relinquishing the office to resign on accountoftheireventualtransferto equivalent.
accompanied by the act of relinquishment. Soliman Security was unsubstantiated. No
I nillegaldismissalcases,itisafundamentalrule
agreement to this effect was presented. that whenanemployerinterposesthedefenseof
ettled is the rule that beforetheemployermust
S resignation, on him necessarily reststheburden
Tacis v. Shields Security Services2021 beartheburdenofprovingthatthedismissalwas to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily
etitioners'resignationwasvoluntary;therewas
P legal, the employee must first establish by resigned. Forresignationfromemploymenttobe
no constructive dismissal. substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal valid, there must be an intent to relinquish the
from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, position together with the overt act of
esignation is the voluntary act of an employee
R
thentherecanbenoquestionastoitslegalityor relinquishment. Here, the fact of petitioners'
who is in a situation where he believes that
illegality. Bare allegations of constructive resignation is undisputed.
personal reasons cannotbesacrificedinfavorof
dismissal, when uncorroborated by theevidence
the exigency of the service, and he has then no
on record, cannot be given credence.
other choice but to disassociate himself from
Villola v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.2019
employment.
illola was not dismissed by UPL as he
V
ere, the acts of petitioners before and after the
H Bance v. University of St. Anthony2021
resignation do not show that undue force was voluntarily resigned.
he voluntary resignation of Lobetania,
T
exerted upon them. They relinquished their achica v. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc.
M
positions when they submitted their individual Dimaiwat, Velasco, and Aguirre rendered their declared that when the employer denies
complaints for illegal dismissal without any
letters of resignation. They utterly failed to dismissing the employee, the latter must prove
substantiate for lack of substantialdocumentary basis. the fact of his dismissal with clear, positive and
or testimonial evidence the alleged deceitful o comply with the requirements of substantial
T convincing evidence.
machination. More importantly, the resignation dueprocess,thecauseofthedismissalmusthave
esignation
R is defined as a formal
letters contained words of gratitude which can basis under the law. Failure to observe
pronouncement or relinquishment of an office,
hardly come from an employee forced to resign. substantial due process renders the dismissal
with the intention of relinquishing the office
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page223of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ccompanied by the act of relinquishment. The
a supposed dismissal from employment.
2. PL ceased paying his salaries after May
U
fact of resignation is therefore supported by the 31, 2013, as in fact, Villola himself already 6. illola evensubmittedhisproposalforthe
V
concurrence of the following:
stoppedreportingforworkstartingJune1, scanning project to Mr. Consunji under a
1. the intent to relinquish one's office; and 2013. name of another company.
2. the overt act of relinquishment. 3. n June 27, 2013, VillolasubmittedtoUPL
O
hisproposalforthescanningprojectunder
I nillegaldismissalcases,fundamentalistherule
a different company. Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. v. Tanguin2017
that whenanemployerinterposesthedefenseof
resignation, on him necessarily reststheburden he doctrine of estoppel is based upon the
T I n abandonment, absence must be accompanied
to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith by overt acts unerringlypointingtothefactthat
resigned. and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to the employee simply does not want to work
speak against his own act, representations, or anymore. Mere absence or failure to report for
I n as much as Villola has the burden of proving
commitments to the injury of one towhomthey work, even after a notice to return to work has
that he was, in the first place, dismissed from
were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. been served, is not enough to amount to an
employmentbyUPL,itistheconcomitantburden
abandonment of employment.
of respondents to prove that Villola voluntarily ere, Villola is estopped from asserting that he
H
resignedfromservice.WhileVillola'sresignation did not resign from employment on account of ere, there was no abandonment on the part of
H
letter serves as proof of the latter's formal his own acts and representations, particularly respondent. Records are bereft of any indication
relinquishment ofhisemploymentwithUPL,the thatTanguin'sfailuretoreportforworkwaswith
4. is email responsetoConsunji'semaildid
H
absence thereof is not enough to rule out the a clear intent to sever her employment
not raise any concerns on the fact thathe
conclusion that no resignation ever took place. relationship with the petitioners. Moreover,
was being made to submit a resignation
Tanguin's act of filing a complaint for illegal
illola resigned from his employment and that
V letter.
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement negates
he was not dismissed by UPL based on the
5. espite having rendered part-time work
D any intention to abandon her employment.
following factual circumstances: foraUPLaffiliateforatrainingwhichwere
1. illola did not raise any concerns
V conducted within UPL company premise,
whatsoever to Consunji or inquired onthe Villola never raised to Consunji or any Lugawe v. Pacific Cebu Resort International2023
reasons for the latter's requesttosubmita responsible officer of UPL his
Although the filing of a complaint for illegal or
resignation letter. complainants on or objections to his
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page224of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
onstructive dismissal has repeatedly been held
c lthough Magno was not constructively
A Purchasing Manager.
to be inconsistent with a charge of dismissed, she cannot be considered to have
lcuizar was informed of the error committed,
A
abandonment—especially when such complaint abandoned or forfeited her employment with and that it was made clear to him that he was
is accompanied with a prayer for ABS-CBN.
never terminated from service at that time in
reinstatement—theactoffilingdoesnotforeclose
saresult,itwasexplainedinRodriguezthatthe
A spite of his poor performance.
the possibilityofabandonment,asthisisnotthe remedy of "reinstatement" cannot be granted
sole indicator in determining the employee's WON Alcuizar abandoned his employment.
similar to illegal dismissal cases. This issimply
intent. All circumstances surrounding the because there can be no reinstatement to a ES. Respondent's non-compliance with the
Y
termination of employment shouldbetakeninto position one is still holding. The Court will directive in the Return to Work to Our mind,
account. signifies his intention to sever the employment
therefore merely declare that the employee may
ugawe'ssickleaveexpiredonDecember12,2013
L go back tohisworkandtheemployermustthen relationwithpetitioner,andgivescredencetothe
and that she stopped reporting to work without accepthimbecausetheemploymentrelationship latter's claim that it was respondent who
priorrequestforleaveofabsencefromDecember between them was never actually severed. abandoned his job.
13, which is the day she filed her complaint for I t can be gathered that respondent's departure
constructivedismissal.PCRIsentLugawealetter wasmerelyaprecursortohisschemetoturnthe
dated January 7, 2014 directing her to submit a Mehitabel Inc v. Alcuizar2017 table against petitioner. Realizing that his
written explanation regarding her unauthorized employment was at serious risk due to his
he filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal
T
absences. Lugawe's failure to respond to PCRI's habitualneglectofhisduties,respondentjumped
does not ipso facto foreclose the possibility of
directive, taken together with her absence from the gun on petitioner by lodging a baseless
abandonment. It is not the sole indicator in
work and notices to her co-workers that she complaint for illegal dismissal even though it
determining whether ornottherewasdesertion.
would no longer report to work, all point to the was he who abandoned his employment.
Other circumstances surrounding the case must
conclusion that Lugawe abandoned her
be taken into account in resolving the issue of
employment.
whether or not there was abandonment.
aria De Leon Transportation Inc., et al. v.
M
WON Alcuizar was dismissed by Mehitabel. Macuray2018
ABS-CBN v. Magno2022 NO. The publications were made through sheer n employee can not besaidtohaveabandoned
A
i nadvertence,andthatthevacancyisactuallyfor his employment when he merely availed of a
the position of Purchasing Officer, rather than
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page225of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ompany practice of taking sabbaticals in order
c ther benefits, unless the employee has
o
EXC: W
here just cause termination proscribes
to afford them the opportunity to recover from meanwhile reached the mandatory
theclaimofretirementpayascitedinthe
the stresses of driving the same long and retirement plan. retirement age, in which case he is entitled
monotonous bus routes by accepting jobs to separation pay pursuant to the terms of
1) R
etirement has been defined as a the plan, with legal interest on the
elsewhere.
withdrawal from office, public station, backwages and separation pay reckoned
ON there was just cause for dismissing
W business, occupation, orpublicduty.Itisthe from the finality of the decision. (L
aya,Jrv.
Macuray due to abandonment. result of a bilateral act of the parties, a CA2018 En Banc)
O. Macuray was not dismissed from work and
N voluntary agreement between the employer
4) H
owever, where the employee has been
he did not abandon his employment. and the employee whereby the latter, after
reaching a certain age, agrees and/or informed and had consented, as when in
ven assuming that respondent was indeedtold
E consents to sever his employment with the accepting the employment offer, he has
byrespondent'sbusdispatcherRogerPasionthat assentedtoallexistingrules,regulationsand
former.
he was AWOL, this was not tantamount to policy of the employer in the employment
dismissal, actual or constructive. An ordinary 2) U
nder the Labor Code, only unjustly contract, and furthermore, he did not object
bus dispatcher has no power to dismiss an dismissed employees are entitled to to the compulsory age of retirement in the
employee. retirement benefits and other privileges RetirementPlan,heisdeemedboundthereto.
including reinstatement and backwages. (Banco de Oro Unibank v. Sagaysay2015)
Since petitioner’s dismissal was for a just
cause, he is not entitled to any retirement 5) J
urisprudence is replete with cases
Retirement benefit. (Sy v. Metrobank)
discussing the employer's prerogative to
lower thecompulsoryretirementagesubject
IX
epublic Act No. 7641, Implementing
R
Rules; Labor Advisory on Retirement Pay,
⭐
3) Anemployeeintheprivatesectorwhodid to the consent of its employees.
not expressly agree to the terms of an early
as amended by Republic Act No. 8558; 6) I n Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC,
retirementplancannotbeseparatedfromthe
Republic Act No. 10757 theCourtupheldtheretirementoftheprivate
servicebeforehereachestheageof65years.
The employer who retires the employee respondent therein pursuant to a CBA
GR: mployees dismissed for just cause are
E
allowing theemployertocompulsorilyretire
generally entitled due to vested rights prematurely is guilty of illegal dismissal,
employees upon completing 25 years of
and is liable to pay his back wages and to
reinstate him without loss of seniority and service to the company.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page226of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ption of the company. The said plan was
o I mplementingRules.(DelaSalleAranetaUv.
7) I n Progressive Development Corporation v.
NLRC, the retirement plan, which allowed adopted while the petitioner therein was Bernardo2017)
the employer to retire employees who had employed earlier. There was no voluntary
acquiescencetoUNIPROM'searlyretirement Catotocan v. Lourdes School of Quezon City2017
rendered more than 20yearsofservice,was
declared valid and enforceable even though age option on her part.
ETIREMENT PLAN. Acceptance by the
R
it was not embodied in a CBA. In that case, 10)On the other hand, in Obusan v. PNB, the employeesofanearlyretirementageoptionmust
theCourtconcludedthattheemployees,who petitioner, who was hired by PNB in 1979, beexplicit, voluntary, free, and uncompelled.
were hired before the execution of the was deemed covered by its retirement plan
ON Catotocan's receipt of her retirement
W
employer'sretirementplan,wereboundbyit adopted in 2000. Considering that on
benefitswillnotstopherfrompursuinganillegal
because the retirement plan was expressly February21,2001,PNBhadinformedallofits
dismissal complaint against LSQC.
made known and accepted by them. officers and employees about the said
retirement plan, the said plan was then O. LSQC did not illegally dismiss Catotocan
N
8) I n contrast, the case of Jaculbe v. Silliman
registered with the BIR and was later fromservice.WhileitmaybetruethatCatotocan
University did notallowtheapplicationofa
recognized by the Philnabank Employees wasinitiallyopposedtotheideaofherretirement
lower retirement age. The petitioner in the
Association in its CBA. Despite the proper atanagebelow60years,itmustbestressedthat
said case was employed sometime in 1958
dissemination of information, no one Catotocan's subsequent actions after her
while the retirement plan, which
questioned the retirement plan. Hence, the "retirement" are actually tantamount to her
automatically retired its members upon
Court deemed it valid and effective as due consent to the addendum to the LSQC's
reaching the age of 65 or after 35 years of
noticeoftheemployer'sdecisiontoretirean retirement policy of retiring her from service
uninterruptedservicetotheuniversity,came
employee was adequately provided. upon serving the school for at least thirty (30)
into being in 1970. The said retirement plan
continuous years. Catotocan performed all the
was not applied to the petitioner because ⭐
11) Retirement of Part-time Faculty. Under
acts to ratify her retirement in accordance with
there was no
agreement to which the latter the rule of statutory construction of
LSQC's retirement policy.
assented. expressio unius est exclusio alterius,
Bernardo's claim for retirement benefits atotocan's repeated application and availment
C
imilarly, the case of Cercado v. UNIPROM
9) S
cannot be denied onthegroundthathewas of the re-hiring program of LSQC for qualified
Inc., involved a non-contributory retirement
a part-time employee as part-time retirees for 3 consecutive yearsisasupervening
planwhichprovidedthatanyemployeewith
employees are not among those specifically event that would reveal that she has already
twenty (20) years of service, regardless of
exempted under RA No. 7641 or its voluntarilyandfreelysignifiedherconsenttothe
age, may be retired at his option or at the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page227of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r etirementpolicydespiteherinitialoppositionto e only sought the payment of his retirement
h
aya,Jr.v.PhilippineVeteransBankemphasized
L
it. benefits. In view of the foregoing, respondents
the character of the employee's consent to the
must duly pay petitioner not onlyhisretirement
employer's early retirement policy: it must be
benefits, but also his other monetary claims.
explicit, voluntary, free, and uncompelled.
