Q.

Can a Filipino overseas worker invoke the provisions of the

Labor Code in case he is retrenched?
Yes. International Management Services v. Legate (2012): The
provisions of the Labor Code still apply to Filipino OFWs who have
been deployed abroad and are retrenched by the foreign principal.
(Article 283, Labor Code)
Q. What is the prescription period within which an OFW may file
his monetary claims?
Southeastern Shipping v. Navarra, June 22, 2010: Article 291 is the
law governing the prescription of money claims of seafarers, a class of
overseas contract workers. This law prevails over Section 28 of the
Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers which provides for claims
to be brought only within one year from the date of the seafarers return
to the point of hire. The prescriptive period is thus three years from the
time the cause of action accrues
Q. What factors are considered to ensure that a contract of
employment of an OFW is perfected?
Bright Maritime Corp v. Fantonial (2012): A contract approved by the
POEA is deemed perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree
upon its terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements thereof
(Consent, object and consideration).
The Court awarded moral damages and attorneys fees to the
complainant OFW since after the perfection of the contract, he was not
deployed. The Court said that the action of International Management
Services was tainted with bad faith.
PLEASE READ ON THE PROVISIONS OF KASAMBAY LAW
COVERAGE
ENTITLEMENT
PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION
LIABILITY FOR NON COMPLIANCE
D. Book III1. Classification of Employees
- Nature of seasonal employees
- Regularization of employees
Q. What are three types of employees under the Labor Code?
The Labor Code provides for three kinds of employment arrangements,
namely: regular, project/seasonal and casual. Regular employment
refers to that arrangement whereby the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer [.] Under this definition, the primary

standard that determines regular employment is the reasonable

connection between the particular activity performed by the employee
and the usual business or trade of the employer; the emphasis is on
the necessity or desirability of the employees activity.
By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code
also considers as regular, a casual employment arrangement when the
casual employees engagement is made to last for at least one year,
whether the service is continuous or broken. The controlling test in this
arrangement is the length of time during which the employee is
engaged.
Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project
employment, albeit it involves work or service that is seasonal in nature
or lasting for the duration of the season. As with project
employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement
involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment
itself is not automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the
employee from attaining regular status. To exclude the asserted
seasonal employee from those classified as regular employees, the
employer must show that: (1) the employee must be performing work or
services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been employed for
the duration of the season. Hence, when the seasonal workers are
continuously and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks or
activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the season,
this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular employment.
In fact, even though denominated as seasonal workers, if these
workers are called to work from time to time and are only temporarily
laid off during the off-season, the law does not consider them separated
from the service during the off-season period. The law simply considers
these seasonal workers on leave until re-employed.
Q. Who is considered a regular employee?
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R.
No. 186439. January 15, 2014: A regular employee is one who by the
nature of his
engagement is to perform an activity usually necessary or desirable
in the employers business. The nature of the employment does not
depend solely on the will or word of the employer or on the procedure
for hiring and the manner of designating the employee. Rather, the
nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities to be
performed by the employee, taking into account the nature of the
employers business, the duration and scope of work to be done, and, in
some cases, even the length of time of the performance and its
continued existence.
Q. Can an employee stipulate his period of engagement?

Yes. In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora (G.R. No. L-48494, February 5,

1990), the Court, for the first time, recognized and resolved the
anomaly created by a narrow and literal interpretation of Article 280
of the Labor Code that appears to restrict the employees right to freely
stipulate with his employer on the duration of his engagement. In this
case, the Court upheld the validity of the fixed-term employment
agreed upon by the employer, Brent School, Inc., and the
employee, Dorotio Alegre, declaring that the restrictive clause in Article
280 should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the
Code itself x x x singled out: agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances
where [the] fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly
and voluntarily by the parties x x x absent any x x x circumstances
vitiating [the employees] consent, or where [the facts satisfactorily
show] that the employer and [the] employee dealt with each other on
more or less equal terms[.] The indispensability or desirability of the
activity performed by the employee will not preclude the parties from
entering into an otherwise valid fixed term employment agreement; a
definite period of employment does not essentially contradict the nature
of the employees duties as necessary and desirable to the usual
business or trade of the employer.
Nevertheless, where the circumstances evidently show that the
employer imposed the period precisely to preclude the employee
from acquiring tenurial security, the law and this Court will not hesitate
to strike down or disregard the period as contrary to public policy,
morals, etc. In such a case, the general restrictive rule under Article
280 of the Labor Code will apply and the employee shall be deemed
regular.
Q. How can an employer overcome the allegation that an employee
has become a regular employee when said employee was hired as a
project employee?
A project employment contemplates on arrangement whereby the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose
completion or termination has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee.
Two requirements need to be satisfied to remove the engagement from
the presumption of regularity of employment, namely: (1) designation
of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee is hired; and
(2) clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at
the time of the employees engagement. The services of the project
employees are legally and automatically terminated upon the end or
completion of the project as the employees services are coterminous
with the project.

