U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
LABOR LAW
CANONICAL DOCTRINES
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
TOPIC
Presumption of
Inherent
Inequality
DOCTRINE
The presumption is that the employer
and the employee are on unequal
footing so the State has the
responsibility to protect the employee.
This presumption, however, must be
taken on a case-to-case basis.
CITED IN
Perfecto
M.
Pascua v. Bank
Wise, Inc.
G.R. No. 191460 |
Jan. 31, 2018
CITING
Fuji
Television
Network,
Inc.
v.
Arlene Espiritu, G.R.
No. 204944-45, Dec.
3,
2014;
citing
Jaculbe v. Silliman
University, G.R. No.
156934, Mar. 16,
2007, citing Mercury
Drug Co, Inc. v. CIR,
G.R. No. L-23357,
Apr. 30, 1974; &
Philippine
Association
of
Service Exporters v.
Drilon,
G.R.
No.
81958, June 30, 1988
RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT
TOPIC
POEAStandard
Employment
Contract
integrated in
every
employment
contract
DOCTRINE
As part of a seafarer's deployment for
overseas work, he and the vessel
owner or its representative local
manning agency are required to
execute the POEA-SEC. Containing
the standard terms and conditions of
seafarers' employment, the POEASEC is deemed included in their
contracts of employment in foreign
ocean-going vessels.
CITED IN
Sharpe
Sea
Personnel, Inc. v.
Mabunay, Jr.
Estafa vs. Illegal
Recruitment
It is well-established in jurisprudence
that a person may be charged and
convicted for both illegal recruitment
and estafa.The reason therefor is not
hard to discern: illegal recruitment is
malum prohibitum,while estafa is
mala in se.In the first, the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary
for conviction. In the second, such
intent is imperative. Estafa under
People v. Racho y
Somera
Page 1 of 16
abon3298
G.R. No. 206113 |
Nov. 6, 2017
G.R. No. 227505 |
Oct. 2, 2017
CITING
Wallem
Maritime
Services,
Inc.
v.
Tanawan, G.R. No.
160444, Aug. 29,
2012; citing Coastal
Safeway
Marine
Services,
Inc.
v.
Delgado, G.R. No.
168210, June 17,
2008; citing Pentagon
International
Shipping,
Inc. v.
Adelantar, G.R. No.
157373, July 27,
2004
People v. Chua, G.R.
No. 187052, Sept. 13,
2012; citing People v.
Chua,
G.R.
No.
184058, Mar. 10,
2010; citing People v.
Comila, G.R. No.
171448, Feb. 28,
2007; citing People v.
Hernandez, G.R. No.
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the
Revised Penal Code is committed by
any person who defrauds another by
using fictitious name, or falsely
pretends to possess power, influence,
qualifications,
property,
credit,
agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar
deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission
of fraud.
141221-36, Mar. 7,
2002; citing People v.
Sagaydo, G.R. No.
124671-75, Sept. 29,
2000 & People v.
Banzales, G.R. No.
132289, Jul. 18, 2000
LABOR STANDARDS
TOPIC
Designation as
"manager" not
enough to be
considered
managerial
employee
DOCTRINE
Managerial employees are ranked as
Top Managers, Middle Managers and
First Line Managers. The mere fact
that an employee is designated
"manager" does not ipso facto make
him one-designation should be
reconciled with the actual job
description of the employee for it is the
job description that determines the
nature of employment.
CITED IN
Asia
Pacific
Chartering (Phils.)
Inc. v. Farolan
Field Personnel
The definition of a "field personnel" is
not merely concerned with the
location where the employee regularly
performs his duties but also with the
fact that the employee's performance
is unsupervised by the employer. We
held that field personnel are those
who regularly perform their duties
away from the principal place of
business of the employer and whose
actual hours of work in the field cannot
be determined with reasonable
certainty. Thus, in order to determine
whether an employee is a field
employee, it is also necessary to
ascertain if actual hours of work in the
field can be determined with
reasonable certainty by the employer.
In so doing, an inquiry must be made
as to whether or not the employee's
time and performance are constantly
supervised by the employer.
If there is no work performed by the
employee, there can be no wage.
Far
East
Agricultural
Supply, Inc. v.
Lebatique
No-work-no-pay
Page 2 of 16
abon3298
G.R. No. 151370 |
Dec. 4, 2002
CITING
Paper
Industries
Corp. v. Laguesma,
G.R. No. 101738,
April 12, 2000; citing
Dunlop
Slazenger
(Phils.),
INC.,
v.
Secretary of Labor,
G.R. No. 131248,
Dec. 11, 1998; citing
Engineering
Equipment, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. L59221, Dec. 26, 1984
Auto Bus Transport
Systems v. Bautista,
G.R. No. 156367,
May 16, 2005
G.R. No. 162813 |
Feb. 12, 2007
Coca-Cola
Bottlers,
Phils.,
Inc. v. Iloilo CocaCola
Plant
Employees Labor
Union
Aklan
Electric
Cooperative Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
121439, Jan. 25,
2000; citing Caltex
Refinery Employees
Association
v.
