LABREL DOCTRINES ABS-CBN retained all creative, administrative, financial and

legal control of the program to which they were assigned. Aside

FIRST BATCH from having the right to require petitioners to attend and
participate in all promotional or merchandising campaigns,
1. Sonza vs ABS CBN activities or events for the Program, ABS-CBN required the
*note the application of the four-fold test in this case former to perform their functions at such locations and
Performance/Exhibition Schedules it provided or, subject to prior
2. Locsin vs PLDT
notice, as it chose determine, modify or change. Even if they were
Disputable Presumption of Ordinary Course of Things to Prove
unable to comply with said schedule, petitioners were required to
Er-Ee Relationship
The fact remains that petitioners remained at their post after the give advance notice, subject to respondents approval. However
termination of the Agreement. obliquely worded, the Court finds the foregoing terms and
In the ordinary course of things, responsible business owners or conditions demonstrative of the control respondents exercised not
managers would not allow security guards of an agency with only over the results of petitioners work but also the means
whom the owners or managers have severed ties with to continue employed to achieve the same.
to stay within the business premises. This is because upon the
Exclusivity Clause (difference with Sonza Case)
termination of the owners or managers agreement with the
In the case of Sonza, it recognized that independent contractors can
security agency, the agencys undertaking of liability for any
validly provide his exclusive services to the hiring party, said case
damage that the security guard would cause has already been
enunciated that guidelines for the achievement of mutually desired
terminated. Thus, in the event of an accident or otherwise damage
results are not tantamount to control. However, parallels cannot be
caused by such security guards, it would be the business owners
expediently drawn between this case and that of Sonza case which
and/or managers who would be liable and not the agency. The
involved a well-known television and radio personality who was
business owners or managers would, therefore, be opening
legitimately considered a talent and amply compensated as such.
themselves up to liability for acts of security guards over whom the
While possessed of skills for which they were modestly
owners or managers allegedly have no control.
recompensed by respondents, petitioners lay no claim to fame
Therefore, petitioners remained at their post under the instructions
and/or unique talents for which talents like actors and personalities
of respondent and respondent dictated upon petitioners that the
are hired and generally compensated in the broadcast industry.
latter perform their regular duties to secure the premises during
operating hours. This is sufficient to establish the existence of an
4. Professional Services vs CA
employer-employee relationship. Doctrine of Apparent Authority
Where an employment relationship exists, the hospital may be held
3. Begino vs ABS CBN
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of
Test of Control as regards cameramen/editors
the Civil Code or the principle of respondeat superior. Even when
As cameramen/editors and reporters, it also appears that petitioners
no employment relationship exists but it is shown that the hospital
were subject to the control and supervision of respondents which,
holds out to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may
first and foremost, provided them with the equipment essential for
still be vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article
the discharge of their functions. Prepared at the instance of
1431 and Article 1869 of the Civil Code or the principle of
respondents, petitioners Talent Contracts tellingly provided that
apparent authority.
 There is, however, ample evidence that the hospital held out to the
patient that the doctor was its agent. Present are the two factors
that determine apparent authority: first, the hospitals implied
manifestation to the patient which led the latter to conclude that the
doctor was the hospitals agent; and second, the patients reliance
upon the conduct of the hospital and the doctor, consistent with
ordinary care and prudence.
5. South East International Rattan vs Coming
Exclusion in the SSS list and Payroll is not a proof against Er-Ee
relationship
The Court held that the fact that a worker was not reported as an
employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of
employer-employee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be
rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.
Nor does the fact that respondents name does not appear in the
payrolls and pay envelope records submitted by petitioners negate
the existence of employer-employee relationship. For a payroll to
be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain
a true and complete list of the employee. In this case, the exhibits
offered by petitioners before the NLRC consisting of copies of
payrolls and pay earnings records are only for the years 1999 and
2000; they do not cover the entire 18-year period during which
respondent supposedly worked for SEIRI.
6. NASECO vs NLRC
The NLRC has jurisdiction over GOCCs without original charters
In the matter of coverage by the civil service of GOCC, the 1987
Constitution starkly differs from the 1973 constitution. It provides
that the "civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including
government owned or controlled corporation with original charter."
Therefore, by clear implication, the civil service does not include
GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under the
general corporation law.
