[LABOR CASES] DIGEST FOR AUGUST 2010

AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGESTTUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA BREWERY G.R. N O . 162025, A UGUST 3, 2010 FACTS • Respondent Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) entered into a CBA with Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa AsiaIndependent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), the exclusive bargaining representative of ABI’s rank-and-file employees. The CBA defined the scope and composition of the bargaining unit. Under the CBA, 12 jobs were defined to be excluded from the bargaining unit. • Subsequently, a dispute arose when ABI’s management stopped deducting union dues from eighty-one (81) employees, believing that their membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated the CBA. BLMA lodged a complaint before the NCMB but the parties eventually agreed to submit the case for arbitration to resolve the issue. • VA ruled in favor of BLMA. Accordingly, the subject employees were declared eligible for inclusion within the bargaining unit represented by BLMA. On appeal by ABI to the CA, it reversed the VA, ruling that the 81 employees are excluded from and are not eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit as defined in Section 2, Article I of the CBA; and petitioner has not committed any act that restrained or tended to restrain its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. BLMA filed a motion for reconsideration. VS . ASIA BREWERY, INC. • In the meantime, a certification election was held wherein petitioner Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia (TPMA) won. As the incumbent bargaining representative of ABI’s rank-and-file employees claiming interest in the outcome of the case, petitioner filed with the CA an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the decision and intervention, with attached petition signed by the union officer. Both motions were denied by the CA. Hence, an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 45. ISSUE Whether or not the workers were confidential employees; and whether or not the company committed an unfair labor practice by restraining its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. HELD No. Respondent failed to indicate who among the numerous employees have access to confidential data relating to management policies that could give rise to potential conflict of interest with their Union membership. Clearly, the rationale under previous rulings of the SC for the exclusion of executive secretaries or division secretaries would have little or no significance considering the lack of or very limited access to confidential information of these employees. As to the second issue, the dispute arose from a simple disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA provision on excluded employees from the bargaining unit, respondent cannot be said to have committed unfair labor practice that restrained its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, nor have thereby demonstrated an antiunion stance. DOCTRINE: Union; eligibility of confidential employees to join. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee – that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. In the present case, there is no showing that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the company, as respondent claims, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., vs. EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS BUTOY™ 2010 - TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 1 of 23 AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST G.R. No. 187104, August 3, 2010 FACTS • Respondent is a professor of petitioner and an active member of the Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (UFESLU). The 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 CBA between SLU and UFESLU contain a provision on forced leaves which states that: teaching employees in college who fail the yearly evaluation for three (3) times within a five (5) year period shall be on forced leave for (1) regular semester during which period all benefits due them shall be suspended. SLU placed respondent on forced leave for the first semester of School Year (SY) 07-08 when she failed the evaluation for SY 02-03, SY 05-06, and SY 06-07, with the rating of 85, 77, and 72.9 points, respectively, below the required rating of 87 points. Thereafter, Cobarrubias sought recourse from the CBA’s grievance machinery but the parties still failed to settle their dispute. Later, respondent filed a case for illegal forced leave or illegal suspension with the NCMB. When circulation and mediation again failed, both parties submitted the issues between them for voluntary arbitration. Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the forced leave issue in a prior case between the parties, CA-G.R. SP No. 90596, ruling that the forced leave for teachers who fail their evaluation for three (3) times within a five-year period should be coterminous with the CBA in force during the same five-year period. VA: Ruled in favor of SLU and therefore dismissed the case; Respondent filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay the required filing fees; CA: First dismissed the petition for procedural lapses but reinstated it when respondent filed her motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ground cited is technical. SLU insisted that the VA decision had already attained finality for Cobarrubias’ failure to pay the docket fees on time. CA: Ruled in favor of Cobarrubias declaring that the "three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years” means within the five-year effectivity of the CBA. Thus, the CA ordered SLU to pay all the benefits due Cobarrubias for the first semester of SY 2007-2008, when she was placed on forced leave. • • • • ISSUE Whether or not failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period renders the VA decision final and executory. HELD Yes. Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petition’s dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is an essential requirement, without which, the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal has been filed. The VA decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees were paid; hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal except to order its dismissal. ELPIDIO CALIPAY VS . NLRC, TRIANGLE ACE CORPORATION AND JOSE LEE PAGE 2 of 23 BUTOY™ 2010 - TAU KAPPA PHI GSIS VS. they performed various kinds of work. Calipay and the other complainants alleged in their Position Paper that in the course of their employment. NO. also denied the MR of petitioner. however. among others. ZARATE G. was sent by mail but he refused to receive the same. the LA’s decision was reinstated and affirmed. they were required by Lee to work for nine (9) hours a day. In the instant case. there is no unfair labor practice because there is no union. They claimed. Respondent filed a MR which the NLRC granted. petitioner did not ask for reinstatement in the complaint form. 1998. the Supreme Court has held that abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. 2010 BUTOY™ 2010 . a memorandum dated November 17. 1998 up to November 17. and subsequently. HELD Yes. 170847. petitioner filed his complaint more than one year after his alleged termination from employment. The prayer for reinstatement is made only in the Position Paper that was later prepared by his counsel.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 3 of 23 . This is an indication that petitioner never had the intention or desire to return to his job. and there is full compliance with the law regarding payment of wages and other benefits due to their employees. In their Position Paper. In the present case. which he personally filled up and filed with the NLRC. On appeal by petitioner to the CA: the CA dismissed the petition due to failure to timely file his appeal with the NLRC. more so if the same is accompanied by a prayer for reinstatement. for failure to explain his side. petitioner Calipay had failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Time and again. 2010 FACTS • On July 16.R.R. 166411. AUGUST 3. 1998.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST G. they were not given any specific work assignment. with a break of one hour at 12:00 noon. In addition. 1998 was issued terminating Calipay’s employment on the ground of abandonment of work. Moreover. another memorandum dated December 11. that Calipay was on absence without leave (AWOL) status from November 2. On appeal to the NLRC. ordering the respondent to reinstate the complainants and to pay them full back wages plus attorney’s fee. private respondents countered that the termination of Calipay and the other complainants was for a valid or just cause and that due process was observed. the decision appeal from was modified. 1999. The Labor Arbiter handling the case dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. As a result. N O . and several other complaints. abandonment. DOCTRINE: Dismissal. the Court arrives at the conclusion that the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal appears only as a convenient afterthought on the part of petitioner and the other complainants after they were dismissed in accordance with law. A UGUST 3. requiring him to explain why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and several other protests against private respondents. • • ISSUE Whether or not the petitioner had abandoned his work. His continued absences without the private respondents’ approval constituted gross and habitual neglect which is a just cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. he met a traffic accident that cost him his life. the bus he was riding on collided with a Swagman Travel Shuttle bus. his wife. The CA cited and relied on the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Vano v. June 15. but returning to work as instructed by his superior is no less equivalent to compensable performance of duty under Section 1. • • ISSUE Whether or not the death of Henry Zarate did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The wife appealed to ECC.