Download - Labor.disinidigests1

8/20/2019 Labor.disinidigests1

1/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1 - DisiniPEÑARANDA V BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORP.

PANGANIBAN; May 3, 2006

NATUREPetition for review assailing the resolutions of the Court of

Appeals (CA) FACTS- Petitioner’s Claims> Petitioner Charlito Peñaranda alleges that he was eplo!ed b!respondent "#aganga$ with a onthl! salar! of P%&000'00 asorean#oiler *ead+hift ,ngineer> *is servies were terinated without the benefit of dueproess and valid grounds'> *e was not paid his overtie pa!& preiu pa! for wor.ingduring holida!srest da!s& night shift differentials and finall!lais for pa!ent of daages and attorne!/s fees having beenfored to litigate the present oplaint'- Respondents’ Claims espondent "#PC$ represented b! its eneral 3anager*4D+56 C*4A& allege that oplainant/s separation froservie was done pursuant to Art' 278 of the Labor Code' #PCwas on teporar! losure due to repair and generalaintenane and it applied for learane with the D5L,&egional 5ffie 6o' 9: to shut down and to disiss eplo!ees'

Peñaranda was not terinated fro eplo!ent uh lessillegall!' *e opted to severe eplo!ent when he insistedpa!ent of his separation benefits' urtherore& being a anagerial eplo!ee he is not entitledto overtie pa! and if ever he rendered servies be!ond thenoral hours of wor.& there was no offie orderor authori;ationfor hi to do so'-


2/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2 - DisiniISSUES1' B56 the egional Diretor has Eurisdition over the oplaintfiled b! the eplo!ees of ##3:2' B56 the aution sales onduted b! the said +peial +heriffare valid

HELD1' ,+

- %2& it started doing business with onl! si (I) eplo!ees'- Oanuar! 27& 1>%=? petitioner entered into a ontrat oanageent with one ,ufraio D' oEas for the operation andeploitation of the forest onession' %= with four onthl!-salaried

eplo!ees' As of September 1, 1957, petitioner h! "9emp#o$ees n! #borers in the #o%%in% opertion&- Deeber 2I& 1>%=? petitioner revo.ed its ontrat oanageent with 3r' oEas'- A'%'st 1, 195"( petitioner be)me member of theSo)i# Se)'rit$ S$stem *ith respe)t to its re# estteb'siness& +n September , 195", petitioner remitte! tothe S$stem the s'm of -./0&10 representin% the initipremi'm on the month#$ s#ries of the emp#o$ees in its#o%%in% b'siness& - +)tober 9, 195"( petitioner !emn!e! the ref'n! of thesi! mo'nt&- 5n 6oveber 10& 1>%7& petitioner filed a petition with the+oial +eurit! Coission pra!ing for the deterination of theeffetivit! date of the opulsor! overage of petitionerMlogging business'- Oanuar! 1G& 1>I0? the instant petition was denied and petitionewas adEudged to be subEet to opulsor! overage as +ept' 11>%= and the +oial +eurit! +!ste was direted to effet suhoverage of petitionerMs eplo!ees in its logging and real estatebusiness onforabl! to the provisions of ep' At 6o' 11I1& asaended'- Petitioner’s ClaimC3+ ,state& :n' is not !et subEet to opulsor! overage withrespet to its logging business beause it does not have theiniu reFuired nuber of eplo!ees (per opan!)'- Respondent’s Comments

%2 when it oened its real estate business'

ISSUES

1' B56 the ontributions reFuired of eplo!ers and eplo!eesunder our +oial +eurit! At of 1>%G are obligator! beause thesaid At was allegedl! enated b! Congress in the eerise ofthe polie power of the +tate& not of its taing power2' B56 a ontratee-independent ontrator relationship eistedbetween petitioner and ,ufraio oEas' during the tie that hewas operating its forest onession at #aganga& Davao8' B56 +etion > of the +oial +eurit! At on the Fuestion ofopulsor! ebership and eplo!ers should be given a liberainterpretation

HELD1' Ratio


3/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8 - Disini- of the At provides that beforean eplo!er ould be opelled to beoe a eber of the+!ste& he ust have been in operation for at least two !earsand has at the tie of adission at least si eplo!ees' Itsho'#! be pointe! o't tht it is the emp#o$er, eithernt'r#, or '!i)i# person, *ho is s'be)t to )omp'#sor$)o2er%e n! not the b'siness&- :t is the intention of the law to over as an! persons as

possible so as to proote the onstitutional obEetive of soial Eustie' :t is aioati that a later law prevails over a priorstatute and oreover the legislative in tent ust be given effetDisposition %=' Appl!ingthe provision of +e' 10 (previousl! +e' >) of the At& petitioneris subEet to opulsor! overage as of Deeber 1& 1>%2 withrespet to the real estate business and as of April 1& 1>%= withrespet to its logging operation' >7& the C#A for the !ears 1>>%-1>>7 eeutedbetween petitioner union and private respondent opan!epired' Petitioner subitted its deands to the opan! foranother round of olletive bargaining negotiations' +aidnegotiations ae to a gridlo. as the parties failed to reah autuall! aeptable agreeent with respet to ertain eonoiand non-eonoi issues'

>7 with the 6ational Coniliation and 3ediation #oard on theground of C#A negotiation deadlo.' +everal oniliationonferenes were onduted but the parties failed to reah asettleent' 5n 1> Deeber 1>>7& petitioner held the stri.e inprivate respondent/s 3anila and Antipolo plants'- +ubseFuentl!& both parties ae to an agreeent settling thelabor dispute' >7& both partieseeuted and signed a 35A providing for salar! inreases and

other eonoi and non-eonoi benefits' :t li.ewise ontaineda provision for the regulari;ation of ontratual& asual andoagen! wor.ers who have been wor.ing with private respondenfor ore than one !ear' +aid 35A was later inorporated to forpart of the 1>>7-2001 C#A and was thereafter ratified b! theeplo!ees of the opan!'- ConseFuentl!& petitioner deanded the pa!ent of salar! andother benefits to the newl! regulari;ed eplo!ees retroative to1 Deeber 1>>7& in aord with the 35A' *owever& the privaterespondent refused to !ield to said deands ontending that thedate of effetivit! of the regulari;ation of said eplo!ees were 13a! 1>>> and 1 5tober 1>>>' 3eanwhile& a ertifiationeletion was onduted on 1= August 1>>> wherein theA+A33A-CC5 :ndependent surfaed as the winning union andwas then ertified b! the D5L, as the sole and elusivebargaining agent of the ran.-and-file eplo!ees of privaterespondent/s 3anila and Antipolo plants for a period of five !earsfro 1 Oul! 1>>> to 80 Oune 200G' 5n 28 August 1>>>& theA+A33A-CC5 :ndependent deanded the renegotiation of theC#A whih epired on 80 Oune 1>>7' +uh reFuest was denied b!private respondent as there was alread! an eisting C#A whihwas negotiated and onluded between petitioner and privaterespondent whih was !et to epire on 80 Oune 2001'- 5n > Deeber 1>>>& despite the penden! of petitioner/soplaint before the 6LC& private respondent losed its 3anilaand Antipolo plants resulting in the terination of eplo!enof IGI eplo!ees' About %00 wor.ers were given a notie oterination effetive 1 3arh 2000 on the ground oredundan!' Deeber 1>>> to 2> ebruar! 2000 and were paidtheir orresponding salaries' 5n 18 Deeber 1>>>& four da!safter its losure of the 3anila and Antipolo plants& privaterespondent served a notie of losure to the D5L,'

