FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK vs. ARLENE ESPIRITU.

G.R. No. 204944 December 03, 2014FACTS:

Arlene Espiritu had to report for work in Fujis office in Manila from Mondays to Fridays, eight hours per day. Likewise, Espiritu, having no equipment, had to use the facilities of Fuji to accomplish her tasks. Espiritu suffered a disease. Espiritu said she was forced to sign pre-prepared documents by Fuji TVs lawyers.

Espiritu initially refused to sign the documents. However, Espiritu did not receive her salary starting March that year. Eventually, Espiritu signed the documents, which included a resignation letter, release and quit claim of salary and benefits, and non-renewal of contract.

She, however, signed the documents ''under protest'' and filed a case against Fuji.

ISSUE:

Is the dismissal of Espiritu valid?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Article 280 of the Labor Code: Regular and casual employmentCASE HISTORY:

The labor arbiter dismissed Espiritu's case, but reversed the same upon appeal.

CA, affirmed the labor arbiter's decisionRULING:

No

The SC said that the appellate court was correct in its finding that Espiritu was a regular Fuji TV employee with the right of security of tenure. The Court agreed with the CA which held that Espiritu was entitled to security of tenure and could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes and after the observance of due process,'' the SC said. ''The expiration of her contract does not negate the finding of illegal dismissal by Fuji."

The CA based this decision on the successive renewals of Espiritus contract which indicated the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of Fujis business.

The SC said Espiritu had been illegally dismissed since Fuji failed to comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural due process necessary for her dismissal since she was a regular employee.

The SC said for a disease to become a valid ground for termination, ''the employees disease cannot be cured within six months and his 'continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees.

OPINION:

I agree that Arlene Espiritu was illegally dismissed because there was no evidence showing she was given due process considering she was not given the chance to present medical certificates. Lastly, Fuji failed to comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural due process necessary for her dismissal since she was a regular employee.

GMA NETWORK INC vs. PABRIGA

G.R. No. 176419 November 27, 2013FACTS:

Carlos Pabriga, Geoffrey Arias, Kirby Campo, Arnold Lagahit, and Armando Catubig worked as television technicians for GMA7 in the late 1990s. Their work included manning of technical operations center and acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintenance staff, and cameramen. They were repeatedly rehired in several fixed term contracts from 1996 to 1999.

Pabriga and his co-workers originally filed in July 1999 a complaint for non-payment of benefits with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Later on, they amended their complaint by raising the issues of unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages, and attorneys fees.

Pabriga and his co-workers claimed that they were GMA7's regular employees. On the other hand, GMA7 claimed that they were merely hired as pinch-hitters on fixed term contracts.

ISSUE:

Is the dismissal of Pabriga valid?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Laws concerning Regular and Project EmployeesCASE HISTORY:

NLRC reverses Labor Arbiters decision

Court of Appeals affirms NLRC ruling

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and the CA that Pabriga and his co-workers were GMA7s regular employees and that they were illegally dismissed.

The Court ruled that Pabriga and his co-workers were not project employees because the manning of the operations center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment, and acting as cameramen were not undertakings separate or distinct from the business of a broadcasting company.Even if Pabriga and his co-workers are to be considered as project employees, they attained regular employment status because GMA7 continuously rehired them. GMA7 did not report the completion of its projects and the dismissal of Pabriga and his co-workers in its finished projects to the nearest Public Employment Office as required by Policy Instruction No. 20 of the Department of Labor and Employment. Based on jurisprudence, the failure of an employer to report to the nearest Public Employment Office the termination of its workers services every time a project or a phase is completed indicates that the workers are not project employees. GMA7s practice of hiring and rehiring of workers on fixed terms, without end, is unjustifiable.