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 4 of 23 . which was a Sunday. Vano was a letter carrier who died as a result of a motorcycle accident while he was on his way from his hometown in Bohol to Tagbilaran City where he worked. North Expressway. Felicitas. at Kilometer 80. As found by the ECC. He was pronounced dead on arrival. the CA granted death benefits on the reasoning that Henry lost his life while traveling from the home of his mother which he had been allowed to visit and was on his way back to Quezon City. DOCTRINE: Employee benefit. Cacutud. GSIS because of the similarity of the obtaining factual situations. to visit his ailing mother. filed a claim for death benefits with the GSIS. Rule III of the ECC Rules. in compliance with the timeline his superior gave him. Pampanga. Felicitas brought her case on appeal to the CA. he headed back to Metro Manila on the same day. aboard a Philippine Rabbit bus. In Henry’s case. It should be noted that Henry’s superior allowed him to travel to La Union to visit his ailing mother on the condition that that he return the next day. He should already be deemed en route to the performance of his duty at the time of the accident. At around 2:45 P. The Court found that Vano’s death was compensable as an employment accident because Vano was then on his way to work. HELD No. In order to report to his station the next day. La Union on June 15. Zarate went to Rosario. The CA reversed the decision of the ECC and maintained that there was a reasonable work connection in Henry’s death and that it is the policy of the law to extend state insurance benefits to as many qualified employees as possible. however. time of death. Henry was in the course of complying with his superior’s order when he met his fatal accident. Angeles City.. The GSIS denied the claim by ruling that the death of her husband did not arise out of nor was it in the course of his employment. he was not in an actual firefighting or accident situation when he died. To be sure. while he was assigned at a sub-station in Cubao. she was not successful because the ECC ruled that the death was indeed not work-related. Monday. BUTOY™ 2010 . Sometime in 1997. The death should be deemed compensable under the ECC since Henry was on his way back to Manila in order to be on time and be ready for work the next day when his accidental death occurred. Under these facts. He sustained severe injuries and was rushed to the Angeles University Foundation.M.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST FACTS • Henry Zarate is a Senior Fire Officer of the Bureau of Fire Protection. Consunji. 169170. five (5) days service incentive leave pay.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 5 of 23 . unlike in Agabon. • • • ISSUE Whether or not there is basis for the CA in ordering petitioner to pay each respondents the sum of P20. INC. respondents saw their names included in the Notice of Termination posted on the bulletin board at the project premises. Jr.000 as nominal damages for non-compliance with the statutory due process. The appellate court cited the case of Agabon v. Inc. BUTOY™ 2010 . On appeal to the NLRC. granting that they were project employees. Respondents were employed per project undertaken by petitioner and within varying estimated periods indicated in their respective project employment contracts. 2010 FACTS • Respondents worked as carpenters in the construction project of petitioner. C. 19.M. Construction Corporation: "If the termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof. because petitioner failed to give them advance notice of their termination. a construction company. but they were dismissed within the two-year period. being project employees. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. CA: Affirmed the NLRC with modification. are covered by Policy Instruction No.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST D.. Hence. They had no prior notice of their termination. VS.R.. AUGUST 8. ANTONIO GOBRES ET. series of 1993 with respect to their separation or dismissal. NLRC as basis for the award of nominal damages. the employer is only obliged to render a report to the DOLE on the termination of the employment. The Court of Appeals held that respondents were entitled to nominal damages.000 as nominal damages for alleged non-compliance with the statutory due process. Ayala." This is because completion of the project automatically terminates the employment. However. CONSUNJI. On October 14. Consunji for illegal dismissal. Petitioner countered that respondents. respondents were terminated due to the completion of the phases of work for which their services were engaged. 20.M. NO. in this case. Instead.E. the NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision. G. v. on several occasions and at various times. Their termination from employment for each project was reported to the DOLE. as superseded by Department Order No. requiring petitioner to pay them the sum of P20. and nonpayment of 13th month pay. and David M. respondents. were not terminated for just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. According to Cioco. in which case. damages and attorney’s fees. Respondents filed a Complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC against petitioner D. HELD No. they were still illegally dismissed for non-observance of procedural due process. AL. no prior notice is required. The LA ruled in favor of petitioner dismissing respondents’ complaint. 1998. Respondents replied that the project was estimated to take two years to finish. Makati. Respondents’ last assignment was at Quad 4-Project in Glorietta. he received a Notice of Termination for loss of trust and confidence. RAMIL G. project employees. This is because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment. The respondent’s previous incidents of tardiness in reporting for work were entirely separate and distinct from his latest alleged infraction of forgery. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and. To consider these offenses as justification for his dismissal would be penalizing respondent twice for the same offense. the employer is. such cases should be resolved in favor of labor. failing to give project employees advance notice of their termination is not a violation of procedural due process and cannot be the basis for the payment of nominal damages. this does not mean that the said basis may be arbitrary and unfounded. Besides.R. moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against petitioner and its officers before the Labor Arbiter (LA). illegal. Subsequently. • • • ISSUE Whether or not petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove neither respondent’s participation in the charge of forgery nor caused any damage to the petitioner HELD Yes. He was asked to explain in writing the events surrounding the incident. On appeal to the NLRC: declared respondent's dismissal to be illegal and directed petitioner to reinstate respondent with full backwages and seniority rights and privileges. under the law. upon which its conclusion was based are not supported by substantial evidence. 2010 FACTS • Respondent was employed as technical specialist by petitioner. non-payment of overtime pay. Employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions which by their nature require the employers’ full trust and confidence and the mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust of the employer is sufficient. A previous offense may be used as valid justification for dismissal from work only if the past infractions are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed. must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 6 of 23 . Respondent filed a petition to the CA: Rendered judgment in favor of respondent and reinstated the earlier decision of the NLRC. and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. in granting the motion of petitioner. He vehemently denied any participation in the alleged forgery. 171630. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly BUTOY™ 2010 . His job includes the preparation of the purchase requisition (PR) forms and capital expenditure (CAPEX) forms. respondent was suspected to have committed forgery in preparing the forms. thereafter. DOCTRINES: Dismissal. Therefore. Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal. Respondent was. Unsubstantiated suspicions. Dismissal.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE: Dismissal. CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION VS . respondent had already been sanctioned for his prior infractions. Hence. which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. to be a valid cause for dismissal. They did not even submit any affidavit of witness or present any during the hearing to substantiate their claim against Ramil. Dismissal. separation pay. Petitioner filed a MR to the NLRC: Reversed itself and rendered a new Decision upholding the LA’s previous decision. that is. burden of proof. the NLRC's findings of fact. VICENTE RANDY R. Prior or advance notice of termination is not part of procedural due process if the termination of a project employee is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof. In case of doubt. loss of trust and confidence. N O . The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. accusations. However. the amount of relevant evidence. A UGUST 8. damages. pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution. as well as the coordination with the purchasing department regarding technical inquiries on needed products and services of petitioner's different departments. employee’s past infractions. therefore. It found that petitioner failed to show clear and convincing evidence that respondent was responsible for the forgery. In the case at bar. the same could no longer be utilized as an added justification for his dismissal. Loss of trust and confidence. The record of the case is bereft of evidence that would clearly establish Ramil's involvement in the forgery. in which case. suspended. Sometime in 1999. only obliged to render a report to the DOLE. LA dismissed the complaint. Nacague maintains that.M.