Está en la página 1de 62

MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL the LA, not by the SEC, because he was not a corporate

CORPORATION vs. RICARDO COROS officer by virtue of his position in Matling, albeit high ranking
G.R. No. 157802 October 13, 2010 and managerial, not being among the positions listed in
Matlings Constitution and By-Laws. On motion for
FACTS: reconsideration, petitioners submitted a certified machine
copies of Matlings Amended Articles of Incorporation and By
After respondent Ricardo Coros dismissal by Matling as its Laws to prove that the President of Matling was thereby
Vice President for Finance and Administration, he filed on granted "full power to create new offices and appoint the
August 10, 2000 a complaint for illegal suspension and officers thereto and the minutes of special meeting held on
illegal dismissal against Matling and some of its corporate June 7, 1999 by Matlings Board of Directors to prove that
officers in the NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, the respondent was, indeed, a Member of the Board of
Iligan City. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, Directors. Nonetheless, the NLRC denied the petitioners
raising the ground, among others, that the complaint motion for reconsideration. The petitioners elevated the
pertained to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange issue to the CA by petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed
Commission due to the controversy being intra-corporate the petition for certiorari and ruled that for a
inasmuch as the respondent was a member of Matlings position to be considered as a corporate office, or, for
Board of Directors aside from being its Vice-President for that matter, for one to be considered as a corporate
Finance and Administration prior to his termination. The officer, the position must, if not listed in the by-laws,
respondent opposed the petitioners motion to have been created by the corporation's board of
dismiss, insisting that his status as a member of Matlings directors, and the occupant thereof appointed or
Board of Directors was doubtful, considering that he had not elected by the same board of directors or
been formally elected as such; that he did not own a single stockholders. Motion for reconsideration was likewise
share of stock in Matling, considering that he had been denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
made to sign in blank an undated indorsement of the
certificate of stock he had been given in 1992; that Matling ISSUE:
had taken back and retained the certificate of stock in its
custody; and that even assuming that he had been a Whether or not respondent was a corporate officer of
Director of Matling, he had been removed as the Vice Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation.
President for Finance and Administration, not as a Director, a
fact that the notice of his termination dated April 10, 2000 RULING:
showed. On October 16, 2000, the Labor Arbiter granted the
petitioners motion to dismiss, ruling that the respondent
Conformably with Section 25, a position must be expressly
was a corporate officer. On March 13, 2001, the NLRC set
mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a
aside the dismissal, concluding that the respondents
corporate office. Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to
complaint for illegal dismissal was properly cognizable by

1
or under a By-Law enabling provision is not enough to make subordinate officers or agents. The office of Vice President
a position a corporate office. Guerrea v. Lezama, the first for Finance and Administration created by Matlings
ruling on the matter, held that the only officers of a President pursuant to By Law No. V was an ordinary, not a
corporation were those given that character either by the corporate, office.
Corporation Code or by the By-Laws; the rest of the
corporate officers could be considered only as employees or To emphasize, the power to create new offices and the
subordinate officials. power to appoint the officers to occupy them vested by By-
Law No. V merely allowed Matlings President to create non-
It is relevant to state in this connection that the SEC, the corporate offices to be occupied by ordinary employees of
primary agency administering the Corporation Code, Matling. Such powers were incidental to the Presidents
adopted a similar interpretation of Section 25 of the duties as the executive head of Matling to assist him in the
Corporation Code in its Opinion dated November 25, 1993, daily operations of the business.
to wit:
GOYA, INC., VS. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW
Thus, pursuant to Section 25 of the Corporation Code,
whoever are the corporate officers enumerated in the by- G.R. No. 170054 January 21, 2013
laws are the exclusive Officers of the corporation and the
Board has no power to create other Offices without FACTS:
amending first the corporate By-laws. However, the Board
Petitioner Goya Inc. (Goya) hired contractual employees
may create appointive positions other than the positions of
from PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO). This
corporate Officers, but the persons occupying such positions
prompted Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW (Union) to
are not considered as corporate officers within the meaning
request for a grievance conference on the ground that the
of Section 25 of the Corporation Code and are not
contractual workers do not belong to the categories of
empowered to exercise the functions of the corporate
employees stipulated in their CBA. The Union also argued
Officers, except those functions lawfully delegated to them.
that hiring contractual employees is contrary to the union
Their functions and duties are to be determined by the
security clause embodied in the CBA.
Board of Directors/Trustees.
When the matter remained unresolved, the grievance was
Moreover, the Board of Directors of Matling could not validly referred to the NCMB for voluntary arbitration. The Union
delegate the power to create a corporate office to the argued that Goya is guilty of ULP for gross violation of the
President, in light of Section 25 of the Corporation Code CBA. The voluntary arbitrator dismissed the Unions charge
requiring the Board of Directors itself to elect the corporate of ULP but Goya was directed to observe and comply with
officers. Verily, the power to elect the corporate officers was the CBA. While the Union moved for partial consideration of
a discretionary power that the law exclusively vested in the the VA decision, Goya immediately filed a petition for review
Board of Directors, and could not be delegated to

2
before the Court of Appeals to set aside the VAs directive to management prerogative pertaining to the hiring of
observe and comply with the CBA commitment pertaining to contractual employees.
the hiring of casual employees. Goya argued that hiring
contractual employees is a valid management prerogative. A collective bargaining agreement is the law between the
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. parties. A collective bargaining agreement or CBA refers to
the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
ISSUE: organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of
work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
Whether the act of hiring contractual employees is a valid bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may
exercise of management prerogative? establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient provided these are not contrary
HELD:
to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
The CA did not commit serious error when it sustained the Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes
ruling that the hiring of contractual employees from PESO the law between the parties and compliance therewith is
was not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the CBA. In mandated by the express policy of the law.
this case, a complete and final adjudication of the dispute
As repeatedly held, the exercise of management prerogative
between the parties necessarily called for the resolution of
is not unlimited; it is subject to the limitations found in law,
the related and incidental issue of whether the Company
collective bargaining agreement or the general principles of
still violated the CBA but without being guilty of ULP as,
fair play and justice.
needless to state, ULP is committed only if there is gross
violation of the agreement. Petition is DENIED.

Goya kept on harping that both the VA and the CA conceded


COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN vs.
that its engagement of contractual workers from PESO was a
valid exercise of management prerogative. It is confused. To ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTIES OF
emphasize, declaring that a particular act falls within the LETRAN
concept of management prerogative is significantly different
from acknowledging that such act is a valid exercise thereof. G.R. No. 141471 September 18, 2000
What the VA and the CA correctly ruled was that the
Companys act of contracting out/outsourcing is within the Facts:
purview of management prerogative. Both did not say,
During the renegotiation of the respondent unions Collective
however, that such act is a valid exercise thereof. Obviously,
Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor Ambas
this is due to the recognition that the CBA provisions agreed
emerged as the newly elected President of the union. Ambas
upon by Goya and the Union delimit the free exercise of
wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but

3
petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was Whether the termination of the union president amounts to
already prepared for signing by the parties. However, the an interference of the employees right to self-organization.
union members rejected the said CBA. Thereafter,
petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad Held:
faith before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of
The Supreme Court found the petition unmeritorious.
the petitioner. This decision was reversed on appeal with
the NLRC. The petitioners failure to act upon the submitted CBA
proposal within the ten-day period exemplified in Article 250
The parties later agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and
of the Labor Code is a clear violation of the governing
to start negotiation on new five-year CBA. During the
procedure of collective bargaining. As the Court has held in
pendency of approval of proposals, Ambas was informed
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, the companys refusal to make counter-
that her work schedule was being changed. Ambas
proposal to the unions proposed CBA is an indication of bad
protested and requested management to submit the issue
faith. Moreover, the succeeding events are obvious signs
to a grievance machinery under the old CBA.
that the petitioner had merely been employing delaying
After the petitioners inaction on the CBA, the union filed a tactics to the passage of the proposed CBA. Moreover, in
notice to strike. After meeting with the NCMB to discuss the order to allow the employer to validly suspend the
ground rules for renegotiation, Ambas received a letter bargaining process, there must be a valid petition for
dismissing her for alleged insubordination. The petitioner certification election raising a legitimate representation
then ceased negotiations when it received news that issue. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification
another labor organization had filed a petition for election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of
certification. negotiation by the employer.