OPINION:

I agree to the Supreme Court ruling that Pabriga and his co-workers were regular employees with respect to the particular activity to which they were assigned.BRENT vs. ZAMORA

260 Phil 747 1990

FACTS:

Anemploymentcontract in virtue of which Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yr.ly compensation of P20,000.00.The contract fixed a specific term for its existence, 5 yrs. Subsequent subsidiary agreements reiterated the same terms and conditions, including the expiry date, as those contained in the original contract. Some 3 months before the expiration of the stipulated period Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services.

The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract, expiration of the definite period ofemployment. And a month or so later, Alegre accepted the amount of P3,177.71, and signed a receipt therefor containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the contract." However, at the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator of said report of termination of his services, Alegre protested the announced termination of hisemployment. He argued that although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate, since"his services were necessary & desirable in the usual business of hisemployer", and hisEThad lasted for 5 yrs., he had acquired the status of a regularand could not be removed except for valid cause.

TheRegional Directorconsidered Brent School's report as an"application"for clearance to terminateemployment(not a report of termination), and accepting the recommendation of the Labor Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead required the reinstatement of Alegre, as a "permanentemployee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights & with full back wages. The Director pronounced "the ground relied upon by theBrent in terminating the services of the complainant, Alegre as not sanctioned by P.D. 442, and, quite oddly, as prohibited by Circular No. 8, series of 1969, of the Bureau of Private Schools.Brent School filed a MR.ISSUE:

Is the Dismissal of Alegre valid?LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

RA 1787

Laws dealing with Probationary and fixed period employment

Laws dealing with "Regular" and "Casual" employment. Article 280 Labor Code

CASE HISTORY:

TheRegional Directordenied the motion & forwarded the case to the Secretary of Labor for review.

Secretary of Labor for review sustained theRegional Director decisionBrent appealed to the Office of the President but that office dismissed its appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Secretary's decision

RULING:

No

Alegre was a permanentemployee who could not be dismissed except for just cause and expiration of theemploymentcontract and was not one of the just causes provided in the Labor Code for termination of services

OPINION:

I agree with the ruling that a permanent employee ca not be dismissed without just and authorized cause CONRADO A LIM v HMR PHILIPPINES INC

G.R. No. 201483 August 4, 2014FACTS:

Petitioner Lim filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against Respondent HMR and its officers. The labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC reversed the Labor Artbiters decision and declared Lim his full back wages reckoned from the time of his dismissal up to this promulgation of the decision.

Lim and HMR Phil appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC Decision with modification. Consequently, HMR Phil Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court and was denied.

Now, Lim moved for execution. The computation and research unit of the NLRC computed the backwages from the date of dismissal up to the date of actual reinstatement. HMR opposed the computation arguing that the backwages should be computed until the date of promulgation of the NLRC decision as stated in the disposition of the decision which provided that backwages shall be reckoned from his dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision. Lim argued that the body of the NLRC decision explicitly stated that he was entitled to full backwages from the time he was illegaly dismissed until his actual reinstatement, which was also accord in the Article 279 of the Labor code and all prevailing jurisprudence.

The labor artbiter issued the order granting the motion for the execution filed by Lim holding that the backwages should be reckoned from the time he was illegally dismissed until his actual reinstatement. The NLRC sustained the computation of the Labor arbiter.

ISSUE:

Is backwages should be computed from the time the employee was illegally dismissed until his actual reinstatement?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Labor laws concerning Security of Tenure

CASE HISTORY:

Labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint

NLRC reversed the LA decision

NLRC sustained the computation of the Labor ArbiterRULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that under Article279 of the labor code, it is clear that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to full backwages computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision because it was already expressly provided by the law.

SESSIONS DELIGHTS v CA

G.R. No. 172149 February 08, 2010FACTS:

A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against petitioner Session Delights Ice Cream & Fast Foods by private respondent AdonisArmenio M. Flora, docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-CAR 09-0507-00. The labor arbiter decided against petitioner, finding that it had illegallydismissedthe private respondent. Based on such finding, it awarded private respondent backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, indemnity, and attorneys fees.