- Petitioner ontends that respondent violated the 35A b! notreogni;ing the regulari;ation of the I1 eplo!ees as oDeeber 1& 1>>7 and giving the full benefits retroative tothat date' Petitioner li.ewise lais the losure of the plants wasin bad faith& done in order to avoid renegotiations of the C#A&and therefore illegal'

ISSUES1' B56 the regulari;ation of the I1 eplo!ees was effetiveDeeber 1& 1>>72' B56 the losure of the plants was legal

HELD1' ,+Ratio :t ust be noted that both parties adit the eistene osaid 35A and that the! have voluntaril! entered into said

agreeent' urtherore& neither of the parties den! that the I1eplo!ees have indeed been regulari;ed b! private respondentThe MOA, bein a !ontra!t freel" entered into b" the partiesno# !onstit$tes as the la# bet#een them, and the interpretationof its !ontents p$rel" in%ol%es an e%al$ation of the la# asapplied to the fa!ts herein& :t is the ontention of petitioner thathe date 1 Deeber 1>>7 refers to the effetive date oregulari;ation of said eplo!ees& while private respondenaintains that said date is erel! the re.oning date fro whihthe one !ear eplo!ent reFuireent shall be oputed' Beagree with petitioner' :t is logiall! absurd that the opan! wilonl! begin to etend priorit! to these eplo!ees on a date thathas alread! passed& when in fat the! have alread! etendedpriorit! to these eplo!ees b! agreeing to the ontents of the35A and signing said agreeent' :t is erroneous for the 6LC toonlude that etending to the the benefits of the 35A would


4/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G - Disiniviolate the priniple of Nno-wor.-no-pa!N as the! are atuall!rendering servie to the opan! even before 1 Deeber1>>7& and ontinued to do so thereafter' 3oreover& under Artile270 of the Labor Code& an! eplo!ee who has rendered at leastone !ear of servie& shall be onsidered a regular eplo!ee withrespet to the ativit! in whih he is eplo!ed and hiseplo!ent shall ontinue while suh ativit! eists' Also& underthe law& a asual eplo!ee is onl! asual for one !ear& and it isthe passage of tie that gives hi a regular status' ,ven if we

were to follow private respondent/s ontention that the date 1Deeber 1>>7 provided in the 35A is erel! a re.oning dateto deterine who aong the non-regular eplo!ees haverendered one !ear of servie as of said date& all those who havebeen with the opan! for one !ear b! said date ustautoatiall! be onsidered regular eplo!ees b! operation oflaw'2' ,+Ratio I to ebruar! 2001' 4nder thebonuses and allowanes setion of the said C#A& a P10 ealallowane shall be given to eplo!ees who render at least 2 hrsof overtie wor. and free eals shall be given after 8 hours ofatual overtie wor.'- Pursuant to this provision& soe departents of granted freeeals after eatl! 8 ours of wor.' *owever& other departentsgranted free eals onl! after ore than 8 hours of overtiewor.'

- >8-1>>% C#A& b! hanging the phraseafter 8 hrs of overtie wor. to after ore than 8 hrs ofovertie wor.' :n the 1>>I-2001 C#A& the parties had tonegotiate the deletion of the said phrase in order to revert to theold provision' Clearl!& both parties had intended that free ealsshould be given after eatl! 8 hrs of overtie wor.'- 72 of its ran.-and-file eplo!ees& eFuivalent totheir si.& vaation and aternit! leaves& preiu for wor.done on rest da!s and speial holida!s& and pa! for regulaholida!s whih petitioner& allegedl! in disregard of opan!pratie sine 1>=%& eluded fro the oputation of thethirteenth onth pa! for 1>72'- :n its answer& petitioner laied that it erroneo's#$ in)#'!e!items s'be)t of the )omp#int in the )omp'ttion of the

thirteenth month p$ for the $ers prior to 19".& upon adoubtful and diffiult Fuestion of law' Aording to petitionerthis ista.e was disovered onl! in 1>71 after the proulgationof the +upree Court deision in the ase of 'an Mi$eCorporation %& In!ion (108 +CA 18>)'- A deision was rendered on 3arh =& 1>7G favoring AL4' 72 Q 18th onthpa! differential to all its ran.-and-file wor.erseplo!ees hereinrepresented b! oplainant 4nion' Petitioner appealed thedeision of the Labor Arbiter to the 6LC& whih affired thesaid deision aordingl! disissed the appeal for la. of eritPetitioner elevated the atter to the +upree Court'

ISSUES1' B56 the oputation of the thirteenth onth pa! given b!eplo!ers to their eplo!ees under P'D' 6o' 7%1& pa!ents for

si.& vaation and aternit! leaves& preius for wor. done onrest da!s and speial holida!s& and pa! for regular holida!s a!be eluded in the oputation and pa!ent thereof& regardlessof long-standing opan! pratie2' B56 the petitioner a! invo.e the priniple of solutionindebiti

HELD1' =I& barel! one onth after the effetivit!of P'D' 6o' 7%1 and its :pleenting ules' And !et& petitioneoputed and paid the thirteenth onth pa!& without eludingthe subEet ites therein until 1>71' Petitioner ontinued itspratie in Deeber 1>71& after proulgation of the afore


5/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - % - DisiniFuoted 'an Mi$el deision on ebruar! 2G& 1>71& whenpetitioner purportedl! NdisoveredN its ista.e' From 1975 to19"1, petitioner h! free#$, 2o#'ntri#$ n! )ontin'o's#$in)#'!e! in the )omp'ttion of its emp#o$ees6 thirteenthmonth p$, the p$ments for si)4, 2)tion n!mternit$ #e2es, premi'ms for *or4 !one on rest !$sn! spe)i# ho#i!$s, n! p$ for re%'#r ho#i!$s& The)onsi!erb#e #en%th of time the 'estione! items h!been in)#'!e! b$ petitioner in!i)tes 'ni#ter# n!