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
G.R. No. 195297 |
Dec. 5, 2018
Inclusion of
commission in
basic salary
Civil Code
exemption
against
garnishment
only refers to
It is well-established in jurisprudence
that the determination of whether or
not a commission forms part of the
basic salary depends upon the
circumstances or conditions for its
payment. In Phil Duplicators, Inc. v.
NLRC,
the
Court
held
that
commissions earned by salesmen
form part of their basic salary. The
salesmen's commissions, comprising
a pre-determined percentage of the
selling price of the goods sold by each
salesman, were properly included in
the term basic salary for purposes of
computing the 13th month pay. The
salesmen's commissions are not
overtime payments, nor profit-sharing
payments nor any other fringe benefit,
but a portion of the salary structure
which represents an automatic
increment to the monetary value
initially assigned to each unit of work
rendered by a salesman. On the other
hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc.
v. De la Serna, the so-called
commissions paid to or received by
medical
representatives
were
excluded from the term basic salary
because these were paid to the
medical representatives and rankand-file employees as productivity
bonuses, which were generally tied to
the productivity, or capacity for
revenue production, of a corporation
and such bonuses closely resemble
profit-sharing payments and had no
clear direct or necessary relation to
the amount of work actually done by
each individual employee.
The exemption under Article 1708
('The laborer's wages shall not be
subject to execution or attachment,
except for debts incurred for food,
shelter,
clothing
and
medical
attendance') of the Civil Code favors
Page 3 of 16
abon3298
Philippine Spring
Water Resources,
Inc. v. Court of
Appeals
G.R. No. 205278 |
June 11, 2014
Spouses
Balanoba
Madriaga
v.
G.R. No. 160109 |
Nov. 22, 2005
Brillantes, G.R. No.
123782, Sept. 16,
1997; citing Social
Security System vs.
SSS
Supervisors'
Union, G.R. No. L31832, October 23,
1982; citing J .P.
Heilbronn Co. vs.
National Labor Union,
G.R. No. L-5121, Jan.
30, 1953
Philippine
Duplicators, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
110068, Feb. 15,
1995,
and
BoieTakeda Chemicals,
Inc. v. De la Serna,
G.R. No. 92174, Dec.
10, 1993
Gaa v. CA, G.R. No.
L-44169, Dec. 3,
1985
U.P LAW BOC
"wages" not
"salaries"
Elements of
Wage Distortion
abon3298
only laboring men or women whose
work is manual. Belonging to this
class are the workers who usually
look to the reward of a day's labor for
immediate or present support. They,
more than any other persons, are the
ones in need of the exemption 27
which, needless to say, does not
encompass any and all workers.
Prubankers Association v. Prudential
Bank and Trust Company laid down
the four elements of wage distortion,
to wit: (1) an existing hierarchy of
positions with corresponding salary
rates; (2) a significant change in the
salary rate of a lower pay class
without a concomitant increase in the
salary rate of a higher one; (3) the
elimination of the distinction between
the two levels; and (4) the existence
of the distortion in the same region of
the country.
LABOR LAW
Philippine
Geothermal, Inc.
Employees Union
v.
Chevron
Geothermal Phils.
Holdings, Inc.
Prubankers
Association
v.
Prudential Bank &
Trust Co., G.R. No.
131247, Jan. 25,
1999
G.R. No. 207252 |
Jan. 24, 2018
POST-EMPLOYMENT
TOPIC
Test to
determine
employeremployee
relationship
DOCTRINE
The tests for determining employeremployee relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer's power to control the
employee with respect to the means
and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished. The last is called the
"control test," the most important
element.
CITED IN
Tesoro v. Metro
Manila Retreaders,
Inc.
Determination
of "regular"
employee
There are two separate instances
whereby it can be determined that an
employment is regular: (1) if the
particular activity performed by the
employee is necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the
employer; and, (2) if the employee has
been performing the job for at least a
year.
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.
Pangilinan
v.
General
Milling
Corp.
Project
Employee
Attaining Status
of Regular
Employee;
Requisites
Page 4 of 16
abon3298
G.R. No. 171482 |
March 12, 2014
G.R. No. 149329 |
July 12, 2004
Freyssinet
Filipinas Corp. v.
Lapuz
G.R. No. 226722 |
March 18, 2019
CITING
"Brotherhood" Labor
Unity Movement v.
Zamora, G.R. No. L48645, Jan. 7, 1987;
citing
Investment
Planning Corp. of the
Phil. v. SSS, G.R. No.
L-19124, Nov. 18,
1967,
Manfinco
Trading Corp. v.
Ople, G.R. No. L37790, Mar. 25, 1976
Viernes v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 108405,
April 4, 2003; citing
De Leon v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 70705, Aug,
21, 1989 & Abasolo v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
118475, Nov. 29,
2000
Maraguinot, Jr. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
120969, Jan. 22,
1998; citing PNCC v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
85323, June 20, 1989
& Capitol Industrial
Construction Groups
v. NLRC, G.R. No.