The union finally struck, but the Secretary of Labor and The factual backdrop of the termination of Ambas led the
Employment ordered them to return to work and for Court to no other conclusion that she was dismissed in order
petitioner to accept them back. The Secretary of Labor and to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right of
Employment later rendered judgement that the petitioner her co-workers in the bargaining table. While the Court
had been guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court of recognizes the right of the employer to terminate the
Appeals affirmed the findings of the former. services of an employee for a just or authorized cause,
nevertheless, the dismissal of employees must be made
Issue(s): within the parameters of aw and pursuant to the tenets of
equity and fair play. Even assuming arguendo that Ambas
Whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by was guilty of insubordination, such disobedience was not a
refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally valid ground to terminate her employment. When the
suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new CBA; and exercise of the management to discipline its employees

4
tends to interfere with the employees right to self- months, the parties shall agree on the duration
organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in
prohibited act. the renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, the parties may exercise their rights
St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. vs. Torres under this Code. (As amended by Section 21,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
223 SCRA 779, G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993
SMLC also argued that SLMCEA-AFW is not the proper
Facts: bargaining party since the leadership of AFW is not yet
settled when the new CBA was agreed.
SLMCEA-AFW is the certified union of rank and file
employees of St. Lukes Medical Center (SMLC). It is also an Issue:
affiliate of AFW, a national labor organization. SLMCEA had
an existing CBA with SMLC and about to expire on June 30, 1. Whether or not the CBA should have retroactive
1990. AFW have ongoing internal problems which the effect?
determination of the proper leadership is under litigation. 2. Whether or not SLMCEA-AFW has the capacity to
negotiate for a new CBA
When both parties negotiated for the new CBA, both parties
Ruling:
failed to agree on the new CBA. The case was forwarded to
the DOLE Secretary for arbitration. The DOLE secretary Issue 1:
issued an order and a new CBA was issued on January 28,
1991. The DOLE secretary also ordered that the new CBA Yes Article 253-A is only applicable to CBA voluntary agreed
will have a retroactive effect from the expiration of the by the parties not to arbitral awards. The CBA is a product
original CBA. of an arbitration decided by the DOLE Secretary. There are
no specific provisions of law prohibiting retroactivity of the
SLMC argued that the CBA should not be given retroactive effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of
effect since the CBA was issued after 6 months the Labor pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, such as
expiration of the original CBA. herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested with
plenary and discretionary powers to determine the
Art 253-AAny agreement on such other provisions
effectivity.
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into
within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the Issue 2:
term of such other provisions as fixed in such
Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to Yes. An affiliated labor organization does not lose its identity
the day immediately following such date. If any and independence. SLMCEA-AFW is independent from AFW.
such agreement is entered into beyond six Only the collective bargaining agent, the local union

5
SLMCEA in this case, possesses legal standing to negotiate public respondent affirmed her findings, except for the date
with petitioner. A duly registered local union affiliated of effectivity of the CBA which was changed to September
with a national union or federation does not lose its
30, 1992. This is the date when she assumed jurisdiction
legal personality or independence.
over the deadlock.
PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC.
vs.
HON. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity The petitioner contended that the supervisors (foremen) and
as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and GENERAL the legal secretary should be excluded from the bargaining
MARITIME & STEVEDORES UNION (GMSU)
G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 unit.

FACTS: ISSUE:
The corporation and private respondent labor union entered Whether or not the foremen and secretaries should be
into a collective bargaining agreement on November 27, excluded from the rank and file bargaining unit.
1991. During the freedom period, National Federation of
Labor Unions (NAFLU) questioned the majority status of the RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Article 245 of
union by filing for a petition for certification election (CE). the Labor Code applies in this case. The foremen and are
The private respondent union won the certification election supervisory employees and therefore cannot be part of the
rank and file. Legal secretaries are neither managers nor
and was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent supervisors but confidential workers, hence, they cannot be
of the rank and file employees. However, the negotiations part of the labor union formed composed of rank and file
employees as well. With respect to the timekeepers, they
for the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) collapsed. should not be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank
On August 24, 1992, private-respondent filed a Notice of and file employees. The test of supervisory or managerial
status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in
Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board the interest of his employer, and such authority is not
(NCMB). The NCMB tried but failed to settle the parties' merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment. What determines the nature of the
controversy. The Secretary of Labor took over the dispute employment is not the title but the job description itself.
and resolved the bargaining deadlock and ordered that the
position of foremen, secretaries, and timekeepers were The Decision was ordered to be modified to exclude foremen
lumped together as part of the rank-and-file. Petitioner and legal secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining unit

sought partial reconsideration of the Order. On June 8, 1993, represented by private respondent union, and to fix the date

6
of effectivity of the five-year collective bargaining MERALCO filed a motion for reconsideration alleging the
agreement between petitioner corporation and private Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in awarding said economic
respondent union on March 4, 1993.
demands of MEWA and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration on September 18, 1996 alleging that the
Secretary of Labor did not properly appreciate the effects of
Manila Electric Company, petitioner vs. the award to its financial viability. MEWA also filed its motion
for reconsideration. On December 28, 1996, the Secretary
The Honorable Secretary of Labor Leonardo modified its August 19 order with respect to the economic
Quisumbing and MERALCO Employees and Workers benefits it previously awarded to MEWA but the date of its
Association (MEWA), respondents. effectivity remained. Hence, this petition.
FACTS:

MEWA is the duly recognized labor organization of rank-and- ISSUE:


file employees of MERALCO. On September 7, 1995 it
informed MERALCO of its intention to re-negotiate the terms Whether or not the new CBA should be given retroactive
and condition of its existing 1992-1997 CBA for the effect
remaining period of two years starting December 1, 1995 to
November 30, 1997. MERALCO signified its willingness to re-
negotiate and formed a CBA negotiating panel. However,
HELD:
despite the series of meetings, the parties failed to arrive at
terms and condition acceptable to both of them.
Article 253-A serves as the guide in determining when the
MEWA filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the ground effectivity of the CBA at bar is to take effect. It provides that
of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices. After a the representation aspect of the CBA is to be for a term of 5
series of failed conciliation, MERALCO facing an impending years, while
strike file an Urgent Petition with the DOLE on May 2, 1996
praying that the Secretary assume jurisdiction and to enjoin x x x All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining
the striking employees to go back to work. The petition was Agreement shall be re-negotiated not later than 3 years
granted by the Labor Secretary on May 8, 1996 and directed after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions
the parties to submit their respective position papers. On of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within 6
August 19, 1996 the Secretary resolved the dispute and months from the date of expiry of the term of such other
granted the economic demands of MEWA effective from provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement
December 1, 1995. shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If
such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months, the

7
parties shall agree on the duration of the effectivity Consequently, we find no sufficient legal ground on the
thereof. x x x. other justification for the retroactive application of the
disputed CBA, and therefore hold that the CBA should be
Under these terms, it is clear that the 5-year term effective for a term of 2 years counted from December 28,
requirement is specific to the representation aspect. What 1996, the date of the Secretary of Labors disputed order on
the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re- the parties motion for reconsideration up to December 27,
negotiated within 3 years after its execution. It is in this re- 1999.
negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock.
NUBE vs. PEMA (GR No. 174287, August 12, 2013)
If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry
date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution, the law Facts: After acquiring the status of an independent labor
expressly gives the parties - not anybody else - the organization duly registered before the DOLE, BBB, the local
discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. union, disaffiliated from AAA, the mother union.

Significantly, the law does not specifically cover the Issue: WON there was a valid disaffiliation.
situation where 6 months have elapsed but no agreement
Ruling: A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its
has been reached with respect to effectivity. In this
mother union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a
eventuality, we hold that any provision of law should then
separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the
apply for the law abhors a vacuum.
interests of all its members including the freedom to
disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation
One such provision is the principle of hold over, i.e., that in which it belongs when circumstances warrant, in accordance
the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the
terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother
agreement is reached. In this manner, the law prevents the union or a federation is to increase by collective action the
existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of
bargaining parties. Another legal principle that should apply labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association,
is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, free to serve their own and the common interests of all,
then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and
or quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the
only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the
retroactive application. agreement which brought it into existence.

Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a


federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such

8
disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence under its constitution or rule. Such, however, does not result
of specific provisions in the federation's constitution in it losing its legal personality altogether.
prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a
local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union. The right of the local members to withdraw from the
federation and to form a new local union depends upon the
As separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not provisions of the union's constitution, by-laws and charter
owe their creation and existence to the national federation and, in the absence of enforceable provisions in the
to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local
members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by union, a local may sever its relationship with its parent.
collective action, the common bargaining power of local
unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their
interests. GOYA, INC. vs. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION
G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013
A chartered local union acquires legal personality through
the charter certificate issued by a duly registered federation FACTS:
Goya, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the
or national union, and reported to the Regional Office in
manufacture, importation, and wholesale of top quality food
accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A products, hired contractual employees from PESO Resources
local union does not owe its existence to the federation with Development Corporation (PESO) to perform temporary and
which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary occasional services in its factory in Parang, Marikina City.
association owing its creation to the will of its members. This prompted respondent Goya, Inc. Employees UnionFFW
Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own (Union) to request for a grievance conference on the ground
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the that the contractual workers do not belong to the categories
of employees stipulated in the existing CBA. When the
license to act independently of the local union. It only gives
matter remained unresolved, the grievance was referred to
rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in the NCMB for voluntary arbitration. They agreed to submit
representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are for resolution the solitary issue of whether or not the
considered principals while the federation is deemed to be Company is guilty of unfair labor acts in engaging the
merely their agent. As such principals, the unions are services of PESO, a third party service provider, under the
entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate existing CBA, laws, and jurisprudence.
labor organization, including the right to seek certification as VA dismissed the Unions charge of ULP for being purely
speculative and for lacking in factual basis, but the
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate
Company was directed to observe and comply with its
employer unit. commitment under the CBA. The Company immediately filed
a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) under
A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside
federation, absent any showing that the same is prohibited the directive to observe and comply with the CBA
commitment pertaining to the hiring of casual employees
when necessitated by business circumstances. Professing

9
that such order was not covered by the sole issue submitted from a certain Napoleon Gao-ay (Napoleon) reporting the
for voluntary arbitration, alleged immoral conduct and unbecoming behavior of
ISSUE: respondent by having an illicit relationship with Napoleons
Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator can decide
sister, Thelma G. Palma (Thelma). This prompted the Board
questions not covered by Submission Agreement?
RULING: to conduct a preliminary investigation. Respondent, on the
Yes. First, the said ruling of the VA is interrelated and other hand, denied the accusation against him. He, instead,
intertwined with the sole issue to be resolved that is, claimed that the accusation was a result of the insecurity
Whether or not the Company is guilty of unfair labor felt by some members of the cooperative and of the Board
practice in engaging the services of PESO, a third party because of his growing popularity owing to his exemplary
service provider, under existing CBA, laws, and record as an employee. Thelma executed an affidavit
jurisprudence. Both issues concern the engagement of
likewise denying the allegations of extra-marital affair. In a
PESO by the Company which is perceived as a violation of
the CBA and which constitutes as unfair labor practice on Memorandum dated July 16, 1997, respondent was informed
the part of the Company. of Board Resolution, embodying the Boards decision to
terminate his services as bookkeeper of petitioner, without
In general, the arbitrator is expected to decide those any compensation or benefit except the unpaid balance of
questions expressly stated and limited in the submission his regular salary for services actually rendered.
agreement. However, since arbitration is the final resort for
the adjudication of disputes, the arbitrator can assume that Aggrieved, respondent filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal
he has the power to make a final settlement. Thus, against petitioner before the Regional Arbitration Branch of
assuming that the submission empowers the arbitrator to
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor
decide whether an employee was discharged for just cause,
the arbitrator in this instance can reasonably assume that Arbiter found respondent to have been validly dismissed
his powers extended beyond giving a yes-or-no answer and from employment for violation of the cooperatives
included the power to reinstate him with or without back Personnel Policy, specifically "the commission of acts that
pay. Law and jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator bring discredit to the cooperative organization, especially,
enough leeway of authority as well as adequate prerogative but not limited to conviction of any crime, illicit marital
to accomplish the reason for which the law on voluntary affairs, scandalous acts inimical to established and accepted
arbitration was created speedy labor justice.
social mores." The LA also found no violation of
respondents right to due process as he was given ample
ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.
opportunity to defend himself from the accusation against
vs. SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR
G.R. No. 173489 February 25, 2013 him.

FACTS: On appeal, the NLRC set aside the LA decision. Petitioner


elevated the matter to the CA, but it failed to obtain a
Respondent was employed by petitioner as bookkeeper. favorable decision. The CA found respondents dismissal
Petitioner's Board of Directors (the Board) received a letter being founded on the serious misconduct he allegedly

10
committed by carrying an illicit relationship with a married
woman.
2. Yes. Respondent was adequately afforded the
ISSUES: opportunity to defend himself and explain the
accusation against him. Upon receipt of the
1. Whether or not, respondent Salvador Bandiola is complaint, petitioner conducted a preliminary
illegally dismissed? investigation and even created an Ad Hoc Committee
2. Whether procedural due process was observed in the to investigate the matter. Respondent was directed
termination of respondents services? to explain either in writing or by a personal
confrontation with the Board why he should not be
HELD:
terminated for engaging in illicit affair. Not only did
petitioner give him the opportunity but respondent in
1. No. While respondents act of engaging in extra--
fact informed petitioner that he opted to present his
marital affairs may be considered personal to him
side orally and did so as promised when he
and does not directly affect the performance of his
specifically denied such allegations before the AdHoc
assigned task as bookkeeper, aside from the fact that
Committee. Moreover, respondent was also allowed
the act was specifically provided for by petitioners
to peruse the investigation report prepared by the Ad
Personnel Policy as one of the grounds for
Hoc Committee and was advised that he was entitled
termination of employment, said act raised concerns
to assistance of counsel. After which, hearing was
to petitioner as the Board received numerous
conducted. It was only after thorough investigation
complaints and petitions from the cooperative
and proper notice and hearing to respondent that
members themselves asking for the removal of
petitioner decided whether to dismiss the former or
respondent because of his immoral conduct.
not. The decision to terminate respondent from
To be sure, an employer is free to regulate all aspects employment was embodied in Board Resolution No.
of employment. It may make reasonable rules and 05, series of 1997 a copy of which was furnished
regulations for the government of its employees respondent. With this resolution, respondent was
which become part of the contract of employment adequately notified of petitioners decision to remove
provided they are made known to the employee. In him from his position. Respondent cannot now claim
that his right to due process was infringed upon.
the event of a violation, an employee may be validly
terminated from employment on the ground that an
ERECTOR ADVERTISING SIGN GROUP, INC. and
employer cannot rationally be expected to retain the
ARCH. JIMMY C. AMOROTO vs NLRC
employment of a person whose lack of morals,
respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his G.R. No. 167218 July 2, 2010
employers rules and application of the dignity and
responsibility, has so plainly and completely been Facts:
bared.

