Professional Documents
Culture Documents
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY vs
GULMATICO (1994)
FACTS:
HELD: YES
In determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, the elements that are generally
considered are the following: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer's power to control the employee with respect
to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished. It is the called "control test" that is the
most important element
villadolid
digests
HELD: NO
The SC ruled that litigations should, as much as
possible, be decided on the merits and not
technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an
opposition on the motion to transfer case which was
considered by Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Hence, there is
no showing that they have been unduly prejudiced by
the motions failure to give notice and hearing.
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
villadolid
digests
HELD: NO
Under P.D. No. 902-A, it is the Securities and Exchange
Commission and not the NLRC that has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal
from employment of corporate officers. Under the said
decree, the SEC has the exclusive and original
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving
Controversies in the election or appointments of
directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
corporations, partnerships or associations.
FACTS:
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
no
has
villadolid
digests
The SC did not find any bad faith or fraud on the part
of the bank officials who denied the petitioners
request for 6 months leave of absence without pay. He
was merely given personal assurances which could be
reconsidered in later developments. There is no
evidence that they meant to deceive the petitioner.
Therefore, the fact that petitioners request was
denied, does not entitle him to damages.
WHEREFORE, PETITION DENIED.
villadolid
digests
This rule is not really absolute for it does not say that
state may not be sued under any circumstances. The
States consent may be given expressly or impliedly.
Express consent may be made through a general law
or special law. On the other hand, Implied consent is
when the State itself commences litigation, thus
opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into
a contract
villadolid
digests
villadolid
digests
Facts:
Petitioner was dismissed from work by private
respondents who are owners of Vega & Co., private
recruitment agency, with assignment at respondent PKI.
He filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwages
with the DOLE in Cagayan de Oro City. The Labor Arbiter
ruled in favor of Sadol and ordered respondents to pay
petitioners separation pay at one month for every year
of service. Both parties appealed but respondents
appeal was filed out of time. The appeal of respondent
was dismissed for having been filed out of time.
Facts:
P. respondent Santos was dismissed from work as a bus
driver by Petitioner for failing to submit a written
explanation why he failed to report for his scheduled trip.
Respondent filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for
illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
petitioner and dismissed the complaint. This was
affirmed by the NLRC but granted Santps money claims.
Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner elevated the
Held: YES
It has been held that the requirement of a motion for
reconsideration may be dispensed with in the following
instances: (1) when the issue raised is one purely of law;
(2) where public interest is involved; (3) in cases of
villadolid
digests
Facts:
In the case of Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC (1988), the SC
dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner failed
to show that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion. The entry of judgment having been effected,
the NLRC, in the process of execution, made a
computation of the award to the private respondents.
Petitioner filed a motion to stay execution/reconsideration
citing supervening events that affect the computation of
the award as follows:
(1) The computation on separation pay did not consider
the length of service of each complainant as borne out
from the records; (2) The computation did not consider
the wage exemptions granted the petitioner-respondent
company; (3) The computation included payment of
awards to a respondent who had already been recalled to
active duty, one who was already paid in a case separately
filed, and another who was already paid; (4) All the capital
10
villadolid
digests
11
villadolid
digests
12
villadolid
digests
13
villadolid
digests
FACTS
Petitioner
Ermidia
A.
Mariano
was
a
stenographer-typist and filing clerk of respondent
when she was dismissed from work. She sent a letter
to the managing directors of the company in HK
through its manager in the Philippines, respondent
J.V. Kamerling. In the letter, she complained about
Kamerlings inconsiderate and untactful attitude
towards the employees under him and the clients of
the company. Kamerling adviced petitioner that her
letter had been forwarded to the managing directors
in HK and that said directors believed that it was
impossible to maintain her in the company.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of her dismissal
from the managing directors in HK but received no
answer to any of her 5 letters.
The Company finally offered a compromise
settlement with the petitioner whereby she would
be paid a sum equivalent to 6 months salary,
provided that she would sign a quitclaim embodying
a provision that she would release the company from
any liability arising from her employment. Not
satisfied with the compromise, the petitioner filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice against the
company. The CIR rendered judgment holding the
company guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered
them to reinstate petitioner to her former position.
The company filed with the SC a petition to
review the decision of the CIR. The SC ruled in favor
of the company. Hence, this appeal.
14
villadolid
digests
Complex
Electronics
Corporation
was
a
subcontractor of electronic products. Its customers
were foreign-based companies with different product
lines. One of its customers is the Lite-On Philippines
Electronics Co.
Complex received a message from Lite-On
Philippines requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
Complex informed Lite-On that such request was not
feasible as they were already incurring losses at the
present prices of their products. Complex informed the
employees that it was left with no alternative but to
close down the operations of the Lite-On Line. The
company promised that it would follow the law by
giving 1 month notice and retrenchment pay.
