Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/131973478/Labor-Law-Recent-Jurisprudence-1
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 02:03:32
Document Index: 143894901

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 513', 'Art. 513', 'Art. 42', 'ART 51', 'art 3', 'art7', 'art6', 'art3', 'art 3', 'art7', 'art6', 'art3', 'Art. 280']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS FOUND ON ITS DECISIONS DEALING WITH TERMINATION DISPUTES AS PUBLISHED IN THE SCRA By DEAN FROILAN M. BACUNGAN
I.EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 5-1. Appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, SSS registration, personnel list, as well as testimony of co-employees, may serve as evidence of employee status; While technical rules are not strictly followed in the NLRC, this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely ignored. McLeod vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 512 SCRA 222. 59-1. The Court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test”, considered to be the most important element. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. vs. Climaco, 514 SCRA 164. 64-1. Drivers like Lebatique, are under the control and supervision of management officers. Lebatique, therefore, is a regular employee whose tasks are usually necessary and desirable to the unusual trade and business of the company. Thus, he is entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of Far East, including overtime pay and service incentive leave pay. Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. vs. Lebatique, 515 SCRA 491. 66-1. The relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. Gabriel vs. Bilon, 515 SCRA 29. 84. Elements constituting the reliable yardstick whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute; An employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. vs. Schonfeld, 516 SCRA 209 When there is no employer-employee relationship 60-2. There is nothing wrong with the employment of a doctor as a company retained physician; Where there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement, which is accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of the retained physician. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. vs. Climaco, 514 SCRA 164. KINDS OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 74-7. A contract of employment stipulating a fixed-term, even if clear as regards the existence of a period, is invalid if it can be shown that the same was executed with the intention
An objection founded on the ground that one has better credentials over the appointee is frowned upon so long as the latter possesses the minimum qualifications for the position.. 521 SCRA 526. 197-2. vs. 521 SCRA 222. good customs. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. regular employees. 226-5. National Labor Relations Commission. 200-5. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. 196-1. It must be stressed that a contract that misuses a purported fixed-term employment to block the acquisition of tenure by employees deserves to be struck down for being contrary to law. The applicable formula to ascertain whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. 515 SCRA 288. Soriano. 521 SCRA 222. while not entitled to permanent status. Probationary employees. Court of Appeals. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. 521 SCRA 222. project employees are those workers hired 1) for a specific project or undertaking and 2) the completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.2
of circumventing security of tenure. he was still entitled to security of tenure and may only be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to
. National Labor Relations Commission. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. 206-6. 516 SCRA 30. The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the casual business or trade of the employer. 198-3. respondents are entitled to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code and can only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause. PNOC-Energy Development Corp. public order and public policy. Court of Appeals. 521 SCRA 222. are still entitled to the constitutional protection of security of tenure. 163-7. Espina vs. San Miguel Corporation. An employer has the recognized right and prerogative to select the persons to be hired and to designate the work as well as the employee or employees to perform it. Puente (453 SCRA 820. 199-4. National Labor Relations Commission. 517 SCRA 677. 521 SCRA 222. Court of Appeals. National Labor Relations Commission. vs. Jr. St. Caparoso vs. and should thus be ignored. National Labor Relations. it does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. the Court ruled that the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion and termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Inc. Granting that respondent was merely a probationary employee. 85-1. 521 SCRA 222. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. In Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems (Filsystems). Even is an employee is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission. in fact. Commission. morals. As regular workers. 121-17. The absence of a definite duration for the project/s has led the Court to conclude that respondents are. National Labor Relations Commission. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. 517 SCRA 691. 2005). 118-14. 210-10. As defined. National Labor Relations Commission. vs. Fabela vs. 519 SCRA 327.
