Raymond A. Son, et al vs.

University of Santo Tomas, et al

G.R. No. 211273; April 18, 2018
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari which seeks to set aside the decision of the CA
which reversed both the LA and NLRC decision and declared that petitioners’ termination from
employment was valid and legal.
Respondent University of Santo Tomas (UST) is an educational institution where
petitioners Raymond A. Son, Raymond S. Antiola, and Wilfredo E. Pollarco are full time professors
in the Colleges of Fine Arts and Design and Philosophy, and are members of the UST Faculty
Union, with which UST at the time had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Petitioners were
designated as on probationary status conditioned on rules, one of which is to finish a Master's
degree. Petitioners enrolled in the Master's program, but were unable to finish the same. In spite
of their failure to obtain the required Master's degree, they continued to teach even beyond the
period given for completion thereof. Thereafter, CHED Chairman Angeles issued a Memorandum
directing the strict implementation of the master’s degree qualification for faculty members.
Petitioners then received termination letters for their failure to obtain the required master’s degree.
Petitioners filed a case against the respondents for illegal dismissal, among others.
Petitioners claimed that since they have already acquired tenure by default pursuant to the
tenure provision in the CBA, they could not be dismissed for failure to complete their respective
master’s degrees. On the other hand, respondents argue that a master’s degree in the
undergraduate program professor's field of instruction is a mandatory requirement that is neither
subject to the prerogative of the school nor the agreement of the parties.
ISSUE:
Was the petitioners’ failure to obtain master’s degree as required by CHED as a condition
for tenure a valid cause for dismissal?
RULING:
Yes. Petitioners’ failure to obtain master’s degree is a valid cause for their dismissal.
The minimum requirement of a master's degree in the undergraduate teacher's field of
instruction has been cemented in DECS Order 92, Series of 1992. Both of the parties have been
violating it. The fact that government has not cracked down on violators, or that it chose not to
strictly implement the provision, does not erase the violations committed by erring educational
institutions. It cannot be said either that by agreeing to the tenure by default provision in the CBA,
respondents are deemed to be in estoppel or have waived the application of the requirement. Such
a waiver is precisely contrary to law.
Petitioners are not qualified to teach in the undergraduate programs of UST. They were
given ample opportunity to satisfy the requirements by obtaining their respective master's degrees
but they failed in the endeavor. Petitioners cannot insist to be employed by UST. The fact that UST
continues to hire and maintain professors without the necessary master's degrees is not a ground
for claiming illegal dismissal. While it is true that respondents are in violation of the CHED
regulations for hiring unqualified teaching personnel, the law cannot come to the aid of petitioners
on this sole ground.
Hence, the termination of petitioners from employment was valid and legal.
56 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
A STRIKE IS DEEMED ILLEGAL FOR FAILURE TO TAKE A STRIKE VOTE AND
TO
SUBMIT A REPORT THEREON TO THE NCMB
Ergonomic Systems Philippines, Inc. and Phillip C. Ng and Ma. Lourminda O. Ng, vs. Emerito
C. Enaje et al.
G.R. No. 195163; December 13, 2017
Martires, J.
FACTS:
In a petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner Ergonomic Systems Philippines, Inc. assails
the decision of the CA, which affirmed the decision of the NLRC and LA, finding no illegal dismissal
of respondents Emerito C. Enaje et.al. and ordering petitioners to reinstate respondents.
Respondents were union officers and members of Ergonomic System Employees Union
Workers Alliance Trade Unions (local union). Respondents-union officers were found guilty of
disloyalty for attending and participating in other union's seminars and activities using union leaves
without the knowledge and consent of the Federation and ESPI as well as in initiating and
conspiring in the disaffiliation before the freedom period. Respondents-union officers were issued
letters of termination, which they again refused to receive. The local union staged a series of noise
barrage and "slow down" activities. Forty (40) union members refused to submit their Daily
Production Reports (DPRs) and twenty-eight (28) union members abandoned their work and held
a picket line outside the premises of ESPI. For refusal to submit DPRs and for abandonment,
respondents-union members were issued letters of termination.
Petitioners argue that the respondents failed to comply with two of the procedural
requirements for a valid strike. Respondents counter that they were not legally terminated because
the grounds relied upon by the petitioners were non-existent.
ISSUE:
Did the respondents’ failure to comply with two of the procedural requirements for a valid
strike rendered the same illegal and warranted their dismissal.
RULING:
Yes. Respondents’ failure to comply with two of the procedural requirements for a valid
strike warranted their dismissal.
Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 278 of the Labor Code,
which requires that: (a) a notice of strike be filed with the NCMB 30 days before the intended date
thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) a strike vote be approved by a majority of
the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting
called for that purpose; and (c) a notice be given to the NCMB of the results of the voting at least
seven days before the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory, and the union's failure
to comply renders the strike illegal.
In this case, it is apparent that the union conducted a strike without seeking a strike vote
and without submitting a report thereon to the DOLE. Thus, the strike was illegal. Respondents
union officers stand to be dismissed as they conducted a strike despite knowledge that a strike
vote had not yet been approved by majority of the union and the corresponding strike vote report
had not been submitted to the NCMB. With respect to respondents-union members, there is,
however, a dearth of evidence to prove that respondent-members committed illegal acts during
the strike such as obstruction of ingress to and egress from the premises of ESPI and execution
of acts of violence and intimidation.
Hence, there is no basis to dismiss respondents-union members from employment on the
ground that they committed illegal acts during the strike.
| 57COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
THE MERE FACT THAT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WORKED ON PROJECTS
THAT
WERE TIME-BOUND DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CHARACTERIZE THEM AS
PROJECT EMPLOYEES
Romeo Alba vs. Conrado G. Espinosa et al.
G.R. No. 227734; August 09, 2017
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
The case is a petition for review on Certiorari, which stemmed from a complaint for illegal
dismissal and monetary claims filed before the Labor Arbiter. The LA initially dismissed the case,
finding that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. Romeo Alba (Alba)
was the alleged employer, while Conrado Espinosa (Espinosa) et. al. were the alleged employees.