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 7 of 23 . as in this case. together with Nacague. The normal consequences of a finding that an employee has been illegally dismissed are. 9165) and the Department of Labor and Employment Order No. Lazo Clinic drug test was not credible because Sulpicio Lines failed to show that S.A. the payment of backwages corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. illegal dismissal and for reinstatement with backwages.M. When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven.M. it cannot be an adequate substitute for both reinstatement and backwages. 9165 (R. submitted a report regarding a drug paraphernalia found inside the Mopalla Suite Room and the threat on his life made by Nacague.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST established. Lazo Clinic is an accredited drug testing center nor did it deny the complainant’s allegation that S. were subjected to a random drug test. Sulpicio Lines sent a notice of investigation to Nacague informing him of the charges against him for use of illegal drugs and threatening a coemployee. N O . The law is clear that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing centers. Sulpicio Lines sent a memorandum to Nacague terminating him from the service. the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. SULPICIO LINES. the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. INC. Lazo Clinic is an authorized drug testing center.M. The grant of separation pay is a proper substitute only for reinstatement. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness. When the ship docked in the port of Manila. 172589. In this case. firstly. Nacague filed a complaint for illegal suspension. As a result. whim. Lazo Medical Clinic (S. Dismissal. 53-03 (Department Order No. 53-03) require two drug tests — a screening test and a confirmatory test. JEFFREY NACAGUE. Hence. The awards of separation pay and backwages are not mutually exclusive and both may be given to the respondent. P ETITIONER VS. BUTOY™ 2010 . DOCTRINES: Dimissal. Lazo Clinic) and were required to submit urine samples. use of illegal drugs.R. 9165.M. he was illegally dismissed based on an incomplete drug test. some crew members of the ship. Nacague argues that Sulpicio Lines failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination of his employment was legal. A few year later. Sulpicio Lines failed to indubitably prove that Nacague was guilty of using illegal drugs and failed to clearly show that it had a valid and legal cause for terminating Nacague’s employment. Under the doctrine of strained relations. Lazo Clinic was not accredited. The result of the random drug test revealed that Nacague was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Also. G. They were taken to S. separation pay and backwages. It was also proven that the urine samples were gathered carelessly without proper labels to identify their owners and that S. Sulpicio Lines failed to prove that S. No. petitioner was hired as “hepe de viaje" or the representative of Sulpicio Lines.M. Nacague adds that Republic Act No. caprice or suspicion. the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. S. that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and. These are two separate and distinct remedies granted to the employee and the inappropriateness or non-availability of one does not carry with it the inappropriateness or non-availability of the other. secondly. A UGUST 8. otherwise. • • ISSUE Whether or not the termination of Nacague was valid. Sulpicio Lines did not confirm the positive result of the screening test with a confirmatory test as required by R.M. a housekeeper on the ship. HELD No. 2010 FACTS • In 1995. since only a screening test was conducted. Lazo Clinic did not ask Nacague if he was taking any medication that might alter the results of the drug test.A. only a screening test was conducted to determine if the complainant was guilty of using illegal drugs. HELD No. respondents filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice. On October 16. TAÑECA G. 2000 until May 21. and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. which is the collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of petitioner PRI. 2000. Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership in good standing in the Union. Incorporated (PRI). and not to cause the downfall of NAMAPRI-SPFL." Likewise. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause. The petitioner failed to satisfy the third requirement since nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership in good standing in the union. Significantly. Respondents continued to pay their union dues and never joined the FFW. VS . Thus. Strictly speaking. it was within the ambit of the freedom period which commenced from March 21. members are required to maintain their membership in the UNION in good standing during the effectivity of this AGREEMENT. illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner PICOP Resources. INCORPORATED (PRI). the signing of the authorization to file a certification election was merely preparatory to the filing of the petition for certification election. However. petitioner's act of dismissing respondents stemmed from the latter's act of signing an authorization letter to file a petition for certification election as they signed it outside the freedom period.R. wherein as a condition of continued employment by the COMPANY. 2000. union security. we are constrained to believe that an "authorization letter to file a petition for certification election" is different from an actual "Petition for Certification Election. N O . the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable. petitioner’s act of dismissing respondents BUTOY™ 2010 . Significantly. Respondents then accused PRI of Unfair Labor Practice. If at all. ANACLETO L. • On February 2001.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 8 of 23 . • • ISSUE Whether or not there was just cause to terminate the employment of respondents. AL . 160828. Respondents did not resign or withdraw their membership from the Union to which they belong. what is prohibited is the filing of a petition for certification election outside the 60-day freedom period. The CBA between petitioner and NAMAPRI contained union security provisions of maintenance of membership.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST PICOP RESOURCES. (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA. DOCTRINES: Dismissal. 2000. as per records. Respondents were regular rank-and-file employees of PRI and bona fide members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PRI Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NAMAPRI-SPFL). These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the union security provision of the CBA. it was clear that the actual Petition for Certification Election of FFW was filed only on May 18. 2010 FACTS ET . A UGUST 9. Respondents maintained that their acts of signing the authorization signifying support to the filing of a Petition for Certification Election of FFW was merely prompted by their desire to have a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of PRI with hopes of a CBA negotiation in due time. This is not the situation in this case. PRI served notices of termination to respondents on the ground of "acts of disloyalty" committed against it when respondents allegedly supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of FFW before the "freedom period" during the effectivity of the CBA. or an exercise of respondents’ right to selforganization. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS VS . serious misconduct. on the other hand. when the lady guard on duty inspected Helen’s bag. and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. 2010 FACTS • Petitioner Helen Valenzuela (Helen) was a production associate in respondent Keihin Philippines Corporation (Keihin).TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 9 of 23 .” For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law. Respondent company also claimed that motive and value of the thing stolen are irrelevant in this case. by her own admission. Thereafter. she found a packing tape inside Helen’s bag. The mere signing of an authorization letter before the freedom period is not sufficient ground to terminate the employment of respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed during the freedom period. admitted the offense and even manifested that she would accept whatever penalty would be imposed upon her. Petitioners filed a complaint against respondent for illegal dismissal. When Helen was asked to explain in writing why she took the tape. On day. she stated.R." In other words. Despite these reminders. N O . willful in character.” It is noteworthy that prior to this incident. with a prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages. Helen received a notice of disciplinary action informing her that Keihin has decided to terminate her services. a forbidden act. and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION G. called her to his office and directed her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her. BUTOY™ 2010 . Helen took the packing tape with the thought that she could use it for her own personal purposes. It is a standard operating procedure of Keihin to subject all its employees to reasonable search before they leave the company premises. The court emphasizes anew that the employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The guard confiscated it and submitted an incident report. In order to address this issue of losses. a dereliction of duty. A UGUST 9. complainant took the packing tape and was caught during the routine inspection. All these circumstances point to the conclusion that it was not just an error of judgment. Misconduct is defined as “the transgression of some established and definite rule of action. there had been several cases of theft and vandalism involving both respondent company’s property and personal belongings of other employees. HELD Yes. but a deliberate act of theft of company property. • • ISSUE Whether or not Helen is guilty of serious misconduct in her act of taking the packing tape. In the case at bar. Helen’s supervisor. non-payment of 13th month pay. "Kumuha po ako ng isang packing tape na gagamitin ko sa paglilipat ng gamit ko sa bago kong lilipatang bahay. as well as moral and exemplary damages. there was intent on her part to benefit herself when she attempted to bring home the packing tape in question.