36. PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 88957 June 25, 1992
FACTS
In the CBA covering the years 1987 to 1989, it was agreed upon that the subject of inclusion or exclusion of service
engineers, sales personnel and confidential employees in the coverage of thebargaining unit would be
submitted for arbitration. Labor Arbiter declared that the Secretaries areconfidential employees and as such
are hereby deemed excluded in the bargaining unit. NLRC reversedthe decision.
ISSUE
whether or not secretaries may be part of the existing bargaining unit for the rank and fileemployees
of PIDI.
RULING
Secretaries are confidential employees. By the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential
capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions. The rationale behind
the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them

37. PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. HON. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-
CONFESOR
G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995
FACTS
The corporation and private respondent union enetered into a collective bargaining agreement. During the freedom
period, NAFLU questioned the majority status of the union by filing for a petition for certification election (CE). The
private respondent union won the CE and was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees. However, the negotiations for the CBA collapsed. The Sec. of Labor took over the dispute and resolved
the bargaining deadlock and ordered that the position of foremen, secretaries, and timekeepers were lumped together
as part of the rank-and-file.
The petitioner contended that supervisors (foremen) and the legal secretary should be excluded from the bargaining
unit.
ISSUE
Whether or not the foremen and secretaries should be excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit
RULING: Yes. Art. 245 of the Labor Code applies. The foremen and are supervisory employees and therefore cannot
be part of the rank and file. Legal secretaries are neither managers or supervisors but confidential workers hence, they
cannot be part of the ran and file as well. With respect to the timekeepers, they should not be excluded from the
bargaining unit of the rank and file. The test of supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses
authority to act in the interest of his employer, and such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. What determines the nature of the employment is not the title bu the job
description.

38. METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. HONORABLE MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR

G.R. No. 108855. February 28, 1996
FACTS
Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers is a labor organization representing the
rank and file employees of petitioner Metrolab Industries, Inc. (Metrolab/MII) and of Metro Drug, Inc. The CBA
expired. The negotiations for the new CBA ended in deadlock. the Union filed a notice of strike against Metrolab and
Metro Drug Inc. The parties failed to settle their dispute despite the conciliation efforts of the NCMB.
The Secretary of Labor Ruben Torres issued an assumption order. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration.
During this motion, Metrolab laid off 94 rank and file employees. The Union filed a motion for a cease and desist
order to enjoin Metrolab from implementing the mass layoff, alleging that such act violated the prohibition against
committing acts that would exacerbate the dispute as specifically directed in the assumption order. Metrolab recalled
some of the laid off workers on a temporary basis due to availability of work in the production lines. Acting Labor
Secretary Nieves Confesor issued a resolution declaring the layoff of Metrolab’s 94 rank and file workers illegal and
ordered their reinstatement with full backwages. Metrolab filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration. After exhaustive
negotiations, the parties entered into a new CBA. The execution, however, was without prejudice to the outcome of
the issues raised in the reconsideration and clarification motions submitted for decision to the Secretary of Labor.
During the pendency of the motions, Metrolab laid off 73 of its employees on grounds of redundancy due to lack of
work. Labor Secretary Confesor issued another cease and desist order. An Omnibus Resolution was thereafter issued
denying the motions of Metrolab. The Union filed a motion for execution which Metrolab opposed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Public Respondent Secretary of DOLE gravely abused her discretion in including executive
secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees
RULING
The Court concurs with Metrolab contention that executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive
secretaries of the Quality Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System
Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production
Manager, who are all members of the company’s Management Committee should not only be exempted from the
closed-shop provision but should be excluded from membership in the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees
as well on grounds that their executive secretaries are confidential employees, having access to vital labor information.
Confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. The nature of employment of confidential employees is
quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category. Excluding confidential employees from the
rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.

39. OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., et al vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 129315 October 2, 2000
FACTS
Five male petitioners worked as barbers, while the 2 female petitioners worked as manicurists in New Look Barber
Shop in Quiapo, Manila, owned by respondent Lao Enteng Co., Inc.
At the start of their employment with the barber shop, it was a single proprietorship owned and managed by Mr.
Vicente Lao. The children of Lao organized a corporation which was registered with SEC as Lao Enteng Co., Inc.
with Trinidad Ong as President All petitioners were allowed to continue working with the new company until April
15, 1995 when respondent Trinidad Ong informed them that the building where the New Look barber shop was
located had been sold and their services were no longer needed.
Petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC, a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, separation
pay, non-payment of the 13th month pay, and salary differentials
ISSUE
Whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent thus, can be
considered as illegally dismissed
RULING
All the elements for an employer-employee relationship to exist are present.
We hold that the seven petitioners are employees of the private respondent company; as such, they are to be accorded
the benefits provided under the Labor Code, specifically Article 283 which mandates the grant of separation pay in
case of closure or cessation of employer's business which is equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service
.
40. TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. and/or ANTONIO P. TUVIERA vs.
ROBERTO C. SERVAÑA
G.R. No. 167648 January 28, 2008
FACTS
Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television
programs, such as the long-running variety program, “Eat Bulaga”. Servana had served as a security guard for TAPE.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against TAPE. He alleged that he was
first connected with Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later absorbed by TAPE as a regular company guard.!
On March 2, 2000, respondent received a memorandum informing him of his impending dismissal on account of
TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a professional security agency. At the time of his termination, respondent
was receiving a monthly salary P6,000. Servana contended that his dismissal was undertaken without due process and
violation of existing labor laws, aggravated by non-payment of separation pay. He insisted that he was a regular
employee having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPE’s business for 13
years.!TAPE contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. TAPE engaged
respondent’s services, as part of the support group to provide security service and it was agreed that complainant
would render his services until such time that respondent company shall have engaged the services of a professional
security agency. TAPE started negotiations for the engagement of a professional security agency , the Sun Shield
Security Agency.!TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent group category
and was working under a special arrangement which is recognized in the industry.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Servana is an independent contractor.
RULING
TAPE failed to establish that respondent is an independent contractor.
Servaña was selected and engaged by TAPE when he was absorbed as a “talent” in 1995.He is not really a talent, as
termed by TAPE, because he performs an activity which isnecessary and desirable to TAPE’s business and that is
being a security guard.
The bundy cards which showed that Servaña was required to report to work at fixed hours of the day manifested the
fact that TAPE does have control over him. Otherwise, Servaña couldhave reported at any time during the day as he
may wish.

41. PEDRO CHAVEZ vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 146530 January 17, 2005
FACTS
The respondent company, Supreme Packaging Inc., is in the business of manufacturing cartons and other packaging
materials for export and distribution.
The petitioner, Pedro Chavez, was a truck driver (from October 25, 1984) tasked to deliver the respondent company’s
products to its various customers.
The respondent furnished petitioner with a truck that all deliveries were made in accordance with the routing slips
issued by the respondent company indicating the order, time and urgency of delivery.
On 1992, the petitioner expressed his desire to avail the benefits that a regular employee were receiving such as
overtime pay, nightshift differential pay, and 13th month pay, among others but nothing was complied.
On February 20, 1995, petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. III of
NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Before the case could be heard, respondent terminated the services of the
petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and non-payment of
overtime pay, nightshift differential, and 13th month pay, among others.
ISSUE
Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship?
RULING
Yes, an employer-employee do exist. A careful review of the records shows that the latter performed his work under
the respondents’ supervision and control. The existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
expressly repudiating it in a contract and providing therein that the employee is an independent contractor when the
facts clearly show otherwise. Employment status is defined by law and not by what the parties say it should be.

42. FARLEY FULACHE, et al vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

G.R. No. 183810: January 21, 2010
FACTS
The petitioners alleged that on December 17, 1999, ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union
executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective December 11, 1999 to December 10, 2002. When they
obtained copies of the agreement, they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered
them temporary and not regular employees, in violation of the Labor Code. They claimed they had already rendered
more than a year of service in the company and, therefore, should have been recognized as regular employees entitled
to security of tenure and to the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees. While the appeal before the
NLRC was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen (all drivers) for their
refusal to sign up contracts of employment with service contractor Able Services.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed
RULING
The termination of employment of the four drivers occurred under highly questionable circumstances and with plain
and unadulterated bad faith.
To justify the termination of service, the company cited redundancy as its authorized cause but offered no justificatory
supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out the petitioners activities in the exercise of its
management prerogative.
By implementing the dismissal action at the time the labor arbiters ruling was under review, the company unilaterally
negated the effects of the labor arbiters ruling while at the same time appealing the same ruling to the NLRC.
All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith.

43. CLAUDIA S. YAP vs. THENAMARIS SHIPS MANAGEMENT and INTERMARE MARITIME
AGENCIES, INC.
G.R. No. 179532: May 30, 2011
FACTS
Petitioner was employed as an electrician of the vessel, M/T SEASCOUT by Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc. in
behalf of its principal, Vulture Shipping Limited.The contract was for 12 months. Yap boarded M/T SEASCOUT and
commenced his job as electrician. However, the vessel was sold.
Yap insisted that he was entitled to the payment of the unexpired portion of his contract since he was illegally
dismissed from employment. He alleged that he opted for immediate transfer but none was made.
ISSUE
Whether Section 10 of R.A. 8042 is constitutional
RULING
We have previously declared that the clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is
less" is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of (OFWs) to equal protection. Moreover, the subject clause
does not state any definitive governmental purpose, hence, it also violates petitioner's right to substantive due process.
Generally, an unconstitutional act is not a law. An exception to this is the doctrine of operative fact applied when a
declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. This case
should not be included in the exception. It was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to an act of illegal
dismissal committed by respondents.

44. JULIET APACIBLE V. MULTIMED INDUSTRIES INC. et. al.

G.R. No. 178903, May 30, 2011
FACTS
Juliet Apacible is an assistant area manager for Cebu operations of the respondent company, Multimed Industries. Due
to the company’s reorganization, a transfer order was issued to Apacible from Cebu to the main office in Pasig,
Manila however, she refused heeding the same. Through her counsel, she insisted remaining in her current position in
Cebu, thus refusing to comply with the transfer order and demanded for payment of separation pay.
Finally, respondent company terminated Apacible for insubordination. This prompted Apacible to file a case for
illegal dismissal, and nonpayment of separation pay, among others.
NLRC granted Apacible’s petition for separation pay by way of financial assistance. CA reversed.
ISSUE:
If an employee is entitled to payment of separation way by way of financial assistance in cases of valid dismissal due
to gross insubordination.
RULING
No, separation pay is not warranted when the employee was justly terminated for gross insubordination or willful
disobedience. Apacible’s adamant refusal to transfer from Cebu to Manila shows she was guilty of gross
insubordination, one of the four grounds laid down in Art. 282 of the Labor Code not granting award of separation
pay.

45. ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC. and/or ROBERT CHAN vs. APRILITO R. SEBOLINO, et al
G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011
FACTS
Sebolino et al. filed several complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, underpayment, nonpayment of wages and
other money claims as well as damages. They alleged that they had attained regular status as they were allowed to
work with Atlanta for more than six (6) months from the start of a purported apprenticeship agreement between them
and the company. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship agreement expired.
In defense, Atlanta and Chan argued that the workers were not entitled to regularization and to their money claims
because they were engaged as apprentices under a government-approved apprenticeship program. The company
offered to hire them as regular employees in the event vacancies for regular positions occur in the section of the plant
where they had trained. They also claimed that their names did not appear in the list of employees (Master List) prior
to their engagement as apprentices.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Sebolino and three others were illegally dismissed.
RULING
The CA committed no reversible error in nullifying the NLRC decision and in affirming the labor arbiters ruling, as it
applies toCostales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun. Specifically, the CA correctly ruled that the four were illegally
dismissed because (1) they were already employees when they were required to undergo apprenticeship and (2)
apprenticeship agreements were invalid.

46. PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E.

LAGUESMA
G. R. No.101738. April 12, 2000
FACTS
Petitioner Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines is engaged in the manufacture of paper and timber products
PICOP-Bislig instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the supervisory and technical staff employees of PICOP for collective bargaining agreement (CBA) purposes.
ISSUE
Whther or not the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section Managers and Unit
Managers, were converted to managerial employees under the decentralization and reorganization program
RULING
No, they are not managerial employees. A thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory
employees and section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees
since they do not lay down company policies.

47. SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. v. HON. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000
FACTS
On October 26, 1993, the union filed a petition for certification election of the supervisory employees of SRBI. It
alleged, among others, that: (1) APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization duly-registered with the Labor
Department; (2) SRBI employed 5 or more supervisory employees; (3) a majority of these employees supported the
petition: (4) there was no existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between any union and SRBI; and (5) no
certification election had been held in SRBI during the past 12 months prior to the petition.
On October 28, 1993, the Med-Arbiter gave due course to the petition. The pre-certification election conference
between SRBI and APSOTEU-TUCP was set for November 15, 1993.
On November 12, 1993, SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union’s petition. It sought to prevent the holding of a
certification election on two grounds. First, that the members of APSOTEU-TUCP were in fact managerial or
confidential employees.
ISSUE
Whether or not the members of the respondent union are managerial employees and/or highly-placed confidential
employees, hence prohibited by law from joining labor organizations and engaging in union activities.
RULING
Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor relations].9 The two
criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee — that is, the
confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his superior officer; and that officer must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations.

48. GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. HONORATO JUDICO

 G.R. No. 73887 December 21, 1989
FACTS
Honorato Judico filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Grepalife and prayed for award of money claims. The
LA dismissed the complaint on the ground that the employer-employee relations did not exist between the parties, but
ordered Grepalife to pay complainant the sum of P1,000.00 by reason of Christian Charity. Both appealed to NLRC.
The NLRC reversed the LA ruling by declaring Judico a regular employee as defined under Art. 281 of the Labor
Code.
Grepalife argued that Judico is not its employee because his compensation was in the form of commissions and
bonuses based on actual production (insurance plans sold and premium collections).
ISSUE
Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
RULING
Yes, there exists an er-ee relation between Grepalife and Judico because the element of control by the former on the
latter was present.
The test to determine whether employer-employee relationship exists is when the “employee” was controlled
by the “employer” not only as to the kind of work, the amount of results, the kind of performance, but also the power
of dismissal.
In this case, Judico received a definite minimum amount per week as his wage known as “sales reserve”. He
was assigned a definite place in the office to work on when he is not in the field, was burdened with the job of
collection, was required to make regular reports to the company, and for which an anemic performance would mean a
dismissal. Undoubtedly, by nature of his position and work, Judico had been a regular employee of Grepalife, and is
therefore entitled to the protection of the law and could not just be terminated without valid and justifiable cause.

49. G & M (PHIL.), INC. vs. WILLIE BATOMALAQUE

G.R. No. 151849 June 23, 2005
FACTS
Abdul Aziz Abdullah Al Muhaimid Najad Car Maintenance Association (Abdul Aziz) hired Willie Batomalaque as
car painter through a recruiter and agent petitioner G & M Phil., Inc. (G&M). Their contract is for 2 years.
Batomalaque started working on March 10, 1992, but on June 7, 1994, he was repatriated. He then filed a complaint
against G&M, Abdul Aziz and Country Empire Insurance Company for non-payment and underpayment of salaries
and damages with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The Labor Arbiter (LA) credited
Batomalaque’s complaint for underpayment of salaries during the first year of his contract but denied his other claims,
and ordered G&M and other defendants to pay Batomalaque. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission
affirmed the decision of the LA.
ISSUE
Whether or not G&M has the obligation to prove that Batomalaque was paid his salaries in full
RULING
Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer, the
rationale being that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents — which
will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid — are not in
the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.

50. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 84484 November 15, 1989
FACTS
Petitioner Insular Life entered into a contract with respondent Basiao where the latter is authorized to solicit for
insurance policies. Sometime later, the parties entered into another contract which caused Basiao to organize an
agency in order to fulfill its terms. The contract being subsequently terminated by petitioner, Basiao sued the latter
which prompted also for the termination of their engagement under the first contract. Basiao thus filed before the
Ministry of Labor seeking to recover alleged unpaid commissions. Petitioner contends that Basiao is not an employee
but an independent contractor for which they have no obligation to pay said commissions. The Labor Arbiter found
for Basiao ruling that there exists employer-employee relationship between him and petitioner. NLRC affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether or not employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and Basiao.
RULING
No. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the business are provided for in the Insurance Code and enforced
by the Insurance Commissioner. It is, therefore, usual and expected for an insurance company to promulgate a set of
rules to guide its commission agents in selling its policies that they may not run afoul of the law and what it requires
or prohibits. None of these really invades the agent’s contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to
sell insurance at his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiably be said to establish an employer-employee
relationship between him and the company.

51. JOSE MEL BERNARTE vs. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL
M. EALA, and PERRY MARTINEZ
G.R. No.192084 : September 14, 2011
RULING
Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as referees.
During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio Bernardino, they were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis.
During the term of Commissioner Eala, however, changes were made on the terms of their employment.
Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts of
retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts, which they
knew were fixed.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
RULING
The petitioners are not employees of respondents. The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself
prove that petitioner is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee, the hiring party
must have control over the means and methods by which the hired party is to perform his work, which is absent in this
case. The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and
petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal.
Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's services at the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for
unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the same
merely results in the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the
parties does not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.

52. JOSEFINA BENARES vs. Jaime Pancho, et al

G.R. NO. 151827. April 29, 2005
FACTS
On October 15, 1991, complainants alleged to have been terminated without being paid termination benefits by
respondent in retaliation to what they have done in reporting to the Department of Labor and Employment their
working conditions viz-a-viz (sic) wages and other mandatory benefits. On July 28, 1992, a formal complaint was
filed for illegal dismissal with money claims.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of illegal dismissal with money claims.
RULING
The SC finds no reason to disturb the finding that respondents were illegally terminated. When there is no showing of
clear, valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal
and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a just or authorized cause.25 In this case, as
found both by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to prove any such cause for the dismissal of
respondents.

53. JEROMIE D. ESCASINAS and EVAN RIGOR SINGCO vs. SHANGRI-LA'S MACTAN ISLAND
RESORT and DR. JESSICA J.R. PEPITO
G.R. No. 178827. March 4, 2009
FACTS
Petitioners were registered nurses engaged by respondent Dr. Pepito to work in her clinic at respondent
Shangri-la Resort in Cebu of which she was a retained physician. Later, petitioners filed for payment of their labor
standard benefits and regularization claiming they are regular employees of Shangri-la. Respondent contends that
petitioners were not its employees but of Dr. Pepito, while the latter claims that petitioners were already working for
the previous retained physicians of Shangri-la. The Labor Arbiter found for petitioners but was reversed on appeal by
the NLRC tribunal stating no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and Shangri-la. CA
affirmed. Petitioner further contends that Dr. Pepito cannot be a legitimate job contractor but a mere agent of Shangri-
la.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner nurses are employees of Shangri-la.
RULING
No. The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering
the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the
work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified
piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer’s power with respect to the hiring,
firing and payment of the contractor’s workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools,
appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment. On the other hand, existence of an
employer- employee relationship is established by the presence of the following determinants: (1) the selection and
engagement of the workers; (2) power of dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power
to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.
Against the above-listed determinants, the Court holds that respondent doctor is a legitimate independent contractor.
That Shangri-la provides the clinic premises and medical supplies for use of its employees and guests does not
necessarily prove that respondent doctor lacks substantial capital and investment. As to payment of wages, respondent
doctor is the one who underwrites the salaries, SSS contributions and other benefits of the staff as well as value added
taxes and withholding taxes. It is unlikely that respondent doctor would report petitioners as workers, pay their SSS
premium as well as their wages if they were not indeed her employees. With respect to the supervision and control of
the nurses and clinic staff, it is not disputed that manual prepared by respondent doctor and not the employee manual
being followed by Shangri-la‘s regular workers, governs how they perform their respective tasks and responsibilities.
In fine, as Shangri-la does not control how the work should be performed by petitioners, it is not petitioners‘employer.
 54. TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. and/or ANTONIO P. TUVIERA vs.
ROBERTO C. SERVAÑA
FACTS
Television and Production Exponents (TAPE) is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television
programs. Servana had served as a security guard for TAPE.
On March 2, 2000, respondent received a memorandum informing him of his impending dismissal on account of
TAPE’s decision to contract the services of a professional security agency. At the time of his termination, respondent
was receiving a monthly salary P6,000. Servana contended that his dismissal was undertaken without due process and
violation of existing labor laws, aggravated by non-payment of separation pay. He insisted that he was a regular
employee having been engaged to perform an activity that is necessary and desirable to TAPE’s business for 13 years.
TAPE contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. TAPE engaged respondent’s
services, as part of the support group to provide security service and it was agreed that complainant would render his
services until such time that respondent company shall have engaged the services of a professional security agency.
TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent group category and was working
under a special arrangement which is recognized in the industry.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed.
RULING
As a regular employee, respondent cannot be terminated except for just cause or when authorized by law. It is clear
from the tenor of the 2 March 2000 Memorandum that respondent’s termination was due to redundancy. Thus, the
Court of Appeals correctly disposed of this issue, viz:
Article 283 of the Labor Code provides that the employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to
the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of
this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1)
month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or
redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month
pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year or service, whichever is higher.
xxxx
We uphold the finding of the Labor Arbiter that "complainant [herein petitioner] was terminated upon [the]
management’s option to professionalize the security services in its operations. x x x" However, [we] find that although
petitioner’s services [sic] was for an authorized cause, i.e., redundancy, private respondents failed to prove that it
complied with service of written notice to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the
intended date of retrenchment.

55. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. VALENTINA GARCIA

G.R. No. 159625. January 31, 2008
FACTS
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) hired Valentina G. Garcia (respondent) as Quality Control Technician
on probationary status but she was later on became a regular employee.
Petitioner adopted some modernization programs that resulted one employee in the Department to became redundant.
As the most junior employee of the Department, respondent could be validly terminated. However, instead of
terminating respondent on ground of redundancy, petitioner decided to assign her to its Iloilo plant.
Petitioner informed respondent that she would be transferred but respondent refused to be transferred. Petitioner
pushed through with respondent's transfer. Respondent still tried to report at the Tacloban plant but the security guard
refused her entry.
After 1 year, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC. The LA rendered a Decision finding that
respondent was illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversied the decision of the LA. The CA held that abandonment of
work was a just cause to effect respondent's dismissal, it found that the dismissal was ineffectual since it did not
comply with due process requirements.
ISSUE
Whether or not Respondent was illegally dismissed.
RULING
In dismissing an employee, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed worker has been served two
notices: (1) the first to inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which the employer seeks his
dismissal, and (2) the second to inform the employee of his employer's decision to terminate him.17 The first notice
must state that the employer seeks dismissal for the act or omission charged against the employee; otherwise, the
notice does not comply with the rules.
In the present case, petitioner argues that the purpose of the notice requirement was achieved when petitioner sent
several notices to respondent at her last known address. There is no dispute that in cases of abandonment of work,
notice shall be served at the worker's last known address. While petitioner presented the envelopes of the alleged
notices sent to respondent's last known address, the contents thereof were not offered in evidence. Thus, the records
are wanting of proof that respondent was properly apprised of the charges against her and given an opportunity to
explain her side, as petitioner maintains. Evidently, it is clear that respondent's dismissal was effected without the
notice required by law. Thus, petitioner failed to satisfy the two-notice requirement.

56. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC. vs. ELY GARCIA and MA. TERESA BALLA
G.R. No. 166703. April 14, 2008
FACTS
ACC hired Garcia as a janitress. Then her status was changed to probationary Library Aide and finally she became
regularized. The other respondent Balla was hired as a Social Worker and later became a Guidance Assistant in the
Guidance Department of ACC and regularized. Later on, ACC HR Director, informed Garcia and Balla and 52 others
that they were terminated due the prevailing economic condition
Garcia and Balla filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and prayed for the payment of
separation pay, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees, alleging that ACC's streamlining program was tainted with bad
faith as there was no fair and reasonable criteria used therein, such as the less preferred status, efficiency rating and
authority. ACC countered that Garcia and Balla's dismissal was due to the legitimate streamlining by the company
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal is valid.
RULING
It is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof of
such redundancy to justify the dismissal of the affected employees. In the case at bar, ACC was not able to satisfy the
requirement of substantial evidence. The certification of its HRD that functions of rank-in-file are now being
performed by supervisory employees are grossly inadequate and mainly self-serving.
Granting that ACC was able to substantiate the need for streamlining its organization, it still failed to implement the
same using fair and reasonable criteria for choosing which employees to dismiss.
Not only was ACC unable to prove its losses, it also failed to present proof that it served the necessary notice to the
DOLE one month before the purported retrenchment of Garcia and Balla. As also found by the Labor Arbiter, and
affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, ACC did not give Garcia and Balla sufficient separation pay. Falling
short of all the requirements, ACC cannot claim that it had effected a valid retrenchment of Garcia and Balla.
 57. CALTEX (PHILS.), INC. (now CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC.) vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 159641. October 15, 2007
FACTS
In a letter dated 10/21/96, Caltex informed the DOLE of its plan to implement a redundancy program in its Marketing
Division and some departments in its Batangas Refinery for the period starting October 1996 to December 1998. The
letter alleged that the redundancy program is a response to the market situation which constrained Caltex to rationalize
and simplify its business processes; that Caltex undertook a review, restructuring and streamlining of its organization
which resulted in consolidation, abolition and outsourcing of certain functions and in the identification of certain
redundant positions. The letter also states that petitioner will provide the DOLE a list of affected employees as it
implements each phase of the redundancy program.
ISSUE
Whether or not the termination due to redundancy valid?
RULING
No. It is true that the characterization of an employee’s services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore,
properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer, and that the wisdom or
soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review. However, such characterization
may be rejected if the same is found to be in violation of law or is arbitrary or malicious.
In the instant case, no substantial evidence was presented by Caltex to justify Romeo's dismissal due to redundancy.
The absence of criteria in the selection of an employee to be dismissed renders the dismissal arbitrary. Moreover,
Caltex failed to refute Romeo’s assertion that it opened positions of accountants for hiring to which he could have
qualified rather than be dismissed. Caltex also committed a fatal error when it failed to give a written notice to DOLE
as required under Article 283 of the Labor Code.

58. DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and PEDRO A. TECSON vs. GLAXO

WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004
FACTS
Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical representative. Contract of employment signed by Tecson stipulates, among
others, to disclose to management any existing future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or
employees with competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a prossible
conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Company's Code of Employee Conduct provides the same with
stipulation that management may transfer the employee to another department in a non-counterchecking position or
preparation for employment outside of the company after 6 months.
Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Betsy, an employee of Astra, Glaxo's competition. Before getting
married, Tecson's District Manager reminded him several times of the conflict of interest but marriage still took place.
Tecson's superiors informed him of conflict of intrest. Tecson asked for time to comply with the condition but failed to
do so. Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. After his request against
transfer was denied, Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo's Grievance Committee. National Conciliation and Mediation
Board ruled that Glaxo's policy was valid.
ISSUE
Whether or not Tecson was constructively dismissed.
RULING
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment
becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is demotion in rank, or diminution in pay; or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. None of these
conditions are present in the instant case.
 59. Star Paper Corporation vs. Ronaldo Simbol
G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006
FACTS
Simbol was employed by the company and met a co-employee and they eventually had a relationship and got married.
Prior to the marriage, the manager advise the couple that should they decide to get married, one of them should resign
pursuant to a company policy: 1) new applicant will not be allowed to be hired if he/she has a relative, up to 3rd
degree of consanguinity, already employed by the company. 2) if the two employees got married, one of them should
resign to preserve the policy stated first. Simbol resigned.
ISSUE
Whether the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company violates the rights of the
employee under the Constitution and the Labor Code
RULING
No, it violates the rights of employees under the constitution. The case at bar involves Article 136 of the Labor Code
which provides “it shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of
employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting
married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated , or to actually dismiss, discharge , discriminate or
otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.” The company policy of Star Paper, to be
upheld, must clearly establish the requirement of reasonableness. In the case at bar, there was no reasonable business
necessity. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine Operator, to Alma Dayrit,
then an employee of the Repacking Section, could be detrimental to its business operations. The questioned policy
may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate
impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory,
albeit disproportionate, effect. Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our
jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners.

60. CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NLRC and LITO CAGAMPAN
G.R. NO. 163561, July 24, 2007
FACTS
Private respondent Lito Cagampan was the Acting Power Use Coordinator of petitioner Central Pangasinan Electric
Cooperative, Inc. Cagampan received a check from Aurora B. Bonifacio as partial payment for the installation of a
transformer. Bonifacio informed CENPELCO's General Manager Salvador de Guzman of the said transaction and that
Cagampan did not issue a receipt for the partial payment made. She also requested the immediate installation of the
transformer. Thereafter, Cagampan was directed to explain in writing why he should not be disciplined or dismissed
for the unauthorized acceptance of payments for new electrical connections.

Upon investigation, it appeared that Cagampan knowingly entered into an unauthorized contract, and that he was not
authorized to accept payment. Hence, Cagampan was found guilty of violating CENPELCO's Code of Ethics and
Discipline. He was dismissed from service.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal is proper.
RULING
In this case, private respondent was found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to have been validly dismissed for
violations of company rules, and certain acts tantamount to serious misconduct. Such findings, if supported by
substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.
 61. SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC, INC. VS. NLRC
G.R. No. 148893. July 12, 2006
FACTS
Respondent Gervacio Rosaroso* was signed up as a Third Engineer with Nicolakis Shipping, S.A., a foreign firm,
through its recruitment and manning agency, herein petitioner Skippers United Pacific, Inc. The term of the contract
was for one year and with a salary of US$800.00 and other benefits. Barely a month after boarding the vessel M/V
Naval Gent, respondent was ordered to disembark in Varna, Bulgaria, and repatriated to the Philippines. Immediately
after arriving in the Philippines, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claim.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to
show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. The two-fold requirements
for a valid dismissal are as follows: (1) dismissal must be for a cause provided for in the Labor Code, which is
substantive; and (2) the observance of notice and hearing prior to the employee’s dismissal, which is procedural.
The only evidence relied upon by petitioner in justifying respondent’s dismissal is the Chief Engineer’s Report. As all
three tribunals found, the Report cannot be given any weight or credibility because it is uncorroborated, based purely
on hearsay, and obviously merely an afterthought.
There is nothing on record that shows that furnishing respondent with a notice of dismissal will pose a clear and
present danger to the vessel and its crew. And even if the Master was justified in dispensing with the required notice,
still, it was essential that a complete report, substantiated by witnesses, testimonies and any other documents in
support thereof, was sent to the manning agency. The record of this case is bereft of any such report and supporting
documents. Instead, respondent was verbally ordered to disembark the vessel and repatriated to the Philippines
without being told of the reasons why. Clearly, respondent was not accorded due process.

62. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. vs. JOHN MELCHOR A. LAURENTE

FACTS
Respondent was employed as Second Assistant Engineer by petitioner, for and in behalf of its principal, Lucky Ocean
Marine Corporation, after he underwent a pre-employment medical examination at petitioner’s accredited clinic and
was given a clean bill of health. John Melchor embarked the vessel and after three (3) months, complained of
dizziness and nausea and requested for his repatriation. Upon arrival, John Melchor was treated and was diagnosed
with hypertension and chronic renal failure classified as Disability Grade I. He then underwent kidney transplant and
subsequently paid sickness allowance by petitioner. Thereafter, John Melchor filed a complaint against petitioner for
payment of disability benefits on the basis of the amendment to the POEA Standard Employment Contract increasing
the total disability benefit. Petitioner disputed John Melchor’s claim for disability benefit alleging that the latter’s
illness occurred prior to when he disembarked from the vessel and prior to the effectivity of the new rate of disability
benefits. LA ruled for respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent died.
ISSUE
Whether the amendment increasing the rate of disability benefits should be construed to apply to respondent.
RULING
As it is unclear whether such amendments can be held applicable to obligations that have already accrued but have not
yet been paid, we are compelled to choose the interpretation that would favor labor. Therefore, even if we consider for
the sake of argument that John Melchor was terminated on 5 October 1993 as petitioner claims, this clause still makes
the 31 March 1994 amendment applicable.
No less than the Constitution requires the State to afford full protection to labor, whether local or overseas. Pursuant to
such mandate, Executive Order No. 247 empowered the POEA to secure the best terms and conditions of employment
of Filipino contract workers. The POEA, in compliance therewith, prescribed standard employment contracts which
provide the minimum terms and conditions of employment for Filipino contract workers. These minimum terms and
conditions are deemed read into the parties’ primary contracts, and as such must be complied with in good faith.