7. Juco vs NLRC
Employees of GOCCs without original charter are subject to the
provisions of the Labor Code
NHA is now within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor
and Employment, it being a government-owned and/or controlled
corporation without an original charter. NHA workers or
employees undoubtedly have the right to form unions or
employees organization and that there is no impediment to the
holding of a certification election among them as they are covered
by the Labor Code.
8. Universal Robina vs Acibo
Regular seasonal employees
The regular and repeated hiring of the same workers has put in
place, principally through jurisprudence, the system of regular
seasonal employment in the sugar industry and other industries
with a similar nature of operations. Under the system, the
plantation workers or the mill employees do not work continuously
for one whole year but only for the duration of the growing of the
sugarcane or the milling season. Their seasonal work, however,
does not detract from considering them in regular employment
since in a litany of cases, this Court has already settled that
seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are
temporarily laid off during the off-season are not separated from
the service in said period, but are merely considered on leave until
re-employment. Be this as it may, regular seasonal employees, like
the respondents in this case, should not be confused with the
regular employees of the sugar mill such as the administrative or
office personnel who perform their tasks for the entire year
regardless of the season. The NLRC, therefore, gravely erred when
it declared the respondents as regular employees without
qualification and that they were entitled to the benefits granted,
under the CBA, to URSUMCOS regular employees
9. David vs Macasio
 Pakyaw or task basis
As to kind of employee
Engagement on pakyaw or task basis does not characterize the
relationship that may exist between the parties, i.e., whether one of
employment or independent contractorship. To determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the four-fold
test of employment relationship is used.
As to benefits entitled
13th month pay --> Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing P.D. No. 851 enumerates the exemptions from the
coverage of 13th month pay benefits which includes employers of
those who are paid on x x x task basis, and those who are paid a
fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the
time.
SIL and Holiday Pay --> in determining whether workers engaged
on pakyaw or task basis is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the
presence of employer supervision as regards the workers time and
performance is the key: if the worker is simply engaged
on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled
to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions
specifically provided under Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95
(SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged
on pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of field
personnel under the law, then he is not entitled to these monetary
benefits.
SECOND BATCH
1. Halaguena vs PAL
Constitutionality of CBA is not within jurisdiction of NLRC and LA
The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217
of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-
employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to
the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining
agreement. An action raising the issue as to whether a provision of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement is unlawful and
unconstitutional is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.
Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the
employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
labor arbiter. Actions between employees and employer where the
employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause
of action precedes from a different source of obligation is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court. Here, the employer-
employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental and
the cause of action ultimately arose from different sources of
obligation, i.e., the Constitution and CEDAW.
2. Lapanday vs CA
Action based on contract (Guard Service Contract)
It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-
employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is
involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code,
other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the
Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.
Articles 106 and 107 of the Labor Code provides the rule
governing the payment of wages of employees in the event that the
contractor fails to pay such wages. It will be seen from the above
provisions that the principal and the contractor are jointly and
severally liable to the employees for their wages.
3. 7K vs Albarico
Exceptions to the rule that LA has exclusive jurisdiction over
termination disputes
Although the general rule under the Labor Code gives the labor
arbiter exclusive and original jurisdiction over termination
disputes, it also recognizes exceptions. The phrase Except as
otherwise provided under this Code refers to the following
exceptions:
1. Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters . . . x x x x (c) Cases
arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective
bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation
or enforcement of company procedure/policies shall be
 disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator as may be
provided in said agreement.
2. Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. The Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement
of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor
disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks.
4. Peoples Broadcasting vs Sec. of Labor
The DOLE may make a determination of Er-Ee relationship
The previous conclusion must be revisited. No limitation in the law
was placed upon the power of the DOLE to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. No procedure was
laid down where the DOLE would only make a preliminary
finding, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The law
did not say that the DOLE would first seek the NLRCs
determination of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee
relationship be disputed, the DOLE would refer the matter to the
NLRC.
The determination of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship by the DOLE must be respected. The expanded
visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA
7730 would be rendered nugatory if the alleged employer could, by
the simple expedient of disputing the employer-employee
relationship, force the referral of the matter to the NLRC. The
Court issued the declaration that at least a prima facie showing of
the absence of an employer-employee relationship be made to oust
the DOLE of jurisdiction. But it is precisely the DOLE that will be
faced with that evidence, and it is the DOLE that will weigh it, to
see if the same does successfully refute the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.