Petitioner Alba hired respondents Espinosa et. al. separately from the 1990s to 2006 as
construction workers. The respondents claim that they are regular employees who were deprived
of some statutorily-mandated benefits. Some of the respondents confronted Alba regarding such
benefits but such acts resulted in their dismissal. The other respondents sought the help from Raffy
Tulfo in his radio program, who personally called Alba, and reminded the latter to pay the benefits.
However, when they reported the following day, they were informed of their dismissal. Hence, this
suit.
Respondents claim that they were regular employees as they were continuously rehired
by Alba, that they were illegally dismissed, and that they were deprived of their right to the proper
procedure for dismissal of employees, while petitioner Alba argued that the respondents are not
his regular employees, as they were mere project employees hired for specific projects that usually
lasted for a week or two.
ISSUE:
May construction workers hired for specific projects for a limited period become regular
employees?
RULING:
Yes. Construction workers hired for specific projects for a limited period may become
regular employees. The mere fact that the respondents worked on projects that were time-bound
did not automatically characterize them as project employees.
The nature of their work was determinative, as the Court considers its ruling in DM.
Consunji, Inc., et al. v. Jamin that "once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or
nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business
or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee."
As construction workers, the respondents performed tasks that were crucial and necessary
in Alba's business. Their work was the core of his trade. The fact that the respondents had been
engaged to work for long periods of time, and across several construction projects, further
substantiate the finding that their work was vital in the business. Most respondents were separately
employed beginning way back to the 1990s to 2006. "An employment ceases to be co-terminus
with specific projects when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of the
employer's business and re-engaged for many more projects without interruption."
Hence, construction workers hired for specific projects for a limited period may become
regular employees.
58 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
REPEATED EMPLOYMENT ON A PER-PROJECT BASIS DOES NOT RESULT TO
REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
William Wenceslao, et al. vs. Makati Development Corporation
G.R. No 230696; August 30, 2017
Martires, J.
FACTS:
This case involves a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the CA Decision which
dismissed the petition for certiorari filed before it for failure to attach the certified true copies of the
assailed NLRC decisions and resolutions.
Petitioners William Wenceslao, et al. filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Monetary
Claims against private respondent Makati Development Corporation (MDC). Petitioners were
former construction workers of MDC and they claimed that they were regular employees and were
illegally dismissed for refusing to apply and be transferred to another contractor. On the other hand,
MDC submitted evidence to show that petitioners had worked in several of its projects.
NLRC affirmed the decision of LA that repeated re-employment does not make a project
employee a regular employee. While CA dismissed the petition on for failure to attach the certified
true copies of the assailed NLRC decisions and resolutions.
ISSUE:
Did petitioner’s repeated employment in respondent’s projects resulted to regular
employment?
RULING:
No. Petitioners were not regular employees and were not illegally terminated.
The Court affirmed the dismissal by the CA of the petition for certiorari not purely on a
technicality but also on a ruling on the substantive merits of the case as it affirmed the findings of
the NLRC that petitioners did not present any evidence, by way of contract of employment or other
relevant proof which would establish their status as regular employee. The issue of whether the
petitioners are project employees were not even discussed in the petition as petitioners concluded
that they are "regular employees" without debunking the finding that they were hired on a per
project basis. Petitioners' allegation has no weight of persuasive effect upon this Court absent any
evidence to support the same. On the other hand, MDC was able to submit evidence to show that
petitioners had worked in several of its projects and the same was relied upon by the LA and
NLRC.
The determination on whether the petitioners were project employees and whether they
were illegally dismissed would necessarily require the Court to inquire into the factual matters
which the Court cannot do in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are
conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.
Hence, petitioners were project employees and were not illegally terminated.
| 59COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
SECURITY GUARDS ON “FLOATING STATUS” OR “TEMPORARY OFF-DETAIL”
IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
Macario S. Padilla vs. Airborne Security Service, Inc. and/or Catalina Solis
G.R. No. 210080; November 22, 2017
Leonen, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA, which sustained
the decision of the NLRC and LA, dismissing petitioner Macario S. Padilla’s (Padilla) complaint for
illegal dismissal against respondent Airborne Security Service, Inc. (Airborne).
Airborne hired Padilla as a security guard. He was relieved from his post at City Advertising
Ventures Corporation and was advised to wait for his reassignment order. Pending reassignment,
he was told that Airborne was having a hard time finding an assignment for him since he was
already over 38 years old and subsequently advised him to resign which he refused. He reported
to the office to collect his 13th month pay and was again persuaded to hand a resignation letter.
When he was still not deployed or reassigned for more than a year, he filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Padilla alleged that he was constructively dismissed on the ground that he was placed on
a floating status. Airborne countered that Padilla was relieved from his post on account of a client’s
request. He was directed to report to Airborne’s office but he failed to comply and went on absence
without leave instead.
ISSUE:
Is placement in an inordinately long floating status a ground for constructive dismissal?
RULING:
Yes. Padilla was constructively dismissed from employment owing to his inordinately long
floating status.
According to the case of Reyes v. RP Guardians Security Agency, temporary displacement
or temporary off-detail of security guard is, generally, allowed in a situation where a security
agency’s client decided not to renew their service contract with the agency and no post is available
for the relieved security guard. Such situation does not normally result in a constructive dismissal.
Nonetheless, when the floating status lasts for more than six (6) months, the employee may be
considered to have been constructively dismissed. In addition, for an employee to be considered
to have abandoned his work, two (2) requisites must concur, (1) the employee must have failed to
report for work or have been absent without a valid or justifiable reason and (2) the employee must
have had a “clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
Padilla’s conduct belies any intent to abandon his work. Right after he received the first
letter, he called Airborne’s head office, only to be told that he has no assignment yet. Considering
Padilla’s 24 years of uninterrupted service, it is highly improbable that he would abandon his work
so easily. Padilla was placed on floating status for more than six (6) months.
