You are on page 1of 29

[G.R. No. 125735.

August 26, 1999] letter from the president of ATENEO demanding her voluntary resignation a week
from receipt of the letter, otherwise, she would be considered resigned from the
LORLENE A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
service. petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal.
COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, and
After trial, Labor Arbiter found her dismissal illegal for lack of factual basis and
ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY, respondents.
ordered ATENEO to award petitioner separation pay, back wages and 13th month pay.
the Labor Arbiter opined that although petitioner was afforded procedural due process
respondent institution failed to establish substantial evidence as to the guilt of the
FACTS:Lorlene Gonzales, petitioner, has been a schoolteacher in the
complainant of the offense charged. Both parties appealed to the NLRC reversed the
Elementary Department of private respondent Ateneo de Davao University (hereafter
decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter by declaring petitioners dismissal valid and
ATENEO) since 1974 while ATENEO is an educational institution, a corporation duly
legal but added that since ATENEO offered petitioner her retirement benefits it was
organized under the laws of the Philippines. Sometime in 1991 Fr. Oscar Millar,
but proper that she be extended said benefits. Petitioner now seeks the reversal of the
Ateneo Grade School Headmaster, sent a letter informing petitioner Lorlene A.
decision; hence, this petition.
Gonzales of the complaints of two (2) parents for alleged use of corporal punishment
on her students. Petitioner claimed that she was not informed of the identity of the ISSUE: whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining as
parents who allegedly complained of the corporal punishment she purportedly valid and legal the dismissal of petitioner by private respondent ATENEO?
inflicted in school-year 1990-1991. She likewise claimed that she was not confronted
HELD:Upon being notified of her termination, she has the right to demand
about it by private respondent ATENEO in 1991 and that it was only two (2) years
compliance with the basic requirements of due process. Compliance entails the twin
after the complaints were made that she discovered, through her students and their
requirements of procedural and substantial due process. Ample opportunity must be
parents, that ATENEO was soliciting complainants to lodge written complaints against
afforded the employee to defend herself either personally and/or with assistance of a
her. she wrote a letter to Fr. Oscar Millar, S.J., demanding that she be formally
representative; to know the nature of her offense; and, to cross examine and confront
informed of the complaint and be duly investigated. It can be gleaned from the records
face to face the witnesses against her. Likewise, due process requires that the decision
that she was duly furnished with the rules of procedure, informed of the schedule of
must be based on established facts and on a sound legal foundation.
the hearings, and given copies of the affidavits executed by the students who testified
against her. Petitioner refused to take part in the investigation unless the rules of In the instant case, ATENEO failed to prove by substantial evidence that
procedure laid down by the Committee be revised, contending that the same were petitioner had inflicted corporal punishment on her students. n Ang Tibay v. CIR, the
violative of her right to due process. private respondent informed petitioner that the Court set the measure of evidence to be presented in an administrative investigation
rules of procedure to be applied were substantially the same rules that were used in when it said, substantial evidence is more than mere scintilla. It means such relevant
the investigation of a former Ateneo employee and therefore we are under legal advice evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
not to change these rules. evidence of private respondent did not measure up to this standard. It relied solely on
the witnesses affidavits with questionable veracity. Moreover, the affidavit of
private respondent served a Notice of Termination on petitioner pursuant to the
recantation executed by some students and their parents all the more weakened the
findings and recommendation of the Committee. Thereafter, petitioner received a
case of private respondent. Failure in this regard negates the very existence of the Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday rendered judgment declaring that the petitioner was
ground for dismissal. illegally dismissed. On appeal, public respondent NLRC rendered the assailed
decision which set aside the Labor Arbiters ruling. Insofar as finding the private
he conclusion of the NLRC is unwarranted. Employment is not merely a
respondents as having failed to present evidence relative to petitioners absences and
contractual relationship; it has assumed the nature of property right. It may spell the
tardiness, the NLRC agrees with the Labor Arbiter. However, the NLRC ruled that
difference whether or not a family will have food on their table, roof over their heads
petitioner had admitted the tardiness and absences though offering justifications for
and education for their children. It is for this reason that the State has taken up
the infractions.
measures to protect employees from unjustified dismissals. It is also because of this
that the right to security of tenure is not only a statutory right but, more so, a ISSUE: WON petitioner was validl dismissed?
constitutional right.
HELD: It bears stressing that a worker’s employment is property in the constitutional
[G. R. No. 129329. July 31, 2001] sense. He cannot be deprived of his work without due process. In order for the
dismissal to be valid, not only must it be based on just cause supported by clear and
ESTER M. ASUNCION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
convincing evidence, the employee must also be given an opportunity to be heard
COMMISSION, Second Division, MABINI MEDICAL CLINIC and
and defend himself. It is the employer who has the burden of proving that the
DR. WILFRIDO JUCO, respondents.
dismissal was with just or authorized cause. The failure of the employer to discharge
FACTS: petitioner Ester M. Asuncion was employed as an this burden means that the dismissal is not justified and that the employee is entitled
accountant/bookkeeper by the respondent Mabini Medical Clinic. certain officials of to reinstatement and backwages.
the NCR-Industrial Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Employment
In the case at bar, there is a paucity of evidence to establish the charges of absenteeism
conducted a routine inspection of the premises of the respondent company and
and tardiness. We note that the employer company submitted mere handwritten
discovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner of (documents) violations of the labor
listing and computer print-outs. The handwritten listing was not signed by the one
standards law such as the non-coverage from the SSS of the employees. Consequently,
who made the same. As regards the print-outs, while the listing was computer
respondent Company was made to correct these violations. the private respondent,
generated, the entries of time and other annotations were again handwritten and
Medical Director Wilfrido Juco, issued a memorandum to petitioner charging her with
unsigned.
different offenses committed by the petitioner. Petitioner was required to explain
within two (2) days why she should not be terminated based on the above charges. private respondents failed to present a single piece of credible evidence to serve
Three days later, petitioner submitted her response to the memorandum. On the same as the basis for their charges against petitioner and consequently, failed to fulfill their
day, respondent Dr. Juco, through a letter dismissed the petitioner on the ground of burden of proving the facts which constitute the just cause for the dismissal of the
disobedience of lawful orders and for her failure to submit her reply within the two- petitioner. In reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, public respondent NLRC
day period. This prompted petitioner to file a case for illegal termination before the relied upon the supposed admission of the petitioner of her habitual absenteeism and
NLRC. chronic tardiness.As explained by petitioner, her alleged absences were incurred on
Saturdays. According to petitioner, these should not be considered as absences as there
was an arrangement between her and the private respondents that she would not be Facts: Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
required to work on Saturdays. Private respondents have failed to deny the existence Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, took effect on July 15, 1995. Before the law took
of this arrangement. Hence, the decision of the NLRC that private respondent had effect, ARCO-Phil filed a petition asking the court to declare some provisions of the
sufficient grounds to terminate petitioner as she admitted the charges of habitual law unconstitutional. The law required that only skilled workers were to be deployed
absences has no leg to stand on.Neither have the private respondents shown by for employed abroad. According to the respondent, the right of unskilled workers to
competent evidence that the petitioner was given any warning or reprimanded for her due process is violated because they are prevented from finding employment and
alleged absences and tardiness. earning a living abroad. It cannot be argued that skilled workers are immune from
abuses by employers, while unskilled workers are merely prone to such abuses. It was
The law mandates that every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to the
pointed out that both skilled and unskilled workers are subjected to abuses by foreign
employee by the management to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense.
employers. Furthermore, the prohibition of the deployment of unskilled workers
From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the abroad would only encourage fly-by-night illegal recruiters. The respondent,
factual basis of the charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in her likewise, alleged that Section 6, subsections (a) to (m) is unconstitutional because
favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and licensed and authorized recruitment agencies are placed on equal footing with illegal
construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between recruiters. It contended that while the Labor Code distinguished between recruiters
the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must who are holders of licenses and non-holders thereof in the imposition of penalties,
be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally Rep. Act No. 8042 does not make any distinction. The penalties in Section 7(a) and
adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.Not having satisfied (b) being based on an invalid classification are, therefore, repugnant to the equal
its burden of proof, we conclude that the employer dismissed the petitioner without protection clause, besides being excessive; hence, such penalties are violative of
any just cause. Hence, the termination is illegal. Having found that the petitioner has Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution. 9 It was also pointed out that the penalty
been illegally terminated, she is necessarily entitled to reinstatement to her former for officers/officials/employees of recruitment agencies who are found guilty of
previous position without loss of seniority and the payment of backwages. economic sabotage or large-scale illegal recruitment under Rep. Act No. 8042 is life
imprisonment.