PAL v. Hassaram2017
Unfortunately, this is not the case here.
he determining factor in choosing which
T etirement is the result of a bilateral act of the
R
ulong v. Super Manufacturing, Inc.2019
P
retirement scheme toapplyisstillsuperiorityin parties, a voluntary agreement between the
Lazaro-Javier, J.
terms of benefitsprovided. employer and the employee whereby the latter,
he law permits employersandemployeestofix
T afterreachingacertainage,agreestoseverhisor
the employee's retirement age. Absent such an her employment with the former. Cercado v.
Barroga v. Quezon Colleges of the North2018 agreement, the law fixes the age for compulsory Uniprom, Inc. held that an early retirement plan
retirement at sixty-five (65) years, while the
hile retirement from service is similar to
W must be voluntarily assented to by the employees.
minimum age for optional retirement is set at
termination of employment insofar as they are he MOA here was not assented to bypetitioner
T
sixty (60) years. Thus, retirement plansallowing
common modes of ending employment, theyare and his co workers. It was not executed after
employers to retire employees who have not yet
mutually exclusive, with varying juridical bases consultations and negotiations with the
reached the compulsory retirement age of
andresultingbenefits.Retirementfromserviceis employees' authorizedbargainingrepresentative.
sixty-five (65) years are not per se repugnant to
contractual, whileterminationofemploymentis The MOA, therefore, does not bind petitioner;
the constitutional guaranty of security oftenure,
statutory. much less, its provisions on compulsory
provided that the retirement benefits are not
ON the CA correctly ruled that petitioner was
W lowerthanthoseprescribedbylawandtheyhave retirementatagesixty(60).Foritwasnotaresult
notillegallydismissedbyrespondents,butrather, theemployee'sconsent.Itisaxiomatic,therefore, of any bilateral act; instead, it was a unilateral
retired from his employment with the latter. that a retirement plan giving the employer the imposition of SMI upon petitioner.
ES. TheCourtisinclinedtoholdthatpetitioner
Y option to retire its employees below the ages
retiredfromservice,butnonetheless,pursuedthe providedbylawmustbeassentedtobythelatter,
otherwise,itsadhesiveimpositionwillamountto Santo v. University of Cebu2019Lazaro-Javier, J.
filingoftheinstantillegaldismissalcaseinorder
to recover theproperbenefitsduetohim.Infact, a deprivation of property without due process. etitioner's retirement pay should be computed
P
itistellingthatheneveraskedtobereinstatedas based on Article 287 of the Labor Code.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page228of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
omparingtheoptionalretirementbenefitsunder
C ithout any definite employers may form
w
Rights and Conditions of Membership
thetwo(2)retirementschemes,itisapparentthat labor organizations for their mutual aid and
fifteen (15)days'worthofsalaryforeveryyearof nion Chartering/Affiliation: Local and
U protection.
service provided under respondent's Faculty Parent Union Relations
Manual is much less than 22.5 days' worth of RT 254. Right of Employees in the Public
A
Bargaining Unit Service. — Employees of government
salary for every year of service provided under
Article287oftheLaborCode.Obviously,itismore Bargaining Representative corporations established under the
beneficialforpetitionerifArticle287'sretirement Corporation Code shall have the right to
ollective Bargaining and
C organizeandtobargaincollectivelywiththeir
plan will be applied in the computation of her
Administration respective employers. All other employees in
retirement benefits.
Unfair Labor Practice the civil service shall have the right to form
eltran v. AMA Computer College-Biñan ruled
B
associations for purposes not contrary to
that while the employer is free to grant Peaceful Concerted Activities law.
retirement benefits and impose different age or
service requirements, the benefits should not be A Right to Self-Organization
lesser than those provided in Article 287 of the Qualified Disqualified
LaborCode.Too, Elegirv.PhilippineAirlines,Inc. Government Corporations hose employed in
T Es of GOCCs under
E
decreed that the determining factor in choosing commercial, industrial Special charters;
which retirement scheme to apply is superiority RT 253. Coverage and Employees' Right to
A
and agricultural Managerial EEs;
in terms of benefits provided. Self-Organization.—Allpersonsemployedin
enterprises;
commercial, industrial and agricultural hey are those who
T
he Retirement Pay Law does not bar a retired
T Es of GOCCs
E are vested with
enterprises and in religious, charitable,
employee from pursuing a livelihood or WITHOUT original powers or
medical, or educational institutions, whether
practicingaprofessionafterreceivingretirement charters (Corpo Code);
operatingforprofitornot,shallhavetheright prerogatives to lay
benefits. down and execute
toself-organizationandtoform,join,orassist Es of religious,
E
labor organizationsoftheirownchoosingfor charitable, medical or management
purposes of collective bargaining. educational policies and/or hire,
X Labor Relations institutions, for profit or transfer, suspend,
mbulant,intermittentanditinerantworkers,
A
not; lay-off, recall,
Right to Self-Organization self-employedpeople,ruralworkersandthose
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page229of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Qualified Disqualified imcoma Labor Organization-PLAC v. Limcoma
L
Doctrine of Necessary Implication
Multi-Purpose Cooperative2021
Alien EEs ischarge, assign or
d onfidential employees, by Doctrine of
1) C
discipline scorrectlyobservedbytheVoluntaryArbitrator
A Necessary Implication, are also disqualified
1. W
orking in the (VA), Section 2 of Article II of the CBA gave the
employees. for union membership. They are those who
country; description as to who are covered by the said
upervisory EEs are
S a) a
ssist or act in a confidential capacity in
2. W
ith valid working agreement. There is no other meaning or
RELATIVELY regard
permits issued by interpretation of the phrase "all regular
prohibited in that
DOLE; employee" as mentioned under the CBA but all b) t opersonswhoformulate,determine,and
theyarenotallowed
3. N ationals of regular rank-and-file employee only of effectuate management policies,
to join unions of
countries granting respondent. Corollarily, this means that specifically in thefield of labor relations.
rank and file by
same rights to supervisory, confidential and managerial 2) For the disqualification to apply
virtue of separation
Filipinoworkers employees or those who will fall as
of unionsdoctrine. a) H
e must be in a fiduciary relationship
(R ECIPROCITY rule); non-rank-and-file employee are excluded.
onfidential EEs
C with another to whom he reports or
and o interpret itotherwisewouldindirectlyviolate
T
Members of a whom he assists;
4. Country of origin the rule provided under Article 245 of the Labor
Cooperative; b) T
he latter possesses labor-management
has ratified ILO 87 Code that bars managerial employees from
and 98 as certified Owners cannot joining the collective bargaining unit of relations information; and
by DFA. bargain with rank-and-file employees. Managerial employees c) H
e has access to that information by
themselves. cannot be allowed to share in the concessions reason of his position.
All other workers FOR
mutual aid and Members of obtained by the labor union through collective
3) The disqualification will NOT apply if
protection and NOT for International Orgs; negotiation.Otherwise,theywouldbeexposedto
the temptation of colluding with the union a) T
he information is businessinformation;
collective bargaining; Bydoctrine of
during the negotiations to the detriment of the and
Security guards; incorporation, they
are immune from employer. b) T
he information may be
Workers in EPZs.
suit. labor-managementrelationsinnaturebut
the employee’s access thereto is
accidental only.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page230of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ociete Internationale De Telecommunications v.
S xercise of the Right of Government
E egotiablemattersinthepublicsectorarelimited
n
Huliganga2018 Employees to Organize to terms and conditions of employment that are
anagerial employees are not eligible to join,
M not fixed by law. Social Security System
1. S
ection 8. Art III of the 1987 Constitution.
assist or form any labor organization. An Employees Association v. Court of Appeals
The right of the people, including those explains that instead of a collective bargaining
exception to this prohibition is when the
employedinthepublicandprivatesectors,to agreementornegotiation,governmentemployees
employer extends the CBA benefits to the
form unions, associations, or societies for must course their petitions for a change in the
managerial employee as a matter of policy or
purposes not contrary to law shall not be terms and conditions of their employment
established practice.
abridged.
through the Congress for the issuance of new
ON Huliganga, as a managerial employee, is
W
2. S
ection 2(5). Art IX-B. The right t o laws, rules, or regulations to that effect.
entitled to the same retirement benefits asthose
self-organization shall not be denied to
of rank-and-file employees.
government employees.
O. Complainant failed to present evidence to
N hilippine National Construction Corporation v.
P
justify his claim. He failed to sufficiently SIS Family Bank Employees Union v.
G NLRC 2021Lazaro-Javier, J.
establish that there is an established company Villanueva2019
trategic Alliance v. Radstock Securities the
S
practice of extending the CBA concessions to fficers and employees of government-ownedor
O Court pronounced with finality that PNCC is a
managerial employees. To be considered as a controlled corporations (GOCCs) withoutoriginal GOCC. Being a GOCC without original charter,
company practice, the act of extending the charters are covered by the Labor Code, not the PNCCiscoveredbytheLaborCode.UnderArticle
benefits of the CBA to managerial employees CivilServiceLaw.However,non-charteredGOCCs IX-B, Section 2, paragraph 1 of the 1987
must have been practiced for a long period of arelimitedbylawinnegotiatingeconomicterms Constitution, only GOCCs with original charters
time and must be shown to be consistent and with their employees. This is because the law are covered by civil service laws.
deliberate. has provided the Compensation and Position
Classification System, which applies to all lthoughgovernedbytheLaborCode,asaGOCC,
A
government-owned or controlled corporations, PNCC is not exempt from the coverage of the
Government Corporations National Position Classification and
chartered or non-chartered.
Compensation Plan approved by the President.
1 1987 Constitution; Labor Code, IRR, 2024 I ncontrastwiththeprivatesector,thetermsand
Rules and Regulations Governing the conditions of employment of government onsequently, therefore, PNCCdidnotviolatethe
C
non-diminution rule when it desisted from
workers are fixed by the legislature; thus, the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page231of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i s affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of
ranting mid-year bonus to its employees
g Mandatory Activity five (5) years.
starting 2013.
Union Information 2. N
o qualification requirement for candidacy
3. A RTICLE 254. Right of Employees in the to any position shall be imposed other than
nforcement and Remedies;
E
Public Service. — Employees of government membership in good standing in subject
Procedure, Jurisdiction, and
corporations established under the labor organization. xxxx
Sanctions
Corporation Code shall have the right to
3. N
opersonwhohasbeenconvictedofacrime
organize and to bargain collectively with 1 Admission and Discipline of Members involvingmoralturpitudeshallbeeligiblefor
their respective employers. All other
electionasaunionofficerorforappointment
employees inthecivilserviceshallhavethe 1. N
oarbitraryorexcessiveinitiationfeesshall
to any position in the union.
right to form associations for purposes not be required of the members of a legitimate
contrary to law. labor organization nor shall arbitrary, 4. T
he officers of any labor organization shall
excessiveoroppressivefineandforfeiturebe notbepaidanycompensationotherthanthe
ights and Conditions of
R imposed. salaries and expenses due to their positions
B asspecificallyprovidedforinitsconstitution
Membership 2. N
olabororganizationshallknowinglyadmit
and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly
as members orcontinueinmembershipany
Admission and Discipline of Members authorized by a majority of all themembers
individual who belongs to a subversive
atageneralmembershipmeetingdulycalled
organization or who is engaged directly or
lection of Officers: Qualifications;
E for the purpose.
indirectly in any subversive activity.