Thus, Padilla was constructively dismissed when he was placed in inordinately long floating
status.
60 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
THE DAY CERTAIN AGREED UPON, NOT THE ACTIVITY THE EMPLOYEE WAS
CALLED TO PERFORM, IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN FIXED-TERM
EMPLOYMENT
Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. vs. Socorro Inting, et al.
G.R. No. 211892; December 06, 2017
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
In a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the CA, petitioner Innodata
Knowledge Services, Inc. (IKSI) assails the decision of the CA, reversing the decision of the NLRC
dismissing petitioner’s claim that respondents Soccoro Inting et al. are project employees.
Applied Computer Technologies (ACT), a company based in the United States of America,
hired IKSI to review various litigation documents. Due to the nature of the job, ACT required IKSI
to hire lawyers, or at least, law graduates, to review various litigation documents, classify said
documents into the prescribed categories, and ensure that outputs are delivered on time. For this
purpose, IKSI engaged the services of respondents Inting, et. al. as senior and junior reviewers
with a contract duration of five (5) years. Respondents received a Notice of Forced Leave from
IKSI informing them that they shall be placed on indefinite forced leave effective that same day
due to changes in business conditions, client requirements, and specifications and eventually, their
contracts would have to be terminated. Hence, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
reinstatement or payment of separation pay, backwages, and damages against IKSI.
IKSI countered that the respondents are project employees and the duration of the project
was reasonably determinable at the time respondents were hired.
ISSUE:
Are fixed-term employees placed on floating status illegally dismissed?
RULING:
Yes. Fixed-term employees placed on floating status are illegally dismissed.
The respondents indeed entered into fixed-term employment contracts with IKSI, contracts
with a fixed period of five (5) years. But project employment and fixed-term employment are not
the same. While the former requires a particular project, the duration of a fixed-term employment
agreed upon by the parties may be any day certain, which is understood to be “that which must
necessarily come although it may not be known when.” The decisive determinant in fixed-term
employment is not the activity that the employee is called upon to perform but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.
IKSI’s contracts of employment are suspect for being highly ambiguous. In effect, it sought
to alternatively avail of project employment and employment for a fixed term so as to preclude the
regularization of respondents’ status. The fact that respondents were lawyers or law graduates
who freely and with full knowledge entered into an agreement with the company is inconsequential.
The utter disregard of public policy by the subject contracts negates any argument that the
agreement is the law between the parties and that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties.
Thus, there were no valid fixed-term or project contracts and respondents were IKSI’s
regular employees who could not be dismissed except for just or authorized causes.
| 61COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING EXISTS WHERE THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT
POSSESS SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL, INVESTMENT, TOOLS AND THE LIKE
Allied Banking Corporation vs. Reynold Calumpang
G.R. No. 219435; January 17, 2018
Velasco, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the ruling of the CA that Race
Cleaners, Inc. (RCI) is engaged in labor only contracting.
Allied Banking Corporation (Bank), through a service agreement with RCI, hired Reynold
Calumpang as janitor at the Bank’s Tanjay City Branch. Calumpang was tasked to perform
janitorial work and messenger/errand services. This job required Calumpang to be out of the
Branch at times to run errands. The Bank discovered that whenever Calumpang went out on
errands, he was also plying his pedicab and ferrying passengers. The branch manager informed
the Bank that Calumpang had been borrowing money from them which prompted them to inform
Calumpang that his services would no longer be needed. Disgruntled, Calumpang filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages before the NLRC.
The Bank denied the existence of employer-employee relationship between itself and
Calumpang. It asserted that Calumpang was an employee of RCI.
ISSUE:
(1) Does RCI engage in labor-only contracting?; and
(2) Is there an employer-employee relationship between the Bank and Calumpang?
RULING:
(1) Yes. As a general rule, a contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless
such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment,
tools and the like.
In the present case, petitioner failed to establish that RCI is a legitimate labor contractor
as contemplated under the Labor Code. Except for the bare allegation of petitioner that RCI had
substantial capitalization, it presented no supporting evidence to show the same. Petitioner never
submitted financial statements from RCI.
(2) Yes. A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor, as opposed to permissible
job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between
the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the labor-only contractor is
considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer.
In this case, petitioner bank is the principal employer and RCI is the labor-only contractor.
Accordingly, petitioner and RCI are solidarily liable for the rightful claims of respondent.
62 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
A LEGITIMATE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MUST HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
CAPITAL
OR INVESTMENT AND MUST CARRY A DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
FREE FROM THE CONTROL OF THE PRINCIPAL
Leo V. Mago vs. Sun Power Manufacturing Limited
G.R. No. 210961; January 24, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the
review of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring Leo V. Mago (Leo) and Leilanie E. Colobong
(Leilanie) (petitioners) as employees of Sunpower Philippines Manufacturing Limited (Sunpower)
and consequently, holding that Jobcrest Manufacturing, Incorporated (Jobcrest) was a labor-only
contractor.
Jobcrest and Sunpower entered into a Service Contract Agreement, in which Jobcrest
undertook to provide business process services for Sunpower, a corporation principally engaged
in the business of manufacturing automotive computer and other electronic parts. Jobcrest then
trained its employees, including the petitioners, for purposes of their engagement in
Sunpower. After the satisfactory completion of this training, the petitioners were assigned to
Sunpower's plant in Laguna Technopark. Sunpower conducted an operational alignment, which
affected some of the services supplied by Jobcrest. The employment of petitioners was allegedly
terminated.
During the mandatory conference, Jobcrest clarified that the petitioners were not dismissed
from employment and offered to accept them when they report back to work. The petitioners
refused and insisted that they were regular employees of Sunpower, not Jobcrest. The petitioners
insist that Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor, and that the DOLE Certificate of Registration is not
conclusive of Jobcrest's legitimate status as a contractor. They further argue that, aside from
lacking substantial capital, Jobcrest only supplied manpower to Sunpower.