U.P LAW BOC
Valid Project
Employment
Test to
determine
project
employment
Fixed-term
employment;
when valid
abon3298
The Court has upheld the validity of a
project-based contract of employment
provided that the period was agreed
upon knowingly and voluntarily by the
parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to
bear upon the employee and absent
any other circumstances vitiating his
consent; or where it satisfactorily
appears that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on
more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatever being exercised
by the former over the latter; and it is
apparent from the circumstances that
the period was not imposed to
preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security by the employee.
According to jurisprudence, the
principal test for determining whether
particular employees are properly
characterized as "project employees"
as
distinguished
from
"regular
employees," is whether or not the
employees were assigned to carry out
a "specific project or undertaking," the
duration (and scope) of which were
specified at the time they were
engaged for that project. The project
could either be (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; or (2) a particular job or
undertaking that is not within the
regular business of the corporation. In
order to safeguard the rights of
workers against the arbitrary use of the
word "project" to prevent employees
from attaining a regular status,
employers claiming that their workers
are project employees should not only
prove that the duration and scope of
the employment was specified at the
time they were engaged, but also that
there was indeed a project.
A fixed-term employment is valid only
under certain circumstances. We thus
laid down in Brent School, Inc. v.
Zamora parameters or criteria under
which a "term employment" cannot be
said to be in circumvention of the law
on security of tenure, namely:
Page 5 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
E. Ganzon, Inc. v.
Ando, Jr.
G.R. No. 214183 |
Feb. 20, 2017
Omni
Hauling
Services, Inc. v.
Bon
G.R. No. 199388 |
Sept. 3, 2014
Regala v. Manila
Hotel Corp.
G.R. No. 204684,
Oct. 5, 2020
105359, April 22,
1993;
Salinas, Jr. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 114671,
Nov. 24, 1999; citing
Caramol v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 102973,
Aug. 24, 1993
GMA Network v.
Pabriga, G.R. No.
176419, Nov. 27,
2013; citing ALUTUCP v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 109902, Aug. 2,
1994
Brent School, Inc. v.
Zamora, G.R. No. L48494, Feb. 5, 1990
U.P LAW BOC
Regular
seasonal
employment
Requirements
of employer in
probationary
employment
Penalty
imposed should
be
commensurate
to infraction
abon3298
1) The fixed period of employment
was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties without
any force, duress, or improper
pressure being brought to bear
upon the employee and absent
any other circumstances vitiating
his consent; or
2) It satisfactorily appears that the
employer and the employee dealt
with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral
dominance exercised by the
former or the latter.
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.
When dealing with a probationary
employee, the employer is made to
comply with two (2) requirements: first,
the employer must communicate the
regularization standards to the
probationary employee; and second,
the employer must make such
communication at the time of the
probationary employee's engagement.
If the employer fails to comply with
either, the employee is deemed as a
regular and not a probationary
employee.
Infractions committed by an employee
should merit only the corresponding
penalty
demanded
by
the
circumstance. The penalty must be
commensurate
with
the
act,
conduct or omission imputed to the
employee and must be imposed in
Page 6 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
Universal Robina
Sugar
Milling
Corp. v. Acibo
G.R. No. 186439 |
Jan. 15, 2014
Enchanted
Kingdom, Inc. v.
Verzo
G.R. No. 209559 |
Dec. 9, 2015
Negros Slashers
v. Alvin Teng
G.R. No. 187122 |
Feb. 22, 2012
Abasolo v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 118475,
Nov. 29, 2000; citing
Bacolod-Murcia
Milling Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, 204 SCRA
155, 158 [1991];
Visayan Stevedore
Transportation
Company v. CIR, 19
SCRA 426 [1967];
IndustrialCommercial
Agricultural Workers'
Organization
(ICAWO) v. CIR, 16
SCRA 562, 565-566
[1966], Manila Hotel
Company v. Court of
Industrial Relations, 9
SCRA
184,
186
[1963]
Abbott Laboratories
v. Alcaraz, G.R. No.
192571, Jul. 23,
2013; citing Section 6
(d), Rule I, Book VI of
the
Implementing
Rules of the Labor
Code
Sagales v. Rustan's
Commercial Corp.,
G.R. No. 166554,
Nov. 27, 2008; citing
CREA v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 102993, Jul. 14,
1995; citing Radio
Communications of
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
connection with the disciplinary
authority of the employer.
Loss of
confidence;
managerial vs
rank-and-file
employees
Resignation;
requisites
Dismissal for
valid cause but
no procedural
due process
liable for
nominal
damages
With
respect
to
rank-and-file
personnel, loss of trust and confidence
as ground for valid dismissal requires
proof of involvement in the alleged
events in question, and that mere
uncorroborated
assertions
and
accusations by the employer will not
be sufficient. But 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, such
as when the employer has reasonable
ground to believe that the employee
concerned is responsible for the
purported misconduct, and the nature
of his participation therein renders him
unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by his position.
A resignation must be unconditional
and with the intent to operate as such.