Q. What is the concept of control test in an employer-employee

relationship?
Tongko v. Manufacturers Life Insurance (GR 167622, June 29, 2010
& January 25, 2011):
Guidelines indicative of labor law control,, should not merely relate
to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship;
they must have the nature of dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the methodology and of
binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.
Q. What is the fourfold test in secondment position?
Intel Technology v. NLRC & Cabiles, February 5, 2014: The
continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee
relationship in a typical secondment contract is measured by the FOUR
FOLD TEST:
(1)If the acceptance of the new assignment (2) required the
abandonment of the employees permanent position with the former
employer; (3) in order for him to assume a position in an entirely
different company, and (4) the permanent transfer or assignment
constituted a severance of employment with the former employer.
Q. Professor Mercado has been teaching Mathematics at the
Unibersidad ng Pag-Asa (U.P.) for four semesters on a probationary
status. He hold a Bachelors Degree in Education and graduated
cum laude. He requested U.P. to regularize his employment so he
can enjoy the benefits under the CBA of the faculty members of
U.P.. Can he compel U.P. to give him a regular status?
No. University of the East v. Pepanio, January 23, 2013: Mere
completion of the four semester probation, even with an above-average
performance, does not guarantee that the teacher will automatically
acquire a permanent employment status. The probationer can only
qualify upon fulfilment of the reasonable standards set for permanent
employment as a member of the teaching personnel. A school CBA
must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative
regulations governing faculty qualifications.
Q. After undergoing her probationary period and with completion
of 12 units for her masters degree in education, Professor Cecilio
insisted that he be regularize. Can she compel the school to issue
her a regular employment?
No. Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholasticas College, December 11,
2013: The requirement of a masters degree for attaining permanent full
time faculty member status is a reasonable qualification.
Q. Is it proper to have both the teaching and non-teaching
personnel of an academic institution to just have one bargaining
unit?

No. Holy Child Catholic School v. HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS, July 23,

2013: An academic institution should have two bargaining units:

one for academic personnel; and another for non-academic
personnel. The differences, however, between the two categories of
employees are no substantial enough to warrant a dismissal of a
petition for certification election, seeking an election for only one
unit. The remedy is to hold two certification elections.
Q. What will consist of due notice to terminate an employee under
probation?
Tamsons Enterprises v. CA, November 16, 2011; Abbot Laboratories
vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013: Section 2, Rule I, Book VI: If the
termination is brought about by the completion of a contract or phase
thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet the standards of the
employer in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient
that a written notice is served the employee, within a reasonable time
from the effective date of termination.
Q. If a probationary employee was illegally dismissed, what is the
basis of the computation of his backwages?
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez,
January 19, 2011: The computation of backwages of a probationary
employee should not cover the entire period from the time her
compensation was withheld up to the time of her actual reinstatement.
The computation of backwages shall end upon the end of the
probationary employment.
The lapse of the probationary employment without any appointment as
a regular employee of the employer effectively severed the employeremployee relationship between the parties.
Q. Cristina was initially hired by Abet Laboratories Inc. (ALI)
on a probationary basis. She has been on probation for the past two
years. Under the Employees Handbook, an employee who has
consistently rendered above average performance for a
probationary period of two years will automatically become a
regular employee. Cristina requested that she be regularized. ALI
refused to regularize Cristina and instead, it terminated her
employment. Cristina instituted an action against ALI. Will the
case prosper?
Yes. Abbot Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, July 23, 2013: The employers
violation of its own company procedure for termination renders the
termination procedurally infirm, warranting the payment of nominal
damages. The adequate performance of ones duties is, by and of itself
an inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be

regularized; such is a regularization standard which need not be spelled

out or mapped into technical indicators in every case.
Q. Who is considered a project employee?
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC,
March 30, 2011: A project employee may be classified according to the
nature of activities either as:
1. A particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual
business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate,
and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company.
Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable
times.
2. A particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular
business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be
identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business
operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends
at determined or determinable times.
Q. What is the test to determine if one is a project employee?
Asos v. PNCC, July 3, 2013: The principal test used to determine
whether employees are project employees is whether or not the
employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking,
the duration or scope of which was specified at the time the employees
were engaged for that project.
Q. Is prior advice necessary to terminate the services of a project
employee?
No. DM Consunji v. Gobres, August 8, 2010: Completion of the work
or project automatically terminates the employment. Prior or advance
notice of termination is not part of procedural due process if the
termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase
thereof for which the employee was engaged. There is no violation of
any requirement of procedural due process by failing to give the project
employees advance notice of their termination; thus, there is no basis
for the payment of nominal damages.
Q. Who is a seasonal employee?
Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013: The general rule is that seasonal
employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal
employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of
their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season,
they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season
or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment
because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time
they have worked.
The exception to the rule is that seasonal workers who have worked for
one season only may not be considered regular employees. Similarly,
when seasonal employees are free to contract their services with other
farm owners, then the former are not regular employees.
Q. Who are confidential employees?
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia
Brewery, August 3, 2010;

Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential

capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria
are cumulative, and both must be met.
The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal
course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to
labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential employee rule.
Q. Mr. Ramos is a paymaster of a manufacturing company. Can he
be considered a confidential employee?
No. San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union,
August 1, 2011: Payroll Master and employees who have access to
salary and compensation data are NOT Confidential employees. Their
position do not involve dealing with confidential labor relations
information
Q. Mr. Santos is a well-known publicist. Pursuant to the By-Laws of
ABC Company, the Board of Directors created the position of
Communications Manager and it engaged the services of Mr.
Santos for said position. Is Mr. Santos considered a corporate
officer?
No. A position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to
be considered as a corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office
pursuant to or under a By-Law enabling provision is not enough to
make a position a corporate office.
Q. As an ordinary corporate officer, can Mr. Santos be terminated
at will by ABC Company?
No. Matling Industrial v. Coros, October 13, 2010. The criteria for
distinguishing between corporate officers who may be ousted from
office at will, on one hand, and ordinary corporate employees who may
only be terminated for just cause, on the other hand, do not depend on
the nature of the services performed, but on the manner of creation of
the office.
Q. Mr. Reyes is a stockholder of XYZ Company. Being an
accountant, the company hired him as its Comptroller, a position
not provided for in the companys By-Laws.
Mr. Reyes is listed as an officer in the General Information Sheet
of the Company.
The company terminated his services because he found to be
remised of his responsibility as Comptroller. Can Mr. Reyes file an
intra-corporate suit before the RTC for his dismissal?
No. Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, February 5, 2014: The contents of the
General Information Sheets, which identifies the employee as an
officer of the company could neither govern nor establish the

nature of the office held by the employee and his appointment

thereto. The mere fact that the complainant employee was a
stockholder of the company does not necessarily make the action an
intra-corporate controversy.
Q. What is the test to be determine whether or not a termination of
employment involves an intercorporate controversy?
The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all stockholders
or that the parties involved are the stockholders and the corporation
does not necessarily place the dispute within the ambit of the
jurisdiction of the RTC. The Two-tier Test must be applied. The test
must scrutinize: the status or relationship of the parties; and the nature
of the question that is the subject of the controversy.
Real v. Sangu Phils., January 19, 2011: If the worker was not
appointed by the Board of Directors, there is no intra-corporate
relationship. If what is involved is termination of employment, it is a
labor controversy, and not an intra-corporate dispute.
Q. Mr. Alden Richards, an American citizen, was hired by Aldub
Company as a Marketing Specialist. He has worked for the
company for two years. The company terminated the services for
Mr. Richards because the Human Resources Manager of the
company found out that he does not have any Alien Employment
Permit. Mr. Richards sued the company for illegal dismissal. Will
the case prosper?
No. McBurnie v. Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc., October 17, 2013: A
foreigner who alleged illegal dismissal and sought to claim under our
labor laws is required to establish first that he was qualified and duly
authorized to obtain employment within our jurisdiction. A
requirement for foreigners who intend to work within the country is an
employment permit. With the failure of Mr. Richards to obtain his
Alien Employment Permit warrants the dismissal of his labor
complaint.
Q. Mr. Ricardo Sanchez is a referee engaged by the UAAP. Is he an
employee of the UAAP?
No. Bernante v. PBA, September 14, 2011: The contractual stipulations
do not pertain to, much less dictate, how and when the referees will
blow the whistle and make calls. They merely serve as rules of conduct
or guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the professional
basketball league.
Q. Ms. Ay is a talent of Showcase, a noontime show of a popular
television network. Is she considered an employee of the television
network company?