63. HANJIN ENGINEERING and CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD./ NAM HYUM KIM vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006
FACTS
Hanjin and the Philippine Government, through the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), executed contracts for
the construction of the Malinao Dam at Pilar, Bohol, with a projected completion period of 1,050 calendar days. From
August 1995 to August 1996, Hanjin contracted the services of 712 carpenters, masons, truck drivers, helpers,
laborers, heavy equipment operators, leadmen, engineers, steelmen, mechanics, electricians and others.
In April 1998, 712 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and for payment of benefits against Hanjin and
Nam Hyun Kim, before the NLRC. The complainants averred that they were regular employees of Hanjin and that
they were separated from employment without any lawful or just cause.
ISSUE
Whether or not private respondents-complainants as regular employees.
RULING
Whether or not respondents were project employees or regular employees is a question of fact. To arrive at a
conclusion, the Court will have to delve into and weigh and calibrate the documentary and testimonial evidence of the
parties. However, the Court is proscribed from re-examining the evidence on record and weighing the same in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It must be stressed that the only issue before the
Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction in its decision.

64. DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 110524. March 14, 2000
FACTS
Petitioner Douglas Millares and Lagda were employed by private respondent ESSO International Shipping Company
Ltd. (Esso International, for brevity) through its local manning agency, private respondent Trans-Global Maritime
Agency, Inc.
Petitioner Millares applied for a leave of absence and Michael J. Estaniel, President of private respondent Trans-
Global, which approved the request. Petitioner Millares requested for an extension of his leave of absence but C.
Palomar, Crewing Manager, Ship Group A, Trans-Global, wrote petitioner that respondent Esso International "has
corrected the deficiency in its manpower requirements specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a First
Assistant Engineer to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of absence which expired last August 8, 1989.
The adjustment in said rank was required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result of (his) inability."
Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Millares that in view of his absence without leave, which is equivalent to
abandonment of his position, he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989.
ISSUE
Whether or not the termination of the petitioners were valid
RULING
Petitioners may not be dismissed except for a valid or just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. In the instant
case, clearly, there was no valid cause for the termination of petitioners.
It will be recalled, that petitioner Millares was dismissed for allegedly having "abandoned" his post; and petitioner
Lagda, for his alleged "unavailability for contractual sea service." However, that petitioners did not abandon their jobs
such as to justify the unlawful termination of their employment is borne out by the records.

65. MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT, PACITA O. PO and/or JOSEFA PO LAM vs. ROLANDO
ADANA, et al.
G.R. No. 157634. May 16, 2005
FACTS
Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR) hired herein 16 respondents as employees in its business in Legaspi
City. Its operation was suspended on March 31, 1997 due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for
the space it rented. While waiting for the completion of the construction of its new site, MHR continued its operation
in another site with 9 of the 16 employees. When the new site constructed and MHR resumed its business operation,
none of the 16 employees was recalled to work.
MHR alleged business losses as the reason for not reinstating the respondents. On various dates, respondents filed
complaints for underpayment of wages, money claims and illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner
RULING
While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause,
the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play. And in
termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or
authorized cause. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law
considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.
If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted
in favor of the latter — the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for
a justifiable cause. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably
arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former's favor.
The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law,
which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor.
66. LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 156225, January 29, 2008
FACTS
The Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association (petitioner) filed with NLRC a Complaint against Colegio de
San Juan de Letran, Calamba, Inc. (respondent) for collection of various monetary claims due its members.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed both the money claims of the petitioners and the petition to declare strike illegal
filed by respondent. Both parties appealed to the NLRC and CA who both affirmed the decision of LA.
Since the pay for excess loads or overloads does not fall under any of the enumerated exclusions in the computation of
basic pay of an employee and considering that the said overloads are being performed within the normal working
period of eight hours a day, it only follows that the overloads should be included in the computation of the faculty
members’ 13th-month pay.
Contrary to the asseveration of petitioner, prior to the issuance of the DOLE Order, the prevailing rule is to exclude
excess teaching load in the computation of a teacher’s basic salary and in the computation of his 13th-month pay.
ISSUE
Whether or not an overload must be included for the purposes of computing the 13th month pay of a teacher.
RULING
NO. An overload pay, owing to its very nature and definition, may not be considered as part of a teacher’s regular or
basic salary, because it is being paid for additional work performed in excess of the regular teaching load.

67. ROGELIO REYES v. NLRC

G.R. NO. 160233 : August 8, 2007
FACTS
Petitioner was employed as a salesman at private respondents Grocery Division in Davao City on August 12, 1977. He
was eventually appointed as unit manager of Sales Department-South Mindanao District, a position he held until his
retirement on November 30, 1997. Thereafter, he received a letter regarding the computation of his separation pay.
Insisting that his retirement benefits and 13th month pay must be based on the average monthly salary of P42,766.19,
which consists of P10,919.22 basic salary and P31,846.97 average monthly commission, petitioner refused to accept
the check issued by private respondent in the amount of P200,322.21. Instead, he filed a complaint before the
arbitration branch of the NLRC for, inter alia, 13th month pay.
The Labor Arbiter held that the sales commission is part of the basic salary of a unit manager. On appeal, the NLRC
modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter by excluding the overriding commission in the computation of the 13th
month pay. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of merit.
ISSUE
Whether or not the commission is included in the computation of the 13th month pay as it forms part of the basic
salary.
RULING
No. Insofar as what constitutes basic salary, the foregoing discussions equally apply to the computation of petitioners
13th month pay. As held in San Miguel Corporation v. Inciong:
Under Presidential Decree 851 and its implementing rules, the basic salary of an employee is used as the basis in the
determination of his 13th-month pay. Any compensations or remunerations which are deemed not part of the basic pay
is excluded as basis in the computation of the mandatory bonus.
68. RIZALDY M. QUITORIANO v. JEBSENS MARITIME, INC.
G.R. No. 179868; January 21, 2010.
FACTS
Respondent Jebsens Maritime, Inc. (represented by Ma. Theresa Gutay), hired petitioner Quitoriano as 2nd Officer
aboard the vessel M/V Trimnes for a period of six months. Petitioner complained of dizziness with severe headache,
general body weakness, chest pains, easy fatigability, weak grip strength, and numbness on the left side of his body
and was observed to be dragging his left foot, his mouth slightly down to one side, and his speech slurred.
When the vessel berthed at Port Huelva, Spain, petitioner was brought to a hospital where he was diagnosed as
suffering from hypertension arterial or mild stroke. Since his health condition did not improve, petitioner was
repatriated to the Philippines to undergo further medical examination and treatment.
Upon arrival in Manila, petitioner underwent several tests and Dr. Cruz issued a medical report declaring him
fittowork. Petitioner later sought the opinion of an independent internist-cardiologist, Dr. Sharon A. Lacson, who
diagnosed him as suffering from hypertension cardiovascular disease and hyperlipidemia. They also found him to
have cerebral infarction, R, basal ganglia area.
Petitioner thus filed a complaint to recover permanent total disability compensation, as provided for in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forged with respondents. Respondents disclaimed petitioners entitlement to any
disability benefits in view of the company-designated physicians certification that he is fit to work. Petitioner
countered, however, that the "fit to work" assessment did not reflect his real health condition; and that his illness,
given its delicate nature, could recur anytime once he resumes sea duties.
The LA dismissed the complaint as it found that petitioner has already recovered from illness. On appeal, the NLRC
affirmed the LA decision but ordered respondents to allow petitioner to resume sea duty. Petitioner filed a certiorari
petition before the CA but the CA denied the same and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Is petitioner entitled to disability benefits?
RULING
A total disability does not require that the employee be absolutely disabled or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is
that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his usual work and earn therefrom.
Permanent disability is inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he
loses the use of any part of his body.
Total disability, on the other hand, means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of
similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality
and attainments could do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which
is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity.

69. MARIO B. DIMAGAN vs. DACWORKS UNITED, INCORPORATED AND/OR DEAN A. CANCINO
G.R. No. 191053 : November 28, 2011
FACTS
Dimagan, a stockholder of respondent company started working as an OIC therein. After sometime, he was relegated
from the position of OIC to supervisor and subsequently to an ordinary technician. When he openly voiced out his
concern, he was told not to report for work anymore. Dimagan then filed the complaint for illegal dismissal.
On the other hand, denying such allegation, the company asserted that Dimagan went on AWOL, violating company
policy.
The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found there was illegal dismissal. CA however found there was neither an illegal nor
constructive dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was a constructive dismissal of the petitioner.
RULING
Yes. The reduction in petitioner's responsibilities and duties, particularly from supervisor to ordinary technician,
constituted a demotion in rank tantamount to constructive dismissal.
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a
reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the
circumstances. It is an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive dismissal is
therefore a dismissal in disguise.

70. COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. vs. WILSON FERMIN

G.R. No. 193676. June 20, 2012
FACTS
Wilson B. Fermin (Fermin) was a forklift operator at Cosmos. He was accused of stealing the cellphone of his fellow
employee. Fermin was then given a Show Cause Memorandum, requiring him to explain why the cellphone was found
inside his locker. In compliance therewith, he submitted an affidavit the following day, explaining that he only hid the
phone as a practical joke and had every intention of returning it to Braga. After conducting an investigation, COSMOS
found Fermin guilty of stealing Braga’s phone in violation of company rules and regulations. Consequently, the
company terminated Fermin from employment after 27 years of service. Fermin filed a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal.
Labor Arbiter - dismissed for lack of merit on the ground that the act of taking a fellow employee’s cellphone
amounted to gross misconduct. NLRC – affirmed. CA - reversed the rulings and awarded him his full retirement
benefits.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal was appropriate.
RULING
Yes. Theft committed against a co-employee is considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, for which the
penalty of dismissal from service may be meted out to the erring employee by virtue of Article 282 of the Labor Code
Misconduct involves “the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.”