11
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of supposedly failed to report for work without prior notice
Court, petitioner Erector Advertising Sign Group, Inc. and prior leave approval which thus effectively
assails the February 16, 2005 Decision of the Court of prevented the other workers from being transported to
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80027. The challenged the job site as there was no other driver available;
Decision affirmed the February 28, 2003 Resolution of whereas the latter incident happened on May 11, 2000
the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR when allegedly, Cloma, without authority, suddenly
CA No. 028711-01. In turn, the said Decision reversed barged into the premises of the Outright Division and,
and set aside the March 30, 2001 Decision of the Labor without being provoked, threatened the employees with
Arbiter, which dismissed for lack of merit the complaint bodily harm if they did not stop from doing their work.
for illegal dismissal filed by respondent Expedito Cloma.
This second incident was supposedly narrated fully in a
Petitioner Erector Advertising Sign Group, Inc. is a letter dated May 13, 2000 addressed to the personnel
domestic corporation engaged in the business of manager and signed by one Victor Morales and Ruben
constructing billboards and advertising signs. Sometime Que.
in the middle of 1996, petitioner engaged the services of
Expedito Cloma (Cloma) as company driver and the As a result of these incidents, petitioner served on Cloma
latter had served as such until his dismissal from service two (2) Suspension Orders dated May 15, 2000 and May
in May 2000. 17, 2000, both signed by Nelson Clavacio (Clavacio),
personnel and production manager of petitioner
In his Complaint filed with the National Labor Relations company, and approved by Architect Jimmy C. Amoroto
Commission (NLRC), Cloma alleged that he was illegally (Amoroto), president and chief executive officer. For easy
suspended and then dismissed from his employment reference, the suspension orders were reproduced.
without due process of law. He likewise claimed his
unpaid monetary benefits such as overtime pay, When Cloma reported back for work on May 25, 2000, he
premium pay for worked rest days, service incentive was taken by surprise when the security guard on duty
leave pay and 13th month pay, as well as moral, prevented him from entering the companys premises
exemplary and actual damages and attorneys fees. and, instead, handed him a termination letter dated May
20, 2000, signed and approved by Clavacio and
It is conceded by petitioner that Cloma has been Amoroto.
suspended several times from work due to frequent
tardiness and absenteeism, but the instant case appears Ridden with angst and anxiety, Cloma walked away and
to be likewise the result of documented instances of filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
absenteeism without prior notice to and approval from
Following the submission of position papers and other
his superior, and of misbehavior. The former happened
documentary exhibits by both parties, the Labor Arbiter,
between May 12 and May 15, 2000 when Cloma
after evidentiary evaluation, issued its March 30, 2001

12
Decision dismissing Clomas complaint for lack of merit. having conducted investigation on these matters that
In so ruling, the Labor Arbiter put much weight on the would have afforded Cloma the opportunity to confront
evidence presented by petitioner company bearing on his witnesses and that Cloma had already been
Clomas frequent tardiness and unauthorized absences, sanctioned for this offense under the May 17, 2000
as well as the several incidents of misbehavior and suspension order; and that as to the last ground, i.e.,
misconduct in which Cloma figured as the protagonist. It Maraming pagkakataon na late x x x, the NLRC noted
went on to say that while the onus of proving the that the best proof on this allegation would have been
existence of the cause for termination and the Clomas corresponding daily time record but which,
observance of due process lie on the employer, however, petitioner failed to make of record at the
petitioner company was actually able to establish the hearing of the case. Hence, finding that Cloma was
validity of Clomas dismissal by its evidence. It also noted dismissed without just cause and without due process,
that while the company, by memorandum/notice, had the NLRC ordered petitioner to pay full backwages,
directed Cloma to submit his explanation on his alleged allowances and other benefits, as well as separation pay
infractions, the latter nevertheless did not comply with in lieu of reinstatement.
the directive and instead ignored the same. In this
connection, the Labor Arbiter declared that a plea of Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied, and
denial of procedural due process would not lie when he forthwith it elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on
who had been given an opportunity to be heard had petition for certiorari.
chosen not to avail of such opportunity.
On February 16, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered
Aggrieved, Cloma appealed to the NLRC. On February 28, the assailed Decision adopting the findings and
conclusions of the NLRC as follows:
2003, the NLRC issued its Resolution reversing and
setting aside the Labor Arbiters decision. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The
resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission
The NLRC pointed out that not only was Cloma dismissed
dated 28 February 2003 reversing the decision of the
without due process but also, that he was dismissed
Labor Arbiter dated 30 March 2001 in NLRC CASE No. 00-
without just cause. The NLRC based its finding on the
05-02887-2000 is hereby AFFIRMED.
termination letter served by petitioner on Cloma such
that with respect to the first ground of termination, i.e., Hence, this petition.
Ang pagliban ng dalawang araw na wala man lang
pasabi o paalam, the letter did not state the dates when Issue:
these two absences had been incurred; that in relation to
the second and third grounds, i.e., Ang pananakot sa Whether or not Cloma was dismissed with just cause
and with due process of law.
kapwa manggagawa x x xand Ang pagpigil sa operasyon
ng ibang Department x x x, petitioner did not profess Ruling:

13
We find no merit in the petition. required by law to validate an employees dismissal from
service, that is, a written notice stating the cause for
Petitioner insists that the just cause for Clomas termination and a written notice of the intention to
termination abounds in the records, alluding to terminate employment stating clearly the reason
several infractions and violations of company rules
therefor.
and regulations for which he has been suspended
many times from work. In addition, it likewise The validity of an employees dismissal from service
enumerates a number of Clomas other acts of hinges on the satisfaction of the two substantive
misbehavior such as reporting for work under the
requirements for a lawful termination. These are, first,
influence of alcohol, picking fights with co-workers
whether the employee was accorded due process the
and others which the management merely let pass
basic components of which are the opportunity to be
but which, nevertheless, could constitute valid
grounds for dismissal. Yet significantly, petitioner heard and to defend himself. This is the procedural
admits that it is Clomas repeated infractions which aspect. And second, whether the dismissal is for any of
gave the company the motivation to finally terminate the causes provided in the Labor Code of the
his services. Philippines. This constitutes the substantive aspect.

Also, petitioner maintains that it observed due process in With respect to due process requirement, the employer
deciding to dismiss Cloma from service. It claims that is bound to furnish the employee concerned with two (2)
the decision to let go of Cloma was the result of a written notices before termination of employment can be
thorough consideration of the totality of the many legally effected. One is the notice apprising the
infractions he has committed, as well as of his general employee of the particular acts or omissions for which
behavior toward his work. It reasons that ample time, his dismissal is sought and this may loosely be
prior to May 20, 2000, has been afforded Cloma so that considered as the proper charge. The other is the notice
he could explain why he should not be dismissed, but he informing the employee of the managements decision to
nevertheless failed to comply despite the fact that he sever his employment. This decision, however, must
was residing only a few houses away from the company. come only after the employee is given a reasonable
period from receipt of the first notice within which to
answer the charge, thereby giving him ample
opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the
Commenting on the petition, Cloma maintains that
assistance of his representative should he so desire. The
petitioners evidence is insubstantial to support the
requirement of notice, it has been stressed, is not a
theory that the dismissal has complied with due process
mere technicality but a requirement of due process to
and is with just cause. He stresses that the evidence
which every employee is entitled.
presented by petitioner hardly supports the grounds
relied on for his termination and that, more importantly,
petitioner did not comply with the two-notice rule

14
VARORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., AND ARIA MARITIME CO., respondents repatriation to the Philippines for continuing
LTD.,
vs. treatment.
GIL A. FLORES
FACTS: ISSUE:

On April 7, 1997, petitioners employed respondent, in behalf Whether or not the respondent is entitled to sickness
wages?
of its foreign principal, Aria Maritime Co., Ltd. of Piraeus,
Greece, for the position of Chief Officer on board M/V Aria,
per Contract of Employment dated April 7, 1997, duly
RULING:
approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), for a period of 12 months, with a Respondent is entitled to sickness wages because the
basic monthly salary of US$1,200.00 at 48 hours of work shooting pain in his right foot is an injury which he suffered
during the course of his employment. This is in consonance
weekly, overtime pay of US$600.00, allowance of
with the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the
US$200.00, and vacation leave with pay of 30 days a year Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going
(or US$100.00 a month) or pro-rata. The total fixed monthly Vessels of the Department of Labor and Employment.
salary of respondent was US$2,100.00. Applying the said provisions of this standard contract,
respondent is entitled to receive sickness wages covering
the maximum period of 120 days. Moreover, petitioners
On April 16, 1997, he was deployed aboard M/V Aria in violated the contract when it failed to provide continuous
Bangkok, Thailand. During his employment, the master of treatment for respondent in accordance with the
the vessel sent respondent to the Centre Medical de Ngodi recommendation of their company physician. Because of
this failure, respondent was forced to seek immediate
at Doula, Cameroon, where he was treated for three days
medical attention at his own expense. Thus, he is also
due to the shooting pain in the lower extremities, entitled to reimbursement of his medical expenses.
particularly on his right foot. In the Medical Certificat dated
June 19, 1997, the attending physician, Dr. R.
CESAR C. LIRIO, doing business under the name and
Mongou Tchouak, stated that he diagnosed respondent's style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX, Petitioner, v. WILMER
pain on the right foot as sciatic neuralgia and administered D. GENOVIA, Respondent.
[drips], injection, and acupuncture. Respondent was
declared not fit to work. The doctor recommended FACTS:

