You are on page 1of 21

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

1. A. Religious school has policy of not employing unwed mothers, lesbians, live-in. Valid?
- NO, mgmt. prerog. to make policy.
B. Same school dismissed 2 female faculty bec of pregnancy out of wedlock. Violation?
- NO, since policy is valid
2. LITTLE HANDS GARMENT POLICY could no longer afford free shuttle, and now requires Ees to
pay fare. Valid?
- YES, MP. Er cannot be penalized for his past generosity.
3. HARBOR VIEW HOTEL has CBA with union. The Hotel abolished cleaning positions and
contracted out the service to an Ind. Contractor. Valid?
- YES, MP. Contracting out services of jobs performed by union is not illegal per se.
4. BULACAN MEDICAL HOSPITAL has CBA with union. Mgmt Prerog Clause states it has sole and
exclusive right to amend rules and regulations. Hospital issued Revised Rules and Regulations.
a. ULP?
- YES, Union has right to participate in in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights, benefits and welfare. A line must be drawn between MP regarding business
operations and those which affect the rights of Ees

INJUNCTION
1. Prof. Juan De La Cruz cited US Case saying, Prohibition to issue injunction in labor creates
substantive law. Is there basis in Phil. Law?
- Yes, LC prohibits issuance of injunction

JURISDICTION
1. PABLO BAGSAKIN boxed his manager because of ridicule during office hours. He was dismissed.
Manager filed damages in RTC. Pablo filed illegal dismissal in LA. Pablo filed a MTD in RTC
arguing that LA has jurisdiction over both cases. Discuss.
- MTD should be denied. Tort does not arise from EE Relationship.
2. How cases of interpretation and implementation of CBA handled?
- Through grievance machinery, if not resolved by it, through voluntary arbitration.
3. MARIET DEMETRIO was shouted upon by the Company President in the presence of all. She filed
for damages in RTC. Company filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction on ground that there is EE
Relationship.
- MTD denied. Damages here are not arising from EE Relationship.
4. ILO-Manila dismissed its bookkeeper.
a. As ILO’s counsel, what defense?
- no jurisdiction over international agencies
b. Decide the case.
- dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
5. DIEGO, VP of EDC was dismissed by the Board. He filed illegal dismissal in LA. Decide
- If corporate officer, LA has no jurisdiction but the RTC.
6. MR. JONATHAN PE, a VP of NEW WAVE, was dismissed by the Board. He filed illegal dismissal
before NLRC. Decide.
- If corporate officer, LA has no jurisdiction but the RTC.
7. Give the O&E jurisdiction of LA.
- ULP
- Termination
- Legality of strike and lockout
- Reinstatement, terms and conditions of employment
- Damages arising from EE Relationship.
8. Appeal was made to NLRC beyond 10d reglementary period. Dismissed?
- Yes
9. A obtained judgment againt Er-B in LA. LA levied B’s equipments. B filed for damages and
injunction against LA in RTC. Tenable?
- NO, RTC has no jurisdiction over labor cases and their incidents including execution of
decisions.
10. Union imposed deduction of P1000 to each Ee. SERGIO a union member refused to sign
authorization slip for deduction. Union expelled him. Sergio file in LA for illegal deduction and
expulsion from union. Prosper?
- NO, intra-union conflict I under the jurisdiction of the Med-arbiter.
11. SARA, a housemaid, was fired for making angry remarks over Olympic boxing match in TV. She
filed complaint in RO-DOLE for unpaid salaries 5,500.
a. Correct?
- NO, LA has jurisdiction. The case did not arise from exervise of visitorial and enforcement
power of RO-DOLE.
b. If 4500 + reinstatement, whose jurisdiction?
- LA, although does not exceed P5000, there is reinstatement.
12. Jurisdiction of NLRC
- Exclusive appellate: LA, RO-DOLE
- Compulsory arbitration body certified by SOLE to NLRC
- Injunction
13. Company and union could not resolve negotiation for CBA. After conciliation before NCMB
failed, B went on strike. Some Ees committed illegal acts during strike. SOLE assumed
jurisdiction. NLRC asked parties to submit position papers. NLRC resolved CBA and ordered
dismissal of the strikers who committed illegal acts. Strikers appealed to CA claiming they were
deprived of due process. Prosper?
- NO, decisions of NLRC may be based on position papers.
14. Union members filed complaint against union officers for mismanagement of funds before RO-
DOLE. RO-DOLE’s rule was not favorable. They appealed to NLRC. Does NLRC have jurisdiction?
- NO, BLR has appellate jurisdiction over RO-DOLE involving union accounts.
15. Appealed decision within the reglementary period, but filed cash bond beyond the period.
Should NLRC dismiss?
- YES, not perfected for failure to file bond.
16. Capt. TROY embarked in good health. He died after contracting fever. The widow filed a
complaint before Regional Arbitration Branch of DOLE against the local agent and foreign
principal for damages. Does LA have jurisdiction?
- YES under Sec 10, RA 8042, torts arising from EE relationship involving OFW is cognizable
under LA.
17. Can an overseas worker refuse to remit his earnings to his dependents and deposit the same in
the country where he works to gain more interests? Explain.
- NO, A.22 of LC. Mandatory for OFW to remit for their families.
18. Domestic helper, filed an action before RO-DOLE for unpaid salaries P3500. Er argued she should
resolved the matter first before the Barangay. Resolve.
- RO-DOLE has jurisdiction for simple money claim that does not exceed P5,000. Barangay
Lupon is not applicable to labor cases
19. Complaint for dismissal before LA. Not satisfied, Ee appealed to NLRC which affirmed LA in toto.
Both Er and Ee are not satisfied.
a. What remedy of Er?
- MR. if denied, certiorari (R65) with CA.
b. Can Ee avail the same remedy of Er?
- YES
20. Does the SOLE have the authority to approve policy of an Airline company about retirement plan
of flight attendants?
- YES, SOLE has authority to determine retirement age of flight attendants under LC
21. Does the SOLE have the authority to enjoin ER from terminating Ees? What ground
- YES. If it may cause serious labor dispute or if mass lay off.
22. Jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators
- Unresolved grievance arising from interpretation or implementation of CBA (A.261)
- Upon agreement of parties, all other labor disputes including ULP and deadlock. (A.262)
23. Er ordered transfer of Ee. Union opposed as transfer is against CBA. Parties referred to voluntary
arbitrator pursuant to CBA. Does Vol.Arb. decision have compulsory effect on parties?
- YES, vol.arb. is a grievance machinery of a CBA and can rule Upon agreement of parties, all
other labor disputes including ULP and deadlock. (A.262)

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
1) THE RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE (SOT)
A. MEANING OF SOT
- Er cannot dismiss an employee without just cause
B. SOT IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF PERPETUAL EMPLOYMENT
- Ee who is guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance.
- SOT does not give Ee vested right to his position and deprives Er of his Mgmt. Prerog.
C. WHO ARE PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT TO SOT?
- Ees who hold regular employment
- Non-regular Ees have SOT in a qualified manner which means they cannot be dismissed
without valid cause
- Managerial Ees – mere existence of a reasonable ground to believe that they are responsible
for misconduct suffices dismissal
D. SCOPE OF PROTECTION
- illegal dismissal
- constructive dismissal (transfer or demotion)
2) CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL (CD)
A. MEANING OF CD
- involuntary resignation brought by harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by Er
- Employment is no longer feasible under the following circumstances (Art 300b):
1. Serious insult
2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment
3. Commission of crime
4. Analogous
- Test of CD: WON a reasonable person would feel to give up his position because of harsh,
hostile and unfavorable conditions set by Er.
1. CASES OF CD:
a. Globe Telecom v Flores
- Immediate superior discriminated Ee without reason: not preparing evaluation report,
not forwarding project proposals, diminishing supervisory status, withholding benefits.
b. Jarcia Machine Shop v NLRC
- A machinist for 16 years was demoted to the servile job without just cause
c. Gaco v NLRC
- a production recorder for 14 years was demoted to being a Picker without just cause
2. CASES OF NO CD:
a. Tan v NLRC
- A sales supervisor was temporarily assigned to Sorsogon because the previous
salesman thereat went AWOL.
b. Ee quits because of transfer to another position or location due to business exigencies
c. Ee suffers from incidental inconvenience or hardship brought by transfer. This is
insufficient to establish CD.
B. ONE-MONTH ADVANCE NOTICE NOT REQUIRED IN CD
- Ee can leave immediately
C. RELIEF FOR CD
- Separation Pay (with or without backwages)
- Not reinstatement
3) ILLEGAL DISMISSAL (ID)
A. MEANING OF ID
- dismissal without just cause;
- dismissal is too harsh i.e. not commensurate to the offense committed
- Cause of action in ID: unlawful deprivation of employment by the Er in violation of the right to
SOT
B. ID IS NOT A CRIME
- Reason: ID is not among those LC expressly declares as penal in nature
C. REMEDY FOR ID
- File complaint for ID with the Labor Arbiter (LA)
- Not petition for injunction, because injunction is not a cause of action. It is a provisional
remedy. The power of NLRC to issue injunction originates from “any labor dispute.” Thus,
complaint for ID is required to issue injunction.
CASE IN POINT: PAL v NLRC 287 SCRA 672
- Two flight attendants were dismissed. Instead of filing a complaint for ID, they filed in
NLRC a petition for injunction to enjoin their dismissal.
- SC says the remedy is not injunction but complaint for ID, because the power of NLRC
to issue injunction originates from “any labor dispute.” In this case there is no labor
dispute yet having no complaint for ID filed.
D. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ID
- 4 years from date of dismissal;
- Basis: A. 1146 NCC
- not reckoned from acquittal in criminal case because filing a criminal case is not a condition
sine qua non. It does not interrupt prescription.
E. RELIEFS FOR ID
1. OFW
a. Salaries for unexpired portion of his employment contract
b. Reimbursement of placement fee with 12% int. p.a.
2. Locally employed
a. Reinstatement
b. Separation pay, if reinstatement is not feasible
c. Backwages
d. Moral and exemplary damages, Atty’s Fees
4) RELIEF
A. REINSTATEMENT (R)
1. MEANING OF R
- Restoration of position from which one has been removed.
- No R when an Ee never occupied a position
2. DOC. OF STRAINED RELATIONS
- R should not be ordered if relationship is so strained and ruptured as to preclude a
harmonious working relationship.
- Mere filing of a complaint for ID does not call for the Doc. of Strained Relations.
- Strained Relations is a factual matter which may be raised before the LA. It may also be a
supervening event which may be raised after filing a complaint or during the execution
proceeding.
3. EFFECT OF EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE: none
B. BACKWAGES (B)
1. MEANING OF B
- Restoration of income lost due to unlawful dismissal
- Rationale: Ee is considered not having left his job so that his rights still accrue to him
2. B V UNPAID WAGES
- B refer to compensation EE would have earned
- Unpaid wages refer to compensation for services already rendered
3. SHOULD FULL B BE AWARDED FOR EVERY ID? NO
- LA may award full B, limited B, or no B
a. WHEN TO AWARD FULL B
(1) Ee was dismissed without any cause
(2) When dismissal is prohibited by law, e.g.:
(a) Dismissal because Ee filed a complaint for non-payment of wages
(b) Dismissal because of pregnancy
(c) Dismissal because Ee testified in a case that pertains to right to self-organization
(d) Dismissal because Ee reported to work within 1 mo from resumption of Er or
from relief from his military duty
b. WHEN TO AWARD LIMITED B
(1) There is wrong doing and penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the offense
committed
(2) There is delay in filing the complaint for illegal dismissal
c. WHEN NO B
(1) If Er acted in good faith in dismissing
- e.g. dismissal due to honest misinterpretation of the closed-shop agreement
(Findlay Miller v PLASLU)
(2) If cessation of employment was not due to dismissal nor abandonment
CASE IN POINT: Chong Guan Trading v NLRC
- A customer accidentally broke the glass of store’s showcase. The Ee acted as a hero
and claimed that he broke it. The Er shouted, “Lumayas ka rito!” The Ee thought he
was dismissed, so he did not report anymore.
