Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
VALIDITY OF QUITCLAIM
FRANCISCO SORIANO, JR., petitioner,
vs.
NLRC and PLDT COMPANY,INCORPORATED, respondents.
G.R. No. 165594, April 23, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:
FACTS: In 1981, petitioner Francisco Soriano, Jr. and certain individuals
namely Sergio Benjamin, Maximino Gonzales, and Noel Apostol were
employed by the respondent PLDT as switchman helpers in its Tondo
Exchange Office (TEO). Benjamin and Gonzales were later on promoted as
switchmen. Apostol on the other hand was elevated to the position of
frameman.
On separate letters dated July 15, 1996, PLDT informed the petitioner,
Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol that their respective position were deemed
redundant and that their services will be terminated on August 16, 1996.
They requested that they be transferred to another position but their
requests were denied since all the positions were already filled up.
The petitioner as well as the others executed a document entitled
Receipt, Release and Quitclaim in favor of the respondent PLDT. They
however placed a note of Under Protest beside their signature in the said
document. Thereafter they filed a joint complaint for illegal dismissal against
the respondent PLDT.
Labor Arbiter Lustria rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for
lack of merit. He stated that PLDT legitimately exercised the management
prerogative in terminating the said employees; that it complied with the
requirements of a valid redundancy program under Article 283 of the Labor
Code; and that the redundancy program was effected in good faith.
Petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales, and Apostol filed an appeal to the NLRC. The
NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. After denial of their motion
for reconsideration, they filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. Said court also dismissed the case for it found no grave abuse of
discretion.
On November 24, 2004, petitioner, Benjamin, Gonzales and Apostol
filed a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals decision and
resolution but the petition was denied due to failure to attach verification
and certification of non-forum shopping. However, on a motion for
reconsideration alleging that since the cause of action of each petitioner is
independent of the other, petitioner Francisco Soriano, Jr. could validly
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
proceed with his own petition for review. Hence, the Court reinstated the
petition but excluded Benjamin, Gonzales and Apostol as petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid quitclaim
HELD: Yes. The requisites for a valid quitclaim are: 1) that there was no
fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; 2) that the consideration for
the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and 3) that the contract is not
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
It cannot be gainfully said that petitioner did not fully understand the
consequences of signing the Receipt, Release, and Quitclaim. There is no
showing that the execution thereof was tainted with deceit or coercion. By
own admission of the petitioner, he signed the quitclaim voluntarily,
compelled by personal circumstances, rather than by the respondent PLDT.
He has received his separation pay and benefited therefrom. Certainly, it
would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the petitioner if he is allowed
to question the legality of his dismissal from work. Further, the petitioner
received separation pay from the respondent PLDT, the amount of which was
more than the amount required under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Indeed,
there was a credible and reasonable consideration for his separation from
work.
It is settled that a legitimate waiver which represents a voluntary and
reasonable settlement of a workers claim should be respected as the law
between the parties. Thus, the petitioner is bound by the Receipt, Release
and Quitclaim and as such is precluded from assailing the validity of
dismissal.
QUITCLAIM/INVALID QUITCLAIMS
HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (HEPI), owner of
Hyatt Regency Manila, petitioner,
vs.
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF
WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
(SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN),respondent.
G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009
NACHURA,J.:
FACTS: The respondent SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN union is the certified
collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Hyatt Regency
Manila, a hotel owned by petitioner HEPI.
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
Hanjin and its representatives from any claims in connection with their
employment.
The Labor Arbiter declared that respondents were regular employees
who had been dismissed without just and valid causes and without due
process. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC which reversed the Labor Arbiters
decision. NLRC gave probative value to the Termination Report submitted by
Hanjin to the DOLE, receipts signed by respondents for their completion
bonus upon phase completion, and the quitclaims executed by the
respondents in favor of Hanjin. On appeal, CA reversed the NLRC decision.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the quitclaims can bar respondents from demanding
HELD:
The quitclaims which the respondents signed cannot bar them from
demanding what is legally due them as regular employees. As a rule,
quitclaims and waivers are looked upon with disfavor and frowned upon as
contrary to public policy. They are thus ineffective to bar claims for the full
measure of a workers legal rights, particularly when the following conditions
are applicable: 1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled
from an unsuspecting or gullible person,or 2) where the terms of settlement
unconscionable on its face. To determine whether the quitclaims signed by
respondents are valid, one important factor that must be taken into account
is the consideration accepted by respondents; the amount must constitute a
reasonable settlement equivalent to the full measure of their legal rights. In
this case, the quitclaims signed by respondents do not appear to have been
made for valuable consideration. Respondents, who are regular employees,
are entitled to backwages and separation pay and, therefore, the quitclaims
which they signed cannot prevent them from seeking claims to which they
are entitled.