Moreover, the intention to relinquish
an office must concur with the overt act
of relinquishment. The act of the
employee before and after the alleged
resignation must be considered to
determine whether in fact, he or she
intended
to
relinquish
such
employment.
If
the
employer
introduces
evidence
purportedly
executed by an employee as proof of
voluntary
resignation
and
the
employee specifically denies the
authenticity and due execution of said
document, the employer is burdened
to prove the due execution and
genuineness of such document.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause,
as in the instant case, the lack of
statutory due process should not
nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal
or ineffectual. However, the employer
should indemnify the employee for the
violation of his statutory rights, as ruled
in Reta v. National Labor Relations
Commission. The indemnity to be
imposed should be stiffer to
discourage the abhorrent practice of
"dismiss now, pay later," which we
Page 7 of 16
abon3298
Padrillo
Bandojo
v.
G.R. No. 224854 |
March 27, 2019
Fortuny
Garments/Johnny
Co v. Castro
G.R. No. 150668 |
Dec. 15, 2005
Spouses
v. Oreiro
Maynes
G.R. No. 206109 |
Nov. 25, 2020
the Phils. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 102958,
Jun. 25, 1993
Etcuban,
Jr.
v.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 148410,
Jan. 17, 2005; citing
Caoile v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 115491, Nov. 24,
1998
AZCOR
Manufacturing, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
117963, Feb. 11,
1999
Agabon v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 158693,
Nov. 17, 2004
U.P LAW BOC
Abandonment;
requisites
Constructive
dismissal
Preventive
suspension;
when proper
abon3298
sought to deter in the Serrano ruling.
The sanction should be in the nature of
indemnification or penalty and should
depend on the facts of each case,
taking into special consideration the
gravity of the due process violation of
the employer. Under the Civil Code,
nominal damages is adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which
has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him.
To prove abandonment, two elements
must concur:
1. Failure to report for work or
absence without valid or justifiable
reason; and
2. A clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship
LABOR LAW
Stanley
Furniture
Gallano
Fine
v.
G.R. No. 190486 |
Nov. 26, 2014
Constructive dismissal exists when
there is cessation of work because
continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely,
as an offer involving a demotion in rank
and a diminution in pay.
Petchan v. The
Southern
Cross
Hotel Manila, Inc.
Preventive suspension is justified
where the employee's continued
employment poses a serious and
imminent threat to the life or property
of the employer or of the employee's
co-workers. Without this kind of threat,
preventive suspension is not proper.
Maula v. Ximex
Delivery Express,
Inc.
Page 8 of 16
abon3298
G.R. No. 242117
(Notice) | June 3,
2019
G.R. No. 207838 |
Jan. 25, 2017
Josan, JPS, Santiago
Cargo Movers v.
Aduna, G.R. No.
190794, February 22,
2012; citing Icawat v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
133573, June 20,
2000; citing Artemio
Labor vs. NLRC, 248
SCRA 183 [1995],
Cindy and Lynsy
Garment vs. NLRC,
284 SCRA 38 [1998],
and Hagonoy Rural
Bank, Inc. vs. NLRC,
285
SCRA
297
[1998].
Central Azucarera de
Bais, Inc. v. Siason,
G.R. No. 215555,
July 29, 2015; citing
Morales v. Harbour
Centre Port Terminal,
Inc.,
G.R.
No.
174208, Jan. 25,
2012; citing Globe
Telecom,
Inc.
v.
Florendo-Flores, 438
Phil. 756, 766 (2002);
citing
Philippine
Japan Active Carbon
Corporation v. NLRC,
et al., 253 Phil. 149,
152, (1989).
Artificio v. National
Labor
Relations
Commission,
G.R.
No. 172988, July 26,
2010;
citing
Maricalum
Mining
Corp. v. Decorion,
G.R. No. 158637,
April 12, 2006 and
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
Valiao v. CA, G.R.
No. 146621, Jul. 30,
2004; citing Secs. 8
and 9, Rule XXIII,
Implementing Book V
of the Labor Code
Due process in
labor cases
Separation pay
in lieu of
reinstatment;
when proper
The holding of a formal hearing or trial
is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter
and is something that the parties
cannot demand as a matter of right.
The requirements of due process are
satisfied when the parties are given the
opportunity to submit position papers
wherein they are supposed to attach
all the documents that would prove
their claim in case it be decided that no
hearing should be conducted or was
necessary.
Oriental
Shipmanagement
Co., Inc. v. Bastol
As stated, "an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement
as a matter of right." But when an
atmosphere
of
antipathy
and
antagonism has already strained the
relations between the employer and
employee, separation pay is to be
awarded as reinstatement can no
longer be equitably effected.
Litex Glass and
Aluminum Supply
v. Sanchez
G.R. No. 186289 |
June 29, 2010
G.R. No. 198465 |
April 22, 2015
Note:
The
IRR
provisions
on
preventive
suspension
was
deleted after the
issuance of D.O. No.
40-03,
but
jurisprudence
still
cites the provisions
despite their repeal.
Pepsi Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. v.
Santos, G.R. No.