No. Fulache v. ABS-CBN, January 21, 2010; Television and

Production Exponents v. Servaa, January 28, 2008; ABS-CBN

Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno, Sept. 26, 2006:
As a talent, Ms. Ay Ay is considered not an employee of the television
network company. However, production assistants, drivers/cameramen and
security guards of the network company not being talents are considered

employees.
2. Labor Contracting
- Requisites
- What is an independent contractor agreement
- Service contractor
-labor/job contractor
- Rights under labor contracting
Q. What characterizes legitimate job contracting?
Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010: A person is
considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if
the following conditions concur:
(a) The contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and
undertakes the contract work on his account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the
control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of his work except as to the results
thereof;
(b) The contractor has substantial capital or investment; and
(c) The agreement between the principal and the contractor or
subcontractor assures the contractual employees' entitlement to all labor
and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right
to self-organization, security of tenure, and social welfare benefits.
Q. A complaint was lodged against Top Company by a group of
laborers alleging that the company does not have sufficient capital
to operate as an independent contractor. During the hearing, Top
Company presented its Certificate of Registration with the DOLE.
Is the Certificate of Registration sufficient proof to establish that it
is an independent contractor?
No. Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping, December 15, 2010: A contractors
Certificate of Registration is not sufficient proof that it is an
independent contractor. A Certificate of Registration issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment is not conclusive evidence of
such status. The fact of registration simply prevents the legal
presumption of being a mere labor-only contractor from arising.
3. Wage Formulation
- Powers of Wage Boards
- Coverage/Effectivity of Schedule of Adjustments
- Wage Distortion
4. Benefits for Women Workers
- Maternity Leave contrast this with Paternity Leave

- Gynecological Leave
-Sexual Harassment
5. Diminution of Benefits
- Prohibition
- When justified
E. Book IV
1. Death Benefits of Seafarers
Q. Can a claim for death benefits be denied even if the injury was
sustained in the course of his work?
Yes. Crew and Management International Inc and Selena Inc. V.
Jina T. Soria (2012): Failure of an injured seafarer to comply with
medical check up within three days from repatriation is not entitled to
receive death benefits. The Court ruled that it could not find a direct
link that pneumonia being the cause of death based on the Death
Certificate was triggered by the tetanus caused by the injury sustained
by the seafarer.
2. Disability Benefits of Seafarers
Q. What is the basis of disability benefit of a Filipino overseas
seafarer?
Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or
Interorient Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No.,
January 15, 2014. With respect to the applicable rules, it is doctrinal
that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits
is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by
contract. The material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under
Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code, in relation [to] Rule
X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of the Labor
Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as provided under Department
Order No. 4, series of 2000 of the Department of Labor and
Employment, and the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement bind
the seaman and his employer to each other.
In the foregoing light, the Court observes that respondent executed his
contract of employment on July 17, 2000, incorporating therein the
terms and conditions of the 2000 POEA-SEC which took effect on June
25, 2000.
However, since the implementation of the provisions of the foregoing
2000 POEA-SEC was temporarily suspended by the Court on
September 11, 2000, particularly Section 20, paragraphs (A), (B), and
(D) thereof, and was lifted only on June 5, 2002, through POEA
Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2002, the determination of
respondents entitlement to the disability benefits should be resolved

under the provisions of the 1996 POEA-SEC as it was, effectively, the

governing circular at the time respondents employment contract was
executed.
3. Claims under Employees Compensation Act
F. Book V
1. Unions and Registration
- Process of registration
- Grounds for denial of registration
Q. Is the submission of financial statement material to registration
of a labor union?
No. Heritage Hotel v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC (2011). The registered
union is not required to submit financial statements and/or keep
membership representing 20% of the appropriate bargaining unit
throughout its lifetime. The Court said that the constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of association and right of workers to selforganization far outweigh respondents compliance to maintain its
status as a legitimate labor organizations.
Q. What is the effect of withdrawal of membership after the
application for registration has been filed?
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010: The
subsequent affidavits of retraction (withdrawal of membership) will not
retroact to the time of the application for registration or even way back
to the organizational meeting.
Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires the list of names of all the union
members of an independent union comprising at least 20% of the
bargaining unit. This should not be equated with the list of workers
who participated in the organizational meetings (par [b]).
Q. Can both the supervisory and rank-and-file employees be
affiliated with the same labor organization?
Yes. Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER)
v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011
The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a union
does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization.
Q. Can both the supervisory union and the rank-and-file
employees union be affiliated with the same labor federation?
Yes. Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation v. Hon. Secretary of
Labor, August 14, 20

