Labor Law Lecture Bar Ops 2017 (Arranged) (1)

Updates on Labor Law and Jurisprudence by Atty. Leilanee Q.Dasig-Quanguey Labor Law Review Professor 04 November 2017 What is a labor dispute? ............................................................................................................3 1. Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ............................6 Some Factors to Consider 3 2. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian, et al, GR No. 204651, 06 Existence of employer-employee relations 3 August 2014 ..........................................................................................................................7 Tests of Employment Relations .................................................................................................3 Retirement Benefits ..................................................................................................................7 1. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation, GR No. 202015, 13 July 2016 ..........................................3 GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig, GR No. 210328, 30 January 2017 .......................................................7 2. Felicilda vs Uy, GR No. 221241, 14 September 2016 ..............................................................3 Disability/Death Claims ...........................................................................................................7 3. Joaquin Lu vs. Tirso Enopia, GR No. 197899, 06 March 2017 .................................................3 Jebsens’ Maritime, Inc., et al vs Rapiz, GR No. 218871, 11 January 2017 ...................................7 What is the effect of repudiation of employment relation in a contract? ................................. 3 C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. and/or JUAN JOSE 1. Century Properties, Inc. vs Babiano and Concepcion, GR No. 220978, 05 July 2016 ..............3 ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO, GR No. 208215, 19 April 2017 ..........................................7 2. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. vs. Alcantara, GR No. 195190, 28 July 2014 .........................3 Test/Proof of Compensability ....................................................................................................7 3. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ..................3 Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS, GR No. 204422, 21 November 2016 ..........................................7 Perfected contract of employment ...........................................................................................3 Nature and Status of Employment 7 Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila), Inc., et al, GR No. 220399, 22 Regular Employment ................................................................................................................7 August 2016 ..........................................................................................................................3 Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 ....7 Corporate officer vs. Employee ................................................................................................4 Project Employment .................................................................................................................8 1. Wesleyan University-Phils. Vs. Maglaya, GR No. 212774, 23 January .....................................4 1. E. Ganzon, Inc., et al vs Fortunato Ando, GR No. 214813, 20 February 2017 ..........................8 Independent Contractor vs Employee vs Labor Only Contractor ............................................4 2. Isidro Quebral, et al vs Angbus Construction, Inc., et al, GR No. 221897, 07 November 2016 .. 1. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp, Gr No. 206390, 30 January 2017 ..................4 8 2. Nestle Phils. Inc. vs Puedan, Jr., GR No. 220617, 30 January 2017 .........................................4 Fixed-Term Employment ...........................................................................................................8 In the public sector ..................................................................................................................4 Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. vs Cor Jesus College, et al, GR No. 198350, 14 September 2016 ......8 National Transmission Corporation vs COA, et al, GR No. 223625, 22 November 2016 ............. 4 Seasonal Employment ...............................................................................................................8 Who has the power to determine employer-employee relations? ............................................. 4 Zenaida Paz vs Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. et al, GR No. 199554, 18 February 2015 ...8 1. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. Tomas, GR 217575, 15 June 2016 ....................4 Probationary Employment ........................................................................................................9 2. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares, et al, GR No. 208986, 13 January 2016 ....................5 1. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme, et al vs San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., GR Nos. 190015 & 190019, 14 September 2016 ................................................................................9 Reasonable Causal Connection 5 1. Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs Engr. Salvador Adviento, GR No. 171212, 04 August 2014 ........5 2. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje, GR Nos. 183200- 01, 183253 & 183257, 29 June 2016 .................9 2. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaña, GR No. 200114, 24 August 2015 ............................5 3. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo, GR No. 209559, 09 December 2015 ........................................9 3. Emer Milan, et al vs NLRC, et al, GR No. 202961, 04 February 2015 ......................................5 Terminations Disputes 9 Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues 5 Preventive Suspension 9 Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President, GR No. 188681, 08 March 2017 ..............................9 Money Claims 5 Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................................5 Constructive Dismissal 9 Toyota Pasig, Inc. vs Vilma de Peralta, GR No. 213488, 07 November 2016 ................................5 Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club, Inc. vs Rachelle Balba, et al, GR No. 197492, 18 Janauary 2017 .......................................................................................................................9 Covered Employees ...................................................................................................................6 Hilario Dasco, et al vs Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc./Centurion Solano, GR No. 211141, 29 Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College, GR No. 213137, 01 March 2017 ....................10 June 2016 ..............................................................................................................................6 Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals, Inc., GR No. 183934, 20 July 2016 ................10 Service Incentive Leave Pay ......................................................................................................6 Illegal Dismissal 10 Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride, Inc., GR No. 222980, 20 March 2017 ....................................6 Jinky Isabel vs Perla Compaña de Seguros, Inc., GR No. 219430, 07 November 2016 ..............10 Of regular pakyaw workers ......................................................................................................6 Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., GR No. 207838, 25 January 2017 .........................10 A. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango, et al, GR No. 192282, Sta. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club, Inc., GR No. 208459, 15 February 2017 .................................10 05 October 2016 ...................................................................................................................6 Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils, Inc., GR No. 214186, 03 August 2016 ...................10 Wages ......................................................................................................................................6 . 213934........ Co................... 204693......................... 222730............ et al vs CA...........................................17 Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic.. Inc..................................................................................... 05 December 2016 ........... Julius Campol vs Balao-as............ Inc........................... 07 November 2016 ............................................................17 Buenaflor Car Services................................................................................................... PLDT. GR No..............................11 ....... 218333.12 Indirect Employer ............. 13 July 2016 .................. 03 October 2016 ...........16 3................. Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua..................................................................... 217455.................. LEILANEE Q............... Inc...................... 159350 ............................ vs Romelia Rey................... GR No.....................................16 When an employee was not dismissed and also did not abandon his work . 218454............... 188047........................ 09 November 2016 ..................................................................... 21 November 2016 ......................................................................................................................13 Violation of the duty to bargain collectively ..13 Inc............. 05 October 2016 ........................ GR No..) vs Esperanza Pinas....................... et al................11 Powerhouse Staffbuilders International................. GR No........13 Return to work order ..................11 Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas..................... Lorina Raneses....11 Release of Cash Bond ......15 Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries...................... Inc... 09 November 2016 ........................................12 Liability of Corporate Officers .......................15 Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers.................15 06 February 2017 .....................................13 Southern Negros Dev’t Corp (SONEDCO).....................15 CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology.......16 No Service of Summons ............... 192369............. 220978............. Satisfaction of Judgment 15 189714............. 07 November 2016 ........17 Dee Jay’s Inn and Café et al vs Ma...................................... GR 191825...... GR No...................... 207898............................18 Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA....17 Res Inter Alios Acta Rule .........13 National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union. Inc............................................................... 222730.................... GR 196110........16 Forum Shopping .......... GR No........... Inc...... et al......... GR No..........................................13 Unfair Labor Practice .................... GR No............ Inc.. Inc... 2.................. 16 January 2017 ................................. Inc et al...................... 19 October 2016 ........... TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans........................ 25 January 2017 ...........................14 Bargaining unit ................................................ 196084.......... et al vs Ma................... 15 March 2017 ..........17 Perfection of Appeal 13 Guagua National Colleges v.......................... 05 December 2016 .................. GR No...................... et al..................................15 Universal Canning Inc.............. et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment...............).... et al.................................. et al.......................................14 Century Properties.........................10 Coca-cola Femsa Philippines..... 192648................ vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion....16 Mergers and Separation Pay .... GR 220506................11 Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction .................... GR No..11 Guillermo vs Uson............ vs UE Monthly Associates............... 05 October 2016 ............ GR No......13 SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp........... GR No..................................................... GR No. GR No.................................16 Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores........................................... 28 September 2016 . GR No... 21 September Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel....................... 11 January 2017 ................... Sugar Division- Buenaflor Car Services................ (now known as September 2016 ................... GR No....................14 Marina’s Creation Enterprises............ 07 November 2016 ............... 