If the DOLE makes a finding that there is an existing employer-
employee relationship, it takes cognizance of the matter, to the
exclusion of the NLRC. The DOLE would have no jurisdiction
only if the employer-employee relationship has already been
terminated, or it appears, upon review, that no employer-employee
relationship existed in the first place.
This is not to say that the determination by the DOLE is beyond
question or review There are judicial remedies such as a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 that may be availed of.
Regarding the PhP 5,000 limit
There is a view that despite Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended by RA 7730, there is still a threshold amount set by Arts.
129 and 217 of the Labor Code when money claims are involved,
i.e., that if it is for PhP 5,000 and below, the jurisdiction is with the
regional director of the DOLE, under Art. 129, and if the amount
involved exceeds PhP 5,000, the jurisdiction is with the labor
arbiter, under Art. 217. The view states that despite the wording of
Art. 128(b), this would only apply in the course of regular
inspections undertaken by the DOLE, as differentiated from cases
under Arts. 129 and 217, which originate from complaints. There
are several cases, however, where the Court has ruled that Art.
128(b) has been amended to expand the powers of the DOLE
Secretary and his duly authorized representatives by RA 7730. In
these cases, the Court resolved that the DOLE had the jurisdiction,
despite the amount of the money claims involved. Furthermore, in
these cases, the inspection held by the DOLE regional director was
prompted specifically by a complaint. Therefore, the initiation of a
case through a complaint does not divest the DOLE Secretary or
his duly authorized representative of jurisdiction under Art. 128(b).
5. Ong vs CA
Requirements of Appeal from LA to NLRC
An appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected
within ten calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or
orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment involving a monetary
award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon (1) proof of
payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety
bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a
memorandum of appeal. A mere notice of appeal without
complying with the other requisites mentioned shall not stop the
 running of the period for perfection of appeal. The posting of cash
or surety bond is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and
non-compliance therewith is fatal and has the effect of rendering
the judgment final and executory. This requirement is intended to
discourage employers from using the appeal to delay, or even
evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful
claims.
Motion to reduce bond does not stop the period to perfect an
appeal
The NLRC Rules clearly provide that the filing of the motion to
reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect
appeal. Petitioner should have seasonably filed the appeal bond
within the ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the
order, resolution or decision of the NLRC to forestall the finality of
such order, resolution or decision. In the alternative, he should
have paid only a moderate and reasonable sum for the premium.
6. McBurnie vs Ganzon
Reducing Bond in Appeal to NLRC from LA
Pursuant to Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure,
the NLRC shall only accept motions to reduce bond that are
coupled with the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount. The
bond requirement imposed upon appellants in labor cases is
intended to ensure the satisfaction of awards that are made in favor
of appellees, in the event that their claims are eventually sustained
by the courts. On the part of the appellants, its posting may also
signify their good faith and willingness to recognize the final
outcome of their appeal.
Meaning of Meritorious Ground
The requirement on the existence of a meritorious ground delves
on the worth of the parties arguments, taking into account their
respective rights and the circumstances that attend the case. By
jurisprudence, meritorious grounds may pertain to an appellants
lack of financial capability to pay the full amount of the bond, the
merits of the main appeal such as when there is a valid claim that
there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award, the absence of
an employer-employee relationship, prescription of claims, and
other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal. For the
purpose of determining a meritorious ground, the NLRC is not
precluded from receiving evidence, or from making a preliminary
determination of the merits of the appellants contentions.
7. Yupangco vs CA
No Forum-Shopping in Appeal
There is no forum-shopping where two different orders were
questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised,
and two objectives were sought.
The case before the NLRC petitioner was not a party to the case.
The only issue petitioner raised before the NLRC was whether or
not the writ of execution issued by the labor arbiter could be
satisfied against the property of petitioner, not a party to the labor
case.
On the other hand, the accion reinvindicatoria filed by petitioner in
the trial court was to recover the property illegally levied upon and
sold at auction. Hence, the causes of action in these cases were
different.
Third Party Claim
A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to
enforce a decision against a judgment debtor is afforded with
several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party
may avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one
will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the other
alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first
availed of.
Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative
remedies:
a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the
denial to the NLRC.