Manner of Election; Tenure and
5. T
he minutes of the meeting and the list of
Compensation
lection of Officers: Qualifications;
E participants and ballotscastshallbesubject
Major Policy Matter 2 Manner of Election; Tenure and toinspectionbytheSecretaryofLabororhis
Compensation duly authorized representatives. Any
Union Funds
irregularities in the approval of the
1. T
he members shall directly elect their
Payment of Attorney’s Fees resolutions shall be a ground for
officers in the local union, as well as their
impeachment or expulsion from the
equisites of Check-Off; Payment of
R national officers in the national union or
organization.
Special Assessment federation towhichtheyortheirlocalunion
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page232of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ndby-lawsorthoseexpresslyauthorizedby
a oneys received and paid by him since he
m
3 Major Policy Matter
writtenresolutionadoptedbythemajorityof assumed office or since the last day on
he members shall determine by secret ballot,
T the members at a general meeting duly which he rendered such account, and of all
after due deliberation, any question of major called for the purpose. bonds, securities and other properties of the
policy affecting the entire membership of the organization entrusted to his custody or
4. E
very income orrevenueoftheorganization
organization, unless the nature of the under his control.
shall be evidenced by a record showing its
organization or force majeure renders such
source, and every expenditure of its funds 7. T
he books of accounts and other records of
secret ballot impractical, in which case, the
shall be evidenced by a receipt from the the financial activities of any labor
boardofdirectorsoftheorganizationmaymake
persontowhomthepaymentismade,which organization shall be open to inspection by
the decision in behalf of the general
shall state the date, place and purpose of any officer or member thereof during office
membership.
such payment. Such record or receipt shall hours.
4 Union Funds form part of the financial records of the
organization. 5 Payment of Attorney’s Fees
1. N o officer, agent or member of a labor
5. A
ny action involving the funds of the 1. I n cases of unlawful withholding of wages,
organization shall collect any fees, dues, or
organization shall prescribe after three (3) the culpable party may be assessed
othercontributionsinitsbehalformakeany
years from the date of submission of the attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of
disbursement of its money or funds unless
annual financial report to the DOLE or from the amount of wages recovered.
he is duly authorized pursuant to its
the date the same should have been
constitution and by-laws. 2. I t shall be unlawful for any person to
submitted as required by law, whichever
demand or accept, in any judicial or
2. E very payment of fees, dues or other comes earlier.
contributions by a member shall be administrative proceedings for the recovery
6. T
he treasurer of any labor organization and of wages, attorney's fees which exceed ten
evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer
every officer thereof who is responsible for percent of the amount of wages recovered.
or agent making the collection and entered
the account of such organization or for the (Article 111)
intotherecordoftheorganizationtobekept
collection, management, disbursement,
and maintained for the purpose; 3. N
o attorney's fees, negotiation fees or
custody or control of the funds,moneysand
similarchargesofanykindarisingfromany
3. T
he funds of the organization shall not be other properties of the organization, shall
collective bargaining agreement shall be
applied for any purpose or object other than render to the organization and to its
imposed on any individual member of the
those expressly provided by its constitution members a true and correct account of all
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page233of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ontracting union: Provided, However, that
c
2) U
nion Dues vs. Agency Fees. — Assessment b) D
eductions for fees f rom mandatory
attorney'sfeesmaybechargedagainstunion
of agency fees from non-union employees activities such as l abor relations
fundsinanamounttobeagreeduponbythe and deduction thereof from the employees’ seminars;
parties. Any contract, agreement or salaries (A
rt 248[e]) even in the absence of
arrangementofanysorttothecontraryshall c) Withholding tax;
individual written authorization if the
be null and void.(Article 228) non-union employees accept the benefits d) E
E’s debt to ER which isalreadydueand
under the CBA. demandable;
equisites of Check-Off; Payment of
R
6 3) T
he union’s right to agency fees is neither e) J
udgment against the worker where
Special Assessment
contractual nor statutory but wages may be subject of attachment or
execution but only for debts incurred for
RT 113. Wage Deduction. — No employer,in
A quasi-contractual.
food, clothing, shelter, and medical
his own behalf or in behalf of any person, 4) R
equisites for validity of union dues and attendance.
shall make any deduction from the wagesof special assessments
his employees,except: f) Viacourt order;
a) A
uthorization by a written resolution of
xxxx g) A
uthorized by law such as premiums for
the majority of all the members at a
SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-ibig.
( b) For union dues, in cases where the right general membership meeting duly called
of the worker or his union to check-off has for the purpose;
7 Mandatory Activity
been recognized by the employer or b) S
ecretary’s record of the minutes of said
authorized in writing by the individual meeting; 1. O
ther than for mandatory activities under
worker concerned; the Code, no special assessments, attorney's
c) I ndividualwrittenauthorization(IWA)for
fees, negotiation fees or any other
check-off duly signed by the employees
1) T here may be some SPECIAL extraordinary fees may be checked off from
concerned.
ASSESSMENTS: any amount due to an employee without an
5) When not to require IWA individual written authorizationdulysigned
a) A uthorized by a written resolution of
majority of all members; AND a) A
ssessment from non-members of SEBA by the employee.
ofagency fees;
b) Purpose is stated.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page234of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
gainst or unduly interfere with employees
a 5. " Intra-Union Dispute" refers to any conflict
2. T he authorization should specifically state
and workers in their exercise of the right to between and among union members,
the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the
deduction. self-organization. Such right shall include including grievances arising from any
the right to form, join, or assist labor violation of the rights and conditions of
8 Union Information organizations for the purpose of collective membership, violation of or disagreement
bargaining through representatives of their overanyprovisionoftheunion'sconstitution
1. T he members shall be entitled to full and own choosing and to engage in lawful and by-laws, or disputes arising from
detailed reports from their officers and concertedactivitiesforthesamepurposefor chartering or affiliation of union.
representatives of all financial transactions their mutual aid and protection.
as provided for in the constitution and nion Chartering/Affiliation: Local
U
2. A
ny violation of the above rights and C
by-laws of the organization. and Parent Union Relations
conditions of membership shallbeaground
2. I t shallbethedutyofanylabororganization for
anditsofficerstoinformitsmembersonthe Registration with the DOLE
a. cancellation of union registration or
provisions of its constitution and by-laws, 1) Where to file. —
collective bargaining agreement, the b. e
xpulsion of officers from office,
a) R
egional Office where the applicant
prevailing labor relations system and all whichever is appropriate.
principally operates.
their rights and obligations under existing 3. A
t least thirty percent (30%) ofthemembers
labor laws. i) independent labor unions,
of a union or any member or members
3. F or this purpose, registered labor specially concerned may report such ii) chartered locals,
organizationsmayassessreasonableduesto violation to the Bureau of Labor Relations. iii) workers' associations.
finance labor relations seminars and other TheBureaushallhavethepowertohearand
b) B
ureau or the Regional Offices, but shall
labor education activities. decide any reported violation to mete the
be processed by the Bureau
appropriate penalty.
nforcement and Remedies;
E i) federations,
9 4. C
riminal and civil liabilities arising from
Procedure, Jurisdiction, and Sanctions violations of above rights and conditions of ii) national unions or
1. N
on-Abridgment of Right to membership shall continue to be under the iii) workers' associations
Self-Organization. — It shall beunlawfulfor jurisdiction ofordinary courts.
any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page235of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
rescribed, the application for registration
p
perating in morethanoneregion.(S
o ec1 uch legal personality may be questioned
S
Rule III Book 5) shall be denied, without prejudice to filinga
ONLY through an independent petition for
new application. (Sec 5 Rule IV Book 5)
2) Requirements for Application. — cancellation of union registration, and NOT
4) Appeal. —Thedenialmay be appealed to by way of collateral attack in petition for
a) independent labor union. — the name of certification election proceedings. (Sec 8
a) t he Bureau if denial is made by the
ll its members comprising at least 20%
a Rule IV Book 5)
Regional Office or
of the employees in the bargaining unit;
(S
ec 2-A Rule III Book 5) b) t he Secretary if denial is made by the Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter
Bureau, 1. A
duly registered federation or national
b) f ederations and national unions. — the
resolution of affiliationofatleastten(10) ithin ten (10) days from receipt of such
w union may directly create alocalchapterby
legitimate labor organizations, whether notice, on the ground of grave abuse of issuing a charter certificate indicating the
independent unions or chartered locals, discretion or violation of these Rules. establishment of the local chapter. The
each of which mustbeadulycertifiedor chapter shall acquire legal personality only
he memorandum of appeal shall be filed
T
recognized bargaining agent in the for purposes of filing a petition for
with the Regional Office or the Bureau that
establishment where it seeks to operate. certification election from the date it was
issued the denial.
(S ec 2-B Rule III Book 5) issued a charter certificate.
he Bureau or the Office of the Secretary
T
3) D enial of Application. — Where the 2. T
he chapter shall be entitled to all other
shall decide the appeal within twenty (20)
documents supporting the application for rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
days from receipt of the records ofthecase.
registrationareincompleteordonotcontain organization only upon the submission of
(Sec 6-7 Rule IV Book 5)
therequiredcertificationandattestation,the the following documents in addition to its
5) E
ffect of Registration. — The labor union or charter certificate:
Regional Office or the Bureau shall, within
workers' association shall be deemed
one (1) day from receipt of the application, a. T
he names of the chapter's officers,
registered and vested with legal personality
notify the applicant concerned in writing of their addresses, and the principal
on thedate of issuanceof its
the necessary requirementsandtocomplete office of the chapter; and
thesamewithinthirty(30)daysfromreceipt a) certificate of registration or
b. T
he chapter's constitution and
of notice. b) certificate of creation of chartered local. by-laws
here the applicant concerned fails to
W
complete the requirements within the time
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page236of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
y-laws or amendments thereto, the
b argaining unit shall NOT be a ground to
b
Cancellation of registration minutes of ratification, the list of cancel the union registration. The ineligible
1) W heretofile.— Thepetitionforcancellation members who took part in the employees are automatically deemed
orapplicationfor voluntarydissolution shall ratification; removed from the list of membership of the
be filed in the regional office which issued union.
b) m
isrepresentation, false statements or
its certificate of registration or creation.
fraud in connection with the election of he affiliation of the rank-and-file and
T
I n the case of federations, national or officers,minutesoftheelectionofofficers, supervisory unions operating within the
industryunionsandtradeunioncenters,the and the list of voters; or same establishment to the same federation
bureau director may cancel theregistration. or national union shall NOT be a ground to
c) v
oluntary dissolution by the members.
(S ec 1 Rule XIV Book 5) canceltheregistrationofeitherunion.(S ec6
(Sec 3 Rule XIV Book 5)
2) W ho May File. — Any party-in-interestmay Rule XIV Book 5)
5) Voluntary Cancellation. —
commence a petition for cancellation of
a) a
t least two t hirds (2/3) o
f its general sian Institute of Management Faculty
A
registration, except in actions involving
membership v otes to dissolve the Association v. Asian Institute of Management
violations of Article 241, which can only be 2022
commenced by members of the labor organization
organization concerned. (S ec 2 Rule XIV aculty members are not managerial employees
F
b) i n a meeting duly called forthatpurpose
Book 5) who are disqualified from forming or joining a
and
labor organization. Moreover, the legitimacy of
3) E ffect of a Petition for Cancellation of c) a
napplicationtocancelitsregistrationis labor organizations cannot be collaterally
Registration. —Apetitionforcancellationof thereafter submitted by the board of the attacked in a petition for certification election.
union registration shall not suspend the organization to the regional/bureau
proceedings for certification election nor eanwhile,thegroundstocanceltheregistration
M
director, as the case may be.
shall it prevent the filing of a petition for of a labor organization are exclusive. If none of
d) T
heapplicationshallbeattestedtobythe thesegroundsareproventoexist,itsregistration
certification election. (ART 246.)
president of the organization. (Sec4Rule shall be sustained, owing to the State policy
4) Grounds for Cancellation.— XIV Book 5) according primacy to the right to
a) m
isrepresentation, false statement or 6) P
rohibited Grounds for Cancellation of self-organization.
fraud in connection with the adoptionor Registration. — The inclusion as union
ratification of the constitution and members of employees who are outside the
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page237of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
est assure to all employees the exercise of
b f registration due to misrepresentation, false
D Bargaining Unit o
their collective bargaining rights. (I SAE v. statement or fraud under the circumstances
1. A "bargaining unit" hasbeendefinedasa Quisumbing) enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code, as
roup of employees of a given employer,
g amended.