As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now allows a rank and file
union and a supervisory union of the same company to be part of the
same federation for the following reasons:
An employer cannot ignore the existence of a legitimate labor
organization at the time of its voluntary recognition of another
union. The employer and the voluntarily recognized union
cannot, by themselves, decide whether the other union represented
an appropriate bargaining unit.
The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status
of a union in unorganized establishments
San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt
Union, August 1, 2011: The test of grouping is community or
mutuality of interest.
There should be only one bargaining unit for employees involved
in dressed chicken processing and workers engaged in live
chicken operations.
Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the
tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists
mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single
bargaining unit.
2. Affiliation and Disaffiliation
Q. Can the Court intervene in an intra-union dispute?
No. Cirtek Employees Labor Union- FFW v. Cirtek Electronics
(2011): In the present case, whether the FFW went against the will
of its principle (member-employees) by pursuing the case despite
signing of the MOA, is not for the Court, nor for the respondent
employer to determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on
their own pursuant to their principal agent relationship.
Moreover, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute which
must be resolved in a different forum.
3. Certification Elections and CBA
- procedural aspects
- coverage of CBA
- conduct of CBA
- relate to kinds of employees, (Art. 82, Book V)
- prescription of action on ULP
- liability for just/authorized cause, see Art. 282
- constructive dismissal
- reinstatement, grounds
- payroll reinstatement
- entitlement to back wages (applicable rules/ maximum
amount)

- Notice to Strike (period, grounds)

- Rule on participation of union officers and union members
in illegal strike
Q. Is a certificate of non-forum shopping a requisite in a
certification proceeding?
No. SAMMA-LIKHA v. SAMMA Corporation, March 13, 2009: There
is no requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping in the Labor
Code or in the rules.
A certification proceeding, even though initiated by a petition, is not a
litigation but an investigation of a non-adversarial and fact-finding
character. Such proceedings are not predicated upon an allegation of
misconduct requiring relief, but, rather, are merely of an inquisitorial
nature.
Q. Can probationary employees be allowed to vote in certification
election?
Yes. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary, July
31, 2009:
Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall
beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership
in any labor organization. In a certification election for the bargaining
unit of rank and file employees, all rank and file employees, whether
probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. As long as probationary
employees belong to the defined bargaining unit, they are eligible to
support the petition for certification election.
4. Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Strikes
Q. Who has jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice complaint?
Silva v. National Labor Relations Commission: The correlations of
Article 248 (1) and Article 261 of the Labor Code stress that for a ULP
case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC to
exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the complaint
must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross
violation of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic
provisions of the CBA.
However, when an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union
despite the existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and
exclusive bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its
recognition of the latter and terminates the entire CBA.
Q. How will the Labor Arbiter rule if malice was not alleged in a
complaint for unfair labor practice?
Dismiss the case. Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association
v. Manila Mining Corp., September 29, 2010: For a charge of unfair
labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was
motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor.

The employer must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good

customs, or public policy causing social humiliation, wounded feelings
or grave anxiety. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer
and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such
compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or
agree to the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that both
parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make
reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.
Q. Is it possible for a labor union to commit an unfair labor
practice?
Yes. Goya v. Goya Employees Union, January 21, 2013: A CBA
which prescribes three categories of employees (probationary, regular,
casual) and provides for the definition, functions and duties of each,
serves as a limitation on managements prerogative of outsourcing parts
of its operations, particularly if it involves functions or duties specified
under the CBA.
Q. With the adoption of cost cutting measures, Eduardo was part of
manufacturing that was retrenched by the company. Can Eduardo
ask for reinstatement?
No. Pepsi Cola Products v. Molon et al., February 18, 2013:
Retrenchment in good faith is not an unfair labor practice. The fact that
the retrenchment program was implemented on a company-wide basis
shows that the scheme was not calculated to stymie union activities.
Q. Jerusalem Corp. (JC) has been providing new chairs to its
sewing crew for the past five years. On the sixth year, JC stopped
providing new chairs. Can the company be charged with unfair
labor practice for withdrawal of this regular provision?
No. Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bottlers, April 15, 2013:
Removal of chairs, which had been provided for more than three
decades, was not ULP. The rights of the Union under any labor law
were not violated.
Since the CBA stated that any benefit not expressly provided for in the
CBA shall be deemed as purely voluntary acts, and shall not be
construed as obligation of the company, its subsequent removal was
valid. The long practice did not convert it into an obligation or a vested
right in favor of the union. Chairs are not considered benefits and are
not therefore covered by the prohibition against diminution.
Q. Who has the burden of proof in an unfair labor practice case?
The party who instituted the case has the burden of proof. Central
Azucarera de Bais Employees Union v. Central Azucarera de Bais,
November 17, 2010: Basic is the principle that good faith is presumed
and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. By
imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the
burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation
of unfair labor practice. Apparently, CABEU-NFL refers only to the
circumstances mentioned in the letter-response, namely, the execution
of the supposed CBA between CAB and CABELA and the request to
suspend the negotiations, to conclude that bad faith attended CABs