CATHOLIC VICARIATE, BAGUIO CITY, petitioner,
vs.
HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET.AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 167334, March 7, 2008
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner contracted Kunwha Luzon Construction (KUNWHA) to
construct the retaining wall of the Baguio Cathedral. KUNWHA, in turn,
subcontracted CEREBA Builders (CEREBA) to do the formworks of the church.
The contract between KUNWHA and CEREBA lasted up to the completion of
the project. KUNWHA failed to pay CEREBA. Consequently, the latter failed to
pay its employees.
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
10
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
11
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
HELD: No. The Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim do not violate the
requirements of the Labor Code.
There is no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which
requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants, counsel to make
their Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid. The only requisites for
the validity are the following: (1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the
part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is
credible and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law,
public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third
person with a right recognized by law. In this case, it cannot be questioned
that those requisites were completely satisfied, making the Deeds of
Release, Waiver and Quitclaim individually executed by the complainants.
VARORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC.and ARIA MARITIME CO., LTD,
petitioners,
vs.
GIL A. FLORES, respondent.
G.R. No. 161934, October 6, 2010
PERALTA,J.:
FACTS: On April 7, 1997, petitioners employed respondent, in behalf of its
foreign principal, Aria Maritime Co., Ltd. Of Piraeus, Greece, for position of
Chief Officer on board M/V Aria, per Contract of Employment. During his
employment, the master of the vessel sent respondent to the Centre Medical
de Ngodi at Doula, Cameroon, where he was treated for three days due to
the shooting pain in the lower extremities, particularly on his right foot. In
the Medical Certificate, the attending physician stated that he diagnosed
respondents pain on the right foot as sciatic neuralgia and administered
injection and acupuncture. Respondent was declared not fit to work.
On September 19, 1997, respondent filed a complaint against the
petitioner. Respondent sought the reimbursement of his medical expenses.
However, respondent withdrew his claim for disability benefits with
reservation to re-file a complaint should there be a recurrent of his injury.
Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos dismissed respondents
complaint for lack of merit
The NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. On
petition for review by the petitioners, the CA affirmed the decision of the
NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Receipt and Quitclaim can be considered
substantial compliance to the contractual obligation by petitioners under the
standard employment contract
12
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
HELD: No. A perusal of the provisions of the Receipt and Quitclaim shows
that respondent would be releasing and discharging petitioners from all
claims, demands, causes of action, and the like in an all-encompassing
manner, including the fact that he had not contracted or suffered any illness
or injury in the course of his employment and that he was discharged in good
and perfect health. These stipulations clearly placed respondent in a
disadvantageous position vis--vis the petitioners.
GOODRICH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION & MR. NILO CHUA GOY,
petitioners,
vs.
EMERLINA ATIVO, ET.AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 188002, February 1, 2010
VILLARAMA, JR.,J:
FACTS: Respondents are former employees of petitioner Goodrich
Manufacturing Corporation (Goodrich) assigned as machine or maintenance
operators for the different sections of the company. Sometime in the latter
part of 2004, on account of lingering financial constraints, Goodrich gave all
its employees the option to voluntary resign from the company. On
December 29, 2004, respondents were paid their separation pay. On January
3, 2005, respondents executed their respective waivers and quitclaims. The
following day, some of the employees including herein respondents filed
complaints against Goodrich for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio rendered a decision declaring
that there was no illegal dismissal. Dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the
NLRC which rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the Labor
Arbiters decision. It ruled that the considerations that the respondents
received are not unreasonable vis--vis the award granted to them in the
assailed decision; and that it was not shown that respondents signed the
deeds of waiver and quitclaim involuntarily, without understanding the
implication and consequences thereof. Respondents elevated the matter to
the CA. The CA rendered its decision in favor of the respondents. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the release, waiver and quitclaim signed by
respondents are valid and binding
HELD: Yes. The release, waiver and quitclaim signed by the respondents are
valid and binding.
13
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
14
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
UNITED PARAGON MINING CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
CA, ET. AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 150959, August 4, 2006
GARCIA,J.:
FACTS: Private respondent Cesario F. Ermita was a regular employee
working as a foreman of petitioner United Paragon Mining Corporation
(UPMC). He received a letter terminating his employment due to his infliction
of bodily injuries on a co-employee and unlawfully possessing a deadly
weapon, a bolo. Having failed to reach settlement, the matter was referred to
a voluntary arbitrator which rendered a decision in favor of Cesario.