Sometime later, the machinery, equipment and
materials being used for production at Complex were
pulled-out from the company premises and transferred
to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. in Laguna. The
following day, Complex totally closed its operation.
The Complex Employees Union filed a complaint
for ULP, illegal closure/illegal lockout and money
claims. It claims that business has not ceased at
Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics, a
runaway shop, which is an act constituting ULP. To
prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner
asserts that Complex owns the majority of the shares
comprising the increased capital stock of Ionics. The
Union alleged that the reason for the closure of the
establishment was due to the union activities of the
employees.
15
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
Issue: Whether
constitutes ULP
the
dismissal
of
the
FACTS:
employees
Held: YES
The dismissal of employees because of their refusal to
resign from their union and to join the union favorable to
the employer constitutes ULP. Under the circumstances
and equity of the case, and considering the length of
time and the union-busting activities of petitioner, the
individual complainants are granted back wages for five
(5) years without qualification or deduction.
Held: YES.
16
villadolid
digests
17
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to renegotiate the terms&conditions of their existing CBA
MEWA submitted its proposal to MERALCO and the
collective bargaining negotiations proceeded. However,
despite the series of meetings between the negotiating
panels of MERALCO and MEWA, the parties failed to
arrive at "terms and conditions acceptable to both of
them."
As a result, MEWA filed a Notice of Strike, on the
grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP
Secretary of Labor: granted the economic as
well as the political demand of the MEWA, and ordered
to grant the wage increase and to incorporation into
the CBA of all existing employee benefits.
MERALCO filed a MR alleging that the Secretary of
Labor did not properly appreciate the effect of the
awarded wages and benefits on MERALCO's financial
viability.
MEWA likewise filed a motion asking the Secretary
of Labor to reconsider its Order on the wage increase
and other benefits.
18
Held:
Spin-off of Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Companies
from the San Miguel Corporation as separate corporate
entities. Existing CBA included all four divisions. During
the renewal or renegotiation for two years on the
economic provisions, spin-off corporations were already
in existence. The Union insisted that the employees of
the spun-off corporations were still to be considered as
part of the appropriate bargaining unit.
Considering the spin-off, the companies would
consequently have their respective and distinctive
concerns in terms of the nature of work, wages, hours of
work and other conditions of employment. The interests
of the employees in different companies would perforce
differ. SMC is engaged in beer manufacturing; Magnolia
with manufacturing and processing of dairy products; SM
Foods with production of feeds and processing of
chicken. The nature of the products and sales of
business may require diff. Skills which must necessarily
be commensurated by different compensation packages;
different volumes of work and working conditions. It
would then be best to have separate bargaining units for
different companies where the employees can bargain
separately accdg. to their needs and working conditions.
villadolid
digests
19
villadolid
digests
Issue: WON the lower court erred in holding that all the
employees in the administrative, sales, and dispensary
departments of petitioner company, with the exception of
the supervisors, security guards, and confidential
employees therein, constitute an appropriate separate
collective bargaining unit.
Held:
The Court ruled that, no reason to disturb said finding of
the lower court
that, said employees in the
administrative, sales, and dispensary departments perform
work which have nothing to do with production and
maintenance, unlike those in the raw leaf (manlalasi),
cigar, cigarette, packing (precinteria), and engineering and
garage departments whose functions involve production
and maintenance, they have a community of interest
which justifies their formation or existence as a separate
appropriate collective bargaining unit.
20
villadolid
digests
(formerly
Inc.
21
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
22
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
23
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
FACTS:
24
villadolid
digests
Petition granted.
25
villadolid
digests
PICKETING AND
OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
DE LEON vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION (1957)
FACTS:
Petitioner Narcisa B. de Leon is the owner of a parcel
of land in Manila. She leased said land to the Filipino
FACTS:
Liwayway Publications, Inc. was the 2nd sub-lessee of
the premises of the respondent Permanent Concrete
Products, Inc, in Manila
The EEs of Permanent Concrete declared a strike. For
unknown reason, they picketed, stopped and
prohibited Liwayways truck from entering the
compound to load newsprint from its bodega. The
union members also intimidated the and threatened to
harm the Liwayways EEs who were in the truck.
Liwayway filed an action for damages and injunction
against the union in the CFI Manila
CFI: issued preliminary injunction and award damages
to the ER.