- Ee filed for ID. The Er argued he never dismissed him and expressed willingness to
reinstate him.
- SC said B is not proper because the Ee was not dismissed nor the Ee abandoned his
work.
(3) If cessation of employment was not due to dismissal but to Ee’s refusal to work
CASE IN POINT: Dangan v NLRC
- The Ee stopped working because of her sincere but mistaken belief that she was
being persecuted for being the secretary of the executive whom the management
hated.
- Since there is no ID, there is no B.
4. EFFECT OF EARNING ELSEWHERE: none, neither diminished nor reduced the B
5. B OF IRREGULAR WORKERS (e.g. piece-rate, seasonal workers)
- What they would have normally earned
C. SEPARATION PAY (ALTERNATIVE TO REINSTATEMENT)
1. WHEN SP MAY BE AWARDED
- When R is no longer possible or feasible
1. when position no longer exists and no substantially equivalent position is
available
2. when the relationship is severely strained
3. when supervening events occurred, e.g. company closed, sold, Ee becomes
incapacitated, reached retirement age
- Amount of S: at least 1mo salary or 1mo salary for every year whichever is higher
NOTE: a fraction of at least 6mo is considered a year
2. SP AND B CAN BE AWARDED SIMULATANEOUSLY
- Why? SP and B are different reliefs and purposes
3. CAN SP BE AWARDED IF THE DISMISSAL IS ADJUDGED TO BE VALID?
- GR: NO
- XPN: YES, as a measure of social justice only if the valid dismissal was for a cause other
than serious misconduct or offenses reflecting his moral character
D. MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
1. ADDITIONAL PROOF REQUIRED
- Damages are reliefs from Civil Code and governed by it.
- Proof for moral damages: dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud and resulted moral
anxiety, moral shock, wounded feeling
- Proof for exemplary damages: dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner
E. ATTORNEY’S FEES (AF)
1. CONCEPT
- Ordinary Concept: AF is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer
- Extraordinary Concept: AF is an item of damages paid to the client not to a lawyer (Art.
2208 NCC)
2. SHOULD AF BE AWARDED FOR EVERY ID?
- GR: NO
XPN: court granted, but it must explicitly state the justification of the award and not merely
stating in the dispositive portion
3. LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
- GR: Corp. Officers who are acting in their scope of work are not personally or solidarily
liable for monetary claims of Ees even if impleaded in the complaint.
Why? Corporation has separate legal entity, as such the corp is directly liable.
- XPN:
1. Corp Officer acted in bad faith
2. Corporation no longer exists
CASE: AC Ransom Labor Union v NLRC
- Ees of RANSOM filed ULP against it. Foreseeing the possibility of backwages, RANSOM
organized ROSARIO which engaged in same business.
- SC says the corporate officers are personally liable because RANSOM acted in bad faith
in closing its business.
NOTE: Doc. of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Entity
- Solidary Liability is imposed on the highest ranking officer of a corporation (usually the
President)
5) MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES (MP)
- MP is an inherent right of business owners to determine all aspects of employment.
A. EXERCISE OF MP BELONGS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE ER
- Not to LA or NLRC, but they have the power to inquire WON the exercise of MP is tainted with
bad faith or grave abuse of discretion.
B. MP TO CHOOSE WHOM TO HIRE
- includes fix of probationary period
CASE: Manlimos v NLRC
- Es were terminated because of change of ownership of business. The new owner re-hired them
on “probationary status.” The Ees argues they should be regular Ees as they were before.
- SC said that the new owner had the right to place the Ees under probation notwithstanding
their regular status with the old owner
1. LIMITATIONS of MP TO CHOOSE WHOM TO HIRE: Anti-Age Discrimination (RA 10911)
When an employer can validly set age limit: if age is a bona fide occupational qualification
C. MP TO PROMOTE EES
- as such Union cannot validly claim that the promotion of supervisory to managerial was
intended to remove them from the coverage of union
- promotion is gratuitous. It may be refused. No disciplinary action for refusal.
NOTE: promotion to managerial position means giving up rigid guarantees available to ordinary
workers and would be subject to stricter discipline than the rank-and-file
D. MP TO TRANSFER EES
- the right to SOT does not give vested right to an Ee in his position so as to deprive the ER of its
MP to transfer him.
- no enough reason to refuse: Ee’s personal inconvenience or hardship or additional expenses
- refusal to transfer = dismissal on ground of willful disobedience
- CASES:
1. Homeowners Savings v NLRC – SC upheld the dismissal of an accountant who refused
to be transferred from San Carlos City to Urdaneta City, Pangasinan (36km ang layo)
2. Phil. Telegraph v Laplana – SC upheld the dismissal of a cashier who refused to be
transferred from Baguio to Manila even if she claimed that her permanent residence is
in Baguio.
E. MP TO CHANGE WORK SCHEDULE
- If done in good faith for the advancement of Er’s interest and not defeat the right of Ee
- CASE: Castillo v CIR – SC upheld the dismissal of an Ee who refused transfer from day shift to
night shift, pursuant to standard practice of rotation of shift.
F. MP TO ABOLISH A DEPARTMENT
- CASES of valid abolishment:
Er replaced Security Checkers section with Security Agency which resulted to termination of
security checkers (Serrano v NLRC)
ER had an independent contractor to promote economy and efficiency which resulted to
termination of water pump tenders (Asian Alcohol v NLRC)
G. MP TO REORGANIZE AND ABOLISH POSITIONS
- Ee cannot validly insist in their old position and ranking because that would render the
reorganization ineffectual
- CASE: Due to the reorganization the Ee’s position of Executive Secretary was abolished and a
lower position of Secretary was created. The Ee refused to accept the lower position and
demanded to be restored to her old position. SC said, that would defeat the very purpose of
reorganization. Er cannot be denied the right to reorganize just to protect one’s office (Arrieta v
NLRC)
H. MP TO REDUCE PERSONNEL
- for economic reason
I. MP TO CLOSE BUSINESS
- State cannot interfere and require business to continue just to keep the Ees. That is
tantamount to taking of property without due process.
J. MP TO TRANSFER BUSINESS OWNERSHIP
- Er may merge/consolidate/be acquired by another business even if it may bring about the
dismissal of its employees.