221897................................... 05 October 2016 ................ GR No........................13 Guagua National Colleges v............................ Inc............................................14 Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as “Super Lamination Services” v........... 193816..............12 Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua............................. 220383..... 190389..... GR No.....UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY...........14 May a party who did not appeal obtain any affirmative relief? ................ 28 November 2016 ...14 ... et al vs Maria Veronica ..............11 Appeal from CA to SC 15 Philippine Auto Components Parts...............................15 2016 ................. 192369.............12 Alumamay Jamias..... et al....................... GR No....................... 204693.............. Inc.. GR No............................. Samahang Manggagawa ng What may be resolved on appeal .................................................................14 PAGE 2 OF 18 ......... PNCC Skyway Corporation........................ 07 December 2016 .................... 207315.......... GR No. GR No........................................16 Labor Procedure 12 Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al.....13 Agency Fees...................................................................... 01 December 2016 ...........13 National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union...............15 Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative.................................................................................. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School. 18 January 2017 ............. 190203.10 Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna........................................................... 191823........................................................................ GR 191825............. 197634....... Inc................... Inc........... et al......................... 21 September 2016 ..... 05 October 2016 .....................18 Isidro Quebral................... GR No......17 Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas....... vs Cezar David..................................... Inc.. 05 July 2016 .... et al vs Errol Melivo....................................................... et al................... 28 November Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative..... vs................... 05 October 2016 ..................................... GR No.. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua The Equipoise Doctrine .... GR No. 13 July 2016 ......17 2016 ........... vs Ronnie Jumadla. 15 February 2017 2016 .................. 225044........................ et al vs Angbus Construction................................................. GR 181387............. et al..........17 Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements ..................16 Cause of Action Belatedly Filed 12 Doctrine of Stare Decisis ............ GR No...........................17 Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron...15 Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal 11 1................... 197191..............16 Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings....... GR 215047.................... Lorina Rañeses.................................................... 19 April 2017 ................................... Inc......................................................................... 1923........ GR 209086............... 28 November 2016 .......13 Unfair Labor Practice ........................................... 17 October 2016 ............................... 23 November 2016 . GR No............... 207156... 222424............. 192318......... Lorina Raneses.............. 21 November 2016 . Inc........................................ GR No......12 Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management................................ 220605........ 190187...... vs Cezar David............................ GR No...... et al........ et al vs Elmer Mapagu............ et al vs NLRC.......... 07 March 2016 .............................17 Timeliness of Appeal .. GR No.13 Cancelation of Union organization ....... vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of Independent Valid Dismissal 11 Organization-ALU.... et al vs Ma........................ 218980....................... Perez.........16 Dee Jay’s In and Café......... 198967......... Inc................ 23 November 2016 Petition for Certiorari .... GR No.................. 188658..................................... et al vs Romeo Ancheta. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and Guagua Motion to Reduce Appeal Bond . Inc..............12 Third Party Claim ..... GR No..16 Defective Service of Summons 13 Labor Organizations 16 Oyster Plaza Hotel............................................... 05 The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines................................ 09 November Petition for Review . GR No...................................................................14 Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v.........16 Dee Jay’s In and Café................... DASIG-QUANGUEY Interadent Zahntechnik Phils............................. GR No............................13 De Ocampo Memorial Schools........ 07 November 2016 ........... GR No.................. Inc.............11 Petition for Certiorari ................................................. GR No................ et al vs Rebecca Simbillo....14 Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU)... imposing quotas and penalties. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp. was given monthly subsidy and 1. vs Babiano and Concepcion. 14 September 2016 the light of the employment contract which Valencia signed with CMS ‣ A truck driver hired on per trip or commission basis is an employee. Economic Reality Test power to discipline her and exercised the power of direct supervision 3. Royale Homes and Alcantara. GR No. 221241. DASIG-QUANGUEY WHAT IS A LABOR DISPUTE? (divided equally among them after deduction of their vales) are deemed employees of the boat owner. Gr No. its with the boat owner (45%-55%). as well as his sales agents. 195190. regardless of predicated on the existence of an employer. et al. meritorious performance do not pertain to the means and methods of how petitioners were to perform and accomplish their task of soliciting cable 3. the method categorically stating that the latter possessed not only the power of control of computing his compensation is not a basis for determining the existence but also of dismissal over him. Inc. and in appreciating the other evidence on record. 28 July 2014 ‣ Guidelines indicative of labor law 'control' do not merely relate to the mutually ‣ At the very least. there was already a perfected contract of employment when petitioner determined by respondent. Century Properties. meetings and trainings of new account did not want to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of executives. the provision on the absence of employer. ‣ Valencia’s claim that his work was supervised by Classique Vinyl does not hold water and was found to be a self-serving assertion unworthy of credence in 2. Nonetheless. clients. ‣ The fact that Mr.. GR No.e. Royale Homes Marketing Corp. 13 July 2016 2. GR No. signed ANZ's employment offer and agreed to the terms and conditions that ‣ The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. the offer of employment extended to petitioner contained several conditions before he may be deemed an 3.employee desirable result intended by the contractual relationship. fixing. 30 January 2017 subscriptions. merely pertain to regular monitoring of their work. and 220399. 202015. a Contract of Agency for EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Project Director TESTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ‣ Concepcion was continuously hired and promoted to perform functions necessary and desirable to the business. vs. LEILANEE Q. The coverage of the Social Security Law is changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment.employee relationship. with an additional 4% as “backing incentiv” effectivity shall take place only if and when the event which constitutes the PAGE 3 OF 18 . Four-fold Test cash incentives without qualification. they must have the relationship between the parties can be an aid in considering the Agreement nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the and its implementation. i. GR No. and giving commendations for the signing of the contract. Joaquin Lu vs. 22 August 2016 (c) the schedule and route to be followed by petitioner were exclusively ‣ In this case. Lu had registered the crew members with SSS is proof that they were indeed his employees. of employer-employee relations. 1. Tirso Enopia. GR No. 206390. were embodied therein.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. Alcantara. whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (b) the cargoes loaded in the said trucks were exclusively for respondent's Enrique Sagun vs Anz Global Services and Operations (Manila). 197899. ‣ Any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. new price listings. GR No. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF REPUDIATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATION IN A CONTRACT? Some Factors to Consider 1. 05 July ‣ Existence of employer-employee relations 2016 ‣ Reasonable Causal Connection Rule ‣ The existence of employer-employee relations could not be negated by the mere expedient of repudiating it in a contract. It is clear that they of new promos. result. ‣ The crew members of a fishing boat who had an income-sharing arrangement ‣ Jurisprudence states that when a contract is subject to a suspensive condition. Valeroso vs Sky Cable Corporation. Inc. maintaining. Felicilda vs Uy. 220978. 06 March 2017 employee of ANZ. ‣ The contract provides that "no employer-employee relationship exists between" ‣ Sky Cable’s act of regularly updating petitioners who were account executives. ‣ Control can be safely deduced from the fact that: PERFECTED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT (a) respondent owned the trucks that were assigned to petitioner.. with the company reserving the 2. Two-tiered Test through Babiano. Maglaya. ensuring in the process the integrity and quality of the said CORPORATE OFFICER VS. 220617. considering that the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such existence of an employer-employee relationship is a condition sine qua non employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as to increase sales and maximize profits. Classique Vinyl presented the violations of labor standards provision had in fact been committed. LEILANEE Q. Jack Valencia vs Classique Vinyl Products Corp. GR 217575. civil service laws. vice-president. ANZ's obligations as a would-be employer were held in the same. The for the exercise of its visitorial power. 223625. the statute creates an employer. ‣ Like the NLRC. rules and regulations. GR No. although the obligations arising therefrom — if premised upon a Department of Labor and Employment. Tomas. nor amend its rules and regulations. et al. Nestle agreed to sell its products to ODSI him the rights under the employment contract. Wesleyan University-Phils. 22 November stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also 2016 determines the compensation to be paid to such employee. 
 suspense and thus. until and unless petitioner complied with the satisfactory background check. South Cotabato Comminications Corp vs Sto. but that of a seller sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation. principal employer therefore becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only ‣ Without an employer-employee relationship. while an "employee" usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or National Transmission Corporation vs COA. GR No. ‣ Employer-employee relationship in the public sector is primarily determined by ‣ That the creation of the position is under the corporation's charter or by-laws. ‣ Thus. and they are usually designated as the officers of the corporation. marketing. such fact of registration of CMS prevented the legal declared information and documents that were required from him relative to presumption of it being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. and that the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders must ‣ While the four-fold test and other standards set forth in the labor code may aid in concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate officer. 23 January ‣ The imposition of minimum standards concerning sales. 212774. as ascertaining the relationship between the government and its purported against an ordinary employee or officer. the COA correctly disallowed the separation pay benefit of an employee ‣ His removal from office is not a labor dispute but an intra. EMPLOYEE products based on the standards agreed upon by the parties. that petitioner failed to explain the discrepancies in his contractor. Valencia has the burden to prove unsatisfactory. or the board and a buyer/re-seller of directors may be empowered under the by. and to former's Certificate of Registration with the Department of Trade and Industry direct employers to comply with their alleged violations of labor standards. that rendered his background check ‣ As the party asserting employment relations. Gr No. 30 January 2017 ‣ In labor-only contracting. 
