Labor Law Lecture Bar Ops 2017 (Arranged) (1)

Updates on Labor Law and Jurisprudence by Atty. Leilanee Q. Dasig-Quanguey Labor Law Review Professor 04 November 2017 What is a labor dispute? ............................................................................................................3 Some Factors to Consider 3 Existence of employer employer-employee -employee relations 3 Tests of Employment Relations .................................................................................................3 1. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation, GR No. 202015, 13 July 2016 .......................................... 3 2. Felicilda vs Uy, GR No. 221241, 14 September 2016 .............................................................. 3 3. Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia, GR No. 197899, 06 March 2017 ................................................. 3

What is the effect of repudiation of employment relation in a contract? ................................. 3

1. Toyota Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ............................ 6 2. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian, et al, GR No. 204651, 06 August 2014 .......................................................................................................................... 7

Retirement Benefits ..................................................................................................................7 GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig, GR No. 210328, 30 January 2017 ....................................................... 7

Disability/Death Claims ...........................................................................................................7 Jebsens’ Maritime, Inc., Inc., et al vs Rapiz, GR GR No. 218871, 11 January 2017 2017 ................................... 7 C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. and/or JUAN JOSE ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO, GR No. 208215, 19 April 2017 .......................................... 7

1. Century Properties, Inc. vs Babiano and Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 .............. 3 2. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. vs. Alcantara, GR No. 195190, 28 July 2014 ......................... 3 3. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 .................. 3

Test/Proof Test/Proof of Compensability ....................................................................................................7

Perfected contract of employment ...........................................................................................3

Nature and Status of Employment 7 Regular Employment ................................................................................................................7

Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., et al, GR No. 220399, 22 August 2016 .......................................................................................................................... 3

Corporate officer vs. Employee ................................................................................................4 1. Wesleyan University-Phils. Vs. Maglaya, GR No. 212774, 23 January ..................................... 4

Independent Contractor vs Employee vs Labor Only Contractor ............................................4 1. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 .................. 4 2. Nestle Phils. Inc. vs Puedan, Jr., GR No. 220617, 30 January 2017 ......................................... 4

In the public sector ..................................................................................................................4 National Transmission Transmission Corporation vs COA, et al, GR No. 223625, 22 November 2016 ............. 4

Who has the power to determine employer-employee employer-employee relations? .............................................4 1. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. Tomas, GR 217575, 15 June 2016 .................... 4 2. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares, et al, GR No. 208986, 13 January 2016 .................... 5

Reasonable Causal Connection

5

1. Indophil Textile Textile Mills, Mills, Inc. vs Engr. Engr. Salvador Adviento, GR No. 171212, 04 August 2014 ........5 2. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaña, GR No. 200114, 24 August 2015 ............................ 5 3. Emer Milan, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 202961, 04 February 2015 ...................................... 5

Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues 5 Money Claims 5 Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................................5 Toyota Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ................................ 5

Covered Employees ...................................................................................................................6 Hilario Dasco, et al vs Philtranco Service E nterprises Inc./Centurion Solano, GR No. 211141, 29 June 2016 .............................................................................................................................. 6

Service Incentive Leave Pay ......................................................................................................6 Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride, Inc., GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017 .................................... 6

Of regular pakyaw workers ......................................................................................................6 A. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango, et al, GR No. 192282, 05 October 2016 ................................................................................................................... 6

Wages ......................................................................................................................................6

Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS, GR No. 204422, 21 November 2016 .......................................... 7

Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November November 2016 ....7

Project Employment .................................................................................................................8 1. E. Ganzon, Inc., et al vs Fortunato Ando, GR No. 214813, 20 February 2017 .......................... 8 2. Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 .. 8

Fixed-Term Employment ...........................................................................................................8 Atty. Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. vs Cor Jesus College, College, et al, GR No. 198350, 14 September 2016 ......8

Seasonal Employment ...............................................................................................................8 Zenaida Paz Paz vs Northern Tobacco Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. et al, GR No. 199554, 18 February 2015 ...8

Probationary Employment ........................................................................................................9 1. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme, et al vs San Juan de Dios Educa tional Foundation, Inc., GR Nos. 190015 & 190019, 14 September 2016 ................................................................................ 9 2. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje, GR Nos. 183200- 01, 183253 & 183257, 29 June 2016 ................. 9 3. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo, GR No. 209559, 09 December 2015 ........................................ 9

Terminations Disputes Terminations Preventive Suspension

9 9

Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President, GR No. 188681, 08 March 2017 .............................. 9

Constructive Dismissal

9

Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. vs Rachelle Balba, et al, GR No. 197492, 18 Janauary 2017 ....................................................................................................................... 9 Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College, GR No. 213137, 01 March 2017 .................... 10 Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals, Inc., GR No. 183934, 20 July 2016 ................ 10

Illegal Dismissal

10

Jinky Isabel vs Perla Perla Compaña de Seguros, Inc., GR No. 219430, 07 November November 2016 .............. 10 Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., GR No. 207838, 25 January 2017 ......................... 10 Sta. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club, Inc., GR No. 208459, 15 February 2017 ................................. 10 Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils, Inc., GR No. 214186, 03 August 2016 ................... 10

UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY

Interadent Zahntechnik Phils, Inc. et al vs Rebecca Simbillo, GR No. 207315, 23 November 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Marina’s Creation Enterprises, et al vs Romeo Ancheta, GR No. 218333, 07 December 2016 ...10

Valid Dismissal

11

Universal Canning Inc., et al vs CA, et al, GR 215047, 23 November 2016 ............................... 11 Philippine Auto Components Parts, Inc. vs Ronnie Jumadla, et al, GR No. 218980, 28 November 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 11 Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II E lectric Cooperative, Inc., GR No. 213934, 09 November 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 11 Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries, Inc et al, GR No. 207898, 19 October 2016 ................ 11 Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers, Inc., et al, GR 209086, 17 October 2016 .................... 11

Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal

11

1. TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans, Inc.) vs Esperanza Pinas, GR No. 189714, 25 January 2017 .................................................................................................... 11 2. PNCC Skyway Corporation, et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al, GR 196110, 06 February 2017 ................................................................................................................ 11 Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores, GR No. 225044, 03 October 2016 ............. 11 3. Julius Campol vs Balao-as, et al, GR No. 197634, 28 November 2016 .................................. 12

When an employee was not dismissed and also did not abandon his work ............................12 Dee Jay’s In and Café, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 .................... 12

Mergers and Separation Pay ...................................................................................................12 The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now known as Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings, Inc.), GR No. 190187, 28 September 2016 ................ 12

Labor Procedure Cause of Action Belatedly Filed

12 12

Dee Jay’s In and Café, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 .................... 12

Defective Service of Summons

13

Oyster Plaza Hotel, et al vs Errol Melivo, GR No. 217455, 05 October 2016 ............................ 13

No Service of Summons ..........................................................................................................13

Petition for Certiorari .............................................................................................................14 Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna, GR No. 197191, 21 November 2016 .............................. 14 Coca-cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent Organization-ALU, GR No. 220605, 21 September 2016 .................................................... 15

Appeal from CA to SC

15

Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs Elmer Mapagu, GR No. 196084, 15 February 2017 ............................................................................................................................................ 15

Petition for Review ..................................................................................................................15 Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 ............... 15

Petition for Certiorari .............................................................................................................15 Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs Romelia Rey, et al, GR No. 190203, 07 November 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 15

Satisfaction of Judgment 15 Release of Cash Bond .............................................................................................................15 CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology, Inc. et al vs Ma ria Veronica , Perez, GR 220506, 18 January 2017 .................................................................................................................. 15

Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction .....................................................................................16 Guillermo vs Uson, GR No. 198967, 07 March 2016 ................................................................