ISSUE:
Is Jobcrest a legitimate independent contractor?
RULING:
Yes. Jobcrest is a legitimate independent contractor.
Article 106 of the Labor Code defines labor-only contracting as a situation "where the
person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited
and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of such employer." In order to become a legitimate contractor, the contractor must have
substantial capital or investment, and must carry a distinct and independent business free from the
control of the principal.
The fact of registration with DOLE does not necessarily create a presumption that Jobcrest
is a legitimate and independent contractor. The Court emphasizes, however, that the DOLE
Certificate of Registration issued in favor of Jobcrest is presumed to have been issued in the
regular performance of official duty. Jobcrest had substantial capital to perform the business
process services it provided Sunpower. It has its own office, to which the petitioners admittedly
reported to, possessed numerous assets for the conduct of its business, and even continuously
earned profit as a result. The Court can therefore reasonably conclude from Jobcrest's financial
statements that it carried its own business independent from and distinctly outside the control of
its principals.
| 63COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
IN LEGITIMATE JOB CONTRACTING, THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE JOB CONTRACTOR AND HIS EMPLOYEES IS MAINTAINED
San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. Hannival V. Rivera, et al
G.R. No. 220103; January 31, 2018
Velasco, Jr., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the ruling directing San Miguel
Foods, Inc. (petitioner) to reinstate Hannival V. Rivera, et al (respondents). San Miguel Foods,
petitioner, forged an invoicing services contract with IMSHR Corporate Support, Inc. (ICSI), an
independent contractor duly registered with the DOLE and engaged in the business of providing
and supplying various services to different companies. ICSI has an authorized capital stock of P4
Million while per an independent auditor's report for the year ending on December 31, 2008, it has
a gross income of P14,192,040 and a total asset amounting to P30,820,419.34. ICSI then assigned
its employees which included Rivera to perform invoicing services for San Miguel Foods. However,
San Miguel Foods decided to discontinue its invoicing services in its head office where Rivera was
assigned. As a result of the discontinuance of the invoicing operations, Rivera filed complaints for
constructive dismissal, underpayment of salaries and other benefits, among others against San
Miguel Foods.
San Miguel Foods, in its defense, argued that Rivera’s employer is ICSI as it was the one
that hired and selected them. ICSI was the one that paid their salaries and made the necessary
deductions for the social security contributions.
ISSUE:
Is ICSI a legitimate independent contractor?
RULING:
Yes. ICSI is a legitimate independent contractor.
According to the case of Petron Corporation v. Caberte, et al, a legitimate job contract is
an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out with the contractor or
subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or
predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or
completed within or outside the premises of the principal. In legitimate job contracting, the
employer-employee relationship between the job contractor and his employees is maintained.
While the law creates an employer-employee relationship between the employer and the
contractor's employees, the same is only for the purpose of ensuring the payment of the
employees' wages. In short, the employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job
contractor but only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay
the same. Other than that, the employer is not responsible for any claim made by the contractor's
employees.
ICSI had satisfactorily proven that the latter is a legitimate contractor. First, ICSI has been
incorporated and duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as
with the BIR, SSS, Philhealth, PAG-IBIG, and the DOLE. These may not be conclusive evidence
of the status of the petitioner as a contractor but the fact of its registration prevented the legal
presumption of it being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. Second, ICSI has substantial
capital. Third, ICSI also has other A-list clients which is an indication that it carries on a distinct
and independent business. Fourth, ICSI also has the control on the performance of the work of its
employees. It was the officer or officers of ICSI who has the direct supervision over the
respondents. It was the ICSI's Base Controller, who gives the respondents their work schedule,
while its OIC was the one who monitors their attendance.
64 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
REPEATED REHIRING OF PROJECT EMPLOYEES IN A CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY IS
NOT A BADGE OF REGULARIZATION
Reyman Minsola vs. New City Builders Inc. and Engr. Ernel Fajardo
G.R. No. 207613; January 31, 2018
Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
This case involves a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the
decision and resolution of the CA, which dismissed petitioner Reyman Minsola’s (Minsola)
complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner Minsola was hired by respondent New City Builders, a corporation engaged in
the construction business, as a laborer for the structural phase and as a mason for the architectural
phase of Avida 3, respectively. Upon reviewing his employment record, respondent found that
petitioner was lacking in appointment paper. Hence, the former instructed the latter to update his
employment records which the petitioner ignored and who subsequently never went back to work
after being reminded to sign the appointment paper once again. Petitioner then filed an illegal
dismissal case before the LA which was dismissed. On appeal to the NLRC, the latter reversed
the ruling of the LA. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision which was
denied which led it to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Petitioner alleged that
his work as a laborer and mason was necessary and desirable to the business of the employer
and that his rehiring which resulted to his working for more than one year makes him a regular
employee. On the other hand, respondent averred that petitioner was hired as a project employee
for the two different phases and that his tasks were completely different from each project.
ISSUE:
Was petitioner’s repeated rehiring enough to make him a regular employee?
RULING:
No. The repeated rehiring of Minsola did not make him a regular employee of the
respondent.
It is not uncommon for a construction firm to hire project employees to perform work
necessary and vital for its business. In William Uy Construction Corp. and/or Uy, et al. v. Trinidad,
the SC acknowledged the unique characteristic of the construction industry and emphasized that
the laborer's performance of work that is necessary and vital to the employer's construction
business, and the former's repeated rehiring, do not automatically lead to regularization.
Additionally, the employee's tenure "is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he
is assigned." Consequently, it would be extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on
the availability of projects, to carry the employee on a permanent status and pay him wages even
if there are no projects for him to work on. An employer cannot be forced to maintain the employees
in the payroll, even after the completion of the project.
Accordingly, it is all too apparent that the employee's length of service and repeated re
hiring constitutes an unfair yardstick for determining regular employment in the construction
industry.
