Grace De Guzman (PET)

Labor Law I

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company vs. NLRCGrace De Guzman (PET)

Employed by REP. as a reliever for a fix period

( 1990 1991)

For Several times was to be reliever on the same basis Sept. 2, 1991, asked again as a probationary EE fro 150 days

- Filled Out farn as single and civil status

- throughly got married on may 1991

- Upon knowledge a marriage, resp. sent a memorandum

reminding her of no marriage policy. (for women)

Replied she was unaware

Jan 1992, dismissed Filed complaint of illegal dismissal on NATL labor relations commission in baguio city.

At preliminary conference, de Guzman admitted failed remittance. PromiLABOR- Guilty of illegal dismissal Ground of dismissal insufficient and discrimination

NCRC- Affirmed with MADI

Suspended for 3 months for her acts of dishonesty

Motion for reco denied.

RULINGS

1. state recognizes rule of women in nation-building and ensure equality bet men and women2. corrective labor and social laws

leads to art. 136 of labor code

prohibits discri by reason marriage of a female EE.3. petitioner outright violation of labor

laws and consti against discri

4. dismissal due to concealment of status remittance and not bec. of marriage

matter of remittance deemed settled in the promi made

made clear in the memo

Gained regular status when performed activities necessary and essential to the usual made and business

3 month sus. Would be unfair to return without sanction ( back wage minus 3 months)

5. contends verbal agreement. Terminate once married

the variables is sex, without makes it discri and unlawful why not woman all women - irrelevant

6. assaults good morals, policy and freedom of women and strikes at the very essence of marriage, itshaving and purposeDISPO

PET Dismissed

Double cost against petitionerBonifacio vs. Government Service Insurance System

Petition for review of CertiorariFACTS

PET. = Spouse of Lourdes Bonifacio

a classroom teacher in catanduanes from aug. 1965

concentrated carcinoma of the breast with me stases to the gastro-intestinal tract and lungs

which caused her death on oct. 5, 1978

Filed Claim death benefits to the GSIS.

GSIS - Denied claim

Disease of the decedent is not an occupational disease, nor the increased of contracting the same

Increased by her working conditions.APPEALECC- Affirmed GSIS Decision

ISSUES

1. The respondent commission affirmance of the denial; by the respondent system totally ignored the supreme courts pronouncement on compensation cases.

the contention is with in the scope of the labor, and the rulings under the old law no longer control.

Under the Old law the claim for compensation under the workmens compensation act. It is not necessary

For the claimant to carry the burden of proof to establish this case. It is not necessary to prove that employment was die sole cause of the death of the EE. once the disease has been shown to have been arisen in the course of employment, it is presumed by law, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that is arose out of it. Under the present labor code, the burden of proof showing causation has shifted back to the EE

particularly to dive cases of sickness of injuries which are not accepted or listed in the occupational diseased by ECC. Which the petitioner failed to satisfactorily discharge.

2. In case of doubt in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the labor code, the same shall be

shall be rescued in favor of the laborer.

The court ruled that it has no dispute to the contention however, the same has not application since the

pertinent provisions of the labor code leave no room for doubt either in their interpretation or application.

DISPOSITION

Petition Dismissed. Decisions appealed are affirmed. No Codes

Bravo vs. Employees Compensation ComissionFACTS

Bravo vs. Employees Compensation Commission

May 1959Evelio bravo - Employed at bureau of coast and geodetic survey as a cartographer I.

Has been promoted several times until became a supervising cartographer

engineer.

His work was involved n drafting and plate printing, processing negatives

And supervising formulation of lithographic chemicals

1979- Complained of irregular bowel movement, constipation and abdominal pain.

Also began losing weight and appetite

1980- Admitted to st. lukes hospital. Diagnosed with sigmoid c colons dukes c and chi tonic

Peri-appendicitis . after his discharge from hospital, did not return to work and retired at the age of 48.

received retirement gratuity from GSIS.

Aug 1980 - filed claim for disability benefits in GSIS.

GSIS- Denied Claim.

Adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid and peri-appendicitis are not occupational diseased

And his working conditions not increased the risk of contracting then. Appealed to ECC.

Evelio bravo Died on aug,. 20, 1981

His widow, angeles, pursued his appeal.

ECC- Affirmed GSIS.ISSUES

1. Whether or not under risk theory, bravos ailments are compensable disease bec. of his

exposure to chemicals and stressful demands of work.SC:

A claimant who depends on the theory of increased risk must present substantial proof to show that his ailment

Contracted during his employment.

Petitioner failed to submit convincing proofs.

Petitioner contented that on resolution # 2677, its modified guidelines on cancer, stating that prolongedExposure to chemicals that predispose someone to contracting the same. And that reasonable work-connection of the disease is insufficient.

Petitioners argument is based on a ruling where body claimants submitted proofs of the condition of their employment, in the instant case, petitioner only enuger the chemicals he was exposed and relied on the probability that his working conditions could have increased the risk of contracting the disease if not caused by it.

Under that labor code, the scheme and theory of employees compensation requires medical basis for claim to succeed.