vs. Alay sa Kapatid International Foundation. Inc.3
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to him by petitioner at the time of his engagement. 524 SCRA 719. The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither the oppression nor the self-destruction of the employer. it must. or (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. Pasamba vs. Dominguez. 248-3. The provision which states that “the probationary period shall not exceed six months” means that the probationary employee may be dismissed for cause at any time before the expiration of six months after hiring. National Labor Relations Commission. Court of Appeals. Although Article 280 of the Labor Code. nevertheless. 524 SCRA 365. Consolidated Broadcasting System. Granting that respondent was merely a probationary employee. such as a medical center. (AKAP) vs. the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity. 524 SCRA 350. 103-1. 104-2. 524 SCRA 350. Consolidated Broadcasting System. 249-4. National Labor Relations Commission. National Labor Relations Commission. 251-1. Inc. The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer – also. An employer. if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. 250-5. Alay sa Kapatid International Foundation. 517 SCRA 691. 247-2. Court of Appeals. had shown herself inclined to violate the more serious of the company’s rules. 517 SCRA 691. 524 SCRA 365. Dumpit-Murillo vs. if not indispensability of that activity to the business. if the employer finds that the probationary employee is not qualified for regular employment. duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent. Oberio. 524 SCRA 719. Pasamba vs. even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent. The law does not preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment. as early as three months after she was hired. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the broadeast industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and complaint with labor law – the assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status. vs. 231-4. (AKAP) vs. Pasamba vs. without any force. as amended. does not forbid fixed term employment.
. Oberio. Inc. 232-5. meet any of the following guidelines in order that it cannot be said to circumvent security of tenure: (1) that the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. Court of Appeals. he was still entitled to security of tenure and may only be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to quality as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to him by petitioner at the time of his engagement. Project or contractual employees are required to be apprised of the project they will undertake under a written contract. 524 SCRA 350. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Dominguez. Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period. 524 SCRA 350. Inc. cannot be compelled to continue employing a probationary employee who.
and be informed thereof at the time of hiring. Chantengco. as manifested by some overt act. Whether an employee abandoned his job or was illegally dismissed are questions of fact better left to quasi-judicial agencies to determine. to sever the employer-employee relationship. Olongapo Maintenance Services. 513 SCRA 378. his clear and deliberate intention to discontinue his employment. vs. It bears emphasis that for termination of employment on the ground of abandonment to be considered valid. 275-23. vs. Lebatique. 525 SCRA 252. II. A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times. vs. by substantial evidence. there must be: a) absence without justifiable reason. A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times. Zeta. Olongapo Maintenance Services. the employer must prove. Inc. Inc. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank). Carilla. Inc. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal. Olongapo Maintenance Services. 525 SCRA 252. 525 SCRA 586. Inc. Olongapo Maintenance Services. vs. fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws. or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause presupposes that there is indeed an involuntary separation from employment and the facts attendant to such forced separation was clearly established. 258-6. and be informed thereof at the time of hiring. 520 SCRA 261. 186-9. NS Transport Services. Abandonment 43-11. 292-2. Angeles vs. 525 SCRA 252. the failure of the employee to report for work or his absence from work without valid or justifiable reason. Chantengco. 525 SCRA 252. and be informed thereof at the time of hiring. Chantengco. The legal principle that the employer has the onus pro-bandi to show that the employee’s separation from employment is not motivated by discrimination. 189-12. Confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time. Inc. and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation – such employees. Employers who hire project employees are mandated to state and. Philippine Transmarine Carriers. too. vs. Employers who hire project employees are mandated to state and.
. Court of Appeals. 290-2. Inc. To constitute abandonment. and (2) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship. Mame vs. 520 SCRA 552. Portuguez vs. Fernandez. aside from being unfair.4
256-4. once its veracity is challenged. Far East Agricultural Supply. Olongapo Maintenance Services. are entitled to security of tenure. and b) a clear intention. the concurrence of two essential requisites: At first. once it veracity is challenged. Inc. The practice of submitting evidence late – lie in a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals – cannot be tolerated. vs. made in bad faith. 525 SCRA 252. vs. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE EMPLOYER 100-3. Inc. two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason. 515 SCRA 491. Chantengco. and second. for it defeats the speedy administration of justice involving poor workers. A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times. vs. 517 SCRA 309. 291-1. Chantengco. to prove the actual basis for the latter’s dismissal. to prove the actual basis for the latter’s dismissal. 80-13.