Thus, Minsola's rendition of more than one year of service and his repeated re-hiring are
not badges of regularization.
| 65COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED TO WORK BEYOND THE
PROBATIONARY
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME SET FORTH BY THE
EMPLOYER,
SHALL BE CONSIDERED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE
Maria Carmela P. Umali vs. Hobbywing Solutions, Inc.
G.R. No. 221356; March 14, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 appealing the decision of the CA
which ruled that Maria Carmela P. Umali (petitioner) was not illegally dismissed.
Petitioner alleged that she started working for the Hobbywing Solutions inc. (respondent)
on June 19, 2012 as a Pitboss Supervisor. She allegedly never signed any employment contract
before the commencement of her service but regularly received her salary every month. After
seven (7) months since she started working for the respondent, the petitioner was asked to sign
two (2) employment contracts, one for a period of five (5) months and the other for a period of
three (3) months. On February 18, 2013, however, the petitioner was informed by the respondent
that her employment has already ended. Thus, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the respondent.
For its part, the respondent admitted that it hired the petitioner as Pitboss Supervisor on
probationary basis. With the conformity of the petitioner, the probationary period was extended for
three months. After receiving a commendable rating by the end of the extended probationary
period, the petitioner was advised that the company will be retaining her services as Pitboss
Supervisor. Surprisingly, the petitioner declined the offer. The LA ruled in favor of respondent. The
NLRC reversed the same. CA agreed with the LA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Did petitioner acquire regular employment due to the lapse of the probationary period?
RULING:
Yes. Petitioner is a regular employee due to the lapse of the probationary period of
employment.
It bears stressing that while in a few instances the Court recognized as valid the extension
of the probationary period, still the general rule remains that an employee who was suffered to
work for more than the legal period of six months of probationary employment or less shall, by
operation of law, become a regular employee.
In the instant case, there was no valid extension of the probationary period since the same
had lapsed long before the company thought of extending the same. More significantly, there is no
justifiable reason for the extension since, based on the Performance Evaluation dated February 1,
2013, the petitioner had a commendable performance all throughout the probationary period.
Therefore, having rendered service even after the lapse of the probationary period, the
petitioner had attained regular employment with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.
66 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
DURATION OF SERVICE AND REPEATED REHIRING ARE NOT BADGES OF
REGULARIZATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Mario Bajaro vs Metro Stonerich Corp., and/or Ibrahim Nuno
G.R. No. 227982; April 23, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the CA decision affirming
the NLRC and LA ruling which dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint filed by petitioner Mario
Bajaro (Bajaro) against respondent Metro Stonerich Corporation and Ibrahim Nuno.
Respondent is a domestic entity engaged in the construction business. On June 4, 2008,
Respondent hired Bajaro as a concrete pump operator in five different construction projects. Bajaro
was called to work from 7:00 am until 4:00 pm, from Mondays to Saturdays, with a daily wage of
Php 500.00. He was assigned in various construction projects until May 10, 2014. Sometime in
April 2014, he was injured while working. After recovering from his injury, Bajaro returned to his
workplace. However, upon his return, Bajaro was informed that he should no longer report to work,
and he was offered money in lieu of his employment. This prompted him to file a case for illegal
dismissal against the respondent.
Bajaro asserted that he was a regular employee of the respondent, as he was continuously
employed for six (6) years and performed activities that were necessary and desirable to the latter’s
usual business. As such, he claimed that he was entitled to security of tenure and could not be
dismissed except for just or authorized cause. On the other hand, respondent argued that Bajaro
is not a regular employee, but a project employee. As proof, respondent pointed out its submission
of reports to DOLE upon completion of the projects Bajaro was engaged in.
ISSUE:
Was Bajaro’s continuous employment and performance of work which was necessary to
respondent’s construction business enough to make him a regular employee?
RULING:
No. Bajaro’s continuous employment and performance of such activities necessary for
respondent’s business did not make him a regular employee.
It is not uncommon for a construction firm to hire project employees to perform work
necessary and vital for its business. In William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, the Court
acknowledged the unique characteristic of the construction industry and emphasized that the
laborer's performance of work that is necessary and vital to the employer's construction business,
and the former's repeated rehiring, do not automatically lead to regularization. Moreover, as in
ruled in Malicdem, et al. vs. Marulas Industrial Corporation, et al., the employee’s tenure is not
permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned. It would be extremely
burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects, to carry the employee
on a permanent status and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work on. An
employer cannot be forced to maintain the employees in the payroll, even after the completion of
the project. It is extremely unfair to the employers and amounts to labor coddling at the expense
of management.
Accordingly, it is all too apparent that the employee's length of service and repeated re
hiring constitutes an unfair yardstick for determining regular employment in the construction
industry.
Thus, Bajaro's rendition of six years of service, and his repeated re-hiring are not badges
of regularization.
| 67COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
JOB CONTRACTING IS DEEMED LEGITIMATE AND PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE
CONTRACTOR HAS SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL OR INVESTMENT AND RUNS A
BUSINESS THAT IS INDEPENDENT AND FREE FROM CONTROL BY THE
PRINCIPAL
Consolidated Building Maintenance Inc. vs Asprec, Jr.
G.R. No. 217301; June 6, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to
annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. CBMI provides kitchen, delivery,
sanitation and other related services to Philippine Pizza, Inc. – Pizza Hut (PPI). Respondents
Asprec, Jr. and Bataller were employed by PPI as rider and team member/slice cashier,
respectively. After the expiration of their contracts, PPI endorsed the respondents to CBMI. CBMI
renewed their contracts but continued to perform their previous work for PPI. Respondents were
investigated for theft. They were thereafter dismissed. Respondents filed their complaint against
the petitioners for constructive illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of separation
pay. They also impleaded PPI.
Respondents argued two points: first, that their transfer from PPI to CBMI constituted labor
only contracting and was a mere scheme by PPI to prevent their regularization; and second, that
they were illegally dismissed without cause and due process of law.