A finding of ECC medical experts has been given great weight. Neither can resolutions 2610 and 2677 bolster bravos claim. They are to be applied prospectively. But even if applied, petitioner still failed to submit formal requirements required by the resolutions.

We cannot adopt and sweeping interpretation of the law in favor of labor lest we engage in social legislation.

DISPO

ECC Decision Affirmed

Philippine Airline, Inc. vs. NLRCFACTS

Aug. 1967 -dismissed by PAL on the basis fact finding panel

-Also recommended crim. Prosecution

oscar, irineo

- On account of estafa

Rogelio danian

Antonio rabasco

Jacinto macatol

(jesus saba) Not party in the accomplice proceeding

Trial court

Convicted the 5 after due trial (1976)

Upon nation for reco only macatol was granted and later on absolved. (1978) The 3 appealed

Nacatol filed for illegal dismissal after 12 years.

Dismissed by labor arbiter due to prescription

1983, intermediate appellate court

Affirmed decision only on Rogelio danian

And absolved irineo and rabasco on grounds of reasonable grounds.

1984, irineo filed for illegal dismissal against PAL 17 years after his dismissal.

Labor arbiter ruled for irineo and ask for reinstatement, back wages, moral damages which loss of seniority rights

On accounts of prescription, termination by PAL is only suspension

It contrast with macatol, this issue was not raised.

PAL appealed to NCRC

Affirmed arbiters reso

ISSUES

1. Termination of pal amounts only to suspension

plain and categorical

to think so is illogical and ludicrous

2. Strained theory dismissal qua suspension. By referring to order by the court not to dismiss EE without

court authority.

Only in relation to labor dispute

Ended when parties entered CBA

Upon termination, CIR injupetion no longer relevant

3. PAL rules that he be only on suspension, thus illegally dismissed

After 17 years only means he slept on his right

Thus, must be rejected as time-barned and being unpardonably tardy.

DISPO

Grand petition for certiorari nullify and set aside NCRC order making permanent TRO and dismissing private respondents complaint

No cost

Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Court of AppealsFACTS:

Francisco Beneficio A.K.A. lazaro benedicto in his passport Hired by a foreign firmed, Abdul sis and no marred

Aljomaih co. through its phillipine representative, manning international corp. as a truck rowerIn Riyadh Saudi Arabia.

Left on Dec. 1, 1980 , with a stipulated term of 2 years.

Met a vehicular accident several months before end of his contract Lost both of his legs

Repatriated on aug. 1982

Failed complaint for recovery of his salary for the un expired portion of his contract, insurance benefits And projected cost of medical expenses.

Manning INTLCorp. Did FCT file a position paper despite summons

Ruling / Dispo: - Dismissed claim for salary to the unexpired portion of employment (legally terminated) Awarded workmens compensation benefits, permanent disability benefits, and actual medical expenses incurred

Filed for motion for reconsideration and now trial to NCRC.

NLRC- Denied motion and affirmed decision.

May 27, 1985 -judgment became executory

Benedicto moved for computation of the amounts due him.

Respondent objected that the receipt referred to lazaro benedicto

Overruled the same person.

thereafter, benedicto protested limitation for medical expenses for 120 days

filed for motion for partial reconsideration

NLRC- Granted motion

Entazed a new judgment and approved payment for reimbursement of actual medical expenses from sept. 1992

Up to January 1985.

ISSUES

1. whether or not the new judgment reddened by NCRC is valid

A. the court ruled that once a judgment has been final and executory it becomes immutable and unalterable. The only exceptions are correction of clerical error or a nunc pro entry swon not being the case, NCRC judgment is void as ini.

B. That judgment rest on consideration of equity and social justice. Is impermissible. Such cannot prevail over expressed provision of the labor code.

DISPOSITION

NCRC descision set aside. POEA reinstated and affirmed .

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc vs. NLRC

FACTS

Petition for certiorari

RESP:Reliance surety union

Nov. 21, 1986, company changed seating arrangement Molina, rubio, macapagal and cansino protested

Alleged that change is to harass union and without prior notice Headed discussion with the man. Occurred

Refused to stay at designated placed and still leveled insults to those who testified.

Was placed on preventive suspension. Then dismissed.

Union filed for illegal dismissal and ULP with NL-RC While complaint pending, filed notice for strike DOLE. March 12,1987

Began strike before initial conference could take place, march 17, 1987

Picketed in the bldg

Harassed ESS

- March 31, 1987 company filed for declaration of illegal strike with NCRC

Labor- Strike illegal

PCRC- Upon appeal, affirmed

But ordered reinstatement of striking officers without loss of seniority. But without back wages.

Dismissal of the 4, upheld. But ordered payment of 1 month sal. With benefits.