ISSUE: whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion
[G.R. No. 131719. May 25, 2004]
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order and the writ
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE of preliminary injunction on a bond of only P50,000 and whether or not the appellate
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND THE court erred in affirming the trial courts order and the writ of preliminary injunction
SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, OWWA ADMINISTRATOR, issued by it.
and POEA ADMINISTRATOR, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF
HELD: The matter of whether to issue a writ of preliminary injunction or not is
APPEALS and ASIAN RECRUITMENT COUNCIL PHILIPPINE
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, if the court commits
CHAPTER (ARCO-PHIL.), INC.,
grave abuse of its discretion in issuing the said writ amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction, the same may be nullified via a writ of certiorari and prohibition. recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown
that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.
The possible unconstitutionality of a statute, on its face, does not of itself justify
an injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it, unless there is a showing of By its rulings, the Court thereby affirmed the validity of the assailed penal and
bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable procedural provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042, including the imposable penalties
relief. The "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as "manifestly therefor. Until the Court, by final judgment, declares that the said provisions are
strong medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally unconstitutional, the enforcement of the said provisions cannot be enjoined.
disfavored.
Penalizing unlicensed and licensed recruitment agencies and their officers and
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law employees and their relatives employed in government agencies charged with the
assailed to be unconstitutional, the party must establish that it will suffer irreparable enforcement of the law for illegal recruitment and imposing life imprisonment for
harm in the absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is likely to those who commit large scale illegal recruitment is not offensive to the Constitution.
succeed on the merits, or that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the The accused may be convicted of illegal recruitment and large scale illegal recruitment
merits and the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor. only if, after trial, the prosecution is able to prove all the elements of the crime charged.

Preliminarily, the proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on


Just as the incidental "chilling effect" of such statutes does not automatically
innocent people anxious to obtain employment abroad is one of the primary
render them unconstitutional, so the chilling effect that admittedly can result from the
considerations that led to the enactment of The Migrant Workers and Overseas
very existence of certain laws on the statute books does not in itself justify prohibiting
Filipinos Act of 1995. Aimed at affording greater protection to overseas Filipino
the State from carrying out the important and necessary task of enforcing these laws
workers, it is a significant improvement on existing laws in the recruitment and
against socially harmful conduct that the State believes in good faith to be punishable
placement of workers for overseas employment.
under its laws and the Constitution.
The petition is GRANTED.
One who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity
beyond reasonable doubt. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
[G.R. No. 152039. April 8, 2005]
constitutionality of a statute. This presumption of constitutionality is based on the
doctrine of separation of powers which enjoin upon each department a becoming F.F. MARINE CORPORATION and/or MR. ERIC A. CRUZ, petitioners, vs.
respect for the acts of the other departments. THE HONORABLE SECOND DIVISION NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and RICARDO M. MAGNO,
The validity of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 which provides that employees of
respondents.
recruitment agencies may be criminally liable for illegal recruitment has been upheld
in People v. Chowdury: An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal
FACTS:Petitioner F.F. Marine Corporation (FFMC) is a corporation duly organized 1997.The appellate court eventually dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolution
and existing under Philippine laws, with Eric A. Cruz as its president. It is engaged in of the NLRC. Material to the resolution of the case was the issue of admissibility and
ship-repair, dry-docking and dredging services, and has a total of 419 employees competency as evidence of the 31 December 1997 and 1996 Financial Statements of
including private respondent Ricardo M. Magno. Magno, who began working for petitioners. Accordingly, the appellate court found that petitioners failed to
FFMC on 7 February 1990, was eventually assigned as Lead Electrician at the Marine substantiate the substantive requirements of a valid retrenchment.The fact that Magno
Dredging. petitioners filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a executed a quitclaim in favor of petitioners, according to the Court of Appeals, did not
notice that petitioner corporation was undertaking a retrenchment program to curb the bar him from filing the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
serious business reverses brought about by the Asian economic crisis.

Pursuant to the retrenchment program, petitioners served the affected employees


ISSUE:WON Petitioners failed to substantiate the substantive requirements of a valid
a personal notice of retrenchment, stating that their employment would end at the close
retrenchment?
of business hours of 16 December 1998. However, petitioners paid them in advance
of their payroll from 16 November to 16 December 1998 to spare them from reporting HELD:The petition suffers from lack of merit.
for work during the period. They were also paid separation pay equivalent to one-half
The Court is not oblivious of the significant role played by the corporate sector
(1/2) month basic pay per year of service, plus the proportionate 13 th month pay.
in the countrys economic and social progress. Implicit in turn in the success of the
petitioners filed with the DOLE, an Establishment Termination Report for the
corporate form in doing business is the ethos of business autonomy which allows
retrenchment of twenty-one (21) affected employees, including Magno. Magno
freedom of business determination with minimal governmental intrusion to ensure
received his separation pay equivalent to nine (9) years and proportionate 13th month
economic independence and development in terms defined by businessmen. Yet, this
pay.
vast expanse of management choices cannot be an unbridled prerogative that can rise
Magno filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral and exemplary damages and above the constitutional protection to labor. Employment is not merely a lifestyle
attorney’s fees, with prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages against choice to stave off boredom. Employment to the common man is his very life and
petitioners. Magno claimed that he was beguiled into accepting the separation pay blood which must be protected against concocted causes to legitimize an otherwise
since petitioners terminated his services on the pretext that the dredging machine irregular termination of employment. Imagined or undocumented business losses
where he was assigned was temporarily stalled in Zambales. Magno eventually present the least propitious scenario to justify retrenchment.
learned that the company had been adducing to others a different reason for
Retrenchment is the termination of employment initiated by the employer
retrenchment, primarily the Asian financial crisis.
through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted to by
Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi promulgated a Decision upholding the management during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal
validity of retrenchment.The NLRC deemed the petitioners as having been unable to fluctuations or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials,
establish proof of actual losses, due to the absence of financial reports of independent conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new
external auditors that would confirm the losses sustained for the years 1996 and methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation. Retrenchment is a valid
management prerogative. It is, however, subject to faithful compliance with the It is essentially required that the alleged losses in business operations must be
substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. proven. Otherwise, said ground for termination would be susceptible to abuse by
scheming employers who might be merely feigning business losses or reverses in their
There are three (3) basic requisites for a valid retrenchment to exist, to wit: (a)
business ventures in order to ease out employees. The employer bears the burden of
the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b) written
proving the existence or the imminence of substantial losses with clear and
notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one (1) month prior to the intended
satisfactory evidence that there are legitimate business reasons justifying a
date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month
retrenchment. Should the employer fail to do so, the dismissal shall be deemed
pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
unjustified.
Retrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees. It is resorted
Considering that the ground for retrenchment availed of by petitioners was not
to by an employer primarily to avoid or minimize business losses. The law recognizes
sufficiently and convincingly established, the retrenchment is hereby declared illegal
this under Article 283 of the Labor Code. However, the employer bears the burden to
and of no effect. The quitclaims executed by retrenched employees in favor of
prove his allegation of economic or business reverses. The employers failure to prove
petitioners were therefore not voluntarily entered into by them. Their consent was
it necessarily means that the employees dismissal was not justified.
similarly vitiated by mistake or fraud. The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims
In the case at bar, petitioners seek to justify the retrenchment on the ground of and releases by employees pressured into signing by unscrupulous employers minded
serious business losses brought about by the Asian economic crisis. Petitioners’ failure to evade legal responsibilities. As a rule, deeds of release or quitclaim cannot bar
to adduce financial statements duly audited by independent external auditor casts employees from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled or from
doubt on their claim of losses for financial statements are easy prey to manipulation contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance of those benefits would not
and concoction. This Court has ruled that financial statements audited by independent amount to estoppel. The amounts already received by the retrenched employees as
external auditors constitute the normal method of proof of the profit and loss consideration for signing the quitclaims should, however, be deducted from their
performance of a company. A careful examination of financial statements may be respective monetary awards.
resorted to especially if on their face relevant facts appear to have been ignored that
In sum, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement if
will warrant a contrary conclusion.
viable or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and (2) backwages.
The Court fails to see any reason to reverse the legal conclusions made by the
the petition is DENIED and the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court
Court of Appeals.The appellate courts affirmance of the decision of the NLRC is
of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
principally anchored on the ground that petitioners failed to adduce the 1996 and 1997
Financial Statementsaudited by an independent external auditor before the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC. By merely upholding the evidentiary weight accorded to
financial statements duly audited by independent external auditors, grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC is hardly imaginable as it is unfounded.
DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS previously accessible but already existing).

