UNIVERSAL ROBINA vs CABALLEDA

(1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily;

(2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
(3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and
(4) 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

(A) Yes, because presence of EER is required for a valid exercise of visitorial and enforcement powers of the
DOLE-RD under Art. 128(b)
(B) No, jurisdiction still belongs to the DOLE-RD unless the employer contests the findings of the RD, an
examination of evidentiary matters is needed to resolve the issue and matters are not verifiable in the normal
course of inspection.

Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry corporation and Lambert Lim vs. Helen Binamira, G.R. No. 170464. July 12,
2010.
While labor laws allow retrenchment as a companys valid exercise of management prerogative, it must comply
with certain requirements for it to be valid:
(1) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are
not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious and real, or only if expected, are reasonably imminent as
perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;
(2) the employer serves written notice both to the employee/s concerned and the DOLE at least one month
before the intended date of retrenchment;
(3) the employer pays the retrenched employee separation pay in an amount prescribed by law;
(4) the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench in good faith; and
(5) the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be retrenched or retained.

A)

Picketing illegal. The act of the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or displeasure but,
indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious damage to the Hotel's finances or its
reputation. The Union's concerted violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards which resulted in the
temporary cessation and disruption of the Hotels operations is an unprotected act and should be considered
as an illegal strike.
(GR 163942);

B) No ULP- No violation of the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization. No

violation of FS-- FS guarantee of Consti is only for peaceful picketing (GR L-49580).

A)

It is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices
before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the
employers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing, on the other hand, is complied with as
long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.
(Perez vs PT&T citing SDCWA v SDC);
B) No. Kings of Kings vs Mamac

A)

Yes. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer
needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence
to support the unions decision to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause
for terminating an employee based on the CBAs union security provision. (GR 170287) These were met in
the case.
B) No. It appears in the case that the Club is not in bad faith. ( See GR 149552 citing Malayang Samahan)

Learnership is practical training on the job supplemented by theoretical instruction

in a highly technical industry for a period of not less than three (3) months but not
to exceed six (6) months. On the other hand, apprenticeship is a practical training
on the job in a semi-skilled industry and can be learned through a practical training
for a period of not exceeding three (3) months.

Yes.
GR 157900-Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law

considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was
for a valid or authorized cause.
Prior acceptance of SP has no merit.
GR 184517- asset sales vs stock sales in relation to dismissing employees.

No. Garantisado may oppose as an exception to the By-Stander Rule (Toyota case).

No. the dismissal is not valid. The law provides that even if the employer has a valid
cause to terminate the employment of its employee, the former shall strictly
observe the procedural requirement or the due process of law in terminating the
latter. In this case, the company has a valid cause which is a misconduct for
punching a time-card of the other employee, however, the former did not properly
observe the procedural requirements but instead the immediate termination of
Dions employment was imposed.
Hence, there is no valid termination due to non-observance of the procedural
requirements.

B) The legal and proper way of terminating Amayas employment shall be on the
violation of her probationary contract because Amaya was not yet considered
as regular employee, hence, just causes as enumerated under Art 288 of the
Labor Code was not applicable.

No. shoe-shine boys are not considered employees of the matibay shoe and repair
store. Jurisprundence dictates that the employer has control and supervision with
respect to the means and methods by which the work be accomplished by the
employees. In this case, the shoe shine boys provided their own equipments and
materials. Moreover, the store has no supervision over them with respect to the
means and methods of their tasks.
Therefore, the boys are not considered as employees of the store.
No, they are not employees of the company, but they are considered partners instead. The company does not
exercise control and supervision over the shoe shiners. ( case of besa vs trajano)

Tess'. Her sickness was pregnancy-related and, therefore, the co'y cannot terminate her services because in doing
so, it will, in effect, be violating the Labor Code which prohibits an employer to discharge an employee on account of
the latter's pregnancy (Del Monte vs Velasco)
Disparate impact. Star paper case. Lectured by atty kato

a.

NLRC no jurisdiction
issue is the lease agreement which is best resolved by application of Civil law under obligations and
contracts and not by Labor laws
b.dismissal invalid

A)

non-payment of rentals will not fall under valid and authorized causes of dismissal
MTD must fail. When the principal relief is to be granted under labor legislations or a CBA, the case falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC eventhough a claim for damages might be asserted
as an incident to such claim.
B) No. Relationship b/w them is EE-ER and vendor-vendee. Nick's dismissal is due to breach of terms of
contract.

(Villamaria v CA for both A and B questions-- Case might need to be re-read in full. Had difficulty
understanding the right ruling for this Bar Q while browsing through the case and applying the same to this
Q. But SC's decision is to affirm CA's. CA's decision is to affirm LA's. LA's decision- EE not illegally
dismissed. )

A) Robbies claim is meritorious. It is clear under Article 111 of the la bor code
that the 10 % attys fees must be based on the wages recovered. In this case
the 10% shall be covered by items 1-3 only.

a)

Yes, Baldo is a regular seasonal employee which is considered also a regular employee quailified for SSS
coverage
(b) pay benefits in case of death, sickness, retirement; pay unpaid contribution plus penalty; criminal offense

Fonterra Brand Phils., inc vs. Largado and Estrellado

McBurnie v Ganzon, motion to reduce appeal bond allowed, provided must post provisional bond 10% of monetary
award; meritorious ground