15
Respondent was allegedly hired on August 15, 2001 as studio manager of Celkor would be deducted from the said
studio manager by petitioner Lirio, owner of Celkor Ad 20% net profit share. Respondent objected and insisted that
Sonicmix Recording Studio (Celkor). A few days after he he be properly compensated. On March 14, 2002, petitioner
started working as a studio manager, petitioner approached verbally terminated respondent's services, and he was
him and told him about his project to produce an album for instructed not to report for work. On July 9, 2002,
his 15-year-old daughter. Petitioner asked respondent to respondent Wilmer D. Genovia filed a complaint against
compose and arrange songs for Celine and promised that he petitioner for illegal dismissal, non-payment of commission
(Lirio) would draft a contract to assure respondent of his and award of moral and exemplary damages.
compensation for such services. As agreed upon, the
additional services that respondent would render included Petitioner asserted that from the aforesaid terms and
composing and arranging musical scores only, while the conditions, his relationship with respondent is one of an
technical aspect in producing the album, such as digital informal partnership under Article 1767 of the New Civil
editing, mixing and sound engineering would be performed Code, since they agreed to contribute money, property or
by respondent in his capacity as studio manager for which industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the
he was paid on a monthly basis. profits among themselves. Petitioner had no control over the
time and manner by which respondent composed or
Respondent reminded petitioner about his compensation as arranged the songs, except on the result thereof.
composer and arranger of the album. Petitioner verbally
assured him that he would be duly compensated. By mid- ISSUE:
November 2001, respondent finally finished the
compositions and musical arrangements of the songs to be I. Whether or not an employer-employee relationship
included in the album. existed between petitioner and respondent

Thereafter, respondent was tasked by petitioner to prepare HELD:


official correspondence, establish contacts and negotiate
with various radio stations, malls, publishers, record The elements to determine the existence of an
companies and manufacturers, record bars and other outlets employment relationship are:
in preparation for the promotion of the said album. By early
February 2002, the album was in its manufacturing stage. (a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
On February 26, 2002, respondent again reminded (c) the power of dismissal; and
petitioner about the contract on his compensation as (d) the employer's power to control
composer and arranger of the album. Petitioner told the employee's conduct.
respondent that since he was practically a nobody and had
proven nothing yet in the music industry, respondent did not The most important element is the employer's control of the
deserve a high compensation, and he should be thankful employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to
that he was given a job to feed his family. Petitioner be done, but also as to the means and methods to
informed respondent that he was entitled only to 20% of the accomplish it.
net profit, and not of the gross sales of the album, and that
the salaries he received and would continue to receive as

16
It is settled that no particular form of evidence is required to Based on the foregoing, it is clear that an employer-
prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. employee relationship existed between petitioner
Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the and respondent.
relationship may be admitted.
NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v.
In this case, the documentary evidence presented by VICTORINO ANGELO, Respondent.
respondent to prove that he was an employee of petitioner
are as follows: (a) a document denominated as "payroll" FACTS:
certified correct by petitioner, which showed that
respondent received a monthly salary of P7,000.00 Respondent Victorino Angelo was employed by Nissan on
(P3,500.00 every 15th of the month and another P3,500.00 March 11, 1989 as one of its payroll staff. On April 7 to 17,
every 30th of the month) with the corresponding deductions 2000, respondent was on sick leave, thus, he was not able
due to absences incurred by respondent; and (2) copies of to prepare the payroll for the said period. Again, on April 27
petty cash vouchers, showing the amounts he received and and 28, 2000, respondent was on an approved vacation
signed for in the payrolls. leave which again resulted in the non-preparation of the
payroll for that particular period.
The said documents showed that petitioner hired
respondent as an employee and he was paid monthly wages On May 8, 2000, respondent received a Memorandum
of P7,000.00. Petitioner wielded the power to dismiss as informing him that the Company is considering his dismissal
respondent stated that he was verbally dismissed by from employment on the grounds ofserious misconduct,
petitioner, and respondent, thereafter, filed an action for willful disobedience and gross neglect of duties.
illegal dismissal against petitioner. The power of control
refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not Respondent filed a Complaintfor illegal suspension with the
essential for the employer to actually supervise the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on May 12,
performance of duties of the employee, as it is sufficient 2000. Petitioner conducted an investigation on May 13,
that the former has a right to wield the power. Nevertheless, 2000, and concluded that respondent's explanation was
petitioner stated in his Position Paper that it was agreed that untrue and insufficient. Thus, on June 13, 2000, petitioner
he would help and teach respondent how to use the studio issued a Notice of Termination. Respondent amended his
equipment. In such case, petitioner certainly had the power previous complaint against petitioner on June 22, 2000, to
to check on the progress and work of respondent. include the charge of illegal dismissal.

On the other hand, petitioner failed to prove that his Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC rendered a decision
relationship with respondent was one of partnership. that respondent was not illegally dismissed. However, CA
Such claim was not supported by any written reversed the ruling and ordered the reinstatement of the
agreement. It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts respondent along with the payment of backwages from the
exist between the evidence presented by the time he was illegally dismissed
employer and the employee, the scales of justice
must be tilted in favor of the latter. ISSUE:

17
Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed Spouses Remigio Michael and Cynthia Ancheta were hired
by the St. Paul College (SPCQC) as a teachers with a
HELD: probationary rank in SY 1996-1997. Their contracts were
renewed for SY 1997-1998. On February 1998, the spouses
LABOR LAW: illegal dismissal separately wrote a letter addressed to Sr. Lilia asking for
their contract to be renewed which was granted by the
It must be emphasized at this point that theonus probandito College Council as evidenced by a letter sent by petitioner.
prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the
employer. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests A letter dated April 22, 1998 was sent to petitioner Sr.
upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and Bernadette and signed by some of the teachers of SPCQC,
valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that including the respondent spouses. The said letter contained
the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal.In the teachers' sentiments regarding two school policies,
this case, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were not namely: first, the policy of penalizing the delay in encoding
amiss in finding that the dismissal of respondent was legal final grades and, second, the policy of withholding salaries
or for a just cause based on substantial evidence presented of the teachers. Meanwhile, a letter dated April 21, 1998
by petitioner. Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of (the date, later on contested by respondent Remigio Michael
proof required in labor cases, is that amount of relevant to be ante-dated) was written by petitioner Sr. Bernadette to
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as respondent Remigio Michael, reiterating the conversation
adequate to justify a conclusion. that took place between them the day before the date of the
said letter (April 20, 1998). The letter enumerated the
However, although the dismissal was legal, respondent is departmental and instructional policies that respondent
still entitled to a separation pay as a measure of financial Remigio Michael failed to comply with, such as the late
assistance, considering his length of service and his poor submission of final grades, failure to submit final test
physical condition which was one of the reasons he filed a questions to the Program Coordinator, the giving of tests in
leave of absence. As a general rule, an employee who has the essay form instead of the multiple choice format as
been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under mandated by the school and the high number of students
Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to separation with failing grades in the classes that he handled Thereafter,
pay.Although by way of exception, the grant of separation petitioner Sr. Bernadette wrote a letter11 dated April 30,
pay or some other financial assistance may be allowed to an 1998 to petitioner Sr. Lilia, endorsing the immediate
employee dismissed for just causes on the basis of equity. termination of the teaching services of the respondent
spouses.

ST. PAUL COLLEGE QUEZON CITY vs. REMIGIO ISSUE:


MICHAEL A. ANCHETA Whether or not the spouses were illegally dismissed.