Resignation 19-10. If employer chooses to extend the period of suspension.. vs.. 516 SCRA 609. Inc. TWO PREREQUISITES FOR TERMINATION EMPLOYER MAYBE DEEMED LEGAL VALID REASONS FOR TERMINATION 147-12.. OF EMPLOYMENT BY
. A floating status requires the dire exigency of the employer’s bona fide suspension of operation of a business or undertaking. It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee. If indeed an employee was made to resign against her will. Inc. Valid reason needed 2-2. An employer cannot discharge this burden of proving that there is a just cause for the dismissal of an employee by merely alleging that it did not dismiss the employee. Portuguez vs. Pido vs. When a security guard is placed on a “floating status” he does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law.. or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause presupposes that there is indeed an involuntary separation from employment and the facts attendant to such forced separation was clearly established. National Labor Relations Commission. for which two requisites must concur. To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal. substantial evidence or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is required. Seven Star Textile Company vs. 517 SCRA 309. 512 SCRA 325. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank). Dy. she should not have allowed a considerable length of time to elapse before enforcing her rights allegedly violated. There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination. 99-2. National Labor Relations Commission. Amkor Technology Philippines. made in bad faith. Pido vs. or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. Cabalen Management Co. 518 SCRA 342. The legal principle that the employer has the onus pro-bandi to show that the employee’s separation from employment is not motivated by discrimination. Court of Appeals. 517 SCRA 191. 512 SCRA 486. Juangco. vs. 148-13. Cabalen Management Co. Suspension of Operation by the Employer Floating Status 94-10. Quiambao. Duldulao vs. 518 SCRA 342. Quiambao. III. 100-3. he is required to pay the wages and other benefits due the worker and the worker is not bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extended period of suspension even if after the completion of the hearing or investigation the employer decides to dismiss him. Suspension 95-11. vs. insensibility. 516 SCRA 609.
Inc. National Labor Relations Commission.. vs. Echeverria vs. 86-2. vs. Inc. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. TWO PREREQUISITES FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY EMPLOYER MAYBE DEEMED LEGAL 159-3. the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause. 519 SCRA 233. If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee. therefore. In termination of employment disputes. 519 SCRA 233. Philippine Transmarine Carriers. 525 SCRA 708. Marival Trading Inc. vs. 525 SCRA 586. 273-21. Inc. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the employer. vs. Oberio. illegal. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. For dismissal to be valid. Inc. Carilla. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. 516 SCRA 72. and to be categorized as serious. 298-2. Inc. an occasion “where tongues are more often that not loosened by liquor or other alcoholic beverages” and “it is to be expected that employees freely express their
. vs. 524 SCRA 350.). 524 SCRA 365. 515 SCRA 133.6
III.. Consolidated Broadcasting System. A hospital is engaged in a business whose survival is dependent on the reputation of its medical practitioners. Philippine Transmarine Carriers. Balbastro. Inc. In labor cases.. 233-6. There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an imjustice to the employer – justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none). 275-23. Confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time. the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause. Inc. Pasamba vs. Carilla. 524 SCRA 365. it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Inc. Misconduct has been defined as an improper or wrong conduct. 160-4. too. fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws. This Court found that the misconduct committed was not related with the employee’s work as the offensive remarks were verbally made during an informal Christmas gathering of the employees. vs. and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation – such employees. An employee commits serious misconducts if he falsely accuses his immediate superior of robbery. National Labor Relations Commission. 132-1. 525 SCRA 586. 224-3. Consolidated Broadcasting System. are entitled to security of tenure. Torreda vs. the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter – the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Oberio. Balbastro. A. A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by is employer. failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and.. the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly established facts. The benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. vs. 225-4. Venutek Medika. JUST CAUSES Serious Misconduct 70-3.