165968, April 14,
2008; citing Shoppes
Manila,
Inc.
v.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission,
G.R.
No. 147125, January
14, 2004; citing Mark
Roche International
v. NLRC, G.R. No.
123825, Aug. 31,
1999
Globe-Mackay Cable
and
Radio
Corporation v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 82511,
March 3, 1992
LABOR RELATIONS
TOPIC
Right to selforganization
includes the
right not to join a
union
Collective
bargaining in the
public sector
DOCTRINE
The right to form or join a labor
organization necessarily includes the
right to refuse or refrain from
exercising the said right. It is selfevident that just as no one should be
denied the exercise of a right granted
by law, so also, no one should be
compelled to exercise such a
conferred right.
Relations between private employers
and their employees are subject to the
minimum requirements of wage laws,
Page 9 of 16
abon3298
CITED IN
Samahan
ng
Manggagawa sa
Hanjin Shipyard v.
Bureau of Labor
Relations
CITING
Reyes v. Trajano.
G.R. No. 84433, June
2, 1992
G.R. No. 211145 |
Oct. 14, 2015
GSIS Family Bank
Employees Union
v. Villanueva
Alliance
of
Government Workers
v. Minister of Labor,
U.P LAW BOC
Mixing of
supervisory and
rank-and-file
employees does
not divest union
of legitimate
labor
organization
status
Confidential
employees also
barred from
joining unions
abon3298
labor, and welfare legislation. Beyond
these
requirements,
private
employers and their employees are at
liberty to establish the terms and
conditions of their employment
relationship. In contrast with the
private sector, the terms and
conditions
of
employment
of
government workers are fixed by the
legislature; thus, the negotiable
matters in the public sector are limited
to
terms
and
conditions
of
employment that are not fixed by law.
The alleged inclusion of supervisory
employees in a labor organization
seeking to represent the bargaining
unit of rank-and-file employees does
not divest it of its status as a legitimate
labor organization.
Although Article 245 of the Labor
Code limits the ineligibility to join, form
and assist any labor organization to
managerial employees, jurisprudence
has extended this prohibition to
confidential employees or those who
by reason of their positions or nature
of work are required to assist or act in
a fiduciary manner to managerial
employees and hence, are likewise
privy to sensitive and highly
confidential records. Confidential
employees are thus excluded from the
rank-and-file bargaining unit. The
rationale for their separate category
and disqualification to join any labor
organization is similar to the inhibition
for managerial employees because if
allowed to be affiliated with a Union,
the latter might not be assured of their
loyalty in view of evident conflict of
interests and the Union can also
become company-denominated with
the
presence
of
managerial
employees in the Union membership.
Having
access to
confidential
information, confidential employees
may also become the source of undue
advantage. Said employees may act
Page 10 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
G.R. No. 210773 |
Jan. 23, 2019
Holy
Child
Catholic School v.
Sto. Tomas
G.R. No. 179146 |
July 23, 2013
Tunay
na
Pagkakaisa
ng
Manggagawa sa
Asia Brewery v.
Asia Brewery, Inc.
G.R. No. 162025,
Aug. 3, 2010
G.R. No. L-60403,
Aug. 3, 1983
Samahang
Manggagawa
sa
Charter
ChemicalSuper v. Charter
Chemical
and
Coating Corp., G.R.
No. 169717, March
16,
2011;
citing
Republic
v.
Kawashima Textile
Mfg.,
Philippines,
Inc.,
G.R.
No.
160352, July 23,
2008
Metrolab Industries,
Inc.
v.
RoldanConfesor, G.R. No.
108855, February 28,
1996; citing Philips
Industrial
Development, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
88957, June 25, 1992
U.P LAW BOC
Beneficiaries of
CBA
abon3298
as a spy or spies of either party to a
collective bargaining agreement.
The benefits of a collective bargaining
agreement extend to the laborers and
employees in the collective bargaining
unit, including those who do not
belong to the chosen bargaining labor
organization.
LABOR LAW
Mactan Workers
Union v. Aboitiz
G.R. No. L-30241 |
June 30, 1972
Community or
Mutuality of
Interests Test in
determining
appropriate
bargaining unit
The basic test for determining the
appropriate bargaining unit is the
application of a standard whereby a
unit is deemed appropriate if it affects
a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in wages,
hours, working conditions, and other
subjects of collective bargaining.
Ang
Lee
v.
Samahang
Manggagawa ng
Super Lamination
Factors in
determining
bargaining unit
The
fundamental
factors
in
determining the appropriate collective
bargaining unit are: (1) the will of the
employees (Globe Doctrine); 6 (2)
affinity and unity of the employees'
interest, such as substantial similarity
of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions
(Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);
(3) prior collective bargaining history;
and (4) similarity of employment
status.
A local union which has affiliated itself
with a federation is free to sever such
affiliation
anytime
and
such
disaffiliation cannot be considered
disloyalty. In the absence of specific
provisions
in
the
federation's
constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or
the declaration of autonomy of a local
union, a local may dissociate with its
parent union.
Sta.
