Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. All eight private complainants consistently declared that Ochoa promised them employment overseas after they submit their bio-data, birth certificates, passports and payment for placement and medical fees. - People of the Philippines vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011 OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT The subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with her foreign employer which reduced his salary below the amount approved by the POEA is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. The said side agreement cannot supersede the terms of the standard employment contract approved by the POEA. Consequently, the solidary liability of respondent with petitioner’s foreign employer for the money claims continues although she was forced to sign another contract. It is the terms of the original POEA-approved employment contract that shall govern the relationship of petitioner with the respondent recruitment agency and the foreign employer. - Santosa B. Datuman vs. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., G.R. No. 156029, November 14, 2008 LABOR STANDARDS WAGES (Non-Diminution of Benefits) It is a jurisprudential rule that where there is an established employer practice of regularly, knowingly and voluntarily granting benefits to employees over a significant period of time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation on the part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits ripens into a vested right of the employees and can no longer be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the employer. - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Felipe E. Patag and Bienvenido C. Flora, G.R. No. 152928, June 18, 2009 DISABILITY BENEFITS Respondent’s disability can only be assessed by the company-designated physician. If the company-designated physician declares him fit to work, then the seaman is bound by such declaration. In order to claim disability benefits under the Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician who must proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, Page 1 of 10 and/or Kohyu Marine Co. and/or Conrado N. Plainly. 177907.Fair Shipping Corp.. Section 29 of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment Contract itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the Contract.. Joselito T. vs. collective bargaining. Tomacruz. may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days under the conditions prescribed by law.Philasia Shipping Agency Corporation and/or Intermodal Shipping. Jaime M. Medel has right to the disability benefits." . No. Ltd. Inc. Page 2 of 10 . the medical certificate of Dr. a contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to the "special laws on labor unions. to seafarers. The applicability of the Labor Code provisions on permanent disability. working conditions. August 29. it is not farfetched to assume that he still needed additional time for his wound to heal and to recuperate in order to restore himself to his former state of health. Lim and not of Dr. including the annexes thereof. either partially or totally. Hence. international conventions." Even without this provision. August 15. strikes and lockouts. shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Ong was not a categorical attestation as to the actual fitness of Medel to resume his occupation as a seafarer. closed shop. Medel.R. No. To our mind. November 14. after Medel underwent cranioplasty to repair the fracture in his skull. Ong is the definitive declaration on the physical condition of Medel. Andres G. is already a settled matter. G. vs. 179802. wages.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) due to either injury or illness. 2012 The initial treatment period of 120 days where the seaman is on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work making him entitled to basic wage during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent. Unfortunately for petitioners. G. 2008 The petitioners are mistaken in their notion that only the POEA SEC should be considered in resolving the issue involving a seafarer. however. particularly Article 192(c)(1). 181180. Velasquez and the Honorable Court Of Appeals. treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory. Dela Cruz and ODF Jell Asa vs.R. No. this declaration was issued beyond the 240-day period pursuant to Section 2 in Rule X of the Implementing Rules of Book IV of the Labor Code (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation ). hours of labor and similar subjects. 2012 The statement of Dr.R. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. during the term of the latter’s employment. . G. vs. 2009 In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word “project” to prevent employees from attaining the status of regular employees. 2008 TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the “labor-only contractor” as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees. September 5. G. are to be read hand in hand when determining the disability benefits due a seafarer. . from the other undertakings of the company. Ltd. G. and Celtic Pacific Ship Management Co. Section 3 of the said article specifically provides that retrenched employees shall be given two (2) months pay for every year of service. As it was with regard to the distinction between a regular and casual employee. No. Benjamin D. The project could either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company. but which is distinct and separate. and its Officers And Members. or would avail of optional voluntary retirement. Adorable.Pacific Ocean Manning. vs. employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged. and identifiable as such. but also that there was indeed a project.Flavio S. De Asis. Carlos Page 3 of 10 . Section 3 shows the intention of the parties to exclude retrenched employees. the purpose of this requirement is to delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need of the services of the specified employee.GMA Network. Suarez.. Renato A. 150180.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) The provisions of the POEA SEC.R. et al. No. vs. In fact. and its implementing rules and regulations.. Iligan Cement Corporation vs. after rendering at least ten (10) years of continuous services. 