[1]  Private respondent was then

DOH vs. NLRC dismissed by the Chief of Hospital on

GR. No. 113212 the basis of
Dec. 29, 1995 the Public Assistance Complaints
Unit’s (PACU) report/investigation.
PARTIES:
 Private Respondent filed with the
PETITIONERS: DOH (DR. JOSE N. NLRC a complaint for ILLEGAL
RODRIGUEZ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) and DISMISSAL.
CESAR J. VIARDO, M.D., in his capacity as
Director of the Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez ISSUE:
Memorial Hospital.
The issue in the case is whether or not
RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL LABOR respondents NLRC and Labor Arbiter
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), LABOR Linsangan erred in their decision and acted
ARBITER CORNELIO L. LINSANGAN and without jurisdiction of the complaint filed
CEFERINO R. LAUR. by private respondent before the NLRC
instead of the Civil Service Commission
FACTS: (CSC)
 CEFERINO R. LAUR, Private DECISION:
respondent, was employed at Dr.
Jose Rodriguez Memorial Hospital The court held that the hospital is within
(DJRMH) as a ”patient-assistant” by the scope of the Civil Service Commission
then Director Dr. Artemio F. Runez. (CSC) and not of the Labor Code. Decision of
the respondent Labor Arbiter and the
 He was also assigned as a member resolution of the NLRC, are hereby
of the PATIENT ASSISTANT POLICE REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been
FORCE having an initial salary of rendered without jurisdiction.
P110 and was gradually increase
depending upon the availability of LEGAL DOCTRINE:
funds
Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, under
terms and conditions of employment of all
 On September 15, 1989, complaints
government employees, including
for [ Alarm and Scandal, Oral
employees of government-owned and
Defamation, Grave Threats,
controlled corporations shall be governed
Concealment of Deadly Weapon,
by the Civil Service Law, rules and
Violation of the Code of Ethics of
regulations.
Policemen and Conduct Unbecoming
of a Police Officer] were filed against
said private respondent.

 Private respondent was found guilty

and was penalized of suspension for
(60 days) with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same would result
his outright dismissal by Dr. Cesar J.
Viardo, petitioner, in his capacity as
Chief of Hospital

 Private respondent got involved

again to a mauling of a certain Jake
Bondoc founding him guilty to the
crime charged.
[2]
NAWASA vs. NWSA Consolidated
LEGAL DOCTRINE:
Union
11 SCRA 766 Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, of the
managerial employees, managerial
PARTIES: employees are defined as those whose
primary duty consist of the management of
PETITIONERS: National Waterworks and
the establishment in which they are
Sewerage Authority
employed or of a department or subdivision
RESPONDENTS: NWSA Consolidated thereof, and to other officers or members
Unions, and Jesus Centeno, et.al. of the managerial staff. Also, they are not
subject to the rigid observance of regular
FACTS: office hours, as the true worth of their
services do not depend so much on the
 NAWASA is a government-owned time they spend in office.
and controlled corporation created
under Republic Act No. 1383 (RA
1383) while the NWSA Consolidated
Unions, are various labor
organizations composed of laborers
and employees of the NAWASA.

 The Court of Industrial Relations

(CIR) or NLRC conducted a hearing
between the parties regarding the
implementation of the 40 hour-
week law (RA 1880).

 Respondent interveners filed a

petition in intervention on the issue
of additional compensation for night
work

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether the
interveners are “managerial
employees” within the meaning of RA
2377 and therefore, not entitled to the
benefits of Commonwealth Act. No.
444, as amended.

DECISION:

The court held that the interveners with

respect to their functions, duties and
responsibilities as their primary duties,
does not bear any direct relation with
the management of NAWASA, nor do
they participate in the formulation of its
policies nor in the hiring and
terminating of its employees. Hence,
their main function is merely to carry
out the company’s orders, plans and
policies for they have little freedom of
action.
[3]
APEX Mining Co. Inc. vs. NLRC LEGAL DOCTRINE:
196 SCRA 251
Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, A
PARTIES: laundry woman in Staff Houses of a
company or within the remises of the
PETITIONERS: APEX Mining Co.Inc business of the employer, is a regular
employee.
RESPONDENTS: NLRC; Sinclita Candido

FACTS:

 Sinclita Candida, private

respondent, was employed by the
petitioner company to perform
laundry services at its staff house.

 On December 18, 1987, respondent

got an accident while on work that
resulted to her inability to continue.
She was permitted to have a leave
for medication

 One of the employees of the

company offered her an increase in
her salary to quit her job.

 Petitioner company did not allow

her to return to work and dismissed
her.

 Private respondent filed a request

for assistance with the DOLE.