16

Liability of Corporate Officers ................................................................................................16 Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 1923, 05 December 2016 ............................................ 16

Third Party Claim ...................................................................................................................16 Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management, Inc. vs UE Monthly Associates, GR 181387, 05 September 2016 ..................................................................................................................

16

Indirect Employer ...................................................................................................................16 Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al, GR No. 188047, 28 November 2016 ...16

Doctrine of Stare Decisis ........................................................................................................16 Alumamay Jamias, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 159350 ........................................................... 16

Labor Organizations 16 Cancelation of Union organization ........................................................................................16

Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 192318, 05 December 2016 ........................................ 13

De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. vs. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. GR No. 192648, 15 March 2017 ................................................................................... 16

Forum Shopping .....................................................................................................................13

Agency Fees.............................................................................................................................17

Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic, GR No. 222424, 21 September 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 13

Res Inter Alios Acta Rule ........................................................................................................13

Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel, GR No. 218454, 01 December 2016 ............ 17

Unfair Labor Practice .............................................................................................................17

Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 ................... 13

SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp, Sugar DivisionSouthern Negros Dev’t Corp (SONEDCO), GR No. 220383, 05 October 2016 .................... 17

Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements ....................................................................13

Unfair Labor Practice .............................................................................................................17

Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 ................... 13

The Equipoise Doctrine ..........................................................................................................13

Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ...17

Dee Jay’s Inn and Café et al vs Ma. Lorina Rañeses, GR No. 191823, 05 October 2016 ............ 13

Violation of the duty to bargain collectively ..........................................................................17

Perfection of Appeal 13 Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond .............................................................................................13

Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ..17

Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron, et al, GR No. 207156, 16 January 2017 .........13 Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 ...............14

Return to work order ..............................................................................................................17

Timeliness of Appeal................................................................................................................14

Bargaining unit .......................................................................................................................18

Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ..14

What may be resolved on appeal ............................................................................................14 Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA, et al, GR No. 188658, 11 January 2017 .................................... 14

May a party who did not appeal obtain any affirmative relief? ..............................................14 Century Properties, Inc. vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT, Co. Inc., GR No. 190389, 19 April 2017 .....17 Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as “Super Lamination Services” v. Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), GR No. 193816, 21 November 2016 .................. 18


WHAT IS A LABOR DISPUTE? !

Any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

Some Factors to Consider ! !

Existence of employer-employee relations Reasonable Causal Connection Rule

EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS TESTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 1. Four-fold Test 2. Economic Reality Test 3. Two-tiered Test 1. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation, GR No. 202015, 13 July 2016 ! Guidelines indicative of labor law 'control' do not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the result. ! Sky Cable’s act of regularly updating petitioners who were account executives, of new promos, new price listings, meetings and trainings of new account executives; imposing quotas and penalties; and giving commendations for meritorious performance do not pertain to the means and methods of how petitioners were to perform and accomplish their task of soliciting cable subscriptions; merely pertain to regular monitoring of their work. 2. Felicilda vs Uy, GR No. 221241, 14 September 2016 ! A truck driver hired on per trip or commission basis is an employee; the method of computing his compensation is not a basis for determining the existence of employer-employee relations. ! Control can be safely deduced from the fact that: (a) respondent owned the trucks that were assigned to petitioner; (b) the cargoes loaded in the said trucks were exclusively for respondent's clients; and (c) the schedule and route to be followed by petitioner were exclusively determined by respondent. ! The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. 3. Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia, GR No. 197899, 06 March 2017 ! The crew members of a fishing boat who had an income-sharing arrangement with the boat owner (45%-55%), with an additional 4% as “backing incentiv”

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY (divided equally among them after deduction of their vales) are deemed employees of the boat owner. The fact that Mr. Lu had registered the crew members with SSS is proof that they were indeed his employees. The coverage of the Social Security Law is predicated on the existence of an employer- employee relationship.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF REPUDIATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATION IN A CONTRACT? 1. Century Properties, Inc. vs Babiano and Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 ! The existence of employer-employee relations could not be negated by the mere expedient of repudiating it in a contract; i.e., a Contract of Agency for Project Director ! Concepcion was continuously hired and promoted to perform functions necessary and desirable to the business; was given monthly subsidy and cash incentives without qualification; with the company reserving the power to discipline her and exercised the power of direct supervision through Babiano. 2. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. vs. Alcantara, GR No. 195190, 28 July 2014 ! At the very least, the provision on the absence of employer- employee relationship between the parties can be an aid in considering the Agreement and its implementation, and in appreciating the other evidence on record. ! The contract provides that "no employer-employee relationship exists between" Royale Homes and Alcantara, as well as his sales agents. It is clear that they did not want to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of the signing of the contract. 3. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ! Valencia’s claim that his work was supervised by Classique Vinyl does not hold water and was found to be a self-serving assertion unworthy of credence in the light of the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS categorically stating that the latter possessed not only the power of control but also of dismissal over him. PERFECTED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., et al, GR No. 220399, 22 August 2016 ! In this case, there was already a perfected contract of employment when petitioner signed ANZ's employment offer and agreed to the terms and conditions that were embodied therein. Nonetheless, the offer of employment extended to petitioner contained several conditions before he may be deemed an employee of ANZ. ! Jurisprudence states that when a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its effectivity shall take place only if and when the event which constitutes the


!

!

condition happens or is fulfilled. n other words, a perfected contract may exist, although the obligations arising therefrom — if premised upon a suspensive condition — would yet to be put into effect. Considering, however, that petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies in his declared information and documents that were required from him relative to his work experience at Siemens, that rendered his background check unsatisfactory, ANZ's obligations as a would-be employer were held in suspense and thus, had yet to acquire any obligatory force. Thus, until and unless petitioner complied with the satisfactory background check, there exists no obligation on the part of ANZ to recognize and fully accord him the rights under the employment contract.