The CA affirmed with modification the NLRC decision by deleting the awards for a proportionate 13th month pay and for indemnity. The CA decision became final per Entry of Judgment dated July 29, 2003.

In January 2004, and in the course of the execution of the above final judgment, a pre-execution conference was held, with the contending parties in attendance. In said conference an updated computationof the monetary awards in the total amount of P235,986.00, which included additional backwages and separation pay and a proportionate amount of the 13th month pay due to private respondent Flora, was made and was approved by the Labor Arbiter about three (3) months after.

The petitioner objected to the re-computationand appealed the labor arbiters order to the NLRC but the same was denied. The CA, however, partially granted the petition by deleting the awarded proportionate 13th month pay.

ISSUE:

Is the updated computation proper?LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Article279 of the Labor CodeCASE HISTORY:

Labor Arbiter granted the complaint for illegal dismissal

Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the NLRC decisionRULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the updatedcomputationwas proper. The issue in the case at bar is not the correctness of the awards, the finality of the CAs judgment, nor the petitioners failure to appeal. Rather, it is the propriety of thecomputationof the awards made, whether this violated the principle of immutability of finaljudgments.

In concrete terms, thequestionis whether a re-computationin the course of execution, of the labor arbiters originalcomputationof the awards made pegged as of the time the decision was rendered and confirmed with modification by a final CA decision, is legally proper.

The Court held that under the terms of the decision under execution, no essential change is made by a re-computationas this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared in that decision. A re-computation(or an originalcomputation, if no previouscomputationhas been made) is a part of the law, specifically,Article279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision, that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on until full satisfaction, as expressed underArticle 279 of the Labor Code. The re-computationof the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only thecomputationof the monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of finaljudgments.OPINION:

I agree with the argument of the Supreme Court since the basis of the decision was based in the express provision of the lawNACAR v GALLERY FRAMES

G.R. No. 189871 August 13, 2013FACTS:

Dario Nacar filed a labor case against Gallery Frames and its owner Felipe Bordey, Jr. Nacar alleged that he was dismissed without cause by Gallery Frames on January 24, 1997. On October 15, 1998, the Labor Arbiter found Gallery Frames guilty of illegal dismissal hence the Arbiter awarded Nacar P158,919.92 in damages consisting of backwages and separation pay.

Gallery Frames appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the decision became final on May 27, 2002.

After the finality of the Supreme Court decision, Nacar filed a motion before the Labor Arbiter for recomputation as he alleged that his backwages should be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal (January 24, 1997) until the finality of the SC decision (May 27, 2002) with interest. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion as he ruled that the reckoning point of the computation should only be from the time Nacar was illegally dismissed (January 24, 1997) until the decision of the Labor Arbiter (October 15, 1998). The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the said date should be the reckoning point because Nacar did not appeal hence as to him, that decision became final and executory.

ISSUE:

Is the Labor arbiter correct?

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Article279 of the Labor Code which concerns the principle in computing backwages.

CASE HISTORY:

Labor Arbiter concurs with complaint filed

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in negative.

There are two parts of a decision when it comes to illegal dismissal cases (referring to cases where the dismissed employee wins, or loses but wins on appeal). The first part is the ruling that the employee was illegally dismissed. This is immediately final even if the employer appeals but will be reversed if employer wins on appeal. The second part is the ruling on the award of backwages and/or separation pay. For backwages, it will be computed from the date of illegal dismissal until the date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter. But if the employer appeals, then the end date shall be extended until the day when the appellate courts decision shall become final. Hence, as a consequence, the liability of the employer, if he loses on appeal, will increase this is just but a risk that the employer cannot avoid when it continued to seek recourses against the Labor Arbiters decision. This is also in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code.