Commingling or Mixed Membership
comprised of allorlessthanalloftheentire
ixed-membership is NOT a ground for t he
M
body of employees, which the collective
cancellation of a union’s certificate o f
I nclusion as Members of Employees Outside
interestofalltheemployees,consistentwith
registration. The grounds are limited to the the Bargaining Unit
equitytotheemployer,indicatetobethebest
following: RT 256. Effect of Inclusion as Members of
A
suited to serve the reciprocal rights and
a) F
raud in the ratification of Constitution Employees Outside the BargainingUnit. —The
duties of the parties under the collective
and Bylaws; inclusion as union members of employees
bargaining provisions of the law. (U P v.
outside the bargaining unit shall not be a
Ferrer-Calleja) b) Fraud in election of officers;
ground for the cancellation of the registration
2. T he factors in determining the appropriate c) Voluntary dissolution of the union. Saidemployeesareautomatically
collective bargaining unit are i) By⅔of members; deemedremovedfromthelistofmembershipof
a. t he will of the employees (Globe said union.
ii) In a meeting called for the purpose;
Doctrine);
iii) n application tocancelsubmittedby
A
b. a ffinity and unity of the employees' E Bargaining Representative
the board attested to by the president;
interest, suchassubstantialsimilarity xclusive bargaining agent. — Refers to any
E
of work and duties, or similarity of iv) iled in the RO which issued the
F
legitimatelabororganizationdulyrecognizedor
compensationandworkingconditions Certificate of Registration.
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining
(S ubstantial Mutual Interests Rule); agent of all the employeesinabargainingunit.
oly Child Catholic School v. Sto. Tomas2013 En
H
c. prior collective bargaining history; and Banc (DOLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule I, Sec. 1(u))
d. similarity of employment status. I n case of alleged inclusion of disqualified Modes to acquire status as SEBA
3. T
he basic test of an asserted bargaining employeesinaunion,theproperprocedureforan our (4) ways of determining a bargaining
F
unit's acceptability is whether or not it is employer like petitioner is to directly file a agent:
fundamentally the combination which will petitionforcancellationoftheunion’scertificate
1. Request for SEBA certification;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page238of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
2. Certification election; requesting union or local who justifiably
A b. Certification and Consent Election
failstocompletetherequirementsshallhave OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rules VII and VIII, as
D
3. Run-off election; OR
ten (10)workingdaysfromnoticetocomply amended
4. Consent election. (DOLE D.O. No. 40-I-15) the same. The validation proceedings shall 1. Who may file?
a. SEBA Certification not exceed a total of fifteen (15) working
a. LLO. —
days from the date of the first validation
OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule I, Sec. 1, as
D
conference. i. Independent union;
amended by DOLE D.O. No. 40-J-22
ction On TheSubmission. —RDshallissue
A ii. National union or federation;
1. I nanunorganizedestablishmentwith1LLO.
within three (3) working days to the iii. Local chapter.
— the RD shall call a conference within five
requesting union or local a certification as
(5) working days for the submission of the b. E
mployer, when requested to bargain
SEBA.
following: collectively, and themajoritystatusof
ffect Of Certification. — Upon theissuance
E the requesting party is in doubt.
a. t henamesofemployeesinthecovered
of the certification as SEBA, the certified
bargaining unit who signify their c. I f in an organized establishment, the
union or local shall enjoy all the rights and
support for the certification, provided signature of at least 25% of all
privileges of an exclusive bargaining agent
that saidemployeescomprise atleast employees in the bargaining unit is
of all the employees in the covered
majorityof the covered BU; and bargaining unit
required.
b. c ertification under oath by the 2. V
enueandJurisdiction.—WiththeRegional
2. I n an unorganized establishment with > 1
president of the requesting union or Office which issued the petitioning union's
LLO.—RDshallreferthesametotheelection
localthatalldocumentssubmittedare certificate of registration or certificate of
officer for the conduct of certification
true and correct. creation of chartered local.
election.
I ftherequestingunionorlocal,withoutvalid 3. I n an organized establishment. — RD shall he petition shall be heard and resolved by
T
reason, fails to complete the requirements referthesametothemediator-arbiterforthe theMediator-Arbiter.
for SEBA certification during the validation determination oftheproprietyofconducting 3. When to File? A petition for certification
conference,therequestforSEBAcertification a certification election. election may be filedanytime,except:
shall be referred to the election officer for
the conduct of election. a. w
hen a valid certification, consent or
run-off election has been conducted
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page239of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ithin the bargainingunitwithinone
w Granted Denied
d. fi
ling of a petition within one (1) year
(1) year prior to the filing of the from the date of a valid election;
petition for certification election; le protest on the daysfrom receipt
fi
e. w
here a duly certified union has conduct and results of
b. w hen the duly certified union has commenced and sustained the certification
commenced and sustained negotiationswiththeemployerwithin
negotiations in good faith with the election.
the one-year period, or
employer in accordance with thesaid Organized
one year period; here there exists a bargaining
w
deadlock; ppeal to SOLEwithin ten (10) daysfrom
A
c. w henabargainingdeadlockhadbeen
f. i n an organized establishment, the receipt
submittedtoconciliationorarbitration
or had become the subject of a valid failure to submit the 25% signature
a. T
he filing of the memorandum of
notice of strike or lockout; requirement;
appeal from the order or decision of
d. w hen a CBA has been registered. The g. n
on-appearance of the petitioner for the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of
petitionmaybefiledonlywithinsixty two (2) consecutive scheduled any certification election.
(60)dayspriortoitsexpiry(FREEDOM conferences; and
b. T
he decision of the Secretary shall
PERIOD). h. a
bsence of EER between all the become final and executory after ten
4. Grounds to Deny Petition. members of thepetitioningunionand (10) days from receipt thereof by the
the establishmentwheretheproposed parties. Nomotionforreconsideration
a. t he petitioner is not listed in the bargaining unit is sought to be of the decision shall be entertained.
department's registry of legitimate
represented.
labor unions or that its registration 6. Inclusion-exclusion proceeding
certificate has been cancelled with 5. Order of Election
a. A
llemployeeswhoaremembersofthe
finality; appropriate bargaining unit three (3)
Granted Denied
b. f ailuretosubmitadulyissuedcharter months prior to the filing of the
certificate; Unorganized petition/request shall be eligible to
vote.
c. fi
ling the petition before or after the s hall not be subject to A
ppeal to SOLE
freedom period; appeal. within ten (10)
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page240of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
b. A nemployeewhohasbeendismissed 9. C
onsent Election. — Refers to the election eclaresthatmanagerialemployeesareineligible
d
from work but has contested the voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with to joinanylabororganization—is,inasense,an
legality of the dismissalinaforumof or without the intervention of the DOLE, to accusation that respondent is guilty of
appropriate jurisdiction. determine the issue of majority misrepresentationforregisteringundertheclaim
representation of all the workers in the that its members are not managerial employees.
7. P roclamation and Certification oftheResult
oftheElection. —Within24hoursfromfinal appropriate collective bargaining unit.
c. B
ars to the Holding of Certification
canvassofvotes,therebeingavalidelection,
sian Institute of Management v. Asian Institute
A Election
the SEBA, shall be proclaimed by the
of Management Faculty Association2017 OLE D.O. No. 40- 03, Rule VIII, Sec. 14,and
D
Med-Arbiter under any of the following
conditions: I n case of alleged inclusion of disqualified Rule XVII, Sec. 7, as amended; Omnibus
employeesinaunion,theproperprocedureforan Rules, Book V, Rule III, Sec. 14 (e)
a. n oprotestwasfiledor,evenifonewas
employer is to directly file a petition for 1. C
ontract Bar rule. — BLR shall not entertain
filed, the same was not perfected
cancellation of the union's certificate of any petition for certification election or any
within the five-day period for
registration due to misrepresentation, false other action which may disturb the
perfection of the protest;
statement or fraud. administration of duly registered existing
b. n o challenge or eligibility issue was collective bargaining agreements affecting
ON the BLR was correct in holding that being
W
raised or, even if one was raised, the
composed of managerial employees is not a the parties. Theexceptionsare as follows:
resolution of the same will not
ground for canceling the certificate of a. during the60-day freedom period;
materially change the results of the
registration of a labor organization.
elections. b. w
hen the CBA is not registered with
O. Petitioner was correct in filingapetitionfor
N the BLR or DOLE Regional Offices;
he winning union shallhavetherights,
T
cancellation of respondent's certificate of
privileges and obligations of a duly c. w
hen the CBA, although registered,
registration. Petitioner's sole ground for seeking
certified collective bargainingagent from contains provisions lower than the
cancellation of respondent's certificate of
the time the certification is issued. standards fixed by law;
registration — that its members are managerial
8. A ppeal. — The decision of the Med-Arbiter employees and for this reason, its registrationis d. w
hen the documents supporting its
may be appealedtotheSecretarywithinten thus a patent nullity for being an absolute registration are falsified, fraudulentor
(10) daysfrom receipt. violation of Article 245 of the Labor Code which tainted with misrepresentation;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page241of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
e. when the CBA is not complete; d. Failure of Election, Run-off Election, a. t o break a tie between contending
Re-run Election
f. w unions, including between "no union"
hen the CBA was entered into prior
OLE D.O. No. 40-03, Rule IX, Secs.17-19,as
D and one of the unions.
to the 60-day freedom period;
amended
g. w b. a
fter a failure of election has been
hen there is a schism in the union
1. Failure of Election.— declared by the electionofficerand/or
resulting in an industrial dispute
wherein the CBA can no longer foster a. W
herethenumberofvotescastisless affirmed by the mediator-arbiter.
industrial peace. than the majority of the number of c. W
hen the certification election is
eligible voters and there are no nullified.
2. D eadlock Bar rule. — neither may a
material challenged votes.
representation question be entertained if:
b. I t shall not bar the filing of a motion ollective Bargaining and
C
a. b efore the filing of a petition for F
for the immediate holding of another Administration
certification election, the duly
certification or consent election
recognized or certified union has collectivebargainingagreementorCBAisthe
A
within six (6) months from date of
commenced negotiations with the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
declaration of failure of election.
employer within the one-year period; organization and the employer concerning
or c. Are-run electionis then called. wages, hours of work and all other terms and
2. R
un-off Election. — Refers to an election conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.
b. a bargaining deadlock had been
submittedtoconciliationorarbitration between the labor unions receiving the two hus,wheretheCBAisclearandunambiguous,
T
or had become the subject of valid (2) highest number of votes when a it becomes the law between the parties and
notice of strike or lockout. certification election which provides for compliance therewith is mandated by the
three(3)ormorechoicesresultsinnochoice express policy of the law.
3. C ertification Year Bar rule. — Acertification
receiving a majority of the valid votes cast;
election petition maynotbefiled withinone
provided, that the total number of votes for lark Development Corporation v. Association of
C
(1) year: CDC Supervisory Personnel Union2022
allcontendingunionsisatleastfiftypercent
a. f rom the date of a valid certification, (50%)of the number of votes cast. he right of government employees to collective
T
consent or run-off election; or
3. R
e-run election. — Refers to an election bargaining and negotiation is subject to
b. from the date of SEBA certification. conducted limitations. Only the terms and conditions of
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page242of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
overnmentemploymentnotfixedbylawcanbe
g ature of an exception. It denotes that the
n olicy and decision-making processes affecting
p
negotiated. moratorium continues up to a particular their rights and benefits as may be provided by
time, i.e., when the President authorizes law.