ISSUE

I. Whether or not strikers who have been found staged an illegal strike may be reinstated.

A. Strike is illegal no question

3 Reqs:

1. 15 days prior notice

2. 2/3 vote by secret ballot

3. Submission of vote to dept of labor at least 7 days prior strike

B. To reinstate officers who staged strike in bad faith is to reward an act against public policy

C. Ferrer and almira cases.

- Both strikes were not illegal and carried out in good faith

Ferrer defective strike

Almira violent strike doesnt make it illegal, and ground for dismissal

D. Rubio admitted valid dismissal by accepting the sum of 2,448

DISPO

Petition granted

Rosario Brothers Inc. vs. Ople

FACTS:Petitioner: Rosario Bros Inc. Respondents: tailors, pressers, stit__chers and similar workers

Some worked since 1969 until separation 1928.

Sept 1977 Respondent filed complaint for 13th pay and emergency allowance with dept. of labor ( now ministry )

Dec. 1977 Labor arbiter dismissed complaint upon finding that complaints are not EES.

Jan 1978 Respondent were dismissed

respondent filed for illegal dismissal with ministry of labor NCRC Affirmed decision of labor arbiter and dismissed complaint.

Minister of labor upon appeal

reversed NCRC decision:

complaints are EES

Petitioner-respondent-to pay 13th month pay and emergency allowances.

Thereafter, respondent filed for issuance of writ of execution of the decision of minister of labor which was granted and partially implemented.

Labor arbiter issued an order to compute the balance of priv. respondents.

March 4, 1980. a report was submitted pursuant thereto

Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued for the satisfaction of the said amount.

Hence, petition for certiorari, praying, among the others, to annul and set aside the decision of minister of labor and to dismiss the claims of the priv. respondents.ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petition was filed too late.

the decision of minister of labor has already become final

decision has already been partially implemented

[Merits: Devoid of merit]

2. whether or not there exist an employer- employee rel. elements to determine its existence:a. Selection and engagement of the EE.

hiring is the done by PET, through the master cutter

b. payment wages

received weekly salaries on piece-work basis

c. power dismissal

violation of memoranda ground of dismissal

Jan 2, 1998 resps were dismissed

d. power to control employees conduct

required to work mon sat

worked on job orders

observer cleanliness

subj. to quality control

e. Were allowed to register with GSIS as employees of petitioner

3. Findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise bec. Their jurisdiction are confined to specific matters are generally accorded respect and finality.

DISPO

PET. Dismissed for lack of meritVinoya vs. National Labor Relation Commission

FACTS: Vinoya applied and was accepted onmay 1990, as a sales representative by RFC on the same date was issued an i.d vinoya alleges that he was under direct control and supervision plant manager and senior salesman of PRC.

On july 1991, vinoya was transferred by RFC to PMCI, an agency which provides RFC with additional contractual workers pursuant to a contract for supply of manpower services after his transfer. He was re assigned to RFC as sales representative. Subsequently on nov. 1991, he was informed by RFC that his services were terminated and he was asked to surrender his i.d. card.

Dec, 1991, vinoya filed a case of illegal dismissal and non.payment of 13th moth pay before the labor arbiter.

PMCI was initial imp leaded as one of the respondents, but vinoya withdrew his charge against PMCI and bought/pursued his claim solely against RFC. Subsequently, RFC filed a 3rd party complaint against PMCI.

Labor -RFC is guilty of illegal dismissal but denied 13th m. pay

RFC is the employer NLRC -PMCI is an independent contractor, guilty of illegal dismissal. Ordered payment of 13th month pay.

ISSUES:

I. Whether petitioner was an employment of RFC or PMCI.

A. Status of PMCI (whether it is a independent contractor or labor-only contractor

Elements of labor-only

1. Have substantial capital to perform the job work or service on its own acct. and responsibility

1,000,000 stock

75,000 in paid

= not enough

2.

-Workers assigned by PMCI to RFC, the ______ has the control

3.Doesnt perform and specific job or service -Merely supplies RFC with EES

4.Sales reps are directly related to the business of RFC

5.Granting PMCI is an independent contractor

-Petitioner is not included in the list to be assigned to RFC

C.RFC carried out the 4 _____ test.

1.) Power to hire I.D. issued is sufficient for a proof

PET is with RFC prior contract

2.) Payment of wages

funds came from RFC

although coursed through PMCI

3.) Power of control

RFC admitted

- PET is under the direct control of RFC personnel

4.) Power to Dismiss

Contract states that RFC has the power to dismiss

II.Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed? Due to his length of service, acquired _ tams of reg EE.

Thus may only be dismissed upon compliance of legal reqs: for dismissal.

Two fold reqs:

1. Substantial2. Procedural1.Expiration of contracts is not one of the

The grounds allowed by law

2. No notice of impending dismissalDISPO

Decision and reso of NLRC are annulled and set aside

Labor arbiter decision is reinstated

Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd vs. NLRC

FACTS:

July 1968. Basiao and insular life insurance entered into a contract.

Contains relations of the parties, duties of the agent, acts prohibited to him and termination.

April 1972. both entered into another contract agency managers contract. To implement his end Basiao organized an agency, which he named Basiao and associates , while also fulfilling the first contract

1979 company ended managers contract. Basiao filed for civil action. Then he was terminated.

Basiao filed to MOLE a complaint sought to recover commissions. Allegedly unpaid. Labor arbiter ruled in favor of basiao there is employer > __ RFC NLRC affirmed hence, petition for certiorari