The remedies above mentioned are cumulative and may be
resorted to by a third-party claimant independent of or separately
 from and without need of availing of the others. If a third-party
claimant opted to file a proper action to vindicate his claim of
ownership, he must institute an action, distinct and separate from
that in which the judgment is being enforced, with the court of
competent jurisdiction even before or without need of filing a
claim in the court which issued the writ, the latter not being a
condition sine qua non for the former. In such proper action, the
validity and sufficiency of the title of the third-party claimant will
be resolved and a writ of preliminary injunction against the sheriff
may be issued.
8. PAL vs NLRC
Injunction power of NLRC presupposes a pending case before LA
The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from
any labor dispute upon application by a party thereof, which
application if not granted may cause grave or irreparable damage
to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such
party.
The term labor dispute is defined as any controversy or matter
concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association
or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment.
The term controversy is likewise defined as a litigated question;
adversary proceeding in a court of law; a civil action or suit, either
at law or in equity; a justiciable dispute. A justiciable
controversy is one involving an active antagonistic assertion of a
legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning
a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue.
Therefore, it is an essential requirement that there must first be a
labor dispute between the contending parties before the labor
arbiter.
Recourse of illegally dismissed employee is not a petition for
injunction to NLRC
Under the Labor Code, the ordinary and proper recourse of an
illegally dismissed employee is to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the labor arbiter. In the case at bar, private
respondents disregarded this rule and directly went to the NLRC
through a petition for injunction praying that petitioner be enjoined
from enforcing its dismissal orders.
THIRD BATCH
1. Diamond Taxi vs Llamas
Requirements for Appeal
The Labor Code states that decisions (or awards or orders) of the
LA shall become final and executory unless appealed to the NLRC
within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision. Under
Section 4(a), Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules, the appeal shall be
in the form of a verified memorandum of appeal and accompanied
by proof of payment of the appeal fee, posting of cash or surety
bond (when necessary), certificate of non-forum shopping, and
proof of service upon the other parties. Failure of the appealing
party to comply with any or all of these requisites within the
reglementary period will render the LAs decision final and
executory.
Motion for Reconsideration may be considered a Notice of Appeal
Indisputably, Llamas did not file a memorandum of appeal from
the LAs decision. Instead, he filed, within the ten (10)-day appeal
period, a motion for reconsideration. Under Section 15, Rule V of
the 2005 NLRC Rules, motions for reconsideration from the LAs
decision are not allowed; they may, however, be treated as an
appeal provided they comply with the requirements for perfecting
an appeal.
Non-attachment of certificate of non-forum shopping
Ordinarily, the infirmity in Llamas appeal would have been fatal
and would have justified an end to the case. A careful consideration
of the circumstances of the case, however, convinces us that the
NLRC should, indeed, have given due course to Llamas appeal
despite the initial absence of the required certificate. We note that
in his motion for reconsideration of the NLRCs May 30, 2006
resolution, Llamas attached the required certificate of non-forum
shopping.

2. Ando vs Campo
Execution of Orders of NLRC
The power of the NLRC to execute its judgment extends only to
properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone.
Thus, a sheriff has no authority to attach the property of any person
except that of the judgment debtor. The property in question
belongs not only to Ando, but his wife as well. She stands to lose
the property subject to execution without ever being a party to the
case which is tantamount to deprivation of property without due
process.
3. Bergonio vs Southeast Asian Airlines
Order of Reinstatement
The decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is
concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The
employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation
or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll.
The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution
for reinstatement provided herein.
Effect on accrued wages by subsequent reversal
The reversal by a higher tribunal of the Labor Arbiters (LAs)
finding (of illegal dismissal), notwithstanding, an employer, who,
despite the LAs order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the
employee during the pendency of the appeal up to the reversal by a
higher tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the
employee, i.e., the unpaid salary accruing up to the time the higher
tribunal reverses the decision.
Exception.
By way of exception to the above rule, an employee may be barred
from collecting the accrued wages if shown that the delay in
enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on
the part of the employer. To determine whether an employee is thus
barred, two tests must be satisfied: (1) actual delay or the fact that
the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to
its reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to the employers
unjustified act or omission. Note that under the second test, the
delay must be without the employers fault. If the delay is due to
the employers unjustified refusal, the employer may still be
required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the
LAs decision.