CORPORATE OFFICER VS. EMPLOYEE 1. Wesleyan University-Phils. Vs. Maglaya, GR No. 212774, 23 January ! The president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as the principal or executive officers of a corporation, and they are usually designated as the officers of the corporation. However, other officers are sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the board of directors may be empowered under the by- laws of a corporation to create additional offices as may be necessary. ! An "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders, while an "employee" usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee. ! That the creation of the position is under the corporation's charter or by-laws, and that the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders must concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate officer, as against an ordinary employee or officer. ! The alleged "appointment" instead of "election" as provided by the by-laws neither convert the president of university as a mere employee, nor amend its nature as a corporate officer. ! His removal from office is not a labor dispute but an intra- corporate controversy

!

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY and, License as private recruitment and placement agency from the Department of Labor and Employment. These documents are not conclusive evidence of the status of CMS as a contractor. However, such fact of registration of CMS prevented the legal presumption of it being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. As the party asserting employment relations, Valencia has the burden to prove the same.

2. Nestle Phils. Inc. vs Puedan, Jr., GR No. 220617, 30 January 2017 ! Under the Distributorship Agreement, Nestle agreed to sell its products to ODSI at discounted prices, which in turn will be resold to identified customers, ensuring in the process the integrity and quality of the said products based on the standards agreed upon by the parties. ! The imposition of minimum standards concerning sales, marketing, finance and operations are nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice to increase sales and maximize profits. ! The relationship of Nestle and ODSI is not that of a principal and contractor (regardless of whether labor-only or independent), but that of a seller and a buyer/re-seller ! Nestle is not the true employer IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR National Transmission Corporation vs COA, et al, GR No. 223625, 22 November 2016 ! Employer-employee relationship in the public sector is primarily determined by special laws, civil service laws, rules and regulations. ! While the four-fold test and other standards set forth in the labor code may aid in ascertaining the relationship between the government and its purported employees, they cannot be overriding factors over the conditions and requirements for public employment as provided for by civil service laws, rules and regulations. ! Thus, the COA correctly disallowed the separation pay benefit of an employee because it pertained to services rendered under the service contract which was not attested to by the CSC.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR VS EMPLOYEE VS LABOR ONLY CONTRACTOR 1. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ! In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer- employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. ! The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. The principal employer therefore becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees ! To prove that CMS was a legitimate contractor, Classique Vinyl presented the former's Certificate of Registration with the Department of Trade and Industry

WHO HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS? 1. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. Tomas, GR 217575, 15 June 2016 ! Like the NLRC, the DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, considering that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of its visitorial power. ! Without an employer-employee relationship, or if one has already been terminated, the Secretary of Labor is without jurisdiction to determine if violations of labor standards provision had in fact been committed, and to direct employers to comply with their alleged violations of labor standards.


2. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares, et al, GR No. 208986, 13 January 2016 ! The Med-Arbiter dismissed the certification election case because of lack of employer-employee relationship between HRC and the union members. This was served after the termination of employment of the said members who subsequently filed an illegal dismissal case. Is the Labor Arbiter in the illegal dismissal case bound by the ruling of the Med-Arbiter regarding the existence of employer-employee relationship? ! There is no question that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a petition for certification election. As this is necessary and indispensable in the exercise of jurisdiction by the med-arbiter, his finding thereon may only be reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of Labor who exercises appellate jurisdiction under Article 259 of the Labor Code. ! However, in this case, the order was served after the termination of employment of the union members. The respondent union, without its memberemployees, was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the MedArbiter’s decision in the certification election case. Thus, the members of the respondent union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter. ! To dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the basis of the pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties, which the respondent union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. This, the Court cannot allow.

REASONABLE CAUSAL CONNECTION 1. Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs Engr. Salvador Adviento, GR No. 171212, 04 August 2014 ! Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts, specifically when the law provides otherwise. ! Reasonable causal connection rule: Where there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts; In the absence thereof, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. ! The company’s alleged gross negligence in maintaining a hazardous work environment cannot be considered a mere breach of the contract of employment but falls squarely within the elements of quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code since the negligence is direct, substantive and independent. ! Here, the cause of action is based on a quasi- delict or tort, which has no reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article 217, jurisdiction over the action is with the regular courts.

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY 2. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaña, GR No. 200114, 24 August 2015 ! A complaint for damages under Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code filed by an employee of an independent service contractor hired by the SSS to recover what she would have been entitled to as her proper salary had she been employed in the roster of regular employees of SSS falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. ! There being no employer-employee relationship between the parties, there is no labor dispute cognizable by the Labor Arbiters, or the NLRC. 3. Emer Milan, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 202961, 04 February 2015 ! As a general rule, a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor issue raised and must arise from an employer- employee relationship for the labor tribunals to have jurisdiction. ! Solid Mills allowed petitioners to use its property (SMI Village) as an act of liberality. The return of its properties in petitioners’ possession by virtue of their status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits can be released immediately. The issue raised by the employer is, therefore, connected to petitioners’ claim for benefits and is sufficiently intertwined with the parties’ employer-employee relationship. Thus, it is properly within the labor tribunals’ jurisdiction. ! The return of the property’s possession became an obligation or liability on the part of the employees when the employer- employee relationship ceased. Thus, respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners’ wages and benefits because of this existing debt or liability.

Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues ! ! !

Money Claims Nature and Status of Employment Termination Disputes

MONEY CLAIMS BURDEN OF PROOF Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ! Respondent's allegation of nonpayment of monetary benefits places the burden on the employer, i.e., petitioner, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that it paid said benefits and that the employee, i.e., respondent, actually received such payment or that the employee was not entitled thereto. ! It is well-settled that the failure of employers to submit the necessary documents that are in their possession gives rise to the presumption that the presentation thereof is prejudicial to its cause.


COVERED EMPLOYEES Hilario Dasco, et al vs Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc./Centurion Solano, GR No. 211141, 29 June 2016 ! The definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs is unsupervised by the employer. ! Field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. ! Thus, in order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the employee’s time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer. ! These drivers and/or conductors cannot be considered as field personnel because they are under control and constant supervision of the bus companies while in the performance of their work. SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride, Inc., GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017 ! The service incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other benefits granted by the law to every employee. ! If the employee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or commute the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of his accrued service incentive leave. ! His cause of action to claim the whole amount of his accumulated SIL shall arise when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of his resignation or separation from employment. ! Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's services, as the case may be. OF REGULAR PAKYAW WORKERS A. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango, et al, GR No. 192282, 05 October 2016 Are the pakyaw workers who are considered as regular workers entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, SIL and 13th month pay? ! In determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or "task basis" is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker's time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, then the general rule is that he is

!

!

! !

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of "field personnel" under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary benefits. In this case, respondents cannot be considered as "field personnel," since they regularly performed their duties at petitioners' place of business, their actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty, and petitioners supervised their time and performance of their duties. Thus, they are not exempted from the grant of holiday and SIL pay even as they were engaged on pakyaw or task basis. With respect to the payment of 13th month pay, however, respondents are not entitled to such benefit. Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 exempts employees "paid on task basis" without any reference to "field personnel” This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is concerned, the law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its coverage with the requirement that the task worker be a "field personnel" at the same time.