ISSUE:
Is CBMI a labor-only contractor or an independent contractor?
RULING:
CBMI is an independent contractor.
Labor-only contracting is defined by Article 106 of the Labor Code as an arrangement
where any of the following elements are present: (i) the contractor or subcontractor does not have
substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work, or service to be performed and the
employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing
activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or (ii) the contractor does
not exercise the right to control the performance of the work of the contractual employee.
Job contracting is not absolutely prohibited. Job contracting is deemed legitimate and
permissible when the contractor has substantial capital or investment and runs a business that is
independent and free from control by the principal. The absence of any of these elements results
in a finding that the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting. In addition to the foregoing,
DO No. 18-02 requires that contractors and subcontractors be registered with the DOLE Regional
Offices. The system of registration has been established under the DO to regulate and monitor
contracting arrangements.
The Court finds that CBMI has established compliance with the requirements of legitimate
job contracting previously cited. CBMI is a duly licensed labor contractor by the DOLE. CBMI also
has substantial capital to maintain its manpower business. From the evidence adduced by CBMI,
it is also clear that it runs a business independent from the PPI. Above all, CBMI maintains the
"right of control" over the respondents. CBMI has the "sole authority to control and direct the
performance of the details of the work of its employees." It is indisputable from the respondents'
employment contracts that they were hired by CBMI. It is also CBMI who pays the respondents
their salaries, and remits premiums to PhilHealth and Social Security System. The way
respondents perform their task are all dictated by CBMI, the sole concern of PPI being the result.
68 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
REDUNDANCY IS ONE OF THE AUTHORIZED CAUSES FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
AN
EMPLOYEE
Philippine National Bank vs. Jumelito T. Dalmacio
G.R. No. 202308 and 202357; July 5, 2017
Tijam, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA affirming the
decision of the NLRC which in turn affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that Petitioner
Philippine National Bank (PNB) effected a valid redundancy program.
Respondent Jumelito Dalmacio (Dalmacio) and Emma Martinez, who were both utility
worker and communication equipment operator, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, under
payment of separation pay and retirement benefits, illegal deduction, nonpayment of provident
fund with prayer for damages and attorney’s fees against PNB before the Labor Arbiter. The case
was filed as a result of their separation from PNB due to the latter’s implementation of a
redundancy program. In implementing the said program, PNB officially notified the employees on
the management’s decision after consultation with complainants and their union officers. The
complainants also agreed and accepted the said decision. The NLRC affirmed the LA's Decision.
Dalmacio elevated the case before the CA which affirmed the decision of the NRLC and stated
that principles of justice and fair play call for the modification of the reparation package already
received by herein petitioner.
Dalmacio argued that he was illegally dismissed due to PNB’s failure to implement its
redundancy program validly. On the other hand, PNB maintained that the dismissal was not illegal
since the same as made pursuant to a valid redundancy program.
ISSUE:
Is PNB guilty of illegal dismissal due to an invalid implementation of its redundancy
program?
RULING:
No. Respondent was not illegally dismissed because the PNB’s implementation of its
redundancy program is valid.
According to the case of Dole Philippines, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., one of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee is redundancy.
It exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to
meet the demands of the business enterprise. It has been ruled that an employer has no legal
obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the operation of its business. For the
implementation of redundancy program to be valid, the employer must comply with the following
requisites: (1) written notice served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior
to the intended date of termination of employment; (2) payment of separation pay equivalent to at
least one month pay for every year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions;
and (4) fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared redundant
and accordingly abolished, taking into consideration different factors.
In the case at bar, PNB was upfront with its employees about its plan to implement its
redundancy program. Moreover, PNB’s redundancy program was neither unfair nor unreasonable
considering that it was within the ambit of its management prerogative.
Hence, respondent was not illegally dismissed by the petitioner.
| 69COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
70 |
LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE AS A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL MUST BE
CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED BY FACTS
Distribution & Control Products, Inc. vs. Jeffrey E. Santos
G.R. No. 212616; July 10, 2017
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner Distribution & Control Products, Inc.
assails the decision of the CA which affirmed the decision of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
finding respondent Jeffrey E. Santos illegally dismissed.
Respondent was employed as petitioners’ company driver. In 2010, he received a notice
informing him that he was being placed under preventive suspension for thirty days because he
was one of the employees suspected of having participated in the theft of the electrical products
of petitioners.
Respondent aver that he was not given the opportunity to explain his side before he was
suspended and that after the lapse of his 30-day suspension, he was no longer allowed to return
to work without any justification for such disallowance. Petitioners contend that the
termination of respondent’s employment was based on their loss of trust and confidence in him.
Petitioner explained that only the respondent and the company warehouseman were the only ones
who had complete access to the warehouse where the stolen items were located.
ISSUE:
Was the petitioner able to sufficiently establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of
trust and confidence in the respondent?
RULING:
No. Petitioner was not able to establish the existence of an act justifying the loss of trust
and confidence in the respondent.
Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 (c) of the Labor
Code, which provides that an employer may terminate an employment for "[f]raud or willful breach
by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." In
order to properly invoke the ground of loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal,
two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the employer must show that the employee concerned holds
a position of trust and confidence; and (2) the employer must establish the existence of an act
justifying the loss of trust and confidence. To be a valid cause for dismissal, the act that betrays
the employer’s trust must be real. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal has never been
intended to afford an occasion for abuse by the employer of its prerogative, as it can easily be
subject to abuse because of its subjective nature and the loss must be founded on clearly
established facts sufficient to warrant the employee's separation from work.
Respondent may indeed be considered as one who occupies a position of trust and
confidence as he is one of those who were entrusted with the handling of a significant amount or
portion of petitioners' products for sale. However, records show that petitioners failed to present
substantial evidence to support their allegations that respondent had participated in the theft of the
company’s stolen items.