- Why? Labor contracts are in personam. They do not give a real right that should be respected
by 3rd parties. They are not enforceable against a transferee.
- An innocent transferee is not liable for the ULP of the transferor
- But if transfer/sale was done in bad faith, the liability is shared by the transferor and
transferee. This happens usually by simulating a sale.
K. MP TO PROMULGATE COMPANY POLICIES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
- Company rules are binding on the parties unless grossly oppressive and contrary to law.
- CASE: Duncan Assoc. of Detailman v Glaxo
- the company has a policy that obliges Ees to disclose existing romantic relationship
with Ees of competitors. One Ee married an Ee of the competitor. He was advised to
resign.
- SC held the company policy as valid. The prohibition of relationship with Ees of
competitor companies is reasonable because it might compromise the interest of the
company. What is sought to be avoided is a conflict of interest. (REALLY?)
L. MP TO DISCIPLINE EES
Factors to consider as to offenses that do not clearly fall under just causes of dismissal
(enumeration):
1. NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
- Hotel Ee’s bully to a co-Ee. Hotel has the duty to maintain peace and expect orderly
behavior from Ees. = valid dismissal
- Violation of “first come-first served” policy = not dismissal
- Tardiness for a few minutes on three instances = not dismissal
- Penalties lower than dismissal: warning, reprimand, suspension
2. POSITION OF THE EE
- Managerial Ees occupy positions of trust and confidence and as such they are subject to
stricter norm of discipline. They may be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence by
mere existence of a basis for believing that a breach of trust occurred.
3. DEGREE OF DAMAGE TO THE ER
- A cash shortage of P41.85 incurred by Ee does not warrant dismissal (Panay Electric v CA)
- An Ee who took a bottle of lighter fluid valued at P8 does not warrant dismissal (Caltex v
NLRC)
- An Ee may also be dismissed regardless of damage because of the Ee’s gross and habitual
neglect of duties. It is enough that the act tends to damage the Er.
4. PAST RECORD OF THE EE
- Previous disciplinary action was imposed and now requires harsher penalty.
5. LENGTH OF SERVICE OF EE
- the longer an employee served, the more responsibility is expected
*OVERALL CONSIDERATION: An Er can impose sanctions lighter or harsher than those prescribed
by the company rules.
Stanford Microsystems v NLRC – an Ee drank with two female security guards and had sex inside
the office. According to the company rules the penalty was 30d suspension, but they were
dismissed. SC upheld it because of the seriousness of the offense.
6) JUST CAUSES FOR DISMISSAL Art. 297
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A. MISCONDUCT
- Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct
- As ground for dismissal it must be:
1. serious
2. work connected
- e.g. Cases
-Security guard lax in the performance of his duties, reported to work drunk and
entertained outsiders at night (Natl Service Corp v Leogardo)
-A security guard abandoned his post 2x and carried a pistol out of the compound, took
two paramours inside the compound
-Ee smoked inside the painting booth, a flammable place
-Fighting inside company premises unless he did not instigate the fight
-Harassing a co-employee within company premises
-Male Ee courted the female Ee, pulled her on the floor and kissed her inside the plant
site (Navarro v Damasco)
-two Ees had sex inside the site and on duty (Imasen v Alcon)
> Elements
> if not serious?
> remark during Christmas party, BS yan
> PI ka inconnection with the work
B. IMMORALITY
- not secularly moral
- pregnancy out of wedlock from extramarital relations with a married person
C. SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
- Act of demanding sexual behavior with moral ascendancy
- When committed:
1. Sexual favor is made as condition for hiring or favorable terms
2. Sexual advances impair Ee’s rights or result in intimidating, hostile, offensive environment
3. Refusal to grant results to diminished employment opportunities.
- Gravamen: abuse of power by the superior
- Mere request, demand constitutes sexual harassment
D. DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS OF EMPLOYER
- Requisites:
1. Willful or intentional
- Chief Dietician was directed to purchase from new supplier, but continued with old
supplier (St. Lukes v Minister)
- refusal to obey transfer order to another company branch
2. Order is reasonable and lawful
- Prohibition to use company vehicle for personal use is reasonable order
- Transfer of an employee to an inexistent position is unreasonable
3. Order is known to the employee
- Unwritten company policy that considers as resigned any Ee who runs for
election=unknown order
4. Order pertains to the duties of Ee
- Ees who were transit mixer, drivers were ordered to dig canals (Tierra Construction v NLRC)
>Er order transfer to non existing position: unreasonable
E. NEGLECT OF DUTY
- Neglect is failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee because of
carelessness OR indifference
- Not “negligence”
- Requisites:
1. Gross
2. Habitual
- eg. Sleeping while on duty 2x
Habitually incurring prolonged absences
>Must be gross – glaringly noticeable
>Must be habitual
>damage not essential
>credit card applications are fictitious, bank dismissed on ground of
F. FRAUD
- Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of truth
- Requisites
1. work connected
2. Committed against Er
- e.g. Load Controller helped the passenger to spare him from paying excess baggage fee (PAL v
NLRC). Deprived the company of revenue.
>estafa against neighbor, used this ground by ER= incorrect
G. BREACH OF TRUST
- Requisites:
1. willful
2. related to performance of the Ee’s function
- Positions of trust and confidence
1. Managerial employees – mere existence of basis is enough
2. Rank and File that handles significant amounts of money or property – requires higher
proof
- No relief of reinstatement
- Includes dishonesty, misappropriation of company funds. E.g. the company issued a bail bond
of P7,000, and the Ee withdrew it without remitting it to the company (SMC v. NLRC)
- Corruption: accepting commission, kickbacks from a contractor (Villanueva v NLRC)
- Disloyalty: Ee deliberately acquires interest adverse to his Er. E.g. establishing a business
directly in competition (Elizalde v CA); cameraman of ABS-CBN did not report for work because
he shoot for PTV 4 (ABS-CBN Union v NLRC)
- Conflict of interest: marrying from a competitor company
>Crimes against person
>Ee kidnapped daughter of Er = no, kidnapping is not crime against person
H. BREACH OF NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT
- A contract by which an Ee is prohibited from engaging a business or employment
competitive after the term of his employment
- To be valid a non-compete agreement must have limitation on time or place.