 at discounted prices. However. the Secretary of Labor is without jurisdiction to determine if ‣ To prove that CMS was a legitimate contractor. ‣ Thus. finance and operations are nothing more than an exercise of sound business practice ‣ The president. or if one has already been contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees terminated. however. nature as a corporate officer. 30 January 2017 there exists no obligation on the part of ANZ to recognize and fully accord ‣ Under the Distributorship Agreement. which in turn will be resold to identified customers. other officers are ‣ The relationship of Nestle and ODSI is not that of a principal and contractor (regardless of whether labor-only or independent). DASIG-QUANGUEY condition happens or is fulfilled.laws of a corporation to create additional offices as may be necessary. 15 June 2016 for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR VS EMPLOYEE VS LABOR ONLY CONTRACTOR WHO HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS? 1. 1. ‣ Nestle is not the true employer ‣ An "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR by the directors or stockholders. suspensive condition — would yet to be put into effect. However. the principal or executive officers of a corporation.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. 2. they cannot be overriding factors over the conditions and ‣ The alleged "appointment" instead of "election" as provided by the by-laws requirements for public employment as provided for by civil service laws. special laws. GR No. 206390. his work experience at Siemens. neither convert the president of university as a mere employee.employee relationship 1. employees. had yet to acquire any obligatory force.. Vs.corporate controversy 
 because it pertained to services rendered under the service contract which was not attested to by the CSC. Nestle Phils. a perfected contract may and. PAGE 4 OF 18 . ‣ These documents are not conclusive evidence of the status of CMS as a ‣ Considering. vs Puedan. the DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an ‣ The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the employer-employee relationship between the parties. License as private recruitment and placement agency from the exist. n other words. Inc. Jr. respondent union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of Thus. the employer. The issue raised by the the respondent union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal employer is. 04 August ‣ Nature and Status of Employment 2014 ‣ Termination Disputes ‣ Not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts. sufficiently intertwined with the parties’ employer-employee relationship. respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners’ wages and the dismissal of its members. there is no ‣ There is no question that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the labor dispute cognizable by the Labor Arbiters. respondent. to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty ‣ The company’s alleged gross negligence in maintaining a hazardous work that it paid said benefits and that the employee. without its member.e. Hijo Resources Corporation vs Mejares. DASIG-QUANGUEY 2. 202961. was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the Med. GR No. PAGE 5 OF 18 . it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. substantive and that are in their possession gives rise to the presumption that the presentation independent. or the NLRC. a claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of Labor who exercises appellate issue raised and must arise from an employer. therefore. The return of its properties in petitioners’ possession by virtue of employees. Inc. This. 200114. 07 November 2016 the labor courts. i. 24 August 2015 ‣ The Med-Arbiter dismissed the certification election case because of lack of ‣ A complaint for damages under Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code filed by an employer-employee relationship between HRC and the union members. The respondent union. vs Vilma de Peralta. Is the Labor Arbiter in the illegal employed in the roster of regular employees of SSS falls under the jurisdiction dismissal case bound by the ruling of the Med-Arbiter regarding the of the regular courts. ‣ To dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the basis of Thus. would be tantamount to denying due process to benefits because of this existing debt or liability. 
 ‣ Here. Salvador Adviento. LEILANEE Q.. 
 the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. thereof is prejudicial to its cause. existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a petition for certification election. existence of employer-employee relationship? ‣ There being no employer-employee relationship between the parties. their status as employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine Arbiter’s decision in the certification election case. ‣ It is well-settled that the failure of employers to submit the necessary documents 2176 of the Civil Code since the negligence is direct. the members of whether benefits can be released immediately. GR No. the order was served after the termination of employment ‣ Solid Mills allowed petitioners to use its property (SMI Village) as an act of of the union members. specifically when the law provides otherwise. 171212. the cause of action is based on a quasi. actually environment cannot be considered a mere breach of the contract of received such payment or that the employee was not entitled thereto. 13 January 2016 2.. his finding thereon may only be ‣ As a general rule. ‣ Respondent's allegation of nonpayment of monetary benefits places the burden on In the absence thereof.e. employment but falls squarely within the elements of quasi-delict under Art. GR No. petitioner. 213488. ‣ Reasonable causal connection rule: MONEY CLAIMS Where there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted BURDEN OF PROOF and the employer-employee relations. Indophil Textile Mills. jurisdiction over the action is with the regular courts.employee relationship ceased. Emer Milan. GR No. liberality. i. Inc. the pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that ‣ The return of the property’s possession became an obligation or liability on the there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. the case is within the jurisdiction of Toyota Pasig. Social Security System vs Debbie Ubaña. which the part of the employees when the employer. et al vs NLRC. 04 February 2015 exercise of jurisdiction by the med-arbiter. which has no reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article 217. labor tribunals to have jurisdiction. This employee of an independent service contractor hired by the SSS to recover was served after the termination of employment of the said members who what she would have been entitled to as her proper salary had she been subsequently filed an illegal dismissal case. et al. et al.delict or tort. Thus.employee relationship for the jurisdiction under Article 259 of the Labor Code. As this is necessary and indispensable in the 3. 208986. GR No. it is properly within the labor tribunals’ jurisdiction. the Court cannot allow. ‣ However.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. Resolution on Some Labor Disputes and Issues REASONABLE CAUSAL CONNECTION ‣ Money Claims 1. vs Engr. in this case. connected to petitioners’ claim for benefits and is dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter. or other facilities customarily furnished by the commutation or upon termination of the employee's services. DASIG-QUANGUEY COVERED EMPLOYEES entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) Hilario Dasco. of board. ‣ These drivers and/or conductors cannot be considered as field personnel because they are under control and constant supervision of the bus companies while in ‣ Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay. task. if the worker engaged on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of "field personnel" under the law. still these commissions are direct remunerations for A. or other ‣ Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service method of calculating the same. he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the 1. GR No. tax rebates Are the pakyaw workers who are considered as regular workers entitled to overtime and success share/profit sharing incentives fall within the ambit of the general pay. ‣ With respect to the payment of 13th month pay. but from the time when the and reasonable value. No. ‣ Field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in ‣ In this case. in order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee. GR No. 
 ‣ While commissions are. it is also petitioners supervised their time and performance of their duties. Inc. we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done commences. 29 June 2016 ‣ The definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location ‣ However. the presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker's time and performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis. however. and ‣ Thus. whether separation from employment. Inc. by the law to every employee. or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair to the commutation of his service incentive leave. made as to whether or not the employee’s time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer. indeed. lodging. Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. respondents cannot be considered as "field personnel. ‣ If the employee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or commute the WAGES same. to holiday and SIL pay. their the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. LEILANEE Q. of the Labor Code. actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty. may be. Toyota Pasig. "paid on task basis" without any reference to "field personnel” SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY ‣ This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is concerned. not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled or to be done. ‣ His cause of action to claim the whole amount of his accumulated SIL shall arise ‣ Section 97 (f) of the Labor Code reads: "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration of earnings. 222980. then the general rule is that he is PAGE 6 OF 18 . as the case employer to the employee. respondents are not entitled to such benefit. fixed or ascertained on a time. monetary benefits. the law did not intend to qualify the exemption from its Lourdes Rodrigez vs Park n Ride. Nate Casket Maker and/or Armando and Amely Nate vs Elias Arango. et al vs Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire employees to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly OF REGULAR PAKYAW WORKERS assigned to them. GR No. 192282. fall within the definition of wages pursuant ‣ In determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or "task basis" is entitled to prevailing law and jurisprudence. et al. Thus. holiday pay." since they regularly performed their duties at petitioners' place of business. as determined by the Secretary of Labor and employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of Employment. when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of his resignation or however designated. then he is not entitled to these where the employee regularly performs is unsupervised by the employer. or commission basis. 20 March 2017 coverage with the requirement that the task worker be a "field personnel" at ‣ The service incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other benefits granted the same time.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. 07 November 2016 commutation of his accrued service incentive leave. 851 exempts employees the performance of their work. which is payable by an employer to an incentive leave. In so doing. an inquiry must be engaged on pakyaw or task basis. GR services rendered. SIL and 13th month pay? term "commissions" which in tum. 211141. vs Vilma de Peralta../Centurion Solano. piece. they necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined are not exempted from the grant of holiday and SIL pay even as they were with reasonable certainty by the employer. 05 October 2016 ‣ De Peralta’s (an Insurance Sales Executive) claims for commissions. capable of being expressed in terms of money. 213488. and (a) such facilities are customarily given. 
 Jesus Villamos vs ECC and SSS. LEILANEE Q. GR No. ‣ Angbus did not state the specific project or undertaking assigned to petitioners. d) If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within (b) voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. and expressly excluded casual. 07 November 2016 Jebsens’ Maritime. of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. the seafarer reported to him. 626. 218871. disability becomes permanent and total. the nature of petitioner's work and his medical or temporary employees from its retirement insurance plan. GR No. it also failed to present other evidence to show that it further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative). 204422. substitute ‣ Under prevailing jurisprudence. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. 