2o#'ntr$ )t on its prt, s'ffi)ient in itse#f to ne%te n$)#im of mist4e&- A opan! pratie favorable to the eplo!ees had indeedbeen established and the pa!ents ade pursuant thereto&ripened into benefits enEo!ed b! the' And an! benefit andsuppleent being enEo!ed b! the eplo!ees annot be redued&diinished& disontinued or eliinated b! the eplo!er& b!virtue of +etion 10 of the ules and egulations :pleentingP'D' 6o' 7%1& and Artile 100 of the labor of the Philippines&whih prohibit the diinution or eliination b! the eplo!er ofthe eplo!eesM eisting benefits (


6/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - I - Disini


7/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - = - Disinisigning of this A,,3,6>> ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' P20'00 per da! per eplo!ee Oul! 1& 2000 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' P2%'00 per da! per eplo!ee Oul! 1& 2001 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' P80'00 per da! per eplo!ee- >>'- >>& Bage 5rder 6o' 6C-0= was issued& andon 5tober 2I& 1>>>& its :pleenting ules and egulations' :tprovided for a P2%'%0 per da! inrease in the salar! ofeplo!ees reeiving the iniu wage and inreased theiniu wage to P228'%0 per da!' Petitioner paid the P2%'%0per da! inrease to all of its ran.-and-file eplo!ees'- 5n Oul! 1& 2000& the ran.-and-file eplo!ees were granted theseond !ear inrease provided in the C#A in the aount ofP2%'00 per da!'- 5n 6oveber 1& 2000& Bage 5rder 6o' 6C-07 too. effet'+etion 1 thereof provides?+etion 1' 4pon the effetivit! of this Bage 5rder& private setorwor.ers and eplo!ees in the 6ational Capital egion reeivingthe presribed dail! iniu wage rate of P228'%0 shall reeivean inrease of I'- ,ah prootion had the orresponding inrease in therespondent/s salar! as well as in the benefits he reeived frothe petitioner #an.'- *owever& prior to his last prootion and then un.nown to theChina #an.& #orroeo& without authorit! fro the ,eutiveCoittee or #oard of Diretors& approved several DA4D#Paoodations aounting to P2&GG1&8=% in favor of Ooe3aniwan& with ,dundo aos as suret!' DA4D#P is thearon! for he.s NDrawn Against 4nolleted Deposits#illsPurhased'N +uh he.s& whih are not suffiientl! funded b!ash& are generall! not honored b! ban.s' urther& a DA4D#Paoodation is a redit aoodation granted to a few andselet ban. lients through the withdrawal of unolleted ounleared he. deposits fro their urrent aount' 4nder thepetitioner #an./s standard operating proedures& DA4D#Paoodations a! be granted onl! b! a ban. offier uponepress authorit! fro its ,eutive Coittee or #oard oDiretors'- As a result of the DA4D#P aoodations in favor o3aniwan& a total of ten out-of-town he.s (= PC:# he.s and 84CP# he.s) of various dates aounting to P2&GG1&8=% werereturned unpaid fro +epteber 20& 1>>I to 5tober 1=& 1>>I,ah of the returned he.s was staped with the notationNPa!ent +toppedAount Closed'N- 5n 5tober 7& 1>>I& the #orroeo wrote a 3eorandu to thepetitioner #an./s senior anageent reFuesting for the grant oa P2'G illion loan to 3aniwan'- >I for therespondent& sought larifiation fro the latter on the followingatters?- 3a! 28& 1>>= - 6an! D' ang& the C#an./s +enior KP and*ead-#ranh #an.ing roup& infored the # (through aeorandu) that his approval of the DA4D#Paoodations in favor of 3aniwan wo authorit! andoapproval of higher anageent violated the petitioner #an./sCode of ,this' As suh& # was direted to restitute the aoun


8/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 7 - Disiniof P1&%0=&=8I'=> representing >0H of the total loss ofP1&I=%&2I8'10 inurred b! the petitioner #an.'- *owever& in view of his resignation and onsidering the !earsof servie in the petitioner #an.& the anageent earar.edonl! P78I&I8='07 fro the respondent/s total separation benefitsor pa!'- :n the Letter dated 3a! 2I& 1>>= addressed to #& eediosCru;& C#an./s KP of the * Division& again infored hi that theanageent would withhold the su of P78I&I8='07 fro his

separation pa!& id-!ear bonus and profit sharing'-


9/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - > - Disini- C#an./s business is essentiall! ibued with publi interest andowes great fidelit! to the publi it deals with'- :t is epeted to eerise the highest degree of diligene in theseletion and supervision of their eplo!ees'- As a orollar!& and li.e all other business enterprises& itsprerogative to disipline its eplo!ees and to iposeappropriate penalties on erring wor.ers pursuant to opan!rules and regulations ust be respeted'- DAA6 v #P: V The la#, in prote!tin the rihts of labor,

a$thori3ed neither oppression nor self-destr$!tion of anemplo"er !ompan" #hi!h itself is possessed of rihts that m$stbe entitled to re!onition and respe!t Disposition Petition is =RANTED' CA/+ D,C:+:56 A6D,+5L4ERSED AND SET ASIDE' 6LC/+ D,C:+:56&affiring that of the Labor Arbiter& is REINSTATED'

CEBU ROYAL PLANT V DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABORCRU'; August 12, 19".

NATUREPetitioner faults the Deput! 3inister of Labor with grave abuse ofdisretion

FACTS- Pilones was disissed b! Cebu o!al Plant (CP)- the alleged ground for his reoval? pulonar! tuberulosisinial- Pilones oplained to the 3inistr! of Labor' =7@ thatthe si-onth probation period ended on Aug' 1=& 1>=7@ that hewas disissed on Aug' 21& G da!s after he eased to be aprobationer& onl! beause the -ra! eaination (whih showedhis P== withholding ta stateent issued forhi b! CP'

ISSUEB56 Pilones was still a probationar! eplo!ee when he wasdisissed on August 21& 1>=7

HELD65Ratio Bhen an eplo!ee is disissed due to a disease& theappliable rule is?+e' 7& ule :& #oo. K:& of the ules and egulationsipleenting the Labor Code? Disease as a ro$nd for dismissal 'Q Bhere the eplo!ee suffers fro a disease and his ontinuedeplo!ent is prohibited b! law or preEudiial to his health or tothe health of his o-eplo!ees& the eplo!er shall not terinatehis eplo!ent unless there is a ertifiation b! a opetentpubli health authorit! that the disease is of suh nature or at

suh a stage that it annot be ured within a period of si (I)onths even with proper edial treatent' :f the disease orailent an be ured within the period& the eplo!er shall notterinate the eplo!ee but shall as. the eplo!ee to ta.e aleave' 7I private respondent and plaintiff entered into auard +ervie Contrat' espondent provided seurit! guards indefendantMs banana plantation' 7G& Bage 5rder6o' % was proulgated direting an inrease of P8'00 per da! on

the iniu wage of wor.ers in the private setor and a P%'00inrease on the ,C5LA' 7Gb! Bage 5rder 6o' I whih further inreased said iniuwage b! P8'00 on the ,C5LA' #oth Bage 5rders ontain thefollowing provision?