Unsatisfied with the decision of the voluntary arbitrator and after denial of
their motion for reconsideration, UPMC, thru its Personnel Superintendent
Feliciano M. Daniel, elevated the case to the CA which then dismissed the
petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Personnel Superintendent who signed the
termination letter may file a petition in behalf of the UPMC
HELD: No. The Personnel Superintendent who signed the termination letter
may not file a petition in behalf of the UPMC.
True it is that Cesarios complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against
the corporation and Daniel. However, Daniel was merely a nominal party in
that proceedings, as in fact he was impleaded thereat in his capacity as
UPMCs Personnel Superintendent who signed the termination letter.
Cesarios complaint contains no allegation whatsoever for specific claim or
charge against Daniel in whatever capacity. As it is, Daniel was not in anyway
affected by the outcome of the illegal dismissal case because only the
corporation was made liable therein to Cesario. Being not a real party-ininterest, Daniel has no right to file the petition in behalf of the corporation
without any authority from its board of directors. It is basic in law that a
corporation has a legal personality entirely separate and distinct from that of
its officers and the latter cannot act for and on its behalf without being so
authorized by its governing board.
15
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
REHABILITATION
16
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
17
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
18
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
19
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
20
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
21
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS: Respondents were employees of Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI)
and members of the Associated Workers Union of the Philippines (AWU). In a
letter dated 9 June 1993 to MPSI, the AWU president sought the dismissal
from service of respondents who were expelled from AWU. On 11 June 1993,
the MPSI issued a memorandum to respondents terminating them effective
immediately pursuant to the closed-shop provision of the MPSI-AWU
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Labor Arbiter Ernesto Dinopol rendered a decision ordering MPSI to
reinstate respondents to their former or equivalent position. However,
respondents alleged that MPSI did not reinstate them to their former
positions or equivalent positions. Respondents alleged that they were
deliverymen at the time of their dismissal and not CRE or casual rotation
employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is reinstatement by the petitioner MPSI
HELD: None. Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from
which one had been removed or separated. The person reinstated assumes
the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal. Reinstatement
presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed
still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially
equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the
employee.
Reinstatement means restoration to the former position occupied prior
to dismissal or to substantially equivalent position. Reinstatement does not
mean promotion. Promotion is based primarily on an employees
performance during a certain period. Just because their contemporaries are
already occupying higher positions does not automatically entitle
respondents to similar positions.
22
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:
FACTS: Respondents were employees of the petitioner Mt Carmel College.
On 21 November 1997, respondents, together with several faculty members,
non-academic personnel, and other students, participated in a protest action
against petitioner. Petitioner, thru Rev. Fr. Modesto Malandac, issued a
memorandum directing respondents to explain in writing why they should
not be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence for joining the protest action
against the school administration. Petitioner maintained that respondents
were occupying positions of highly confidential nature. After a hearing,
petitioner issued written notices of termination to respondents on 7 May
1998. Respondents were terminated by petitioner on 15 May 1998.
ISSUE: Whether or not reinstatement in the instant case is self-executory
HELD: No. As contemplated by Article 224 of the Labor Code, the Secretary
of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the Commission or any
Labor Arbiter, or med-arbiter or voluntary arbitrator may, motu proprio or on
motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment
within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory.
Consequently, under Rule III of the NLRC Manual on the Execution of
Judgment, it is provided that if the execution be for the reinstatement of any
person to a position, an office or an employment, such writ shall be served
by the sheriff upon the losing party or upon any other person required by law
to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for contempt if
he disobeys such decision or order for reinstatement.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.), ET. AL., petitioners,
vs.
JOHNSON OFFICE & SALES UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS
(FFW), ET. AL., respondents.
G.R. No. 172799, July 6, 2007
TINGA,J.:
FACTS: Respondents Ma. Jesusa Bonsol and Rizalinda Hirondo filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioners Johnson & Johnson
(Phils.), Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica, one of the formers divisions. Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint, prompting respondents to elevate the
matter to the NLRC. The NLRC ruled that the violations of company
procedure committed by respondents did not constitute serious misconduct
or willful disobedience warranting their dismissal; hence, respondents were
entitled to reinstatement.
23
Marinelle C. Bulos
Labor Law Review
7:30 -9:30 pm
Judge Villarosa
24