Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER IV
SPECIAL GROUP OF WORKERS
OR EMPLOYEES
Sec.
2.
Grounds
suspension/cancellation
license
for
of
FACTOR, J.V.
PEOPLE
VS
DUJUA
Facts:
- The case at bar stemmed from two (2)
different complaints which share the
same information and allegations
- Private
respondents
represented
themselves to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipinos
abroad, and could facilitate the
processing of the pertinent papers if
given the necessary amount to meet
the requirements
- Roberto Perlas, Beldon Caluten, Jaime
Cabus and Melodea Villanueva were
the only ones who testified among the
several people who were promised to
pay
processing
fees,
advance
payments and placement fees in
separate occasions
- Transactions were done in private
resppondents office, the World Pack
Travel and Tours in Manila
- Receipts were given although in
several transactions, it were no longer
issued
- On the promised dates of departure,
they were kept hanging and when they
would ask for a refund or follow-up on
their flights, private respondents would
respond that they will be able to leave
the following day
- When the flights and the promised jobs
did not materialize, they decided to file
separate complaints with the NBI
- Prosecution presented certifications
issued by the POEA, stating that
Ramon Dujua and World Pack Travel
and Tours are not licensed or
authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers abroad
- Ramon Dujua admitted having met
private complainants but denied that he
was a recruiter because he was only a
janitor, messenger and errand boy of
the company, World Pack Travel and
Tours, which is owned by his aunt,
Editha Singh and managed by his
mother, Rose Dujua, both of whom are
respondents to the case
- RTC rendered its decision against the
respondents
Issue:
Whether or not Ramon Dujua is guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale
Held:
illegal
illegal
FACTOR, J.V.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be paid his
salaries for 14 months and 4 days
Held:
-
Apprentice:
Allowed
Employment
Requirement Program Approval
NITTO ENTERPRISES
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Petitioner Nitto Enterprises hired
Roberto Capili as an apprentice
machinist, molder and core maker as
evidenced
by
an
apprenticeship
agreement for a period of six (6)
months with a daily wage rate of
P66.75 which was 75% of the
applicable minimum wage
- 2 events that occurred in the same day
triggered the case
- First, Capili who was handling a piece
of glass which he was working on
accidentally hit and injured the leg of an
office secretary
- Second, after office hours, Capili went
to the workshop which was not his work
station then operated one of the
machines without authority and injured
his left thumb
- Both the incidents caused the victims to
be sent to the hospital for treatment,
the payment of which was shouldered
by the company
FACTOR, J.V.
Issue:
Article 57.
(2)
To
establish
a
national
apprenticeship program through the
participation of employers, workers and
government
and
non-government
agencies; and
(3)
To
establish
standards for the
apprentices.
In
the
case
at
bench,
the
apprenticeship
agreement
was
executed and submitted to the DOLE
on May 28, 1990 but it was only filed to
the DOLE on June 7, 1990
Notwithstanding
the
absence
of
approval by the DOLE, the agreement
was enforced the day it was signed
Petitioner did not comply with the
requirements for it is mandated that
apprenticeship agreements entered into
by the employer and apprentice shall
be entered only in accordance with the
apprenticeship program duly approved
the Minister of Labor of Employment
Prior approval by the DOLE of the
proposed apprenticeship program is a
condition sine quo non before an
apprenticeship
protection of
Persons with
Privileges
Disabilities:
Rights
and
BERNARDO
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Complainants are deaf-mutes who
were hired by Far East Bank and Trust
Co. as Money Sorters and Counters
through
an
agreement
called
Employment Contract for Handicapped
Workers.
- In the agreement, it is stated that the
contract will be for a period of six (6)
months. Renewable at the discretion of
the bank
- Respondent disclaimed the claim that
complainants were regular employees
because they were under special
employment arrangement and hired
due to pakiusap
- Also, through the pakiusap the tellers
were relieved of the counting task in
favor of deaf-mutes without creating
new positions as there is no such
FACTOR, J.V.
Issue:
Held:
-
Issue:
Whether or not Department Order No. 1
should be made unconstitutional due to
discrimination of sex
Held:
- The
Department
Order
is
not
unconstitutional
- The Department Order applies only to
female contract workers but it does
not make an undue discrimination
between sexes
- The Court is satisfied that the
classification made-the preference for
female workers due to maltreatment
especially the domestic servants, as
marked by physical and personal
abuse, rape and torture
- The Court finds the guidelines to be
applicable to all female domestic
overseas workers and does not apply
to all Filipina workers is not an
argument for unconstitutionality
- What the Constitution prohibits is the
singling out of a select person or group
of persons within an existing class, to
the prejudice of such a person or group
or resulting in an unfair advantage to
another person or group of persons
- Fernando
says:
Where
the
classification is based on such
distinctions that make a real difference
as infancy, sex, and stage of civilization
of minority groups, the better rule, it
would seem, is to recognize favorable
treatment. There would be an element
of unreasonableness if on the contrary
their status that calls for the law
ministering to their needs is made the
basis of discriminatory denial of equal
FACTOR, J.V.
including
an
assurance
of
entitlement to tenurial security of all
workers
3.
2.
FACTOR, J.V.
Issue:
Whether or not the stipulation against marriage
of the companys policy is violative of the equal
protection clause of the constitution
Held:
-
FACTOR, J.V.
Held:
The stipulation or policy in the nature of
that adopted by PT&T is void
The Labor Code states:
Art. 136. Stipulation against
marriage. it shall be unlawful
for an employer to require as a
condition of employment or
continuation of employment
that a woman shall not get
married,
or
to
stipulate
expressly or taxitly that upon
getting married, a woman
employee shall be deemed
resigned or separated, or to
actually dismiss, discharge,
discriminate
or
otherwise
prejudice a woman employee
merely by reason of marriage.