 REGULAR EMPLOYMENT DISABILITY/DEATH CLAIMS Isidro Quebral. 11 January 2017 ‣ To safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to ‣ Guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability preclude them from attaining regular status.. ‣ If weighed on a scale. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth ‣ The subsidized meals and free lodging provided by Our Haus (engaged in and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. those on permanent status. ‣ Purpose Test: a) Facilities include articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his C. In short. The PEME construction) are actually supplements. ‣ Pauig cannot succeed in appealing to liberal construction to include his 14 years of NATURE AND STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT temporary employment where the law is clear and unambiguous. regular and permanent employees. and/or family but exclude tools of the trade or articles or services primarily for JUAN JOSE ROCHA vs RHUDEL CASTILLO. DASIG-QUANGUEY 2. The employer 204651. was free from any ailment prior to his deployment. INC.F. Accordingly. GR No. 06 August 2014 has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has ‣ To be considered as facilities. substantial consideration must be given to the nature seafarer is fit when he entered into his employment contract? of the employer’s business in relation to the character or type of work ‣ No.. Does the Pre-employment Medical Examination establish a presumption that the b) Under the Purpose Test. as amended. and b) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged period of 120 days. regardless of any justification. the employer must prove that sufficient justification to extend the period. 208215. 19 April 2017 the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the business. GR No.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. GR No. then the period informed petitioners of the duration and scope of their work. et al. 210328. Inc. Our Haus Realty Development Corporation vs Alexander Parian. 21 November 2016 ‣ "Probability and not ultimate degree of certainty is the test of proof in RETIREMENT BENEFITS compensation proceedings. The fact that respondent passed the company's PEME is of no moment.g. without any justifiable reason. jurisprudence provides that benefits: employers claiming that their workers are project-based employees have the a) The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on burden to prove that these two requisites concur: the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time (a) the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking. PAGE 7 OF 18 . it does ‣ Although they also work to benefit the respondents. the fit to work these benefits in relation to Our Haus’ business shows that they were given declaration in the seafarer's PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he primarily for Our Haus’ greater convenience and advantage. As c) If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the to the second requisite. the balance tilts more towards Our Haus’ side. 221897. GR No.. et al. their values cannot be considered in computing the total amount of the TEST/PROOF OF COMPENSABILITY respondents’ wages. merely determines whether one is fit to work at sea or fit for sea service. an analysis of the nature of not state the real state of health of an applicant. not only was Angbus unable to produce petitioners' period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e. et al vs Rapiz. until 1997 when results are substantial evidence to support his claim for EC TTD benefits under compulsory membership in the GSIS was extended to employees other than PD No. then the seafarer's for such project. et al vs Angbus Construction. and the extended period of 240 days. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT. seafarer required employment contracts. PEME is not exploratory in nature. Inc. then the seafarer's disability becomes (c) charged at fair and reasonable value. permanent and total. The performed by the employees involved. 30 January 2017 ‣ Direct evidence showing that his work and position in the union caused his illness ‣ Compulsory coverage under the GSIS had previously and consistently included is not necessary." GSIS vs Apolinario Pauig. Isidro Quebral. engaged is reasonably determinable. Inc. 
 indicators of project employment in the same DOLE issuance above-cited. especially in this case where there is a glaring absence of engagement. he was rehired precisely because of his previous experience appurtenance. in fact.” No one should obtain an (b) Such duration. Marcos D. et al. can only or undertaking. the submission of the termination report. 199554. GR No. it is presumed that they are regular employees. February 2015 (d) The employee. provided that they worked for at least six Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction months during a given year. completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most ‣ In the case of a regular seasonal employee. Articles 283 and 284 both state in connection with separation pay that a (f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay fraction of at least six months shall be considered one whole year. 221897. et al. Risonar. without November 2016 providing any reason therefor. is free to offer ‣ The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: his services to any other employer. 20 February 2017 ‣ The rehiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not Atty. et al. SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT (c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the Zenaida Paz vs Northern Tobacco Redrying Co." Book Six does not specifically define "one year of service" for date of his separation from work. No. GR No. rendered service shall be counted. ‣ Where the termination letter received more than a month after the expiration of the 2.. 198350. employment contract to which a fixed term is an essential and natural ‣ In Ando's case. attendant to the first two (2) due process. GR No. thus.. et al vs Angbus Construction. ‣ Indicators of project employment: ‣ The monetary awards to which he is entitled to as a consequence of his illegal (a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is dismissal are only limited until the expiration of his second term.O. the school obligated itself to send a 30-day of working environment. using the prescribed form on employees' purposes of computing separation pay." it specified the ‣ The Law Dean’s appointment was automatically renewed under the same terms and termination of the parties' employment relationship on a "day certain. working with the other phases of the project. 07 fixed term merely indicated that the dean was about to be replaced. as well as the specific work/service to be performed. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT 1. and that they were informed of the duration and scope of their be dismissed for just or authorized causes upon compliance with procedural supposed project engagement. 214813. Jr. series of 1993. terminations/dismissals/suspensions. while not employed and awaiting engagement. the number of years they actually construction companies. Inc. D. Ganzon. "extended or shortened depending on the work phasing. E. is defined advantage from his own wrong doing. it is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope is therefore not conclusive to confirm the status of the terminated employees as of their work and their status as project employees at the start of their project employees.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. 
 in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring. GR No. (Section 2. he is deemed illegally dismissed. by and of itself. vs Cor Jesus College. the employees. EGI took into account similarity ‣ In the Law Dean’s appointment letter. ‣ However. 14 confer upon them regular employment status as it is only dictated by the September 2016 practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more ‣ Appointments to the position of Dean of an educational institution involves an preferred.. 9. prior notice from the expiration of the term if it no longer intends to renew/ ‣ Although the employment contract provided that the stated date may be extend his appointment.2. a) the amount of monthly salary and (e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is b) the number of years of service. 18 particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged. et al vs Fortunato Ando. Inc. evidence to prove that petitioners were assigned to carry out a specific project ‣ Absent such proof. Industry) PAGE 8 OF 18 ." which conditions of the original appointment. LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY ‣ Although the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to ‣ By the provision's tenor. him the required written notice. which are. ‣ “Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet. since the respondents failed to send is "upon completion of the phase of work for which [he was] hired for. reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional ‣ Although the Labor Code provides different definitions as to what constitutes "one Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the year of service. ‣ The true test of compliance with the requirements of the law is. Inc. in the service. but fails to investigation. a teacher must satisfy the following requisites strict compliance thereof is not required. GR Nos. 
 ‣ Valid probationary employment under the Labor Code presupposes the concurrence of two requirements: (1) the employer must have made known to the probationary employee the TERMINATIONS DISPUTES reasonable standard that the latter must comply with to qualify as a ‣ Preventive Suspension regular employee. ‣ Such time corresponded to the period from December 4. drivers. the provide the answer/s to the question: "how would the employer gauge the preventive suspension is lifted and the respondent is "automatically reinstated performance of the probationary employee?". Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL that if the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of the reasonable Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club. LEILANEE Q.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. 3. fair. performance. minimum experience. GR No. one of reasonableness. et al vs San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation. et al. 209559. 2. her immediate superior ‣ In the case of presidential appointees.e. may warrant. 1992. of course. Geraldine Michelle Fallarme. 2001 when he was briefly reinstated. operational procedures and guidelines provided ‣ Preventive suspension is of two kinds: for in the Manual of Operations of the School. ‣ Baculi should be paid his back salaries and other benefits for the entire time that he ‣ There is no question that performance of duties and responsibilities is a necessary should have been automatically reinstated at the rate owing to his position standard for qualifying for regular employment. standards on which his regularization would be based at the time of the 197492. 188681. 1992 until June 25. 183200. Enchanted Kingdom vs Verzo. or excellent the performance has been. DASIG-QUANGUEY PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT ‣ An exception to the foregoing rule is when the job is self. and ‣ Constructive Dismissal (2) the employer must have informed the probationary employee of the ‣ Illegal Dismissal applicable performance standard at the time of the latter's engagement ‣ Valid Dismissal ‣ Failing in one or both. 2003. 14 September 2016 ‣ While it may be argued that ideally employers should immediately inform a probationary employee of the standards for his regularization from day one. (2) must have rendered three years of service or six consecutive semesters of service for teachers on the tertiary level). satisfactory. GR No. 183253 & 183257. 29 June 2016 ‣ If the proper disciplinary authority does not finally decide the administrative case ‣ The job description attached to Buenviaje's appointment letter merely answers the within a period of 90 days from the start of preventive suspension pending question: "what duties and responsibilities does the position entail?". minimum education. the employee. PNOC-EDC vs Buenviaje. however. or messengers. cooks. but excluding the interval from March 12. GR Nos. 18 Janauary 2017 engagement. a) preventive suspension pending ‣ The failure to inform them of these matters was in violation of the requirements b) preventive suspension pending appeal where the penalty imposed by the of valid probationary employment. but were required to sign appointment contracts for the first time only in 2005. 09 December 2015 ‣ Section 6 (d). 1. It does not stop on mere that he last received prior to his preventive suspension on September 4. ‣ The teachers were hired by the college as early as 2003. to be entitled to regular faculty status: (1) must be a full-time teacher. as in the case of maids. Rule I. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ‣ Each of the contracts supposedly provided that it "incorporates by reference the Francisco Baculi vs Office of the President. and ‣ As long as the probationary employee is given a reasonable time and opportunity to be made fully aware of what is expected of him during the early phases of the (3) that service must have been satisfactory. the preventive suspension pending and subordinates. duties and responsibilities. There must be a measure as to how poor. then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee.01.. ‣ As prescribed by the 1992 Manual. GR No. the requirement of the law has been satisfied. regulations. and special skills). probationary period. and the respondent is not a presidential appointee. ‣ The job description merely contains her job identification. shall be considered a regular employee.descriptive. 08 March 2017 school policies. Inc. and the investigation shall be "for a reasonable time as the circumstances of the case qualification guidelines required of her position (i. 2001 until December 31. ‣ The transfer constitutes constructive dismissal PAGE 9 OF 18 . a list of her job objectives. vs Rachelle Balba. even if initially hired as a probationary ‣ Reliefs in Illegal Dismissal employee.. 190015 & 190019. 