G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940 The CIR is free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements, but this not mean
that it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the
ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor, fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of
and an administrative character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected
NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners, even in proceedings of this character:
vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s cause and submit
UNION, INC., respondents. evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
FACTS: Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which (3) The decision must have something to support itself;
supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the (4) The evidence must be substantial;
layoff of a number of his employees. However, the National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least
questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred that the said employees laid off contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
were members of NLU while no members of the rival labor union National Workers (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views
Brotherhood (NWB) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a company dominated
of a subordinate;
union and Toribio was merely busting NLU. The case reached the Court of Industrial (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in
Relations (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU went to the Supreme such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved,
Court invoking its right for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. and the reason for the decision rendered.
The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR,
The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the
filed a motion for reconsideration. parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should
be, and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded
to the CIR, with instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as may
ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is entitled to a new trial? be relevant, and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth.
HELD:Yes. The records show that the newly discovered evidence or documents G.R. No. L-29064 April 29, 1971
obtained by NLU, which they attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence so
inaccessible to them at the time of the trial that even with the exercise of due diligence AIR MANILA, INC., petitioner,

they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT, DIRECTOR NILO DE GUIA, DR.
of Industrial Relations. Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far- GREGORIO Y. ZARA, and COL. JUAN B. GUEVARRA as members of the

reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.,
modification and reversal of the judgment rendered (said newly obtained records respondents.

include books of business/inventory accounts by Ang Tibay which were not FACTS: the Philippine Air Lines, hereafter referred to as PAL, petitioned the Civil
Aeronautics Board, referred to hereafter as the Board, for approval of a proposed is recognized to include (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the
schedule introducing seven nights and the adjustment of the flight schedule that may institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's legal rights; (b) reasonable
thus be affected (CAB Case No. 1414). On 15 April 1968, action on the petition was opportunity to appear and defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence
deferred for further study. the Board passed Resolution No. 109 (68), referring PAL's in his favor, (c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty
petition to a hearing examiner for economic justification. It appears, however, that on and impartiality, and one of competent Jurisdiction; and (4) a finding or decision by
15 May 1968, PAL filed an Urgent Petition for approval of a consolidated schedule of that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
jet and jet prop flights, with an interim DC-3 schedule to different secondary and contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected.
feeder points (DTS-35). On 28 May 1968, the Board issued its Resolution No. 139
It may be true that the temporary approval of DTS-35 resulted in the immediate
(68), approving DTS-35 for a period of 30 days, effective 1 June 1968, subject to the
operation of the opposed flights before the existence of economic justification therefor
conditions that (a) the flight between Manila and San Fernando, La Union, of the same
has been finally determined. But this fact alone would not work against the validity
timetable, be operated daily instead of twice a week as proposed and (b) that all
of the provisional authorization thus issued. For, under the law, the Civil Aeronautics
schedules under DTS-35, for which no previous approval has been granted by the
Board is not onlyempowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity;
Board, are to be referred to a hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its
it can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in
economic justification. After the examiner's report, several of the proposed flights
part, any temporary operating permit, upon petition or complaint of another or even
were approved for 30 days from 31 July 1968.
at its own initiative. The exercise of the power, of course, is supposed to be
Air Manila, Inc., filed the instant petition claiming that the respondent Board acted conditioned upon the paramount consideration of public convenience and necessity,
without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with abuse of discretion in issuing its and nothing has been presented in this case to prove that the disputed action by the
Resolution No. 139 (68). It is petitioner's allegation that the proposed new schedule, Board has been prompted by a cause other than the good of the service
involving an increase of frequencies, would not only saturate the routes served also
It is evident from the foregoing facts that not only has the resolution subject of the
by petitioner, but would also affect its schedule; that the Board's approval of said
present petition been modified, but its effectivity had been fixed up to 30 September
Domestic Traffic Schedule without receiving the evidence of the parties constituted a
1968. There being no proof that the situation existing when Resolution No. 139 (68)
deprivation of petitioner's right to be heard; and that such authorization to PAL to
was issued still persists, the issue herein presented apparently has become moot and
operate the proposed schedule without economic justification amounted to a
academic.
capricious and whimsical exercise by the Board of its power amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988

ISSUE: WON the petitioners were deprived of the right to be heard? CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and ALFREDO T. ESCAÑO, petitioners,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. LABOR
HELD:It has been correctly said that administrative proceedings are not exempt from
ARBITER FELIPE P. PATI, and EDUARDO CALANGI, respondents.
the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due
process requirements in investigations and trials. And this administrative due process FACTS: Eduardo Calangi, a machine operator at Century Textile, was terminated
because he was allegedly behind the plot to kill his two supervisors, Melchor Meliton grounds for dismissal.
and Antonio Santos. Marin, another factory worker, noticed that Torrena, a machine Sec 5 Answer and hearing: Employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be
operator, put some substance in a pitcher where Meliton and Santos usually drank heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representatives if he so desires
from. It was later found out that the substance was formaldehyde. Torrena confessed Sec 6 Decision to dismiss: Employer should immediately inform the worker in writing
that Calangi personally instructed him to put the substance in the pitcher as an act of of the decision to dismiss him clearly stating the reasons.
revenge against Melitona and Santos because they repeatedly instigated the
Prior consultation with the labor union is legally insufficient because right to notice
termination of the two machine operators. Torrena and Calangi were preventively
and hearing are rights personal to an employee. Such consultation or consent is not a
suspended and eventually dismissed. Calangi filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
substitute for actual observance of the rights.
with the Arbitration Branch, NCR, MOLE, and was dismissed because the evidence
was ―so overwhelming‖ and ―sufficient enough‖ against Calangi and he failed to In the present case, there was nothing in the record that the Cainta Police interrogated
inexplicably to deny or controvert any charges.Calangi filed an appeal in NLRC and Calangi himself. The basis for the ground of dismissal is anchored solely on
the decision of the Arbitration branch was reversed. Petitioner Century Textile Mills Torrena‘ssworn statement which was not proven sufficiently.
alleged that Calangi had been previously informedof and given the chance to answer
According to Art 280 Labor Code, there is security of tenure. No loss of seniority
the company’s accusations against him, but that he had “kept silent” all the while.
rights and payment of back wages are the normal consequences when finding an
ISSUE: WON Respondent Calangi was illegally dismissed because his termination employee illegally dismissed but reinstatement is not in the best interest of the parties
was not in accordance with due process? involved. The corporation cannot be forced to take back an employee who poses a
threat to the lives of other employees. Therefore, separation pay must be paid in lieu
HELD: The SC held that Calangi‘s termination was without notice and hearing.
of reinstatement.
Thetwin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due
process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended toinform [G.R. No. 122389. June 19, 1997]
the employee concerned of the employer’s intent and the reason for theproposed
MIGUEL SINGSON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
dismissal while the requirement of hearing affords the employee theopportunity to
COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL),
answer his employer’s charges against him and to accordingly defend himself.
respondents.
Art 278 Labor Code states that an employer should furnish the worker a written notice
FACTS:
containing causes for termination and shall afford ample opportunity to be heard and
Miguel Singson was an employee of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL). In 1991, a
to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in
Japanese national alleged that Singson extorted money from her ($200.00) by
accordance with company rules. It was also stated that the burden of proving that the
accusing her of having excess baggage; and that to settle the issue, she needs to pay
termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer.
said amount to him. Singson was later investigated and the investigating committee
Rule 4, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code states: found him guilty. PAL then dismissed Singson from employment. Singson then filed
Sec 2 Notice of dismissal: Written notice of the particular acts or omission constituting a case before NLRC against PAL for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter Raul Aquino
ruled in favor of Singson as he found PAL’s side insufficient to dismiss Singson. PAL G.R. No. 166208
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and his case was
KING OF KINGS TRANSPORT, INC., CLAIRE DELA FUENTE, and
raffled to the 2nd Division thereof. The 2nd Division, however, was composed of
MELISSA LIM, Petitioners, - versus - TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Commissioners Victoriano Calaycay, Rogelio Rayala, and former Labor Arbiter Raul
Aquino – same arbiter which decided Singson’s case. The commissioners deliberated FACTS:Petitioner KKTI is a corporation engaged in public transportation and
on the case and thereafter reversed the decision of Aquino. Singson moved for managed by Claire Dela Fuente and Melissa Lim. Respondent was a conductor for
reconsideration. This time, only Commissioners Calaycay and Rayala deliberated on Don Mariano Transit Corporation (DMTC). He was one of the few people who
the motion. The motion was denied. established Damayan ng mga Manggagawa, Tsuper at Conductor-Transport Workers
Union. Pending the union’s certification election, respondent was transferred to KKTI.
ISSUE: Whether or not Singson was denied of due process.
The KKTI employees later organized the Kaisahan ng mga Kawani sa King of Kings
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson was denied due process. The SC (KKKK) which was registered with DOLE. Respondent was elected KKKK president.
held that Singson was denied due process when Aquino participated, as presiding
commissioner of the 2ndDivision of the NLRC, in reviewing PAL’s appeal. He was
Upon audit of the October 28, 2001 Conductor’s Report of respondent, KKTI noted
reviewing his own decision as a former labor arbiter.
an irregularity. It discovered that respondent declared several sold tickets as returned
Under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, each tickets causing KKTI to lose an income of eight hundred and ninety pesos. While no
Division shall consist of one member from the public sector who shall act as the irregularity report was prepared on the October 28, 2001 incident, KKTI nevertheless
Presiding Commissioner and one member each from the workers and employer’s asked respondent to explain the discrepancy. In his letter, respondent said that the
sectors, respectively. The composition of the Division guarantees equal representation erroneous declaration in his October 28, 2001 Trip Report was unintentional. He
and impartiality among its members. Thus, litigants are entitled to a review of three explained that during that day’s trip, the windshield of the bus assigned to them was
(3) commissioners who are impartial right from the start of the process of review. smashed; and they had to cut short the trip in order to immediately report the matter
to the police. As a result of the incident, he got confused in making the trip report.
Commissioner Aquino can hardly be considered impartial since he was the arbiter who
decided the case under review. He should have inhibited himself from any On November 26, 2001, respondent received a letter terminating his employment
participation in this case. The infirmity of the resolution was not cured by the fact that effective November 29, 2001. The dismissal letter alleged that the October 28, 2001
the motion for reconsideration of Singson was denied by two commissioners and irregularity was an act of fraud against the company. KKTI also cited as basis for
without the participation of Aquino. The right of petitioner to an impartial review of respondent’s dismissal the other offenses he allegedly committed since 1999.
his appeal starts from the time he filed his appeal. He is not only entitled to an
After that, he filed an action for illegal dismissal, among other claims. He denied
impartial tribunal in the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Moreover, his
committing any infraction and alleged that his dismissal was intended to bust union
right isto an impartial review of three commissioners. The denial of Singson’s right to
activities. Moreover, he claimed that his dismissal was effected without due process.
an impartial reviewof his appeal is not an innocuous error. It negated his right to due
process. KKTI averred that it had observed due process in dismissing respondent and
maintained that respondent was not entitled to his money claims such as service (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due
incentive leave and 13th-month pay because he was paid on commission or percentage consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his
basis. termination.

Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes rendered judgment dismissing respondents 1. The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the
Complaint for lack of merit. Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the National Labor specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that
Relations Commission (NLRC). Affirmed. CA held that there was just cause for the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation
respondent’s dismissal. It ruled that respondent’s act in “declaring sold tickets as within a reasonable period. “Reasonable opportunity” under the Omnibus
returned tickets x x x constituted fraud or acts of dishonesty justifying his dismissal.” Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the
employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense.15 This
ISSUE: WON respondents were given procedural due process?
should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt
HELD: NO. There was failure to observe the requirements of due process of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation
against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and
Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: first, substantive––the valid
decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in
and authorized causes of termination of employment under the Labor Code; and
order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and
second, procedural––the manner of dismissal.
defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and
Section 2(d) of Rule I of Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A
Code provides: general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should
specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which
SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice. In all cases of
among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.
termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be
2. After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a
substantially observed:
hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity
1. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present
of the Code: evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented
against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the

his side. assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this


conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance to an amicable settlement.
of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his 3. After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers
evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him. shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1)
all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been laborers.
considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of
LLTCI appealed. LLTCI‘s contentions:
their employment.
 CIR made a mistake in conceding salary/wage increases merely because such
Respondent was not issued a written notice charging him of committing an infraction.
increases would enable employees to meet high cost of living.
A verbal appraisal of the charges against an employee does not comply with the first
 The increases, if added to the crippling losses, would only throw the company
notice requirement.
into bankruptcy.
The court observed from the irregularity reports against respondent for his other  CIR had no power to order such directives and violated appellant‘s freedom
offenses that such contained merely a general description of the charges against him. tocontract.
The reports did not even state a company rule or policy that the employee had
ISSUE: WON appealed decision in effect has deprived LLTCI of its rights to enter
allegedly violated.
into contract of employment as it and the employee may agree
No hearing was conducted. Regardless of respondent’s written explanation, a hearing
HELD: NO. The fact that both parties are of full age and competent to contract does
was still necessary in order for him to clarify and present evidence in support of his
not necessarily deprive the State of the power to interfere where the parties do not
defense. Moreover, respondent made the letter merely to explain the circumstances
stand upon an equality, or where the public health demands that one party to the
relating to the irregularity in his October 28, 2001 Conductor’s Trip Report. He was
contract shall be protected against himself.
unaware that a dismissal proceeding was already being effected. Thus, he was
surprised to receive the November 26, 2001 termination letter indicating as grounds, The State still retains an interest in his welfare, however reckless he may be. The
not only his October 28, 2001 infraction, but also his previous infractions. whole is no greater than the sum of all the parts, and where the individual health,
safety and welfare are sacrificed or neglected, the State must suffer. Citing Justice
Laurel in Ang Tibay v CIR (concurring): The policy of laissez faire has to some extent
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT AND STATE INTERFERENCE
given way to the assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in
[G.R. No. L-1377. May 12, 1948.] contractual relations affected with public interest Obiter regarding the criticism that
the additional benefits would benefit the union and well as non-union members, the
LEYTE LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, v. LEYTE court held that as the workers are laborers of the company, they are entitled to the
FARMERS’ & LABORERS’ UNION, Respondents. increase regardless of their affiliation. To make a distinction would only be an unjust
and unwarranted discrimination against non-members.

FACTS: Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued order directing Leyte Land Decision Affirmed.
Transportation Company, Inc. (LLTCI) to grant various employees increase in wages
and salaries (5-10 pesos) to its drivers, conductors, mechanics and other workers, and
grant 15 days vacation with pay and 15 days sick leave with pay to employees and
BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIZALDE ROPE Appellee filed an action for injunction to enjoin the Company and the Union from
WORKERS’ UNION and ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC., defendants, dismissing Appellee. The Union invoked the “union security clause” of the CBA and
ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION, defendant-appellant. assailed the constitutionality of RA 3350 and contends it discriminatorily favors those
GRN L-25246 September 12, 1974 religious sects which ban their members from joining labor unions.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Whether Appellee has the freedom of choice in joining the union or not.
Benjamin Victoriano (Appellee), a member of the religious sect known as the “Iglesia
ni Cristo”, had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. (Company) since RULING:
1958. He was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union (Union) which had
with the Company a CBA containing a closed shop provision which reads as follows: YES. The Constitution and RA 875 recognize freedom of association. Sec 1 (6) of Art
“Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all III of the Constitution of 1935, as well as Sec 7 of Art IV of the Constitution of 1973,
permanent employees workers covered by this Agreement.” provide that the right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged. Section 3 of RA 875 provides that employees shall have the
Under Sec 4(a), par 4, of RA 975, prior to its amendment by RA 3350, the employer right to self-organization and to form, join of assist labor organizations of their own
was not precluded “from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities
a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. What the
representative of the employees.” On June 18, 1961, however, RA 3350 was enacted, Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the “right” to
introducing an amendment to par 4 subsection (a) of sec 4 of RA 875, as follows: “xxx form or join associations. A right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely:
but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit first, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may
affiliation of their members in any such labor organization”. act for himself without being prevented by law; and second, power, whereby an
employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association. It is, therefore,
Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits the affiliation of its members with the employee who should decide for himself whether he should join or not an
any labor organization, Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union. The association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes up his mind as to which
Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter to separate Appellee association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty and
from the service because he was resigning from the Union as a member. The Company the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at any time. The
in turn notified Appellee and his counsel that unless the Appellee could achieve a right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. The law does
satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the Company would be constrained to not enjoin an employee to sign up with any association.
dismiss him from the service.
The Company was partly absolved by law from the contractual obligation it had with ECOP vs. NWPC, RTWPB-NCR & TUCP
the Union of employing only Union members in permanent positions. It cannot be G.R. No. 96169, September 24, 1991
denied, therefore, that there was indeed an impairment of said union security clause.

FACTS:
The prohibition to impair the obligation of contracts is not absolute and unqualified.
The prohibition is general. The prohibition is not to be read with literal exactness, for ECOP questioned the validity of the wage order issued by the RTWPB, increasing the
it prohibits unreasonable impairment only. In spite of the constitutional prohibition, minimum wage by P17.00/day in NCR. The wage order was made applicable to all
the State continues to possess authority to safeguard the vital interests of its people. workers and employees in the private sector, including those who are paid above the
Legislation appropriate to safeguarding said interests may modify or abrogate statutory wage rate. The NWPC dismissed ECOP’s petition. The Solicitor General
contracts already in effect. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order commented that the RTWPB may fix minimum wages according to the salary method,
to fix the obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes while ECOP insisted that the RTWPB may do so only by adjusting floor wages.
of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order. The
contract clause of the Constitution. must be not only in harmony with, but also in ISSUE:
subordination to, in appropriate instances, the reserved power of the state to safeguard
WON the wage order was valid.
the vital interests of the people. This has special application to contracts regulating
relations between capital and labor which are not merely contractual, and said labor
HELD:
contracts, for being impressed with public interest, must yield to the common good.
The purpose to be achieved by RA 3350 is to insure freedom of belief and religion,
and to promote the general welfare by preventing discrimination against those YES. There are two ways of fixing wage - the floor wage method and the salary ceiling
members of religious sects which prohibit their members from joining labor unions, method. The floor wage method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would
confirming thereby their natural, statutory and constitutional right to work, the fruits be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage, while the salary ceiling method
of which work are usually the only means whereby they can maintain their own life involves the application of the wage adjustment to employees receiving a certain
and the life of their dependents. denominated salary ceiling.

The purpose of RA 3350 was not to grant rights to labor unions. The rights of labor
unions are amply provided for in Republic Act No. 875 and the new Labor Code.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is dismissed.


G.R. No. 77875 February 4, 1993 HELD:

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs.