Therefore, petitioners illegally dismissed respondent since it failed to establish valid
termination by loss of trust and confidence.COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
FOR DISMISSAL OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE ON THE GROUND OF LOSS OF
TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT REQUIRED
Alaska Milk Corporation and Estate of Wilfred Uytengsu vs. Ernesto L. Ponce
G.R. No 228412; July 16, 2017
Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA, which reversed
and set aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the LA, finding respondent
Ernesto L. Ponce (Ponce) illegally dismissed.
Petitioner Alaska Milk Corporation (AMC) hired Ponce as Manager for Engineering
Services. In an e-mail, Ponce solicited official receipts from his colleagues in exchange for a 5%
rebate on the value of the receipts submitted to him. Such copy of the email was received by
chairman of the board of AMC, petitioner Wilfred Uytengsu. Ponce was directed to explain why his
services should not be terminated. However, after finding his explanation unsatisfactory, AMC
terminated Ponce’s employment. Ponce filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioners argue that the sending of the R/A e-mail soliciting official receipts in exchange
for a 5% cash rebate is an act inimical to the company's interests because Ponce will be
reimbursed for expenses he did not incur. They consider such act a fraudulent representation
enough to erode its trust and confidence.
Ponce alleges that that loss of trust and confidence was an afterthought as AMC was
unable to prove that solicitation of official receipts was against company policy.
ISSUE:
Is the act of soliciting official receipts enough basis to dismiss the respondent on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence?
RULING:
Yes. The act of soliciting official receipts is enough basis to dismiss the respondent on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence.
According to the case of Philippine Plaza Holdings, Inc. v. Ma Flora M. Episcope, there are
two classes of positions of trust: (1) managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision
thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff; and (2) fiduciary rank-and-file
employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise
of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. As regards a
managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has
breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in the case of managerial
employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being sufficient that there is some
basis for such loss of confidence.
The act of soliciting receipts from colleagues constitutes dishonesty, inimical to AMC's
interests, for the reason that Ponce would be collecting receipted allowance from expenses he did
not actually incur. It has long been settled that an employer cannot be compelled to retain an
employee who is guilty of acts inimical to his interests.
Hence, respondent’s dismissal from employment is justified.
| 71COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
72 |
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF WILLFULL DISOBEDIENCE REQUIRES THE
ORDER
VIOLATED BE REASONABLE AND LAWFUL
BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Nestor N. Nebres and Armenia F. Suravilla
G.R. No. 208735; July 19, 2017
Tijam, J.
FACTS:
In this petition for review on Certiorari, petitioner BDO Unibank, Inc. (formerly Equitable
PCI Bank) assails the decision of the CA which reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated
that of the LA finding respondents Nestor N. Nebres (Nebres) and Armenia F. Suravilla (Suravilla)
to have been illegally dismissed.
Respondents were employees of petitioner and members of Equitable PCI Bank
Employees Union (EPCIBEU). The union held an election and Nebres and Suravilla were
proclaimed as President and Executive Vice-President, respectively. After taking their oath,
respondents notified the bank of their decision to be on full-time leave in order to devote their time
in maintaining industrial peace which is a privilege given to their position under their CBA. Because
of the pendency of the appeal by the losing candidates, the bank disapproved the leaves of
respondent, which the latter failed to comply. They were meted the penalty of dismissal after
administrative hearings were conducted.
Petitioner bank essentially argues that it validly dismissed Nerbes and Suravilla from
employment because they committed serious misconduct and willful disobedience when they
failed to return to work despite orders for them to do so. Nerbes and Suravilla counter that as duly
elected officers of the union they are entitled to be on full-time leave.
ISSUE:
Does the respondents’ refusal to report to work despite the bank’s order for them to do so
constitute disobedience of such a willful character as to justify their dismissal from service?
RULING:
No. Respondents’ refusal to report to work does not constitute disobedience of such a
willful character as to justify their dismissal from service.
According to the case of Micro Sales Operation Network, et al. v. NLRC et al., a v alid
dismissal on the ground of willful disobedience requires the concurrence of twin requisites: (1) the
employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged to discharge.
Respondent’s failure to report for work despite the disapproval of their application for leave
was clearly intentional. However, such was not characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude
or with deliberate disregard of their duties as such. At the time respondents notified the bank of
their intent to avail of their union leaves, they were already proclaimed as winners and in fact took
their respective oaths of office. Following the terms of the parties' CBA, which has the strength of
law as between them, respondents, as duly-elected union officers, were entitled to take their union
leaves.
Hence, respondents’ refusal to return to work was not characterized by a wrongful and
perverse attitude to warrant dismissal.COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
EMPLOYER HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE DISMISSAL OF AN
EMPLOYEE
WAS FOR A JUST OR AUTHORIZED CAUSE
Evic Human Resource Management, Inc. vs. Rogelio Panahon
G.R. No. 206890; July 31, 2017
Caguioa, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
which set aside the resolution of NLRC and LA decision declaring the existence of just cause in
terminating respondent Rogelio Panahon (Panahon).
Petitioner Evic Human Resource Management, for and in behalf of its foreign principal,
hired Panahon as Chief Mate on board M/V Free Lady. Respondent was repatriated without
completing the contracted period of employment. Thus, he filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal
with monetary claims. In his position paper, respondent alleged that during the voyage, the vessel’s
Captain developed a hostile attitude towards him. Respondent took a sip from small flask of whisky
and then went to bed, but the Captain had him awakened and ordered him to make a report on
some damages in the railings of the ship. When he submitted the report, Captain smelled a small
faint of odor of alcohol and asked him if he had been drinking, to which he truthfully replied and
offered to take an alcohol test. Later, the Captain recommended respondent’s replacement.
Petitioners averred that respondent was dismissed for just cause. The Report prepared by
the Captain showed that respondent was grossly negligent as he failed to observe the safety
precautions during the mooring and unmooring operations; displayed arrogance towards his co
employees on board; and was caught intoxicated, in violation of the company policies, instructions,
and stipulations of the POEA contract. Respondent maintained that there was no just cause which
would warrant his dismissal.