 disciplining authority is either suspension or dismissal but after review the respondent official or employee is exonerated. 214186. 
 Sta. employer become unbearable for the employee. Inc. accusations. or and that the continuance of his services is patently inimical to respondent's 3. is not sufficient basis for loss of trust. Inc. 213137. GR No. wiped clean of his infractions. insensibility or disdain on the part of the interest. inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. 
 constructive dismissal. benefits and other shown in detail that he has become unfit to continue working for the company privileges. Inc. 23 November 2016 Jinky Isabel vs Perla Compaña de Seguros. of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed ‣ Management had the prerogative to determine the place where the employee is upon an erring employee. 219430. GR No. requisites of procedural due process in administrative cases. at most. 15 February 2017 Grande vs Philippine Nautical Training College. 183934. that the employee's disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot ‣ On-the-spur-of-the-moment outburst was due to what he perceived as successive be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. are not enough to justify an employee's dismissal. Interadent being the present employer 
 connection with the investigation. and conclusions of the employer. GR No. which act is wholly incompatible to respondent's assertion that she voluntarily Rodfhel Torrefiel et al vs Beauty Lane Phils. DASIG-QUANGUEY 1. we must take into consideration the totality of circumstances was able to submit proof of her sources of funds and there was no proof that she in each particular case. complained of constructive dismissal.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. as in ‣ They voluntarily retired and not constructively dismissed this case. GR No. Having been penalized for his previous infractions. Inc. Isabel was grounded on her refusal ‣ Simbillo’s Facebook post which supposedly suggests that Interadent was being investigated by the BIR for irregular transactions. petitioners the employer must prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon applied for retirement in a joint letter of resignation. package.. Ernesto Galang et al vs BOIE Takeda Chemicals. forcing him to forego ‣ The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period her employment. ‣ The resignations of the account managers and the director of sales and marketing in ‣ Ximex cannot invoke the principle of totality of infractions considering that Maula’s the Manila office brought about the immediate need for their replacements alleged previous acts of misconduct were not established in accordance with with personnel having commensurate experiences and skills is not the requirements of procedural due process. 03 August 2016 resigned. GR No. 208459. it would only merit some suspicion. conducted the business during company time using company personnel. GR No. LEILANEE Q. 218333. this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be training and performance of the affected employee. et al vs Rebecca Simbillo.. petitioner basis for loss of trust and confidence. 207315. et al vs Romeo Ancheta. Inc. ‣ Unsubstantiated suspicions.. ‣ This should only be deemed as a waiver of her right to procedural due process in ‣ It leaked no company information or coporate record. received their retirement which the accusations are made. as the employee respective posts. 
 retaliatory and orchestrated actions of respondent. Indeed. when it is unreasonable. No ‣   By vigorously pursuing the litigation of her action against respondent. GR No. ‣ Resenting the promotion of Villanueva as National Sales Director. 25 January 2017 ‣ “Seguro na abnormal ang utak mo!” ‣ The company’s refusal to give Ancheta work assignments until he submitted a new medical certificate certifying his fitness to work amounts to illegal dismissal ‣ The admittedly insulting and unbecoming language uttered by petitioner to the HR Manager on April 3.. clearly manifested that she has no intention of relinquishing her employment. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL Interadent Zahntechnik Phils. 07 December 2016 Leo Maula vs Ximex Delivery Express. or lapse in judgment rather than a premeditated defiance of authority. 01 March 2017 ‣ The charges against an outlet teller for engaging in a personal lending business ‣ In order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign from their using company funds during office hours was unsubstantiated. 07 November 2016 ‣   The charge of insubordination against Sta. and is not tantamount to willful disobedience or insubordination. when the acts of discrimination. 207838. 2009 should be viewed with reasonable leniency in light ‣ the law imposes upon the employer the duty not to terminate an employee (based on disease) until there is a certification by a competent public health authority of the fact that it was committed under an emotionally charged state. there was only PAGE 10 OF 18 . 
 ‣ There was no valid reason for their dismissal considering the lack of proof of their involvement in the alleged pilferage. involves a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries.. and months later. 
 Marina’s Creation Enterprises. best qualified to serve the interests of the business given the qualifications. and hence has compromised despite due notice to report to the Head Office in compliance with the the reputation of the company. Ana vs Manila Jockey Club. Inc. 20 July 2016 ‣ While proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in dismissing an employee. It was not 2. GR No. Inc et al. embroiled themselves in the ‣ In Jaka Food Processing Corp. 2. GR 215047. facilitated the unauthorized transporting of products out of PACI's warehouse (3) the capacity of the employers to satisfy the awards.00 in nominal damages is sufficient to nature of the employee's participation therein rendered him unworthy of trust vindicate each private respondent's right to due process considering that the and confidence demanded by his position. 28 March 2005). 
 at his students’ final grades that was not in accord with the guidelines set by MDC. et al vs CA. but the employer failed to comply beyond reasonable doubt.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY.. 23 November 2016 ‣ Respondents were caught in the act of engaging in gambling activities inside the workplace during work hours.00 if the dismissal is due to an authorized ‣ While loss of trust and confidence should be genuine. at his option. DASIG-QUANGUEY VALID DISMISSAL ‣ His liability did not depend on his own participation in the unlawful sales but to his failure to perform his duties as a supervisor.) vs Esperanza ‣ The defense that it took place during noon break and that no stakes were involved. their negligence (2) the number of employees to be awarded. et al. 151378. GR No. GR No. or by merely reinstating him in the payroll. Inc. which alternative options PAGE 11 OF 18 . 468 (2008). it being sufficient that there is some basis to believe with the notice requirement. ‣ Complainants-appellees. the computation of separation pay in lieu of offense which warrants the penalty of dismissal for it amounts to theft of the reinstatement includes the period for which backwages were awarded. TPG Corporation (formerly The Professional Group Plans. 17 October 2016 backwages or. 218980. had negligently handled the products.000. ‣ Yes. Pacot (GR No. that the employee concerned is responsible for the misconduct and that the ‣ In this case. Errol Ramirez et al vs Plyson Industries. it does not require proof cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code. company's time and it is explicitly prohibited by the company rules on the ground that it is against public morals. 207898. we fixed ongoing corporate dispute to wrestle control over ZAMECO II.(592 Phil. et al. taken into account their and their sale to third persons. the payment of separation pay. GR No. ‣ Though not directly involved in the pilferage of PACI's products.000). a violation of company policy penalized with RELIEFS IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL dismissal. will however not save the day for the respondents. 2016 ‣ Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or ‣ Olores was terminated for grave misconduct. 19 October 2016 ‣ The act of inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work. 225044. PNCC Skyway Corporation. or financial reverses or otherwise.. 