ON the CA and the AVA erred in allowing the
W
anew the grant of the prohibited increases.
grant of additional benefits. CBA is a product of a constitutionally-
A
1. Y 6. T
he Court takes judicial notice that the guaranteed right to participate and is therefore
ES. The CDC has valid reason not to
implement the increases in salaries and President never lifted the moratorium from the law between the parties. Hence, the parties
the timeitwasissuedonSeptember8,2010. areobligedtocomplywithitsprovisions.Section
benefits as provided in the renegotiated CBA.
As such, the economic terms of the CBA 2,ArticleXVIoftheCBAstatesthatPBCom"shall
2. T
he right of government employees to executed on March 20, 2012 are void for maintain its existing loan program, i.e., the
collective bargaining and negotiation is violating the law. Multi-PurposeLoanProgramforemployees."The
subject to limitations. Only the terms and term "existing" could not refer to any loan
conditions of government employment not 7. T
he CA and the AVA erred in declaringthat
EO No. 7, Series of 2010, does not coverCDC programotherthanthatwhichhadalreadybeen
fixed by law can be negotiated. in force at the time of the effectivity of the CBA
since it is a GOCC without original charter.
3. T
he prohibitioninEONo.7,Seriesof2010is Yet, there is nothing in the law that makes where employees could avail themselves of
broadly worded andrevealstheclearstance anyexpressdistinctionbetweenGOCCswith several loans simultaneously by pledging or
to halt the grant of additional salaries and utilizing their mid-year and year-end bonuses
original charter, and those incorporated
allowances to GOCCs' employees and under the Corporation Code. Ubi lex non regardlessofwhethertheirmonthlysalarycould
officers. still accommodate their loan amortizations;
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus.
provided, that the overall debt servicing for all
4. T
he only exception is when the increase of
types of loans would not exceed the allowable
salary is pursuant to the implementation of
debt service ratio.
the first and second tranches of the Salary PBCom Employees Association v. PBCom2022
Standardization Law (SSL). Obviously, the owever, with PBCom's new policy, the
H
ON the latest policy of PBCom on its loan
W
renegotiatedeconomicprovisionsoftheCBA employees can use their mid-year/year-end
program violates PBCEA's right to collective
between CDC and ACSP are outside the SSL. bonuses to pay for the loan amortizations
bargaining.
provided that their net take home pay is
5. S
mall Business Corporation v. COA
ES. No less than the 1987 Constitution
Y insufficient to cover the value of their loan
explained that the clause "until specifically
guaranteestherightsoftheworkerstocollective amortizations.
authorized by the President" is not in the
bargainingandnegotiationsandtoparticipatein
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page243of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
t he grant of loans beyond the terms of the CBA ffective before the negotiation and
e
BCom asserts that the conditions it introduced
P
are reasonable and imposed pursuant to a valid under the defense that such act isnothingmore execution of the 2011 and 2013 CBAs
exercise of management prerogative. The Court than imposing reasonable conditions affecting betweenSOHEAIandSHFC.GOCCsofficials
only the mode of payment of loans. and employees are not entitled to benefits
disagrees.
and increases without the approval of the
lthoughjurisprudencerecognizesthevalidityof
A President or the Governance Commission.
the employer's exercise of its management ocial Housing Employees Association v. Social
S
prerogative and that courts will not ordinarily II. WON SOHEAI is not entitled to SONA bonus.
Housing Finance Corporation2020
interfere with such exercise, this prerogative is 1. NO. SOHEAI is not entitled to SONA bonus.
he parties in a collectivebargainingagreement
T
not absolute. The valid exercise of management 2. A
may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms law must authorize the benefit before it
prerogative is subject to limitations imposed by may be granted to government officials or
and conditions as they may deem convenient
law,thecollectivebargainingagreement,andthe employees.Yet,theSONAbonuswasgiven
provided these are not contrary to law, morals,
general principles of fair play and justice. merely as a gratuity. It is not expressly or
good customs, public order, or public policy.
herefore, the provisions of the CBA bind allthe
T impliedly anchored in any law.
I. W
ON the new benefits and increases must
parties and mustberespectedduringitslifetime
be given because SHFC negotiated on them
because its terms and conditions constitute the Procedure in Bargaining
despite knowledge of the moratorium.
law between them. Unless and until a new CBA
RT 261. Procedure inCollectiveBargaining.
A
is executed between the parties, "they are 1. N
O. SHFC lacks authority to negotiate on
—Thefollowingproceduresshallbeobserved
duty-bound to keep the status quo and to the economic provisions of the CBA in
in collective bargaining:
continue in full force and effect the terms and viewoftheprohibitionsunderEONo.7and
conditions of the existing one." RA No. 10149. 1. W
hen a party desires to negotiate an
ll told, PBCom's implementation of the latest
A 2. S
OHEAI and SHFC may establish in their agreement, it shall serve a written
policy on its loan program is ablatantdisregard CBAs such terms and conditions that are notice upon the other party with a
orcircumventionofArticle264oftheLaborCode. not contrary to Iaw. Notably, there are statement of its proposals.
Also, to uphold PBCom's defense that the new existing and subsequent laws prohibiting
he other party shall make a reply
T
policy is a valid exercise of its management GOCCs like SHFC from negotiating the
thereto not later than ten (10)calendar
prerogative might set a precedent in giving the CBAs' economic provisions.
days from receipt of such notice;
banks alicensetoundulyadd,modify,orrestrict 3. EO No. 7 and RA No. 10149 are already
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page244of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ntertainedandnocertificationelectionshall
e
2. S hould differences arise, either party 1. t heperformanceofamutualobligation
beconductedbytheDOLEoutsideofthesixty
may request for a conference which to meet and convene promptly and
shall begin not later than ten (10) expeditiously in good faith (60) day period immediately before the date
calendar days from the date of request. of expiryof such five-year term of the CBA.
2. f or the purpose of negotiating an
3. I f the dispute is not settled, the Board agreement with respect to wages, All other provisions of the CBA shall be
shall intervene and immediately call hours of work and all other terms and r enegotiated not later than three (3) years
the parties toconciliation meetings; conditions of employment including after its execution.
proposals for adjusting any grievances ny agreement on such other provisions of
A
4. xxx and
or questions arising under such the CBA entered into within six (6) months
5. T he Board shall exert all efforts to agreement and from the date of expiry of the term of such
settledisputesamicablyandencourage
3. e
xecuting a contract incorporating other provisions as fixed in such CBA, shall
the parties to submit their case to a
such agreements if requestedbyeither retroact to the day immediately following
voluntary arbitrator.
party but such duty does not compel such date.
Duty to bargain collectively any party to agree to a proposal or to I f anysuchagreementisenteredintobeyond
RT 262. Duty to Bargain Collectively in the
A make any concession. six months, the parties shall agree on the
Absence of Collective Bargaining RT 264. Duty to Bargain Collectively When
A duration of retroactivity thereof. In caseofa
Agreements. — In the absence of an There Exists a CBA. — When there is a CBA, deadlock in the renegotiation oftheCBA,the
agreement or other voluntary arrangement parties may exercise their rights under this
the duty to bargain collectively shall also
providing for a more expeditious manner of Code.
mean that neither party shall terminate nor
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of
modify such agreement during its lifetime.
employer AND the representatives of the Economic Provisions and Conditions
employees to bargain collectively in RT 265. Terms of a Collective Bargaining
A
Economic provisions include monetary value of
accordance with the provisions of this Code. Agreement. — Any CBA that the parties may
enter into shall, insofarastherepresentation 1. wage increases,
RT 263. Meaning of Duty to B
A argain aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) 2. loan benefits,
Collectively. — The duty to bargain years.
collectively means 3. bonuses,
Nopetitionquestioningthemajoritystatusof
the incumbent bargaining agent shall be 4. allowances,
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page245of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
i n full force and effect the terms and
5. retirement plan, and 3. “ No Strike, No Lockout” Clause. — No strike
conditions of the existing agreement during
6. other fringe benefits. or lockout shall occur during the effectivity
of the CBA. However, this only appliesifthe the 60-day period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties.
Non-Economic Provisions and Conditions ground relied upon is economic in nature.
On the other hand, non-economic clauses include The “No Strike, No Lockout” clause is
Union security clause
inapplicable to prevent a strike or lockout
1. union security clauses, “union securityclause”isastipulationinthe
A
which is grounded onULP.
2. grievance procedures, CBA whereby the management recognizes that
4. Provision on wage increases.
the membership of employees in the union
3. l abor-management cooperation schemes,
5. W
hat are the remedies in case of CBA which negotiated said agreement should be
and
deadlock? In case of a deadlock in the maintained and continued as a condition for
4. other provisions without monetary value. negotiation or renegotiationofthecollective employment or retention of employment. The
bargaining agreement, the parties may obvious purpose is to safeguard andensurethe
andatory provisions in a Collective
M exercisethefollowingrightsundertheLabor continued existence of the union.
Bargaining Agreement Code:
nforcement
E of union security clause;
1. G rievance Procedure. —Theyshallestablish
a. C
onciliation and mediation by the Requisites
a machinery for the adjustment and
NCMB, DOLE.
resolution of grievances arising from a. The union security clause is applicable;
b. D
eclaration of a strike or lockout, as
a. t he interpretation or implementation b. T
he bargaining union is requesting for
the case may be.
of their CBA and the termination of employment due to
c. R
eferral of case to compulsory or enforcement of the clause in the CBA;
b. t he interpretation or enforcement of
voluntaryarbitration. and
company personnel policies.
Freedom period c. T
here is sufficient evidence to support
2. V oluntary Arbitration. — All grievances
the union’s decision to expel the
submittedtothegrievancemachinerywhich reedom period. — However, eitherpartycan
F
employee from the union.
are not settled within seven (7) calendar serve a written noticetoterminateormodify
days from the date of its submission shall theagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriorto
Alabang Country Club v. NLRC
automatically be referred to voluntary itsexpirationdate.Itshallbethedutyofboth
arbitrationprescribed in the CBA. partiestokeepthe statusquo andtocontinue
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page246of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
he Club and the Union entered i nto a C
T BA,
O. The Plan was never made part of the CBA.
N ince the subject CBA provision is an insurance
S
which provided for a Union s hop a nd Tolerating HSBC's conduct would betantamount contract, the rightsandobligationsoftheparties
maintenance of membership shop.
to allowing a blatant circumvention of Article must be determined in accordance with the
fter an auditofUnionfunds,theUnionnotified
A 253. It would contravene the express prohibition general principles of insurancelaw.Beinginthe
respondents Pizarro, Braza, and Castueras of the against the unilateral modification of a CBA nature of a non-life insurance contract and
audit results and asked them to explain the duringitssubsistenceandeventhereafteruntila essentially a contract of indemnity, the CBA
discrepancies in writing. new agreement is reached. provision obligates MMPC to indemnify the
covered employees’ medical expenses incurred
espite their explanations they were expelled
D SBC's enforcementofcreditcheckingonsalary
H
from the Union formalversationofUnionfunds. loans under the CBA invalidly modified the by their dependents but only up to the extent of
The Union, invoking the Security Clause of the latter's provisions thereon through the theexpensesactuallyincurred.Thisisconsistent
CBA, demanded that the Club dismiss them. imposition of additional requirements which withtheprincipleofindemnitywhichproscribes
the insured from recovering greater than the loss.
ermination of employment by virtueofaunion
T
cannot be found anywhere in the CBA.
security clause embodiedinaCBAisrecognized
and accepted in our jurisdiction. This practice
itsubishi Motors Phils Salaried Employees
M G Unfair Labor Practice
strengthens the union and prevents disunity in
Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp.2013
the bargaining unit within the duration of the RT 258. Concept of Unfair Labor Practice
A
CBA. ON member-employees are entitled to full
W
and Procedure for Prosecution Thereof. —
reimbursement of medical expenses incurredby
Unfair labor practices violate the
their dependentsregardlessofanyamountspaid
constitutional right of workers and
ongkong Bank Independent Labor Union v.