WAGES 1. Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ! Section 97 (f) of the Labor Code reads: "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. ! While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire employees to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered. ! De Peralta’s (an Insurance Sales Executive) claims for commissions, tax rebates and success share/profit sharing incentives fall within the ambit of the general term "commissions" which in tum, fall within the definition of wages pursuant to prevailing law and jurisprudence.


2. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian, et al, GR No. 204651, 06 August 2014 ! To be considered as facilities, the employer must prove that (a) such facilities are customarily given; (b) voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and (c) charged at fair and reasonable value. ! Purpose Test: a) Facilities include articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his family but exclude tools of the trade or articles or services primarily for the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the business. b) Under the Purpose Test, substantial consideration must be given to the nature of the employer’s business in relation to the character or type of work performed by the employees involved. ! The subsidized meals and free lodging provided by Our Haus (engaged in construction) are actually supplements. ! Although they also work to benefit the respondents, an analysis of the nature of these benefits in relation to Our Haus’ business shows that they were given primarily for Our Haus’ greater convenience and advantage. ! If weighed on a scale, the balance tilts more towards Our Haus’ side. Accordingly, their values cannot be considered in computing the total amount of the respondents’ wages. RETIREMENT BENEFITS GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig, GR No. 210328, 30 January 2017 ! Compulsory coverage under the GSIS had previously and consistently included regular and permanent employees, and expressly excluded casual, substitute or temporary employees from its retirement insurance plan, until 1997 when compulsory membership in the GSIS was extended to employees other than those on permanent status. ! Pauig cannot succeed in appealing to liberal construction to include his 14 years of temporary employment where the law is clear and unambiguous. DISABILITY/DEATH CLAIMS Jebsens’ Maritime, Inc., et al vs Rapiz, GR No. 218871, 11 January 2017 ! Guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits: a) The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him; b) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total; c) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and d) If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification. C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. and/or JUAN JOSE ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO, GR No. 208215, 19 April 2017 Does the Pre-employment Medical Examination establish a presumption that the seafarer is fit when he entered into his employment contract? ! No. The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment. The PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is fit to work at sea or fit for sea service; it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. In short, the fit to work declaration in the seafarer's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. TEST/PROOF OF COMPENSABILITY Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS, GR No. 204422, 21 November 2016 ! "Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in compensation proceedings." ! Direct evidence showing that his work and position in the union caused his illness is not necessary. ! Under prevailing jurisprudence, the nature of petitioner's work and his medical results are substantial evidence to support his claim for EC TTD benefits under PD No. 626, as amended.

NATURE AND STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT REGULAR EMPLOYMENT Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ! To safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to preclude them from attaining regular status, jurisprudence provides that employers claiming that their workers are project-based employees have the burden to prove that these two requisites concur: (a) the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project. ! Angbus did not state the specific project or undertaking assigned to petitioners. As to the second requisite, not only was Angbus unable to produce petitioners' employment contracts, it also failed to present other evidence to show that it informed petitioners of the duration and scope of their work.

UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE !

!

Although the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to the employees, it is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employees at the start of their engagement. Absent such proof, it is presumed that they are regular employees, thus, can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes upon compliance with procedural due process.

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY By the provision's tenor, the submission of the termination report, by and of itself, is therefore not conclusive to confirm the status of the terminated employees as project employees, especially in this case where there is a glaring absence of evidence to prove that petitioners were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, and that they were informed of the duration and scope of their supposed project engagement, which are, in fact, attendant to the first two (2) indicators of project employment in the same DOLE issuance above-cited.

PROJECT EMPLOYMENT 1. E. Ganzon, Inc., et al vs Fortunato Ando, GR No. 214813, 20 February 2017 ! The rehiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not confer upon them regular employment status as it is only dictated by the practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more preferred. ! In Ando's case, he was rehired precisely because of his previous experience working with the other phases of the project. EGI took into account similarity of working environment. ! Although the employment contract provided that the stated date may be "extended or shortened depending on the work phasing," it specified the termination of the parties' employment relationship on a "day certain," which is "upon completion of the phase of work for which [he was] hired for.

FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. vs Cor Jesus College, et al, GR No. 198350, 14 September 2016 ! Appointments to the position of Dean of an educational institution involves an employment contract to which a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance. ! In the Law Dean’s appointment letter, the school obligated itself to send a 30-day prior notice from the expiration of the term if it no longer intends to renew/ extend his appointment. ! The Law Dean’s appointment was automatically renewed under the same terms and conditions of the original appointment, since the respondents failed to send him the required written notice. ! Where the termination letter received more than a month after the expiration of the fixed term merely indicated that the dean was about to be replaced, without providing any reason therefor, he is deemed illegally dismissed. ! The monetary awards to which he is entitled to as a consequence of his illegal dismissal are only limited until the expiration of his second term. ! “Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet .” No one should obtain an advantage from his own wrong doing.

2. Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ! Indicators of project employment: (a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable. (b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring. SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT (c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the Zenaida Paz vs Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. et al, GR No. 199554, 18 particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged. February 2015 (d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer ! The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: his services to any other employer. a) the amount of monthly salary and (e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is b) the number of years of service. reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional ! Although the Labor Code provides different definitions as to what constitutes "one Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the year of service," Book Six does not specifically define "one year of service" for date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' purposes of computing separation pay. terminations/dismissals/suspensions. ! However, Articles 283 and 284 both state in connection with separation pay that a (f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay fraction of at least six months shall be considered one whole year. completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most ! In the case of a regular seasonal employee, the number of years they actually construction companies. (Section 2.2, D.O. No. 9, series of 1993, rendered service shall be counted, provided that they worked for at least six Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction months during a given year. Industry)


PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT 1. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme, et al vs San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., GR Nos. 190015 & 190019, 14 September 2016 ! As prescribed by the 1992 Manual, a teacher must satisfy the following requisites to be entitled to regular faculty status: (1) must be a full-time teacher; (2) must have rendered three years of service or six consecutive semesters of service for teachers on the tertiary level); and (3) that service must have been satisfactory. ! Valid probationary employment under the Labor Code presupposes the concurrence of two requirements: (1) the employer must have made known to the probationary employee the reasonable standard that the latter must comply with to qualify as a regular employee; and (2) the employer must have informed the probationary employee of the applicable performance standard at the time of the latter's engagement ! Failing in one or both, the employee, even if initially hired as a probationary employee, shall be considered a regular employee. ! The teachers were hired by the college as early as 2003, but were required to sign appointment contracts for the first time only in 2005. ! Each of the contracts supposedly provided that it "incorporates by reference the school policies, regulations, operational procedures and guidelines provided for in the Manual of Operations of the School. ! The failure to inform them of these matters was in violation of the requirements of valid probationary employment. 2. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje, GR Nos. 183200- 01, 183253 & 183257, 29 June 2016 ! The job description attached to Buenviaje's appointment letter merely answers the question: "what duties and responsibilities does the position entail? ", but fails to provide the answer/s to the question: " how would the employer gauge the performance of the probationary employee?". ! The job description merely contains her job identification, her immediate superior and subordinates, a list of her job objectives, duties and responsibilities, and the qualification guidelines required of her position (i.e., minimum education, minimum experience, and special skills). ! There is no question that performance of duties and responsibilities is a necessary standard for qualifying for regular employment. It does not stop on mere performance, however. There must be a measure as to how poor, fair, satisfactory, or excellent the performance has been. 3. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo, GR No. 209559, 09 December 2015 ! Section 6 (d), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides that if the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the reasonable standards on which his regularization would be based at the time of the engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee.