 Universal Canning Inc. GR 209086. Inc. 189714. 25 January 2017 even if were proven true. et al vs The Secretary of Labor and Employment. Inc. 03 October slowdown’ which caused signifinat losses (P290. et al. Rustan's Commercial ‣ The use of the company's time and premises for gambling activities is a grave Corporation. (4) the employer's grant of other termination benefits in favor of the employees. ‣ Following the pronouncement of the Court in Sagales v. cessation of operation of the establishment due to serious business losses as persons in charge of the inventory. Pinas. LEILANEE Q. the nominal damages at P50. 
 prevailing financial status as borne by the records. Inc. gross inefficiency and incompetence union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts in employing a grading system liberally implementing the guidelines in arriving during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. v. et al. Laboratory Department when he was dismissed from employment by HMI in 2008 due to gross and Was the inclusion of reinstatement wages in the Writ of Execution proper where the habitual neglect of duty as anomalous transactions in the Blood Bank Section employer relied on the option granted to pay separation pay instead of reinstatement? were found to have persisted for almost two years. the amount of P30.000. whether it was a retrenchment or a closure or ‣ PACI's loss of trust and confidence was directly rooted in the manner of how they. 213934. 28 ‣ Factors in the determination of the amount of nominal damages: November 2016 (1) the authorized cause invoked. 06 February 2017 Philippine Auto Components Parts. and that PSC had the intention to give the benefits due them. GR No. vs Ronnie Jumadla.. 
 dismissal was prompted by the cessation of PSC’s operation which was done in good faith. instead of being neutral. The LA found for Olores and ordered his reinstatement without Angelito Publico vs Hospital Managers. Petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal. GR No. GR 196110. 09 and (5) whether there was a bona fide attempt to comply with the notice November 2016 requirements as opposed to giving no notice at all. ‣ Publico was the hospital's Chief of Blood Bank Section. was undoubtedly a calculated effort amounting to 'overtime boycott' or 'work Manila Doctors College et al vs Emmanuel Olores. 1. Mary Ann Venzon et al vs ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative. direct the execution proceedings have on the liability of the employer for reinstatement wages? employee to return to work.R.R.G. the employee never truly left the office. these absorbed ‣ An employee of the civil service who is invalidly dismissed is entitled to the employees are not entitled to separation pay on account of such merger in the payment of backwages. GR No.) which awarded backwages from the time of ‣ Defective Service of Summons illegal dismissal until reinstatement. 
 The Philippine Geothermal Inc Employees Union vs Unocal Philippines. proper. they are bound to pay his accrued WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS NOT DISMISSED AND ALSO DID NOT ABANDON salaries. 458 SCRA 278. and order the employer to accept the employee. ‣ An employee of the civil service who is ordered reinstated is also entitled to the full ‣ Perfection of Appeal ‣ Appeal from CA to SC payment of his or her backwages during the entire period of time that he or she ‣ Satisfaction of Judgment was wrongfully prevented from performing the duties of his or her position and ‣ Doctrine of Stare Decisis from enjoying its benefits. ‣ Cause of Action Belatedly Filed May 9. the CA correctly Lumahan. et al vs Ma. 05 October 2016 done by the illegal dismissal of an employee. October 14. Lorina Raneses. Inc. 4. pleaded in the complaint be given cognizance? ‣ Under the applicable 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure. HIS WORK Dee Jay’s In and Café. the award of separation pay is claim. PAGE 12 OF 18 . 2010 MERGERS AND SEPARATION PAY Decision of LA Amansec. (similar to Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency. 609. ‣ Hence.) 
 declared respondent to be entitled to the payment of his accrued salaries during the period of the appeal until the reversal of the December 8. Labor Procedure ‣ The five-year cap was dropped in the case of CSC vs Gentallan (G.43203. No. DASIG-QUANGUEY must be exercised in good faith. 212096. Worse. (now ‣ Yes. Fixing the backwages to five years or to the period of time until the CAUSE OF ACTION BELATEDLY FILED employee found a new employment is not a full recompense for the damage Dee Jay’s In and Café. and provided for the payment of complement of the surviving corporation. but in the position papers as well. et al. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation a mention in the case of Cristobal vs Melchor (G. July 29. v. RA 6715 amended the Labor Code. not only in the complaint. L. This is in accrued salaries.). 28 November 2016 ‣ The employment of the absorbed employees subsists. 197634. for failure of the petitioners to comply with said order. LEILANEE Q. Lorina Raneses. in the eyes of the law.R. GR 191825. 2015. they are bound to pay his employees of the corporation absorbed by the surviving corporation. other than ‣ Bank of the Philippine Islands v. 2005. Sec. ‣ The five-year cap on backwages was not fully explained in earlier cases. No. of Unions in BPI Unibank has ruled that the surviving corporation 1977. No. 190187. which alternative options ‣ The merger of a corporation with another does not operate to dismiss the must be exercised in good faith. petitioners were duty-bound to reinstate respondent either by admitting him known as Chevron Geothermal Phils Holdings. GR No. otherwise. such that the absorbed corporation's employees become part of the manpower ‣ n 1989. Not only because there was no genuine compliance by the employer of the ‣ However. when a considerable length of time had already passed rendering it reinstatement order but also because the employer chose not to act on said impossible for the employee to return to work. 152833. 78 SCRA 175) which appliedby analogy the then prevailing doctrine automatically assumes the employment contracts of the absorbed corporation. 3. or by merely reinstating him in the payroll. 05 October 2016 What effect does the complainant’s subsequent choice of separation pay during the ‣ The general course of action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint. keeping with the nature and effects of a merger as provided under law and the constitutional policy protecting the rights of labor. 57 otherwise. the parties could allege and present evidence to prove any cause or causes of action included. Inc. et al vs Ma. Inc. ‣ None. Julius Campol vs Balao-as.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. GR 191825. 617-618 (2011) backwages from the time the illegally dismissed employee’s compensation was withheld up to his or her reinstatement. (674 Phil. it effectively punishes an May a cause of action belatedly included in the position paper but not originally employee for being dismissed without his or her fault. ‣ This is necessarily so because. involving employees who suffered unfair labor practice. absence of any other ground for its award. 28 September back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his 2016 dismissal. Necessarily. 07 November 2016 reconsideration as provided under Section 15. ‣ No. 222424. Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua. subject to the following conditions: the same facts. et al. Compliance with these two conditions will stop the running of res judicata in the action under consideration. 192318. ‣ In the case of McBurnie v. DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS ‣  The notation in the registry receipt that "a registered article must not be delivered to anyone but the addressee. regardless of their truth presumably able to present a written authorization to receive them and. or omission of another. ‣ In this case. GR No. LEILANEE Q. 05 October 2016 procedure . 207156. all doubts must be resolved in favor of labor. Rule VII of the Rules. the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. 05 October as to submit himself to its jurisdiction but was merely dragged to court after he 2016 reacted to the improper execution of his properties. GR No. amount to appellant. or upon the addressee's written order" creates the Buenaflor Car Services. DASIG-QUANGUEY DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively. 222730. regardless of which party is successful. 16 January both actions. and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars. 191823. which. the Court has set a provisional percentage of ‣ The NLRC Rules of Procedure state that "[t]he rules of procedure and evidence 10% of the monetary award (exclusive of damages and attorney's fees) as prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling and the reasonable amount of bond that an appellant should post pending resolution PAGE 13 OF 18 . Inc. such that any judgment rendered (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the in the other action will. vs Cezar David. 07 November 2016 presumption that the persons who received the summons and notice were ‣ "Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements. since there is ‣ Perforce. 
 ‣ The Court considered as substantial compliance the service of summons by registered mail at the respondent's place of business. provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE ‣ If the NLRC denies the motion. 2017 b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Inc. GR No. should not be applied. 
 September 2016 ‣ The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in another or whether the following PERFECTION OF APPEAL elements of litis pendentia are present: MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND a) identity of parties. the relief being founded on ‣ The reduction of the appeal bond is allowed. If the NLRC denies the motion. evidence of the parties tilt. The hearsay therefore. the notices were presumed to be duly received in the ordinary rule does not apply. 217455. without regard to technicalities of law or Oyster Plaza Hotel. then the appeal is perfected. or at least such parties as representing the same interests in Turks Shawarma Company ve Feliciano Pajaron. then the decision Court. May the extra-judicial confession of his co-accused be admissible in evidence against ‣   If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration and rules that there is indeed him? meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable. vs Cezar David. GR No. Said requisites are also the period to perfect an appeal constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. course of events. or falsity. The burden of proof did not shift to petitioners to Fontana Development Corporation et al vs Sascha Vukasinovic. and (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds. the doctrine was misapplied since without the joint affidavit of Mercy FORUM SHOPPING and Mea. 21 prove that her dismissal was for just or authorized cause. as per Section 30. The res inter alios acta rule. GR No. 05 December 2016 THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE ‣ No service of summons and notices were served on the respondent and he was not impleaded as a party respondent. He did not voluntarily appear before the LA Dee Jay’s Inn and Café et al vs Ma.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. the proceedings conducted and the decision rendered are nugatory and an equipoise of evidence and therefore there is doubt as to where the without effect as the LA never acquired jurisdiction over his person. Ganzon. Rule 130 of the Rules of then the appeal is perfected. GR No. 222730. et al vs Errol Melivo. the appellant may still file a motion for Buenaflor Car Services. of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and executory declaration. 