N:n the ase of ontrat for onstrution proEets and foseurit!& Eanitorial and siilar servies& the inrease in theiniu wage and allowanes rates of the wor.ers shall beborne b! the prinipal or lient of the onstrutionservieontrator and the ontrats shall be deeed aendedaordingl!& subEet to the provisions of +e' 8 (b) of thisorderN (+e' I and +e' >& Bage 5rders 6o' % and Irespetivel!)'

- espondent deanded that its uard +ervie Contrat withdefendant be upgraded in opliane with Bage 5rder 6os' %and I' Plaintiff refused' 7I


10/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 10 - Disiniwithout the rate adEustent alled for Bage 5rder 6os' % and Ibeing ipleented' #! the tie of the filing of respondentMsCoplaint& the rate adEustent pa!able b! defendant aountedto PGI2&8GI'2%' Plaintiff opposed the Coplaint'-


11/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 11 - DisiniCAE%, SR5; Ap!() 19, 2006

NATUREPetition for review on ertiorari of the deision of the CA whihset aside the esolution of the 6LC whih in turn affired theDeision of the Labor Arbiter disissing the oplaint filed b!respondent #ustaante'

FACTS- Petitioner 5sar Killaaria& Or' was the owner of Killaaria3otors& a sole proprietorship engaged in assebling passenger

Eeepne!s with a publi utilit! franhise to operate along the#alaran-+uat route' #! 1>>%& Killaaria stopped assebling

Eeepne!s and retained onl! nine& four of whih he operated b!eplo!ing drivers on a boundar! basis' 5ne of those driverswas respondent' #ustaante reitted PG%0 a da! to Killaariaas boundar! and .ept the residue of his dail! earnings asopensation for driving the vehile' :n August 1>>=& Killaariaverball! agreed to sell the Eeepne! to #ustaante under theboundar!-hulog shee& where #ustaante would reit toKillaraa P%%0 a da! for a period of G !ears@ #ustaante wouldthen beoe the owner of the vehile and ontinue to drive thesae under Killaaria/s franhise' :t was also agreed that#ustaante would a.e a downpa!ent of P10&000'- 5n August =& 1>>=& Killaaria eeuted a ontrat entitled

asunduan ng #ilihan ng +asa.!an sa Paaagitan ng#oundar!-*ulog over the passenger Eeepne!' >>& #ustaante and other drivers who also had the sae

arrangeent with Killaaria 3otors failed to pa! theirrespetive boundar!-hulog'


12/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 12 - DisiniNATURE+peial Civil Ation in the +upree Court' Certiorari'

FACTS- Coplainants are supervisors of *inatuan 3ining Corporation(*3C) who planned the foration of a supervisors union' >8& *:3+4 forall! notified the opan! ofits legal eistene through a letter addressed to *3C PresidentWaora' :t infored the opan! of its desire for a olletivebargaining agreeent and subitted its proposals under letterdated 1I 6oveber 1>>8& whih again was addressed toWaora& KP-5peration anigan and KP-inane 6aorda'*owever& the opan! ignored these proposals'- 4nion filed an unfair labor pratie ase against *3C on 183a! 1>>G'- *3C disissed the oplainants under letter dated 1I Oune1>>G'- Labor Arbiter Legaspi held that the servies of petitioners wereillegall! terinated& ordered their reinstateent and the grant ofba. wages and attorne!/s fees eFuivalent to 10H of onetar!

award@ that there was no positive showing that petitioners wereretrenhed purposel! to wea.en or destro! their union@ hene&lai of unfair labor pratie was disissed' Li.ewise& lai fordaages was denied sine no fraud or bad faith was oittedb! private respondents in disissing the'- 6LC reversed Legaspi/s ruling& reEeted all petitioners/ laisand Fuestioned oplainants/ atuations onsidering that the!onl! hallenged 2 onths after disissal and after reeivingseparation pa!' :t also too. Eudiial notie of the eonoidiffiulties suffered b! the ining industr!'Petitioner’s Claim- Disissal was done with aliious intent to ause the andthe union daage for their eerise of the right to self-organi;ation& in defiane of Labor Code Art' 2G7' Coplainantspra! that respondents be? (a) delared guilt! of unfair laborpraties@ (b) ordered to reinstate oplainants to their forerpositions with ba.wages and to pa! oplainants Eointl! andseverall! the aount of P1%0.& as oral daages and litigationand attorne!Ms fees& respetivel!'Respondent’s Comments- etrenhent was a anageent prerogative ipleented inorder to prevent further losses' :t affeted ran.-and-file&supervisors and anagerial staffs and was done with due notieto ta.e effet 80 da!s fro reeipt thereof'- Coplainants had aepted separation pa! eFuivalent to 1onth pa! for ever! !ear of servie plus other onetar!benefits& and oplainants eeuted a waiver and Fuitlai forvalue reeived'- Coplaint was an afterthought in order to give seblane ofredene to their positionopposition to ondut a ertifiationeletion& as anifested b! oplainants/ ounsel delaration inopen ourt that the! were still filing a new oplaint for unfairlabor pratie (this ase)

ISSUES1' B56 the 6LC oitted grave abuse of disretionaounting to la. or eess of Eurisdition when it absolvedrespondents fro their dut! to prove losses as a Eust ground forretrenhent2' B56 the 6LC eeeded its Eurisdition in reogni;ing thewaiversFuitlais eeuted b! petitioners as an effetive bar tothis oplaint8' B56 the 6LC abused its disretion when it ordered thedisissal of the instant oplaint and totall! disregarded thelabor arbiter/s findings of fats and petitioners/ otion foreeution

HELD1' ,+

Ratio & was a leareognition b! the governent itself of the industr!Ms worseningeonoi diffiulties'


13/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 18 - Disiniopan!' Absent an! proof of the etent of the partiipation ofthe KP in the forulation and the ipleentation ofanageent poliies and progras& he annot be heldfinaniall! liable for the illegal disissal of eplo!ees'

EDI STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL V MAGSINOMEN%'A; u8e 20, 2001

NATUREPetition for review on ertiorari

FACTS- ,D: is a reruitent agen!' Doingue; is its President and3agsino was& until disissal& its supervisor of Proessing andDouentation roup'- >G- B sent a notie reprianding for the latesubission of wee.l! epense report

