LABOR CASE DIGEST

CASE #1
Daniel Sanchez Et Al (plaintiffs-appellees) VS. Harry Lyons Construction Et Al (defendants
appellants)
FACTS
Plaintiffs were employed by the defendant, Material distributors Inc. and Harry Lyons
Construction Inc.
Plaintiff and defendant agreed in their contract that employment may be terminated at any
time, without proper notice; and waiving the benefit of Article 302.
ART. 302. In cases in which no special time is fixed in the contracts of service, any one
of the parties thereto may cancel it, advising the other party thereof one month in
advance.
The plaintiffs were dismissed by the defendants on December 31, 1947 without the one
month notice. Wherein they demanded payment of one months salary which was refused
by the defendant.
Plaintiffs argues that the word temporary in their contract means employment term. But
the daily basis therein stipulated is for the computation of pay, and is not necessarily the
period of employment.
Court holds that such a waiver in the contract, made in advance, is void as being contrary
to public policy.
The law must protect labor, at least, to the extent of raising him to equal footing in
bargaining relations with capital and to shield him from abuses brought about by the
necessity for survival.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants shall pay the plaintiffs on the ground that they are
terminated without proper notice
HELD:
This court affirms the decision of the lower court, with costs against the appellants.
Ordering defendant Harry Lyons Construction, Inc. to pay plaintiff Daniel Sanchez the
sum of P250, and plaintiff Mariano Javier, Venancio Diaz, Esteban Bautista, Faustino
Aquillo, Godofredo Diamante, Marcial Lazaro, Ambrosio de la Cruz, and Marcelino
Maceda the sum of P150 each, with legal interest on each of the said sums from the date
of the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila until the date of full
payment thereof.
CASE #2
Benigno M. Vigilla Et Al (petitioners) VS. Philippine College of Criminology Inc. and Gregory
Alan F. Bautista (respondents)
FACTS:
PCCr is an educational institution while MBMSI is a corporation engaged in providing
janitorial services to clients. Attorney Seril is the Senior Vice President for administration
of PCCr while he is also the President and General Manager of MBMSI.
Petitioners were explained that even if they work with PCCr, their employer is MBMSI.
When PCCr discovered that the Certificate of Incorporation of MBMSI had been revoked
they revoked their relationship with the latter through the formers president, Gregory
Alan F. Bautista. It resulted to the dismissal of all the employees except Alfonso Bongot
(retired)
In September, 2009, the dismissed employees, led by their supervisor, Benigno Vigilla
(Vigilla), filed their respective complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back
wages, separation pay (for Bongot), underpayment of salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave, and 13th month pay against MBMSI, Atty. Seril, PCCr, and
Bautista. They alleged that PCCr is their employer.
PCCr and Bautista contended that they are not liable for the illegal dismissal since
MBMSI is the employer of the petitioners. They notarized a document of releases,
waivers, quitclaims proving that MBMSI is the employer of the petitioners.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of the petitioners ordering respondents to reinstate the
petitioners with full payment of back wages.
NLRC affirmed the decision of LA. The respondents were excused from their liability by
virtue of the releases, waivers and quitclaims executed by the petitioners.
Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 faulting the NLRC
with grave abuse of discretion for absolving the respondents from their liability by virtue
of their respective releases, waivers and quitclaims. CA denied the petition and affirmed
the decision of NLRC
They insist that PCCr forged the documents just to evade their legal obligations to them,
alleging that the contents of the documents were written by one person, whom they
identified as Reynaldo Chavez, an employee of PCCr, whose handwriting they were
familiar with. The records confirm that petitioners were really paid their separation pay
and had executed releases, waivers and quitclaims in return.
Considering that MBMSI, as the labor-only contractor, is solidarily liable with the
respondents, as the principal employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
HELD:
 No. Petition is denied
CASE #3
PLDT (petitioner) VS. NLRC and Marilyn Abucay (respondents)
FACTS:
Marilyn Abucay was an employee of PLDT for ten years being a traffic operator, she was
accused by two complainants of corruption. She demanded and received a total of 3,800
in consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of their applications for the
telephone.
Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint of being illegally removed for lack of merit.
NLRC upheld the decision in toto and dismissed the appeals. NLRC stated that separation
pay must be given to Abucay for the long service she rendered for the petitioner. NLRC
resolve to uphold the award of financial assistance in her favour.
The position of the petitioner is simply stated: It is conceded that an employee illegally
dismissed is entitled to reinstatement and back wages as required by the labor laws.
However, an employee dismissed for cause is entitled to neither reinstatement nor back
wages and is not allowed any relief at all because his dismissal is in accordance with law.
She is given 10 months of separation pay despite her dismissal is in accordance with law.
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice
only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Applying the above considerations, we hold that the grant of separation pay in the case at
bar is unjustified. The private respondent has been dismissed for dishonesty, as found by
the labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and as she herself has impliedly admitted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Abucay should be given a separation pay