 ‣ Del Rosario's extrajudicial confession is independently relevant to prove the participation of respondent in the instant controversy considering his vital role NO SERVICE OF SUMMONS in petitioner's procurement process. GR No. Lorina Rañeses. and the statements are admissible as evidence. there only remained the bare allegation of respondent that she was dismissed by petitioners. ‣ The equipoise doctrine provides that with all things considered equal. ‣ If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable. following the dictates of equity and in order to arrive at a complete from two sources: and just resolution of the case. final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition. 
 ‣ The Court previously ruled that if the date stamped on one is earlier than the other. Isidro Quebral. by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period The first and e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error second instances are present in this case. TIMELINESS OF APPEAL ‣ Exception: When strict adherence thereto shall result in the impairment of the substantive rights of the parties concerned. otherwise. 197191. only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved ‣ Applying this parameter. GR No. however. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented. 21 November 2016 ‣ When the photocopy of a registry receipt bears an earlier date but is not Was the Petition for Certiorari correctly dismissed for failure to state a material authenticated. et al. the Century Properties. 220978. PAGE 14 OF 18 . ‣ Based on Section 3. and ‣ There should be adherence to a strict application of Article 229 of the Labor Code f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of when appellants do not post an appeal bond at all. the bond. 09 November 2016 matter. the date of filing is determinable Hence. These cases include instances in necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness commissions. Strict application of the rules is therefore uncalled for. ‣ While posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. GR No. computation of the same. at the very least. and the appellant acted in good faith. This presupposes. GR No. Inc.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. ‣ While it is true that the payment of the supersedeas bond is an essential MAY A PARTY WHO DID NOT APPEAL OBTAIN ANY AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF? requirement in the perfection of an appeal. ‣ As a general rule. the CA correctly recomputed Concepcion' s unpaid (2) from the registry receipt.27. the petition for certiorari must be dismissed. Was the appeal deemed perfected where the memorandum of appeal was seasonably b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical filed but the appeal bond turned out to be spurious upon verification? errors within the contemplation of law. d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. the P15. 11 January 2017 suspended. case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce justice. 188658." ‣ General Rule: A party who has not appealed cannot obtain any affirmative relief other than the one granted in the appealed decision. vs Edwin Babiano and Emma Concepcion. notwithstanding her failure to seek a review of the NLRC's of the filing of the pleadings.. GR No. 07 ‣ Concepcion's right to her earned commissions is a substantive right which cannot November 2016 be impaired by an erroneous computation of what she really is entitled to. however. et al vs Angbus Construction. the Court held that the later date stamped on the envelope shall date(date of receipt of the NLRC decision? be considered as the date of filing. LEILANEE Q. GR No. et al. broader interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies 05 July 2016 on the merits demands that the appeal be given due course. was actually filed. DASIG-QUANGUEY by the NLRC of a motion for a bond's reduction. 221897. 192369.000. 
 ‣ Yes. the former may be accepted as the date of filing. Oasis Park Hotel vs Leslee Navaluna. assigned. Inc. and avoid a piecemeal dispensation of justice (1) from the post office stamp on the envelope or over the same. where the fee had been paid although payment was delayed. we sanction the c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is relaxation of the rule in certain meritorious cases. or submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court (4) the appellants. 
 ‣ Exceptions established by jurisprudence: a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas. exhibited their willingness and/or good faith ignored. the date of receipt of the assailed judgment. Only after the posting of this WHAT MAY BE RESOLVED ON APPEAL required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal be Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs CA. Section 8 of the Rules of Court) considered reasonable in relation to the total monetary award of P197. but here an appeal bond a question properly assigned is dependent.00 partial bond posted by petitioners is not (Rule 51.936. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari. Inc." ‣ If the last day of the period. ‣ To prevent a gross miscarriage of justice since the Republic stood to lose hundreds ‣ Accordingly. file the appeal four days after the prescribed reglementary period was over. If showing of the existence of grounds warranting judicial review. Inc. vs Bacolod Sales Force Union-Congress of PETITION FOR REVIEW Independent Organization-ALU." Thus.337. in another case. vested rights are acquired by the reinstatement is disputed. shall be winning party. 
 substantiate its allegations. GR No. Rules. vs Romelia Rey. National Labor Relations Commission. In the event the aspect of ‣ After a decision is declared final and executory. The CA should look into the merits of the case where there is prima facie ‣ We cannot fix a period with the solemnity of a statute and disregard it like a joke. including separation pay.05 to respondent. with finality. 83 SCRA 453) ‣ The subject matter in issue had theretofore been judicially settled. 41) 
 Coca-cola Femsa Philippines. GR 220506. It raises a jurisdictional problem. or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits. ‣ The judgment has not yet been fully satisfied. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering prescribed period. the date when the judgment of this Court became final for educational purposes. Inc. Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative. and where law is founded on reason.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. 18 January 2017 ‣  The Rules allow only for a maximum period of 45 days within which an aggrieved ‣ The petitioners opposed the issuance of a Writ of Execution and moved for the party may file a petition for review on certiorari. ‣ Rationale: When there is an order of separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or ‣ Exceptional cases when the Court allowed a relaxation of the rules governing the when the reinstatement aspect is waived or subsequently ordered in light of a periods of appeals: supervening event making the award of reinstatement no longer possible). final order or resolution sought to be CICM Mission Seminaries School of Theology. as it deprives the appellate court P272. of its jurisdiction over the appeal. 09 November 2016 May the CA exercise judicial review of the assailed VA rulings. she is entitled to have her backwages and separation pay computed of hectares of land already titled in its name and had since then been devoted until October 4. The dismissal of the appeal would have had the effect of the PAGE 15 OF 18 . ‣ "Any agreement stipulating that 'the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and PETITION FOR CERTIORARI unappealable' and 'that no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator's award may be availed of' cannot Powerhouse Staffbuilders International. appealed. 15 February 2017 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT ‣ A party litigant wishing to file a petition for review on certiorari must do so within RELEASE OF CASH BOND 15 days from notice of the judgment. alleging that their ‣ The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere obligation had been satisfied by the release of the cash bond in the amount of technicality. LEILANEE Q. 96 SCRA 395) employer or by the employee.. (Olacao vs. Bagasao. DASIG-QUANGUEY Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the appellant being ordered twice to make the same reparation to the appellee. Her new counsel could only ordering the separation pay. a Sunday. et al. 192369. was timely filed. the ‣ The questioned decision of the trial court was served upon appellant at a time employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision when her counsel of record was already dead. the time shall not run until the APPEAL FROM CA TO SC next working day. backwages. et al vs Elmer Mapagu. finality of the decision on the case. Inc. delay of 6 days excused. the VA. ‣ Yes. 177 SCRA 38. 2012. ‣ It does not matter if the delay caused by an appeal was brought about by the (Ramos vs. notwithstanding the ‣ The fact that the delay in the filing of the petition was only one day is not a legal CBA stipulation that the decision of the Arbitration Committee. 190203. GR No. GR No. as thus computed. falls on a Saturday. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the the separation pay. be held to preclude in proper cases the power of judicial review which is 07 November 2016 inherent in courts. 21 September 2016 Maria Victoria Tolentino-Prieto vs Robert Elvas. shall be justification for non-compliance with the rule requiring that it be filed within final and binding upon the parties? the reglementary period. whim and fancy should play no part in its refusing to do so would deprive the petitioner the opportunity to prove or application. 196084. issuance of a certificate of satisfaction of judgment. i.e. 220605. GR No. (Republic vs. Court of and executory 
 Appeals.. the petition filed on the 61st day. et al vs Maria Veronica . Perez. right or title to the subject properties. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code (Indirect Employer ‣ To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations. ‣ The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. the TP claimant. May LRTA be held liable jointly and solidarily with METRO for the payment of the ‣ When the shield of a separate corporate identity is used to commit wrongdoing and METRO employees separation pay differentials? opprobriously elude responsibility. in execution. and responsible corporate directors though LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation? and officers or even a separate but related corporation. 15 March 2017 Is the lack of mutuality and/or communality of interest a ground for cancellation of INDIRECT EMPLOYER union registration? Light Rail Transit Authority vs Bienvenido Alvarez et al. 1923. the courts and the legal authorities in a labor case have not hesitated to step in and shatter the said shield and deny ‣ Yes. this case. GR 181387. or have resorted to fraud. they were fixed-term employees. for having conducted business through a private corporation. Bigkis ng Manggagawa sa De Ocampo claim to the properties. 159350 gross negligence or bad faith. . 