ISSUE:
Was the alleged failure to observe safety precautions, displayed arrogance and
intoxication enough causes to justify the dismissal of the respondent?
RULING:
No. The respondent’s dismissal was not for a just cause.
According to the case of Skippers United Pacific, Inc. V. NLRC, it is a settled rule in labor
cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of an employee was for a just
cause, and failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and
illegal. Furthermore, not only must the dismissal be for a cause provided by law, it should also
comply with the rudimentary requirements of due process, that is, the opportunity to be heard and
to defend one's self.
In the case, the only evidence relied upon by the petitioner is the report prepared by the
Captain, although it was signed by four other crew members, it was only the Captain who saw the
alleged incident. The Court finds the report inadequate in meeting the required quantum of proof
to discharge petitioner’s burden. The statements contained therein were uncorroborated and self
serving, no other evidence was presented to support the statements of the Captain. The records
are bereft of any evidence showing that respondent was given a written notice of the charges
against him, or that he was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. As for the monetary
claim, the Court affirms the grant of attorney’s fee of 10% of the total award pursuant to Art. 111
of the Labor Code.
Therefore, the respondent’s dismissal was not for a just cause and he is entitled to
attorney’s fee.
| 73COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
UNION OFFICERS CANNOT BE DISMISSED MERELY BASED ON PROVISIONS
FOR
IMPEACHMENT OF UNION OFFICERS
United Polyresins, Inc. vs. Marcelino Pinuela
G.R No. 209555; July 31, 2017
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
which set aside the decision of NLRC and the LA finding the petitioner United Polyresin’s dismissal
of respondent Marcelino Pinuela valid.
Petitioner hired respondent who became the Union President of Polyresins Rank and File
Association (PORFA). Petitioner extended loan to the union with a condition that it should be paid
before the expiration of the Bargaining Agreement (BA); otherwise all officers and members of the
union shall be liable personally. During the respondent’s term, there has been conflict within the
union involving money. The loan became due but the union does not have enough funds to pay it.
Petitioner refused to discuss a new Bargaining Agreement until the loan is settled. The members
demanded for a special election due to the respondent’s alleged mismanagement of the funds.
The new set of union officers issued a resolution expelling respondent from PORFA. Thereafter,
petitioner issued a letter of termination to respondent. Respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner before the LA for illegal dismissal.
Respondent claimed that his dismissal was effected in bad faith and without due process.
On the other hand, petitioner countered that respondent’s dismissal is valid under the BA which
states that employees who ceased to be PORFA members by reason of resignation or expulsion
shall not be retained in the employ of the petitioner; and that he was accorded substantive and
procedural due process.
ISSUE:
Is the dismissal of the respondent valid under the security clause of the Bargaining
Agreement?
RULING:
No. The dismissal of the respondent is not valid under the security clause of the Bargaining
Agreement.
A review of the PORFA Constitution itself reveals that the only provision authorizing
removal from the union is found in Article X, Section 6, that is, on the ground of failure to pay union
dues, special assessments, fines, and other mandatory charges. These provisions do not apply in
respondent's case. Although he was eventually charged with estafa, a crime involving moral
turpitude, still, he has not been convicted of the crime. For this reason, he may not be disqualified
as union member.
Respondent's expulsion from PORFA is grounded on the union's Constitution. However,
these provisions refer to impeachment and recall of union officers, and not expulsion from union
membership. It was therefore error on the part of PORFA and petitioners to terminate respondent's
employment based on Article XV, Section 1, paragraphs (e) and (f) of the union's Constitution.
Such a ground does not constitute just cause for termination. Accordingly, for what he is charged
with, he may not be penalized with expulsion from the union, because the same is not authorized
and provided for under PORFA’s Constitution.
Therefore, the dismissal of the respondent is not valid.
74 | COVERED CASES (JULY 01, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)
ON LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
| 75
UTTERANCE OF OFFENSIVE WORDS AGAINST SUPERIOR CONSTITUTES GROSS
MISCONDUCT
Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. vs. KMM-Katipunan and Raymond Z. Esponga
G.R. No. 221493; August 2, 2017
Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioner Sterling Paper Products, Inc.
(Sterling), assailing the decision of the CA which reinstated the decision of the LA finding
respondent Raymond Z. Esponga (Esponga) illegally dismissed.
Sterling hired respondent as machine operator. Years later, Sterling’s supervisor found
Esponga and his co-employees about to take a nap on the sheeter machine. She called their
attention and prohibited them from taking a nap thereon for safety reasons. Esponga then uttered
disrespectful and provocative words and raised his middle finger against his superior. A Notice to
explain was served on Esponga but the latter neither responded nor attended the administrative
hearings for the same. Sterling then terminated Esponga’s employment.
Sterling argues that Esponga's utterance of foul and abusive language against his
supervisor, demonstrating a dirty finger, and defiance to perform his duties undeniably constitute
serious misconduct. Esponga denies the allegations and contends that Sterling failed to
establish the validity of his dismissal by clear and convincing evidence. He insisted that 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.
ISSUE:
Was the respondent’s utterance of foul and abusive language against his supervisor a valid
cause for dismissal?
RULING:
Yes. The respondent’s utterance of foul and abusive language against his supervisor is a
valid cause for dismissal.
According to the case of Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon, for misconduct
or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the
misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing
that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have
been performed with wrongful intent. The utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words
against a superior is not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a violation of the
company rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct.
The accusatory and inflammatory language used by an employee towards his employer or
superior can be a ground for dismissal or termination. Further, Esponga's assailed conduct was
related to his work. The supervisor did not prohibit him from taking a nap. She merely reminded
him that he could not do so on the sheeter machine for safety reasons. Esponga's acts reflect an
unwillingness to comply with reasonable management directives.
Hence, respondent was validly dismissed.