HELD:
No. What caused her immediate dismissal from work is dishonesty, which means a grant
for separation pay should not be considered to be given to her.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged resolution of September
22,1987, is AFFIRMED in toto except for the grant of separation pay in the form of
financial assistance, which is hereby DISALLOWED. The temporary restraining order
dated March 23, 1988, is LIFTED.
CASE #4
Rolando DS Torres (petitioner) VS. Rural Bank of San Juan Inc. Et Al (respondents)
FACTS:
Petitioner was hired by RBSJI as a Personnel and Marketing Manager, after a six month
probation he was renewed and became a regular employee. He was offered the position of
Vice President in the newly created department.
On September 24, 1996, the petitioner was temporarily assigned as the manager of
RBSJIs N. Domingo branch in view of the resignation of Jacinto Figueroa.
On September 27, 1996, Jacinto requested the petitioner to sign a standard employment
clearance pertaining to his accountabilities with RBSJI. When the petitioner declined his
request, Jacinto threw a fit and shouted foul invectives.
About seven months later or on April 17, 1997, respondent Jesus issued a memorandum
to the petitioner requiring him to explain why no administrative action should be imposed
on him for his unauthorized issuance of a clearance to Jacinto whose accountabilities
were yet to be audited.
Jacinto was later found to have unliquidated cash advances and was responsible for a
questionable transaction involving P11 million for which RBSJI is being sued by a
certain Actives Builders Manufacturing Corporation. The memorandum stressed that the
clearance petitioner issued effectively barred RBSJI from running after Jacinto
After conducting an investigation, RSBJIs HR Department recommended the
termination of Jacinto. On May 19, 1997 he was terminated.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the herein complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal
deduction, non-payment of service incentive, leave pay and retirement benefits. He also
stated that it is the respondents plot in order to oust him in RSBJI.
The LA upheld the petitioners contention that the loss of trust and confidence in him was
indeed a mere afterthought to justify the respondents premeditated plan to ease him out
of RBSJI. Respondent is ordered to reinstate petitioner in his old position without loss of
seniority along with back wages, allowances, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorneys fees.
NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the LA. Respondent should pay the
petitioners 13th month pay.
The petitioner sought reconsideration16 which was admitted by the NLRC in an Order
dated September 30, 2005. NLRC gave weight to the explanation of petitioner in terms of
the issued clearance to Jacinto which is limited to his paid cash advances and salary loan.
NLRC reversed its earlier ruling and reinstated the LAs Decision dated November 27,
1998.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not petitioner is illegally dismissed
HELD:
Yes. Petition is granted. Decision of LA is reinstated with modifications. The amounts
awarded as moral damages, exemplary damages and 13th month pay are DELETED.
Petitioner Rolando DS. Torres is entitled to the payment of: (a) back wages reckoned
from May 30, 1997 up to the finality of this Decision, with interest at six percent (6%)
per annum, and 12% legal interest thereafter until fully paid; and (b) in lieu of
reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service,
with a fraction of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year, to be
computed from the date of his employment up to the finality of this decision.
CASE #5
Supreme Steel Corporation (petitioner) VS. Nagkakaisang manggagawa ng supreme independent
union (respondent)
FACTS:
On July 27, 2005, respondent filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) on the ground that petitioner violated certain provisions of the
CBA.
Diosdado Madayag was employed as welder by petitioner. He was served a Notice of
Termination dated March 14, 2005. Madayag was being terminated because of his illness.
Respondent contended that Madayags dismissal from employment is illegal because
petitioner failed to obtain a certification from a competent public authority that his
disease is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within six months even
after proper medical treatment. Petitioner also failed to prove that Madayags continued
employment was prejudicial to his health or that of his colleagues.
Ariel Magondon was transferred by petitioner to another area when he inquired from
management about matters concerning tax discrepancies because it appeared that non-
taxable items were included as part of taxable income.
Edgardo Masangcay, respondents Second Vice President, executed an affidavit wherein
he cited three instances when his salary was withheld by petitioner.
NLRC decided on 8 violations of the petitioner.
Petitioner filed a petition to the CA regarding the decision of NLRC, CA denied the
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner violated the CBA
HELD:
Yes. Petition is partially granted. CA decision is affirmed with modification.
CASE #6
Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, Amancio Manuel (petitioner) VS. NLRC, LA Flabio Aguas, F.E
Zuellig inc. (respondents)
FACTS:
Zuellig filed with Department of Labor an application seeking termination of petitioners
on the grounds of retrenchment due to financial losses. Petitioners opposed the
termination since there is no financial losses suffered by the company. They alleged that
being a member of a union is the reason for their termination.
The court held that the company should pay petitioners separation pay equivalent to their
one month service for every year of service exclusive of commissions, allowances, etc.
We agree with the Solicitor General that granting, in gratia argument that the
commissions were in the form of incentives or encouragement, so that the petitioners
would be inspired to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them,