Evidently basic and firmly settled is the rule that judicial review by this Court in labor
cases does not go so far as to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the
ALBERTO SANTOS, JR., HOUDIEL MAGADIA, GILBERT ANTONIO,
labor officer or office based his or its determination, but is limited to issues of
REGINO DURAN, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.4 It has not been shown that respondent
and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
NLRC has unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically
FACTS: enjoins it to perform as a duty or has otherwise unlawfully excluded petitioner from
the exercise of a right to which it is entitled.
The instant petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the decision of The National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. 4-1206-85, promulgated on Contrary to petitioner's submission,15 the grievance of employees is not a matter
December 11, 1986,1 containing the following disposition: which requires the personal act of Mr. Abad and thus could not be delegated.
Petitioner could at least have assigned an officer-in-charge to look into the grievance
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the Decision appealed from is and possibly make his recommendation to Mr. Abad. It is of no moment that Mr. Abad
set aside and another one entered, declaring the suspension of complainants to be immediately looked into the grievance upon returning to work, for it must be
illegal and consequently, respondent PAL is directed to pay complainants their remembered that the grievants are workingmen who suffered salary deductions and
salaries corresponding to the respective period(s) of their suspension, and to delete the who rely so much on their meager income for their daily subsistence and survival.
disciplinary action from complainants' service records.2 Besides, it is noteworthy that when these employees first presented their complaint on
August 21, 1984, petitioner failed to act on it. It was only after a formal grievance was
These material facts recited in the basic petition are virtually undisputed and we
filed and after Mr. Abad returned to work on December 7, 1984 that petitioner decided
reproduce the same. Private respondents appealed the decision of the labor arbiter to
to turn an ear to their plaints.
respondent commission which rendered the aforequoted decision setting aside the
labor arbiter's order of dismissal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been As respondent NLRC has pointed out, Abad's failure to act on the matter may have
denied, it interposed the present petition. been due to petitioner's inadvertence,16 but it is clearly too much of an injustice if the
employees be made to bear the dire effects thereof. Much as the latter were willing to
ISSUE: discuss their grievance with their employer, the latter closed the door to this possibility
by not assigning someone else to look into the matter during Abad's absence. Thus,
Whether or not public respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion private respondents should not be faulted for believing that the effects of the CBA in
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in rendering the aforementioned decision. their favor had already stepped into the controversy.
If the Court were to follow petitioner's line of reasoning, it would be easy for workingman and protects his rights not only under a general statement of a state policy
management to delay the resolution of labor problems, the complaints of the workers but under the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, thus placing labor contracts
in particular, and hide under the cloak of its officers being "on leave" to avoid being on a higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations between labor and
caught by the 5-day deadline under the CBA. If this should be allowed, the capital are not merely contractual. They are impressed with public interest and labor
workingmen will suffer great injustice for they will necessarily be at the mercy of contracts must, perforce, yield to the common good.
their employer. That could not have been the intendment of the pertinent provision of
the CBA, much less the benevolent policy underlying our labor laws. PHILIPPINE TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. V. NLRC,

ACCORDINGLY, on the foregoing premises, the instant petition is hereby DENIED


G. R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997
and the assailed decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is
AFFIRMED. This judgment is immediately executory.
FACTS:

BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. NAFLU


This is a case for illegal dismissal filed by Grace de Guzman against PT&T.

FACTS: Grace de Guzman is a probationary employee of PT&T. In her job application, she
represented that she was single although she was married. When management found
Private respondent Estrada is a member of the respondent labor union. He did not out, she was made to explain. However, her explanation was found unsatisfactory so
report for work for 1 month due to a grave family problem as his wife deserted him she was subsequently dismissed from work.
and nobody was there to look after his children. He was required to explain. Finding
his rreasons to be unjustified, the petitioner terminated him, since according to Grace thus filed a case for illegal dismissal against PT&T with RAB. According to
company rules, absence for 6 consecutive days is considered abandonment of work. the Labor Arbiter, Grace, who had already gained the status of regular employee, was
illegally dismissed by PT&T. Moreover, he ruled that Grace was apparently
ISSUE: Whether or not a worker be summarily dismissed relying on some company discriminated against on account of her having contracted marriage in violation of
rules? company rules.

On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was upheld. The Motion
HELD:
for Reconsideration was likewise rebuffed, hence, this special civil action.

No. While the employer is not precluded from prescribing rules and regulations to
Petitioner argued that the dismissal was not because Grace was married but because
govern the conduct of his employees, these rules and their implementation must be
of her concealment of the fact that she was married. Such concealment amounted to
fair, just and reasonable. No less than the Constitution looks with compassion on the
dishonesty, which was why she was dismissed from work. company. In other words, she was practically forced by that very same illegal
company policy into misrepresenting her civil status for fear of being disqualified
ISSUES: from work. While loss of confidence is a just cause for termination of employment, it
should not be simulated. It must rest on an actual breach of duty committed by the
Whether or not the company policy of not accepting married women for employment
employee and not on the employer’s caprices. Furthermore, it should never be used as
was discrimination.
a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified.
Whether or not Grace’s act of concealment amounted to dishonesty, leading to loss of
confidence.
However, SC nevertheless ruled that Grace did commit an act of dishonesty, which
Whether or not Grace was illegally dismissed.
should be sanctioned and therefore agreed with the NLRC’s decision that the
dishonesty warranted temporary suspension of Grace from work.
HELD:

Grace attained regular status as an employee


There was discrimination

Private respondent, it must be observed, had gained regular status at the time of her
Article 136 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of
dismissal. When she was served her walking papers on Jan. 29, 1992, she was about
the marriage of a female employee.
to complete the probationary period of 150 days as she was contracted as a
probationary employee on September 2, 1991. That her dismissal would be effected
Petitioner’s policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any
just when her probationary period was winding down clearly raises the plausible
woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right against,
conclusion that it was done in order to prevent her from earning security of tenure.
discrimination, afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the
Constitution. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion that it dismissed private respondent
There was illegal dismissal
from employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her
ties with the company were dissolved principally because of the company’s policy
As an employee who had therefore gained regular status, and as she had been
that married women are not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not merely
dismissed without just cause, she is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.
rights and other privileges and to full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent.
Concealment did not amount to willful dishonesty

On Stipulation against Marriage


Verily, private respondent’s act of concealing the true nature of her status from PT&T
could not be properly characterized as willful or in bad faith as she was moved to act
In the final reckoning, the danger of PT&T’s policy against marriage is that it strikes
the way she did mainly because she wanted to retain a permanent job in a stable
at the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution
and, ultimately, of the family as the foundation of the nation. as the regular Manager of its Cebu Branch (Exhibit G) effective May 1, 1968; that
defendant bank increased plaintiff's salary to P1800.00 a month (Exhibit H); that on
Petition dismissed. May 16, 1969 while the plaintiff was on vacation leave, he happened to visit the bank
and learned that three tellers of defendant bank's branch in Cebu City, namely, Miss
G.R. No. L-42724 April 9, 1985 Crystal Enriquez, Miss Yolanda Chu, and Miss Sonia Chiu, had been transferred to
the head office in Manila by defendant Jose D. Santos; that the plantiff went to Manila
GENERAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, CLARENCIO S. YUJUICO,
on May 18, 1969 to make personal representation with the head office for the retention
SALVADOR D. TENORIO, IRINEO P. SAN LUIS and JOSE SANTOS, of the said tellers in Cebu; that on May 26, 1969 the plaintiff reported back for duty
petitioners, vs.
with defendant bank's branch in Cebu and reinstated immediately the three tellers to
their respective positions in the Cebu branch of defendant bank; that on May 28, 1969
THE COURT OF APPEALS (Ninth Division) and MANUEL E. BATUCAN,
defendant Jose D. Santos submitted a report to defendant Salvador D. Tenorio alleging
respondents
that there was excess personnel in the Cebu Branch; that on the same date defendant
Jose D. Santos submitted a supplementary report to defendant Salvador D. Tenorio
FACTS:
charging the plaintiff of over appraising the real estate offered by Domingo Chua as
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision which collateral for his credit accommodation (Exhibit 34); that defendant Salvador D.
affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu ordering the petitioners to Tenorio immediately dispatched a letter to the plaintiff dated May 30, 1969 requiring
pay private respondent Manuel E. Batucan, jointly and severally certain sums of him to explain within twenty-four hours why no disciplinary action should be taken
money and attorney's fees. against him for alleged repeated violation of defendant bank's policies and directives
regarding credit accommodations and for over-appraisal of the real estate collateral
This case starts with the employment of plantiff-appellee with the Cebu Branch of the for Domingo Chua's account, among others (Exhibit 8); that on June 6, 1969, the
First National City Bank of New York for 18 years, where he rose to the position of plaintiff received the said letter of defendant Salvador D. Tenorio but found it
Chief Clerk, Accounting Department (Exhibit 0); that on January 11, 1965, plaintiff- impossible to render the required explanation in 24 hours; that on June 19, 1969
appellee joined the defendant bank in its Cebu branch as accountant with an annual defendant Jose D. Santos went to Cebu City and served plaintiff with the letter of
compensation of P6,000.00 (Exhibit A); that on April 26, 1965, the Cebu Branch of defendant Salvador D. Tenorio, dated June 18, 1969, suspending the plaintiff; and that
defendant bank began operating and doing business with the public; that on January on July 22, 1969 plantiff was served with the order of his termination signed by
1, 1966, plaintiff received an increase of P50.00 bringing his monthly salary to defendant Clarencio S. Yujuico, dated July 18, 1969.
P550.00 (Exhibit D); that on April 11, 1967 defendant bank appointed the plaintiff to
the position of Acting Manager of its Cebu Branch, with the corresponding increase The Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch X rendered a decision finding the
of sale to P700.00 a month (Exhibit E); that effective September 1, 1967, defendant dismissal of plantiff as without just cause or otherwise illegal arbitrary, oppressive
bank granted plantiff a monthly housing allowance of P200.00 in addition to his and malicious, and ordering defendants to pay to the plaintiff, jointly and severally,
monthly salary (Exhibit F); that on October 3, 1967 defendant bank appointed plaintiff the following sums: (a) P1,000.00 a month, as consequential damages for the loss of
his salaries and allowances, from the date of his dismissal until the judgment shall With the foregoing circumstances, we cannot reconcile the management's alleged loss
have become final and executory; (b) P2,500.00 as termination pay; (c) P106.63 of confidence in Mr. Batucan with the latter's commendations for efficient
representing unpaid salaries from the 16th to 19th of June 1969; (d) P200,000.00 in performance, his having been given an increase in salary and his being asked to speak
concept of moral damages; (e) P50,000.00 as exemplary or corrective damages; (f) to other colleagues on effective banking techniques shortly after the supposed loss of
P15,000.00 as attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. confidence.

