(1) Dismissal of corporate officers and their monetary claims

Nature of the controversy Test: (1) status of the party; (3) nature of the
question
it is an intra-corporate controversy and cognizable by the regular courts
the Matling Doctrine
o regular employees- LA
o corporate officersRegular Courts
who are exclusively the following: president,
secretary, and treasurer, and those provided in the by
laws
Note that the BoD can no longer create new corporate
offices, more than who is included in the by laws to prevent
the circumvention of the laws
o Note however that the status of an employee as director and
stockholder does not automatically convert the action into an intra-
corporate controversy
Basis in determining whether employment issue or intra-
corporate controversy: manner of the creation of the
office and not the services actually performed
Hence in the Matling case, the issue was employment
because he was initially hired into the company as a
bookkeeper and only eventually acquired shares. His
appointment as director and officer was due to his
promotion in employment and not by mere fact that he is a
shareholder

(2) Constitutionality of CBA provisions

Halaguea Doctrine: it is the regular courts, not the LA which has

jurisdiction over such
(1) ordinary civil actiondeclaratory relief
(2) resolution of the issue not solely based on the Labor Code but by the
application of the Constitution and the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
(3) the employer-employee relationship is only incidental. The obligations invoved
in this case is that which provided by the Constitution and the CEDAW

Pioneer Texturizing Doctrine: an order of reinstatement issued by the LA under

Art. 233 of the LC is self executory or immediately executory even pending
appeal

When Automatic and When appeal stays execution

immediately executory
When order of reinstatement is
issued by the Labor arbiter only
of reinstatement and writ
necessary
Writ of execution is necessary
when the reinstatement is
ordered by the NLRC in appeal,
or subsequently by the CA, or
the SC as the case may be
What is the Effect of NLRC Reversal of LAs order of Reinstatement?

From the decision of the LA of reinstatement up until the time the said
decision is reversed by an appellate tribunal like the NLRC, CA, or SC, the
employee is entitled to reinstatement wages.

Doctrines
Roquero Doctrine Genuino Doctrine Garcia
That in cases where Qualified the The Roquero
an employee is Roquero Doctrine: doctrine was
ordered reinstated affirmed but
by the LA, and the an employee who is modified:
employer fails or reinstated only in
refuses to obey such the payroll, should after the LAs
order, but intiates an refund the decision is
appeal, and the LAs reinstatement reversed by the
decision is later on wages after the higher tribunal,
reversed, the reversal of the the employee
reversal will not appellate court may be barred
exculpate him from fro collecting the
the liability to pay accrued wages, it
the reinstatement is shown that the
wages of the delay in enforcing
employee reckoned the
from the time the reinstatement
employee was pending appeal
ordered reinstated was without the
by the LA up until fault of the
the date of its employer
reversal on appeal
The employee also
is not required to
reimburse the
employer of the
wages paid during
such period, much
less if the employee
actually rendered
services
Hence, applicable
only on actual
reinstatement
and/or refusal of
the employer to
reinstate despite
order
Test to determine whether the delay was due to the acts of the employer,
hence, not to be liable for payment of reinstatement wages during such
period, unless there is actual reinstatement:
(1) there must actual delay or the fact that the order or reinstatement pending
appeal was not executed prior to its reversal
(2) the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified act or omission
a. if unjustified refusal, then the employer may still be required to pay the
salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the LAs decision

Hence, in the case of Garcia vs PAL, there was actual delay in the reinstatement of
the petitioners, however, PAL was justified in not complying with the reinstatement
order because the SEC placed the PAL under Interim Rehabilitation Receiver

Regional Director
Requisites to exercise the two powers of Regional Director: Visitorial
and Enforcement powers

(1) there is an employer-employee relationship at the time the

complaint was made
a. the Regional Director has the power to make such determination to
the exclusion of the NLRC, subject to judicial review
b. if there is no longer any employer-employee relationship, the Labor
Arbiter shall have jurisdiction
(2) findings were made in the course of action, whether through
complaint or routine inspection
(3) there is not claim or action before the Regional Director for Small
money claims or the Labor Arbiter
a. once the complaint has been taken cognizance of by the DRD
under 129 or the LA under 217, jurisdiction already attaches
b. note however that in CIRINEO BOWLING PLAZA VS SENSING,
the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional
Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standards law
can be exercises even where the individual claim exceeds
P5,000.00. hence, the DRD should not stop the proceeding once the
claim already exceeds P5,000.00

B. Small Money Claims in amounts not exceeding P5,000.00

Requisites: in the absence of any of the requisites, the LA has jurisdiction

(1) claim is presented by an employee or domestic worker or kasambahay

(2) the claimant, no longer being employed, does not seek reinstatement
the employment relationship no longer exists at the time of the filing of the
complaint.
o There must be no questioning of the legality of the dismissal and prayer for
reinstatement, otherwise, the jurisdiction must be with the Labor Arbiter
Otherwise, it will fall under Art. 128 where existence of such relationship is a requisite

(3) the aggregate money claim of the employee or the domestic worker does not exceed
P5,000.00
a. if it exceeds the P5000.00, jurisdiction is lodged with the LA
b. it may include unpaid wages, salary differentials, 13th month pay, and other benefits
Exercise of Voluntary Arbitration by the DOLE Secretary
Requisites:
i. Parties voluntarily submit their dispute to the Office of the Secretary
ii. No pending notice of strike or lockout or any other related complaints
iii. They parties shall abide by the agreements reached, which may be
enforced by the appropriate writs

A. The Principle of Promissory Estoppel as Applied to Labor Cases

a. A promise was reasonable expected to induce action or forbearance
b. Such promise did, in fact, induce such action or forbearance
c. The party suffered detriment as a result
B. Doctrine of Laches
a. may only be applied upon showing of deliberate inaction