actions. The Court is of the view that CABEU-NFL, in simply relying

on the said letter-response, failed to substantiate its claim of unfair labor
practice to rebut the presumption of good faith.
Q. Who has the burden of proof in a case when there is allegation
that the registration of the labor union was attended with fraud?
The party who instituted the action has the burden of proof.
Yokohama Tire Phils. v. Yokohama Employees Union, March 10,
2010; Heritage Hotel Manila v. PIGLAS-Heritage, October 30, 2009:
The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and
misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge that
should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding
circumstances.
The petitioner (the party that filed the Petition for Cancellation) has the
burden of proof.
Q. Is the employer a party to the petition for certification election?
No. Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima
Textile, July 23, 2008: Except when it is requested to bargain
collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for
certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely
investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization
will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the
employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of
the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein;
it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a
motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that
some employees participating in a petition for certification election are
actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality
to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the
proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof.
As amended by R.A. 9481, the Labor Code now provides that, in
certification election cases, the employer shall not be considered a
party with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification
election.
Q. Can employer terminate the employment of union members
during the Freedom Period?
No. PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Taeca, August 9, 2010: The mere
signing of the authorization in support of a Petition for Certification
Election before the freedom period, is not sufficient ground to
terminate the employment of union members under the Union Security
Clause respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually filed
during the freedom period.
Q. What is the effect if the employer and the company extends its 5year CBA?
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang

Manggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor

Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), November 27, 2009: While
the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term
together with all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in
excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the unions
exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of the
above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go
beyond five years and the representation status is a legal matter not for
the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an
agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an
original provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive
bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged
within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the CBAs first five
years.
Q. Can the personality of the petitioner labor be collaterally
attacked in the same certification election proceeding?
No. Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER)
v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011: The legal
personality of petitioner union cannot be collaterally attacked in the
certification election proceedings. The remedy is to file a separate
action for cancellation of the unions registration/legal personality.
Q. Can bonuses be demandable?
Yes. Eastern Telecoms v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union,
February 8, 2012;
The general is a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation.
For a bonus to be enforceable, it must have been promised by the
employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties. Given that the
bonus in this case is integrated in the CBA, the same partakes the nature
of a demandable obligation. Verily, by virtue of its incorporation in the
CBA, the Christmas bonus due to respondent Association has become
more than just an act of generosity on the part of the petitioner but a
contractual obligation it has undertaken.
Q: Are dismissed employees entitled to backwages?
If termination was not without just cause, they are entitled to back
wages.
Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) formerly known as
Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH) v. Erma Yballe, et al.,
G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014: As a general rule, backwages are
granted to indemnify a dismissed employee for his loss of earnings
during the whole period that he is out of his job. Considering that an
illegally dismissed employee is not deemed to have left his
employment, he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to

him from the employment. The grant of backwages to him is in

furtherance and effectuation of the public objectives of the Labor Code,
and is in the nature of a command to the employer to make public
reparation for dismissing the employee in violation of the Labor Code.
The Court held that the respondents are not entitled to the payment of
backwages. The Court, citing G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante
(G. R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007) stated that the principle of a
fair days wage for a fair days labor remains as the basic factor in
determining the award thereof. An exception to the rule would be if the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working.
It is, however, required, for this exception to apply, that the strike be
legal, a situation which does not obtain in the case at bar.
The Supreme Court stressed that the law makes a distinction between
union members and union officers. A union member who merely
participates in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment.
It is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be
declared to have lost employment status. In contrast, a union officer
may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an
illegal strike or participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike. The law grants the employer the option of declaring a union
officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his
employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to terminate the
union officers from service.
F. Book VI
1. Just Cause
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No.
180972. January 20, 2014: The burden is on the employer to prove that the
termination was for valid cause. Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless
conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal justifications to dismiss an
employee. The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that the
employer bears the burden of proof. Embezzlement and failure to remit
collections can only be sustained if the employee actually collected the
amounts due to the company.

2. Authorized Cause
Q. What constitutes constructive dismissal?
Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. v. Ranchez,
January 19, 2011:There is constructive dismissal when the employer
pre-judged the employees guilt without proper investigation, and