vs. 522 SCRA 155.). (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. Bardaje. National Labor Relations Commission. 518 SCRA 66. NLRC [291 SCRA 219 (1998)]. For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal. an occasion “where tongues are more often that not loosened by liquor or other alcoholic beverages” and “it is to be expected that employees freely express their grievances and gripes against their employers. not every fight within company premises in which an employee is involved would automatically warrant dismissal from service. 522 SCRA 155. Bardaje. Inc. an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer’s business.” Punzal vs.” Punzal vs. a dereliction of duty.. Willful Disobedience 71-4. vs. 218-4. An employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment. Indeed. (a) it must be serious. while at the same time exacting a fee for himself. upon erring employees. Misconduct is an improper or wrong conduct. 518 SCRA 66. 515 SCRA 133. 519 SCRA 448. and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. including dismissal. 138-3. Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. 133-2. Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. Bardaje. Torreda vs. (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. vs. Although fighting within company premises may constitute serious misconduct. an employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such person whose continuance in the service would be patently inimical to his employer’s business. 282-30. 518 SCRA 66. It is cruel and unjust to impose the drastic penalty of dismissal if not commensurate to the gravity of the misdeed. Marival Trading Inc. Punzal vs. 217-3. where dismissal was held to be an appropriate penalty for uttering insulting remarks to the supervisor. (a) it must be serious. without compensating for the same. a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. Punzal vs. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties. vs.. willful and character. In Autobus Worker’s Union (AWU) vs. vs. Lack of urgency on the part of the respondent company in taking any disciplinary action against [the employee] negates its charge that the latter’s misbehavior constituted serious misconduct. 219-5. ETSI Technologies. 518 SCRA 66. Barba vs. implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. Inc. For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal. 525 SCRA 708. Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. Inc.. 134-3. This Court found that the misconduct committed was not related with the employee’s work as the offensive remarks were verbally made during an informal Christmas gathering of the employees. Marival Trading Inc. 525 SCRA 708. a forbidden act.. Court of Appeals. ETSI Technologies. National Labor Relations Commission. and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. Indeed.7
grievances and gripes against their employers. 167-11. 522 SCRA 155.. 297-1. Inc. ETSI Technologies.
. Inc. are undoubtedly inimical to the interest of his employer. ETSI Technologies. The acts of an airline employee in offering a passenger the services of the airlines.
as distinguished from an act done carelessly. Balagot.. 525 SCRA 708. Art. Rosales. The best evidence of absenteeism or absence without official leave (AWOL) would have been the signed original or certified true copies of Zeta’s daily time records. To allow her to continue with her employment puts respondent under the risk of being embroiled in unnecessary lawsuits from customers similarly situated as Josefina. heedlessly or inadvertently. Marival Trading Inc. consideration must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his employment. Clearly. A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally. thoughtlessly. 513 SCRA 583. National Labor Relations Commission. 46-14. especially if he has tacitly given his consent thereto when he acceded to the company’s policy of hiring sales staff who are willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines which is demanded by the employer’s business. respondent exercised its management prerogative when it dismissed petitioner. 264 (a) and (e) recognizes the right to due process of all workers. An employee has no valid reason to disobey the order of transfer given by management. 513 SCRA 325. The right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence especially in cases of employees occupying positions of responsibility on the premise that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence long recognized by law and jurisprudence. Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties 50-18. National Labor Relations Commission. 88-4. vs. Venutek Medika.. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct which renders him
. By the every nature of their employment.. 513 SCRA 583. in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employees. Given to reasonableness of Geisert’s decision that provoked petitioner to send the second e-mail message. and to be categorized as serious.8
75-8. CAP Philippines. vs. Echeverria vs. 137-2. Inc. Jurisprudence recognizes as a valid ground for dismissal of an employee unauthorized use of company time. 47-15. Inc. 516 SCRA 72. Capitol Wireless. knowingly and purposely without justifiable excuse. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 513 SCRA 672. without distinction as to the cause of their termination. (NSTSI). et al. Venutek Medika. 284-32. Inc. and even against management’s will are well taken. 86-2.. 516 SCRA 72. Inc. Norsk Hydro (Phils. vs. Inc. 245-4. Norsk Hydro (Phils.). Inc. sales executives are expected to travel. Court of Appeals. Suico vs. it must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. vs. NS Transport Services. Inc.. Rosales. 515 SCRA 323. 87-3. 187-10. which are all accessible to NS Transport Services. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer. 524 SCRA 533. Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer’s rules. Jr. Jr. 520 SCRA 261. Tinio vs.). vs. Zeta. Echeverria vs. Panuncillo vs. Inc. the observations of the Court of Appeals that the “message resounds of subversion and undermines the authority and credibility of management” and that petitioner displayed a tendency to act without management’s approval. Fraud/Willful Breach of Trust 37-5. Misconduct has been defined as an improper or wrong conduct.