! !

! !

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY An exception to the foregoing rule is when the job is self- descriptive, as in the case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers. While it may be argued that ideally employers should immediately inform a probationary employee of the standards for his regularization from day one, strict compliance thereof is not required. The true test of compliance with the requirements of the law is, of course, one of reasonableness. As long as the probationary employee is given a reasonable time and opportunity to be made fully aware of what is expected of him during the early phases of the probationary period, the requirement of the law has been satisfied.

TERMINATIONS DISPUTES ! ! ! ! !

Preventive Suspension Constructive Dismissal Illegal Dismissal Valid Dismissal Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President, GR No. 188681, 08 March 2017 ! Preventive suspension is of two kinds: a) preventive suspension pending b) preventive suspension pending appeal where the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is either suspension or dismissal but after review the respondent official or employee is exonerated. ! If the proper disciplinary authority does not finally decide the administrative case within a period of 90 days from the start of preventive suspension pending investigation, and the respondent is not a presidential appointee, the preventive suspension is lifted and the respondent is "automatically reinstated in the service. ! In the case of presidential appointees, the preventive suspension pending investigation shall be "for a reasonable time as the circumstances of the case may warrant. ! Baculi should be paid his back salaries and other benefits for the entire time that he should have been automatically reinstated at the rate owing to his position that he last received prior to his preventive suspension on September 4, 1992. ! Such time corresponded to the period from December 4, 1992 until June 25, 2003, but excluding the interval from March 12, 2001 until December 31, 2001 when he was briefly reinstated.

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. vs Rachelle Balba, et al, GR No. 197492, 18 Janauary 2017 ! The transfer constitutes constructive dismissal


!

!

1. when it is unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee, or 2. involves a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges, or 3. when the acts of discrimination, insensibility or disdain on the part of the employer become unbearable for the employee, forcing him to forego her employment. Management had the prerogative to determine the place where the employee is best qualified to serve the interests of the business given the qualifications, training and performance of the affected employee. The resignations of the account managers and the director of sales and marketing in the Manila office brought about the immediate need for their replacements with personnel having commensurate experiences and skills is not constructive dismissal.

Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College, GR No. 213137, 01 March 2017 ! In order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their respective posts, we must take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case. ! By vigorously pursuing the litigation of her action against respondent, petitioner clearly manifested that she has no intention of relinquishing her employment, which act is wholly incompatible to respondent's assertion that she voluntarily resigned. Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals, Inc., GR No. 183934, 20 July 2016 ! Resenting the promotion of Villanueva as National Sales Director, petitioners applied for retirement in a joint letter of resignation, received their retirement package, and months later, complained of constructive dismissal. ! They voluntarily retired and not constructively dismissed

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL Jinky Isabel vs Perla Compaña de Seguros, Inc., GR No. 219430, 07 November 2016 The charge of insubordination against Sta. Isabel was grounded on her refusal ! despite due notice to report to the Head Office in compliance with the requisites of procedural due process in administrative cases. ! This should only be deemed as a waiver of her right to procedural due process in connection with the investigation, and is not tantamount to willful disobedience or insubordination. Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., GR No. 207838, 25 January 2017 ! “Seguro na abnormal ang utak mo!” ! The admittedly insulting and unbecoming language uttered by petitioner to the HR Manager on April 3, 2009 should be viewed with reasonable leniency in light of the fact that it was committed under an emotionally charged state. ! On-the-spur-of-the-moment outburst was due to what he perceived as successive retaliatory and orchestrated actions of respondent. Indeed, there was only

!

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY lapse in judgment rather than a premeditated defiance of authority. It was not shown in detail that he has become unfit to continue working for the company and that the continuance of his services is patently inimical to respondent's interest. The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. Having been penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. Ximex cannot invoke the principle of totality of infractions considering that Maula’s alleged previous acts of misconduct were not established in accordance with the requirements of procedural due process.

Sta. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club, Inc., GR No. 208459, 15 February 2017 ! The charges against an outlet teller for engaging in a personal lending business using company funds during office hours was unsubstantiated, as the employee was able to submit proof of her sources of funds and there was no proof that she conducted the business during company time using company personnel. No basis for loss of trust and confidence. Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils, Inc., GR No. 214186, 03 August 2016 ! There was no valid reason for their dismissal considering the lack of proof of their involvement in the alleged pilferage. ! While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in dismissing an employee, the employer must prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which the accusations are made. ! Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer, as in this case, are not enough to justify an employee's dismissal. Interadent Zahntechnik Phils, Inc. et al vs Rebecca Simbillo, GR No. 207315, 23 November 2016 ! Simbillo’s Facebook post which supposedly suggests that Interadent was being investigated by the BIR for irregular transactions, and hence has compromised the reputation of the company, is not sufficient basis for loss of trust. ! It leaked no company information or coporate record, at most, it would only merit some suspicion, Interadent being the present employer Marina’s Creation Enterprises, et al vs Romeo Ancheta, GR No. 218333, 07 December 2016 ! The company’s refusal to give Ancheta work assignments until he submitted a new medical certificate certifying his fitness to work amounts to illegal dismissal ! the law imposes upon the employer the duty not to terminate an employee (based on disease) until there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the employee's disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment.


VALID DISMISSAL Universal Canning Inc., et al vs CA, et al, GR 215047, 23 November 2016 ! Respondents were caught in the act of engaging in gambling activities inside the workplace during work hours, a violation of company policy penalized with dismissal. ! The defense that it took place during noon break and that no stakes were involved, even if were proven true, will however not save the day for the respondents. ! The use of the company's time and premises for gambling activities is a grave offense which warrants the penalty of dismissal for it amounts to theft of the company's time and it is explicitly prohibited by the company rules on the ground that it is against public morals. Philippine Auto Components Parts, Inc. vs Ronnie Jumadla, et al, GR No. 218980, 28 November 2016 ! PACI's loss of trust and confidence was directly rooted in the manner of how they, as persons in charge of the inventory, had negligently handled the products. ! Though not directly involved in the pilferage of PACI's products, their negligence facilitated the unauthorized transporting of products out of PACI's warehouse and their sale to third persons. Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., GR No. 213934, 09 November 2016 ! Complainants-appellees, instead of being neutral, embroiled themselves in the ongoing corporate dispute to wrestle control over ZAMECO II. ! While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of the employee's participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position. Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries, Inc et al, GR No. 207898, 19 October 2016 ! The act of inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work, was undoubtedly a calculated effort amounting to 'overtime boycott' or 'work slowdown’ which caused signifinat losses (P290,000). ! Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers, Inc., et al, GR 209086, 17 October 2016 ! Publico was the hospital's Chief of Blood Bank Section, Laboratory Department when he was dismissed from employment by HMI in 2008 due to gross and habitual neglect of duty as anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section were found to have persisted for almost two years.