Lucia
Commercial Corp.
v. Secretary of
Labor
and
Employment
Right to
disaffiliate
Page 11 of 16
abon3298
G.R. No. 193816 |
Nov. 21, 2016
Leyte
Land
Transportation
v.
Leyte Farmers' and
Laborers' Union, 80
Phil. 842 (1948);
Land Settlement and
Development
Corporation
v.
Caledonia
Pile
Workers' Union, 90
Phil. 817 (1952);
Price
Stabilization
Corporation v. Prisco
Workers' Union, 104
Phil. 1066 (1958) and
International
Oil
Factory
Workers
Union v. Martinez,
110 Phil. 595 (1960).
University of the
Phils.
v.
FerrerCalleja, G.R. No.
96189, July 14, 1992;
citing
Democratic
Labor Association v.
Cebu
Stevedoring
Company, Inc., G.R.
No. L-10321, Feb. 28,
1958
San Miguel Corp. v.
Laguesma, G.R. No.
100485, Sept. 21,
1994
G.R. No. 162355 |
Aug. 14, 2009
National Union of
Bank Employees
v.
Philnabank
Employees
Association
G.R. No. 174287 |
Aug. 12, 2013
MSMG-UWP v. Hon.
Ramos, G.R. No.
113907, Feb. 28,
2000; citing Ferrer vs.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission,
224
SCRA 410; People's
Industrial
and
Commercial
Employees
and
Workers
Organization (FFW)
vs.
People's
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
Disaffiliation of
affiliated union
without
independent
registration;
effect
A local union which is not
independently registered cannot,
upon disaffiliation from the federation,
exercise the rights and privileges
granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations; thus, it cannot file a
petition for certification election.
Fraud and
misrepresentation as ground
for cancellation
of union
registration
For fraud and misrepresentation to
constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration under the Labor
Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and
compelling enough to vitiate the
consent of a majority of union
members.
Attorney's fees
only chargeable
to union funds;
exception
A deadlock
presupposes
reasonable
effort at good
faith bargaining
Labor contracts
construed in
favor of labor
The general rule is that attorney's
fees, negotiation fees, and other
similar charges may only be collected
from union funds, not from the
amounts that pertain to individual
union members. As an exception to
the general rule, special assessments
or other extraordinary fees may be
levied upon or checked off from any
amount due an employee for as long
as there is proper authorization by the
employee.
A 'deadlock' is . . . the counteraction
of things producing entire stoppage; .
. . There is a deadlock when there is a
complete blocking or stoppage
resulting from the action of equal and
opposed forces . . . . The word is
synonymous with the word impasse,
which . . . 'presupposes reasonable
effort at good faith bargaining which,
despite noble intentions, does not
conclude in agreement between the
parties.'
Article 1702 of the New Civil Code
provides that, in case of doubt, all
labor legislation and all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor
of the safety and decent living of the
laborer. Thus, this Court has ruled
that any doubt or ambiguity in the
contract between management and
the union members should be
resolved in favor of the latter.
Page 12 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
Abaria v. National
Labor
Relations
Commission
G.R. Nos. 154113,
187778, 187861 &
196156 | Dec. 7,
2011
De
Ocampo
Memorial Schools,
Inc.
v.
Bigkis
Mangga-gawa sa
De
Ocampo
Memorial School,
Inc.
G.R. No. 192648 |
March 15, 2017
Mariño,
Jr.
v.
Gamilla
Industrial
and
Commercial Corp.,
112 SCRA 440
Villar v. Inciong, Nos.
L-50283-84, April 20,
1983
Mariwasa
Siam
Ceramics, Inc. v.
Secretary
of
the
Department of Labor
and Employment
G.R. No. 183317 |
Dec. 21, 2009
BPI
Employees
Union-ALU v. NLRC
G.R. No. 149763 |
July 7, 2009
G.R. Nos. 69746-47,
76842-44, 76916-17 |
March 31, 1989
Tabangao
Shell
Refinery
Employees
Association
v.
Pilipinas
Shell
Petroleum Corp.
Capitol
Medical
Center Alliance of
Concerned
Employees-UFSW v.
Laguesma, G.R. No.
118915, February 4,
1997; citing Divine
Word University of
Tacloban
v.
Secretary of Labor
and
Employment,
G.R. No. 91915,
September 11, 1992
Holy Cross of Davao
College, Inc. v. Holy
Cross
of
Davao
Faculty
UnionKAMAPI, G.R. No.
156098, June 27,
2005, 461 SCRA 319,
Babcock-Hitachi
(Phils.),
Inc.
v.
Babcock
Hitachi
(Phils.), Inc., Makati
G.R. No. 170007 |
April 7, 2014
Bank
of
the
Philippine Islands
v. Bank of the
Philippine Islands
Employees UnionMetro Manila
G.R. No. 175678 |
Aug. 22, 2012
U.P LAW BOC
Preconditions
for collective
bargaining
ULP; how
committed
Dismissal based
on union
security clause
abon3298
The
mechanics
of
collective
bargaining are set in motion only
when the following jurisdictional
preconditions are present, namely, (1)
possession of the status of majority
representation by the employees'
representative in accordance with any
of the means of selection and/or
designation provided for by the Labor
Code;
(2)
proof
of
majority
representation; and (3) a demand to
bargain.