Alien
Employment
Coverage; Exemption
Regulation:
ALMODIEL
VS
NLRC
Facts:
Farle P. Almodiel is a certified public
accountant who was hired as Cost
Account Manager of respondent
Raytheon Philippines
A few months after his hiring, he
recommended and submitted a Cost
Accounting/Finance
Reorganization,
affecting the whole finance group but
the same was disapproved by the
Controller
He was assured that if his position or
department which was a one-man
department becomes unable to deliver
the needed service, he would be given
a three (3) year advance notice
The standard cost accounting system
was installed and used at the Raytheon
plants
worldwide
and
as
a
consequence, the services of a Cost
Accounting Manager allegedly entailed
only the submission of periodic reports
that would use computerized forms
Petitioner was summoned by his boss
and was informed of the abolishment of
his position
He pleaded to be retained or
transferred to another department but
he was informed that the decision was
final and has already been submitted to
the DOLE
FACTOR, J.V.
Issue:
Whether or not Cone should be issued an alien
employment permit
Held:
-
Held:
- Ang Tan Chais employment is valid
- Article 40 of the Labor Code which
requires employment permit refers to
non-resident aliens
- The employment permit is required for
entry into the country for employment
purposes
and
is
issued
after
determination of non-availability of a
person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time
of application to perform the srvices for
which the alien is desired
- Since Ang Tan Chai is a resident alien,
he does not fall within the ambit of the
provision
Section
6.
Issuance
of
Employment Permit the
Secretary of Labor may issue
an employment permit to the
applicant based on:
a) Compliance
by
the
applicant and his employer
with the requirements of
Section 2 hereof;
Facts:
- The NRC of the DOLE issued an Alien
Emplyment Permit in favor of petitioner
Earl Timothy Cone, a US citizen, as
sports consultant and assistant coach
for
petitioner
General
Milling
Corporation (GMC)
- GMC and Cone entered into a contract
of employment whereby the latter took
to coach the GMCs basketball team
- A month after, GMC requested for the
renewal of Cones permit and that he
be allowed to employ Cone as fullfledged Coach, which was granted
- Private respondent Basketball Coaches
Association of the Philippines (BCAP)
FACTOR, J.V.
Facts:
- Private respondent Rosalinda Cortez
was issued a memorandum requiring
her to explain her side regarding
several matters including the act of
throwing a stapler at Plant Manager
William Chua
- The memorandum was refused by
Cortez but it was read to her and
discussed with by a co-employee
- While pending the investigation, she
was
placed
under
preventive
suspension.
Then
another
memorandum was issued regarding
another issue
- Cortez submitted an explanation
regarding the issues except for the
throwing of stapler
- A third memorandum was issued
informing her of her termination
- Cortez filed a complaint with the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal against the
company and Francis Cua, the
companys president but the LA
decided that the dismissal was valid
and legal
- On appeal, NLRC reversed the
decision
- Petitioners elevated the matter to the
SC
Issue:
Whether or not Cortez suffered sexual
harassment in the hands of the Plant Manager
Held:
-
Sexual Harassment
PHILIPPINE AELOUS AUTOMOTIVE CORP
VS
NLRC
FACTOR, J.V.
Sexual Harassment
DOMINGO
VS
RAYALA
Facts:
- a. Lourdes T. Domingo, then a
Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC
filed a complaint for sexual harassment
against Rayala before the DOLE
- To support her claims, she executed an
Affidavit narrating the incidences of
sexual harassment complaint
- In her affidavit, she stated that at first,
Rayala would praise her beauty. In
some instances, he would put his arms
on her shoulder. One time, he directly
stated that he liked her a lot because
she was different than the rest. He
even asked her personal questions. In
another occasion, he gave her money
for school expenses, which she did not
want to receive and so she informed
one of her officemates and superior
who both advised her to give the
money back, which she did. Several
times, he would look at her from head
Issue:
Whether or not Rayala was guilty of sexual
harassment
Held:
- Rayala is guilty
- Basic in the law of public officers is the
three-fold liability rule, which states that
the wrongful acts or omissions of a
public officer may give rise to civil,
criminal and administrative liability. An
action
for
each
can
proceed
independently of the others. This rule
applies with full force to sexual
harassment
- The law penalizing sexual harassment
in our jurisdiction is RA 7877:
FACTOR, J.V.
In a work-related or
employment environment,
sexual harassment is
committed when:
Non-Household Work
APEX MINING VO.
VS
NLRC
Facts:
- Sincilita Candido was employed by
Apex Mining to perform laundry
services at its staff house
- An accident happened wherein she
slipped and hurt her back while
attending to her assigned task, which
she reported to her superiors
- As a result of the accident, she was not
able to continue with her work
- She was permitted to on leave for
medication and later on, was offered a
sum to persuade her to quit her job, but
she refused
- Petitioner did not allow her to return to
work and dismissed her
- Candido filed a request for assistance
with the DOLE which the Labor Arbiter
favored
- Apex then filed with the NLRC an
appeal but was denied
Issue:
Whether or not Candido should be treated as a
mere househelper or domestic servant and not
as a regular employee
Held:
-
FACTOR, J.V.
The
forgoing
definition
clearly
contemplates such househelper or
domestic servant who is employed in
the employers home to minister
exclusively to the personal comfort and
enjoyment of the employers family.
Such definition covers family drivers,
FACTOR, J.V.