4. Buenviaje vs CA
Earnings elsewhere should not be deducted against the backwages
Backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee,
should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the
earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal
dismissal. The underlying reason for this ruling is that the
employee, while litigating the legality (illegality) of his dismissal,
must still earn a living to support himself and family, while full
backwages have to be paid by the employer as part of the price or
penalty he has to pay for illegally dismissing his employee
5. College of Immaculate Conception vs NLRC
Non-refund Doctrine
If the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and
such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is
not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is
entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the
period. Such mistake on the part of the LA cannot, in any way,
alter the fact that during the pendency of the appeal of his decision,
his order for respondents reinstatement as Dean was immediately
executory.
6. Garcia vs KJ Commercial
Requirements for motion to reduce bond
The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC allows the filing of a motion
to reduce bond subject to two conditions: (1) there is meritorious
ground, and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted.
Effects of filing motion to reduce bond
At the time of the filing of the motion to reduce bond and posting
of a bond in a reasonable amount, there is no assurance whether
the appellants motion is indeed based on a meritorious ground and
whether the bond he or she posted is of a reasonable amount. Thus,
the appellant always runs the risk of failing to perfect an appeal.
In order to give full effect to the provisions on motion to reduce
bond, the appellant must be allowed to wait for the ruling of the
NLRC on the motion even beyond the 10-day period to perfect an
appeal. If the NLRC grants the motion, then the appeal is
perfected. If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may still
file a motion for reconsideration. If the NLRC grants the motion
for reconsideration, then the appeal is perfected. If the NLRC
denies the motion, then the decision of the labor arbiter becomes
final and executory.
Relaxing of the rule that the motion to reduce bond does not stop
the running of the period
In any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall
not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not
absolute. The Court may relax the rule. Jurisprudence tells us that
in labor cases, an appeal from a decision involving a monetary
award may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety
bond. The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement under
certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies
on their merits. These circumstances include: (1) fundamental
consideration of substantial justice; (2) prevention of miscarriage
of justice or of unjust enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of
the case.
7. Pfizer vs Velasco
Meaning of reinstatement
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to
reinstatement shall either be admitted back to work under the
same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or
separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in
the payroll. It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement
means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been
removed or separated. The person reinstated assumes the position
he had occupied prior to his dismissal.
Good faith in reinstatement by employer
Foreseeably, an employer may circumvent the immediately
enforceable reinstatement order of the Labor Arbiter by crafting
return-to-work directives that are ambiguous or meant to be
rejected by the employee and then disclaim liability for backwages
due to non-reinstatement by capitalizing on the employees
purported refusal to work. In sum, the option of the employer to
effect actual or payroll reinstatement must be exercised in good
faith.
8. Sara Lee vs Macatlang
Dispensing the posting of the bond
the NLRC may dispense of the posting of the bond when the
judgment award is: (1) not stated or (2) based on a patently
erroneous computation. Sans these two (2) instances, the appellant
is generally required to post a bond to perfect his appeal.
A bond in reasonable amount
The Corporations gravely misappreciated the ruling in McBurnie.
The 10% requirement pertains to the reasonable amount which the
NLRC would accept as the minimum of the bond that should
accompany the motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the
period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC rules. The 10% is
based on the judgment award and should in no case be construed as
the minimum amount of bond to be posted in order to perfect
appeal. There is no room for a different interpretation when
 McBurnie made it clear that the percentage of bond set is
provisional.
Damages and attorneys fees are excluded from the computation of
appeal bond
Under the applicable rules, damages and attorneys fees are
excluded from the computation of the monetary award to
determine the amount of the appeal bond. We shall refer to these
exclusions as discretionaries, as distinguished from the
mandatories or those amounts fixed in the decision to which the
employee is entitled upon application of the law on wages. These
mandatories include awards for backwages, holiday pay, overtime
pay, separation pay and 13th month pay.
9. Wenphil vs Abing
When LA rules there has been illegal dismissal
Since the decision is immediately executory, it is the duty of the
employer to comply with the order of reinstatement, which can be
done either actually or through payroll reinstatement. As provided
under Article 223 of the Labor Code, this immediately executory
nature of an order of reinstatement is not affected by the existence
of an ongoing appeal. The employer has the duty to reinstate the
employee in the interim period until a reversal is decreed by a
higher court or tribunal.
In case reinstatement cannot be had
The relief of separation pay may be granted in lieu of reinstatement
but it cannot be a substitute for the payment of backwages. In
instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of
strained relations between the employee and the employer,
separation pay should be granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed
employee should be entitled to either reinstatement if viable, or
separation pay if reinstatement is no longer be viable, plus
backwages in either instance.