158956. If the particular job or undertaking is within the regular or usual business of the employer company and it is not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company. April 24.R. . would retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age. Francisco G. Penales. there is clearly a constant necessity for the performance of the task in question. Nowhere can it be deduced from the CBA that those employees whose employment was terminated through one of the authorized causes are entitled to retirement benefits. from receiving retirement benefits under the existing retirement plan as set forth in Section. 2012 RETIREMENT BENEFITS A perusal of Article XIV of the CBA readily shows that retirement benefits shall be gran-ted only to those employees who. October 17. the Labor Code. 162809. and therefore said job or undertaking should not be considered a project. Iliascor Employees And Workers UnionSouthern Philippines Federation Of Labor (IEWU-SPFL).R. G. Inc. No.. like herein petitioners. National Steel Corporation. Jr. . or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. Inc. The Page 4 of 10 . . As a general rule. and Armando A. while not of similar rank. . Del Villar. when prescribed. Kirby N. for purposes of the Labor Code. to determine which findings and conclusion are more conformable with the evidentiary facts. Arnold L. Quijano. on the other. collective bargaining agreements. Friend Jr. Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice. 2013 DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on account of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised whimsically and the employer must clearly and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in the employee may be fairly made to rest. No. perform functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence. 2009 Where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Redundancy. the latter’s dismissal will be rendered illegal. rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties. November 27. and general principles of fair play and justice. No. but in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal. 176419. the act complained of must be “workrelated” such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer. 123294. G. 2010 The only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies. whim and despotism. employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who. Arias. .R. from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals. National Labor Relations Commission and Aida M. G. commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. vs. Geoffrey F.San Miguel Corporation vs.R.Philippine Airlines. Pabriga. . Inc. October 20. 153983. Catubig. Inc. G. vs. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law.. Campo. exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.R. May 26. 2010 Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised from the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. 163091. Angel U. Lagahit. otherwise. on the one hand. October 6. No. the Supreme Court is constrained to examine the evidence. No. G.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) P. National Labor Relations Commission and Wiliam L.Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines.R. and that failing to comply with this would be Page 5 of 10 . 149433. ironically a Senior Financial Accountant tasked with ensuring financial reportorial/regulatory compliance from others. No. Gacayan. G. Article 283 of the Labor Code covers retrenchment. Gacayan. This provision. 2011 Although the Supreme Court has. Joy Teresa O. such inclination has not blinded it to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving. 183915. Provided there is no violation of law or a showing that the employer was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act. Clarita P. 1997 and that more than six months have elapsed after the union members were laid off when the next vessel was serviced at the Minterbro pier on December 22 to 28.R. February 9. more often than not. 149433. . There is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary retrenchment or layoff and provides for the requisites in effecting it or a period or duration therefor. 1997. VIRGILIO GARCIA (Vice President) and Stella Garcia (Assistant Vice President). G. . After six months. been inclined towards the workers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers. 165381.R.off. These employees cannot forever be temporarily laid. No. 2011 She. Inc. 2010 The determination of whether or not an employee’s services are still needed or sustainable properly belongs to the employer. December 14. In Sebuguero. speaks of a permanent retrenchment as opposed to a temporary layoff as is the case here. 2011 The NLRC and the Court of Appeals found that the union members/employees were not given work starting April 14. however.The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. the soundness or wisdom of this exercise of business judgment is not subject to the discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. such acts warrants dismissal. repeatedly submitted tampered or altered receipts to support her claim for meal reimbursements. the employees should either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following the requirements of the law. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines. Saudi Arabian Airlines. December 15.Nelson A. Article 286 may be applied but only by analogy to set a specific period that employees may remain temporarily laid-off or in floating status Six months is the period set by law that the operation of a business or undertaking may he suspended thereby suspending the employment of the employees concerned. Clarita P..R. the Court ruled on a case regarding lay-off or temporary retrenchment. An employee who resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the employer is generally stopped from filing any further money claims against the employer arising from the employment. G. June 22.Ma. . Culili vs.R. to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law and doctrine. Bilbao vs. No.