The Court of Appeals, affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the
The only reason for his dismissal found in the records is his failure to follow top-
judgment by reducing moral damages to P150,000.00 and exemplary damages to
management orders with regards to the transfer of the three tellers. Petitioners alleged
P30,000.00.
it to be insubordination. Nevertheless, insubordination must be proven to justify
dismissal (St. Luke's Hospital v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, 116 SCRA 240).
ISSUE: And we do not think that his earnest efforts in making representations to retain the
three tellers warrant his dimissal. A manager or supervisor must stand up for his
Whether or not the dismissal of Manuel E. Batucan was justified on the ground that subordinates unless the latter are guilty of wrongdoing or some conduct prejudicial to
he repeatedly failed to uphold the interests of the bank thus leading to his employer's the employer. Only after as representations was Mr. Batucan questioned on the several
loss of confidence on him. "unauthorized credit accommodations." His failure to explain within 24 hours which,
in the light of the circumstances, was too short, caused his suspension and later, his
HELD: dismissal retroactive to the date of suspension.

After a careful review of the case, we find no error in the finding of the Court of There was no valid reason for his dismissal, much less for all the charges and
Appeals that Mr. Batucan was indeed illegally dismissed. accusations made against him. The dismissal followed by the efforts to justify it was
tainted by bad faith or malice on the part of the petitioners who wanted Mr. Batucan
The petitioners' claim that "undisputed documentary evidence show that prior to his removed from his post. In view of the foregoing, we find that moral damages may be
dismissal, specifically from March 1968 to January 1969, respondent Batucan had justly awarded. Moral damages being justified, exemplary damages may also be
been repeatedly cited, warned and finally threatened with dismissal by his superior, awarded.
petitioner Tenorio, for his practice of granting credit accommodations without
authority during his tenure."
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED to read as follows:
Petitioners' argument is devoid of merit. We agree with the respondent that these
The petitioners are hereby ordered to pay to the private respondent, jointly and
communications are "nothing more than routinary acts and/or privileged acts of top
severally, the following sums-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
management officials which could not in any way affect or erode petitioners'
(P2,500.00) termination pay; ONE HUNDRED SIX PESOS AND SIXTY THREE
confidence in respondent Batucan." CENTAVOS (P106. 63) unpaid salaries; TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P12,000.00) in compensatory damages; TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine
(P20,000.00) in moral and exemplary damages; and FIVE THOUSAND PESOS Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the Repacking Section, could be
(P5,000.00) attorney's fees. detrimental to its business operations. Neither did petitioners explain how this
detriment will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, then a Production Helper in the
STAR PAPER CORP. VS. SIMBOL
Selecting Department, who married Howard Comia, then a helper in the cutter-
FACTS:
machine. The policy is premised on the mere fear that employees married to each
other will be less efficient. If we uphold the questioned rule without valid justification,
Petitioner was the employer of the respondents. Under the policy of Star Paper the the employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a perceived
employees are: danger at the expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure.

1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has a relative, Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-
up to the 3rd degree of relationship, already employed by the company. employee, but they are free to marry persons other than co-employees. The questioned
policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a
2. In case of two of our employees (singles, one male and another female) disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could
developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory,
then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy albeit disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business
stated above. concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to
be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons
Respondents Comia and Simbol both got married to their fellow employees. Estrella working together in one company.
on the other hand had a relationship with a co-employee resulting to her pregnancy on
the belief that such was separated. The respondents allege that they were forced to Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our
resign as a result of the implementation of the said assailed company policy. jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners. The protection given to labor in our
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner. The decision was jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the
appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision. legislature’s silence that married persons are not protected under our Constitution and
declare valid a policy based on a prejudice or stereotype. Thus, for failure of
ISSUE: Whether the prohibition to marry in the contract of employment is valid petitioners to present undisputed proof of a reasonable business necessity, we rule that
the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative. Corollary, the
issue as to whether respondents Simbol and Comia resigned voluntarily has become
HELD: moot and academic.
It is significant to note that in the case at bar, respondents were hired after they were
found fit for the job, but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee.
In the case of Estrella, the petitioner failed to adduce proof to justify her dismissal. ample reason to distrust him, the Labor tribunal cannot justly deny to the employer
Hence, the Court ruled that it was illegal. Petition was denied. the authority to dismiss such employee. ’Wherefore, petition granted. NLRC decision
is hereby set aside.

SONZA V. ABS-CBN
FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS. CARLOS LARIOSA AND NATIONAL LABOR Facts:
RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS ( FEBRUARY 27, 1987) Respondent ABS-CBN signed an Agreement with the Mel and Jay Management
FACTS: Development Corporation where the latter agreed to provide petitioner Sonza’s
Carlos Lariosa, worked in Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for 11 years as a services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. Later, Sonza
tire builder. On July 27, 1983, on his way out the company premises, he was frisked tendered a letter rescinding their agreement and filed a complaint before the DOLE
by security Lizo and Olvez. They found 16 wool flannel swabs inside his bag for payment of his labor standard benefits. ABS-CBN contends on the ground that no
tucked underneath his soiled clothes, all belonging to the company. He was then employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Labor Arbiter found
dismissed effective on August 2, 1983 through letter of Ms. Villavicani, company for respondent citing that Sonza as a ‘talent’ cannot be considered an employee of
president, based on “stealing company property and loss of trust”. Lariosa on the other petitioner. Both NLRC and CA affirmed.
hand filed with the Labor and Employment a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter found Laniosa’s dismissal justified but was reversed by the NLRC onappeal
and held that Lianosa be reinstated but without backwages. Issue: WoN employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and ABS-
CBN. - NO
ISSUE:
Ruling: Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an
Whether the act of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was within the realm on employee but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test
laws on Protection to Labor Law our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent Contractor. This
test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the
supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an
HELD: employee. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises, the
From the records, it is likewise clear that Firestone did not act arbitrarily in more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
terminating Linasosa’s services. Based on records, an investigation of the incident We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that produced the
was conducted in the presence of Lianosa, the Union President, and the Security finished product of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to
Guards who witnessed the attempted asportation. Thus, we cannot agree with the perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format
NLRC’s conclusion that even if Firestone has substantial proof, it did not observe and airtime schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-CBN’s sole concern
statutory requirements of due process. Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, an was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did
employer may terminate an employee for serious misconduct. ‘If there is sufficient not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.
evidence that an employee has been guilty of a breach of trust/ that his employer has
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that (NLRC) but, in a Resolution dated November 15, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 31-32), the appeal
the latter is an employee of the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed out of time. Hence, the
rules controlled his performance. We find that these general rules are merely instant petition.
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-
Issue: WoN NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
rating television and radio programs that comply with standards of the industry.
jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on a technicality.
Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-
Held: Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission on
CBN. Even an independent contractor can validly provide his services exclusively to
appeal, provides: SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. — Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter
the hiring party. In the broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as
shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the
control.
parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice thereof. SECTION 6. No
extension of period. — No motion or request for extension of the period within which
to perfect an appeal shall be entertained. The record shows that the employer
Rizal Empire v NLRC
(petitioner herein) received a copy of the decision of the Labor Arbiter on April 1,
Facts: 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal on April
11, 1985 and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April 22, 1985. Pursuant to the "no
In August, 1977, herein private respondent Rogelio R. Coria was hired by herein
extension policy" of the National Labor Relations Commission, aforesaid motion for
petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance Group as a casual employee with a salary of P10.00
extension of time was denied in its resolution dated November 15, 1985 and the appeal
a day. On January 1, 1978, he was made a regular employee, having been appointed
was dismissed for having been filed out of time. The Revised Rules of the National
as clerk-typist, with a monthly salary of P300.00.
Labor Relations Commission are clear and explicit and leave no room for
Being a permanent employee, he was furnished a copy of petitioner company's interpretation. Moreover, it is an elementary rule in administrative law that
"General Information, Office Behavior and Other Rules and Regulations." In the same administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret
year, without change in his position-designation, he was transferred to the Claims the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to
Department and his salary was increased to P450.00 a month. In 1980, he was great respect (Espanol v. Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 SCRA 314 [1985]).
transferred to the Underwriting Department and his salary was increased to P580.00 Under the above-quoted provisions of the Revised NLRC Rules, the decision appealed
a month plus cost of living allowance, until he was transferred to the Fire Department from in this case has become final and executory and can no longer be subject to
as filing clerk. appeal. Even on the merits, the ruling of the Labor Arbiter appears to be correct; the
consistent promotions in rank and salary of the private respondent indicate he must
In July, 1983, he was made an inspector of the Fire Division with a monthly salary
have been a highly efficient worker, who should be retained despite occasional lapses
of P685.00 plus allowances and other benefits. On October 15, 1983, private
in punctuality and attendance. Perfection cannot after all be demanded.
respondent Rogelio R. Coria was dismissed from work, allegedly, on the grounds of
tardiness and unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a complaint with the Ministry
of Labor and Employment (MOLE), and in a Decision dated March 14, 1985 (Record,
pp. 80-87), Labor Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz reinstated him to his position with back
wages. Petitioner filed an appeal with the National labor Relations Commission
DUNCAN V. GLAXO because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company.
In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests
FACTS:
against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and
Pedro A. Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. as procedures. Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests. The law also
medical representative. As stipulated in the contract signed and agreed by Tecson, The recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and
Glaxo provides that an employee is expected to inform management of any existing enforcement in the interest of fair play.
or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of
The company policy does not violate the equal protection clause. In the contractual
competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of interest or a
provision and the policy in its employee handbook, Glaxo does not impose an absolute
potential conflict between such relationship and the employee’s employment with the
prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of competitor
company, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a “transfer
companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of
to another department or preparation for employment outside the company after six
their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest
months.
between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships.
Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee
of Astra Pharmaceuticals, a competitor of Glaxo. In 1998,Tecson married Bettsy,
whilst constantly reminded by the District Manager regarding the conflict of interest SALLINAS V NLRC
which his relationship with Bettsy might engender. When Tecson failed to resolve the
Facts:
conflicting issue, Glaxo offered Tecson a separation pay or to be transferred from
Camarines to Butuan-Surigao-Agusan sales area to which the former refused to abide. Petitioner were employed with atlantic gulf and pacific Co. Salinas was a carpenter.
Aggrieved, Tecson filed a petition to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board Alejandro a bulk cement operator and crane driver, Cortez a Carpenter and forklift
(NCMB) which affirmed Glaxo’s policy as valid. CA affirmed NCMB’s decision, driver, and Samulde a lubeman and stationary operator.
hence, this petition.
These petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal. They claimed that
they had been covered by several contracts renewed with periods from 5 to 9 years.