- VALID: prohibition of engaging in a similar business for 5 years
- INVALID: prohibition of getting employed in any establishment for 5 years anywhere in the
Philippines. (Ferrazzini v Gsell)
I. COMMISSION OF CRIME
- Against person of the
1. Er
2. Immediate member of the Er’s family
3. Authroized representative of Er
- Crimes against chastity, honor, liberty will fall under serious misconduct.
- Prior conviction not required
J. ANALOGOUS CAUSES
- Element similar with Art. 297
- Theft against co-employee (John Hancock Life v Davis) even if not work-related is analogous to
serious misconduct
- Attitude problem i.e. cannot get along with co-Ees is analogous to breach of trust (Heavylift
Manila v CA)
- Gross inefficiency is analogous to gross neglect of duty
- Infliction of harm is analogous to serious misconduct
> other valid causes of dismissal (6)
7) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL WITH JUST CAUSE:
1. Serve a written notice to the Ee specifying the act or omission; giving “ample
opportunity” to explain his side.
- ample of opportunity: e.g. 5d from notice (King of Kings Transport v )
- invitations to explain his side; investigation
- Preventive suspension: when there is threat to life or property; it is not a penalty but a
part of administrative investigation.
>reasonable time?
2. Hearing
- Hearing is not a matter of right because hearing is summary in nature
- Appraisal of counsel not essential
- Confrontation of witness not essential
3. Serve written notice of dismissal to Ee
>Note the NOTICE REQUIREMENT for Just Cause and Authorized Cause
A. EFFECT OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS: If validly dismissed, still valid. But liable for
nominal damages. (agabon v jacka) - read
B. BURDEN OF PROOF:
1. Validity of dismissal: Er
2. Fact of dismissal: Ee
C. DEGREE OF PROOF: Substantial evidence or reasonable ground to believe
D. PROBATIVE VALUE OF AFFIDAVIT OF RETRACTION
- Will not exculpate the erring employee
- No probative value because they are afterthoughts
E. PROBATIVE VALUE OF PERSONAL FILES OBTRAINED FROM THE COMPANY ISSUED COMPUTER
- It has probative value because it is owned by the company and private messages of Ee
therein may be used against him without violation of right to privacy of communication
F. EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION
- Dismissal is not dependent upon outcome of criminal case
- Er may independently dismiss even if criminally acquitted.
- Because evidence required is different.
8) AUTHORIZED CAUSES FOR TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT
A. AUTHORIZED CAUSES
1. INSTALLATION OF LABOR SAVING DEVICES
- Ers have the right to follow economic policies to modernize its business even if it will result
to dismissal
e.g. Soriano v NLRC
A telephone company replaced electro-mechanical switches with digital switches, thereby
the switchmen were terminated.
2. REDUNDANCY
- Redundancy is a situation where the services of an employee are in excess of what is
demanded by the enterprise
- E.g. overhiring, decreased volume of business, dropping of product line, cost cutting
(Redundant position)
- Basis: Er cannot be compelled to give employment to a greater number of persons than
what the business requires
- Requisites:
1. Abolition of redundant positions must be in good faith
- Er replaced Security Checkers section with Security Agency which resulted to
termination of security checkers (Serrano v NLRC)
- ER had an independent contractor to promote economy and efficiency which resulted
to termination of water pump tenders (Asian Alcohol v NLRC)
2. Fair and reasonable criteria used in determining what are redundant positions
> Er abolished security department, and hired from independent contractor = valid
3. RETRENCHMENT
- Retrenchment is reduction of personnel by an Er to prevent or minimize business losses
- Happens in recessions, industrial depression, seasonal fluctuations etc
- Requisites:
1. Necessary to prevent losses
- loss must be imminent, actual, proven by financial statement
2. Fair and reasonable criteria used in determining who to dismiss and retain
3. Last resort
>Retrenchment v Redundancy
Retrenchment – there is financial loss
Redundancy – no financial loss; only superfluity in the position
4. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT
- Refers to permanent closure which could be partial or total
- E.g. relocation of the plant, actual closure
>requisite: 1. bona fide closure 2. Written notice to Ee and DOLE at least 1 mo before
closure
>Company A closed and put up Company B: Bad faith
B. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED CAUSES:
- Serve a written notice one month in advance to: (Twin notice requirement)
1. affected ees
2. DOLE
- posting is not allowed, personally served.
- failure to comply: nominal damages only
> Procedural req for Just causes AND Authorized causes
>nominal damages for authorized cause than just cause
>difference of authorized cause and just cause: authorized cause, Ee did wrong
C. RELIEF FOR EMPLOYEES TERMINATED DUE TO AUTHORIZED CAUSES
- Separation pay
D. AMOUNT OF SEPARATION PAY
- For installation of LSD or redundancy = 1 month pay/yr
- For retrenchment or closure not due to serious losses = ½ month pay/yr
- For closure due to serious losses = none
E. BASIS FOR COMPUTING SEPARATION PAY: latest salary or salary before deduction
1. For salesmen paid on commission basis: average commission in past year
2. For seasonal workers: ½ month average salary in last season/yr
3. For piece rate workers: minimum wage
F. DISEASE AS GROUNG FOR TERMINATION
- Conditions:
1. The continued employment of the sick is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or
of others
2. Medical Certificate: Public health authority must certify that it cannot be cured within 6
months
- If curable within six months: leave only
- HIV not a ground
- Hepatitis B not a ground
9) LAY-OFF
A. MEANING
- Temporary separation of an employee because of suspension of operations of Ees military
or civic duty.
B. LEGAL EFFECT OF SUSPENSION OF OPERATION
1. If good faith for a period not exceeding 6mo = suspended, must be reinstated
2. If good faith for a period exceeding 6mo = terminate, pay separation pay or none if serious
losses
3. If bad faith = uninterrupted, backwages
C. TEMPORARY OFF-DETAIL/FLOATING STATUS
- E.g. when a contract expires, and the service providers still look for other clients.