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether or not
househelper in the staff houses of an
industrial company a domestic helper
or a regular employee

DECISION:

The court held that the housekeeper or

domestic servant is working within the
premises of the business of the
employer and in relation to its business,
warrants that such a house helper or
domestic servant is considered as a
regular employee of the employer and
not a family house helper or domestic
servant
[4]
San Miguel Brewery vs. Democratic LEGAL DOCTRINE:
Labor Union Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, such
8 SCRA 613 aforementioned employees are exempted
from the coverage due to the nature of
PARTIES: their function which requires performance
of service away from the principal place of
PETITIONERS: San Miguel Brewery Inc.
business. Hence, they are free for the
RESPONDENTS: Democratic Labor Union personal supervision of the employer.

FACTS:

 Respondent filed a complaint

against petitioner company
embodying 12 demands for the
betterment of the conditions of
employment of its members, which
eventually confined to specific
demands on overtime pay, night
shift differential pay, attorney’s fees,
separation pay and sick and vacation
leave compensation.

 Judge Bautista held the provisions of

the 8 hour Labor Law apply to
salesmen and should therefore be
paid the extra compensation by said
law in addition to monthly salary
and commission earned by them.

 Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration before the NLRC
which was DENIED.

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether or not
the industrial court erred that the 8
hour Labor Law applies to the
employees composing the outside
service force and that they be paid by
additional compensation

DECISION:

The court held that the award with

regard to extra work performed by the
employees in the outside or filed sales
force is SET ASIDE. Whereas, the night
salary differentials for watchmen and
security guards is AFFIRMED.
[9]
Caltex Regular Employees vs. Caltex LEGAL DOCTRINE:
Phils.
Under Article 87 of the Labor Code, an
247 SCRA 398
overtime pay is defined as, an additional
pay for service or work rendered or
PARTIES:
performed in excess of 8 hours a day by
PETITIONERS: Caltex Regular Employees employees or laborers in employment
covered by the 8 Hour Labor Law. Hence,
RESPONDENTS: Caltex Phils. Any work in excess of 8 hours within the 24
hour period is considered as OVERTIME
FACTS: WORK.

 Petitioner Union filed a complaint

for unfair labor practice against
respondent company alleging
violation of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA)
 Petitioner Union charged Caltex with
shortchanging its employees when it
compensated work performed on
the first 2 and ½ hours of Satuday,
an employees rest day.

 The CBA granted employees 2 day-

offs. The union raised a point that
Caltex was guilty of violating the
statutory prohibition against off
setting undertime for overtime
work.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
the petitioner union which was
reversed by the NLRC upon appeal

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether the CBA
granted the employees 2 days of rest

DECISION:

The court held that petitioner union

failed to show grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the
respondent. Hence, the court resolved
to Dsimiss the petition for lack of merit.
[6]
University of Pangasinan Faculty WON 60% OF THE INCREMENTAL
Union vs. University of Pangasinan PROCEEDS OF INCREASED TUITION FEES
127 SCRA 691 SHALL BE DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO
SALARY INCREASE,
PARTIES:

PETITIONERS: University of Pangasinan DECISION:

Faculty Union
[1] The court held that the the intention of
RESPONDENTS: University of Pangasinan, the law is to grant ECOLA upon the payment
NLRC of basic wages. The teachers are paid
regular salaries and, for this, they should be
FACTS: entitled to ECOLA. The purpose of the law is
to augment the income of employees to
 Petitioners are full-time professors enable them to cope with the harsh living
,instructors, and teachers of conditions brought about by inflation; and
respondent University to protect employees and their wages
against the ravages brought by these
 Teachers are paid their salaries on a conditions.
regular monthly basis.
[2] The court held that the 60% incremental
 Petitioner filed a complaint against proceeds from the tuition increase are to
the private respondent with the be devoted entirely to wage or salary
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC- increases which means increases in basic
Dagupan City seeking: (a) the salary. The law cannot be construed to
payment of Emergency Cost of include allowances which are benefits over
Living Allowances (ECOLA) for and above the basic salaries of the
November 7 to December 5, 1981, a employees. To charge such benefits to the
semestral break; (b) salary increases 60% incremental proceeds would be to
from the 60% of the incremental reduce the increase in basic salary provided
proceeds of increased tuition fees; by law.
and (c) payment of salaries for
suspended extra loads. Thus, Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED.

 During the semestral break (Nov. 7- LEGAL DOCTRINE:

Dec. 5, 1981), they were not paid Under Article 84 of the Labor Code,
their ECOLA.

 Private respondent claims that the

teachers are not entitled thereto
because the semestral break is not
an integral part of the school year
and there being no actual services
rendered by the teachers during said
period, the principle of “No work, no
pay” applies

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is WON
PETITIONER’S MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED
TO ECOLA DURING THE SEMESTRAL
BREAK FROM NOV. 7 – DEC. 5, 1981 OF
THE 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR.
[15]
Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefits
Assoc vs. Atok Big Wedge Mining
97 Phil 294

PARTIES:

PETITIONERS: Caltex Regular Employees

RESPONDENTS: Caltex Phils.

FACTS:

ISSUE:
The issue in the case is whether the CBA
granted the employees 2 days of rest

DECISION:

The court held that petitioner union

failed to show grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the
respondent. Hence, the court resolved
to Dsimiss the petition for lack of merit.