89-5. Marival Trading Inc. one derogates the course of justice by avoiding arrest. charged with preparing financial reports and monthly bank reconciliations. the work of the bookkeeper and bank assistant branch head. detention. Disease 288-36. 517 SCRA 17. Camua. Venutek Medika. Cañeda vs. constitutes supervisory and administrative tasks which entail great responsibility. 516 SCRA 72. Work is a necessity that has economic significance deserving legal protection. Jr. National Labor Relations Commissions. Echeverria vs.AUTHORIZED CAUSES 161-5. Rural Bank of Cantilan. Venutek Medika. 107-3. 197-2. Inc. Philippine Airlines. Julve.. Inc. vs.
. as well as head of the Accounting Department of a branch. or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. that of cashier calls for utmost trust and confidence-in dismissing a cashier on the ground of loss of confidence. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation vs. Under any standard. 677. whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment. 179-2. The act of hiding to evade arrest and ward off the long arm of the law does not constitute a valid or justifiable reason for not reporting for work. As defined. the only limitation being that the closure must not be for the purpose of circumventing the provisions on terminations of employment embodied in the Labor Code. A managerial employee is bound by more exacting work ethics. Employers are also accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination and independence and reasonable return of capital. it is sufficient that there is some basis for the same or that the employer has a reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct. Carag vs.. it nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanction that may be applied to him – where a penalty less punitive would suffice. 512 SCRA p.. National Labor Relations Commission. vs. 519 SCRA 327. Compulsory Retirement Penalty Imposed B. Through flight. thus making him unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 521 SCRA 222. project employees are those workers hired 1) for a specific project or undertaking and 2) the completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. and this mass of privileges comprises the socalled management prerogatives. Inc. 516 SCRA 72.9
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Commission of a Crime Analogous Cases 4-4. Inc. National Labor Relations Commission. 525 SCRA 708. Mere failure to comply with the notice requirement of labor laws on company closure or dismissal of employees does not amount to a patently unlawful act. vs. 96-12. 516 SCRA 668. National Labor Relations Commission. While the Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by an employee. Court of Appeals. Echeverria vs. More than most key positions. 520 SCRA 28. Espina vs. The right to close the operations of an establishment or undertaking is explicitly recognized under the Labor Code as one of the authorized causes in terminating employment of workers.
No malice or ill-will can be imputed upon an employer where the separation of an employee is undertaken by it conformably to an existing statute-justice. Carag vs. Espina vs. 517 SCRA 677. all aspects of employment. 521 SCRA 526. 517 SCRA 707. Employees are not excused from complying with valid company policies and reasonable regulations for their governance and guidance. training and performance belongs solely to the employer. and discipline. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. and recall of employees. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. 517 SCRA 677. vs. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. Inc. every employer has the inherent right to regulate. Jr. including hiring. Retrenchment Closing or Cessation of Operation 162-6. fairness and due process demand that an employer should not be penalized for situations where it had no participation or control. Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO vs. place and manner of work. Inc. work supervision. Court of Appeals. work assignments. St. The phrase “closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertakings” includes a partial or total closure or cessation. 517 SCRA 17. Manila Jockey Club. Redundancy exists when the service capability of the work-force is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. provided that it does not violate the law. working methods. National Labor Relations Commissions. Soriano. 115-11. National Labor Relations Commission. 179-2. Mere failure to comply with the notice requirement of labor laws on company closure or dismissal of employees does not amount to a patently unlawful act. The prerogative to determine the place or station where an employee is best qualified to serve the interests of the company on the basis of his or her qualifications. according to his own discretion and judgment. Under the doctrine of management prerogative. 520 SCRA 28. 116-12. National Labor Relations Commission. vs Julve.10
Installation of labor-Saving Device Redundancy 209-9. Rural Bank of Cantilan. transfer of employees. National Labor Relations Commission.. dismissal. National Labor Relations Commission. St. the time. End of Period of Employment Management Prerogative 105-1. 517 SCRA 677. 519 SCRA 327. as long as he pays his employees their termination pay in the amount corresponding to their length of service. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. 122-18. 117-13. the CBAs. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the business judgment of an employer in the exercise of its prerogative to devise means to improve its operations. and the general principles of justice and fair play. and the phrase “closure or cessation not due to serious business losses or financial reverses” recognizes the right of the employer to close or cease its business operations or undertakings even in the absence of serious business losses or financial reverses. lay-off of workers. St.
