1

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

LABOR STANDARDS


BONUS


Eastern
Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc. v.
Eastern Telecoms
Employees Union
G.R. No. 185665,
February 8, 2012

A bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient
has no right to demand as a matter of right. The grant of a bonus is
basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the
employer who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of
granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the employees basic
salaries or wages. A bonus, however, becomes a demandable or
enforceable obligation when it is made part of the wage or salary or
compensation of the employee.


HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS
Conditions for Entitlement under POEA-SEC

Loadstar International
Shipping, Inc. vs. The
Heirs of the Late Enrique
C. Calawigan
G.R. No. 187337,
December 5, 2012

Section 20-B (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC states that for the seaman's
claim to prosper, however, it is mandatory that he should be examined
by a company-designated physician within three days from his
repatriation. Failure to comply with this mandatory reporting requirement
without justifiable cause shall result in forfeiture of the right to claim the
compensation and disability benefits provided under the POEA-SEC.

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability to be
compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied under the
POEA-SEC: (1) the seafarers work must involve the risks described in
the contract; (2) the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's
exposure to the described risks; (3) the disease was contracted within a
period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract
it; and (4) there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.


DISABILITY BENEFITS
Determination of Seafarers Degree of Disability

Daniel M. Ison v.
Crewserve, Inc., Antonio
Galvez, Jr., and Marlow
Navigation Co., Ltd.
G.R. No. 173951
April 16, 2012

For purposes of determining the seafarers degree of disability, it is the
company-designated physician who must proclaim that he sustained a
permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or
illness, during the term of his employment. The Court shall thus
evaluate the findings of petitioners physicians vi-a-vi the findings of
the company-designated physician


DISABILITY BENEFITS
Disability Benefits

Alen H. Santiago v.
Pacbasin
ShipManagement, Inc.
and/or Majestic Carriers,
Inc.
G.R. No. 194677
April 18, 2012

The POEA Standard Employment Contract clearly provides that when a
seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the
vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the
company-designated physician. However, if the doctor appointed by the
seafarer makes a finding contrary to that of the assessment of the
company-designated physician, the opinion of a third doctor may be
agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer as the decision
final and binding on both of them.




San Beda College of Law
2013 Centralized Bar Operations
2
DEATH BENEFITS

Crew and Ship
Management
International Inc. and
Salena Inc. vs. Jina T.
Soria
G.R. No. 175491
December 10, 2012

The mandate of Section C(4)(c) of the 1989 POEA SEC which provides
for mandatory 72-hour post-employment medical examination deadline
is to make the post-employment examination within three (3) working
days from the seafarers arrival/repatriation to the Philippines
compulsory, except when the seafarer is physically incapacitated to do
so, before a claim for disability or death benefits can validly prosper.
The purpose of the 3-day mandatory reporting requirement can easily
be ascertained. Within 3 days from repatriation, it would be fairly
manageable for the physician to identify whether the disease for which
the seaman died was contracted during the term of his employment or
that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment.

Crewlink, Inc, and/or Gulf
Marine Services vs.
Editha Teringtering
G.R. No. 166803
October 11, 2012

Under No. 6, Section C, Part II of the POEA "Standard Employment
Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen On-Board
Ocean-Going Vessels" (POEA-SEC), the death of a seaman during the
term of employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death
compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The
employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove that
the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly attributable to his
deliberate or wilful act.


LABOR RELATIONS


LABOR ARBITER
Jurisdiction

Estate of Nestor Dulay,
represented by his wife
Merridy Jane P. Dulay, v.
Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime
Inc. and General
Charterers Inc.
G.R. No. 172642
June 13, 2012

With respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein
the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the
dispute or claim should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective
bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to
either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration.


KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT
Regular Employment

D.M. Consuji, Inc. and/or
David M. Consuji v.
Estelito L. Jamin
G.R. No. 192514
April 18, 2012

In all the 38 projects where DMCI engaged Jamins services, the tasks
he performed as a carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable
in DMCIs construction business. He might not have been a member of
a work pool as DMCI insisted that it does not maintain a work pool, but
his continuous rehiring and the nature of his work unmistakably made
him a regular employee.