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST stemmed from the latter’s act of signing an authorization letter to file a petition for certification election as they signed it outside the freedom period. in her explanation. Helen. Keihin. maintained that Helen was guilty of serious misconduct because there was a deliberate act of stealing from the company. “(a) it must be serious. 171115. DOCTRINES: Dismissal. (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. respondent company issued two memoranda implementing an intensive inspection procedure and reminding all employees that those who will be caught stealing and performing acts of vandalism will be dealt with in accordance with the company’s Code of Conduct. As a result. G.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS-FFW VS . after their positions have been converted from Job Grade Level 1 to Job Grade Level 2. 182877. A UGUST 9. xxx Respondent informed 22 daily paid rank-and-file employees that their positions had been classified as Job Grade Level 2. Both CBAs contain provisions on Job Evaluation which state that xxx The Management (COMPANY) will conduct Job Evaluation when deemed necessary. promotion increase as well as retroactive salary increase from the time the job evaluation was completed on the ground that their positions had been converted into a higher job grade level which amounted to a promotion. but the nature of his functions. The instances which petitioner cited showed clear intent on respondent’s part to promote the employees concerned. the Monthly Employees Union demanded that the 22 daily paid rank-and-file employees be given conversion increase. Petitioner also failed to substantiate its allegation that it has been a long-standing company practice to grant a conversion or promotion increase every time an employee’s rank is converted to a higher job grade level. respectively.The third party consultant will conduct an orientation to both Union and Management of the Job Evaluation Process. HELD No. are entitled to conversion increase equivalent to 10% of their current basic salary. Moreover. BUTOY™ 2010 . 2010 FACTS • Respondent SCA Hygiene Products Corporation has existing CBAs with SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Monthly Employees Union-FSM (Monthly Employees Union) and petitioner SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Employees Association-FFW (Daily Employees Union). DOCTRINES: Employee. which represent the monthly and daily paid rank-andfile employees. The employees continued to occupy the same positions they were occupying prior to the job evaluation. Of primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the employee. • • • ISSUE Whether or not the 22 employees. as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. What transpired in this case was only a promotion in nomenclature. SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CO.R.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 10 of 23 . it merely provided the procedure for the implementation of the job evaluation and did not guarantee any adjustment in the salaries of the employees. N O . A perusal of the CBAs of the parties showed that. The fact that employees were re-classified from Job Grade Level 1 to Job Grade Level 2 as a result of a job evaluation program does not automatically entail a promotion or grant them an increase in salary. evaluation and promotion. their job titles remained the same and they were not given additional duties and responsibilities. The company countered that the job evaluation was merely a process of determining the relative contribution and value of the positions in its operations and does not provide for any adjustment in the salaries of the covered employees. The job evaluation program was undertaken to streamline respondent’s operations and to place its employees in their proper positions or groupings. A third party consultant may be tasked to conduct the program…. The job titles and positions held by such employees have changed following the fact that they have assumed additional duties and responsibilities. Azcunea. applicability to employees on commission basis. which varies each day. the next critical issue that needs discernment is the determination of what is a fair and rational amount of daily earning of complainant to be used in the computation of his retirement pay. as a basis for ruling that bus conductors are not covered by the law on SIL and 13 th month pay is erroneous since that involved a taxi driver who was paid according to the “boundary system. on the other hand. his retirement pay should have been computed at 22.A. As petitioner’s request to first go over the computation of his retirement pay was denied. But "half-month’s pay" is "expanded" because it means not just the salary for 15 days but also one-twelfth of the 13th-month pay and the cash value of five-day service incentive leave. Thus. Thus.45 which he received. THIS IS THE MINIMUM. Vol." (under protest) after his signature.P. A UGUST 9. page 765.” There is a difference between drivers paid under the “boundary system” and conductors who are paid on commission basis. SERRANO VS . he signed the Quitclaim on which he wrote "U. or through a collective bargaining agreement. N O . Petitioner soon after filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter. Conductors. 7641 and its implementing rules. alleging that the company erred in its computation since under the Retirement Pay Law. indicating his protest to the amount of P75. The NLRC’s reliance on the case of R & E Transport. The retirement pay package can be improved upon by voluntary company policy.A. petitioner applied for optional retirement from the company whose representative advised him that he must first sign the already prepared Quitclaim before his retirement pay could be released. Fifth Edition 2004). having established that 22. Inc.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST RODOLFO J. Even if the petitioner as bus conductor was paid on commission basis. HELD No.5 days per year of service to include the cash equivalent of the 5-day service incentive leave (SIL) and 1/12 of the 13th month pay which the company did not.5 days pay per year of service is the correct formula in arriving at the complete retirement pay of complainant and inasmuch as complainant’s daily earning is based on commission earned in a day. BUTOY™ 2010 . 187698. SEVERINO SANTOS TRANSIT G. or particular agreement with the employee. • ISSUE Whether or not the computation of respondent in determining the retirement pay of Serrano was correct. C. The retirement pay is equal to half-month’s pay per year of service. his retirement pay should include the cash equivalent of 5-days SIL and 1/12 of 13th month pay.277.R." (The Labor Code with Comments and Cases. computed by the company at 15 days per year of service. are paid a certain percentage of the bus’ earnings for the day. taxi drivers do not receive fixed wages and retain only those sums in excess of the “boundary” or fee they pay to the owners or operators of the vehicles. In practice. DOCTRINES: Retirement pay. II. After 14 years of service.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 11 of 23 . 2010 FACTS • Petitioner Rodolfo J. he falls within the coverage of R. Serrano was hired as bus conductor by respondent Severino Santos Transit. The violation of a party’s right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue that cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. However.R. BUTOY™ 2010 . gross insubordination. G ARCIA VS. A UGUST 18. • ISSUE Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation is an essential requisite to the conduct of adjudication. 157383/G. N O. On appeal. prosecutor and judge. M ARIO I. DOCTRINE: Due process. M OLINA. G. liberty. ET AL. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent. Respondents requested to transfer the investigation from the GSIS to the CSC. N O. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 12 of 23 .AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST W INSTON F. were charged with grave misconduct. or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the same.. and were accused of performing acts in violation of the Rules on Office Decorum. Afterward. upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient in form and substance. Indeed. Respondents strongly expressed their opposition to petitioner acting as complainant.R. both Attorney V of the GSIS. for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life. respondents denied the charges against them and likewise opposed their preventive suspension for lack of factual and legal basis. 