71. MARIVAL TRADING, INC., VIRGINIA A. MANUEL and BEATRICE A. MANUEL vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 169600. June 26, 2007
FACTS
Marival is a corporation engaged in the production, distribution and sale of veterinary products. Abella worked for
Marival as chemist/quality controller for almost 8 years. At one time, the officers of the company had a staff meeting.
The VP asked the male employees to move the tables to the side together with the belongings of employees, one of
them Abella. When Abella came to get her bag, it fell down accidentally which disrupted the meeting. Abella uttered,
“Sana naman next time na uurungin yung gamit namin, eh sasabihin muna sa amin.” Three days later, she received a
memo from Manuel directing her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed for her
disrespectful insubordination and unprofessional conduct. She denied the accusations but still she was fired.
ISSUE
Whether or not the dismissal was valid.
RULING
Abella’s behavior did not amount to Serious Misconduct and no valid cause existed to justify her dismissal. In the
instant case, the acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did NOT in any way pertain to Abella’s
duties as chemist/quality controller. Petitioners even failed to cite particular acts or circumstances which would show
that Abella was extremely disrespectful to her superior. They merely alleged that respondent threw her bag and other
things noisily and uttered unpleasant remarks at her employer. Abella merely uttered, “Sana naman next time na
uurungin yung gamit namin, eh sasabihin muna sa amin.” The SC did NOT find such remarks unpleasant.

72. ELEAZAR S. PADILLO v. RURAL BANK OF NABUNTURAN, INC.

G.R. No. 199338; January 21, 2013
FACTS
Petitioner, the late Eleazar Padillo (Padillo), was an employee of respondent Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc. (Bank) as
its SA Bookkeeper. Due to liquidity problems in 2003, the Bank took out retirement/insurance plans with Philippine
American Life and General Insurance Company (Philam Life) for all its employees in anticipation of its possible
closure and the concomitant severance of its personnel. Respondent Mark Oropeza is the president and major
stockholder of the bank.
Padillo suffered a mild stroke due to hypertension which consequently impaired his ability to effectively pursue his
work. He wrote a letter addressed to Oropeza expressing his intention to avail of an early retirement package. Despite
several follow-ups, his request remained unheeded. Not having received his claimed retirement benefits, Padillo filed
with the NLRC a complaint for the recovery of unpaid retirement benefits.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Padillos complaint. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters ruling. Aggrieved, Oropeza and
the Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. which reversed the NLRCs ruling but with modification.
ISSUE
Whether or not Padillo is entitled to claim for separation and retirement benefits under the Labor Code.
RULING
In this case, it is undisputed that there exists no retirement plan, collective bargaining agreement or any other
equivalent contract between the parties which set out the terms and condition for the retirement of employees, with the
sole exception of the Philam Life Plan which premiums had already been paid by the Bank.
Unfortunately, while Padillo was able to comply with the five (5) year tenure requirement as he served for twenty-nine
(29) years he, however, fell short with respect to the sixty (60) year age requirement given that he was only fifty-five
(55) years old when he retired. Therefore, without prejudice to the proceeds due under the Philam Life Plan,
petitioners claim for retirement benefits must be denied.

73. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs. VIOLETA L. VIAJAR

G.R. No. 181738 : January 30, 2013
FACTS
Violeta Viajar received a Letter-Memorandum from General Milling Corporation (GMC) informing her that her
services are no longer needed because her position as Purchasing Staff was deemed redundant. When Viajar reported
for work on October 31, 2003, a month prior the effectivity from her severance from GMC, the guard on duty
prevented her from entering the companys premises. She was also asked to sign an Application for Retirement and
Benefits. Viajar refused to sign. Thus, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of GMC and held that the latter acted in good faith in terminating Viajar. On appeal,
the NLRC affirmed LAs decision.
Viajar filed a petition before the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition. Thus, GMC filed this instant petition
for review before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not Viajar was validly terminated from GMC?
RULING
While it is true that the characterization of an employees services as superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore,
properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer, the exercise of such judgment,
however, must not be in violation of the law, and must not be arbitrary or malicious.
To exhibit its good faith and that there was a fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining redundant positions, a
company claiming to be over manned must produce adequate proof of the same. Here, GMC failed to present
substantial proof to support its general allegations of redundancy.

74. ROLANDO L. CERVANTES vs. PAL MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR WESTERN SHIPPING
AGENCIES, PTE., LTD.
G.R. No. 175209, January 16, 2013
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Cervantes (Cervantes) was hired as Master on board the vessel M/V Themistocles by respondent
PAL Maritime Corporation, the manning agent of respondent Western Shipping Agencies, PTE., LTD., (Western
Shipping) for a 10-month period.
The owner of the vessel sent a telex message to Cervantes enumerating several complaints regarding his poor
performance. On the following day, Cervantes replied and imputed ill- motive on the part of the foreign inspectors
who were making false accusations against Filipino crew members.
In response to said message, Western Shipping sent a letter informing Cervantes that owners have decided to relieve
him upon passing panama canal or next convenient port.
When Cervantes was repatriated to Manila, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The
Labor Arbiter ruled that he was illegally dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not Cervantes resigned or was terminated from his employment.
RULING
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal
reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, such that he has no other choice but to disassociate
himself from his employment. This is precisely what obtained in this case. The statements in Cervantes’ telex message
is plain and straightforward.
Cervantes also failed to substantiate his claim that he and the Filipino crew members were being subjected to racial
discrimination on board.

75. MA. CHARITO C. GADIA, et al vs. SYKES ASIA, INC./ CHUCK SYKES/ MIKE HINDS/ MICHAEL
HENDERSON
G.R. No. 209499 January 28, 2015
FACTS
Sykes Asia is a corporation engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) which provides support to its
international clients from various sectors by carrying on some of their operations, governed by service contracts that it
enters with them. On September 2, 2003,12 Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), a United States-based
telecommunications firm, contracted Sykes Asia’s services to accommodate the needs and demands of Alltel clients
for its postpaid and prepaid services (Alltel Project). Thus, on different dates, Sykes Asia hired petitioners as customer
service representatives, team leaders, and trainers for the Alltel Project.
Sometime in 2009, Alltel informed Sykes that it is terminating its contract with Sykes. As a result, Sykes sent each of
the petitioners end-of-life notices informing them of their dismissal from service due to the termination of the contract
with Alltel. Aggrieved, they filed a case for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioners are project employees.
RULING
for an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show compliance with two (2) requisites, namely
that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project.
In this case, the Court held that Sykes was able to prove both requisites.
As regards the first requisite, it held that Sykes adequately informed the petitioners of their employment status at the
time of their engagement. As was shown by their respective employment contracts, they were hired for the Alltel
Project and their positions were “project-based and as such is co-terminus to the project.”
As regards the second requisite, it held that “the duration of the undertaking begins and ends at determined or
determinable times” which means capable of being determined or fixed. As such, indicating in the contract that their
employment is “co-termius with the project” is sufficient compliance with this requisite.
 76. CONCEPCION A. VILLENA vs. BATANGAS II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND GEORGE
A. DIN
G.R. No. 205735, February 04, 2015
FACTS
On June 1, 1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (hereinafter referred to as UNION) filed with the
Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor and Employment), at San
Pablo City, a petition for certification election.
The UNION alleged, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Inc.
BATELEC has 150 employees, more or less; that the UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file employees
of BATELEC for purposes of collective bargaining; that there is no other union existing in BATELEC except the
UNION; that there is no certified collective bargaining agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no
certification election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition.
ISSUE
whether or not employees of an electric cooperative who are at the same time members of the cooperative, may be
allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining.
RULING
No. A cursory analysis of Section 35, Presidential Decree 269, as amended, readily shows that employees of an
electric cooperative who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join a labor organization
for purposes of collective bargaining.

77. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs. ANALIZA F. PEPANIO and MARITI D. BUENO
G.R. No. 193897. January 23, 2013
FACTS
UE hired respondents in 1997 and 2000 when what was in force was the 1994 CBA between UE and the faculty
union which didn’t require a master’s degree for acquiring a regular status. In 2001, UE and the UE Faculty
Association entered into a new CBA that would have the school extend probationary full-time appointments to full-
time faculty members who did not yet have the required postgraduate degrees provided that the latter comply with
such requirement within their probationary period. Pursuant to this, UE extended probationary appointments to
respondents. As a reply to their requests, the school eventually wrote respondents, extending their probationary period
but neither Pepanio nor Bueno reported for work. Respondents argued that they should be regarded as having attained
permanent or regular status.
ISSUE
Whether or not a college teacher who doesn’t have a postgraduate degree is a regular employee considering he has
been repeatedly extended semester-to-semester appointments.
RULING
No. First, the requirement of a master’s degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The operation of
educational institutions involves public interest. The government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons, in
possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills, are allowed to teach in such institutions.
Respondents were each given only semester-to-semester appointments from the beginning of their employment with
UE precisely because they lacked the required master’s degree. It was only when UE and the faculty union signed
their 2001 CBA that the school extended petitioners a conditional probationary status subject to their obtaining a
master’s degree within their probationary period. It is clear, therefore, that the parties intended to subject respondents’
permanent status appointments to the standards set by the law and the university.
 78. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, et al
G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015
FACTS
Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corporation established and existing under the laws of Jeddah,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Respondents were recruited and hired by Saudia as Flight Attendants with the accreditation
and approval of the POEA. Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated from
service on various dates in 2006. The respondents contended that the termination of their employment was illegal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally terminated.
RULING
Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed. The petitioner Saudia themselves stated that the Saudi law does not
allow the termination of employment of women who take maternity leaves Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and
the Philippines, it is illegal and unlawful to terminate the employment of any woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law
in Saudi Arabia is even more harsh and strict in that no employer can terminate the employment of a female worker or
give her a warning of the same while on Maternity Leave, the specific provision of Saudi Labor Laws on the matter is
hereto quoted as follows: “An employer may not terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a warning
of the same while on maternity leave.” (Article 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Royal Decree No.
M/51.)