ISSUE: Whether Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from The Labor arbiter dismissed petitions on the ground that the petitioners are project
competitor companies is valid, and whether said policy violates the equal protection employees whose work contracts with Atlantic Gullf indicated therein. That they have
clause of the Constitution. been assigned to different work projects, their work relation with Atlantic relative to
termination is governed by Policy Instruction No. 20 or Rule governing project
employees.
HELD:
Issue: WoN the petitioners are merely projects employees - NO
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
Held: The petitioners are regular employees. The mandate in Article 281 of the Labor
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of code, which pertinently prescribes that the ‘provisions of written agreement to the
competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances contract notwithstanding and regard less of the oral agreements of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to Issue: WoN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY.
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer’ and that any employee who has rendered at least 1 year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken shall be considered a regular Held: Yes. Art. 284. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. There is no
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment question that Article 284 of the Labor Code as amended by BP 130 is the law
shall continue while such actually exists,’ should apply in the case of petitioner. applicable in this case. The purpose of Article 284 as amended is obvious-the
protection of the workers whose employment is terminated because of the closure of
establishment and reduction of personnel. Without said law, employees like private
ABELLA V NLRC respondents in the case at bar will lose the benefits to which they are entitled — for
the thirty three years of service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in the case
Facts:
of Quitco. Although they were absorbed by the new management of the hacienda, in
On June 27, 1960, herein petitioner Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land in the absence of any showing that the latter has assumed the responsibilities of the
Monteverde, Negros Occidental, known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of former employer, they will be considered as new employees and the years of service
ten (10) years, renewable, at her option, for another ten (10) years. On August 13, behind them would amount to nothing.
1970, she opted to extend the lease contract for another ten (10) years During the
existence of the lease, she employed the herein private respondents. Private
respondent Ricardo Dionele, Sr. has been a regular farm worker since 1949 and he ASIAN TRANSMISSION V CA
was promoted to Cabo in 1963. On the other hand, private respondent Romeo Quitco
FACTS:
started as a regular employee in 1968 and was promoted to Cabo in November of the
same year. Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed private The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through Undersecretary
respondents and turned over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5, 1981, Cresenciano B. Trajano, issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11, 1993 wherein
who continued the management, cultivation and operation of the farm. it clarified, inter alia, that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April
9, 1993, whether unworked, which[,] apart from being Good Friday [and, therefore, a
On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner
legal holiday], is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday].
for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages.
“On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9, 1993 which apart from
Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Lucas, Jr., in a Decision dated July 16, 1982, ruled that the
being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on
dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business, but granted the private
the same day, this Department is of the view that the covered employees are entitled
respondents separation pay. The First Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated
to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage even if said holiday is
March 31, 1986, resolved to give due course to the petition; and to require the parties
unworked. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as
to submit simultaneous memoranda. In compliance therewith, the Solicitor General
Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date as
filed his Memorandum on June 18, 1986 and petitioner on July 23, 1986.
Araw ng Kagitingan.
Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both 4. Araw ng Kagitingan April 9 (Bataan and Corregidor Day)
Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x
5. Labor Day May 1
Despite the explanatory bulletin, petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted
6. Independence Day June 12
to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998.
Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. 7. National Heroes Day Last Sunday of August

In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining 8. Bonifacio Day November 30
Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU, the controversy was
9. Christmas Day December 25
submitted for voluntary arbitration. x x x x On July 31, 1998, the Office of the
Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered 10. Rizal Day December 30
employees “200% and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked
In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), the
April 9, 1998 which covers two regular holidays, namely, Araw ng Kagitignan and
Voluntary Arbitrator held that Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay
Maundy Thursday.”
for every regular holiday, the computation of which is determined by a legal formula
Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor Code which reads: which is not changed by the fact that there are two holidays falling on one day, like
on April 9, 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy
ART. 94. Right to holiday pay. – (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage
Thursday; and that that the law, as amended, enumerates ten regular holidays for every
during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly
year should not be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid
employing less than ten (10) workers;
regular holidays “just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain years, like 1993
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee and 1998, is also Holy Friday or Maundy Thursday.”
shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and
In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary
(c) As used in this Article, “holiday” includes: New Year’s Day, Maundy Thursday, Arbitrator, holding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between
Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of July, petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them, clearly
the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday, on
designated by law for holding a general election, whatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the
effectivity of the CBA and that “[t]here is no condition, qualification or exception for
which was amended by Executive Order No. 203 issued on June 30, 1987, such that
any variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated.”5
the regular holidays are now:
The Court of Appeals further held that “in the absence of an explicit provision in law
1. New Year’s Day January 1
which provides for [a] reduction of holiday pay if two holidays happen to fall on the
2. Maundy Thursday Movable Date same day, any doubt in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code
provisions on holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor.”
3. Good Friday Movable Date
ISSUE:
Whether daily-paid employees are entitled to be paid for two regular holidays which A paid legal holiday occurring during the scheduled vacation leave will result in
fall on the same day. holiday payment in addition to normal vacation pay but will not entitle the employee
to another vacation leave.
HELD:
Under similar circumstances, the COMPANY will give a day’s wage for November
This Court finds no ground to disturb the assailed decision.
1st and December 31st whenever declared a holiday. When required to work on said
Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that days, the employee will be paid according to Art. VI, Sec. 3B hereof.18
the State shall afford protection to labor.7 Its purpose is not merely “to prevent
diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions.
In other words, although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should CLEMENTE V. GSIS
earn, that is, his holiday pay.”8 It is also intended to enable the worker to participate
in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and
cultural significance. Facts:

Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9), National Heroes Day Petitioner's husband, the late Pedro Clemente, was for ten (10) years a janitor in the
(last Sunday of August), Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) Department of Health (Dagupan City), assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic, Laoag
were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to City. He was hospitalized from November 3 to 14, 1976 at the Central Luzon
commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people, promote national identity, and Sanitarium, Tala Sanitarium, Tala, Caloocan City, due to his ailment of "nephritis," as
deepen the spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to per medical certification of his attending physician, Dr. Winifredo Samson. He was
celebrate the contributions of the working class to the development of the nation, also found to be suffering from such ailments as portal cirrhosis and leprosy, otherwise
while the religious holidays designated in Executive Order No. 203 allow the worker known as Hansen's Disease. On November 14, 1976, Pedro Clemente died of uremia
to celebrate his faith with his family. due to nephritis. Thereafter, petitioner filed with the GSIS a claim for employees'
compensation under the Labor Code, as amended. The GSIS denied the claim of the
As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the
petitioner because the ailments of her husband are not occupational diseases taking
enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays.9 The provision is mandatory,10 regardless of
into consideration the nature of his work and/or (sic) or were not in the least causally
whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis.11 Unlike a bonus, which is
related to his duties and conditions of work.
a management prerogative,12 holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the
law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact Petitioner requested for reconsideration of the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that
that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of employment and were
holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. aggravated by the nature of his work. Petitioner alleged that her husband, as janitor of
the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic (Laoag City), worked in direct contact with persons
From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by the parties, petitioner had
suffering from different skin diseases and was exposed to obnoxious dusts and other
obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law.
dirt which contributed to his ailment of Hansen's disease.
Only an employee who works on the day immediately preceding or after a regular
holiday shall be entitled to the holiday pay.
GSIS forwarded the records of the petitioner' claim for review by the ECC. ECC infection. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Clemente's working
affirmed the GSIS' action of denial and rendered its own decision dismissing conditions definitely increased the risk of his contracting the aforementioned ailments.
petitioner's claim. ECC's decision was anchored upon the findings that the ailments This Court has held in appropriate cases that the conservative posture of the
are not listed as occupational diseases; that there was no substantial evidence of causal respondents is not consistent with the liberal interpretation of the Labor Code and the
connection; and that, in fact, the evidence was that the deceased had already social justice guarantee embodied in the Constitution in favor of the workers. It
contracted the Hansen's disease before his employment. clashes with the injunction in the Labor Code (Article 4, New Labor Code) that, as a
rule, doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimant-employee.
As the illnesses of the deceased are admittedly, not listed under Annex "A" of the
Rules as occupational diseases, the petitioner bases her claim under the theory of
increased risk. She alleges that the deceased, as janitor of the Ilocos Norte Skin Clinic,
ACUNA V. CA
was exposed to patients suffering from various kinds of skin diseases, including
Hansen's disease or leprosy. She avers that for ten years, the deceased had to clean the
clinic and its surroundings and to freely mix with its patients. She claims that it was
Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers deployed by private respondent Join
during this time that he was attacked by other dreadful diseases such as uremia, cancer
International Corporation (JIC), a licensed recruitment agency, to its principal, 3D
of the liver, and nephritis.
Pre-Color Plastic, Inc., (3D) in Taiwan, Republic of China, under a uniformly-worded
employment contract for a period of two years. Herein private respondent Elizabeth
Alañon is the president of Join International Corporation.
Issue: W/ON Nephritis can be considered as a ground for compensation due to the
nature of work Sometime in September 1999, petitioners filed with private respondents applications
for employment abroad. They submitted their passports, NBI clearances, medical
clearances and other requirements and each paid a placement fee of P14,850,
Held: Yes. We note that the major ailments of the deceased, i.e. nephritis, leprosy, etc., evidenced by official receipts2 issued by private respondents.
could be traced from bacterial and viral infections. In the case of leprosy, it is known
On December 9, 1999, with 18 other contract workers they left for Taiwan. Upon
that the source of infection is the discharge from lesions of persons with active cases.
arriving at the job site, a factory owned by 3D, they were made to sign another contract
It is believed that the bacillus enters the body through the skin or through the mucous
which stated that their salary was only NT$11,840.00. They were likewise informed
membrane of the nose and throat.
that the dormitory which would serve as their living quarters was still under
The husband of the petitioner worked in a skin clinic. As janitor of the Ilocos Norte construction. They were requested to temporarily bear with the inconvenience but
Skin Clinic, Mr. Clemente was exposed to different carriers of viral and bacterial were assured that their dormitory would be completed in a short time.
diseases. He had to clean the clinic itself where patients with different illnesses come
The petitioners averred that on December 16, 1999, due to unbearable working
and go. He had to put in order the hospital equipments that had been used. He had to
conditions, they were constrained to inform management that they were leaving. They
dispose of garbage and wastes that accumulated in the course of each working day.
booked a flight home, at their own expense. Before they left, they were made to sign
He was the employee most exposed to the dangerous concentration of infected
a written waiver.
materials, and not being a medical practitioner, least likely to know how to avoid
On January 14, 2000, petitioners Acuña and Mendez invoking Republic Act No. 8042, The Employees Compensation Commission, on appeal affirmed the decision of the
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment/underpayment of salaries or respondent System.
wages, overtime pay, refund of transportation fare, payment of salaries/wages for 3
Issue:
months, moral and exemplary damages, and refund of placement fee before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner Ramones filed her Whether or not the disease of Bonifacio is an occupational disease, subject to death
complaint on January 20, 2000. benefits for the heir.

Issue: WoN Petitioners were illegally dismissed under RA 8042 them to benefits plus Held:
damages. - NO
No. carcinoma of the breast with metastases to gastrointestinal tract and lungs is not
Held: constructive dismissal covers the involuntary resignation resorted to when an occupational disease listed by the Employees Compensation Commission. Which
continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is is not subject for death benenifts under PD No. 626.
a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility
Rationale:
or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee.
Jurisprudence: It is "not necessary to prove that employment was the sole cause of the
death or injury suffered by the employee. It is sufficient to show that the employment
BONIFACIO V GSI had contributed to the aggravation or acceleration of such death or ailment."

The case: Workmen's Compensation Law, it is not necessary for the claimant to carry the burden
of proof to establish his case to the point of demonstration
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Employees Compensation
Commission affirming the denial by the Government Service Insurance System of Under the present Labor Code, the "latitudinarian or expansive application of the
petitioner's claim for benefits under PD No. 626, as amended, for the death of his Workmen's Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker" no longer prevails
spouse, Lourdes Bonifacio. as the burden of showing proof of causation has shifted back to the employee
particularly in cases of sickness or injuries which are not accepted or listed as
The facts:
occupational by the Employees Compensation Commission.
Lourdes Bonifacio was a classroom teacher assigned to the district of Bagamanoc,
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and the decisions of the GSIS and the
Division of Catanduanes, Ministry of Education and Culture from August, 1965 until
Employees Compensation Commission denying the claim are affirmed
she contracted carcinoma of the breast with metastases to the gastrointestinal tract and
lungs which caused her death on October 5, 1978. a claim for death benefits under
P.D. No. 626, as amended, was filed by petitioner with the GSIS

The claim was denied on the ground that the decedent's principal ailment, carcinoma
of the breast with metastases to gastrointestinal tract and lungs, is not an occupational
disease for her particular work as a teacher, nor is the risk of contracting said disease
increased by her working conditions
BRAVO V EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATIONCOMMISSION He appealed to the Employees‘ Compensation Commission, but died pending the
appeal. His widow, Angeles, pursued his appea
143 SCRA 101 July 22, 1986

FACTS
Issue: WON cancer of the colon and peri-appendicitis which caused the death of a
- Evelio Bravo was a supervising cartographer engineer at the Bureau of Coast
former litho-photo engraving supervisor are compensable diseases under the Labor
andGeodetic Survey. As litho-photo engraving supervisor (another term for a
Code
supervising cartographer engineer?), he was involved in drafting and plate printing,
developing and processing either dry or wet negatives, and supervising the Held: NO. Article 167, paragraph (1) of the Labor Code and Rule III, Section IN of
formulation of light sensitive lithographic chemicals from reagent of nitric, the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation provide that for a sickness and the
phosphoric, oleic acids, potassium ferricynamide, ammonium hydroxide and resulting disability or death to be compensable, the said sickness must be an
ammonium dichromate in the kithographic laboratory. occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of said Rules, otherwise, the claimant or
employee concerned must prove that the risk of contracting the disease is increased
sometime in 1979, he complained of irregular bowel movement, constipation and
by the working conditions (increased risk doctrine).
abdominal pain. In 1980 he was admitted to St. Luke‘s Hospital and was diagnosed
with"

adenocarcinoma sigmoid (colon) Duke's C and chronic periappendicitis".

Hewent through a series of operations and incurred hospitalization expenses


amounting toP8,650.05.- He did not return to work and retired at the age of 45 under
the provisions of RA 1616.He received P37,002.31 from GSIS. He filed a claim for
disability benefits in the GSIS.-

GSIS:Denied. His diagnosed disease were not occupational diseases in his particular
employment and his working conditions did not increase the risk of contracting them.-
He sought reconsideration, claiming that his work exposed him to chemicals. His
MFRwas denied on the ground that

his exposure to photographic solutions as litho- photoengraving supervisor had no


causal relationship to thedevelopment of his adenocarcinoma considering thatsaid
ailment is traceable to "familial multiple polyposis, chronic ulcerative colitis, chronic
lympho-granulomavenereum,

chronic granuloma inguinale and perhaps adenoma”.

You might also like