#27-29 Case Doctrines
#27-29 Case Doctrines
#27-29 Case Doctrines
CASE DIGESTS
and
CASE DOCTRINES
Submitted by:
GROUP 10
Jamalmalik Dimalotang Alonto
Jinnan Casanguan Banding
Almerah Dalupang Boloto
Norhaya Ali Lago
Sittie Fat’ma Rizhmeen Arumpac Sinal
Fifth Year
Submitted to:
CASE DOCTRINES
CASE #27
CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA
C. PALAD
G.R. No. 152894 August 17, 2007
Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. 3
When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not
clearly proven, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal. 4
1
Nitto Enterprises v. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 114337, September 29, 1995.
2
Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad, G.R. No. 166363, 15 August 2006, 498 SCRA 639.
3
Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., G.R. No. 167462, 25 October 2005, 474 SCRA 323; Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153180, 2 September 2005, 469 SCRA 353.
4
Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 157010, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA 514.
Page 3 of 6
CASE #28
LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN vs. PIDLIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC.,
UNIVERSE TANKSHIP DELAWARE LLC, and CARLOS C. SALINAS
G.R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013
This Court's labor pronouncements must be read and applied with utmost
care and caution, taking to mind that in the very heart of the judicial system, labor
cases occupy a special place. More than the State guarantees of protection of
labor and security of tenure, labor disputes involve the fundamental survival of
the employees and their families, who depend -upon the former for all the basic
necessities in life.5
A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount
to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his
salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months
salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play
only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year
or more. This is evident from the wording "for every year of the unexpired term"
6
which follows the wording "salaries x x x for three months."
5
G.R. No. 180636 March 13, 2013
6
Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999.
7
G.R. No. 127195, August 25, 1999.
8
Equitable Banking Corporation (EQUITABLE-PCI BANK) v. Sadac, 523 Phil. 781, 811, (2006).
Page 4 of 6
9
Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 394, 424, citing St. Louis College of
Tuguegarao v. National Labor Relations Commission, 257 Phil. 1002, 1008 (1989) and East Asiatic Co., Ltd. v. Court of Industrial Relations,
148-B Phil. 401, 429 (1971).
10
PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 153031, December 14, 2006.
11
RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 85278, August 29, 1989.
Page 5 of 6
CASE #29
TSPIC CORPORATION vs. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION (FFW), representing
MARIA FE FLORES, FE CAPISTRANO, AMY DURIAS, CLAIRE EVELYN
VELEZ, JANICE OLAGUIR, JERICO ALIPIT, GLEN BATULA, SER JOHN
HERNANDEZ, RACHEL NOVILLAS, NIMFA ANILAO, ROSE SUBARDIAGA,
VALERIE CARBON, OLIVIA EDROSO, MARICRIS DONAIRE, ANALYN
AZARCON, ROSALIE RAMIREZ, JULIETA ROSETE, JANICE NEBRE, NIA
ANDRADE, CATHERINE YABA, DIOMEDISA ERNI, MARIO SALMORIN,
LOIDA COMULLO, MARIE ANN DELOS SANTOS, JUANITA YANA, and
SUZETTE DULAY.
G.R. No. 163419 February 13, 2008
It is familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law
between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. 13
12
G.R. No. 163419 February 13, 2008
13
Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allied Workers Union-Independent v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490
SCRA 61, 72.
14
Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 187, 190-191.
Page 6 of 6
In the resolution of labor cases, we have always been guided by the State
policy enshrined in the Constitution: social justice and protection of the working
class. Social justice does not, however, mandate that every dispute should be
automatically decided in favor of labor. In any case, justice is to be granted to the
deserving and dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable
law and doctrine.18
15
Marcopper Mining Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103525, March 29, 1996, 255 SCRA 322, 333; citing Davao Integrated Port
Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 102132, March 19, 1993, 220 SCRA 197.
16
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC No. L-74156, June 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 71, 78.
17
Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 614.
18
Norkis Union v. Norkis Trading, G.R. No. 157098, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 485, 497.