Oul! %& 1>>%- late subission of sae report so Bsuspended hi for % da!s 5t 1I to 20& 28-2=& 6ov I-10& 18-1=& (all 1>>%)- latesubission of his dail! all reports 6ov 20-2G& 1>>%- didn/t subit his dail! all reports so Bsuspended hi for 1% da!s'

- B!eth put ustilo in harge of prooting G Lederle (B/s sisteopan!) pharaeutial produts' then subitted to B aplan of ation where oitted to a.e an ave of 17 dail!

alls to ph!siians@ subit proptl! all periodi reports@ andensure >%H territor! progra perforane for ever! !le'- ustilo failed to ahieve his obEetives so B sent hi 2 notiesharging hi with willful violation of opan! rules andregulations and direted hi to subit a written eplanation'- eplained that he was overwor.ed and an obEet of reprisab! his iediate supervisor& ileon Ker;ano Or'- B!eth& upon the reoendation of a review panelterinated ustilo/s servies'- then filed with the egional Arbiter #r' 6o' I in #aolod Cit! aoplaint against B for illegal suspension& illegal disissal andpa!ent for allowanes& other onetar! benefits& daages andatt!/s fees'- >1&1%='>0 representing ba.wages& separationpa!& ar reiburseent& daages and att!/s fees'- B appealed to the 6LC in Cebu Cit!- 6LC- affired but odified the Labor Arbiter/s deisionordered reinstateent of & or in lieu of reinstateent& pa! hisseparation benefits'- B/s 3 was denied so the! filed with the CA a petition forCertiorari and


14/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1G - Disinioffense involving oral turpitude & the eplo!er a! not bereFuired to give the disissed eplo!ee separation pa!& orfinanial assistane& or whatever other nae it is alled& on theground of soial Eustie'N) Telefunken Semiconductors .mployees 1nion)""$ vCourt of 0ppeals:Be re of )o'rse *re tht finn)i# ssistn)e m$ be##o*e! s mes're of so)i# 'sti)e in e)eption#)ir)'mstn)es n! s n e'itb#e )on)ession& Be re

#i4e*ise min!f'# tht finn)i# ssistn)e is ##o*e! on#$in those instn)es *here the emp#o$ee is 2#i!#$!ismisse! for )'ses other thn serio's mis)on!')t orthose ref#e)tin% on his mor# )hr)ter ( 6en!o 'ales, In!&%s& National abor Relations Commission, 457 'CRA 89:)' 'N- :n the ase at bar& there is 65 eeptional irustanes towarrant the grant of finanial assistane or separation pa! topetitioner' !i! not on#$ 2io#te )ompn$ !is)ip#inr$ r'#es n!re%'#tions& He f#sifie! his emp#o$ment pp#i)tion formb$ not sttin% therein tht he is the nephe* of @r&Dno, respon!ent B$eths N'trition# Territor$@n%er&- mnifeste! his s#)4 of mor# prin)ip#e thro'%h hisinfr)tions& In simp#e term, he is !ishonest&) Philippine ,ong Distance Telephone vs! -,RC and

0bucay - ">= Y P,4 filed 2nd notie of +tri.e@ ground? bargainingdeadlo.- 6ov 11& 1>>= Y 6ational Coniliator! and 3ediation #oard(6C3#) proeedings resulting in agreeent to aintain statusFuo- 6ov 1=& 1>>= Y Proeedings ongoing& soe P,4 offiers stageda stri.e- 6ov 1>& 1>>= Y Ating Labor +eretar! >= Y eturn-to-wor. order reiterated

- 5t 2& 1>>7 Y 7 Y 3otions for eonsideration were filed anddenied in its 2nd assailed 5rder- P,4 filed petition for ertiorari with +C re? the +eretar!/sorders@ +C referred the ase to the CA- CA held?

:t is proper for the +eretar! to ta.e ogni;ane of thelegalit! of the stri.e PhilCo/s ats do not onstitute unfair labor praties'

ISSUES1' B56 it is proper for the +eretar! of Labor to have ta.enogni;ane of the issue on the legalit! of the stri.e (issue of

Eurisdition) 2' B56 ertain ats oitted b! PhilCo onstitute unfailabor praties as enuerated in Art' 2G7 of the Labor Code8' B56 the stri.e is illegal (a neessar! offshoot of the issue ofB56 a writ of eeution should issue upon PhilCo to perit theP,4 offiers who partiipated in the illegal stri.e to return towor.)

HELD1' ,+Ratio +ine the ver! reason of the +eretar!/s assuption o

Eurisdition was P,4/s delaration of the stri.e& an! issueregarding the stri.e is not erel! inidental to& but is essentiall!involved in& the labor dispute itself'Reasoning- Art 2I8(g) of the Labor Code grants the +eretar! of Labor theauthorit! to assue Eurisdition over a labor dispute ausing oli.el! to ause a stri.e or lo.out in an industr! indispensable tonational interest'


15/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1% - DisiniReasoning- PhilCo& being in the ouniations industr!& is engaged in avital industr! proteted fro stri.es and lo.outs b! PD 728 asaended b! PD 7G>- >8& thepetitioner was one of those arrested during a raid in the house o


16/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1I - Disinias refleted in the reords showing that petitioner was forall!investigated and given the opportunit! to refute the allegedfindings b! the anageent of B6C' > Y petitioners applied for eplo!ent abroadwith O:C' >'

: :ediatel! upon arrival in the Philippines& petitioners went to O:C& narrated what happened& and deanded the return of theiplaeent fees and plane fare' O:C refused' 5n Deeber 271>>>& O:C offered a settleent' 3ende; reeived P1%&070@ Auñaand aones reeived P18&IG0 and P1I&200& respetivel!'


17/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1= - Disiniresolved in the wor.erMs favor' >> was 6>7& ara +eal through its vessel/s +hipaster signedan Agreeent with the :nternational 8I'- 5n Oan' 1>>>& an :>>& in the Port of Piobino(:tal!)'