instantly reported her to the police as the suspected thief, after the
employee herself reported the loss of money. The due process
requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be
supplanted by police investigation or court proceedings. The criminal
aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative
aspect. Employers should not rely solely on the findings of the
Prosecutors Office. They are mandated to conduct their own separate
investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend
ones self.
Dreamland Hotel v. Johnson, March 12, 2014: The employers nonpayment of the employees salaries for three months constituted
constructive dismissal, even if it was the employee who resigned, since
the employee clearly cited in the resignation letter the non-payment of
salaries as the reason for the resignation.
The University of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, January 26,
2011: Constructive Dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or
unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or
when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to the employee, leaving the latter with no other
option but to quit.
Q. Will the pendency of a criminal case justify the termination of
employment of an employee?
No. United Tourist Promotion v. Kemplin, February 5, 2014: A first
notice which stated that the employment contract had expired but
likewise made general references to alleged criminal suits filed against
the employee is non-compliant with the twin-notice requirement.
An employees guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not
determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for the
employees dismissal. The pendency of a criminal suit against an
employee does not, by itself, sufficiently establish a ground for an
employer to terminate the employees services.
3. Observation of Due Notice
- Two-notice rule: appraisal and notice of termination
Q. When will the two-notice rule not apply?
Caong v. Regualos, January 26, 2011: The employers policy of
suspending drivers who fail to remit the full amount of the boundary
was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. An employer has free
rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of
employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline on the

employees. Since the case involved a suspension, not a termination, the

strict application of the twin-notice rule is not warranted.
Q. Will lending a company I.D. to allow a relative to avail of shuttle
bus service of the company justify his dismissal?
No. Integrated Microelectronics v. Pionilla, August 28, 2013: An
employees act of lending his I.D. card to a relative who was an
applicant at the employer company (to allow the relative to have free
pass for the shuttle bus) was considered as insufficient ground for
termination, despite the guilt of the employee.
Reinstatement WITHOUT backwages was ordered, because: (1)
dismissal of the employee was too harsh a penalty; (2) the employer
was in good faith in terminating the employee.
Q. What would justify non-payment of separation pay?
International School v. ISAE, February 5, 2014: In addition to serious
misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like
wilful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or wilful
breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer or his
family, separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed
employee.
In analogous causes for termination like inefficiency, drug use, and
others, the NLRC or the courts may opt to grant separation pay
anchored on social justice in consideration of the length of service of
the employee, the amount involved, whether the act is the first offense,
the performance of the employee and the like.
Grievance procedure
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R.
No. 180972. January 20, 2014: The burden is on the employer to prove
that the termination was for valid cause. Unsubstantiated accusations or
baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal justifications
to dismiss an employee. The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases
is that the employer bears the burden of proof.
One of CCBPIs policies requires that, on a daily basis, CCBPI
Salesmen/Account Specialists must account for their sales/collections
and obtain clearance from the company Cashier before they are allowed
to leave company premises at the end of their shift and report for work
the next day. If there is a shortage/failure to account, the concerned
Salesmen/Account Specialist is not allowed to leave the company
premises until he settles the same. In addition, shortages are deducted
from the employees salaries. If CCBPI expects to proceed with its case
against petitioner, it should have negated this policy, for its existence
and application are inextricably tied to CCBPIs accusations against
petitioner. In the first place, as petitioners employer, upon it lay the

burden of proving by convincing evidence that he was dismissed for

cause. If petitioner continued to work until June 2004, this meant that
he committed no infraction, going by this company policy; it could also
mean that any infraction or shortage/non-remittance incurred by
petitioner has been duly settled. Respondents decision to ignore this
issue generates the belief that petitioner is telling the truth, and that the
alleged infractions are fabricated, or have been forgiven. Coupled with
Macatangays statement which remains equally unrefuted that the
charges against petitioner are a scheme by local CCBPI management to
cover up problems in the Naga City Plant, the conclusion is indeed
telling that petitioner is being wrongfully made to account.
G. Book VII
1. Jurisdiction: Labor Arbiter
Price v. Innodata (2008): Where contract of employment, being a
contract of adhesion, is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be
construed strictly against the party who prepared it.
Sofio v. Valenzuela (2012): When the labor arbiters decision has
become final, party who prevailed already attained a vested right to said
judgment. They had to rely on the immutability of judgment.
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or
Interorient Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No.,
January 15, 2014: Having established through substantial evidence that
respondents injury was self-inflicted and, hence, not compensable
pursuant to Section 20 (D) of the 1996 POEA-SEC, no grave abuse of
discretion can be imputed against the NLRC in upholding LAs
decision to dismiss respondents complaint for disability benefits. It is
well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to
be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction: NLRC
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or
Interorient Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No.,
January 15, 2014: In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings,
only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required. To
note, considering that substantial evidence is an evidentiary threshold,
the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations
made by the NLRC in a particular case.
The Court ruled that NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that
petitioners have successfully discharged the burden of proving by
substantial evidence that respondents injury was directly attributable to