Anent the issue of award interest in the form of actual or compensatory damages, the Supreme Court ruled that the old case of Eastern Shipping Lines vs CA is already modified by the promulgation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 which lowered the legal rate of interest from 12% to 6%.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision in this case because it was already decided in some other similar cases the proper way of computing backwages and others.EQUITABLE BANKING CORP vs. SADAC

2006FACTS:

Respondent Sadac was appointed as the General Counsel of Equitable Bank. Later on, lawyers of the bank accused Sadac of abusive conduct which resulted to the termination of his services. Sadac then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages. The dismissal was finally declared as illegal. Sadac filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for execution of the decision and argued that in the computation of backwages, salary increases should be deemed included.

ISSUE:

Should periodic general increases in basic salary be included in computing full backwages for illegally dismissed employees?

Is Sadacs dismissal legal? -NoLAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Article 279 of the Labor CodeCASE HISTORY:

Labor Artbiter dismissed the complaint

NLRC reversed the LA decision and declared respondent Sadacs dismissal as illegal

RULING:

Supreme court ruled in negative.

Backwages are granted on grounds of equity for earnings which a worker or employee has lost due to his illegal dismissal; it is not private compensation or damages but is awarded in furtherance and effectuation of the public objective of the Code. Backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee should not as a general rule be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employees full backwages shall be inclusive of allowance and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. The salary increase cannot be interpreted as either as an allowance or a benefit. Salary increases are not akin to allowances or benefits and cannot be confused with either. Allowances and benefits are granted to the employee apart or separate from the wage or salary. In contrast, salary increases are amounts which are added to the employees salary as an increment thereto for varied reasons deemed appropriate by the employer. An unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal. And the court has declared that the base figure to be used in the computation of backwages due to the employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving, such as the emergency living allowances and the 13th month pay mandated under the law The term backwages without qualification and deduction means that the workers are to be paid their backwages fixed as of the time of the dismissal or strike without deduction for their earnings elsewhere during their layoff and without qualification of their wages as thus fixed; unqualified by any wage increases or other benefits that may have been received by their co-workers who are not dismissed or did not go on strike. Awards including salary differentials are not allowed. The salary base properly used should, however, includednot only the basic salary but also the emergency cost of living allowance and also transportation allowances if the workers are entitled thereto.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court because backwages should be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee and should not be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal.CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYES ASSOC v HON. BLAS F. OPLE

G.R. No. L-44717August 28, 1985

FACTS:

The Chartered Bank Employees Association, in representation of its monthly paid employees/members, instituted a complaint with the Regional Office No. IV, Department of Labor, now Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) against private respondent Chartered Bank, for the payment of ten (10) unworked legal holidays, as well as for premium and overtime differentials for worked legal holidays from November 1, 1974.

On the bases of the facts represented, both the arbitrator and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the petitioners ordering the respondent bank to pay its monthly paid employees, holiday pay for the ten (10) legal holidays effective November 1, 1974 and to pay premium or overtime pay differentials to all employees who rendered work during said legal holidays. On appeal, the Minister of Labor set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petitioner's claim for lack of merit basing its decision on Section 2, Rule IV, Book Ill of the Integrated Rules and Policy Instruction No. 9.ISSUE:

Is respondent Secretary of Labor acted contrary to law and abused his discretion in denying the claim of petitioners for unworked holidays and premium and overtime pay differentials for worked holidays in not giving due credence to the respondent bank's practice of paying its employees base pay of 100% and premium pay of 50% for work done during legal holidays,.

LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Ruling in Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong

Presidential Decree No. 850: Who are excluded from the holiday provisions of that law

ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor: Labor Code

CASE HISTORY:

Labor Arbitrator and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the petitioners

Minister of Labor set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed the petitioner's claimRULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees

It is not the intent of this Court to impose any undue burdens on an employer which is already doing its best for its personnel. However, we have to resolve the labor dispute in the light of the parties' own collective bargaining agreement and the benefits given by law to all workers. When the law provides benefits for "employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not" and lists specifically the employees not entitled to those benefits, the administrative agency implementing that law cannot exclude certain employees from its coverage simply because they are paid by the month or because they are already highly paid. The remedy lies in a clear redrafting of the collective bargaining agreement with a statement that monthly pay already includes holiday pay or an amendment of the law to that effect but not an administrative rule or a policy instruction.