18/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 17 - Disini-


19/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 1> - DisiniNATUREPetition for review on ertiorari of CA deision delaring ,3C5/sattepted retrenhent of its eplo!ees as legall! ineffetive

FACTS- ,3C5 is a doesti orporation engaged in the business of*oo! pro)essin%& operating through its sawill and pl!illsetions where respondents used to be assigned as regularwor.ers'

- 5n Oan 20& 1>>8 and 3ar 2& 1>>8& ,3C5& represented b! itsen 3anager Li& informed the DOE of i ts intention to retren)h soe of its wor.ers on the ground of purportedfinanial diffiulties'- ,3C5 then iss'e! memorn!'m& addressed to all itsforemen, se!tion heads, s$per%isors and department heads& withthe instrution of retrenhing soe wor.ers based on the ffguidelines?a) 5ld Age (%7 !ears and above eept positions that are reall!s.illed)@b) Perforane (Attitude& Attendane& Xualit! Xuantit! of Bor.)- Per ,3C5/s notie to the D5L,& 10G wor.ers were proposed forinlusion in its retrenhent progra' E@C+ terminte! .5/*or4ers'- >1 dereased to P770< in1>>2'


20/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 20 - Disini-


21/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 21 - Disiniinterdependent ebers of a onsolidated whole whoseinterests ust be proteted against utual aggression andwarfare aong and between divers and diverse units whih areipelled b! ountervailing and opposite individual and groupinterests& and this is partiularl! true in the relationship betweenlabor and apital' +oial and industrial disturbanes whih fift!!ears ago were feudal-li.e and of isolated iportane a! nowwell result in a serious strain upon the entire eonoi organisof the nation' +everal attepts at eeting and solving our

peuliar soial and eonoi probles have alread! been ade' & 200G and April 2=& 200G esolutions of the 6LC'

FACTS- 5n Oune 2=& 2000 petitioner #enEain L' +aroa was hired b!:nterorient 3aritie ,nt'& :n' and Deao 4nited Ltd'& for atwelve-onth ontrat as bosun on board 3K Despina'- Bhile the vessel was navigating to China& petitioner sufferedlubar sprain when he aidentall! fell fro a ladder' 5n6ov'1%& 2000& he was eained and found to haveneuro!ositis with the waist and diabetes'


22/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 22 - Disinithe Fuitlai is redible and reasonable& the transation ust bereogni;ed as a valid and binding underta.ing'- As a final note& let it be ephasi;ed that the !onstit$tional

poli!" to pro%ide f$ll prote!tion to labor is not meant to be as#ord to oppress emplo"ers' 7G? Pursuant to the grievane ahiner! +tep 1of the C#A between PAL and the union& respondents filed aforal grievane'- 6oveber 21?


23/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 28 - Disini- when the respondents first presented their oplaint on August21& the petitioner (through 3r' Abad) failed to at on it- if the provision would be interpreted as to allow theanageent to at on their laborer/s oplaints after the atingoffier returned fro a leave then the auses of thewor.ingen would be dela!ed& thus suffering a great inEustie'


24/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2G - Disiniultiate blae annot be set solel! on private respondent basedon ere suspiion& but onl! with onrete and substantialevidene'- :n the instant ase& the petitioner failed to establish valid basesof the alleged isondut& thus den!ing private respondent herright to due proess' eme! 20, 2001

NATURE

eview see.ing reversal of the deision and resolution of CAreversing the resolution of the 6LC'

FACTS- Petitioner ogelio C' Da!an (Da!an) started his eplo!ent on80 Oune 1>%I with the Coerial #an. and 78& Assistant 3anager of Correspondent#an. in 1>77& Assistant 3anager of #ranh 5perations in 1>>0&Assistant 3anager of the +upplies :nventor! in 1>>1& and then+enior Assistant 3anager of the +upplies :nventor! in 1>>1-1>>2' :n addition to the series of prootions& Da!an was thereipient of various oendations'

- Deeber 1>>1& the post of Purhasing 5ffier beae vaant' >8'- 10 Oune 1>>8& Asst KP erlanda ,' De Castro of the ban.& in aeorandu& plaed petitioner under suspension'- Da!an is plaed under suspension due to atters presented tohi in a eeting on the sae orning of the suspension eo'- :t appears that #P: onduted earlier interviews regardingsupposed alpraties oitted b! Da!an during his ter asPurhasing 5ffier' >8& petitioner wrote a eorandu to the ban.narrating what had transpired in his eeting with the ban. on 10

Oune 1>>8 where he !enie! ## the ))'stions against hiand ontested his preventive suspension' *is denials and pleafor opassion notwithstanding& petitioner *s !ismisse! b!respondent ban. %ia a notie of terination& dated 2% 5tober1>>8& signed b! AKP erlanda de Castro' :n a letter ofonfession& dated 27 5tober 1>>8& petitioner '#timte#$!mitte! his infr)tions n! inste! s4e! for finn)i#ssistn)e' *e& at the sae tie& eeuted an undatedNelease Baiver and XuitlaiN a.nowledging reeipt ofPG00&000'00 finanial assistane fro the ban. and thereb!releasing and disharging it fro an! ation or lai arising frohis eplo!ent with the ban. and ebership in theretireent plan'- +ubseFuentl!& however& petitioner )#ime! tht the #etter

n! the 'it)#im *ere si%ne! b$ him 'n!er !'ress ' 5n1G ebruar! 1>>G& he filed a ase for :llegal Disissal and :llega+uspension& with a pra!er for an award of retireent benefitsbefore the Labor Arbiter'- :n his deision of 80 Oune 1>>%& the Lbor Arbiter 'phe#! the2#i!it$ of the !ismiss# of petitioner based on loss of trustand onfidene and denied his lai for retireent benefits anddaages'- 5n appeal& the NLRC re2erse! the !e)ision of the #bor

rbiter and delared the disissal to be illegal on the groundthat petitioner was denied due proess ratioinating that ahearing should have been afforded petitioner for a hane toonfront the witnesses against hi'- #P: filed with +C& a petition for !ertiorari Fuestioning the 6LCdeision'


25/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2% - DisiniReasoning-


26/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2I - Disini +:6:6 #564+& ,D-C:CL,-A>I and Deeber 27& 1>>I& and the odifiationsset forth above' >% a petition for delarator! relief undeule I8 0f the ules of Court with the >% with a plea for the issuane of a teporar! restraining


27/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2= - Disiniorder andor a writ of preliinar! inEuntion enEoining thegovernent fro enforing the said portions of the law' % upon a bond of Pesos %0&000'- Petitioners filed a petition with the ourt of Appeals assailingthe order and the writ with the ourt of Appeals on the groundsthat respondent& AC5-Phil& is not the real part!-in-interest andthat it has not shown an! onvining proof that in fat daageor inEur! would result in the ipleentation of the Fuestionedstatute'


28/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 27 - Disiniadinistrative order' #ut this assurane of a desirable fleibilit!in adinistrative proedure does not go far as to Eustif! orderswithout a basis in evidene having rational probative fore'(%) &Coonwealth At 6o' 108')


29/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 2> - Disini1>I7& subEet to the onditions that (a) the flight between 3anilaand +an ernando& La 4nion& 210211 of the sae tietable& beoperated dail! instead of twie a wee. as proposed& and (b) thatall shedules under DI7& Air 3anila& :n'& filed the instant petition

laiing that the respondent #oard ated without or in eess of Eurisdition andor with abuse of disretion in issuing itsesolution 6o' 18> (I7)'- Petitioner alleged that the proposed new shedule& involving anin rease of freFuenies& would not onl! saturate the routesserved also b! petitioner& but would also affet its shedule@ thatthe #oardMs approval of said Doesti