- If no client: laid-off
- If it exceed 6mo: deemed terminated
D. FULFILLMENT OF A MILITARY OR CIVIC DUTY: suspension only even if it exceeds 5 months.
10) ABANDONMENT OF EMPLOYMENT (CONSTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION)
A. MEANING
- Deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume work
- Difference with voluntary resignation: no notice
B. ELEMENTS OF ABANDONMENT
1. Absence without notice, permission, justifiable reason
2. Intent to sever the employment relationship
- Mere absence is not enough; must be coupled with overt acts that Ee does not want to work
anymore
C. INDICATIONS OF INTENT TO ABANDON
- Inferred only
- E.g. moonlighting, accepting work elsewhere, prolonged absences without justifiable reason
D. HOW TO ESTABLISH INTENT TO ABANDON
- Notice to report for work is sent to the address of Ee
- If he comes, charge him with AWOL and penalize him
E. IMMEDIATE FILING OF ACTION FOR REINSTATEMENT NEGATES ABANDONMENT
F. ABANDONMENT AND AWOL
- Abandon – permanent; AWOL – temporary, there is intent return toto work
G. BURDEN OF PROOF: Er
11) VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION
A. MEANING
- Formal renouncement or relinquishment of job
B. ELEMENTS
1. Unconditional
2. Intent to relinquish the job
3. Actual act of relinquishment
C. INDICATIONS OF INTENT TO RELINQUISH THE JOB
- By actuations of the Ee
- By the wordings of the letter
D. INDICATIONS OF VOLUNTARINESS
- Expression of gratitude
- “I wish to express mu appreciation…”
- Threat to a salesman to choose between Resignation letter (ready made) or Criminal case
- Er persuaded Ee to resign instead of being dismissed
E. ONE MONTH NOTICE REQUIREMENT
- Effect of non compliance: damages
- Er: cannot compel Ee to work within one month = involuntary serviture
- May be waived by Er
F. RESIGNATION MUST BE ACCEPTED TO APPROVED TO BE EFFECTIVE
- Resignation may not be withdrawn without consent of Er
- If refused by Er, no illegal dismissal; remedy: re-apply
- Reason: principle of mutuality of contracts
G. NOT ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY
XPN: contract, cba, policy
12) RETIREMENT
A. MEANING
- Withdrawal from employment by reaching a certain age
B. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE CAN REITRE
1. If there is a retirement plan, CBA, contract = upon reaching the criteria in that plan, CBA,
contract
2. If no plan, CBA, contract = retirement age under LC
C. RETIREMENT AGE UNDER LC
1. OPTIONAL RETIREMENT AGE: Ee’s choice
a. 50yo – for underground and surface mine Ees
b. 60yo – for ordinary Ees
2. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE
a. 55 – for professional race jockeys
b. 60 - for underground and surface mine Ees
c. 65 – for ordinary Ees
3. RETIREMENT PAY
a. According to retirement plan, CBA or contract, provided not lower than set by LC
b. If no retirement plan, CBA or contract, = LC = 22.5days for every year of service
Composed of:
1. 15d salary (latest salary rate)
2. Cash equivalent of 5 days incentive leave
3. ½ of 13mo pay
4. COMPUTATION OF 1/2MO SALARY OF EES WHO DO NOT HAVE FIXED WAGES
a. Ees paid by result: average daily salary for last year
b. Seasonal Ees: average monthly pay for last season
c. Commission basis: average commission earned in past year
5. COMPUTATION OF LENGTH OF SERVICE: every year of service
- Not counted: period the company is closed, off-season
- Counted: authorized leaves, regular holidays, ROTC
6. WHO ARE ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS
- GR: all Ees, regardless of position, status
- XPN:
1. Ees who have not worked for at least 5 years
2. Domestic helpers
3. Persons in personal service of another
4. Employees of retail, service, agricultural with no more than 10 Ees.

13) ILLEGAL DISMISSAL (ID)


A. MEANING OF ID
- dismissal without just cause;
- dismissal is too harsh i.e. not commensurate to the offense committed
- Cause of action in ID: unlawful deprivation of employment by the Er in violation of the right to
SOT
B. ID IS NOT A CRIME
- Reason: ID is not among those LC expressly declares as penal in nature
C. REMEDY FOR ID
- File complaint for ID with the Labor Arbiter (LA)
- Not petition for injunction, because injunction is not a cause of action. It is a provisional
remedy. The power of NLRC to issue injunction originates from “any labor dispute.” Thus,
complaint for ID is required to issue injunction.
CASE IN POINT: PAL v NLRC 287 SCRA 672
- Two flight attendants were dismissed. Instead of filing a complaint for ID, they filed in
NLRC a petition for injunction to enjoin their dismissal.
- SC says the remedy is not injunction but complaint for ID, because the power of NLRC
to issue injunction originates from “any labor dispute.” In this case there is no labor
dispute yet having no complaint for ID filed.
D. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ID
- 4 years from date of dismissal;
- Basis: A. 1146 NCC
- not reckoned from acquittal in criminal case because filing a criminal case is not a condition
sine qua non. It does not interrupt prescription.
E. RELIEFS FOR ID
1. OFW
a. Salaries for unexpired portion of his employment contract
b. Reimbursement of placement fee with 12% int. p.a.
2. Locally employed
a. Reinstatement
b. Separation pay, if reinstatement is not feasible
c. Backwages
d. Moral and exemplary damages, Atty’s Fees
14) RELIEF
A. REINSTATEMENT (R)
1. MEANING OF R
- Restoration of position from which one has been removed.
- No R when an Ee never occupied a position
2. DOC. OF STRAINED RELATIONS
- R should not be ordered if relationship is so strained and ruptured as to preclude a
harmonious working relationship.
- Mere filing of a complaint for ID does not call for the Doc. of Strained Relations.
- Strained Relations is a factual matter which may be raised before the LA. It may also be a
supervening event which may be raised after filing a complaint or during the execution
proceeding.