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. which subsequently resulted to the separation from employment of the concerned employee as it lasted for more than six months. Salvador Hizon (President and Chief Executive Officer). in gross violation of the rules and regulations of petitioner company. The temporary lay-off wherein the employees likewise cease to work should also not last longer than six months. To remedy this situation or fill the hiatus. G. Emiliano Jurado (Chairman of the Board). No. March 10. respondent’s failings appeared to have resulted from her lack of necessary skills. Ernesto Casio. which warranted the dismissal of Santos from the School. the rights of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement. . Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Minterbo –Southern Philippines Federation of Labor. 174300. G.Minadanao Terminal And Brokerage Service.R. What can be gathered from a thorough review of the records of this case is that the inadequacies of the respondent as a teacher did not stem from a reckless disregard of the welfare of her students or of the issues raised by the School regarding her teaching. President.. the consequences arrived at in Sebuguero also apply. Otherwise. Inc. Layoff is essentially retrenchment and under Article 283 of the Labor Code a retrenched employee is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary or onehalf (12) month salary per year of service. merely reinstated in the payroll. and/or Rey Gerardo Page 6 of 10 . . in-depth knowledge. Those requirements cannot be dispensed with even when the dismissal is pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. No.General Milling Corporation vs." . . No. Evangeline Santos. 2014 DUE PROCESS Twin-notice Requirement The essential elements of procedural due process are the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Far from being tainted with bad faith. an employee entitled to reinstatement "shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or. whichever is higher. at the option of the employer. December 5.International School Manila and/or Brian Mccauley vs. and/ or Fortunato De Castro vs. 149552. Joselyn Rucio and Methelyn Filler.. International School Alliance Of Educators (ISAE) and Members represented by Raquel David Ching. 2012 In all cases involving termination of employment. No. G.Pfizer. 2010 REINSTATEMENT Under Article 223 of the Labor Code. the dismissal of an employee will be tainted with illegality.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) tantamount to dismissing the employees and the employer would thus he liable for such dismissal.R. Thus. As the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Sebuguero applies to this case. 167286. et al. the burden of proving the existence of the just causes rests upon the employer. et al. The Court finds that the petitioners had sufficiently proved the charge of gross inefficiency. G. and expertise to teach the Filipino language at the standards required of her by the School.R. Inc. February 5. No. two elements must then be satisfied: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason. Valdez vs. January 30. Inc. The repealing clause contained in Republic Act No. . 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. al. Accordingly.Alexander B.’s contention that under Section 3 of Republic Act No. aside from having been rendered parttime in said agencies. This is because. and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.D. which provides that all laws or any law or parts of law specifically inconsistent with it are deemed repealed or modified. all provisions of the Teves Retirement Law that are inconsistent with Republic Act No. 2011 GSIS LAW Services in the MMSU. vs.R. 2011 CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible. 2009 SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION SSS LAW The degree of proof required under P. What the law requires is a reasonable work connection. 8291 are deemed repealed or modified cannot stand.Simeon M. unreasonable or unlikely. . not a direct causal relation. for humanitarian reasons. No. unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest.. March 9. Gatus vs. as the petitioner pursued his claim all the way to the Court as an indigent litigant. and due to his advancing age. and/or Alfred Magallon. However. that the development of the disease was brought about largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job. and/or Ferdinand Cortes. and/or Aristotle Arce vs. Triumph International (Phils. the claimant must show.R. G.R. 2008 The GSIS et al. at least by substantial evidence. June 30. when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay. G. 177467. the said positions were without compensation as defined in Section 2(i) of RA No. PHIVIDEC and as OIC ViceGovernor of Ilocos Norte cannot be credited because. No. 174725. Virginia Sugue et.). Page 7 of 10 . 164804/G.R. 164784. which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 626 is merely substantial evidence. 8291. the abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be assumed. No. or when a clear discrimination.R. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal. what had already been given him should no longer be taken away from him. Geraldine Velasco. January 26. 8291. G. insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee. Social Security System. No.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) Bacarro. 146175. G. Government Service Insurance System. thus. 2008 Right of an Employee not to join a Union is not Absolute and Must Give Way to the Collective Good of All Members of the Bargaining Unit. The Court notes that there is nothing in the Insurance Schedules or the plan itself which excludes dependents from availing of the maternity benefits granted under the plan. this Court has ruled that the individual employees right not to join a union may be validly restricted by a union security clause in a CBA and such union security clause is not a violation of the employees constitutional right to freedom of association. 164301. . The plan further provides that unless dependents are excluded in any particular Insurance Schedule the term insured person shall be deemed to include any dependent insured under the Policy. Amorsonia B. Escarda.R. BPI Employees Union-Davao ChapterFederation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) et al. August 10. G. it is the provision of the plan itself that govern. the CBA and the Union Shop Clause therein were already in effect and neither of them had the opportunity to express their preference for unionism or not. In other words. dependents enjoy the same benefits as the insured person unless they are expressly excluded in the Insurance Schedule of benefits. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Cristina D. In the said plan. and Reynaldo P. .R. 2010 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Page 8 of 10 . Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU). 164301.Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. R. In determining the coverage of the benefits under the said plan. can only be given to its own employees and not to spouses of male employees. They both enjoy benefits that the Union was able to secure for them under the CBA. under this provision. They belong to the same bargaining unit being represented by the Union. However.Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Dimagiba. 2010 RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Standard Chartered argues that maternity benefits. G. No. 162372. vs. Time and again. 2011 LABOR RELATIONS RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION No substantial distinction Under the CBA Between Regular Employees Hired After Probationary Status and Regular Employees Hired After the Merger.R. When they both entered the employ of BPI. No. No. August 10. October 19. a reading of Section 1 shows that at the time the CBA was signed there was already an existing group hospitalization insurance plan and Standard Chartered was committing under the CBA to continue the same. October 08. the term dependent includes a member’s spouse who is not more than 65 years of age. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK. Ventura. No. G. Commission on Audit (COA). G. Ma. 165550. When there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner’s case may be had. . and when they have not prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the court of its authority.De La Salle University vs. deadlock was possible and did occur. 2001 and July 6. it is his fault if the same is due to his misguided insistence on having a trial type hearing despite established jurisprudence stating that the mere opportunity to be heard would Page 9 of 10 .R. August 23. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) The University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. April 7. The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard. by itself. 170007. A mutual declaration would neither add to nor subtract from the reality of the deadlock then existing between the parties.R. it would have been simply a recognition of the prevailing status quo between the parties. No. the absence of the parties’ mutual declaration of deadlock does not mean that there was no deadlock. . 2014 PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION PROCEDURAL RULES AND TECHNICALITIES Failure to attach all pleadings and documents.Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. There was nothing in the March 19. 2001 orders of Director Maraan and Cacdac which restrained or enjoined compliance by the parties with their obligations under the CBA and under the law. Thus. De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSUEA-NAFTEU). At most. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy. when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident. 169254. G. Even assuming that an employee was not fully heard during the employer’s investigation. Thus. The issue of union leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to bargain. is not a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition. G. the Court may dispense with the time consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case. because of the unresolved issue on wage increase. there was actually a complete stoppage of the ongoing negotiations between the parties and the union filed a Notice of Strike. No. Indeed there was a requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. 2012 As there was no bad faith on the part of the company in its bargaining with the union. G. Dionisio G. October 20. Remedio. Araceli T. limit itself to reviewing those issues which are raised on appeal.Leandro M. Romitman. Leilani B. Racaza. Orevillo. . Gasataya. 151349. the negligence and/or ignorance of the rules of petitioners’ former counsel is not sufficient justification for their failure to comply with the posting of the bond within the reglementary period. Nevertheless. National Labor Relations Commission and Patricia Perjes. As a consequence thereof. Cayetano Pacana Iii.. Manga. May 30. as a jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal. G. in cases of perfected appeals. 2010 APPEAL While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been relaxed in certain cases. September 03.. Inc. No.Rodolfo Luna vs. and/or Ramon Allado.R. Dacer.Philux. G.Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) suffice as due process in administrative proceedings. Francisco D. Nestor A. Loreta G. . Allado Construction Co.R. The Philippine Commercial and International Bank.R. Resigolo M. exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond or where the failure to comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified. Nacua and Anacleto C. No. 171673. at the very least. Porferia M. Noe U. we had occasion to declare that while the rule treats the filing of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Neither can petitioners subsequent but belated posting of the bond be considered as substantial compliance warranting the relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice.Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation vs. Valmores. 2011 An appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law. Lactuan. Leonardo S. Libre. in certain cases. any other issues which were not included in the appeal shall become final and executory. 175251. Ricardo B. 2011 Page 10 of 10 .R. Pido. Bangga. this can only be done where there was substantial compliance of the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the appellants. And Max Kienle vs. the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards is sometimes given a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. Johnny B. No. G. . Meneleo G. Inc. 2008 The NLRC shall. . Amplayo. Genovevo E. Here. Alcantara vs. No. Lactuan. May 30. 151854.
Comments
Report "De Castro-Labor Law from Atty. R. Sarmiento"