. 285-33. all aspects of employment. IV. Court of Appeals. CAP Philippines. Punzal vs. having been dismissed for just cause. Tinio vs. 525 SCRA 708. albeit under appeal. Manila Jockey Club. and pursuant thereto. 136-1. v. it may terminate an employee for a just cause. such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. The reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. 517 SCRA 707. Marival Trading Inc. Tinio vs. he could probably be merely observing judicial courtesy. Burger Machine Holdings Corporation.. Punzal vs. Under the doctrine of strained relations. is immediately enforceable. 516 SCRA 609.. bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play – having the right should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised. Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO vs. ETSI Technologies. Management prerogatives are upheld so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and valid agreements. 524 SCRA 533. 515 SCRA 323. 524 SCRA 533. the NLRC as an adjudicating body has the corresponding
. 93-9. Petitioner. Court of Appeals. 244-3. The partiality for labor has not in any way diminished the Court’s belief that justice in every case is for the deserving. is neither entitled to reinstatement nor to back wages. 135-4. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion. which is advisable “if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. ETSI Technologies.” Panuncillo vs. It is settled that it is the prerogative of management to regulate. While it is incumbent upon the party to take an active role in his case and not adopt a wait-and-see attitude. If during the pendency of the review no order is issued by the courts enjoining the execution of a decision of the Labor Arbiter or NLRC which is favorable to an employee. Court of Appeals. to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine. Inc.. REMEDIES IN CASE OF UNJUST DSMISSAL Reinstatement 78-11. Aguilar vs. CAP Philippines. Inc. vs. If a Labor Arbiter does not issue a writ of execution of the NLRC order for the reinstatement of an employee even if there is no restraining order.11
123-19. An employee’s right to security of tenure does no give him a vested right to his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful.. Inc. 515 SCRA 323. 79-12. according to its discretion and judgment. the payment of separation pay has been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. Inc. Panuncillo vs. the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC must exercise extreme prudence and observe judicial courtesy when the circumstances so warrant if we are to heed the injunction of the Court in Philippine Geothermal. Inc. NLRC [236 SCRA 371 (1994)]. National Labor Relations Commission. 518 SCRA 66. Inc. Labor laws discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of his business. Tinio vs. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect. 518 SCRA 66. 221-7. 243-2. 524 SCRA 533. 242-1.