DISMISSAL
Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship

Duty Free Philippines
Services, Inc. v. Manolito
Q. Tria
G.R. No. 174809
June 27, 2012
The alleged absence of employer-employee relationship cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. The resolution of this issue requires
the admission and calibration of evidence and the LA and the NLRC did
not pass upon it in their decisions. The SC cannot permit petitioner to
change its theory on appeal. It would be unfair to the adverse party who
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
3
would have no more opportunity to present further evidence, material to
the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware earlier of
the new theory before the LA and the NLRC.


Polyfoam-Rgc
International,
Corporation and Precilla
A. Gramaje v. Edgardo
Concepcion
G.R. No. 172349
June 13, 2012

In labor-only contracting, the following elements are present:
(a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or
investment to actually perform the job, work or service under its own
account and responsibility; and
(b) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the
main business of the principal.
The test of independent contractorship is "whether one claiming to be
an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to
his own methods and without being subject to the control of the
employer, except only as to the results of the work.

A finding that a contractor is a "labor-only" contractor, as opposed to
permissible job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an
employer-employee relationship between the principal and the
employees of the supposed contractor, and the "labor-only" contractor is
considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer.


Charlie Jao v. BCC
Products Sales Inc., and
Terrance Ty
G.R. No. 163700
April 18, 2012

In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship, the Court has consistently looked for the certain incidents.
The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important
element.


DISMISSAL
Management Prerogative

Salvador O. Mojar, Edgar
B. Begonia, Heirs of the
Late Jose M. Cortez,
Restituto Gaddi, Virgilio
M. Monana, Freddie
Rances and Edson D.
Tomas v. Agro
Commercial Security
Service Agency, Inc., et
al.
G.R. No. 187188
June 27, 2012

Employees have the right to security of tenure, but this does not give
them such a vested right to their positions as would deprive the
company of its prerogative to change their assignment or transfer them
where their services, as security guards, will be most beneficial to the
client. An employer has the right to transfer or assign its employees
from one office or area of operation to another in pursuit of its legitimate
business interest, provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of
salary, benefits, and other privileges; and the transfer is not motivated
by discrimination or bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or
demotion without sufficient cause.


DISMISSAL
Right to Contract

University Of The East,
Dean Eleanor Javier,
Ronnie Gillego and Dr.
Jose C. Benedicto vs.
Analiza F. Pepanio and
Mariti D. Bueno
G.R. No. 193897
January 23, 2013

A school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and
administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications. Such
regulations form part of a valid CBA without need for the parties to make
express reference to it. While the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions, as they may see fit, the right
to contract is still subject to the limitation that the agreement must not
be contrary to law or public policy.


San Beda College of Law
2013 Centralized Bar Operations
4
DISMISSAL
Due Process

Skippers United Pacific,
Inc. and Skippers
Maritime Services, Inc.,
Ltd. v. Nathaniel Doza,
Napoleon De Gracia,
Isidro L. Lata and Charlie
Aprosta
G.R. No. 175558
February 8, 2012

The Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the
employment contract by "serving written notice on the employer at least
one (1) month in advance." Given that provision, the law contemplates
the requirement of a written notice of resignation. In the absence of a
written resignation, it is safe to presume that the employer terminated
the seafarers


DISMISSAL
Substantial Evidence

Romeo E. Paulino v.
National Labor Relations
Commission and
Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company,
Incorporated.
G.R. No. 176184
June 13, 2012

Proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employees misconduct is not
required in dismissing an employee. Rather, as opposed to the proof
beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence required in criminal
cases, labor suits require only substantial evidence to prove the validity
of the dismissal. Notwithstanding petitioners acquittal in the criminal
case for qualified theft, respondent PLDT had adequately established
the basis for the companys loss of confidence as a just cause to
terminate petitioner.


DISMISSAL
Submission of Evidence on Appeal

Misamis Oriental II
electric service
Cooperative (MORESCO
II) v. Virgilio Cagalawan
G.R. No. 175170
September 5, 2012

Labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, are not precluded from receiving
evidence submitted on appeal as technical rules are not binding in
cases submitted before them. However, any delay in the submission of
evidence should be adequately explained and should adequately prove
the allegations sought to be proven.