H by the latter’s health insurance provider.
employees to self-organization, are inimical
HSBC2018
O.TheconditionssetforthintheCBAprovision
N to the legitimate interests of both labor and
ON HSBC could validly enforce the
W indicate an intention to limit MMPC’s liability management, including theirrighttobargain
credit-checking requirement under its only to actual expenses incurred by the collectively and otherwise deal with each
BSP-approved Plan inprocessingthesalaryloan employees’ dependents, that is, excluding the other in an atmosphere of freedom and
applicationsofcoveredemployeesevenwhenthe amounts paid by dependents’ other health mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and
said requirement is not recognized under the insurance providers. hinder the promotion of healthy and stable
CBA. labor-management relations.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page247of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
roof of compliance of the requirements
p
onsequently, unfair labor practices are not
C 6) T
o dismiss,dischargeorotherwiseprejudice
therein set forth.
onlyviolationsofthecivilrightsofbothlabor or discriminate against an employee for
and management but are also criminal By Employers aving given or being about to give
h
offenses against the State. testimony under this Code;
1) T
o interfere with, restrain or coerce
ubject to the exercise by thePresidentorby
S 7) To violate theduty to bargain collectively;
employees in the exercise of their right to
the SOLE of the powers vested in them by
self-organization; 8) T
o pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the
Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil
2) Y
ellow Dog Contract. To require as a union or its officers or agents as part of the
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor
conditionofemploymentthatapersonoran settlement of any issue in collective
practices, which may include claims for
employee shall not join a labororganization bargaining or any other dispute; or
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages, attorney's fees and other or shall withdraw from one to which he 9) To violate acollective bargaining agreement.
affirmative relief, shall be under the belongs;
10)NOTES
jurisdiction of theLabor Arbiters. 3) T
o contract out services or functions being
performed by union members when such a) A
stoviolationofCBA.—ItisULPifwhat
he Labor Arbiters shall resolve such cases
T
is violated is an ECONOMIC provision of
withinthirty(30)calendardaysfromthetime will interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to the CBA and that the violation is gross
they are submitted for decision.
and flagrant; otherwise, it is not ULP.
self-organization;
ecovery of civil liability in
R t he
b) As to jurisdiction
administrative proceedings shall bar 4) T
o initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise
recovery under the Civil Code. interfere with the formation or i) A → NLRC → CA. —
L gross and
administration of any labor organization, flagrant violation of an economic
o criminal prosecution may be instituted
N
including the giving of financial or other provision, aULP;
without a final judgment finding that an
support to it or its organizers or supporters;
unfair labor practice was committed, having ii) rievance Machinery → VA → CA. —
G
been firstobtained.Thefinaljudgmentinthe 5) T
o discriminate in regardtowages,hoursof violation of
administrative proceedings shall not be work and other terms and conditions of
1. a political provision; or
binding in the criminal case nor be employment in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor 2. a
n economic provision thatisNOT
considered asevidenceofguiltbutmerelyas
organization. gross and flagrant.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page248of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c) T otality of Conduct Doctrine. — eitherwasitmeanttointerferewiththeUnion's
N 4) F
eatherbedding.Tocauseorattempttocause
Expressions of opinion by an employer activities.Likewise,petitionerfailedtoprovethat anemployertopayordeliveroragreetopay
which, though innocent in themselves, the proceedings were done with haste and bias. ordeliveranymoneyorotherthingsofvalue,
frequently were held to be culpable Finally, petitioner cannot raise the defense that in the nature of an exaction, for services
because of the circumstances under hewastheUnion'spresident;thisdoesnotmake which are not performed or not to be
which they were uttered, the history of him immune from liability for his acts of performed, including the demand for fee for
the particular employer's labor relations misconduct. union negotiations;
or anti-union bias or because of their
5) T
oaskfororacceptnegotiationorattorney's
connection withanestablishedcollateral By Labor Organizations fees from employers as part of the
plan of coercion or interference.
settlement of any issue in collective
1) T
o restrain or coerce employees in the
bargaining or any other dispute; or
SONEDCO v. Universal Robina2016 exercise of their right to self-organization.
However,alabororganizationshallhavethe 6) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
n employer who refuses to bargain with the
A
right to prescribe its own rules withrespect
unionandtriestorestrictitsbargainingpoweris Examples of ULPs
to the acquisition or retention of
guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining
membership; 1) S
urface bargaining. — Defined as “going
whether an employer has not bargained in good
through the motions of negotiating”without
faith,thetotalityofalltheactsoftheemployerat 2) T
o causeorattempttocauseanemployerto
discriminateagainstanemployee,including any legal intent to reach an agreement.
the time of negotiations must be taken into
account. discrimination against an employee with I t involves the question of whether an
respect to whom membership in such employer’s conduct demonstrates an
organizationhasbeendeniedortoterminate unwillingness to bargain in good faith or is
damson Univ Faculty and Employees Union v.
A an employee on any ground other than the merely hard bargaining.
Adamson Univ2020 usual terms and conditions under which
2) B
lue sky bargaining. — Makingexaggerated
membership or continuation ofmembership
etitioner's dismissal, which was brought about
P or unreasonable proposals.
is made available to other members;
by his personal acts, does not constitute unfair 3) Featherbedding. —see above.
labor practice as provided undertheLaborCode. 3) T
o violate the duty, or refuse to bargain
collectively withtheemployer, provided itis 4) Y
ellowdogcontract.— Anagreementwhich
Dismissing him was not meant to violate the
the representative of the employees; exacts from workers as a condition of
rightoftheuniversityemployeestoself-organize.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page249of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
mployment, that they shall not join or
e
8) B
oulwarism. — the tactic of making a he matter of respondent's alleged failure to
T
belong to a labor organization, or attempt to
"take-it-or-leave-it" offer in a negotiation, return petitioners' P300K which was lent to
organize one, during their period of with no further concessions or discussion.
employment or that they shall withdraw PORFA is immaterial as well. Itmaynotbeused
therefrom,incasetheyarealreadymembers as a ground to terminate respondent's
United Polyresins, Inc. v. Pinuela2017
employment; under the Labor Code, such a
of a labor organization.
ON Pinuela was illegally d
W ismissed as the contribution by petitioners to PORFA is illegal
5) R unaway shop. — Is anindustrialplantthat and constitutesunfair labor practice.
charges of misappropriation against him were
is moved by its owners fromonelocationto
unsubstantiated.
another to escapeunionlaborregulationsor
state laws. It may also be a relocation ES. Respondent's expulsion from PORFA is
Y
grounded on the union's Constitution. However, Peaceful Concerted Activities
motivated by anti-unionanimus ratherthan H
for business reasons. theseprovisionsrefertoimpeachmentandrecall Labor Code, R.A. No. 6727
of union officers, and not expulsion from union
6) C ontracting out. — It is only when the
membership. In short, anyofficerfoundguiltyof Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts
contracting out of a job, work or service
violating these provisions shall simply be
being performed by union members will
removed, impeached or recalled, from office, but Strikes
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
not expelled or stripped of union membership. " Strike" refers to any temporary stoppage of
in the exercise of their right to
self-organization that it shall be unlawful I t was therefore an error on the part of PORFA work bytheconcertedactionofemployeesasa
and shall constitute ULP. and petitioners to terminate respondent's result of a labor or industrial dispute.Elements:
employment based on said provision of the a) Temporary stoppage of work;
7) C ompany Union. — To initiate, dominate,
union's Constitution. Such a ground does not
assist or otherwise interfere with the b) Concerted activity;
constitute just cause for termination.
formation or administration of any labor
c) Labor dispute.
organization, including the giving of reviewofthePORFAConstitutionitselfreveals
A
financial or other support to it or its thattheonlyprovisionauthorizingremovalfrom There are only TWO strikeable grounds:
organizers or supporters. the union isfoundinArticleX,Section6,thatis,
a) Collective bargaining deadlock; AND
on the ground of failure to pay union dues,
special assessments,fines,andothermandatory b) ULP.
charges.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page250of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
Mandatory procedural requirements d) Didn’t bargain collectively first; Prohibited acts during strike
1) Based on a valid and factual ground; ART 279.Prohibited Activities. —
e) Violated the no strike no lockout clause;
2) Anotice of strikefiled with the NCMB; a. N
o labor organizationoremployershalldeclare
f) F
ailure to submit issues to grievance
a strike or lockout without first having
3) N oticeofstrikevotetotheNCMB,atleast24 procedure and exhaust the steps therein;
hours before such vote;
bargained collectively or without first having
g) While C-M is ongoing at NCMB; filed the notice required or without the
4) S trikevotewhereinatleastamajorityofthe necessary strike or lockout vote first having
h) Based on issues already brought to
membersoftheunionapprovetheholdingof been obtained and reported to the DOLE.
arbitration;
strike through secret balloting in a meeting
called for the purpose; i) P
ending case involving same ground in the o strike or lockout shall be declared after
N
notice of strike; assumption of jurisdiction by the President or
5) S trike vote report submitted at least 7 days
j) I n defiance ofanassumptionorcertification the SOLE or after certification or submission of
before intended date of strike;
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
or return-to-work order;
6) Cooling off period. arbitration or during the pendency of cases
k) In violation of a TRO or an injunction order; involving the same grounds for the strike or
a) Union busting= NONE;
l) A
fternoticeofstrikeconvertedtopreventive lockout.
b) ULP = 15 days;
mediation case; ny worker whose employment has been
A
c) CBD = 30 days;
m)Against prohibition by law; terminated as a consequence of any unlawful
From date of notice of strike is filed. lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with
n) By a minority union;
7) 7 day waiting period or strike ban after full backwages.
o) By an illegitimate union;
submission of strike vote report. ny union officer who knowingly participates
A
p) By dismissed EEs; in an illegal strike and any worker or union
When a strike is ILLEGAL
q) In violation of company code of conduct; officer who knowingly participates in the
a) D oesn’t comply with procedural commission of illegal acts during a strike may
r) A
s protest rallies in front of government
requirements; be declared to have lost his employment status.
offices;
b) For an unlawful purpose; ereparticipationofaworkerinalawfulstrike
M
s) As welga ng bayan.
c) Based on non-strikeable grounds; shall not constitute sufficient ground for
termination of his employment, even if a
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page251of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
r eplacement had been hired by the employer
“ Strike area" means the establishment, a) Collective bargaining deadlock; AND
during such lawful strike.
warehouses, depots, plants or offices, including b) ULP.
b. N o person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere thesitesorpremisesusedasrunawayshops,of
with by force, violence, coercion, threats or the employer struck against, as well as the Mandatory procedural requirements
intimidation, any peaceful picketing by immediate vicinity actually used by picketing 1) Based on a valid and factual ground;
employees during any labor controversy or in strikersinmovingtoandfrobeforeallpointsof
2) Anotice of lockoutfiled with the NCMB;
the exercise of the right to self-organization or entrance to and exit from said establishment.
3) N
otice of lockout vote to the NCMB, atleast
collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet such " Strike-breaker" means any person who
24 hours before such vote;
obstruction or interference. obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force,
violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any 4) L
ockout vote wherein at least a majority of
c. N o employer shall use o r employ any
peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or the members of the board of directors
strike-breaker, nor shall any person be
conditionsofworkorintheexerciseoftheright approve the holding of lockout through
employed as a strike-breaker.
of self-organization or collective bargaining. secret balloting in a meeting called for the
d. N opublicofficialoremployee,includingofficers purpose;
and personnel of the AFP or PNP, or armed Picketing
5) L
ockoutvotereportsubmittedatleast7days
person,shallbringin,introduceorescortinany
arching to-and-fro with placards that make
M before intended date of lockout;
manner, any individual who seeks to replace
known the issues between the establishment
strikers inenteringorleavingthepremisesofa 6) Cooling off period.
and the workers.
strike area, or work in place of the strikers. a) ULP = 15 days;
icketing is limited to harmless marching by
P
e. T he police force shall keep out of the picket b) CBD = 30 days;
employees who carry placardsorusespeechto
lines unless actual violence or other criminal
attract the public to their cause. From date of notice of lockout is filed.
acts occur therein.