In the past, we have ruled that "unfair
labor practice refers to 'acts that
violate the workers' right to organize.'
The prohibited acts are related to the
workers' right to self-organization and
to the observance of a CBA." We have
likewise declared that "there should
be no dispute that all the prohibited
acts constituting unfair labor practice
in essence relate to the workers' right
to self-organization." Thus, an
employer may only be held liable for
unfair labor practice if it can be shown
that his acts affect in whatever
manner the right of his employees to
self-organize.
To validly terminate the employment
of an employee through the
enforcement of the union security
clause, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the union security clause
is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the
union security provision in the CBA;
Page 13 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
Associated Labor
Unions v. FerrerCalleja
Employees
Union,
G.R. No. 156260,
March 10, 2005, 453
SCRA 156, 161;
Mindanao
Steel
Corporation
v.
Minsteel
Free
Workers
Organization
Cagayan de Oro,
G.R. No. 130693,
March 4, 2004, 424
SCRA 614, 618 and
Plastic Town Center
Corporation
v.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission,
G.R.
No. 81176, April 19,
1989, 172 SCRA 580,
587.
Kiok Loy v. NLRC,
G.R. No. L-54334,
Jan. 22, 1986
G.R. No. 77282 |
May 5, 1989
Culili v. Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines,
Inc.
G.R. No. 165381 |
Feb. 9, 2011
Slord
Development
Corp. v. Noya
G.R. No. 232687 |
Feb. 4, 2019
Great Pacific Life
Employees Union v.
Great Pacific Life
Assurance
Corp.,
G.R. No. 126717,
February 11, 1999
General
Milling
Corporation v. Casio,
G.R. No. 149552,
March 10, 2010;
citing
Alabang
Country Club, Inc. v.
National
Labor
Relations
U.P LAW BOC
Procedural
requirements for
strike are
mandatory
Good faith as
defense against
illegal strike
abon3298
and (3) there is sufficient evidence to
support the decision of the union to
expel the employee from the union.
It is settled that [the procedural
requirements for a valid strike] are
mandatory in nature and failure to
comply therewith renders the strike
illegal.
Generally, a strike based on a "nonstrikeable" ground is an illegal strike:
corollarily, a strike grounded on ULP
is illegal if no such acts actually exist.
As an exception, even if no ULP acts
are committed by the employer, if the
employees believe in good faith that
ULP acts exist so as to constitute a
valid ground to strike, then the strike
held pursuant to such belief may be
legal.
LABOR LAW
Pilipino Telephone
Corp. v. Pilipino
Telephone
Employees
Association
G.R. Nos. 160058
&160094 | June 22,
2007
National Union of
Workers in Hotels,
Restaurants and
Allied Industries v.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission
G.R. No. 125561 |
March 6, 1998
Commission,
G.R.
No.
170287,
February 14, 2008
CCBPI
Postmix
Workers Union v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
114521, November
27, 1998
Panay Electric Co.,
Inc.
vs.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission, et al, G
R.
No.
102672,
October 4, 1995, 248
SCRA 688; Master
Iron Labor Union
(MILU), et al. vs.
National
Labor
Relations
Commission, et al.,
G.R
No.
92009,
February 17, 1993,
219
SCRA
47;
People's
Industrial
and
Commercial
Employee's
and
Workers
Organization (FFW),
et al. vs. People's
Industrial
and
Commercial
Corporation, et al., L37687, March 15,
1982, 112 SCRA 440
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
TOPIC
Rights of
Management
DOCTRINE
While our laws endeavor to give life to
the constitutional policy on social
justice and the protection of labor, it
does not mean that every labor
dispute will be decided in favor of the
workers. The law also recognizes that
management has rights which are
also entitled to respect and
enforcement in the interest of fair play.
Page 14 of 16
abon3298
CITED IN
St. Luke’s Medical
Center Employees
Association - AFW
v. National Labor
Relations
Commission
G.R. No. 162053 |
March 7, 2007
CITING
Duncan Association
of
DetailmanPTGWO v. Glaxo
Wellcome
Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No.
162994,
September 17, 2004;
citing Sta. Catalina
College v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 144483,
Nov. 19, 2003; citing
Sosito v. Aguinaldo
Development Corp.,
G.R. No. L-48926,
Dec. 14, 1987
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
Management
Prerogative
The right of an employer to regulate
all aspects of employment, aptly
called "management prerogative,"
gives employers the freedom to
regulate, according to their discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of
employment,
including
work
assignment,
working
methods,
processes to be followed, working
regulations, transfer of employees,
work supervision, lay-off of workers
and the discipline, dismissal and
recall of workers. In this light, courts
often decline to interfere in legitimate
business decisions of employers. In
fact,
labor
laws
discourage
interference in employers' judgment
concerning the conduct of their
business.