The union contends that the CFI has no jurisdiction
over the case because the case arose out of labor
dispute and that their picketing is an extension of
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution
Issue: Whether Liwayway is a third-party or an innocent
bystander whose right has been invaded and, therefore
entitled to protection by regular courts
HELD: YES
We find and hold that there is no connection between the
Liwayway Publications, Inc. and the striking Union
Although picketing is not prohibited , a picketing labor
26
villadolid
digests
27
villadolid
digests
28
villadolid
digests
KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT -
29
15, 1986 until January 16, 1987. The Co. gave her
an extension up to June 30, 1987.
On June 22, 1987 her services were terminated
without notice or investigation. Hence, she filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner Co. argues mainly that the private
respondent's appointment was TEMPORARY and
hence she may be terminated at will.
villadolid
digests
30
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
Complainant Ramon L. Meris was hired by respondent
MERALCO as a PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE for 5
months as messenger. His work among others, was to
file pleadings in court, serve summons for execution,
verify or follow-up cases in court and other related
matters under the legal department.
His supervisors were dissatisfied with his performance
for being neglectful of his duties and he was also
uncooperative toward co-employees and disrespectful
to his superiors.
Ramon received a Memorandum, advising him of the
termination of his probationary employment.
LA: ordered the reinstatement of Ramon.
NLRC: sustained the LA and held that the dismissal
was illegal
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the ER before the 6
months probationary was just and valid?
HELD: YES. NLRC reversed.
The ER has the right to terminate
employment on justifiable causes
probationary
31
villadolid
digests
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT:
Consequences of Termination
MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS
and ANTONIO L. CRUZ vs. NLRC and PLDT (1992)
FACTS:
Petitioner Cruz had been an ER of PLDT for 16 years as
an installer/repairman when he was terminated.
It appears that sometime in August 1985, Cruz and
co-repairman Moldera was instructed to repair
installations located at 325 Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong.
According to PLDT, the telephone numbers installed on
the said address were actually reinstalled and
functioning at 323 Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong. This
out-move of the telephone was considered illegal by
the company there being no service order. Hence, Cruz
was dismissed on the ground of fraud and serious
misconduct.
Both LA and NLRC arrived at the conclusion that said
EE should be dismissed although with financial
assistance (10K). This was questioned by the PLDT
Issue: Whether Cruz is entitled to financial assistance
HELD: YES
The dismissal of Cruz was valid. PLDT complied with
procedural due process prior to termination of Cruz for
violation of company rules involving what can be
considered fraud and dishonesty.
When there is doubt that dishonesty was committed,
financial assistance may still be awarded to an EE who has
rendered long years of service. Despite the nature of
offense, financial assistance on ground of compassionate
justice may still be given.
32
villadolid
digests
HELD: YES
The contention of Wenphil is untenable.
33
villadolid
digests
abuse
of
HELD: YES
An ER becomes liable to pay indemnity to a dismissed EE
if the ER fails to comply with the requirements of due
process. The indemnity is in the form of nominal
damages intended not to penalize the employer but to
vindicate or recognize the employees right to procedural
due process which was violated by the employer.
HELD: YES
The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: the
amount of monthly salary and the number of years of
service. Although the Labor Code provides different
definitions as to what constitutes one year of service,
Book Six does not specifically define one year of service
for purposes of computing separation pay. However,
Articles 283 and 284 both state in connection with
separation pay that a fraction of at least six months shall
be considered one whole year.
34
villadolid
digests
35
villadolid
digests
FACTS:
2 union officers, Catinoy and Saturnino, had a fight
inside the union office, an act that violates company
rules and union by-laws. The union executive board
decided to place them on indefinite suspension and
requested the company, Hyatt Taxi Services Inc., to
implement it. The company place the 2 on preventive
suspension for 30 days
Catinoy, aggrieved by the preventive suspension
since he was not the aggressor, filed a complaint for
illegal suspension. After the lapse of 30 days, he
reported to work but was not allowed to resume his
duties. He amended his complaint to include
constructive dismissal
LA: found the Hyatt taxi to be guilty of illegal
preventive suspension and illegal constructive
dismissal
Hyatt and the union appealed to the NLRC
NLRC: affirmed LA.. HOWEVER, upon MFR, the NLRC
deleted the award of backwages because there was
no concrete showing that the complainant was
constructively dismissed
CA: reinstated the LAs decision
private
respondent
Issue:
Whether
the
constructively dismissed
was
36
villadolid
digests
FULL BACKWAGES
- wages from the time of illegal termination up to the
actual reinstatement
1. Mercury Drug vs. NLRC
- 3 years pay without qualification and
deduction
2. Ferrer vs. NLRC
- wages from time of illegal dismissal to
actual
reinstatement MINUS earnings
elsewhere
(earnings from the new job
while case is
pending)
3. Osmalik Bustamante vs. NLRC
- wages from the time of illegal dismissal up
to
actual reinstatement without any deductions.
37