2010 FACTS • Respondents. but the latter denied the same for lack of merit. as clearly outlined above. effective immediately. HELD Yes. 174137. Thereafter. Even if the complainant is the disciplining authority himself. decision rendered without due process. the CSC Rules does not specifically provide that a formal charge without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void. the CA rendered a decision in favor of respondents. he could have issued a memorandum requiring respondents to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them instead of immediately issuing formal charges. The CA declared null and void respondents’ formal charges for lack of the requisite preliminary investigation. petitioner ordered the preventive suspension of respondents for ninety (90) days without pay. the disciplining authority shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three days from receipt. to comply with such requirement. Respondent Union then sent notices to the former FEBTC employees who refused to join and called them to a hearing regarding the matter. with their status and tenure recognized and salaries and benefits maintained. Although in a merger it is as if there is no change in the personality of the employer. The sole category therefore in which petitioner may prove its claim is the fourth recognized exception or whether the former FEBTC employees are excluded by the express terms of the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent. BPI’s employment of these absorbed employees will not be under exactly the same terms and conditions as stated in the latter’s employment contracts with FEBTC. all the assets and liabilities of FEBTC were transferred to and absorbed by BPI as the surviving corporation. the situation of the former FEBTC employees cleaerly does not fall within the first three exceptions. Moreover. which requires new employees to join the union. Prior to the effectivity of the merger. are allegedly automatically deemed regular employees of BPI. A UGUST 10. is but a legal fiction intended as a tool to adjudicate rights and obligations between and among the merged corporations and the persons that deal with them. DOCTRINE: Merger. FEBTC employees. 2000. and FEBTC. Not the least of these changes is the fact that prior to the merger FEBTC employees were employees of an unorganized establishment and after the merger they became employees of a unionized company that had an existing CBA with the certified union. BUTOY™ 2010 . Indeed. employees already in the service and already members of a union other than the majority at the time the union shop agreement took effect. namely. employees who at the time the union shop agreement takes effect are bona fide members of a religious organization which prohibits its members from joining labor unions on religious grounds. under law and jurisprudence. were hired by petitioner as its own employees. petitioner insists that the term "new employees. respondent Union invited said FEBTC employees to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause. the CBA does not make a distinction as to how a regular employee attains such a status. However. the president of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union Shop Clause of the CBA and to terminate their employment. That BPI is the same entity as FEBTC after the merger. there is nothing in the Corporation Law and the merger agreement mandating the automatic employment as regular employees by the surviving corporation in the merger. confidential employees who are excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit. as a legal consequence of a merger. N O. the following kinds of employees are exempted from its coverage. • • ISSUE Whether or not the former FEBTC employees that were absorbed by petitioner upon the merger between FEBTC and BPI should be covered by the Union Shop Clause found in the existing CBA between petitioner and respondent Union. although in a sense BPI is continuing FEBTC’s employment of these absorbed employees. 164301. employee terms and conditions. As a general rule. and employees excluded from the union shop by express terms of the agreement. including those in its different branches across the country. When these former employees refused to attend the hearing. and not those who. HELD No. It is reasonable to assume that BPI would have different rules and regulations and company practices than FEBTC and it is incumbent upon the former FEBTC employees to obey these new. Once an FEBTC employee is absorbed. the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas approved the Articles of Merger executed by and between BPI. As a result. refers only to employees hired by BPI as non-regular employees who later qualify for regular employment and become regular employees. all employees in the bargaining unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA with management are subject to its terms. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION G.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 13 of 23 . To reiterate. of the existing CBA between petitioner BPI and respondent Union.Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank (hereinafter the "Union”) is the exclusive bargaining agent of BPI’s rank and file employees. Respondent BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter .R. there are presumably changes in his condition of employment even if his previous tenure and salary rate is recognized by BPI. Thus. there is in reality a change in the situation of the employee." as the same is used in the Union Shop Clause of the CBA at issue. which was later approved by the SEC.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST BPI VS . However. 2010 FACTS • On March 23. Union. 36 union members were dismissed. PILA filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. with a prayer for the dismissal of PILA officers and members who knowingly participated in the illegal strike. liability for invalid strike. but also if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike. HELD Yes. The effects of illegal strikes. or obstruct public thoroughfares. Thereafter. due process. and (4) employees excluded from the union shop by express terms of the agreement. BUTOY™ 2010 . make a distinction between participating workers and union officers. not only when he actually commits an illegal act during a strike. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES. The means become illegal when they come within the prohibitions under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code which provides: No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence. The picket. under the evidence presented. on the other hand. PILA filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock.R. to return to work. N O. may be terminated. In the absence of any of these recognized exceptions. The Labor Code recognizes the right to due process of all workers. without any meaningful resort to the guarantees accorded them by law. All employees in the bargaining unit covered by a Union Shop Clause in their CBA with management are subject to its terms. the short interval of time between the first and second notice shows that a mere token recognition of the due process requirements was made. proof must be adduced showing that he or she committed illegal acts during the strike. a strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. under law and jurisprudence. In the present case.. The services of a participating union officer. even if the cause was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence. The services of an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. The Secretary ordered PHIMCO to accept the striking employees. • Thereafter. outlined in Article 264 of the Labor Code. without distinction as to the cause of their termination. A UGUST 11. Despite the validity of the purpose of a strike and compliance with the procedural requirements. 170830. PHIMCO sent a letter to the affected union members/officers. effect of merger. However. (1) employees who at the time the union shop agreement takes effect are bona fide members of a religious organization which prohibits its members from joining labor unions on religious grounds. ISSUE Whether or not the strike was illegal. (3) confidential employees who are excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit. intimidation and coercion – the ingress and egress of nonstriking employees into and from the company premises. • Subsequently. The Acting Labor Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordered all the striking employees. Also.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 14 of 23 . to enjoin the strikers from preventing – through force. there is no basis to conclude that the terms and conditions of employment under a valid CBA in force in the surviving corporation should not be made to apply to the absorbed employees. the union members/officers were informed of their dismissal from employment. PHIMCO filed with the NLRC a petition for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO). directing them to explain within 24 hours why they should not be dismissed for the illegal acts they committed during the strike. We do not find this company procedure to be sufficient compliance with due process. It does not appear from the evidence that the union officers were specifically informed of the charges against them. INC. coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes. 2010 FACTS • Respondent is the duly authorized bargaining representative of PHIMCO’s daily-paid workers. indicating the company’s intent to dismiss the union members involved. the following kinds of employees are exempted from its coverage. namely. (2) employees already in the service and already members of a union other than the majority at the time the union shop agreement took effect. PHIMCO filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal with the NLRC. DOCTRINES: Dismissal. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA) G. did effectively obstruct the entry and exit points of the company premises on various occasions. under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. VS . except those who were dismissed.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST Union shop. three days later. VS . the picketers violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code and tainted the strike with illegality. Moreover. according to the Feng Shui master. While the strike had not been marred by actual violence and patent intimidation. are not sufficient to support Wensha’s alleged loss of trust and confidence. and before the employee can be dismissed. They claimed those two months after Loreta was hired. In this manner. Loreta went to the NLRC and filed a case for illegal dismissal against Xu and Wensha. validity of strike. ISSUE Whether or not dismissing an employee upon the advice of a Feng Shui master is legal. Xu asked Loreta to go on leave with pay for one month. 