It is well recognized that company
policies and regulations are, unless
shown to be grossly oppressive or
contrary to law, generally binding and
valid on the parties and must be
complied with until finally revised or
amended unilaterally or preferably
through negotiation or by competent
authority.
St. Luke's Medical
Center, Inc. v.
Sanchez
Although jurisprudence recognizes
the validity of the exercise by an
employer
of
its
management
prerogative and will ordinarily not
interfere with such, this prerogative is
not absolute and is subject to
limitations imposed by law, collective
bargaining agreement, and general
principles of fair play and justice.
Hongkong Bank
Independent
Labor Union v.
Hongkong
and
Shanghai Banking
Corp. Limited
We have long recognized the
prerogative of management to
transfer an employee from one office
to another within the same business
establishment, as the exigency of the
business may require, provided that
the transfer does not result in a
demotion in rank or a diminution in
salary, benefits and other privileges of
Duldulao v. Court
of Appeals
Validity of
Company Policy
Management
Prerogative
subject to CBA
Transfer is valid
management
prerogative
Page 15 of 16
abon3298
LABOR LAW
G.R. No. 212054 |
March 11, 2015
China
Banking
Corp. v. Borromeo
G.R. No. 156515|
Oct.19, 2004
G.R. No. 218390 |
Feb. 28, 2018
G.R. No. 164893,
March 1, 2007
Philippine Industrial
Security
Agency
Corp. v. Aguinaldo,
G.R. No. 149974,
June 15, 2005; citing
Mendoza vs. Rural
Bank of Lucban, G.R.
No. 155421, July 7,
2004; citing Metrolab
Industries, Inc. vs.
Roldan-Confesor,
G.R. No. 108855,
Feb. 28, 1996; &
Bontia vs. NLRC, 325
Phil. 443 (1996)
Alcantara, Jr. v. CA,
G.R. No. 143397,
Aug., 2, 2002; citing
San Miguel Corp. v.
Ubaldo, G.R. No.
92859, Feb. 1, 1993;
citing
GTE
Directories
Corporation
vs.
Sanchez, G.R. No.
76219, May 27, 1991
Morales v. Harbour
Centre Port Terminal,
G.R. No. 174208,
Jan. 25, 2012; citing
Norkis Trading v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
168159, Aug, 19,
2005;
citing
Philippine
Airlines,
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 85985, 13 August
1993; citing UST v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
89920, Oct. 18, 1990;
citing
Abbott
Laboratories [Phil.]
Inc. v. NLRC, 154
SCRA 713 [1987];
Sentinel
Security
Agency, G.R. No.
122468, September
3, 1998; citing Asis v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
82478, Sept. 7, 1989,
Chu v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 106107 Jun. 2,
1994,
Pocketbell
U.P LAW BOC
abon3298
LABOR LAW
the employee; or is not unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to the
latter; or is not used as a subterfuge
by the employer to rid himself of an
undesirable worker.
Enforceability of
Bonus
Bona fide
occupational
qualification
For a bonus to be enforceable, it must
have been promised by the employer
and expressly agreed upon by the
parties, or it must have had a fixed
amount and had been a long and
regular practice on the part of the
employer. To be considered a "regular
practice," the giving of the bonus
should have been done over a long
period of time, and must be shown to
have been consistent and deliberate.
American
Wire
and Cable Daily
Rated Employees
Union v. American
Wire and Cable
Co.
To justify a bona fide occupational
qualification, the employer must prove
two factors: (1) that the employment
qualification is reasonably related to
the essential operation of the job
involved; and, (2) that there is a
factual basis for believing that all or
substantially all persons meeting the
qualification would be unable to
properly perform the duties of the job.
Capin-Capiz
v.
Brent Hospital and
Colleges, Inc.
G.R. No. 155059 |
April 29, 2005
G.R. No. 187417 |
Feb. 24, 2016
Phils., Inc. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 10683, Jan.
20,
1995,
and
Philippine Telegraph
and Telephone Co. v.
Laplana, G.R. No.
76645, Jul. 23, 1991
Philippine Appliance
Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
149434, June 3,
2004; citing Globe
Mackay Cable v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
74156, June 29,
1988; citing Oceanic
Pharmacal
Employees Union v.
Inciong, G.R. No. L50568, Nov. 7, 1979
Star Paper Corp. v.
Simbol, G.R. No.
164774, April 12,
2006;
citing
Philippine Telegraph
& Telephone Co. v.
NLRC, G.R. No.
118978, May 23,
1997
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
TOPIC
"Reasonable
Causal
Connection" and
the jurisdiction
of labor tribunals
DOCTRINE
The money claims within the original
and exclusive jurisdiction of labor
arbiters are those which have some
reasonable causal connection with
the employer-employee relationship.
Page 16 of 16
abon3298
CITED IN
Paredes v. Feed
the
Children
Phils., Inc.
G.R. No. 184397 |
Sept. 9, 2015
CITING
Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz,
Inc., G.R. No. 196539,
October 10, 2012;
citing San Miguel v.
NLRC,
G.R.
No.
80774, May 31, 1988