G.R. No. 169905 September 7, 2011 HELD:


No. The Court finds that there was a valid and just cause for
dismissal. The Labor Code commands that before an
FACTS:
employer may legally dismiss an employee from the service,

18
the requirement of substantial and procedural due process
must be complied with. Under the requirement of In an Audit Report, dated January 16, 1998, it was revealed
substantial due process, the grounds for termination of that 1,020 packs of Marlboro bearing Merchandise Code No.
employment must be based on just or authorized causes.
020101 under WRR No. 36-04032 were not included in the
Petitioner school charged respondent Remigio Michael of
non-compliance with a school policy regarding the condemnation proceedings held on December 27, 1996 and
submission of final test questions to his program coordinator that there were glaring discrepancies in the related
for checking or comment which was admitted by the documents which indicate a malicious attempt to conceal an
respondent in his letter. Respondent Remigio Michael's anomalous irregularity. The relevant Request for
spouse shared the same defenses and admissions as to the Condemnation was found to have been fabricated and all
charges against her. The plain admissions of the charges signatories therein, namely, Ed Garcia, Stockkeeper;
against them were the considerations taken into account by
Catherino A. Bero, DIU Supervisor; and Constantino L. Cruz,
the petitioner school in their decision not to renew the
respondent spouses' employment contracts. This is a right were held accountable for the irregular loss of the
of the school that is mandated by law and jurisprudence. It unaccounted Marlboro KS Pack of 5
is the prerogative of the school to set high standards of
efficiency for its teachers since quality education is a After further investigation, it was discovered that the subject
mandate of the Constitution. Schools cannot be required to merchandise was illegally brought out of the warehouse and
adopt standards which barely satisfy criteria set for it was made to appear that in all the documents prepared
government recognition. The same academic freedom
said goods were legally condemned on December 27, 1996.
grants the school the autonomy to decide for itself the
terms and conditions for hiring its teacher, subject of course Ed Garcia, one of the respondents in the Audit Review,
to the overarching limitations under the Labor Code. implicated [respondent] and [two] others. Garcia claimed
that he was unaware of the illegality of the transaction as he
was only obeying the orders of his superiors who included
[respondent]. Garcia disclosed that it was respondent who
DUTY FREE PHILIPPINE SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, ordered him to look for a van for the supposed direct
condemnation of the subject merchandise.
v.
Consequently, the Discipline Committee requested
MANOLITO Q. TRIA, Respondent.
respondent to submit a written reply/explanation regarding
the findings in the Audit Report and the allegations of
FACTS:
Garcia. Unsatisfied with his denial, the DFP Discipline
Petitioner Duty Free Philippines Services, Inc. is a manpower
Committee [DFPDC] issued a Joint Resolution holding
agency that provides personnel to Duty Free
respondent GUILTY OF DISHONESTY for (his) direct
Philippines(DFP). On March 16, 1989, respondent Manolo
participation in the fake condemnation and pilferage of the
Tria was employed by Petitioner and was seconded to DFP
missing 1,020 Marlboro Pack of 5s cigarettes and orders his
as a Warehouse Supervisor.
DISMISSAL from the service for cause and for loss of trust

19
and confidence, with forfeiture of all rights and privileges petitioners argument that it is not the employer of
due them from the company, except earned salaries and respondent.
leave credits.

On September 18, 1998, Petitioner sent respondent a HELD: We cannot sustain petitioner's contention.
memorandum terminating his employment with Petitioner
and his secondment to DFP on the basis of the findings and
The review of labor cases is confined to questions of
recommendation of the (DFPs) Discipline Committee.
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.The alleged absence
of employer-employee relationship cannot be raised for the
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Complaint against Petitioner
first time on appeal. The resolution of this issue requires the
for Illegal Dismissal and for payment of backwages,
admission and calibration of evidence and the LA and the
attorneys fees and damages.
NLRC did not pass upon it in their decisions. We cannot
permit petitioner to change its theory on appeal. It would be
On May 31, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision
unfair to the adverse party who would have no more
finding respondent to have been illegally dismissed from
opportunity to present further evidence, material to the new
employment. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision,
theory, which it could have done had it been aware earlier of
but deleted the award of attorneys fees. Petitioners motion
the new theory before the LA and the NLRC. More so in this
for reconsideration was also denied.
case as the supposed employer of respondent which is DFP
was not and is not a party to the present case.
When petitioner elevated the case to the CA, it denied for
the first time the existence of employer-employee
In this case, petitioner insisted that respondent was
relationship and pointed to DFP as respondents real
dismissed from employment for cause and after the
employer. The appellate court, however, considered said
observance of the proper procedure for termination.
defense barred by estoppel for its failure to raise the
Consequently, petitioner cannot now deny that respondent
defense before the LA and the NLRC.It nonetheless ruled
is its employee. While indeed, jurisdiction cannot be
that although DFPDC conducted the investigation,
conferred by acts or omission of the parties, petitioners
petitioners dismissal letter effected respondents termination
belated denial that it is the employer of respondent is
from employment.On the validity of respondents dismissal
obviously an afterthought, a devise to defeat the law and
from employment, the CA respected the LA and NLRC
evade its obligations.
findings and reached the same conclusion that respondent
was indeed illegally dismissed from employment.Petitioners
It is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a
precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the
Resolution.
pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but
ventilated for the first time only in a motion for
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in not considering

20
reconsideration or on appeal. Petitioner is bound by its Estate of Dulay vs. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc.
submissions that respondent is its employee and it should G.R. No. 172642, June 13, 2012
not be permitted to change its theory. Such change of
FACTS:
theory cannot be tolerated on appeal, not due to the strict
application of procedural rules, but as a matter of fairness. Since 1986, Nelson Dulay was employed as an ordinary
seaman and later as bosun on contractual basis by General
As to the legality of respondents dismissal, it is well settled Charters, Inc,, a subsidiary of Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime. From
thatunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of September 3, 1999 up to July 19, 2000, Nelson was detailed
law may be raised, the reason being that this Court is not a in petitionersvessel, the MV Kickapoo Belle.
trier of facts, and it is not for this Court to reexamine and
At the time of his death on August 13, 2000, he was a bona
reevaluate the evidence on record.Findings of fact and
fide member of the AMOSUP, GCI collective bargaining
conclusions of the Labor Arbiter as well as those of the NLRC agent. Nelson widow, Merridy Jane, thereafter claimed for
or, for that matter, any other adjudicative body which can death benefits through the grievance procedure of the CBA
be considered as a trier of facts on specific matters within between AMOSUP and GCI. However, on January 29, 2001,
its field of expertise, should be considered as binding and the grievance procedure was "declared deadlocked" as
conclusive upon the appellate courts. petitioners refused to grant the benefits sought by the
widow.
We agree with the appellate court that DFPDCs conclusions
On March 5, 2001, Merridy Jane filed a complaint with the
are not supported by clear and convincing evidence to NLRC against GCI for death and medical benefits and
warrant the dismissal of respondent. In illegal dismissal damages. Merridy Jane claimed $90,000.00 however, CGI
cases, the employer is burdened to prove just cause for awarded P20,000.00 to Nelson brother. Merridy Jane is now
terminating the employment of its employee with clear and claiming the $90,000.00 less the P20,000.00 that Nelson
convincing evidence. This principle is designed to give flesh brother received.
and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure granted by
Respondents asserted that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over
the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.In this
the action on account of the absence of employer-employee
case, petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing relationship between GCI and Nelson at the time of the
evidence of respondents direct participation in the alleged latter death. Nelson also had no claims against petitioners
fake condemnation proceedings. To be sure, unsubstantiated for sick leave allowance/medical benefit by reason of the
suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do completion of his contract with GCI.
not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees.
In case of doubt, such cases should be resolved in favor of The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered
respondents to pay P4,621,300.00, the equivalent of
labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and
US$90,000.00 less P20,000.00, at the time of judgment. The
the Constitution. Labor Arbiter also ruled that the proximate cause of Nelson
death was not work-related.