DISMISSAL
Burden of Proof

Norkis Distributors, Inc.
and Alex D. Buat v.
Delfin S. Descallar
G.R. No. 185255
March 14, 2012

In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to
show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. The employers
case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the
weakness of the employees defense. If doubt exists between the
evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of
justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. Moreover, the quantum of
proof required in determining the legality of an employees dismissal is
only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other
minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.


DISMISSAL
Just Cause

Apo Cement Corporation
v. Zaldy E. Baptisma
G.R. No. 176671
To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence under Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines,
the following guidelines must be observed: "1) loss of confidence should
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
5
June 20, 2012

not be simulated; 2) it should not be used as subterfuge for causes
which are improper, illegal or unjustified; 3) it may not be arbitrarily
asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and 4) it
must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken
in bad faith." More important, it "must be based on a willful breach of
trust and founded on clearly established facts."


DISMISSAL
Wilful Disobedience

Kakampi and its
Members, Victor
Panuelos, et al.,
represented by David
Dayalo, Kakampi Vice
President and Attorney-
in-Fact v. Kingspoint
Express and Logistic
and/or Mary Ann Co
G.R. No. 194813
April 25, 2012


An employer may terminate an employment on the ground of serious
misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his work. Willful
disobedience requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the
employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is,
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order
violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged
to discharge.


Billy M. Realda v. New
Age Graphics, Inc. and
Julian I. Mirasol, Jr.
G.R. No. 192190
April 25, 2012

An employer has the right to require the performance of overtime
service in any of the situations contemplated under Article 89 of the
Labor Code and an employees non-compliance is willful disobedience.


DISMISSAL
Redundancy

Lenn Morales v.
Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company
G.R. No. 182475
November 21, 2012

For the implementation of a redundancy program to be valid, the
employer must comply with the following requisites: (1) written notice
served on both the employees and the DOLE at least one month prior to
the intended date of termination of employment; (2) payment of
separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay for every year of
service; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair
and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
redundant and accordingly abolished.

In implementing a redundancy program, it has been ruled that the
employer is required to adopt a fair and reasonable criteria, taking into
consideration such factors as (a) preferred status; (b) efficiency; and (c)
seniority, among others.


General Milling
Corporation v. Violeta L.
Viajar
G.R. No. 181738
January 30, 2013

While it is true that the characterization of an employees services as
superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore, properly terminable,
is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer, the
exercise of such judgment, however, must not be in violation of the law,
and must not be arbitrary or malicious. The Court has always stressed
that a company cannot simply declare redundancy without basis. To
exhibit its good faith and that there was a fair and reasonable criteria in
ascertaining redundant positions, a company claiming to be over
manned must produce adequate proof of the same.



San Beda College of Law
2013 Centralized Bar Operations
6
DISMISSAL
Termination of Union Members Due to an Illegal Strike

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 155109
September 29, 2010

Since the Unions strike has been declared illegal, the Union officers
can, in accordance with law be terminated from employment for their
actions. As regards the rank and file Union members, Article 264 of the
Labor Code provides that termination from employment is not warranted
by the mere fact that a union member has taken part in an illegal strike.
It must be shown that such a union member, clearly identified,
performed an illegal act or acts during the strike.

The mere fact that the criminal complaints against the terminated Union
members were subsequently dismissed for one reason or another does
not extinguish their liability under the Labor Code. Nor does such
dismissal bar the admission of the affidavits, documents, and photos
presented to establish their identity and guilt during the hearing of the
petition to declare the strike illegal.


DISMISSAL
Analogous Cases

Cosmos Bottling Corp. v.
Wilson Fermin
G.R. No. 193676
June 20, 2012

Theft committed against a co-employee is considered as a case
analogous to serious misconduct, for which the penalty of dismissal
from service may be meted out to the erring employee.

Misconduct involves "the transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character,
and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment." For
misconduct to be serious and therefore a valid ground for dismissal, it
must be: (1) of grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant; and (2) connected with the work of the employee.