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY His liability did not depend on his own participation in the unlawful sales but to his failure to perform his duties as a supervisor.

RELIEFS IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL 1. TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans, Inc.) vs Esperanza Pinas, GR No. 189714, 25 January 2017 ! Following the pronouncement of the Court in Sagales v. Rustan's Commercial Corporation,(592 Phil. 468 (2008), the computation of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement includes the period for which backwages were awarded. 2. PNCC Skyway Corporation, et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al, GR 196110, 06 February 2017 ! Factors in the determination of the amount of nominal damages: (1) the authorized cause invoked, whether it was a retrenchment or a closure or cessation of operation of the establishment due to serious business losses or financial reverses or otherwise; (2) the number of employees to be awarded; (3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards, taken into account their prevailing financial status as borne by the records; (4) the employer's grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees; and (5) whether there was a bona fide attempt to comply with the notice requirements as opposed to giving no notice at all. ! In Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot (GR No. 151378, 28 March 2005), we fixed the nominal damages at P50,000.00 if the dismissal is due to an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement. ! In this case, the amount of P30,000.00 in nominal damages is sufficient to vindicate each private respondent's right to due process considering that the dismissal was prompted by the cessation of PSC’s operation which was done in good faith, and that PSC had the intention to give the benefits due them.

Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores, GR No. 225044, 03 October 2016 ! Olores was terminated for grave misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence in employing a grading system liberally implementing the guidelines in arriving at his students’ final grades that was not in accord with the guidelines set by MDC. The LA found for Olores and ordered his reinstatement without backwages or, at his option, the payment of separation pay. Was the inclusion of reinstatement wages in the Writ of Execution proper where the employer relied on the option granted to pay separation pay instead of reinstatement? ! Yes. Petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal, or by merely reinstating him in the payroll, which alternative options


must be exercised in good faith; otherwise, they are bound to pay his accrued salaries. What effect does the complainant’s subsequent choice of separation pay during the execution proceedings have on the liability of the employer for reinstatement wages? ! None. Not only because there was no genuine compliance by the employer of the reinstatement order but also because the employer chose not to act on said claim. ! Hence, for failure of the petitioners to comply with said order, the CA correctly declared respondent to be entitled to the payment of his accrued salaries during the period of the appeal until the reversal of the December 8, 2010 Decision of LA Amansec. !

Yes. petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal, or by merely reinstating him in the payroll, which alternative options must be exercised in good faith; 57 otherwise, they are bound to pay his accrued salaries.

3. Julius Campol vs Balao-as, et al, GR No. 197634, 28 November 2016 ! An employee of the civil service who is invalidly dismissed is entitled to the payment of backwages. ! The five-year cap on backwages was not fully explained in earlier cases, other than a mention in the case of Cristobal vs Melchor (G.R. No. L- 43203, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 175) which appliedby analogy the then prevailing doctrine involving employees who suffered unfair labor practice. ! n 1989, RA 6715 amended the Labor Code, and provided for the payment of backwages from the time the illegally dismissed employee’s compensation was withheld up to his or her reinstatement. ! The five-year cap was dropped in the case of CSC vs Gentallan (G.R. No. 152833, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 278.) which awarded backwages from the time of illegal dismissal until reinstatement. ! An employee of the civil service who is ordered reinstated is also entitled to the full payment of his or her backwages during the entire period of time that he or she was wrongfully prevented from performing the duties of his or her position and from enjoying its benefits. ! This is necessarily so because, in the eyes of the law, the employee never truly left the office. Fixing the backwages to five years or to the period of time until the employee found a new employment is not a full recompense for the damage done by the illegal dismissal of an employee. Worse, it effectively punishes an employee for being dismissed without his or her fault.

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS NOT DISMISSED AND ALSO DID NOT ABANDON HIS WORK Dee Jay’s In and Café, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 ! The general course of action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint, direct the employee to return to work, and order the employer to accept the employee. ! However, when a considerable length of time had already passed rendering it impossible for the employee to return to work, the award of separation pay is proper. (similar to Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan,G.R. No. 212096, October 14, 2015.) MERGERS AND SEPARATION PAY The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now known as Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings, Inc.), GR No. 190187, 28 September 2016 ! The merger of a corporation with another does not operate to dismiss the employees of the corporation absorbed by the surviving corporation. This is in keeping with the nature and effects of a merger as provided under law and the constitutional policy protecting the rights of labor. ! The employment of the absorbed employees subsists. Necessarily, these absorbed employees are not entitled to separation pay on account of such merger in the absence of any other ground for its award. ! Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank has ruled that the surviving corporation automatically assumes the employment contracts of the absorbed corporation, such that the absorbed corporation's employees become part of the manpower complement of the surviving corporation. (674 Phil. 609, 617-618 (2011)

Labor ! ! ! ! ! !

Procedure

Cause of Action Belatedly Filed Defective Service of Summons Perfection of Appeal Appeal from CA to SC Satisfaction of Judgment Doctrine of Stare Decisis

CAUSE OF ACTION BELATEDLY FILED Dee Jay’s In and Café, et al vs Ma. Lorina Raneses, GR 191825, 05 October 2016 May a cause of action belatedly included in the position paper but not originally pleaded in the complaint be given cognizance? ! Under the applicable 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure, Sec. 4, the parties could allege and present evidence to prove any cause or causes of action included, not only in the complaint, but in the position papers as well.


DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS Oyster Plaza Hotel, et al vs Errol Melivo, GR No. 217455, 05 October 2016 ! The Court considered as substantial compliance the service of summons by registered mail at the respondent's place of business. ! The notation in the registry receipt that "a registered article must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee, or upon the addressee's written order" creates the presumption that the persons who received the summons and notice were presumably able to present a written authorization to receive them and, therefore, the notices were presumed to be duly received in the ordinary course of events. NO SERVICE OF SUMMONS Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 192318, 05 December 2016 ! No service of summons and notices were served on the respondent and he was not impleaded as a party respondent. He did not voluntarily appear before the LA as to submit himself to its jurisdiction but was merely dragged to court after he reacted to the improper execution of his properties. ! Perforce, the proceedings conducted and the decision rendered are nugatory and without effect as the LA never acquired jurisdiction over his person. FORUM SHOPPING Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic, GR No. 222424, 21 September 2016 ! The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another or whether the following elements of litis pendentia are present: a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as representing the same interests in both actions; b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 May the extra-judicial confession of his co-accused be admissible in evidence against him? ! No. The res inter alios acta rule, which, as per Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, should not be applied. ! The NLRC Rules of Procedure state that "[t]he rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure . DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. vs Cezar David, GR No. 222730, 07 November 2016 ! "Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. ! Del Rosario's extrajudicial confession is independently relevant to prove the participation of respondent in the instant controversy considering his vital role in petitioner's procurement process. THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE Dee Jay’s Inn and Café et al vs Ma. Lorina Rañeses, GR No. 191823, 05 October 2016 ! The equipoise doctrine provides that with all things considered equal, since there is an equipoise of evidence and therefore there is doubt as to where the evidence of the parties tilt, all doubts must be resolved in favor of labor. ! In this case, the doctrine was misapplied since without the joint affidavit of Mercy and Mea, there only remained the bare allegation of respondent that she was dismissed by petitioners. The burden of proof did not shift to petitioners to prove that her dismissal was for just or authorized cause.