Lockouts 7) 7
day waiting period or lockout ban after
f. N o person engaged in picketing shall commit
submission of lockout vote report.
any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or efers to the temporary refusal of an employer
R
obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the to furnish work as a result of a labor or Assumption of Jurisdiction by SOLE
employer's premises for lawful purposes, or industrial dispute.
obstruct public thoroughfares. hen, in his opinion, there exists a labor
W
Same grounds for strike
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page252of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
l ockout in an industry indispensable to the r endered moot when the NLRC upheld the
iii. ater supply services, to exclude
w
national interest, the SOLE may validity of the redundancy program.
small water supply services such as
1. a ssume jurisdiction overthedisputeand bottling and refilling stations; ES. When petitioner filed its Motion for
Y
decide it or iv. air traffic control; and ExecutiononpursuanttothisCourt'srulingthere
2. c ertify the same to the NLRC for was no longer any existing basis for the
v. s uch other industries as may be
compulsory arbitration. return-to-work order. This was because the
recommended by the National
SOLE's return-to-work order had been
Tripartite Industrial Peace Council
I n labor disputes adversely affecting the superseded by the NLRC'sResolution.Hence,the
(TIPC).
continued operation of such hospitals, clinics SOLE did not err in dismissing the motion for
or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of b. Effects of assumption of jurisdiction. execution on the ground of mootness.
the striking union or locking-out employer to i. n intended or impending strike or
O arcia v. Philippine Airlines upholds the
G
provide and maintain an effective skeletal lockout —automaticallyenjoinedeven prevailing doctrine that even if a LaborArbiter's
workforce for the duration of the strike or if a Motion for Reconsideration is filed. order of reinstatement is reversed onappeal,the
lockout.
ii. n actual strike or lockout — strikers
O employer is obligated "to reinstate and pay the
he President of the Philippines shall not be
T or locked out employees should wages of the dismissed employee during the
precludedfromdeterminingtheindustriesthat, immediately return to work and period of appeal until reversal by the higher
inhisopinion,areindispensabletothenational employer should readmit them back. court."
interest, and from intervening at any time and
iii. n cases filed or may be filed — All
O here is no order of reinstatement from a Labor
T
assuming jurisdiction over any such labor
shall be subsumed/absorbed by the Arbiterinthecaseatbar,instead,whatisatissue
dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.
assumedorcertifiedcaseexceptwhen is the return-to-work order from the SOLE.
a. I ndustry indispensable to the national the order specified otherwise. The
interest. — Sec 16, Rule XXII, Book V, as parties to the case should inform the
created by DOLE Department Order No. DOLE Secretary of pendency thereof. Jurisdiction and Reliefs
040-H-13
XI epublic Act No. 10396,Department Order
R
anggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v.
M
i. hospital sector; No. 151-16
PLDT2017
ii. electric power industry;
WON the return-to-work order of the SOLE was NLRC; Labor Arbiters
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page253of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
uestions involving the legality of strikes
q
NLRC Rules of Procedure (2011) ases arising from the interpretation or
C
and lockouts;
implementation of collective bargaining
Bureau of Labor Relations 6. E
xcept claims for employees compensation agreements and those arising from the
not included in the next succeeding interpretation or enforcement of company
I nter/Intra Union Disputes and Other
paragraph, social security, medicare, and personnel policies shall be disposed of by the
Related Labor Relations Disputes
maternity benefits, all other claims arising Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
National Conciliation Mediation Board fromemployer-employeerelations,including grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration.
those of persons in domestic or household
A NLRC; Labor Arbiters service,involvinganamountexceedingFive B NLRC Rules of Procedure (2011)
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not
abor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
L
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement; Injunction
jurisdiction to hear anddecidethefollowingcases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or 7. W
age distortion disputes in unorganized
1 Injunction
non-agricultural: establishmentsnotvoluntarilysettledbythe
parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727; 1. I NJUNCTION IN ORDINARY LABOR
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
DISPUTES. – A preliminary injunction or
8. E
nforcement of compromise agreements
2. Termination disputes; restraining order may be granted by the
when there is non-compliancebyanyofthe
3. I f accompanied with a claim for parties pursuant to Article 227 (now 233) of Commission through its Divisions pursuant
reinstatement,thosecasesthatworkersmay to the provisions of paragraph (e) of Article
the Labor Code, as amended;
file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of 225oftheLaborCode,asamended,whenitis
9. M
oney claims arising out of established on the basis of the sworn
work and other terms and conditions of
employer-employee relationship orbyvirtue allegations in the petition that the acts
employment;
of any law or contract, involving Filipino complained of involving or arisingfromany
4. C laims for actual, moral, exemplary and workers for overseas deployment, including labor dispute beforetheCommission,which,
other forms of damages arising from claims for actual, moral, exemplary and ifnotrestrainedorperformedforthwith,may
employer-employee relations; other forms of damages as provided by cause grave or irreparable damage to any
5. C
ases arising from any violation of Article Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA party or render ineffectual any decision in
279oftheLaborCode,asamended,including 10022; and favor of such party. A certification of
10.Other cases as may be provided by law.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page254of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
on-forum shopping shall accompany the
n t he threat or committing the s ufficient, if sustained, to justify the
petition for injunction. prohibited or unlawful act or actually Commission in the issuance thereof.
authorizingorratifyingthesameafter
he writ of preliminary injunction or
T 4. C
ASH BOND. – No temporary restraining
actual knowledge thereof;
temporary restraining order shall become order or writ of preliminaryinjunctionshall
effective only upon posting of the required b. T
hatsubstantialandirreparableinjury be issued except on the condition that
cashbondintheamounttobedeterminedby to petitioner's property will follow; petitioner shall first file an undertaking to
the Commission to answer for any damage answer for the damages and post a cash
c. T
hat as to each item of relief to be
thatmaybesufferedbythepartyenjoined,if granted,greaterinjurywillbeinflicted bond intheamountofFiftyThousandPesos
it is finally determined that the petitioneris upon the petitioner by the denial of (P50,000.00), or such higher amount as may
not entitled thereto. be determined by the Commission, to
relief than will be inflicted upon
2. I NJUNCTION IN STRIKES OR LOCKOUTS.– respondents by the granting of relief; recompense those enjoined for any loss,
A preliminary or permanent injunctionmay expense or damage caused by the
d. T
hat petitioner has no adequate improvident or erroneous issuance of such
be granted by the Commission only after
remedy at law; and order or injunction, including all reasonable
hearingthetestimonyofwitnessesandwith
opportunity for cross-examination in e. T
hat the public officers charged with costs, together with a reasonable attorney's
supportoftheallegationsofthecomplaintor the duty to protect petitioner's fee,andexpenseofdefenseagainsttheorder
property are unable or unwilling to or against the granting of any injunctive
petition made under oath, and testimony by
wayofoppositionthereto,ifoffered,andonly furnish adequate protection. relief sought in the same proceeding and
after a finding of fact by the Commission: subsequently denied by the Commission.
3. T
EMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;
REQUISITES. – If the petitioner shall also 5. E
FFECTIVITY OF TEMPORARY
a. T
hat prohibited or unlawful actshave
allege that, unless a temporary restraining RESTRAINING ORDER. – A temporary
been threatened and will be
committed and will be continued order shall be issued without notice, a restraining order shall be effective for no
unless restrained,butnoinjunctionor substantial and irreparable injury to longer than twenty (20) days reckonedfrom
petitioner's property will be unavoidable, the posting of the cash bond requiredunder
temporary restraining order shall be
issued on account of any threat, such a temporary restraining order may be theprecedingsection.Duringthesaidperiod,
prohibited or unlawful act, except issued upon testimony under oath, or by the parties shall be required to present
affidavits of the petitioner's witnesses, evidence to substantiate their respective
against the person or persons,
association or organization making positions in the main petition.
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page255of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
s hall be the subject of grievance procedure
6. E FFECTS OF DEFIANCE. – The order or c) A
ll disputes, grievances arising from or
and/or voluntary arbitration.
resolution enjoining the performance of affecting labor-management relations;
illegal acts shall be immediately executory 2) T
he Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working except those arising from interpretation
inaccordancewiththetermsthereof.Incase daystoactonlaborcasesbeforeit,subjectto or implementation of CBA which are
of non-compliance, the Commission shall extension by agreement of the parties. subject to grievance procedure and/or
impose such sanctions,andshallissuesuch voluntary arbitration.
RT245. CancellationofRegistration.—The
3) A
orders, as may be necessary to implement certificate of registration of any legitimate
the said order or resolution, including the labororganization,whethernationalorlocal, I nter/Intra Union Disputes and
enlistment of law enforcement agencies may be cancelled by theBureau. Other Related Labor Relations
D
having jurisdiction over the area for the Disputes
purpose of enforcing the same. 4) T
he BLR and thelaborrelationsdivisionsin
the regional offices have original and
oluntary Arbitration, Tripartite
V
exclusive authority to act motu proprio or
C Bureau of Labor Relations Voluntary Arbitration Advisory
upon request on: Council
1) A
RT 232. TheBureauofLaborRelationsand
a) I nter-union disputes or representation
the LaborRelationsDivisionsintheregional ffectsoftheFiling/PendencyofInter/intra-union
E
disputes — refer to cases involving
officesoftheDepartmentofLaborshallhave andOtherRelatedLaborRelationsDisputes.—The
petitionfor certificationelectionfiledbya
original and exclusive authority to act, at rights, relationships and obligations of the parties
duly registered labor org which seeks to
theirowninitiativeoruponrequestofeither litigants against each other and other
be the sole and exclusive bargaining
or both parties, on all inter-union and parties-in-interest prior to the institution of the
agent in an establishment.
i ntra-union conflicts, and all disputes, petition shall continue to remain during the
b) I ntra-union disputes or internal union pendency of the petition and until the date of
grievances or problems arising from or
disputes —disputesorgrievancesarising finalityofthedecisionrenderedtherein.Thereafter,
affecting labor-management relations in
from any violation of or disagreement the rights, relationships and obligations of the
all workplaces, whether agricultural or overanyprovisionoftheconstitutionand parties litigants against each other and other
non-agricultural, by-lawsoftheunion,includingviolations parties-in-interest shall be governed by the
xcept
e those arising from the on conditions of union membership as decision so ordered.
implementation or interpretation of per LC.
he filing or pendency of any inter/intra-union
T
collective bargaining agreements which
dispute andotherrelatedlaborrelationsdisputeis
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page256of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
ot a prejudicial question to any petition for
n
i. O
pposition toapplicationforunionandCBA oluntary Arbitration, Tripartite
V
certification election and shall not be agroundfor registration; Voluntary Arbitration Advisory
the dismissal of apetitionforcertificationelection Council
j. V
iolations of or disagreements over any
or suspension of proceedings for certification 1
provision in a union orworkers'association 021 Revised Procedural Guidelines in the
2
election.
constitution and by-laws; Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration
Inter/intra-union disputes shall include: Proceedings
k. D
isagreements over chartering or
a. C ancellation of registration of a l abor registration of labor organizations and 1) V
OLUNTARY ARBITRATION refers to the
organization filed by its members or b
y
collective bargaining agreements; modeofsettlinglabor-managementdisputes
another labor organization;
l. V
iolations of the rights and conditions of by which the parties select a competent,
b. C onduct of election of union and workers' union or workers' association membership; trained and impartial person who shall
association officers/nullification of election decide on the merits of the case and whose
of union and workers' association officers; m.Violations of the rights of legitimate labor
decision is final, executory and binding.
organizations, except interpretation of
c. A udit/accounts examination of union or collective bargaining agreements; and 2) A
ll grievances which are not settled or
workers' association funds; resolvedwithinseven(7)calendardaysfrom
n. S
uchotherdisputesorconflictsinvolvingthe
d. Deregistrationof CBAs; exhaustionofthegrievancemachineryshall
rights to self-organization, union
automatically be referred to voluntary
e. V
alidity/invalidity ofunion affiliation or membership and collective bargaining
arbitration.
disaffiliation;
1. B
etween and among legitimate labor
3) P
owers. The Voluntary A
rbitrator/Panel of
f. V alidity/invalidity f
o organizations; or
Voluntary Arbitrators s hall have the
acceptance/non-acceptance for nion
u
2. B
etween and among members of a following powers:
membership;
union or workers' association.
a) To require any person to attend hearings;
g. V alidity/invalidity of
impeachment/expulsion of union and b) T
o order the witnesses to testify and
workers' association officers and members; produce such documents when the
relevancy of the testimony and the
h. Validity/invalidity of theSEBA certification;
materiality of documents have been
demonstrated;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page257of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
c) T o take whatever action is necessary to GR: All issues arising from labor and 4) C
omplaints against an agency whose
resolve the issue/s subject of the dispute employment shall be subject to the30-day license is revoked, cancelled, expired or
including the power to cite in contempt; mandatory conciliation-mediation. otherwise delisted; and
and,
EXC: 5) C
omplaints categorized under the POEA
d) T o issue a Writ of Execution to enforce Rules and Regulations as not subject to
a) N
otices of strike/lockout or preventive
final decisions. SEnA.