185122. suffer from inconsistency. they terminated Loreta’s employment for loss of trust and confidence. DOCTRINE: Employee. A UGUST 16. Based on the results of the investigation. her aura did not match that of Xu. Despite the validity of the purpose of a strike and the union’s compliance with the procedural requirements. the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a valid cause. Its failure to discharge this burden renders the dismissal unjustified and. A just and valid cause for an employee’s dismissal must be supported by substantial evidence. HELD No. the picketing that respondent PILA officers and members undertook as part of their strike activities effectively blocked the free ingress to and egress from PHIMCO’s premises. the President of Wensha. the affidavits of the employees only pertain to petty matters that. to the Court’s mind. security of tenure. A worker’s security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code. Wensha’s pleadings and evidence. The Court finds Loreta’s complaint credible. a worker can only be terminated from his employment for cause and after due process. In contrast. respondent was asked to leave her office because Xu and a Feng Shui master were exploring the premises. The Court finds that the complainant’s allegations are more credible and that she was dismissed from her employment because the Feng Shui master found that complainant’s Chinese Zodiac Sign was a mismatch to that of respondents. or for any of the authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. 2010 FACTS • Respondent was hired as personal assistant of Mr. Loreta refused but was informed that she could no longer continue working at Wensha. and they must be founded on clearly established facts. and purposely. thus preventing non-striking employees and company vehicles from entering the PHIMCO compound. a strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. They advised her to take a leave of absence for one month while they conducted an investigation on the matter. In the process. Sometime in August 2004. he must be given proper notice of such cause/s and an adequate opportunity to be heard. For a valid termination by the employer: (1) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Article 282.R. respondent’s pleadings and evidence suffer from several inconsistencies and the affidavits presented by respondents only pertain to petty matters that are not sufficient to support respondent’s alleged loss of trust and BUTOY™ 2010 . taken as a whole. INC. YUNG G. Xu. That same afternoon.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST Strike. therefore.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 15 of 23 . illegal. breach of trust and confidence. There is consistency in her pleadings and evidence. and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. In contrast. the act or acts constituting breach of trust must have been done intentionally. To be a valid cause for termination of employment. This is not a just and valid cause for an employee’s dismissal. N O. Dismissal. Xu and his wife asked her to resign from Wensha because. LORETA T. they received various complaints against her from the employees. Later that day. Under the security of tenure guarantee. knowingly. feng shui. • Wensha and Xu denied illegally terminating Loreta’s employment. WENSHA SPA CENTER. • When she returned. Furthermore. As the Bank’s Personal Banking Manager. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO) G. the bank hand out a “show cause” letter against petitioner for alleged unauthorized abstractions of various trust funds. Petitioner was preventively suspended for one month. DYCOCO. Petitioner violated his duties and responsibilities as PBM when he signed and approved the subject transactions without the necessary signatures of the concerned clients. respondent bank rendered a decision with respect to the first "show cause" letter finding petitioner guilty of violating the bank’s Code of Conduct. On the one hand. knowingly. the employer’s loss of trust and confidence in said employees may justify the termination of their employment. salesmen or other personnel occupying positions of responsibility. On the other. N O. As a result. and they must be founded on clearly established facts. Sometime in 2006. and demanding reinstatement/separation pay and payment of incentives. Gross negligence connotes “want of care in the performance of one’s duties. making his dismissal based on loss of confidence justified. it has been held that if the employees are cashiers. petitioner’s failure to comply with basic banking policies and procedures were inimical to the interests of the bank.” DOCTRINE: Dismissal. BUTOY™ 2010 .AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST confidence. bonuses.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 16 of 23 . treasury placements and deposits. 13th month pay. A UGUST 16. JESUS E. gross negligence and loss of confidence. respondent bank issued a 2 nd "show cause" letter petitioner charging him with involvement in alleged dollar-trading activities. However. such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. Under the doctrine of strained relations. and Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code. moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.. 188271. • While petitioner was under preventive suspension.” Petitioner’s failure on 3 separate occasions to require clients to sign the requisite documents constituted gross negligence. HELD No. VS . doctrine of strained relations. the act or acts constituting breach of trust must have been done intentionally. supervisors.R. and purposely. In 2005. managers. To be a valid cause for termination of employment. it was his obligation to ensure "that all documentary requirements (were) complied with by clients being handled and that the bank’s interest (was) at all times protected. Reinstatement of employee. As the banking industry is impressed with public interest." It was incumbent on him to enforce "strict compliance with bank policies and internal control procedures while maintaining the highest level of service quality. he filed a complaint in the NLRC alleging constructive dismissal and illegal suspension. Eventually the petitioner became the Personal Banking Manager (PBM) of the Legazpi branch. Petitioner miserably failed to discharge this burden. the payment releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. JR. all bank personnel are burdened with a high level of responsibility insofar as care and diligence in the custody and management of funds are concerned. ISSUE Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed. As PBM. the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. 2010 FACTS • Petitioner was hired by respondent bank as Assistant Manager and/or OIC Branch Head. He then admitted the discrepancy in the receipt and requested that the shortage be deducted from his salary. he was assigned to supervise respondent’s mini warehouse in Makati City. Respondent claimed that stocks were withdrawn from the warehouse and delivered to other outlets during the time that the warehouse was supposedly padlocked. 2008 NLRC Resolution was submitted. that is. ordering the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. petitioner was again made to explain. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines. petitioner was notified in writing of the shortage in the warehouse and was required to explain why he should not be found guilty of violating the Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations. Indeed. 2010 FACTS • Petitioner was employed as helper by respondent. ANIB VS . BUTOY™ 2010 . and he applied the overpayment to his other shortages.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 17 of 23 . Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. • Respondent conducted further investigation and discovered other irregularities allegedly committed by petitioner. failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC Decision. N O. HELD No.. Petitioner purportedly issued a receipt for an amount less than what was actually paid by the outlet. It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice. Such mere technicality should not be allowed to impede petitioner’s call for a just review of the decision in the illegal dismissal case. The CA denied outright the petition for failure to comply with Section 1 of Rule 65. 190216. For these violations. as only a photocopy of the September 22. INC. Petitioner asked for time to explain the shortage as his wife was sick at that time.R. Procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases in which the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in suppletory manner. The Supreme Court therefore remand the case to the CA for further proceeding.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST ARNOLD F. G. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent. rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of non-compliance with the process required. DOCTRINE: Technical Rules not Controlling. ISSUE Whether or not a petition for certiorari may be dismissed upon a mere technicality. finding that there was no basis for petitioner’s dismissal [separation pay was awarded in lieu of reinstatement]. • Labor Arbiter’s decision: sustained the validity of petitioner’s dismissal. Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner then elevated the case to the NLRC: the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. A UGUST 16. Inc. particularly in labor cases. Later on. Thereafter. Petitioner received a Notice of Termination. Sometime in 2005. such exercise will be upheld. N O. the CA should have deferred to such specialized agencies which are considered experts in matters within their jurisdictions. Absent a definite finding that such exercise of prerogative was tainted with arbitrariness and unreasonableness. A UGUST 23. his request was denied. there was a district territorial configuration for the new marketing and sales direction for the year 2000. due process. RICARDO P. In this case. As a result. it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. • Respondent received a memorandum notifying him of the company’s decision to terminate his services after he repeatedly refused to report for work despite due notice. In termination proceedings of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. • Despite several offer made by petitioner to respondent. However. Separation pay. The SC rules that the CA had overstepped its legal mandate by reversing the findings of fact of the LA and the NLRC as it appears that both decisions were based on substantial evidence. 2010 FACTS • Pharmacia and Upjohn. respondent was assigned into another area. Thereafter. Respondent requested to be retained to his original area and claimed he could not improve the sales of products if he was assigned to an unfamiliar territory. HELD Yes. 172724.R. There is no proof of arbitrariness or abuse of discretion in the process by which each body arrived at its own conclusions. and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. one can argue for or against the pros and cons of transferring respondent to another territory. ISSUE Whether or not the reassignment of respondent was a valid exercise of petitioners’ management prerogative. In those instances where an employee has been validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Respondent filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. (now PFIZER) VS. After merging. Thus. and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST PHARMACIA and UPJOHN. Certainly. It is dangerous for the CA and even the SC to look into the wisdom of a management prerogative. were to distinct company. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees. separation pay may still be granted after giving considerable weight to his long years of employment. INC. the company concluded that it appeared to them that respondent would not accept any reason for the movement to another area and that nothing is acceptable to him except a Western Visayas assignment. As long as the company's exercise of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements. Sometime in 1999. equity considerations dictate that respondent’s tenure be computed from 1978. procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard. the CA should have left the same to petitioners’ better judgment. the year BUTOY™ 2010 . The rule is well settled that labor laws discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. respondent was designated by petitioner Pharmacia and Upjohn (Pharmacia) as District Sales Manager.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 18 of 23 . ALBAYDA G. Inc. DOCTRINE: Dismissal. Theft of company property involving the unauthorized removal of one gallon of Delo oil from the company storage room. and (3) LBNI is currently under rehabilitation. and the action is not motivated by discrimination. in its September 23. lander. He denied threatening Vicente Niguidula. de Castro committed the following acts: Soliciting and/or receiving money for his own benefit from suppliers/dealers/traders. As to the second issue: Yes. into soliciting money in behalf from suppliers/contractors. He explained that the one gallon of Delo oil he allegedly took was actually found in Gil Balais’ room. and other privileges. LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK. To determine the validity of the transfer of employees. Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another. he was already a regular employee by operation of law. provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary. doubtful. inconvenient. Niguidula and Balais had serious clashes with him. The court ruled that the grounds that LBNI invoked for de Castro’s dismissal were. pursuant to Article 4 of the Labor Code. and whether the pendency of the rehabilitation proceedings does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to resolve the case. at best. privileges and other benefits. based on the evidence presented. LBNI dismissed de Castro on the grounds of serious misconduct. and not only from 1996. and willful breach of the trust reposed in him as a managerial employee. Allegedly. 2008 Decision. A UGUST 25. 2010 FACTS • Petitioner worked as chief building administrator at LBNI. Disrespect/discourtesy towards a co-employee. fraud. made in bad faith. nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries. when the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn took place. 2008 Decision. Diversion of company funds by soliciting and receiving on different occasions.R. LBNI’s executive vice president. Should the employer fail to overcome this burden of proof. G. Threat and coercion. By then. an incident which he reported to respondent Edgardo Quiogue. the employer must show that the transfer is not unreasonable. BUTOY™ 2010 . N O. As a regular employee. These doubts should be interpreted in de Castro’s favor. whom he claimed verbally assaulted him and challenged him to a fight. (2) the affidavits of LBNI’s witnesses should not have been totally disregarded.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST when respondent started working for Upjohn. de Castro was entitled to security of tenure and his illegal dismissal from LBNI justified the awards of separation pay. a subordinate. He maintained that he could not have solicited commissions from suppliers considering that he was new in the company. 2008 Decision based on the following arguments: (1) LBNI had valid legal grounds to terminate de Castro’s employment for loss of trust and confidence. or prejudicial to the employee. • The SC. Though the acts charged against de Castro took place when he was still under probationary employment. and damages. benefits. CARLOS DE CASTRO VS. the accusations were belatedly filed as the imputed acts happened in 1995. It merely suspends the execution of the September 23. for threatening to inflict bodily harm on the person of Niguidula [supply manager] and for coercing [Gil Balais]. De Castro alleged that prior to executing affidavits against him. probationary employment. DOCTRINE: Dismissal. 165153. doubts reasonably arising from the evidence or interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former’s favor. or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. ISSUE Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed. Moreover.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 19 of 23 . ruled that de Castro’s dismissal was based on unsubstantiated charges. transfer of employees. and to the Makati police. • Aggrieved. de Castro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against LBNI with the National Labor Relations Commission. Management prerogative. 2008 Decision. HELD The issue of illegal dismissal has already been resolved in the Court’s September 23. for uttering libelous statements against Niguidula. the employee’s transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal. hence. backwages. LBNI now moves for a reconsideration of our September 23. the proceedings in this case must be suspended. finding that de Castro’s dismissal was based on unsubstantiated charges. the records show that de Castro was dismissed on the ninth month of his employment with LBNI. INC. the pendency of the rehabilitation proceedings does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to resolve the case. Between a laborer and his employer. without prejudice to whatever action may be taken against the representative. with LBNI’s manifestation that it is still undergoing rehabilitation. and their services were terminated without cause and without due process. SNS did not. HELD Both answers are in the negative. The lack of a verification in a pleading is only a formal defect. not a jurisdictional defect. The cited technical infirmity cannot defeat the respondents’ preferred right to security of tenure which has primacy over technical requirements. in its position paper. the Court’s ruling on the principal issue of the case stands. Our approach to these arguments is simple as the problem boils down to a balance between a technical rule and protected constitutional interests.R. moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that it entered into an independent labor contract with SNS for the promotion of its products. or (2) If they represent their organization or members thereof. it alleged that the complainants were the employees of SNS. 2010 FACTS ET AL . are true and correct.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 20 of 23 . BUTOY™ 2010 . if he had indeed been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. we affirm the CA’s ruling on this point. Swift and SNS have a contract to promote Swift products. not of Swift.. The complainants’ position papers were signed by Florencio P. Our Labor Code allows a non-lawyer to represent a party before the Labor Arbiter and the Commission. A UGUST 25. Thus. ISSUE Whether or not signature in a pleading is fatal to respondents’ case. a stay order simply suspends all actions for claims against a corporation undergoing rehabilitation. N O. the complainants alleged that they were employees of Swift and SNS. The termination came on the day they received their notices. SPIC N’ SPAN SERVICES VS . and are not mere speculations. and is not necessarily fatal to a case. As for the second issue. The primary reason for requiring a verification is simply to ensure that the allegations in the pleading are done in good faith. 