522 SCRA 155. Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. 520 SCRA 28.An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. 525 SCRA 708. 277 (b) provides that the procedure for termination prescribed therein is without prejudice to the adoption by the employer of company policy on the matter provided this conforms with the guidelines set by DOLE such as Rule XXII of the Implementing Rules of Book V. vs. 512 SCRA p. and to the payment of his full backwages. Art. Marival Trading Inc. 287-35. Suico vs. Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. vs. without distinction as to the cause of their termination. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. Inc. 115-11. Marival Trading Inc. V. 517 SCRA 677. vs. National Labor Relations Commission. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 513 SCRA 325. or is done in a manner contrary to good morals. National Labor Relations Commission. St. The award of attorney’s fees is proper and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages – what is important is merely a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly. 525 SCRA 708. National Labor Relations Commission. National Labor Relations Commission. as in the instant controversy. 38-6. vs. computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. 513 SCRA 325
. and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent. National Labor Relations Commission. vs. fairness and due process demand that an employer should not be penalized for situations where it had no participation or control. Art. REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS 37-5. No malice or ill-will can be imputed upon an employer where the separation of an employee is undertaken by it conformably to an existing statute-justice.12
obligation to act promptly on all incidents brought before it. 286-34. 220-6. Marival Trading Inc. Elcee Farms. National Labor Relations Commission. and to the payment of his full backwages. Bardaje. Bardaje. since there is no showing that the dismissal was attended with malice or bad faith. An officer cannot be held solidarily liable with petitioner Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation (SSPC) for the termination of respondent’s employment. by itself. Article 212(e) of the Labor Code. 293. Liability 180-3. and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent. inclusive of allowances. Suico vs. computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. inclusive of allowances. National Labor Relations Commission. good customs or public policy. National Labor Relations Commissions. vs. Carag vs. Back wages Damages 3-3. Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor. does not make a corporate officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation. 522 SCRA 155. 264 (a) and (e) recognizes the right to due process of all workers. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. 525 SCRA 708.602.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause. Under Systems Practice No. they have no license to dispose with the basic requirements of due process such as affording respondents the opportunity to be heard. Parenthetically. National Labor Relations Commissions. Dominguez. the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. Suico vs.. A contract of employment stipulating a fixed-term. 94-016. Court agrees with the labor arbiter and the Court of Appeals that respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioners. 520 SCRA 28. did not affect the validity or effectivity of the dismo\issal as the substantive bases thereof were never put in issue. the procedural deficiency in the dismissal of Suico. Angeles vs. and should thus be ignored. 54-2. Gabriel vs. 515 SCRA 323. Carag vs. et. 513 SCRA 325. 40-8. National Labor Relations Commission.
. 69-2. Consistent with the ruling in Agabon. National Labor Relations Commission. While labor arbiters are not required to conduct a formal hearing or trial. 513 SCRA 325. Panuncillo vs. even if clear as regards the existence of a period. when an employee admits the acts complained of. Suico vs. PLDT granted its employee the alternative of either filing a written answer to the charges or requesting for opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of the counsel or union representative. if he so desires. Employer should indemnify the employee in the form of nominal damages for the violation of his right to statutory due process. National Labor Relations Commission. Company policies or practices are binding on the parties. Inc. San Miguel Corporation. National Labor Relations Commission. is invalid if it can be shown that the same was executed with the intention of circumventing security of tenure.13
39-7. 513 SCRA 325. 94-016. Fernandez. Court of Appeals. 513 SCRA 325. 519 SCRA 327. Espina vs. Inc. (AKAP) vs. as in petitioner’s case. if he so desires. 178-1. Indemnity of those is no due process 41. Art. 42-10. Suico vs. 513 SCRA 325. 524 SCRA 719. no formal hearing is even necessary.9. 74-7. National Labor Relations Commission. 515 SCRA 288. Procedural due process requires the employee be given two written notices before he is terminated. an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of amounts to due process. 56-4. Under Systems Practice No. 77-10. 277 (b) provides that the procedure for termination prescribed therein is without prejudice to the adoption by the employer of company policy on the matter provided this conforms with the guidelines set by the DOLE such as Rule XXII of the Implementing Rules of Book V. CAP Philippines. 515 SCRA 29. Fabela vs. 513 SCRA 378. 227-6. Alay sa Kapatid International Foundation. PLDT granted its employee the alternative of either filing a written answer to the charges or requesting for opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of the counsel or union representative. In labor cases. 164-8. Suico vs. Al. consisting of a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts/omissions for which the dismissal is sought and the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. Bilon. Respondents were not accorded due process. Suico vs.
