2.

“All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as may
ART. 6: APPLICABILITY
DMA SHIPPING PHILS. v CABILLAR
Facts:
Henry Cabillar was hired by Monsoon, through DMA Shipping, as Chief Officer of
the M/V Eagle Moon, for a period of ten (10) months with as basic salary of
US$1,000.00 per month.
While the vessel was docked in Calcutta, India, the gantry crane operators refused
to work and demanded that their allowance be increased from US$0.50 to US$3.00
per container. When Captain Raphael Patrick Graham learned of an impending
strike, he instructed Cabillar to talk to the crew members, but, Instead of talking
to them, Cabillar himself joined in the strike. The strike lasted for four (4) hours
and Monsoon was impelled to agree to the demands of the striking crew to avert
any further loss and expense to the operation of the vessel.
otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural.”
Seamen are included in the workers mentioned in the provision of the law. The
POEA or the NLRC has jurisdiction over any unresolved complaints arising out of
shipboard employment that shall be brought to it by the seafarer.
Cabillar and the other striking crew may have a valid grievance but they are bound
to follow the procedures set fort in their Employment Contracts to address said
grievances. Thus, the their dismissal was for a just cause.
However, petitioners themselves violated the employment contract when the
captain failed to furnished a copy of the written notice of any charges as well as
the penalty imposed.
The SC ordered the petitioners to pay the respondent by way of indemnity
P30,000.00.

After the incident, Captain Graham listed the names of those who joined the strike
and as soon as vessel arrived in Singapore, Cabillar was dismissed from service
for a disciplinary offense.

Cabillar file with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)

Regional Center a complaint against DMA Shipping and Monsoon seeking payment
for the unexpired portion of his contract. He also claims that he was forced to
resign. DMA Shipping and Monsoon denied the allegations. Executive Labor Arbiter
Reynoso Belarmino rendered a decision in favor of Cabillar declaring his dismissal
as illegal.

DMA Shipping and Monsoon appealed to the NLRC but the appeal was dismissed
and the decision was affirmed by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners sought a recourse
with the Court of Appeals but the CA dismissed the petition. CA also denied the
motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether the rights and benefits granted to workers under the Labor Code can be
applied to overseas workers.

Held:

Yes. Article 6 of the Labor Code provides:

12 In the more recent case of The Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Hon.
ART. 5 RULES AND REGULATIONS (LIMITATION) Ople,8 this Court in an en banc decision had the occasion to reiterate the above-
stated pronouncement. We added:
CBTC EMPLOYEES UNION v CLAVE “The questioned Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and the
Secretary’s Policy Instruction No. 9 add another excluded group, namely,
‘employees who are uniformly paid by the month’. While the additional exclusion
Facts: is only in the form of a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already
been paid holiday pay, it constitutes a taking away or a deprivation which must be
Commercial Bank and Trust Company Employees’ Union lodged a complaint for in the law if it is to be valid. An administrative interpretation which diminishes the
non-payment of the holiday benefits. Failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or withholds is obviously
the parties opted to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. ultra vires.”

The arbitrator ruled that “all monthly employees are entitled to the holiday pay The award of the Arbitrator was reinstated.
benefits.” After receiving the award, private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied. Respondent then appealed to the NLRC but the
appeal was dismissed because it was filed way beyond the ten-day period for
perfecting an appeal. Respondent appealed to the Secretary of Labor and the
NLRC decision was reversed. The acting Secretary of Labor relied heavily on the
Manifestation and Policy Instruction No. 9. In due time the Union appealed to the
Office of the President.

Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether the Secretary of Labor has a rule-making authority to promulgate

necessary rules and regulations.

Held:

Yes. Article 5 of the Labor Code provides that “The DOLE and other government
agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of
its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations.

In excluding the union members of herein petitioner from the benefits of the
holiday pay law, public respondent predicated his ruling on Section 2, Rule IV,
Book III of the Rules to implement Article 94 of the Labor Code promulgated by
the then Secretary of Labor and Policy Instructions No. 9. In Insular Bank of Asia
and America Employees’ Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong, This Court’s Second Division,
speaking through former Justice Makasiar, expressed the view and declared that
the aforementioned section and interpretative bulletin are null and void, having
been promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor in excess of his rule-making
authority.
22
ART. 4: INTERPRETATION
BRAVO v EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Facts:
On May 13, 1959, Evelio Bravo was employed at the Bureau of Coast and
Geodetic Survey as a cartographer I. From that position, he was promoted to
cartographer II, senior cartographer, litho-photo engraving supervisor, supervising
cartographer, senior cartographer engineer until he became a supervising
cartographer engineer. Sometime, in November, 1979, Bravo complained of
irregular bowel movement, constipation and abdominal pain. A few months later
he began losing weight and appetite.
On April 20, 1980, Bravo was admitted to the St. Luke’s Hospital. His ailment was
diagnosed as “adenocarcinoma sigmoid (colon) Duke’s C and chronic peri-
appendicitis.”
A claimant who depends on the theory of increased risk must present substantial
proof to show that his ailment was contracted during his employment. He or she
must also submit proof that the risk of contracting the ailment was increased by
the particular working conditions. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to submit
convincing proofs to entitle her to compensation benefits.
In the instant case, all that the petitioner did was to enumerate the chemicals to
which Bravo was allegedly exposed as a litho-photo engraving supervisor and rely
on the “probability” that those chemicals caused his cancer of the colon.
We cannot substitute our judgment for the findings of the medical experts of the
Commission that it is far-fetched to conelude that Bravo’s work and the conditions
under which he worked caused the development of his ailments, in the absence of
substantial proofs to buttress petitioner’s claim for compensation. All that we have
in our record is proof that Bravo died of cancer of the colon and peri-appendicitis
and petitioner’s allegation that as litho-photo engraving supervisor. Bravo was
exposed to chemicals.

After his discharge from the hospital on May 21, 1980, Bravo did not return to work.
On June 1, 1980, and at the age of forty-eight, he retired and received P37,002.31
from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) as retirement fee.

On August 11, 1980, Bravo filed in the GSIS a claim for disability benefits but that
claim was denied. According to the GSIS, adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid and
peri-appendicitis are not occupational diseases in Bravo’s particular employment.
His working conditions did not increase the risk of contracting them.

Bravo sought reconsideration of the denial of his claim but that motion for
reconsideration was denied. Bravo appealed to the Employees’ Compensation
Commission. On August 20, 1981, he died. His widow, Angeles, pursued his
appeal. The Commission affirmed the decision of the GSIS. Angeles filed an
instant petition.

Issue:

Whether the sweeping interpretation of the law can be adopted in favor of labor.

Held:

No. We cannot adopt a sweeping interpretation of the law in favor of labor lest we
engage in judicial legislation.

As both cancer of the colon and peri-appendicitis are not listed as occupational
diseases for Bravo’s kind of employment, petitioner’s claim may only be based on
the increased risk doctrine.