PERFECTION OF APPEAL MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron, et al, GR No. 207156, 16 January 2017 ! The reduction of the appeal bond is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. Compliance with these two conditions will stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal ! If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. ! If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may still file a motion for reconsideration as provided under Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules. ! If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion. then the decision of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and executory ! In the case of McBurnie v. Ganzon , the Court has set a provisional percentage of 10% of the monetary award (exclusive of damages and attorney's fees) as reasonable amount of bond that an appellant should post pending resolution


!

by the NLRC of a motion for a bond's reduction. Only after the posting of this required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal be suspended. Applying this parameter, the P15,000.00 partial bond posted by petitioners is not considered reasonable in relation to the total monetary award of P197,936.27.

Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 Was the appeal deemed perfected where the memorandum of appeal was seasonably filed but the appeal bond turned out to be s purious upon verification? ! While posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional, we sanction the relaxation of the rule in certain meritorious cases. These cases include instances in (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period The first and second instances are present in this case. ! There should be adherence to a strict application of Article 229 of the Labor Code when appellants do not post an appeal bond at all; but here an appeal bond was actually filed. Strict application of the rules is therefore uncalled for. ! While it is true that the payment of the supersedeas bond is an essential requirement in the perfection of an appeal, however, where the fee had been paid although payment was delayed, and the appellant acted in good faith, the broader interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits demands that the appeal be given due course." TIMELINESS OF APPEAL Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ! Based on Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: (1) from the post office stamp on the envelope or (2) from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. ! The Court previously ruled that if the date stamped on one is earlier than the other, the former may be accepted as the date of filing. This presupposes, however, that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented. ! When the photocopy of a registry receipt bears an earlier date but is not authenticated, the Court held that the later date stamped on the envelope shall be considered as the date of filing.

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY WHAT MAY BE RESOLVED ON APPEAL Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA, et al, GR No. 188658, 11 January 2017 ! As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved (Rule 51, Section 8 of the Rules of Court) ! Exceptions established by jurisprudence: a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of law; c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent. MAY A PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL OBTAIN ANY AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF? Century Properties, Inc. vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 ! General Rule: A party who has not appealed cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than the one granted in the appealed decision. ! Exception: When strict adherence thereto shall result in the impairment of the substantive rights of the parties concerned. ! Concepcion's right to her earned commissions is a substantive right which cannot be impaired by an erroneous computation of what she really is entitled to. Hence, following the dictates of equity and in order to arrive at a complete and just resolution of the case, and avoid a piecemeal dispensation of justice over the same, the CA correctly recomputed Concepcion' s unpaid commissions, notwithstanding her failure to seek a review of the NLRC's computation of the same. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna, GR No. 197191, 21 November 2016 Was the Petition for Certiorari correctly dismissed for failure to state a material date(date of receipt of the NLRC decision? ! Yes. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed.


Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the Rules.

Coca-cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent Organization-ALU, GR No. 220605, 21 September 2016 May the CA exercise judicial review of the assailed VA rulings, notwithstanding the CBA stipulation that the decision of the Arbitration Committee, i.e., the VA, shall be final and binding upon the parties? ! Yes. The CA should look into the merits of the case where there is prima facie showing of the existence of grounds warranting judicial review, and where refusing to do so would deprive the petitioner the opportunity to prove or substantiate its allegations. ! "Any agreement stipulating that 'the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable' and 'that no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator's award may be availed of' cannot be held to preclude in proper cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts."

APPEAL FROM CA TO SC Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs Elmer Mapagu, GR No. 196084, 15 February 2017 ! A party litigant wishing to file a petition for review on certiorari must do so within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution sought to be appealed. ! The Rules allow only for a maximum period of 45 days within which an aggrieved party may file a petition for review on certiorari . ! The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. ! After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. ! Exceptional cases when the Court allowed a relaxation of the rules governing the periods of appeals: ! The questioned decision of the trial court was served upon appellant at a time when her counsel of record was already dead. Her new counsel could only file the appeal four days after the prescribed reglementary period was over. (Ramos vs. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 395 ) ! To prevent a gross miscarriage of justice since the Republic stood to lose hundreds of hectares of land already titled in its name and had since then been devoted for educational purposes; delay of 6 days excused. ( Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 453) ! The subject matter in issue had theretofore been judicially settled, with finality, in another case. The dismissal of the appeal would have had the effect of the

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY appellant being ordered twice to make the same reparation to the appellee. (Olacao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 177 SCRA 38, 41 ) PETITION FOR REVIEW Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas, GR No. 192369, 09 November 2016 ! The fact that the delay in the filing of the petition was only one day is not a legal justification for non-compliance with the rule requiring that it be filed within the reglementary period. ! We cannot fix a period with the solemnity of a statute and disregard it like a joke. If law is founded on reason, whim and fancy should play no part in its application. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs Romelia Rey, et al, GR No. 190203, 07 November 2016 ! If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day." Thus, the petition filed on the 61 st day, was timely filed.

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT RELEASE OF CASH BOND CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology, Inc. et al vs Maria Veronica , Perez, GR 220506, 18 January 2017 ! The petitioners opposed the issuance of a Writ of Execution and moved for the issuance of a certificate of satisfaction of judgment, alleging that their obligation had been satisfied by the release of the cash bond in the amount of P272,337.05 to respondent. ! The judgment has not yet been fully satisfied. In the event the aspect of reinstatement is disputed, backwages, including separation pay, shall be computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. ! Rationale: When there is an order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or when the reinstatement aspect is waived or subsequently ordered in light of a supervening event making the award of reinstatement no longer possible), the employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. ! It does not matter if the delay caused by an appeal was brought about by the employer or by the employee. ! Accordingly, she is entitled to have her backwages and separation pay computed until October 4, 2012, the date when the judgment of this Court became final and executory


BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY

PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION Guillermo vs Uson, GR No. 198967, 07 March 2016 ! The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but related corporation, may be impleaded and held responsible solidarily in a labor case, even after final judgment and on execution, so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so. ! When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and opprobriously elude responsibility, the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said shield and deny the usual protections to the offending party, even after final judgment. LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua, GR No. 1923, 05 December 2016 ! To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations, two requisites must concur: (1) it must be alleged in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) there must be proof that the officer acted in bad faith.