30/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 80 - Disinieplo!ee who poses a threat to the lives of other eplo!ees'


31/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 81 - DisinienEo!ent of onessions and benefits the union ight seurefro the eplo!er)I' A 88%0 violates the onstitutional provision regarding theprootion of soial Eustie'='


32/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 82 - Disini- erona v +eretar! of ,duation? #ut between the freedo ofbelief and the eerise of said belief& there is Fuite a streth ofroad to travel' :f the eerise of said religious belief lashes withestablished institutions of soiet! and with the law& then theforer ust !ield' I0& an at authori;ing the inrease of the apital

sto. of the 6ational Power Corporation to P100 illion too.effet' 5n Oune 1=& 1>I1& it was alleged that the hallengedlegislation beae a law& purportedl! to inrease further theauthori;ed apital sto.& but inluding the alleged rider referredto above'- 6ational Power Corporation approved a rate inrease of at least1='%H& the effetivit! of whih& was at first deferred to6oveber 1& 1>I2& then subseFuentl! to Oanuar! 1%& 1>I8& withthe threat that in ase petitioners would fail to sign the revisedontrat providing for the inreased rate& Mrespondent 6ationalPower Corporation would then ease Nto suppl!& distribute andservie eletri power and energ! to the'N- 5n 3arh 21& 1>I8& the lower ourt& onsidering that there wasNno suffiient ground for the issuane of the writ of preliinar!inEuntion Petitioner/s Clais& disissed the sae'- :t was alleged in the fats that Alala!an did purhase and ta.e

power and energ! as follows? N+it! (I0) .ilowatts and of not lessthan 1G0&000 .ilowatt-hours in an! ontrat !ear at the rate ofP120'00 per .ilowatt per !earN pa!able in twelve eFual onthl!installents& Nplus an energ! harge of P0'018 per .ilowatt hour&pa!able on the basis of onthl! deliver!'- A letter of Oune 22& 1>I2 of respondent 6ational PowerCorporation to petitioner approved his 1='%H rate inrease ofpower so that beginning Oul! 1& 1>I2& the deand harge wouldbe P10'00 per .ilowatt per onth and the energ! harge wouldbe P0'02 per .ilowatt hour'- I%& sustainedthe validit! and onstitutionalit! of the hallenged provision&hene this appeal'Petitioners’ Claims


33/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 88 - Disini- Bhile not epliitl! avowed b! petitioner& there is theintiation that to appl! the hallenged legislation to ontratsthen in eistene would be an infringeent of the onstitutionalprohibition against an! law ipairing the obligation of ontrats'+tatutes enated for the regulation of publi utilities& being aproper eerise b! the state of its polie power& are appliablenot onl! to those publi utilities oing into eistene after itspassage& but li.ewise to those alread! established and inoperation'

Disposition II Code of Disipline' 7>-1>>1 olletivebargaining agreeent& on Oune 2=& 1>>0& PAL,A in effereogni;ed PALMs Nelusive right to a.e and enfore opan!rules and regulations to arr! out the funtions of anageentwithout having to disuss the sae with PAL,A and ust lessobtain the onforit! theretoN (pp' 11-12& PetitionerMs3eorandu@ pp' 170-171& ollo')- +uh provision in the olletive bargaining agreeent a! notbe interpreted as ession of eplo!eesM rights to partiipate inthe deliberation of atters whih a! affet their rights and theforulation of poliies relative thereto' And one suh atter isthe forulation of a ode of disipline'- :ndeed& industrial peae annot be ahieved if the eplo!eesare denied their Eust partiipation in the disussion of attersaffeting their rights'


34/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8G - Disiniof transparen! in anagerial oves affeting eplo!eesMrights'Disposition Petition disissed'

BREW MASTER INTERNATIONAL INC. V NATIONALFEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU)

AVIE, R; Ap!() 1., 199.

NATUREA speial ivil ation for ertiorari see.ing the reversal of thedeision of the 6ational Labor elations Coission (6LC)whih odified the deision of the Labor Arbiter b! direting thereinstateent of private respondent Antonio D' ,strada& theoplainant& without loss of seniorit! rights and benefits'

FACTS- Private respondent 6AL4& a o-oplainant in the labor ase&is a labor union of whih oplainant is a eber'- Coplainant was first eplo!ed b! #rew 3aster on 1I+epteber 1>>1 as route helper with the latest dail! wage ofP11>'00'- ro 1> April 1>>8 up to 1> 3a! 1>>8& for a period of 1 onth&oplainant went on absent without perission (AB5P)'- 5n 20 3a! 1>>8& #rew aster sent hi a 3eo? Please

eplain in writing within 2G hours of !our reeipt of this eowh! no disiplinar! ation should be ta.en against !ou for thefollowing offense? ou were absent sine April 1>& 1>>8 up to3a! 1>& 1>>8'- :n answer to the aforesaid eo& oplainant eplained?+a dahilan po na a.o a! hindi na.apagpaala sain!o dahilinuwi .o ang ga ana. .o sa +aar dahil ang asawa .o a!lua!as at walang ag-aalaga sa ga ana. .o' a!a naanhindi a.o na.a long distane or telegraa dahil wala a.ong peraat ibinili .o ng gaot a! puro utang pa'- inding said eplanation unsatisfator!& the opan! issued a6otie of


35/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8% - Disiniwho went on aternit! leave'


36/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8I - Disinirepeated violation of defendant ban.Ms poliies and diretivesregarding redit aoodations and for over-appraisal of thereal estate ollateral for Doingo ChuaMs aount& aong others- Oune I& 1>I>& the plaintiff reeived the said letter of defendant+alvador D' & 1>I> defendant Oose D' +antos went to Cebu Cit! andserved plaintiff with the letter of defendant +alvador D' I>& suspending the plaintiff@

- Oul! 22& 1>I> plaintiff was served with the order of histerination signed b! defendant Clarenio +' uEuio& dated Oul!17& 1>I>'N- C: found the disissal of plaintiff as without Eust ause orotherwise illegal arbitrar!& oppressive and aliious& andordering defendants to pa! to the plaintiff& Eointl! and severall!&the following sus? (a) P1&000'00 a onth& as onseFuentialdaages for the loss of his salaries and allowanes& fro thedate of his disissal until the Eudgent shall have beoe finaland eeutor!@ (b) P2&%00'00 as terination pa!@ () P10I'I8representing unpaid salaries fro the 1Ith to 1>th of Oune 1>I>@(d) P200&000'00 in onept of oral daages@ (e) P%0&000'00 aseeplar! or orretive daages@ (f) P1%&000'00 as attorne!Msfees@ and to pa! the osts of the suit'N