21
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter decision as arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by
to the grant of death benefits under the CBA but reversed virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
the latter ruling as to the proximate cause of Nelson death. overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages."
A special civil action for certiorari was filed with the CA. The
appellate court granted the petition and referred the case to On the other hand, Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor
the NCMB for the appropriate resolution of the issue on the Code are very specific in stating that voluntary arbitrators
matter of the applicable CBA provision. have jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation
or implementation of collective bargaining agreements.
The CA ruled that while the suit filed by Merridy Jane is a Stated differently, the instant case involves a situation
money claim, the same basically involves the interpretation where the special statute (R.A. 8042) refers to a subject in
and application of the provisions in the subject CBA. As general, which the general statute (Labor Code) treats in
such, jurisdiction belongs to the voluntary arbitrator and not particular.
the labor arbiter.
In the present case, the basic issue raised by Merridy Jane in
ISSUE: her complaint filed with the NLRC is: which provision of the
Whether or not the CA committed error in ruling that the subject CBA applies insofar as death benefits due to the
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case? heirs of Nelson are concerned. The Court agrees with the CA
in holding that this issue clearly involves the interpretation
HELD: or implementation of the said CBA. Thus, the specific or
special provisions of the Labor Code govern.
Petitioner contends that Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.)
8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and In any case, the Court agrees with petitioner's contention
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, vests jurisdiction on the that the CBA is the law or contract between the parties.
appropriate branches of the NLRC to entertain disputes
regarding the interpretation of a collective bargaining Upon this Court reading of the pertinent provisions of the
agreement involving migrant or overseas Filipino workers. CBA, it is clear that the parties really intended to bring to
Petitioner argues that the abovementioned Section conciliation or voluntary arbitration any dispute or conflict in
amended Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code which, in turn, the interpretation or application of the provisions of their
confers jurisdiction upon voluntary arbitrators over CBA. It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed
interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a
agreements and interpretation or enforcement of company dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should
personnel policies. be strictly observed.

It is true that R.A. 8042 is a special law governing overseas It may not be amiss to point out that the CBA are in
Filipino workers. However, there is no specific provision consonance with Rule VII, Section 7 of the present Omnibus
thereunder which provides for jurisdiction over disputes or Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers
unresolved grievances regarding the interpretation or and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic
implementation of a CBA. Section 10 of R.A. 8042, which is Act No. 10022, which states that "[f]or OFWs with collective
cited by petitioner, simply speaks, in general, of "claims bargaining agreements, the case shall be submitted for

22
voluntary arbitration in accordance with Articles 261 and injustice. The principle of promissory estoppel is a
262 of the Labor Code." The Court notes that the said recognized exception to the three-year prescriptive
Omnibus Rules and Regulations were promulgated by the periodenunciated in Article 291 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Labor Code.
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and that these
departments were mandated to consult with the Senate Labor Law. The posting of a bond is indispensable to the
Committee on Labor and Employment and the House of perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards
Representatives Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs. from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The filing of the bond
is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement
that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction
In consultation with the counterparts of the DOLE in the upon the NLRC.
respective committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that Facts:
with respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers
wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining On September 27, 2002, respondent Alabanza filed a
agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the complaint againstpetitioners Arts 21 and Hashimoto for and
jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It in behalf of her husband for non-paymentof salaries,
is only in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement separation pay and 13
that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the thmonth pay.Respondents husband was the Vice-President,
NLRC or to voluntary arbitration. It is elementary that rules Manager and Director of Arts21 and had been with the
and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret company from 1975 to 1997. He was compelled by the
the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force owner, Hashimoto, to file his involuntary resignation on
of law, and are entitled to great respect. Such rules and October 17, 1997 on the ground that Arts 21 allegedly
regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as suffered losses. Respondents husband demanded payment
binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. of his money claims upon resignation but was told that rank
and file employees will be paid first and thus waited for his
DENIED. turn. Respondents husband made several demands but Arts
21 just kept on assuring him that he will be paid his money
Accessories Specialist Inc., ( Formerly known as Arts claims. Respondents husband died on August 5, 2002 with
21) his claims still unpaid. Petitioners invoke Art. 291 of the
vs. Labor Code and contend that respondents husband
Alabanza voluntarily resigned in October, 1997, thus the cause of
July 23, 2008 action has already prescribed since the case was filed in
2002 only, beyond the three-year-period within which
Labor Law. Promissory estoppel may arise from the making money claims should be filed.
of a promise, eventhough without consideration, if it was The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering petitioner to
intended that the promise should be relied upon, as in fact it pay respondent over P4M. Petitioners filed an appeal along
was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would virtually with a motion to reduce bond, attaching receipts for cash
sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other bond amounting to P290K and appeal fee for P170.00. The
motion was denied and petitioners were given 10 days

23
within which to file the required bond. Petitioners filed a orforbearance; and (3) the party suffered detriment as a
motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied ordering result. All the requisites are present in this case. The Court,
the dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection thereof due to therefore, finds ample justification not to follow the
non-compliance with the bond requirement. The resolution prescriptive period imposed under Art. 291 of the Labor
became final and executory and a writ of execution was Code. Great injustice will be committed if respondents
issued by the Labor Arbiter upon motion by respondent. claims will be brushed aside on a mere technicality,
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of especially when it was petitioners own action that
Appeals praying for the issuance of a TRO and a writ of prevented respondent from interposing the claims within the
preliminary injunction. The petition was dismissed. required period.

Issue No. 2. YES.Ratio: Article 223 of the Labor Code mandates that in
1: WON the cause of action of respondent has already case of a judgment of the Labor Arbiter involving a
prescribed monetary award, an appeal by the employer to the NLRC
2 :WON the posting of the complete amount of the bond in may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety
an appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
is an indispensable requirement for the perfection of the accredited by the Commission, in the amount equivalent to
appeal despite the filing of a motion to reduce the amount the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. The
of the appeal bond. posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an
appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the
Held: decision of the Labor Arbiter. The filing of the bond is not
1. NO.Ratio: Based on the findings of facts of the Labor only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that
Arbiter, it was petitioner Arts 21which was responsible for must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon
the delay in the institution of the complaint. When the NLRC. Non-compliance therewith renders the decision of
petitioners husband filed his resignation he immediately the Labor Arbiter final and executory. This requirement is
asked for the payment of his money claims. However, the intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the
management of Arts 21 promised him that he would be paid case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor
immediately after the claim of the rank-and-file employees upon the dismissal of the employers appeal. It is intended
had been paid. Jones relied on this representation. to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or
Promissory estoppel may arise from the making of a evade their obligation to satisfy their employees just and
promise, even though without consideration, if it was lawful claims. The failure of petitioners to comply with the
intended that the promise should be relied upon, as in fact it requirement of posting a bond equivalent in amount to the
was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it would virtually monetary award is fatal to their appeal. Section 6 of theNew
sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other Rules of Procedure of the NLRC mandates, among others,
injustice. The principle of promissory estoppel is a that no motion toreduce bond shall be entertained except
recognized exception to the three-year prescriptive period on meritorious grounds and upon theposting of a bond in a
enunciated in Article 291 of the Labor Code. In order to reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a party bears the TheNLRC has full discretion to grant or deny their motion to
burden of establishing the following elements: (1) a promise reduce the amount of the appeal bond. The finding of the
was reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance; NLRC that petitioners did not present sufficient justification
(2) such promise did, in fact, induce such action for the reduction thereof is generally conclusive upon the

24
Court absent a showing that the denial was tainted with bad his right to due process when he was dismissed. Equator
faith. moved for reconsideration but the NLRC denied the motion,
Furthermore, appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere prompting the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
statutoryprivilege. Parties who seek to avail themselves of it of the Rules of Court with the CA. The CA reinstated the LAs
must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Thus, decision dismissing Jonathans complaint. Jonathan filed a
petition was DENIED. motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. He
thereafter filed the present petition.