May LRTA be made liable by the labor tribunals for private respondents' money claim (severance pay) despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship, and though LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation? ! LRTA must submit itself to the provisions governing private corporations, including the Labor Code, for having conducted business through a private corporation, in this case, METRO May LRTA be held liable jointly and solidarily with METRO for the payment of the METRO employees separation pay differentials? ! Yes. ! First, LRTA is contractually obligated to pay the retirement or severance/resignation pay of METRO employees. ! Second, assuming arguendo that LRTA is not contractually liable to pay the separation benefits, it is solidarily liable as an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant to Art. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code (Indirect Employer and Solidary Liability).

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

Alumamay Jamias, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 159350 ! The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. ! When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which THIRD PARTY CLAIM the facts are substantially the same; but when the facts are essentially different, Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management, Inc. vs UE Monthly Associates, GR 181387, stare decisis does not apply because a perfectly sound principle as applied to 05 September 2016 one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is ! Third party claimants in execution proceedings have the burden of proving their introduced. right or title to the subject properties, if they want to defeat the judgment lien. ! The principle does not apply in this case as the earlier cases of Servidad and To do so, they must submit evidence not only of the basis of their entitlement, Villanueva involved contracts that contained stipulations not found in the but also of the fact that the properties they are claiming were indeed the contracts entered by the petitioners, such as double probation. Thus, the subject of execution. Failure to submit that evidence will justify the denial of employees in the earlier cases were adjudged as regular employees, while in the third party claim. this case, they were fixed-term employees. ! The new provision gave the LA the discretion to determine whether additional evidence needed to be presented before the TP claim could be resolved. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ! In the case at bar, the TP claimant, Metrobank failed to comply with the new CANCELATION OF UNION ORGANIZATION requirements as soon as it took effect, and the LA decided that no further hearing was necessary, given the failure of Metrobank to submit proof of its De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. vs. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. GR No. 192648, 15 March 2017 claim to the properties. Is the lack of mutuality and/or communality of interest a ground for cancellation of INDIRECT EMPLOYER union registration? ! The only grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al, GR No. 188047, 28 are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code. . Pursuant to paragraphs (a) November 2016 and (b) of Article 247 of the Labor Code, it must be shown that there was ! METRO and LRTA entered into an agreement to manage and operate the LRT misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with: System, where LRTA shouldered all the operating expenses of METRO. METRO (1) the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or later became a wholly owned subsidiary of LRTA. amendments thereto;


(2) the minutes of ratification; (3) the election of officers; (4) the minutes of the election of officers; and (5)the list of voters. !

Failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly electedappointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR may also constitute grounds for cancellation, lack of mutuality of interests, however, is not among said grounds.

AGENCY FEES Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel, GR No. 218454, 01 December 2016 ! The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully negotiated the CBA with the employer is given the right to collect a reasonable fee called "agency fee" from non- union members who are employees of the appropriate bargaining unit, in an amount equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by union members, in case they accept the benefits under the CBA !

Three (3) documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of increased union dues: (a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; (b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall include the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees; and (c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned.

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp, Sugar Division-Southern Negros Dev’t Corp (SONEDCO), GR No. 220383, 05 October 2016 ! If, as a result of the certification election, respondent union or a union other than petitioner union which executed the interim agreement, is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of respondent company, then, such union may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective bargaining agreement. ! An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an employer has not bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account.

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY That it chose to refuse negotiations and instead entered into an agreement with its employees to essentially waive negotiations for 2007 and 2008 betrays its intention of limiting petitioners' bargaining power.

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ! In the absence here of an express stipulation in the CBA that GNC and respondents agreed to submit cases of unfair labor practice to their grievance machinery and eventually to voluntary arbitration, jurisdiction over the parties' dispute does not vest upon the voluntary arbitrator. ! It has been held that while the phrase "all other labor dispute" or its variant "any other matter or dispute" may include unfair labor practices, it is imperative, however, that the agreement between the union and the company states in unequivocal language that the parties conform to the submission of unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration. VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union, GR No. 204693, 13 July 2016 ! Here, the collective conduct of GNC is indicative of its failure to meet its duty to bargain in good faith. Badges of bad faith attended its actuations both at the plant and NCMB levels. ! Due to its bad faith in bargaining, the final CBA draft submitted by respondents to the NCMB was correctly imposed by the NLRC as the parties’ CBA for the period June 21, 2009 to May 31, 2014. This is on the premise that the said employers, by their acts which bespeak of insincerity, had lost their statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions contained in the unions' proposed CBAs. RETURN TO WORK ORDER Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. PLDT, Co. Inc., GR No. 190389, 19 April 2017 Are the affected and striking employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages from January 2, 2003 when the SOLE directed the striking employees to return to work, up to April 29, 2006, when the NLRC’s resolution upholding the validity of PLDT’s redundancy program became final and executory? ! No. There is no order of reinstatement from a Labor Arbiter in the case at bar, instead, what is at issue is the return-to-work order from the Secretary of Labor and Employment. An order of reinstatement is different from a return-to-work order. The award of reinstatement, including backwages, is awarded by a Labor Arbiter to an illegally dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294 of the Labor Code: Article 294.

UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE !

!

On the other hand, a return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment when he or she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry that is considered indispensable to the national interest. Return-to-work and reinstatement orders are both immediately executory; however, a return- to-work order is interlocutory in nature, and is merely meant to maintain status quo while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper forum. In contrast, an order of reinstatement is a judgment on the merits handed down by the Labor Arbiter pursuant to the original and exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 224(a) of the Labor Code. Clearly, there is no basis to reinstate the employees who were terminated as a result of redundancy.

BARGAINING UNIT Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as “Super Lamination Services” v. Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), GR No. 193816, 21 November 2016 May separate corporations with related businesses be treated as a single bargaining unit although these companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical personalities? ! Yes, by way of exception. A settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is that when two business enterprises are owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same. ! This was proper under the circumstances where the three corporations had the same lamination business, share a common human resource department, employees were constantly rotated and assigned to the 3 corporations, the common HR imposed disciplinary sanctions of all the subject employees, Super Lamination registered all the employees with the SSS as its own and signed the IDs of all these employees, and they were represented by the same counsel. Would the rank-and-file employees of the three companies constitute an appropriate bargaining unit despite their different geographical location? ! Yes. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. ! Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed. ! In the present case, there was communal interest among the rank-and-file employees of the three companies based on the finding that they were constantly rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the same or similar duties whenever rotated.

!

BY: ATTY. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment status and working conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they shared a community of interest.

So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding - ROMANS 14:19

Thank you...and good luck!

Labor Law Lecture Bar Ops 2017 (Arranged) (1)

Recommend Documents