 ‣ First. LRTA is contractually obligated to pay the retirement or severance/resignation pay of METRO employees. and (2) there must be proof that the officer acted in bad faith. GR No. Inc. such as double probation. 
 ‣ The new provision gave the LA the discretion to determine whether additional evidence needed to be presented before the TP claim could be resolved. Metrobank failed to comply with the new CANCELATION OF UNION ORGANIZATION requirements as soon as it took effect. requisites must concur: (1) it must be alleged in the complaint that the director or officer assented to DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS patently unlawful acts of the corporation or that the officer was guilty of Alumamay Jamias. they must submit evidence not only of the basis of their entitlement. amendments thereto. Inc. LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS ‣ Second. vs. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ‣ In the case at bar. so long as it is established that such persons have deliberately used this case. while in the third party claim. ‣ The principle does not apply in this case as the earlier cases of Servidad and To do so. 198967. GR No. the subject of execution. GR No. PAGE 16 OF 18 . and ‣ The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced. et al. it is solidarily liable as an indirect employer of private Reyno Dimson vs Gerry Chua. stare decisis does not apply because a perfectly sound principle as applied to 05 September 2016 one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is ‣ Third party claimants in execution proceedings have the burden of proving their introduced. Pursuant to paragraphs (a) November 2016 and (b) of Article 247 of the Labor Code. Cameron Granville 2 Asset Management. vs UE Monthly Associates. and the LA decided that no further hearing was necessary. 28 ‣ The only grounds on which the cancellation of a union's registration may be sought are those found in Article 247 of the Labor Code. Thus. METRO the corporate vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation. bad faith or malice in doing so. if they want to defeat the judgment lien. the usual protections to the offending party. GR No. 192648. 07 March 2016 (severance pay) despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship. 05 December 2016 respondents pursuant to Art. given the failure of Metrobank to submit proof of its De Ocampo Memorial Schools. Failure to submit that evidence will justify the denial of employees in the earlier cases were adjudged as regular employees. DASIG-QUANGUEY PIERCING THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION May LRTA be made liable by the labor tribunals for private respondents' money claim Guillermo vs Uson. it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which THIRD PARTY CLAIM the facts are substantially the same. ‣ When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. et al vs NLRC. may be impleaded and held responsible solidarily in a labor case. including the Labor Code. but when the facts are essentially different. Inc. even after final judgment and on ‣ LRTA must submit itself to the provisions governing private corporations. GR No. it must be shown that there was ‣ METRO and LRTA entered into an agreement to manage and operate the LRT misrepresentation. 188047. assuming arguendo that LRTA is not contractually liable to pay the separation benefits. METRO (1) the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or later became a wholly owned subsidiary of LRTA. LEILANEE Q. Villanueva involved contracts that contained stipulations not found in the but also of the fact that the properties they are claiming were indeed the contracts entered by the petitioners. 
 Memorial School. false statement or fraud in connection with: System. two and Solidary Liability). even after final judgment. where LRTA shouldered all the operating expenses of METRO. An order of reinstatement is different from a return-to-work order. the final CBA draft submitted by respondents to concerned. employer has not bargained in good faith. in an amount equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by union unequivocal language that the parties conform to the submission of unfair members. In determining whether an ‣ No. as a result of the certification election. such union may adopt the interim collective Are the affected and striking employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages from bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective January 2. PLDT. 204693. the votes cast. The award of reinstatement. is certified as the Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. jurisdiction over the parties' dispute 2016 does not vest upon the voluntary arbitrator. 2003 when the SOLE directed the striking employees to return to work. 
 ‣ Failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected. however. 19 April exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of 2017 respondent company. 204693. in case they accept the benefits under the CBA labor practices to voluntary arbitration. that the agreement between the union and the company states in unit. the totality of all the acts of the instead. and (5)the list of voters. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR may also constitute Guagua National Colleges v. LEILANEE Q. is awarded by a Labor Arbiter to an illegally dismissed employee pursuant to Article 294 of the Labor Code: Article 294. PAGE 17 OF 18 . employees to essentially waive negotiations for 2007 and 2008 betrays its (4) the minutes of the election of officers. by their acts which bespeak of insincerity. GR No. ‣ That it chose to refuse negotiations and instead entered into an agreement with its (3) the election of officers. October 2016 ‣ If. and Employment. 
 ‣ Three (3) documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of increased union VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY dues: Guagua National Colleges v. Inc. Co. DASIG-QUANGUEY (2) the minutes of ratification. 01 December and eventually to voluntary arbitration.. 2006. GR No. lack of mutuality of interests. 2009 to May 31. GR No. Badges of bad faith attended its actuations both at the assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees. right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions contained in the Sugar Division-Southern Negros Dev’t Corp (SONEDCO). 220383. 13 July 2016 (b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting. when the NLRC’s resolution upholding the validity of PLDT’s ‣ An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its redundancy program became final and executory? bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice.union members who are employees of the appropriate bargaining however. is not among Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union. up bargaining agreement. 218454. GR No. to April 29. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and grounds for cancellation. said grounds. ‣ The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully negotiated the CBA ‣ It has been held that while the phrase "all other labor dispute" or its variant "any with the employer is given the right to collect a reasonable fee called "agency other matter or dispute" may include unfair labor practices. fee" from non. had lost their statutory SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) et al vs Universal Robina Corp. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union and (a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at Guagua National Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance Union.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. There is no order of reinstatement from a Labor Arbiter in the case at bar. 2014. the NCMB was correctly imposed by the NLRC as the parties’ CBA for the period June 21. the purpose of the special bargain in good faith. the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. GR No. (c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees ‣ Due to its bad faith in bargaining. what is at issue is the return-to-work order from the Secretary of Labor employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into account. 05 unions' proposed CBAs. 
 intention of limiting petitioners' bargaining power. This is on the premise that the said UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE employers. then. it is imperative. including backwages. the collective conduct of GNC is indicative of its failure to meet its duty to list of all members present. respondent union or a union other than RETURN TO WORK ORDER petitioner union which executed the interim agreement. and plant and NCMB levels. which shall include the ‣ Here. 190389. 13 July 2016 ‣ In the absence here of an express stipulation in the CBA that GNC and respondents AGENCY FEES agreed to submit cases of unfair labor practice to their grievance machinery Peninsula Employees Union vs Michael Esquivel. hours. and they were represented by the same counsel.to-work order is interlocutory in nature. there Thank you. Clearly.UPDATES ON LABOR LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY: ATTY. there was communal interest among the rank-and-file employees of the three companies based on the finding that they were constantly rotated to all three companies. working conditions. Super Lamination registered all the employees with the SSS as its own and signed the IDs of all these employees. GR No. by way of exception. when necessary to protect the rights of third parties.. and that they performed the same or similar duties whenever rotated.ROMANS 14:19 jurisdiction provided for under Article 224(a) of the Labor Code. 
 Would the rank-and-file employees of the three companies constitute an appropriate bargaining unit despite their different geographical location? ‣ Yes. 193816. share a common human resource department. PAGE 18 OF 18 . ‣ Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed. aside from geographical location. In contrast. 21 November 2016 May separate corporations with related businesses be treated as a single bargaining unit although these companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical personalities? ‣ Yes. the common HR imposed disciplinary sanctions of all the subject employees. mutual interests in wages. A settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is that when two business enterprises are owned. an order of reinstatement is a judgment on the merits So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding handed down by the Labor Arbiter pursuant to the original and exclusive . employees were constantly rotated and assigned to the 3 corporations. a return. ‣ In the present case. however. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial.. both law and equity will. shared a community of interest.and good luck! is no basis to reinstate the employees who were terminated as a result of redundancy. ‣ This was proper under the circumstances where the three corporations had the same lamination business. and is merely meant to maintain status quo while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper forum. Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU). their employment status and working Employment when he or she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they industry that is considered indispensable to the national interest. a return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and ‣  Therefore. disregard the legal fiction that these two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same. DASIG-QUANGUEY ‣ On the other hand. conducted and controlled by the same parties. 
 ‣ Return-to-work and reinstatement orders are both immediately executory. BARGAINING UNIT Erson Ang Lee Doing Business as “Super Lamination Services” v. and other subjects of collective bargaining. LEILANEE Q.