him. Records bear out circumstances which all lead to the reasonable
conclusion that respondent was responsible for the flooding and burning
incidents. While respondent contended that the affidavits and
statements of the vessels officers and his fellow crew members should
not be given probative value as they were biased, self-serving, and
mere hearsay, he nonetheless failed to present any evidence to
substantiate his own theory. Besides, as correctly pointed out by
the NLRC, the corroborating affidavits and statements of the
vessels officers and crew members must be taken as a whole and
cannot just be perfunctorily dismissed as self-serving absent any
showing that they were lying when they made the statements therein.
.United Placement v. NLRC (1993): Review powers of NLRC are
limited only on issues raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of
discretion for the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal.
Jurisdiction: Bureau of Labor Relations
Jurisdiction: National Conciliation and Mediation Board
Insular Hotel Employees Union- NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel
(2010): Procedurally, the first step to submit a case for mediation is
to file a notice of preventive mediation with the NCMB.
Jurisdiction: DOLE Regional Directors
Jurisdiction: Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration
Insular Hotel Employees Union v. Waterfront Insular Hotel,
September 22, 2010: The general rule is individual employees cannot
raise a grievance. Only disputes involving the union and the company
shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. A
labor federation cannot raise a grievance on behalf of members of its
local/chapter.
BPI v. BPI Employees Union (2012): In ruling in favour of the union
in a voluntary arbitration, the Court held that the CBA is the contract
between the parties. All provisions and conditions for availment of
benefits should be made clear. Any ambiguity must be resolved in favor
of the employees.
Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010: Article 217(c) of the
Labor Code requires labor arbiters to refer cases involving the
implementation of CBAs to the grievance machinery provided therein
and to voluntary arbitration.
Moreover, Article 260 of the Labor Code clarifies that such disputes
must be referred first to the grievance machinery and, if unresolved
within seven days, they shall automatically be referred to voluntary
arbitration.
Continental Steel v. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Montano: Being
for the benefit of the employee, CBA provisions on bereavement leave

and other death benefits should be interpreted liberally to give life to the
intentions thereof.
Jurisdiction: DOLE Secretary
Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and
Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO, January 12, 2009: The
Secretary of Labor and Employment dismissed the first petition as
it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. Subsequently,
another petition for CE was filed, this time within the freedom
period.
Q. Will the subsequent petition prosper?
Yes, because the dismissal has no bearing in the instant case since the
third petition for certification election was filed well within the 60-day
freedom period. Otherwise stated, there is no identity of causes of
action to speak of since in the first petition, the union has no cause of
action while in the third, a cause of action already exists for the union as
they are now legally allowed to challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER
as exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Prescription of Actions
- Illegal dismissal without any legal bar: 4 years
- Money claims without legal bar: 3 years
- Termination of employment: 4 years (Art. 1146, Civil Code)
Goodrich v. Ativo (2010): Courts look with disfavor on quitclaims.
Exceptions to the general rule on quitclaims:
1. Employee executes quitclaim voluntarily
2. There is fraud or deceit on the part of the employer
3. Consideration for quitclaim is credible and reasonable
4. Contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law
Villaruel v. Yeo Han Guan, June 1, 2011: Separation pay under
Article 284 presupposes that it is the employer who terminates the
services of the employee found to be suffering from disease. It does not
apply to a situation where it is the employee who severe his or her
employment ties.
Nippon Housing v. Leynes, August 3, 2011: A complaint for illegal
dismissal filed prior to the lapse of the six-month period (offdetailing/floating status) and/or the actual dismissal of the employee is
generally considered premature.
3. Modes of Appeal

General Rule: The absence of employer-employee relationship not

be raised for the first time on appeal.
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or
Interorient Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No.,
January 15, 2014: The Courts jurisdiction in cases brought before it
from the CA via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is generally limited to
reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper venue to consider a
factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not
ironclad and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the
findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions
of the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is therefore a
need to review the records to determine which of them should be
preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.
The prevailing rule under Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC on
compensation and benefits for injury or illness was that an employer
shall be liable for the injury or illness suffered by a seafarer during the
term of his contract. To be compensable, the injury or illness must be
proven to have been contracted during the term of the contract.
However, the employer may be exempt from liability if he can
successfully prove that the cause of the seamans injury was directly
attributable to his deliberate or willful act as provided under Section 20
(D) thereof, to wit:
D. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury,
incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his
willful or criminal act, provided however, that the employer can
prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly
attributable to seafarer.
Hence, the onus probandi falls on the petitioners herein to
establish or substantiate their claim that the respondents injury
was caused by his willful act with the requisite quantum of
evidence.
4. Award of Attorneys Fees
- Nature of award
- Grounds for award
-maximum amount
Q. Can monetary award be granted based on equity?
Yes. Luna v. Allado Construction, May 30, 2011; Villaruel v. Yeo
Han Guan, June 1, 2011: Even if there is a finding that the employee
indeed resigned and was not dismissed, the employee may still be
granted financial assistance on equity considerations.