174084. Swift filed its position paper. although he never showed any proof of his authority to represent them. • After two unsuccessful conciliation hearings. the petitioner contended that the case should be decided in their favor on the ground of non-signing of the position paper by the respondents. but provides limitations: Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: (1) If they represent themselves. Peralta who was not a lawyer and who claimed to be the complainants’ representative. and his representation for the respondents should produce no legal effect. They were all dismissed from their employment. the Labor Arbiter ordered the parties to submit their position papers. The existence of the Stay Order – which would generally authorize the suspension of judicial proceedings – could not have affected the Court’s action on the present case due to the petitioner’s failure to raise the pendency of the rehabilitation proceedings in its memorandum to the Court. effect of rehabilitation proceedings. it does not work to oust a court of its jurisdiction over a case properly filed before it. Nevertheless. • In their position papers. GLORIA PAJE G. Swift. In addition. Thus. thus. they were denied the procedural due process requirements of notice and hearing prior to their termination of employment.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST Illegal dismissal. Respondents worked as Deli/Promo Girls of Swift products in various supermarkets in Tarlac and Pampanga. • SNS’s business is to supply manpower services to its clients for a fee. At any rate. They filed two complaints for illegal dismissal against SNS and Swift before the National Labor Relations Commission. Thus. SNS concludes that the respondents’ representative had no personality to appear before the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC. the Court resolves to suspend the execution of our Decision until the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings. and whether or not representation by a non-lawyer is sufficient justification for respondents’ failure to comply with the requirements of law. and tried to confiscate the camera. he has substantial capital. N O. (9) the NLRC found Albao’s statement unbelievable and exaggerated. On his way out of the production area. work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. Juanitas corroborated Gurango’s version of the facts. Albao worked as boiler operator and security guard. Cordero and Pablis for slight physical injury. in BCPI. the principal agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job. he saw Albao standing near the bundy clock. security of tenure. (2) nobody corroborated Albao’s version of the facts. (3) in his medical report. who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction. He had in his pocket a camera without film. (6) the Labor Arbiter found Albao’s statement contradictory.. Gurango shouted for help. grabbed his pocket. • According to Gurango. Inc. the Court held that factual findings of labor officials. 2010 FACTS • Petitioner Alex R. • BCPI wrote a letter to Gurango finding him guilty of engaging in a fistfight and violating company policy by bringing a camera. Erring employees would be suspended for six days. Aguinaldo found that Gurango suffered physical injuries. Albao held Gurango’s arm and punched him on the face. The test is whether the independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the principal’s control except only as to the results. BCPI prohibited its empoyees from bringing personal items to their work area. work or service within a definite or predetermined period.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE: Job contracting. respectively. (4) Gurango filed with the MCTC a complaint against Albao. Gurango agreed to surrender the camera on the condition that the security guards would prepare a document acknowledging receipt of the camera. In a memorandum dated 2 May 2003. saw what happened and asked Albao and Pablis to stop hitting Gurango. In the present case. regardless of whether such job. Gurango refused to give the camera because there was no reason to surrender it. (7) the Labor Arbiter stated. Dr. ALEX GURANGO VS . BEST CHEMICALS & PLASTICS INC. “I am convinced Albao lied in his statement”. (5) the Labor Arbiter found Gurango’s statement credible and unblemished. the finding of the Court of Appeals that Gurango engaged in a fistfight is a conclusion without citation of specific evidence on which it is based. are accorded not only respect but finality when supported by susbstantial evidence. HELD Yes. In Triumph International (Phils. and (10) the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC is baseless. BUTOY™ 2010 .). In permissible job contracting. Elvin Juanitas (Juanitas). G. ISSUE Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed. Gurango and Romeo S.R. Also. Gurango filed with the NLRC a complaint against BCPI for illegal dismissal. he performed his routine check-up inside the production area.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 21 of 23 . The surrounding circumstances show that Gurango did not engage in a fistfight: (1) in his 9 May 2003 letter to BCPI. the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals conflict with the findings of fact of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. Albao pulled him. and he has assured the contractual employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards. A UGUST 25. (8) the NLRC found that Gurango did not start a fight. 174593. and social and welfare benefits. free exercise of the right to self-organization. by substantial evidence that the dismissal is for just cause. and whether it was valid. According to him. Rodriguez. (b) the company did not allow Siazar to enter its premises. validity. Since all attempts at negotiation proved futile. On Siazar’s arrival at work on June 17. In early 1997. Rodriguez asked him to make a computation of what amount he expected from the company and return to the lawyer with such computation on the following day and the company would immediately pay him. • Too anxious over the matter. When Siazar and his wife saw Atty. the other said that he was to report after two days to Atty. burden of proof. AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES G.000. This surprised Siazar because his department did not generate income on its own. however. A UGUST 25.00. Rodriguez at his office in Binondo. When he told his co-employees about it.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE: Dismissal. The latter told Siazar that the company had decided to abolish his department because of redundancy and he could no longer work. In termination cases. HELD Yes. Rodriguez who confirmed that Siazar had indeed been dismissed because his department was no longer earning money. Siazar discovered that his company was not remitting much of his SSS premiums although the computations appeared on his pay slips. mold maker. the latter insisted on getting Siazar to do the computation he asked. Siazar filed his complaint. But given the findings of the Court that the company had indeed dismissed Siazar and that such dismissal has remained unexplained. the company guard refused him entry and handed him two notes from the management: one said that he was not to report for work. the dismissal is deemed illegal. • Siazar had a different version. DOCTRINE: Dismissal. they made their own inquiries. ISSUE Whether or not the company dismissed respondent from work. as in fact it had been its consistent stand that it did not terminate him and that he quit on his own. aside from a single statement. there can be no other conclusion but that the dismissal was illegal. Siazar did not wait and went straightaway to see Atty. This lawyer went with him back to Atty. 177970. The court based its finding on the following: (a) Rodriguez told Siazar that he had been terminated. The company did not adduce any evidence to prove that Siazar’s dismissal had been for a just or authorized cause.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 22 of 23 . 1997. AISC claimed the company thought of closing down Siazar’s department where he worked solo since it was no longer making money. the employer has the burden of proving. Atty. and (f) it showed no valid or just cause for the dismissal. and CNC programmer with a monthly salary of P25. too. being a mere support unit of the company. In the present case. BUTOY™ 2010 . he consulted a lawyer on that same day. (c) it wanted to close his department and retrench him from work. If the employer fails to discharge the burden of proof. Rodriguez again at his office. SIAZAR • Respondent works with AISC as a product designer. which was refuted by statements made by other witnesses and was found to be incredible by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. BCPI failed to discharge its burden when it failed to present any evidence of the alleged fistfight. As Siazar was unsure of his situation. (e) the company neither gave Siazar notice nor informed him of the reason for his dismissal. N O. 2010 FACTS VS . (d) Rodriguez asked Siazar to compute what he expected was to be his separation pay.R. AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST BUTOY™ 2010 .TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 23 of 23 . (d) Rodriguez asked Siazar to compute what he expected was to be his separation pay. and (f) it showed no valid or just cause for the dismissal. validity. The court based its finding on the following: (a) Rodriguez told Siazar that he had been terminated.AUGUST 2010 PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON LABOR LAW  CASE DIGEST HELD Yes. But given the findings of the Court that the company had indeed dismissed Siazar and that such dismissal has remained unexplained. (e) the company neither gave Siazar notice nor informed him of the reason for his dismissal. there can be no other conclusion but that the dismissal was illegal. DOCTRINE: Dismissal. (c) it wanted to close his department and retrench him from work. BUTOY™ 2010 . (b) the company did not allow Siazar to enter its premises. as in fact it had been its consistent stand that it did not terminate him and that he quit on his own. The company did not adduce any evidence to prove that Siazar’s dismissal had been for a just or authorized cause.TAU KAPPA PHI PAGE 24 of 24 .