NS Transport Services. vs. Victory Liner.on. vs. Jr. we held that the fact that the filing of the complaint by the employee 20 months after dismissal is a non-issue. Zeta. 520 SCRA 261.
bar. In illegal dismissal cases. Fernandez (513 SCRA 378 [2007]). Race. In Angeles vs. STATUTE OF LIMITATION 47-15.sc. 519 SCRA 356. 188-11.rulings.. Inc. Norsk Hydro (Phils.lecture/2007.review&mcle.). Inc. 513 SCRA 583. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed to justify the loss of trust and confidence on the responsible officer.14
VI. Rosales. Inc.termination
. the employee concerned is given a period of four years from the time of his dismissal within which to institute a complaint. which period shall commence to run only upon the accrual of a cause of action of the worker. 166-10. vs.
More From This Userlabor notes1.odtprobiAgraraian NotesRules 43 Defects112440917 Ortega Notes Criminal Law I84297444 Final Edited Remedial Law ReviewerCivil Law Review I Case DigestsEvidence 101Evidence NotesEvidence Case DigestPale RequirementsPet for Declaration RevAnswer TranceEvidence 101Evidence SyllabusPet for Declaration RevprobiREM1Rules 43 DefectsART 51-71.odtPatternRules 43 DefectsCase Digest Propertytax revIntro
Labor+Law+Recent+Jurisprudence (1) by Jeff Santos196 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionlaborlaborCategories: Types, ResearchRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCase Digest Part 3(2) Nos.67-101by Prelle DacanayLABOR ChanRoblesby Eloisa Katrina MadambaLabor1 Digest Part7by cmv mendozaMickey Ingles - 2012 Finals Reviewerby Tricia AguilaLabor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 2.04-5.07by amun dinLabor Standards Case Digest Part IIIby Christopher G. HalninSample Memorandumby Dino BacomoPre-week Notes on Labor Law for 2014 Bar Examsby Giness Marie Geronimo RosalesLabor1 Digest Part6by cmv mendozaOBLICON Definition of Termsby Dia ApuanLabor Case Digestby louieboi592015 Doing Well in Bar Examsby Francis Edward Lim96150424-Rex-Case-Digest-2006-Vol-IIby Jhanelyn Inopia73293565 Labor I Digestsby Angeli SoabasLabor Law Case Digestsby mhelei2luvla4. Bernardo vs. Nlrcby Breth1979Labor1 Digest Part3by cmv mendozaAM Oreta v NLRC - GR 74004 (10 August 1989)by Rey BenítezPalay Inc v Claveby Katrina Janine CabanosAdmin Casesby Morelos MarkREALUBIT V JASO.docxby Pollyana TanaleonStanding to Forecloseby xosasunGSIS VS CAby Mavic De GraciaEricsson vs City of Pasigby Raymond Roque1911 Supreme Court Case-life insurnace as asset by lichechenLabRev - United Pepsi Supervisory Union vs Laguesma GR 122226by MarianRapadasInsurance caseby Rosemarie Barnido MadarangEdward X. Clinton, Jr. Presentation on Managing Liability Through Contract Provisionsby Ed ClintonSimilar to Labor+Law+Recent+Jurisprudence (1)Case Digest Part 3(2) Nos.67-101LABOR ChanRoblesLabor1 Digest Part7Mickey Ingles - 2012 Finals ReviewerLabor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 2.04-5.07Labor Standards Case Digest Part IIISample MemorandumPre-week Notes on Labor Law for 2014 Bar ExamsLabor1 Digest Part6OBLICON Definition of TermsLabor Case Digest2015 Doing Well in Bar Exams96150424-Rex-Case-Digest-2006-Vol-II73293565 Labor I DigestsLabor Law Case Digests4. Bernardo vs. NlrcLabor1 Digest Part3AM Oreta v NLRC - GR 74004 (10 August 1989)Palay Inc v ClaveAdmin CasesREALUBIT V JASO.docxStanding to ForecloseGSIS VS CAEricsson vs City of Pasig1911 Supreme Court Case-life insurnace as asset LabRev - United Pepsi Supervisory Union vs Laguesma GR 122226Insurance caseEdward X. Clinton, Jr. Presentation on Managing Liability Through Contract Provisions2011 BPI vs BPI-EmployeesArt. 280-84