(1) Employer-Employee Relationship

Four-Fold Test

1. Selection and engagement of the employee;

2. Payment of wages or salaries;
3. Exercise of the power of dismissal; or
4. Exercise of the power to control the employees conduct

Control Test
Whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not
only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by
which the same is to be accomplished

Francisco doctrine: the Economic Reality Test

broader economic reality test, the petitioner can likewise be said to be an
employee of respondent corporation because she had served the company for
six years before her dismissal, receiving check vouchers indicating her
salaries/wages, benefits, 13th month pay, bonuses and allowances, as well as
deductions and Social Security contributions from August 1, 1999 to
December 18, 2000. When petitioner was designated General Manager,
respondent corporation made a report to the SSS. Petitioners membership in
the SSS as manifested by a copy of the SSS specimen signature card which
was signed by the President of Kasei Corporation and the inclusion of her
name in the on-line inquiry system of the SSS evinces the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.
Agabon Doctrine: applies if dismissal of probee for a just
cause is without notice and hearing
Jaka Doctrine: applies if termination is for termination for
authorized cause

INDICATORS OF PROJECT EMPLOYMENT.

Either one or more of the following circumstances, among others, may be considered
as indicator/s that an employee is a project employee:
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, are
defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the
employee at the time of hiring.
c. The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the
particular project or undertaking for which he is engaged.
d. The employee, while not employed and awaiting
engagement, is free to offer his services to any other
employer.
e. The termination of his employment in the particular
project/undertaking is reported to the Regional Office of the
Department of Labor and Employment having jurisdiction over the
workplace, within thirty (30) days following the date of his separation
from work, using the prescribed form on employees terminations or
dismissals or suspensions.
f. An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay
completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most
construction companies.

REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT.

(Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora and Alegre, G.R. No. 48494, Feb. 5, 1990)

(1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent; or

(2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each
other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former on the latter.

What are the requisites of valid legitimate labor contracting?

Absent any of the following, it is labor only contracting and is therefore
illegal:

1. Contractor is registered with the DOLE

a. Mandatorily required by DO 18-A of 2011
2. The contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes
the contract work on his own account, under his own responsibility,
according to his own manner and method, free from the control and
direction of his employer or principal (indirect/statutory employer) in
all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to
the results thereof.
a. The Right of control Test- whether the contractors manner and
methods f performaing his job is completely from the control and
direction of the principal, except as to the results
 b. In a case where the the purported contractor has the same HR,
Accounting and Audit Department, and Legal Department, with the
principal, and that the employer had the control over the performance
of the employees by showing certifcates of appreciaiton and letters of
commendation to employees, the contracting is labor-only. (Digitel vs
DEU, 2012)
c. In a case where the principal supervised the work and paid the salaries
of the employees directly, and the contractor had no sufficient capital,
then there is labor-only contracting (Norkis Trading vs Buenavista)

3. The contractor has substantial capital and/ or investment in the form

of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials
which are necessary in the conduct of the business.
a. corporations, partnerships, cooperative- P3M
b. single proprietorship- P3M

4. The Service agreement between the principal (or indirect/statutory

employer) and contractor/ subcontractor assures the contractual
employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and
health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization,
security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits.
a. Legal Benefits and Rights Test: addresses the issue of whether the
Service Agreement is compliant with the rights and benefits of workers
under the labor laws
b. Violation solidary liability

DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT

Two- Fold Requirement

1. Substantive
a. Just Cause under Art. 282, 264 (2), 263 (g), 248 (e) or
b. Authorized Causes under Art. 283 and 284
2. Procedural
a. Employee must be accorded with due processnotice and opportunity
to be heard

Installation Redundan Retrenchmen Closure/Cess Closure/

of Labor- cy t ation not due Cessation
saving to serious due to
device business serious
1. there is good faith in the termination; losses losses
RequisitesCommon

2. the termination is a matter of last resort, there being no other

option available after resorting to cost-cutting procedures
3. two separate written notices served at least one month prior to
termination to:
a. affected employees; and
1 month pay or b. atthe DOLE
least 1 one (1) month pay or at least Not
paySeparation

month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher
(fraction of 6 months shall be
considered as 1 year)
one-half (1/2) month pay for necessary
every year of service,
whichever is higher. A fraction
of at least six (6) months shall
be considered one (1) whole
year.
 The purpose 1.Excess Proof of

requisitesAdditional
for such services. substantia
installation 2. Superfluity l losses or
must be imminent
of
valid, such possible
as to save positions. losses is a
on cost, 3.

DUE PROCESS IN TERMINATION

AGABON DOCTRINE ABBOTT DOCTRINE
Norm is that the compliance with It is now required that in addition
the statutorily prescribed due to compliance with the statutory
process under Art. 277 (b) would due process, employer should
be sufficient and manner still comply with the due process
provided in company policy not procedure in its own company
material rules. Otherwise, employer will
be liable to pay indemnity in the
form of nominal damages

THE PEREZ DOCTRINE: NEW GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON THE HEARING

REQUIREMENT.

Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No. 152048,

April 7, 2009
(a) Ample opportunity to be heard means any meaningful opportunity
(verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him
and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing,
conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.
(b) A formal hearing or conference is no longer mandatory. It becomes
mandatory only under any of the following circumstances:
a. When requested by the employee in writing; or
b. When substantial evidentiary disputes exist; or
c. When a company rule or practice requires it; or
d. When similar circumstances justify it.
(c) the ample opportunity to be heard standard in the Labor Code
prevails over the hearing or conference requirement in its
Implementing Rules and Regulations.