79. EMER MILAN, et al vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 202961. February 4, 2015
FACTS
As Solid Mills’ employees, petitioners Milan, et al. and their families were allowed to occupy SMI Village, a property
owned by respondent Solid Mills. Subsequently, petitioners were informed that Solid Mills would cease its operations
due to serious business losses.
As a consequence, petitioners were no longer allowed to report for work. They were required to sign a memorandum
of agreement with release and quitclaim before their vacation and sick leave benefits, 13th month pay, and separation
pay would be released. Employees who signed the memorandum of agreement were considered to have agreed to
vacate SMI Village, and to the demolition of the constructed houses inside as condition for the release of their
termination benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused to sign the documents and demanded to be paid their
benefits and separation pay. Hence, petitioners filed complaints before the Labor Arbiter for alleged non- payment of
separation pay, accrued sick and vacation leaves, and 13th month pay.
ISSUE
Whether Solid Mills is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the petitioners’ return of its properties.
RULING
Yes. It may be true that not all employees enjoyed the privilege of staying in respondent Solid Mills’ property.
However, this alone does not imply that this privilege when enjoyed was not a result of the employer-employee
relationship. Those who did avail of the privilege were employees of respondent Solid Mills. Petitioners’ possession
should, therefore, be included in the term “accountability.” The return of the property owned by their employer Solid
Mills became an obligation or liability on the part of the employees when the employer-employee relationship ceased.
Thus, respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners’ wages and benefits because of this existing debt or
liability.
80. ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO., INC., AND/OR ANGELO ANG
G.R. No. 199554, February 18, 2015
FACTS
NTRCI hired Zenaida Paz sometime in 1974 as a seasonal sorter. NTRCI regularly re-hired her every tobacco season
since then. She signed a seasonal job contract at the start of her employment and a pro-forma application letter
prepared by NTRCI in order to qualify for the next season.
On May 18, 2003, Paz was 63 years old when NTRCI informed her that she was considered retired under company
policy. A year later, NTRCI told her she would receive a retirement pay. Paz, with two other complainants, filed a
Complaint for illegal dismissal against NTRCI.
ISSUE
Whether or not the amendment of a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking separation pay into one for payment of
retirement pay precludes complaint for illegal dismissal
RULING
Petitioner Paz’s amendment of her Complaint was not fatal to her cause of action for illegal dismissal. First, petitioner
Paz never abandoned her argument that she had not reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 pursuant to Article
287, as amended, when respondent NTRCI made her retire on May 18, 2003. Second, the National Labor Relations
Commission found that respondent NTRCI failed to prove a valid company retirement policy, yet it required its
workers to retire after they had reached the age of 60. The Court of Appeals also discussed that while respondent
NTRCI produced guidelines on its retirement policy for seasonal employees, it never submitted a copy of its
Collective Bargaining Agreement and even alleged in its Position Paper that none existed.

81. LITEX GLASS AND ALUMINUM SUPPLY AND/OR RONALD ONG-SITCO v. DOMINADOR B.
SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 198465, April 22, 2015
FACTS
Dominador B. Sanchez (Sanchez) was employed as a driver and an aluminum installer in companies owned and
managed by Ronald Ong-Sitco (Ong-Sitco), the last of which was with Glass and Aluminum Supply (Litex).
Sanchez claimed that Ong-Sitco and his wife scolded and threw offensive words and criticisms upon him. Then, he
was ordered to go on indefinite leave. Hence, Sanchez left the work premises with the hope that the hostility between
him and his employer would sooner or later be settled.
Days after, Sanchez went back to discuss to Ong-Sitco his employment status but the latter just ignored him. Thus,
Sanchez filed a case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of holiday pay, premium for holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay and attorney's fees against Litex and Ong-Sitco.
ISSUE
Whether or not Sanchez abandoned his work.
RULING
To constitute abandonment, it is essential that an employee failed to report for work without any valid and justifiable
reason and that he had a clear intention to sever the employment relationship by some overt act. Mere failure to report
for work after notice to return does not constitute abandonment.
According to Ong-Sitco himself, he and Sanchez had an altercation in his office, and that Ong-Sitco also admitted that
Sanchez subsequently went several times to his office to clear his employment status but Ong-Sitco payed no heed to
him. The "show-cause" letters sent to Sanchez to give him an opportunity to answer the infractions against him and to
likewise give notice for him to return to work were merely made in order to give impute that Sanchez abandoned his
work when in fact he was illegally dismissed. It has been held that the filing of the complaint negates any intention of
abandonment of work.
82. FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS., INC. vs. LEONARDOLARGADO AND TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015
FACTS
Petitioner Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron for the marketing and promotion of its milk and dairy products.
Zytron provided Fonterra with trade merchandising representatives (TMRs), including respondents Largado and
Estrellado. Fonterra sent Zytron a letter terminating its promotions contract, effective June 5, 2006. Fonterra then
entered into an agreement for manpower supply with A.C. Sicat. Respondents submitted their job applications with
A.C. Sicat, which hired them for a term of five (5) months. When respondents' 5-month contracts with A.C. Sicat were
about to expire, they allegedly sought renewal thereof, but were allegedly refused. This prompted respondents to file
complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay, and
actual and moral damages, against petitioner, Zytron, and A.C. Sicat.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING
The termination of respondents' employment with Zytron was brought about by the cessation of their contracts with
the latter. The respondents were the ones who refused to renew their contracts with Zytron, and they themselves
acquiesced to their transfer to A.C. Sicat. By refusing to renew their contracts with Zytron, respondents effectively
resigned from the latter. Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to
dissociate themselves from their employment, done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the
act of abandonment.
In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents were employed by A.C. Sicat as project employees. Respondents, by
accepting the conditions of the contract with A.C. Sicat, were well aware of and even acceded to the condition that
their employment thereat will end on said pre-determined date of termination. They cannot now argue that they were
illegally dismissed by the latter when it refused to renew their contracts after its expiration. This is so since the non-
renewal of their contracts by A.C. Sicat is a management prerogative, and failure of respondents to prove that such
was done in bad faith militates against their contention that they were illegally dismissed. The expiration of their
contract with A.C. Sicat simply caused the natural cessation of their fixed-term employment there at.
83. HOCHENG PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. ANTONIO M. FARRALES
G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015
FACTS
Farrales is employed by HPC as assistant unit chief of production, a supervisory position. A report reached HPC
management that a motorcycle helmet of an employee, Reymar Solas, was stolen at the parking lot within its
premises. Security Officer Francisco Paragas III confirmed a video sequence recorded on closed-circuit television
showing Farrales taking the missing helmet from a parked motorcycle.
The HPC issued a Notice of Termination to Farrales dismissing him for violation of Article 69, Class A, Item No. 29
of the HPC Code of Discipline. Farrales filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of appraisal and mid-year
bonuses, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
ISSUE
Whether or not Farrales was validly dismissed
RULING
The Court agrees with the CA that Farrales committed no serious or willful misconduct or disobedience to warrant his
dismissal. It is not disputed that Farrales lost no time in returning the helmet to Reymar the moment he was apprised
of his mistake by Eric, which proves, according to the CA, that he was not possessed of a depravity of conduct as
would justify HPC’s claimed loss of trust in him. Farrales immediately admitted his error to the company guard and
sought help to find the owner of the yellow helmet, and this, the appellate court said, only shows that Farrales did
indeed mistakenly think that the helmet he took belonged to Eric
84. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. EDNA A. AZOTE
G.R. No. 209741, April 15, 2015
FACTS
On June 19, 1992, respondent Edna and Edgardo, a member of the SSS, were married in civil rites. On April 27, 1994,
Edgardo submitted Form E-4 to the SSS with Edna and their three older children as designated beneficiaries.
Thereafter, Edgardo submitted another Form E-4 to the SSS designating his three younger children as additional
beneficiaries. On January 13, 2005, Edgardo passed away. Shortly thereafter, Edna filed her claim for death benefits
with the SSS as the wife of a deceased-member. It appeared, however, from the SSS records that Edgardo had earlier
submitted another Form E-4 with a different set of beneficiaries. Consequently, Edna’s claim was denied. Her children
were adjudged as beneficiaries and she was considered as the legal guardian of her minor children. Edna filed a
petition with the SSC to claim the death benefits, lump sum and monthly pension of Edgardo. She insisted that she
was the legitimate wife of Edgardo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Edna should be adjudged as the widow of the deceased, thus, entitled to the benefits
RULING: No. The law in force at the time of Edgardo’s death was RA 8282. Applying Section 8(e) and (k) of R.A.
No. 8282, it is clear that only the legal spouse of the deceased-member is qualified to be the beneficiary of the latter’s
SS benefits. In this case, there is a concrete proof that Edgardo contracted an earlier marriage with another individual
as evidenced by their marriage contract. Edgardo even acknowledged his married status when he filled out the 1982
Form E-4 designating Rosemarie as his spouse.
85. NELSON V. BEGINO v. ABS-CBN CORPORATION
GR No. 199166, Apr 20, 2015
FACTS
Respondent ABS-CBN, through Respondent Villafuerte, engaged the services of Petitioners as cameramen, editors or
reporters for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners signed regularly renewed Talent Contracts (3 months - 1 year) and Project
Assignment Forms which detailed the duration, budget and daily technical requirements of a particular project.
Petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in Respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol
Program.
The Talent Contract has an exclusivity clause and provides that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to
establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Petitioners filed against Respondents a complaint for regularization before the NLRC's Arbitration branch.
Respondents countered that, pursuant to their Talent Contracts and Project Assignment Forms, Petitioners were hired
as talents to act as reporters, editors and/or cameramen. Respondents further claimed they never imposed control as to
how Petitioners discharged their duties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners are regular employees of Respondents.
RULING
Yes. Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the terms and
condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of
Respondents which provided them with the equipment essential for the discharge of their functions. The exclusivity
clause and prohibitions in their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over them, however
obliquely worded.
Also ,the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when
the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment of
such employee and not an independent contractor.
86. CESAR NAGUIT v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
G.R. No. 188839, June 22, 2015
FACTS
Petitioner was an employee of San Miguel Corporation Metal Closure and Lithography Plant, a division of
Respondent Corporation (SMC). Sometime in 23 September 2002, Renato Regala and Petitioner got involved in an
altercation in Respondent Corporation’s Canlubang Plant. Petitioner claims that the altercation sprung from an event
when Regala distributed libellous materials against the union which Petitioner is a union steward. Upon investigation
of the Respondent Company’s Human Resource Department, petitioner chose to remain silent and did not address the
charges against him. He was later terminated. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal
for lack of merit. The NLRC dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner had been illegally dismissed and is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages.
RULING
NO. As noted by the Labor Arbiter, other than his bare allegations, petitioner did not submit proof to support his
allegations nor did he provide evidence to counter those which were submitted by respondent. The Supreme Court did
not agree with petitioner's argument that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him is too harsh and is not
commensurate to the infraction he has committed, considering that he has been in respondent's employ for fifteen
years and that this is just his first offense of this nature. The settled rule is that fighting within company premises is a
valid ground for the dismissal of an employee. Moreover, the act of assaulting another employee is serious misconduct
which justifies the termination of employment. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the
dismissal of the employees, the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender
and a habitual delinquent.
87. DIONISIO DACLES v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION AND/OR RAGAS TIU
G.R. No. 209822, July 08, 2015
FACTS
Petitioner Dacles was hired by Millenium as a mason in 1998. On June 7, 2010, while he was working on a project in
Malakas Street, Quezon City (QC), he was advised by respondent's officer, Mr. Bongon, to move to another project in
Robinson's Cubao, QC. However, upon arrival at the site, he was instructed to return to his former job site and,
thereafter, was given a run-around for the two (2) succeeding days. When he requested to be given a post or assigned
to a new project, he was told by the paymaster not to report for work anymore, prompting him to file a complaint for
illegal dismissal.
As a defense, Millenial claimed that Dacles’ employment as project employee was terminated on June 4, 2010 upon
the completion of this masonry work assignment in their RCB-Malakas Project. He has been previously hired as a
project employee for its NECC Project, which expired on March 3, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dacles is a project employee.
RULING
YES. In this case, Milenium was able to prove that Dacles was a project employee. Dacles was adequately informed
of his employment status, as shown by his employment contract. Millenium submitted “Establishment Employment
Reports” to DOLE regarding the permanent termination of Dacles from its projects in accordance with DO 19
(Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry.” There was no proof that he has
been repeatedly rehired for 22 years.
88. EMMANUEL D. QUINTANAR, et al vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 210565, June 28, 2016
FACTS
Complainants allege that they are former employees directly hired by respondent Coca-Cola on different dates from
1984 up to 2000, assigned as regular Route Helpers under the direct supervision of the Route Sales Supervisors.
Further, complainants allege that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection of
Coca-Cola to determine whether it is complying with the various mandated labor standards, wherein complainants
were declared to be regular employees of Coca-Cola. The latter was held liable to pay complainants the underpayment
of their 13th month pay, emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), and other claims. Their claims were later
settled by the respondent company, but the settlement allegedly did not include the issues on reinstatement and
payment of CBA benefits. Thus, on November 10, 2006, they filed their complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment with Coca-Cola.
RULING:
The petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Contrary to the position taken by Coca-Cola, it cannot be said that route-helpers, such as the petitioners no longer
enjoy the employee-employer relationship they had with Coca-Cola since they became employees of Interserve.
As to the characterization of Interserve as a contractor, the Court finds that, contrary to the conclusion reached by the
CA, the petitioners were made to suffer under the prohibited practice of labor-only contracting.
In this connection, even granting that the petitioners were last employed by Interserve, the record is bereft of any
evidence that would show that the petitioners voluntarily resigned from their employment with Coca-Cola only to be
later hired by Interserve.
89. PMI COLLEGES vs.NLRC
G.R. No. 121466. August 15, 1997
FACTS
Petitioner hired private respondent as contractual instructor. Initially, private respondent and other instructors were
compensated for services rendered during the first three periods of the abovementioned contract. However, for reasons
unknown to private respondent, he stopped receiving payment for the succeeding rendition of services.
Private respondent’s claims, as expected, were resisted by petitioner. It alleged that classes in the courses offered
which complainant claimed to have remained unpaid were not held or conducted in the school premises of PMI
Colleges.
Petitioner maintained that it exercised no appropriate and proper supervision of the said classes which activities
allegedly violated certain rules and regulations of the DECS.
Later in the proceedings, petitioner manifested that Mr. Tomas G. Cloma, Jr., a member of the petitioners Board of
Trustees wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Board on May 23, 1994, clarifying the case of private respondent and
stating therein, inter alia, that under petitioners bylaws only the Chairman is authorized to sign any contract and that
private respondent, in any event, failed to submit documents on the alleged shipyard and plant visits in Cavite Naval
Base.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract of employment is invalid
RULING:
The court cannot concede that such contract would be invalid just because the signatory thereon was not the
Chairman of the Board which allegedly violated petitioner’s bylaws. Since bylaws operate merely as internal rules
among the stockholders, they cannot affect or prejudice third persons who deal with the corporation, unless they have
knowledge of the same. No proof appears on record that private respondent ever knew anything about the provisions
of said bylaws.
In fact, petitioner itself merely asserts the same without even bothering to attach a copy or excerpt thereof to show that
there is such a provision. How can it now expect the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to believe it? That this allegation
has never been denied by private respondent does not necessarily signify admission of its existence because
technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law do not strictly apply to proceedings of
this nature.
90. CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ vs. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC.
G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016
FACTS:
Cadiz was the Human Resource Officer of respondent Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. (Brent) at the time of her
indefinite suspension from employment in 2006. The cause of suspension was Cadiz's Unprofessionalism and
Unethical Behavior Resulting to Unwed Pregnancy. It appears that Cadiz became pregnant out of wedlock, and Brent
imposed the suspension until such time that she marries her boyfriend in accordance with law.
ISSUE:
Whether the suspension imposed by Brent is valid.
RULING:
No.
With particular regard to women, Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women protects women against
discrimination in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, including the right to choose freely a spouse and
to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent. Weighed against these safeguards, it becomes apparent that
Brent's condition is coercive, oppressive and discriminatory. There is no rhyme or reason for it. It forces Cadiz to
marry for economic reasons and deprives her of the freedom to choose her status, which is a privilege that inheres in
her as an intangible and inalienable right. While a marriage or no-marriage qualification may be justified as a "bona
fide occupational qualification," Brent must prove two factors necessitating its imposition, viz: (1) that the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is a
factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly
perform the duties of the job. Brent has not shown the presence of neither of these factors. Perforce, the Court cannot
uphold the validity of said condition.

91. OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC. vs. ALLAN LAPASTORA and IRENE UBALUBAO
G.R. No.187691. January 13, 2016
FACTS
A complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of backwages and other benefits, and regularization of employment filed
by Allan Lapastora (Lapastora) and Irene Ubalubao (Ubalubao) against Olympic Housing, Inc. (OHI), the entity
engaged in the management of the Olympia Executive Residences (OER), a condominium hotel building situated in
Makati City. Lapastora and Ubalubao alleged that they worked as room attendants of OHI from March 1995 and June
1997, respectively, until they were placed on floating status on February 24, 2000, through a memorandum sent by
Fast Manpower.
OHI and Limcaoco alleged that Lapastora and Ubalubao were not employees of the company but of Fast Manpower,
an independent contractor with which it had a contract of services, particularly, for the provision of room attendants.
ISSUE
Whether or not Lapastora was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The court ruled in the affirmative.
It appears that OHI failed to prove that Lapastora's dismissal was grounded on a just or authorized cause. While it
claims that it had called Lapastora's attention several times for his infractions, it does not appear from the records that
the latter had been notified of the company's dissatisfaction over his performance and that he was not given an
opportunity to explain. In the same manner, allegations regarding Lapastora's involvement in the theft of personal
items and cash belonging to hotel guests remained unfounded suspicions as they were not proven despite OHI's probe
into the incidents.
In the present case, Lapastora was not informed of the charges against him and was denied the opportunity to disprove
the same. He was summarily terminated from employment.
92. WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 108433 October 15, 1996
FACTS
Private respondent Joselito V. Macatuno was hired by Wallem Shipmanagement Limited thru its local manning agent,
Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., as an able-bodied seaman on board the M/T Fortuna, a vessel of Liberian registry.
while the vessel was berthed at the port of Kawasaki, Japan, an altercation took place between private respondent and
fellow Filipino crew member, Julius E. Gurimbao, on the one hand, and a cadet/apprentice officer of the same
nationality as the captain of the vessel on the other hand. The master entered the incident in the tanker’s logbook. As a
consequence, private respondent and Gurimbao were repatriated to the Philippines where they lost no time in lodging
separate complaints for illegal dismissal with the POEA.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was illegal dismissal.
RULING
An employer may dismiss or lay off an employee only for the just and authorized causes enumerated in Articles 282
and 283 of the Labor Code. However, this basic and normal prerogative of an employer is subject to regulation by the
State in the exercise of its paramount police power. One’ s employment, profession, trade or calling is a property right
within the protection of the constitutional guaranty of due process of law.
The Haverton Shipping ruling does not find unqualified application in the case at bar. In said case, an investigation of
the incident which led to the seaman’s dismissal was conducted before he was dismissed. The aforequoted entry in the
logbook is so sketchy that, unsupported by other evidence, it leaves so many questions unanswered.
Petitioners’ failure to substantiate the grounds for a valid dismissal was aggravated by the manner by which the
employment of private respondent was terminated. Thus, Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, amending paragraph (b) of Article
278 of the Labor Code, imposed as a condition sine qua non that any termination of employment under the grounds
provided in Article 283 must be done only after notice and formal investigation have been accorded the supposed
errant worker.

93. INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS) v. JOSE G. DE VERA
AND ALBERTO B. ARRIOLA
G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016
FACTS
Respondent Alberto Arriola, a licensed general surgeon in the Philippines, was hired by SNC-Lavalin, through its
local manning agency, IPAMS, as a safety officer in its Ambatovy Project site in Madagascar. After three months,
Arriola received a notice of pre-termination of employment due to diminishing workload in the area of his expertise
and the unavailability of alternative assignments. Consequently, Arriola was repatriated and he filed a complaint
against the petitioners for illegal dismissal and non-payment of overtime pay, vacation leave and sick leave pay before
the Labor Arbiter (LA).
ISSUE
Whether or not Canadian law shall be applied to this case.
RULING
No, the foreign law invoked is contrary to the Constitution and the Labor Code. As a rule, Philippine laws apply even
to overseas employment contracts. This rule is rooted in the constitutional provision of Section 3, Article XIII that the
State shall afford full protection to labor, whether local or overseas. Hence, even if the OFW has his employment
abroad, it does not strip him of his rights to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage under our
Constitution. As an exception, the parties may agree that a foreign law shall govern the employment contract.
94. MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC vs. EZARD D. LLUZ, et al
G.R. No. 208451. February 03, 2016
FACTS
Manila Memorial entered into a Contract of Services with respondent Ward Trading. Among those assigned by Ward
Trading to perform services at the Manila Memorial Park were the respondents. On 26 June 2007, respondents filed a
Complaint for regularization and Collective Bargaining Agreement benefits against Manila Memorial. On 6 August
2007, respondents filed an amended complaint to include illegal dismissal, underpayment of 13th month pay, and
payment of attorney's fees. Respondents alleged that they asked Manila Memorial to consider them as regular workers.
Manila Memorial refused the request since respondents were employed by Ward Trading, an independent labor
contractor. The MMP Union, on behalf of respondents, sought their regularization which Manila Memorial again
declined. Subsequently, respondents were dismissed by Manila Memorial. Thus, respondents amended the complaint
to include the prayer for their reinstatement and payment of back wages. Manila Memorial sought the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction since there was no employer-employee relationship. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint for failing to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's
findings. The CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between Manila Memorial and respondents.
RULING:
In the present case, Manila Memorial entered into a Contract of Services with Ward Trading. In the Contract of
Services, it was provided that Ward Trading, as the contractor, had adequate workers and substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, work premises and other materials which were necessary in
the conduct of its business. However, a closer look at the Contract of Services reveals that Ward Trading does not
have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, work premises and other materials
since it is Manila Memorial which owns the equipment used in the performance of work needed for interment and
exhumation services. In this case, however, Manila Memorial failed to adduce evidence to prove that Ward Trading
had any substantial capital, investment or assets to perform the work contracted for. Thus, the presumption that Ward
Trading is a labor-only contractor stands. Consequently, Manila Memorial is deemed the employer of respondents.
95. MARSMAN & COMPANY, INC. v. RODIL C. STA. RITA
G.R. No. 194765, April 23, 2018
FACTS
Marsman hired Rodil (under a contract) as a warehouse helper. After his contract expired in 1994, Marsman rehired
him on a probationary status, and he eventually became a regular employee. Marsman purchased Metro Drug
Distribution, which is engaged in the same business. This led to the integration of their employees as formalized in a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Metro Drug changed its corporate name to CPDSI. CPDSI entered into a
contract with EAC wherein the former would provide warehousemen to the latter in its Libis Warehouse. Marsman
appointed Rodil as one of the warehousemen for EAC-Libis Warehouse stating that the transfer is part of its cross-
training Program. EAC’s use of the Libis Warehouse is dependent on its lease contract with Valiant Distribution
(Valiant). When Valiant terminated EAC’s lease contract, CPDSI likewise terminated the employees assigned at
EAC-Libis Warehouse, including Rodil on the ground of redundancy.
Rodil filed an illegal dismissal complaint against Marsman. The Labor Arbiter found Marsman guilty of illegally
dismissal. On appeal, Marsman argued that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the complaint alleging that there
is no employer-employee relationship (E-ER) between it and Rodil. The NLRC ruled that there is no E-ER between
Marsman and Rodil. In a petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between Marsman and Rodil at the time of his dismissal
RULING:
NO, Rodil was not able to prove that there is an E-ER between him and Marsman.
In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for
a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an E-ER must first be established. It is
incumbent upon Rodil as the complainant to prove the E-ER by substantial evidence, which he failed to do.
96. REYMAN G. MINSOLA vs. NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC. and ENGR. ERNEL FAJARDO
G.R. No. 207613. January 31, 2018
FACTS
- New City hired Minsola as a laborer for the structural phase of its Avida Tower 3 Project (Avida 3).
- The employment contract stated that the duration of Minsola's employment will last until the completion
of the structural phase.
- on August 24, 2009, the structural phase of the Avida 3 was completed. Thus, Minsola received a notice
of termination
 - New City re-hired Minsola as a mason for the architectural phase of the Avida 3.
- upon reviewing Minsola's employment record, New City noticed that Minsola had no appointment paper
as a mason for the architectural phase and thereby instructing him update his employment record.
- Petitioner ignored New City's instructions, and continued to work without an appointment paper.
- On January 20, 2010, Minsola was again summoned to the office of New City to sign his appointment
paper but he adamantly refused to comply with the directive, stormed out of the office, and never reported
back for work.
- On January 26, 2010, Minsola filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal, Underpayment of Salary, Non-
Payment of 13th Month Pay, Separation Pay and Refund of Cash Bond.
- Minsola claimed that he was a regular employee of New City as he rendered work for more than one year
and that his work as a laborer/mason is necessary and desirable to the former's business. He claimed that
he was constructively dismissed by New City.
ISSUE
whether or not Minsola was a project employee
RULING
- Minsola is a Project Employee of New City
- in a project-based employment, the employee is assigned to a particular project or phase, which begins
and ends at a determined or determinable time. Consequently, the services of the project employee may be
lawfully terminated upon the completion of such project or phase.
- For employment to be regarded as project-based, it is incumbent upon the employer to prove that (i) the
employee was hired to carry out a specific project or undertaking, and (ii) the employee was notified of
the duration and scope of the project.
- In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" as a means to
prevent employees from attaining regular status, employers must prove that the duration and scope of the
employment were specified at the time the employees were engaged, and prove the existence of the
project.

97. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS and ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN vs. - HEIRS OF ZUELO
APOSTOL
G.R. No. 215314, March 14, 2018
FACTS
Respondent Zuelo Apostol, now deceased and represented herein by his heirs, commenced his 20 years of
employment with petitioner Central Azucarera de Bais (CAB) when he was hired as the latter's Motor Pool Over-All
Repairs Supervisor. As a supervisor, one of the pre-requisites accorded to the respondent was the enjoyment of a
company house where the respondent could live so long as he remains as a CAB employee.
The parties' harmonious working relationship was disturbedwhen, during the inspection ofTomasito A. Rosel (Rosel),
one of CAB's security guards,it was discovered that the respondent "was using his company house, as well as other
company equipment to repair privately owned vehicles."
This then triggered the CAB management, through its resident manager, RobertyY. Dela Rosa, to issue a
memorandum addressed to the respondent for violating Rule 9 of CAB's Rules of Discipline.
In response, the respondent submitted a handwritten explanation practically admitting the violating and asking for
apology.
Respondent received a copy of the termination letterwhich was signed by CAB's president, herein petitioner
AntonioSteven L. Tan.
Thereafter, the respondent vacated the company house assigned to him, and he filed a Complaint against the
petitioners for constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, unfair labor practice, among others

ISSUE
Whether or not the penalty meted out to respondent Zuelo Apostol was commensurate to the violation that he
committed.
RULING
The penalty meted out to respondent Zuelo Apostol was commensurate to the violation that he committed.
To begin with, there is no doubt that the respondent, as CAB's motor pool over-all repairs supervisor, is in a position
of trust and confidence. He was in charge of repairing company vehicles and was designated with the responsibility of
(a) assigning the personnel and equipment for each and every repair job, and (b) taking custody of all repair equipment
and materials owned by CAB. Secondly, the respondent's violation of CAB's rules and regulations relating to the use
of company property for personal purposes was consistently held and upheld not only by the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC, respectively, but also by the CA itself. That the respondent committed this act could not be denied. What's
more is that the respondent himself admitted to it.
Finally, the respondent's action was successfully conducted precisely because ofhis position in the company. As
CAB's motor pool over-all repairs supervisor, he was inthe position to effect the repairs of his personal property in the
company house whichwas assigned to him. It could not be emphasized further that this violation of companyrules —
from a supervisor no less — carries with it an impact to the operations andmanagement of a company, and a
company's decision to terminate an employee forthese purposes is a decision that should be respected.
To be sure, the petitioners herein validly dismissed their erring employee.
98. LEO T. MAULA vs XIMEX DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC.
G.R. No. 207838. January 25, 2017
FACTS
Petitioner is employed in Ximex as an operation staff. Petitioner’s employment was uneventful until came February
18, 2009, when respondent’s HRD required him and other co-employees to sign a form subtitled Personal Data for
New Hires.
On February 29, 2009, he, together with some other concerned employees, requested for a meeting with their manager
together with the HRD manager. They questioned the document and aired their apprehensions against the designation,
“For New Hires”, since they were long time regular employees earning monthly salary wages not daily wages, as
against what was in the form.
On March 4, 2009, the petitioner filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. During the
hearing, it was agreed upon that shall be no retaliatory action between petitioner and company arising from the
complaint.
Consequently, events happened in the workplace which, to the petitioner, were frame-ups and malicious accusations
of things he was not guilty of. Petitioner filed a new complaint with the NCMB. Hearings were scheduled but the
respondents never appeared. On May 4, 2009, he reported to the office only to be denied entry. Instead a dismissal
letter was handed to him.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner committed serious misconduct justifying his dismissal.
RULING
The unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for
dismissing the employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favour of labor pursuant to the social justice
policy of our Labor laws and the 1987 Constitution.
Respondents manifestly failed to prove that petitioner’s alleged act constitutes serious misconduct. For misconduct or
improper behaviour to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee’s duties; and, (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
The court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh. Petitioner’s termination for employment is also inappropriate
considering that he had been with respondent company for seven years and he had no previous derogatory record.
 99. NICANOR F. MALCABA v. PROHEALTH PHARMA PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 209085, June 6, 2018
FACTS
At the time of his alleged dismissal, petitioner Malcaba was the President of respondent corporation. As a
consequence, petitioner questioned his dismissal and filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
When the case was elevated before the Court of Appeals, it dismissed Malcaba’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction
since Malcaba, being a corporate officer, should have filed his complaint with the regular court and not with the labor
arbiter.
ISSUE
Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction over petitioner Malcaba’s complaint.
RULING
The dismissal of a corporate officer is considered an intra-corporate dispute, not a labor dispute. Thus, a corporate
officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intracorporate controversy, and the nature is not altered by the
reason or wisdom with which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. Also, an intracorporate
controversy is one which arises between a stockholder and the corporation. There is no distinction, qualification, nor
any exemption whatsoever. The provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders and
corporations.
Finding that petitioner Malcaba is the President of respondent corporation and a corporate officer, any issue on his
alleged dismissal is beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter or the National Labor Relations Commission.
100. TELEPHILIPPINES, INC. vs. FERRANDO H. JACOLBE
G.R. No. 233999. February 18, 2019
FACTS
- TP7 is a corporation engaged in the business of providing contact center services to its various offshore
corporate clients through its customer service representatives (CSRs).
- TP hired Jacolbe as a CSR tasked to resolve customer's questions and issues promptly and efficiently,
among others, in accordance with set performance standards and protocol.
- Jacolbe was required to meet the key performance metric targets10 of, among others, an Average Handle
Time (AHT) of 7.0 minutes or below.
- By reason of the incident report of Jacolbe's supervisor for his failure to hit the 7-minute AHT goal, TP's
Human Resources Department (HRD) sent Jacolbe a letter (Notice to Explain) informing him of its
receipt of the Incident Report, and further stating that his "work performance for the last 6 months is
unsatisfactory due to [his] consistent failure to meet the [AHT] Goal in spite of being enrolled in [its
PIP]"17 which, if proven true, would constitute as an offense against its code of conduct warranting the
termination of his employment.
- After jacolbe gave his side, TP was unsatisfied with his explanations, TP issued Jacolbe a letter (Notice of
Termination) dismissing him from work for failure to meet account specific performance metrics or
certification requirements
ISSUE
Whether or not Jacolbe was illegally dismissed
RULING
- A valid dismissal necessitates compliance with both substantive and procedural due process requirements.
Substantive due process mandates that an employee may be dismissed based only on just or authorized
causes under Articles 297, 298, and 299 (formerly Articles 282, 283, and 284) of the Labor Code, as
amended.56 On the other hand, procedural due process requires the employer to comply with the
requirements of notice and hearing before effecting the dismissal.
- In fine, the Court finds ample evidence to support the findings of the NLRC that Jacolbe's dismissal was
valid.