3. EFFECT OF EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE: none
B. BACKWAGES (B)
1. MEANING OF B
- Restoration of income lost due to unlawful dismissal
- Rationale: Ee is considered not having left his job so that his rights still accrue to him
2. B V UNPAID WAGES
- B refer to compensation EE would have earned
- Unpaid wages refer to compensation for services already rendered
3. SHOULD FULL B BE AWARDED FOR EVERY ID? NO
- LA may award full B, limited B, or no B
a. WHEN TO AWARD FULL B
(1) Ee was dismissed without any cause
(2) When dismissal is prohibited by law, e.g.:
(a) Dismissal because Ee filed a complaint for non-payment of wages
(b) Dismissal because of pregnancy
(c) Dismissal because Ee testified in a case that pertains to right to self-organization
(d) Dismissal because Ee reported to work within 1 mo from resumption of Er or
from relief from his military duty
b. WHEN TO AWARD LIMITED B
(1) There is wrong doing and penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the offense
committed
(2) There is delay in filing the complaint for illegal dismissal
c. WHEN NO B
(1) If Er acted in good faith in dismissing
- e.g. dismissal due to honest misinterpretation of the closed-shop agreement
(Findlay Miller v PLASLU)
(2) If cessation of employment was not due to dismissal nor abandonment
CASE IN POINT: Chong Guan Trading v NLRC
- A customer accidentally broke the glass of store’s showcase. The Ee acted as a hero
and claimed that he broke it. The Er shouted, “Lumayas ka rito!” The Ee thought he
was dismissed, so he did not report anymore.
- Ee filed for ID. The Er argued he never dismissed him and expressed willingness to
reinstate him.
- SC said B is not proper because the Ee was not dismissed nor the Ee abandoned his
work.
(3) If cessation of employment was not due to dismissal but to Ee’s refusal to work
CASE IN POINT: Dangan v NLRC
- The Ee stopped working because of her sincere but mistaken belief that she was
being persecuted for being the secretary of the executive whom the management
hated.
- Since there is no ID, there is no B.
4. EFFECT OF EARNING ELSEWHERE: none, neither diminished nor reduced the B
5. B OF IRREGULAR WORKERS (e.g. piece-rate, seasonal workers)
- What they would have normally earned
C. SEPARATION PAY (ALTERNATIVE TO REINSTATEMENT)
1. WHEN SP MAY BE AWARDED
- When R is no longer possible or feasible
1. when position no longer exists and no substantially equivalent position is
available
2. when the relationship is severely strained
3. when supervening events occurred, e.g. company closed, sold, Ee becomes
incapacitated, reached retirement age
- Amount of S: at least 1mo salary or 1mo salary for every year whichever is higher
NOTE: a fraction of at least 6mo is considered a year
2. SP AND B CAN BE AWARDED SIMULATANEOUSLY
- Why? SP and B are different reliefs and purposes
3. CAN SP BE AWARDED IF THE DISMISSAL IS ADJUDGED TO BE VALID?
- GR: NO
- XPN: YES, as a measure of social justice only if the valid dismissal was for a cause other
than serious misconduct or offenses reflecting his moral character
D. MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
1. ADDITIONAL PROOF REQUIRED
- Damages are reliefs from Civil Code and governed by it.
- Proof for moral damages: dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud and resulted moral
anxiety, moral shock, wounded feeling
- Proof for exemplary damages: dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner
E. ATTORNEY’S FEES (AF)
1. CONCEPT
- Ordinary Concept: AF is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer
- Extraordinary Concept: AF is an item of damages paid to the client not to a lawyer (Art.
2208 NCC)
2. SHOULD AF BE AWARDED FOR EVERY ID?
- GR: NO
XPN: court granted, but it must explicitly state the justification of the award and not merely
stating in the dispositive portion
3. LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
- GR: Corp. Officers who are acting in their scope of work are not personally or solidarily
liable for monetary claims of Ees even if impleaded in the complaint.
Why? Corporation has separate legal entity, as such the corp is directly liable.
- XPN:
1. Corp Officer acted in bad faith
2. Corporation no longer exists
CASE: AC Ransom Labor Union v NLRC
- Ees of RANSOM filed ULP against it. Foreseeing the possibility of backwages, RANSOM
organized ROSARIO which engaged in same business.
- SC says the corporate officers are personally liable because RANSOM acted in bad faith
in closing its business.
NOTE: Doc. of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Entity
- Solidary Liability is imposed on the highest ranking officer of a corporation (usually the
President)

15) MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES (MP)


- MP is an inherent right of business owners to determine all aspects of employment.
A. EXERCISE OF MP BELONGS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE ER
- Not to LA or NLRC, but they have the power to inquire WON the exercise of MP is tainted with
bad faith or grave abuse of discretion.
B. MP TO CHOOSE WHOM TO HIRE
- includes fix of probationary period
CASE: Manlimos v NLRC
- Es were terminated because of change of ownership of business. The new owner re-hired them
on “probationary status.” The Ees argues they should be regular Ees as they were before.
- SC said that the new owner had the right to place the Ees under probation notwithstanding
their regular status with the old owner
1. LIMITATIONS of MP TO CHOOSE WHOM TO HIRE: Anti-Age Discrimination (RA 10911)
When an employer can validly set age limit: if age is a bona fide occupational qualification
C. MP TO PROMOTE EES
- as such Union cannot validly claim that the promotion of supervisory to managerial was
intended to remove them from the coverage of union
- promotion is gratuitous. It may be refused. No disciplinary action for refusal.
NOTE: promotion to managerial position means giving up rigid guarantees available to ordinary
workers and would be subject to stricter discipline than the rank-and-file
D. MP TO TRANSFER EES
- the right to SOT does not give vested right to an Ee in his position so as to deprive the ER of its
MP to transfer him.
- no enough reason to refuse: Ee’s personal inconvenience or hardship or additional expenses
- refusal to transfer = dismissal on ground of willful disobedience
- CASES:
1. Homeowners Savings v NLRC – SC upheld the dismissal of an accountant who refused
to be transferred from San Carlos City to Urdaneta City, Pangasinan (36km ang layo)
2. Phil. Telegraph v Laplana – SC upheld the dismissal of a cashier who refused to be
transferred from Baguio to Manila even if she claimed that her permanent residence is
in Baguio.