mediation cases with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB); o-conciliation-mediation. — Coordinated C-M
C
ational Conciliation Mediation
N by two or more SEADs shall be observed if the
b) I ssues arising from the interpretation or
Board
E RFA is filed with the SEAD most convenient to
implementation of the collective bargaining
Labor Code, Article 219(c) the requesting party but outside the region
agreement and those arising from
where the employer principally operates, the
he agency attached to DOLE principally
T interpretation or enforcement of company
SEADO shall entertain the same and
in-charge of the settlement of labor disputes personnel policies which should be
co-conciliate-mediate with the SEAD of the
through conciliation, mediation, and promotion processed through thegrievance machinery.
region where the employer principally operates.
of voluntary approaches to labor dispute c) A
pplications for exemption from Wage
prevention and settlement. onsolidation of RFA. — Where two or more
C
Orders with the National Wages and
RFAs involving the same respondingpartyand
Productivity Commission (NWPC)
Salient Points of RA 10396 issues are filed before different SEADs within
d) V
iolations of POEA Rules and Regulations the same region/office/unit, the RFAs shall be
1) L A or the appropriateDOLEAgencythathas
involving: consolidated before the first SEAD taking
jurisdiction over the dispute shall only
entertain onlyendorsedorreferredcasesby 1) S
erious offenses and offenses penalized cognizance of the RFAs, when practicable.
the duly authorized officer. with cancellation of license;
Schedule of Conferences
2) A ny or both parties to the dispute may 2) D
isciplinary actions against overseas a. I nitial—within5workingdaysfromdateof
pre-terminatetheC-Mandrequestreferralto workers/seafarers which are considered
assignment of RFA;
the appropriate DOLE Agency, or if both serious offenses or which carry the
penalty of delisting from the POEA b. S
ucceeding — as many within the 30 day
agree,refer the unresolved issue for VA.
registry at first offense; mandatory C-M period;
DOLE DO No 151-16or theSEnA IRR
3) Complaints initiated by the POEA; c. Resetting —GR: not allowed;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page258of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
XC: reasonable ground, concurred by other
E 3. E
ncouragepartiestogenerateoptionsand 4. Non-settlement of one or more issues;
party. In such case, the conference shall be enter into stipulations; 5. Non-compliance with agreement.
held not later than 3 calendar days from 4. O
ffer proposals and o
ptions toward No referral where the requesting party
original schedule;
mutually acceptable s olutions and
withdrew RFA.
d. Extension—GR: not extendible; voluntary settlement;
e. C
ognizance over referred RFAs — LA or
XC: mutual agreement and possibility of
E 5. P
repare the settlement agreement in appropriate DOLE agency.
settlement.15 calendar days. consultation with the parties; and
6. M
onitor the voluntary and faithful In case of settlement agreements
Conduct of C-M
compliance of the settlement agreement. a. R
educed in writing using the SEnA
a. Appearance—GR: Personal;
Settlement Agreement Form, signed by both
c. Pre-termination
XC:Lawyers,agentsmayappear,withSPAs
E parties andattestedby the SEADO.
in the following circumstances: 1. W
ritten withdrawal by the requesting
b. A
greementonmonetaryclaimsarisingfrom
party;
i. Party is outside of country; violationsoflaborstandardsshallbefairand
2. N
on-appearance of either parties in two reasonable, and not contrary to law, public
ii. Party is a minor or incapacitated; or
(2) consecutive scheduled conferences morals and public policy.
iii. arty died, with which the heir may
P despite due notices; or
c. Types
appear presenting:
3. R
equest for referral to the appropriate
1. Death Certificate; i. Full;
DOLE office or agency by the requesting
party or both parties prior to the ii. artial - installment, or reinstatement is
P
2. N SOMarriageorBirthCertificateto
prove relationship. expiration of the 30-day period. on a future agreed date.
b. C-M Process— TheSEADOshall: d. Issuance of Referral— within 1 day after: d. T
heSEADOshallattachadulyaccomplished
waiver and quitclaim document as proof of
1. C larify the issues, validate positions and 1. Expiration;
full compliance.
determine the underlying issues; 2. Failure to timely reach agreement;
e. I n caseofnon-compliance—Therequesting
2. N arrow down the disagreements and 3. N
on-appearance of respondingpartyin2 party may file an action for enforcement
broaden areas for settlement; consecutive scheduled conferences with the NLRC/POEA/DOLE Regional Office.
despite due notice;
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page259of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
f. F or enforcement through DOLE RO t he c) T
he employer or any authorized e) P
arties concerned must be formally
requesting party may request for the representative in cases of bargaining notified of the action taken by the
issuance of a writ of execution or the deadlocks and unfair labor practices. Regional Branch through a letter
conduct of compliance visit. signed by the Conciliator-Mediator
2) W
here to file. — A request for preventive
mediation,noticeofstrikeorlockoutshallbe handlingthecaseandapprovedbythe
Preventive Mediation Branch Director;
filed through personal service or by
Preventive Mediation Cases refer to labor
registered mail/private couriers with the f) T
he notice shall be dropped from the
isputes which are the subject of a formal or
d RegionalBranchhavingjurisdictionoverthe dockets and to be renumbered as a
informal requestforconciliationandmediation workplace of the union members. preventive mediation case; and
assistance sought by either or both parties or
upon the initiative of the Board. 3) C
onversion of Notice Strike/Lockout to g) A
conferenceshallbeimmediatelyset
Preventive Mediation — in converting a by the concerned
1) W ho may file a request for Preventive notice of strike or lockout to a preventive Conciliator-Mediator.
Mediation,NoticeofStrikeorLockout.—the mediation case the following guidelines
following may file a request for preventive
shall be observed: Conciliation v. Mediation
mediation, notice of strike or lockout: a) C
onciliation —isamildformofintervention
a) C
learly determine whethertheissue/s
a) T he president or any authorized by a neutral third party, the
raised is/are valid ground/s for NS/L;
representative of a certified or duly Conciliator-Mediator, who relying on his
recognized bargaining representative b) I f conversion is warranted, a written persuasive expertise, takes an active role in
in cases of bargaining deadlocks and recommendation from the assistingpartiesbytryingtokeepdisputants
unfair labor practices. Conciliator-Mediator handling the talking,facilitatingotherproceduralniceties,
caseisrequired,afterdueconsultation carrying messages back and forth between
b) I n the absence of a certified or duly with the Branch Director; theparties,andgenerallybeingagoodfellow
recognized bargaining representative,
c) T
he written recommendationmustbe who tries to keep things calm and
the president or any authorized
formally endorsed to the Branch forward-looking in a tense situation.
representative of a legitimate labor
organization in the establishment on Director for approval; b) M
ediation — is a mild intervention by a
grounds of unfair labor practice. d) T
he conversion shall be done before neutral third party, the Conciliator-Mediator,
the cooling-off period expires; whoadvisesthepartiesorofferssolutionsor
alternatives to the problems with theendin
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page260of261
Labor Lawand Social Legislationv1 Syllabus-basedReviewerwith Bar Chair Case Doctrinesfor the2025Barby Atty. Rehne Gibb N. Larena
iew of assisting them towards voluntarily
v
reaching their own mutually acceptable
settlement of the dispute.
All the best Future 🥑!
eCodal+Pro This material is availableONLYto eCodal+Pro subscribersfor theirPERSONALuse and mustNOTbe reproduced,distributed either for profit or for free. Page261of261
You might also like
- Att - Oo2qhmcpxigo5neml6o Pqelzaeedyr2a6tcevt8d14No ratings yetAtt - Oo2qhmcpxigo5neml6o Pqelzaeedyr2a6tcevt8d14451 pages
- 05 Criminal Law Syllabus-Based EREVIEWER 2025 v1No ratings yet05 Criminal Law Syllabus-Based EREVIEWER 2025 v1313 pages
- 2023 Civil Law Syllabus Based EREVIEWER v2.01No ratings yet2023 Civil Law Syllabus Based EREVIEWER v2.01270 pages
- 2025 Criminal Law Materials Lazaro JavierNo ratings yet2025 Criminal Law Materials Lazaro Javier250 pages
- Rights of The Accused, Flower Notes 2025No ratings yetRights of The Accused, Flower Notes 202515 pages
- 67 ALBA VS. ESPINOSA, G.R. NO. 227734, AUG. 9, 2017 (Four-Fold Test)No ratings yet67 ALBA VS. ESPINOSA, G.R. NO. 227734, AUG. 9, 2017 (Four-Fold Test)2 pages
- (Sample) 2024 Remedial Law Syllabus-Based ReviewerNo ratings yet(Sample) 2024 Remedial Law Syllabus-Based Reviewer49 pages
- RA 3019 - Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices ActNo ratings yetRA 3019 - Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act5 pages
- Corporation Law Take Home Exams (Class Participation)No ratings yetCorporation Law Take Home Exams (Class Participation)22 pages
- Civil Law Bar Lecture 2023 Prop - Wills - JGP50% (2)Civil Law Bar Lecture 2023 Prop - Wills - JGP215 pages
- UMak Barops 2025 Landmark Cases - LABOR LAW Q&ANo ratings yetUMak Barops 2025 Landmark Cases - LABOR LAW Q&A9 pages
- IV. UP - Procedure and Professional EthicsNo ratings yetIV. UP - Procedure and Professional Ethics132 pages
- YapKRev - Obligations and Contracts ReviewerNo ratings yetYapKRev - Obligations and Contracts Reviewer85 pages
- Family Code of The Philippines Summarized)No ratings yetFamily Code of The Philippines Summarized)8 pages
- Civil Law Review: Notes, Cases and Commentaries On Persons and Family RelationsNo ratings yetCivil Law Review: Notes, Cases and Commentaries On Persons and Family Relations101 pages
- 04 Labor Law Syllabus Based eREVIEWER 2024 v1.1No ratings yet04 Labor Law Syllabus Based eREVIEWER 2024 v1.1178 pages
- Harnessing The Power of Water Hydroelectric PlantsNo ratings yetHarnessing The Power of Water Hydroelectric Plants10 pages
- Detailed Project Report (DPR) :model Template: For Geranium (Crop)No ratings yetDetailed Project Report (DPR) :model Template: For Geranium (Crop)116 pages
- Reliance Industried LTD Annual Report-2019-2020No ratings yetReliance Industried LTD Annual Report-2019-2020221 pages
- Articles-Of-Incorporation Template For Buy and Sell CorporationNo ratings yetArticles-Of-Incorporation Template For Buy and Sell Corporation5 pages
- Annual Statistical Report Tourism Statistics 202 - 240730 - 214214No ratings yetAnnual Statistical Report Tourism Statistics 202 - 240730 - 21421431 pages
- Quotation for Rigsar Construction BhutanNo ratings yetQuotation for Rigsar Construction Bhutan1 page
- Enterprise Resource Planning ManagementNo ratings yetEnterprise Resource Planning Management28 pages
- Module in Bussiness Ethics: Prepared By: Lalaine Cochon-Nicdao, MpaNo ratings yetModule in Bussiness Ethics: Prepared By: Lalaine Cochon-Nicdao, Mpa5 pages
- Principles of Marketing Module 1 Weeks 1 To 5100% (1)Principles of Marketing Module 1 Weeks 1 To 523 pages
- Standard Costing Variance Analysis 4 Overhead VarianceNo ratings yetStandard Costing Variance Analysis 4 Overhead Variance19 pages
- Morocco Labour Relations and Collective BargainingNo ratings yetMorocco Labour Relations and Collective Bargaining28 pages
- CHAPTER II - MRL Rice Mill Problem Statement100% (1)CHAPTER II - MRL Rice Mill Problem Statement1 page
- Texas+General+Abroad+Careers+Solutions+Co 1 PDFNo ratings yetTexas+General+Abroad+Careers+Solutions+Co 1 PDF1 page
- The Role of Education in Economic Development: A Comparison of South Korea and KyrgyzstanNo ratings yetThe Role of Education in Economic Development: A Comparison of South Korea and Kyrgyzstan5 pages