DISMISSAL
Constructive Dismissal

Mindanao Terminal and
Brokerage Service, Inc.
vs. Nagkahiusang
Mamumuo sa Minterbro-
Southern Philippines
Federation of Labor
G.R. No. 174300
December 5, 2012

Article 286 (now Article 292) of the Labor Code provides that the bona
fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a
period not exceeding six months shall not terminate employment.
Consequently, when the bona fide suspension of the operation of a
business or undertaking exceeds six months, then the employment of
the employee shall be deemed terminated. By the same token and
applying said rule by analogy, if the employee was forced to remain
without work or assignment for a period exceeding six months, then he
is in effect constructively dismissed.


DISMISSAL
Separation Pay

Ma. Corina C. Jiao, et. al
v. National Labor
Relations Commission
G.R. No. 182331
April 18, 2012

For as long as the minimum requirements of the Labor Code are met, it
is within the management prerogatives of employers to come up with
separation packages that will be given in lieu of what is provided under
the Labor Code.




SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
7
DISMISSAL
Recomputation of Backwages

Leo Gonzales v. Solid
Cement Corporation
G.R. No. 198423
October 23, 2012

By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add on
until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code.
The re-computation of 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 the computation of monetary
consequences of this dismissal is affected and this is not a violation of
the principle of immutability of final judgments.


DISMISSAL
Prescriptive Period of Injury to Rights

Teekay Shipping Phils.,
Inc., and/or Teekay
Shipping Canada v.
Ramier C. Concha
G.R. No. 185463
February 22, 2012

It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-
recognized in this jurisdiction that ones employment, profession, trade
or calling is a "property right," and the wrongful interference therewith is
an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property within the
protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law. Clearly
then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of
livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of ones dismissal
from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated "upon an
injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as contemplated under Article 1146 of
the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four (4) years.

CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT
Retrenchment

Waterfront Cebu City
Hotel v. Ma. Melanie P.
Jimenez, Jacqueline C.
Baguio, Lovella V. Carillo
and Maila G. Roble
G.R. No. 174214
June 13, 2012

For a valid retrenchment, the following elements must be present: (1)
That retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent
business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis,
but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are
reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the
employer; (2) That the employer served written notice both to the
employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least
one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; (3) That the
employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month pay or at least month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher; (4) That the employer exercises its prerogative to
retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest and
not to defeat or circumvent the employees right to security of tenure;
and (5) That the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in
ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained
among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical
fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers.


REINSTATEMENT
Execution of Reinstatement Order

3
rd
Alert Security and
Detective Services, Inc.
v. Romualdo Navia
G.R. No. 200653
June 13, 2012

Article 223 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code provides that in case
there is an order of reinstatement, the employer must admit the
dismissed employee under the same terms and conditions, or merely
reinstate the employee in the payroll. The order shall be immediately
executory. Thus, 3rd Alert cannot escape liability by simply invoking that
Navia did not report for work. The law states that the employer must still
reinstate the employee in the payroll. Where reinstatement is no longer

San Beda College of Law
2013 Centralized Bar Operations
8
viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary
for every year of service could be awarded as an alternative. It is also
proper to impose treble costs against 3rd Alert for its utter disregard to
comply with the writ of execution.


RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank v.
Miguelito M. Lazaro
G.R. No. 185346
June 27, 2012

Banks under liquidation retain their legal personality. In fact, even if they
are prohibited from conducting regular banking business, it is necessary
that debts owed to them be collected. Thus, the period of liquidation
shall still be included in computing the retirement benefits if Lazaro.

Only in the absence of an applicable retirement agreement shall Article
287 (now Article 293) of the Labor Code apply providing for the
rounding of a fraction of 6 months being considered as 1 year.
Moreover, there is a proviso however, that an employee's retirement
benefits under any agreement shall not be less than those provided in
the said article. In fact, the bank offers a retirement pay equivalent to
one and one-half month salary for every year of service, a rate over and
above the one-half month salary threshold provided by the law.
Moreover, although the Rules of the Banco Filipino Retirement Fund do
not grant a rounding off scheme, they nonetheless provide that prorated
credit shall be given for incomplete years, regardless of the fraction of
months in the retirees length of service.