E. MP TO CHANGE WORK SCHEDULE
- If done in good faith for the advancement of Er’s interest and not defeat the right of Ee
- CASE: Castillo v CIR – SC upheld the dismissal of an Ee who refused transfer from day shift to
night shift, pursuant to standard practice of rotation of shift.
F. MP TO ABOLISH A DEPARTMENT
- CASES of valid abolishment:
Er replaced Security Checkers section with Security Agency which resulted to termination of
security checkers (Serrano v NLRC)
ER had an independent contractor to promote economy and efficiency which resulted to
termination of water pump tenders (Asian Alcohol v NLRC)
G. MP TO REORGANIZE AND ABOLISH POSITIONS
- Ee cannot validly insist in their old position and ranking because that would render the
reorganization ineffectual
- CASE: Due to the reorganization the Ee’s position of Executive Secretary was abolished and a
lower position of Secretary was created. The Ee refused to accept the lower position and
demanded to be restored to her old position. SC said, that would defeat the very purpose of
reorganization. Er cannot be denied the right to reorganize just to protect one’s office (Arrieta v
NLRC)
H. MP TO REDUCE PERSONNEL
- for economic reason
I. MP TO CLOSE BUSINESS
- State cannot interfere and require business to continue just to keep the Ees. That is
tantamount to taking of property without due process.
J. MP TO TRANSFER BUSINESS OWNERSHIP
- Er may merge/consolidate/be acquired by another business even if it may bring about the
dismissal of its employees.
- Why? Labor contracts are in personam. They do not give a real right that should be respected
by 3rd parties. They are not enforceable against a transferee.
- An innocent transferee is not liable for the ULP of the transferor
- But if transfer/sale was done in bad faith, the liability is shared by the transferor and
transferee. This happens usually by simulating a sale.
K. MP TO PROMULGATE COMPANY POLICIES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
- Company rules are binding on the parties unless grossly oppressive and contrary to law.
- CASE: Duncan Assoc. of Detailman v Glaxo
- the company has a policy that obliges Ees to disclose existing romantic relationship
with Ees of competitors. One Ee married an Ee of the competitor. He was advised to
resign.
- SC held the company policy as valid. The prohibition of relationship with Ees of
competitor companies is reasonable because it might compromise the interest of the
company. What is sought to be avoided is a conflict of interest. (REALLY?)
L. MP TO DISCIPLINE EES
Factors to consider as to offenses that do not clearly fall under just causes of dismissal
(enumeration):
1. NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
- Hotel Ee’s bully to a co-Ee. Hotel has the duty to maintain peace and expect orderly
behavior from Ees. = valid dismissal
- Violation of “first come-first served” policy = not dismissal
- Tardiness for a few minutes on three instances = not dismissal
- Penalties lower than dismissal: warning, reprimand, suspension
2. POSITION OF THE EE
- Managerial Ees occupy positions of trust and confidence and as such they are subject to
stricter norm of discipline. They may be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence by
mere existence of a basis for believing that a breach of trust occurred.
3. DEGREE OF DAMAGE TO THE ER
- A cash shortage of P41.85 incurred by Ee does not warrant dismissal (Panay Electric v CA)
- An Ee who took a bottle of lighter fluid valued at P8 does not warrant dismissal (Caltex v
NLRC)
- An Ee may also be dismissed regardless of damage because of the Ee’s gross and habitual
neglect of duties. It is enough that the act tends to damage the Er.
4. PAST RECORD OF THE EE
- Previous disciplinary action was imposed and now requires harsher penalty.
5. LENGTH OF SERVICE OF EE
- the longer an employee served, the more responsibility is expected
*OVERALL CONSIDERATION: An Er can impose sanctions lighter or harsher than those prescribed
by the company rules.
Stanford Microsystems v NLRC – an Ee drank with two female security guards and had sex inside
the office. According to the company rules the penalty was 30d suspension, but they were
dismissed. SC upheld it because of the seriousness of the offense.

16) LAY-OFF
A. MEANING
- Temporary separation of an employee because of suspension of operations of Ees military
or civic duty.
B. LEGAL EFFECT OF SUSPENSION OF OPERATION
1. If good faith for a period not exceeding 6mo = suspended, must be reinstated
2. If good faith for a period exceeding 6mo = terminate, pay separation pay or none if serious
losses
3. If bad faith = uninterrupted, backwages
C. TEMPORARY OFF-DETAIL/FLOATING STATUS
- E.g. when a contract expires, and the service providers still look for other clients.
- If no client: laid-off
- If it exceed 6mo: deemed terminated
D. FULFILLMENT OF A MILITARY OR CIVIC DUTY: suspension only even if it exceeds 5 months.
17) RETIREMENT
A. MEANING
- Withdrawal from employment by reaching a certain age
B. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE CAN REITRE
1. If there is a retirement plan, CBA, contract = upon reaching the criteria in that plan, CBA,
contract
2. If no plan, CBA, contract = retirement age under LC
C. RETIREMENT AGE UNDER LC
1. OPTIONAL RETIREMENT AGE: Ee’s choice
a. 50yo – for underground and surface mine Ees
b. 60yo – for ordinary Ees
2. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE
a. 55 – for professional race jockeys
b. 60 - for underground and surface mine Ees
c. 65 – for ordinary Ees
3. RETIREMENT PAY
a. According to retirement plan, CBA or contract, provided not lower than set by LC
b. If no retirement plan, CBA or contract, = LC = 22.5days for every year of service
Composed of:
1. 15d salary (latest salary rate)
2. Cash equivalent of 5 days incentive leave
3. ½ of 13mo pay
4. COMPUTATION OF 1/2MO SALARY OF EES WHO DO NOT HAVE FIXED WAGES
a. Ees paid by result: average daily salary for last year
b. Seasonal Ees: average monthly pay for last season
c. Commission basis: average commission earned in past year
5. COMPUTATION OF LENGTH OF SERVICE: every year of service
- Not counted: period the company is closed, off-season
- Counted: authorized leaves, regular holidays, ROTC
6. WHO ARE ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS
- GR: all Ees, regardless of position, status
- XPN:
1. Ees who have not worked for at least 5 years
2. Domestic helpers
3. Persons in personal service of another
4. Employees of retail, service, agricultural with no more than 10 Ees.

You might also like