OPINION:

The court is correct in ruling this case because employees benefits and others should not be diminished or be taken back without fair and reasonable or legal basisEASTERN SHIPPING LINES v COURT OF APPELAS

G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994FACTS:

Two fiber drums were shipped owned by Eastern Shipping from Japan. The shipment as insured with a marine policy. Upon arrival in Manila unto the custody of metro Port Service, which excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order and which damage was unknown the Mercantile Insurance Company. Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from Metro, one drum opened and without seal. Allied delivered the shipment to the consignees warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages while the rest of the contents was adulterated/fake. As consequence of the loss, the insurance company paid the consignee, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of consignee against the defendants Eastern Shipping, Metro Port and Allied Brokerage. The insurance company filed before the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendants to pay the former with present legal interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint. On appeal by defendants, the appellate court denied the same and affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.ISSUE:

Should thepayment of legal interest on the award for loss or damage be computed from the time the complaint is filed from the date the decision appealed from is rendered?LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Section 1 of Act 2655, as amended

Article 2209 and Article 1169 of the New Civil CodeCASE HISTORY:

Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in this case

Appellate court affirmed Trial courts decision

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in negative.

The payment of legal interest should be computed from the date the judgment is made. Where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or Extra judicially but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date of judgment of the court is made.OPINION:

I agree with this ruling because the law already expressly and also some of pertinent rulings which provides on how to compute legal interest and to resolves issues in relation with this.AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA,petitioner, vs. NLRC ,respondents.G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995

FACTS:

Eighteen years ago, 1977, private respondent Arturo Mendoza filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Augusto Evangelista. Eventually, the case reached this Court through a petition forcertiorari. Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion seeking clarification with respect to the salary scale which should be applied in computing the three years backwages awarded in his favor and cited the decision in the case ofDe Jesus vs.Philippine National Construction Corporation,wherein the award of backwages was based on the latest pay scale of the employee's position.

Thereafter, the Court, through the First Division, issued a resolution granting private respondent's motion for clarification and modified the decretal portion of the decision. As a result of the modification, petitioner, in turn, filed the instant motion for reconsiderationseeking the reversal of the Resolution. Petitioner alleged that he was not furnished a copy of the motion for clarification and neither was there a resolution issued by the Court requiring him to comment thereto, thereby depriving him of his right to due process. Moreover, he disputes the computation of the award of backwages based on the current wage levels and maintains that the same should instead be computed based on the rate of the wage level in 1977 when private respondent was illegally dismissed, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.

ISSUE:

Is the Petitioners motion meritorious with respect to the determination of the salary base for the computation of backwages?LAW APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

Ruling in Paramount Vinyl Products Corp.vs.NLRC

Article279 of the Labor CodeCASE HISTORY:

The Court, through the First Division, issued a resolution granting private respondent's motion for clarification.

RULING:

Supreme Court find merit in the petitioners motion.

As explicitly declared inParamount Vinyl Products Corp.vs.NLRC,the determination of the salary base for the computation of backwages requires simply an application of judicial precedents defining the term "backwages". An unqualified award of backwages means that the employee is paid at the wage rate at the time of his dismissal. Furthermore, the award of salary differentials is not allowed, the established rule being that upon reinstatement, illegally dismissed employees are to be paid their backwages without deduction and qualification as to any wage increases or other benefits that may have been received by their co-workers who were not dismissed or did not go on strike.Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby granted and the assailed Resolution dated July 24, 1991, is hereby ordered set aside. The award of backwages in private respondent's favor is instead to be computed at the rate of the wage levels prevailing at the time of his illegal dismissal in 1977OPINION:

The argument of the petitioner was meritorious.