still these commissions are direct remuneration services rendered which contributed to
the increase of income of Zuellig.
Applying this by analogy, since the commissions in the present case were earned by
actual market transactions attributable to petitioners, these should be included in their
separation pay. In the computation thereof, what should be taken into account is the
average commissions earned during their last year of employment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not commissions should be part of the separation pay to the petitioners
HELD:
Yes. The petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent National Labor
Relations Commission is MODIFIED by including allowances and commissions in the
separation pay of petitioners Jose Songco and Amancio Manuel. The case is remanded to
the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of said separation pay.
CASE #7
Pioneer texturizing corp and Juliano Lim (petitioners) VS. NLRC, Pioneer texturizing workers
union and Lourdes A. De Jesus (respondent)
FACTS:
Private respondent Lourdes A. de Jesus is petitioners reviser/trimmer since 1980. As
reviser/trimmer, de Jesus based her assigned work on a paper note posted by petitioners.
On August 15, 1992, de Jesus worked on P.O. No. 3853 by trimming the cloths ribs. She
thereafter submitted tickets corresponding to the work done to her supervisor. Three days
later, de Jesus received from petitioners personnel manager a memorandum requiring her
to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for dishonesty and
tampering of official records and documents with the intention of cheating as P.O. No.
3853 allegedly required no trimming.
De Jesus said that she may mistakenly trimmed PO 3853 since it has the same style as PO
3824 which has an attached price list for trimming the ribs, she made a mistake and not
dishonesty or tampering.
On September 22, 1992, de Jesus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioners. The Labor Arbiter who heard the case noted that de Jesus was amply
accorded procedural due process in her termination from service.
The Labor Arbiter held petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioners were
accordingly ordered to reinstate de Jesus to her previous position without loss of seniority
rights and with full back wages from the time of her suspension on August 19, 1992.
NLRC affirmed LAs ruling but with modification, without back wages.
Petitioners insist that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that de Jesus is
entitled to reinstatement to her previous position for she was not illegally dismissed in the
first place.
Furthermore, the rule is that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of labor
laws should be resolved in favor of labor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners illegally dismissed respondent, Lourdes De Jesus.
HELD:
Yes. Wherefore, the petition is Denied and the Decision of LA is hereby Reinstated.
Case #8
Insular Bank of Asia and America Empoyees union (petitioner) vs. Hon. Amando Inciong,
deputy minister, ministry of Labor and Insular Bank of Asia and America (respondent)
FACTS:
On June 20, 1975, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the
payment of holiday pay
Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision, granting petitioner's complaint for
payment of holiday pay. Ordering respondent to pay all its employees for all regular
holidays since November 1, 1974
Respondent bank did not appeal and complied with the decision paying workers until
January, 1976.
Bank, by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of
the Labor Code and by Policy Instruction No. 9, stopped the payment of holiday pay to
an its employees
Petitioner filed a writ of execution to the first decision, respondent filed an opposition to
the motion contending the Policy Instruction No. 9
LA issued an order that respondent must continue paying their employees their regular
holiday pay because the decision is already final and the case is res judicata, since the
decision was implemented by the bank appeal is no longer available.
Bank appealed to the NLRC but the appeal was dismissed.
Bank filed a motion with the office of Minister of labor stating that there is prima facie
evidence of grave abuse of NLRC and the resolution is contrary to law
Petitioner filed its petition that the ML has no jurisdiction PD 1391, LA decision is final
and executory, and decision of LA is supported by law and evidence
On July 30, 1979, petitioner filed a second motion for execution, NLRC issued an order
stating The Chief, Research and Information Division of this Commission is hereby
directed to designate a Socio-Economic Analyst to compute the holiday pay of the
employees of the Insular Bank of Asia and America from April 1976 to the present
Respondent issued an order that the appealed resolution en banc of the NLRC is set aside
and new judgment promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay
can still be set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has
already become final and had been partially executed

HELD:
 No. the action of respondent Inciong is a clear example of deprivation of property
without due process of law and constituted grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction
Wherefore, the petition is granted, order of respondent is set aside and LA decision is
reinstated. Costs against respondent.

Case # 12

Pedro Chavez (petitioner) vs. NLRC, Supreme Packaging Inc and Alvin Lee, Plant Manager

FACTS:
Supreme Packaging Inc manufactures cartons and other packaging materials for export
and distribution.
Petitioner was a truck driver, he was tasked to deliver the products of SPI from bataan to
customers mostly in metro manila.
The petitioner was paid the sum of P350.00 per trip. This was later adjusted to P480.00
per trip and, at the time of his alleged dismissal, the petitioner was receiving P900.00 per
trip
Petitioner expressed his desire to Lee, to have the same benefits as to what regular
employees are receiving. Lee promised to extend the benefits but he failed to do so.