Y I> b! petitioner +antos togetherwith the :nternal Auditor& 3r' osauro 3aalaga!' :n thiseaination& no unauthori;ed redit aoodations werefound and brought to the attention of 3r' #atuan'


37/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8= - Disinibe free fro arbitrar! disriination based upon stereot!pes ofarried persons wor.ing together in one opan!'-


38/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 87 - Disini- 7I& issued b! the3inistr! of Oustie in onnetion with the ipleentation of #'P#lg' 22=' 7G? PC:# disovered the loss of soe travelers he.saounting to P 2%&82%'00 in peso eFuivalent transated 80 Apri1>7G' As Oainto ated as 9 ler. on said da!& an investigationwas onduted b! PC:# allowing Oainto and other personnel toeplain their side'- Oainto was found guilt! of gross negligene& eted a 10-da!suspension wo pa! (=-20 3a! 1>7G)& and reFuired to pa! theloss b! wa! of salar! dedutions (P200onth _ %0H of id-!eaJ 9as bonus and profit sharing)' +he was transferred to the#alaran branh& 21 3a! 1>7G'- 1G Aug 1>7I? Oainto filed a oplaint with 6LC Fuestioningher suspension& penalt! and transfer of assignent'

- 1> eb 1>77?


39/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - 8> - DisiniB56 6LC gravel! abused its disretion in holding that grossnegligene annot be attributed to Oainto as she was notforall! designated to perfor the funtions of an 9 ler.

HELD1' ,+Ratio An! eplo!ee who is entrusted with responsibilit! b! hiseplo!er should perfor the tas. assigned to hi with are anddediation' 7%& aeorandu reFuiring all Preise +ales epresentatives (P+sto subit individual reports refleting target revenues as odeadlines& set at August 2& 1>7%' 7%& revising the previousshedules on the basis of Nthe onsensus reahed after severadisussions with !our D+3s& as well as& ost of !ou&N


40/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G0 - DisiniISSUEB56 the unionMs obEetions to& or reFuest for reonsideration ofthose regulations or poliies autoatiall! suspend enforeentthereof and euse the eplo!eesM refusal to opl! with thesae

HELDRatio +o long as a opan!Ms anageent prerogatives are

eerised in good faith for the advaneent of the eplo!erMsinterest and not for the purpose of defeating or iruventingthe rights of the eplo!ees under speial laws or under validagreeents& this Court will uphold the=

Reasoning- ,ven as the law is soliitous of the welfare of the eplo!ees& itust also protet the right of an eplo!er to eerise what arelearl! anageent prerogatives'


41/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G1 - Disinieber of the 6ational 4nion of Bor.ers& estaurants andAllied :ndustries (64B*A:6) with an eisting C#A with theprivate respondent'- 56 eb' 18& 1>>0& owena Loleng& a telephone operator&reeived a eFuest for Long Distane Call (LDC) for and adeposit of P%00 fro a pagebo! for a Oapanese guest *irota :eda'


42/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G2 - Disinirespondent Killareal resigned and thereafter Eoined *i-rade:ndustrial and >G& petitioner sponsored respondentrederi. +o to attend a training ourse in apfenberg& Austriaonduted b! #5*L,& petitioner/s prinipal opan!' >= or 2 !ears and G onthsafter attending the training& respondent resigned fro petitioner': :ediatel!& petitioner ordered respondents to render anaounting of its various Christas giveawa!s the! reeived'

=': :n due ourse& the Labor Arbiter rendered a Deision :6 AK55 +o and Killareal' Petitioner filed a otion for reonsiderationbut was denied *ene& petitioner filed with the Court of Appealsa petition for !ertiorari': 5n 5tober 2>& 1>>>& the Court of Appeals rendered a Deisiondisissing the petition and affiring the assailed 6LC Deision'Petitioner filed a otion for reonsideration but was denied b!the Appellate Court in a esolution dated 3a! 7& 2000'

ISSUES1' B56 Petitioner a! legall! withhold respondent Killareal/sonetar! benefits as a preliinar! reed! pursuant to Artile20=1 of the Civil Code& as aended2' B56 Petitioner ould withhold his onetar! benefits beingauthori;ed b! the eorandu he signed& the benefits ating

as opensation

HELD1' 65' :t annot' Artile 11I of the Labor Code& as aended&provides?A


43/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G8 - Disinidispute' D5L, issued an 5rder resolving the parit! andrepresentation issues in favor of the +hool'


44/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - GG - Disini

PLDT V NLRC (ABUCAY)16# SCRA 6.1CRU'; August 23, 19""

FACTS-Private respondent 3arli!n Abua!& a traffi operator for PLD


45/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G% - DisiniadEustentsN and Nin the absene of lear statutor! authorit!&Nthe boards a! no ore than adEust Nfloor wages'N

ISSUES1' B56 the regional board of 6C perfored an unlawful at oflegislation in dereeing an aross the board hi.e2' B56 AI=2= intended to deregulate the relation betweenlabor and apital

HELD1' 65- 2& petitioners Oenn! Agabon and KirgilioAgabon were hired as g!psu board and ornie installers b!respondent iviera *oe :proveents& :n'& a orporationengaged in the business of selling and installing ornaental andonstrution aterials' +even (=) !ears later& on ebruar! 28&1>>>& their servies were terinated on the ground ofabandonent of wor.' Apparentl!& petitioners were

subontrating installation Eobs for another opan! and werefreFuentl! absent fro wor.' >>& respondent opan! refused toreeplo! the unless the! agree to wor. on a pa/"a#K basisPetitioners deurred sine this would ean losing their benefits


46/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - GI - Disinieplo!er ust pa! full ba.wages fro the tie of terinationuntil it is Eudiiall! delared that the disissal was for a Eust orauthori;ed ause'Reasoninga' Constitutional due proess is different fro statutor! dueproess'


47/47

Labor Law 1 A2010 - G= - Disini• Atual or opensator! daages - eplo!ee

disissed for Eust ause but denied statutor! dueproess'

• peuniar! loss arising - teperate or oderatedaages under Artile 222G of the Civil Code'

• 3oral and eeplar! daages - disissal of theeplo!ee was attended b! bad faith& fraud& or wasdone in a anner ontrar! to orals& good ustos orpubli poli!& or the eplo!er oitted an at

oppressive to labor' ,eplar! daages - disissalwas effeted in a wanton& oppressive or alevolentanner'

Appropriate Award of Daages to the Agabons- the onl! appropriate award of daages is noinal daages'