JONATHAN I. SANG-AN, Petitioner Issues:


Vs. 1. whether the posting of a cash or surety bond is required
EQUATOR KNIGHTS DETECTIVE AND SECURITY for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
AGENCY, INC., Respondent. Rules of Court with the CA; and
G.R. No. 173189, February 13, 2013 2. whether Jonathan was validly dismissed.
Facts:
Jonathan was the Assistant Operation Manager of Held:
respondent Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, 1. No. A cash/surety bond is not needed in a Petition for
Inc. (Equator). He was tasked with the duty of assisting in Certiorari under Rule 65. The requirement of a cash or
the operations of the security services and was in charge of surety bond as provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code
safekeeping Equators firearms. On April 21, 2001, Equator only applies to appeals from the orders of the LA to the
discovered that two firearms were missing from its NLRC. It does not apply to special civil actions such as a
inventory. The investigation revealed that it was Jonathan petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In
who might have been responsible for the loss. On April 24, fact, nowhere under Rule 65 does it state that a bond is
2001, Jonathan was temporarily suspended from work required for the filing of the petition.
pending further investigation. On May 8, 2001, while 2. No. Equator failed to comply with the procedural due
Jonathan was under suspension, a security guard from process. In order to validly dismiss an employee, it is
Equator was apprehended by policemen for violating the fundamental that the employer observe both substantive
Commission on Elections gun ban rule. The security guard and procedural due process the termination of
stated in his affidavit that the unlicensed firearm had been employment must be based on a just or authorized cause
issued to him by Jonathan. On May 24, 2001, Jonathan filed and the dismissal can only be effected, after due notice and
with the NLRC a complaint for illegal suspension with prayer hearing.
for reinstatement. In his position paper, however, he Jonathan was not furnished with any written notice
treated his case as one for illegal dismissal and alleged that that informed him of the acts he committed justifying his
he had been denied due process when he was dismissed. dismissal from employment. The notice of suspension given
On July 30, 2001, the LA rendered a decision to Jonathan only pertained to the first offense, i.e., the loss
declaring that no illegal dismissal took place as Jonathans of Equators firearms under Jonathans watch. With respect
services were terminated pursuant to a just cause. Jonathan to his second offense (i.e., the issuance of an unlicensed
appealed the LAs decision to the NLRC. The NLRC sustained firearm to Equators security guard that became the basis
the findings of the LA that there had been just cause for his for his dismissal), Jonathan was never given any notice that
dismissal. However, it found that Jonathan had been denied allowed him to air his side and to avail of the guaranteed

25
opportunity to be heard. That Equator brought the second On appeal, the appellate court partially granted the
offense before the LA does not serve as notice because by petition and eff ectively reinstated the NLRC resolution
then, Jonathan had already been dismissed. insofar as it suspended the proceedings.

By manifestation, respondent informed the Court that SEC


Garcia vs. PAL issued an Order granting its request to exit from
rehabilitation proceedings.
Facts:
Issue:
Philippine Airlines filed a case against its employees herein
petitioners for being allegedly caught in the act of sniff ing Whether petitioner may collect their wages during the
shabu when a team of company security personnel period between the LAs order of reinstatement
and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Centers pending appeal and the NLRC decision overturning
Toolroom Section. that of the LA, now that PAL has exited from
rehabilitation proceedings.
After due notice, PAL dismissed the petitioner for
Held:
transgressing companys Code of Discipline prompting
them to file a Complaint for illegal dismissal which the Labor 1. A dismissed employee whose case was
Arbiter (LA) in its decision ruled on their favor ordering PAL favorably decided by the LA is entitled to
to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of the receive
decision. wages pending appeal upon reinstatement,
w h i c h i s i m m e d i a t e l y e x e c u t o r y.
Prior to the judgment, SEC placed PAL under Interim
Rehabilitation Receiver which was subsequently 2 . U n l e s s t h e re i s a re s t r a i n i n g o rd e r , i t i s
replaced by Permanent Rehabilitation Receive r. On m i n i s t e r i a l u p o n t h e L A t o i m p l e m e n t t h e o rd e r o f
re i n s t a t e m e n t a n d i t i s mandatory on the employer to
appeal, NLRC reversed said decision and dismissed
comply therewith. The Court reaffirms the prevailing
petitioners complaint for lack of merit. principle that even if the order of reinstatement of the LA is
reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the
Subsequently, LA issued a Writ of Execution employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed
respecting the reinstatement aspect of his decision. employee during the period of appeal until reversal by
the higher court. It settles the view that the LAs order of
Respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Injunction with the reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer
NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the v a l i d i t y o f t h e Wr i t a n d has to either re-admit them to work under the
the Notice issued by L A but suspended and same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
re f e rre d t h e a c t i o n t o t h e Rehabilitation Receiver for their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the
appropriate action. payroll, and that failing to exercise the options in

26
the alternative, employer must pay the due process as she was not given an opportunity to be
employees salaries. heard, Bolando filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
payment of separation pay, overtime pay, holiday pay,
3. However, in this case, there was an inherent constraint
etc., against Abigails and its owner Mary Resurreccion T.
on the part of the employer- PAL to pay petitioners salary
because at that time it was placed under corporate Puno as well as its supervisor Flor Magdaong.
rehabilitation. Respondents failure to exercise the
alternative options of actual reinstatement and In a decision dated November 12, 1998, the Labor
payroll reinstatement was thus justified. According to Arbiter rendered judgment for ordering the respondents
the SC, when reinstatement pending appeal aims to to pay the complaint
avert the continuing threat or danger to the survival or
even the life of the dismissed employee and his family, it
does not contemplate the period when the employer- In a Resolution, the NLRCs Third Division, finding that
corporation itself is similarly in a judicially the required bond was posted three (3) days beyond the
monitored state of being resuscitated in order to 10-day reglementary period for perfecting an appeal,
survive. dismissed petitioners appeal "for failure to perfect the
same within the reglementary period".

MARY ABIGAILS FOOD SERVICES, INC., MARY


ISSUE:
RESURRECCION T. PUNO, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PERLA B.
Whether or not petitioners appeal with the NLRC was
BOLANDO, respondents.
correctly dismissed for failure to perfect the same by not
posting the required bond within the reglementary period
FACTS:
provided for by law.

Sometime in September, 1997, private respondent Perla HELD:


B. Bolando was hired by petitioner Mary Abigails Food
Services, Inc. (Abigails for brevity), to work as a counter- We rule in the affirmative.
girl at its branch at the Rizal Technological College.
Clear it is from the above that an appeal to the NLRC from
Bolando was given a memorandum by management any decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter must have
terminating her services due to excessive tardiness and to be made within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of
falsification of time record. such decision, award or order with proof of payment of the
required appeal bond accompanied by a memorandum of
Contending that her dismissal by reason of tardiness is appeal. And where, as here, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
unjust, harsh and unreasonable, and that she was denied involves a monetary award, the appeal is deemed perfected

27
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond also within Cosmos Bottling Inc v NLRC (2003)
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decision in an
amount equivalent to the monetary award. FACTS:

The posting of a cash or surety bond is a requirement sine Sometime in the months of December, 1992 and January,
qua non for the perfection of an appeal from the labor 1993, Cosmos Bottling Corporation, petitioner, through
arbiters monetary award. Notably, the perfection of an Leonardo Makasili, Personnel Manager, and Manuel Lim,
appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by Comptroller, conducted an investigation of the participation
law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with the of seven (7) salesmen and three (3) checkers assigned at its
requirements therefore is fatal and has the effect of San Pedro Plant, on the reported tampering, falsification and
rendering the judgment sought to be appealed final and alteration of the Load Tally Statement Sheets (LTSS) which
executory. Such requirement cannot be trifled with. deprived petitioner of unremitted sales proceeds in the sum
of P130,000.00.
The court also held that:
During the investigation, respondents denied their
Verily, the belated filing of the appeal bond was justified in participation in the alleged illegal acts and pointed to the
cases where the labor arbiter's decision did not state the guards, assigned to check the deliveries, as the real
exact amount awarded as backwages and overtime pay, or culprits.However, petitioner terminated respondents
the failure to file a bond was considered an excusable employment on the grounds of fraudulent conspiracy and
mistake because the appealing party was misled by the dishonesty.
notice of the decision which, while stating the requirements
for perfecting an appeal, did not mention that a bond must Feeling aggrieved, respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter a
be filed. complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal with prayer
for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, damages
For sure, in Quiambao vs. NLRC, we even ruled that a and attorneys fees.
relaxation of the appeal bond requirement for the perfection
of an appeal "could be justified by substantial compliance On December 27, 1996, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the
with the rule so that on the balance, technical case of the petitioner for failure to establish by substantial
considerations had to give way to considerations of equity evidence on the individual culpability on the alleged
and justice." tampering or alteration. petitioner was ordered to pay them
their separation pay and backwages.
The petition is DISMISSED and the challenged decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. On appeal, the NLRC upheld the decision of the Labor
Arbiters.

28
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on
denied by the NLRC. certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for fact, unless the factual findings being
certiorari alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion by failing to uphold the validity and legality of assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the
respondents termination from employment, which the Court impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of
of Appeals dismissed.
facts.[8] The exceptions were not present here.
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
The lone issue being raised by petitioner does not involve a
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. question of law but merely a question of fact. This is not
cognizable by this Court under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
VARORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., and ARIA MARITIME
whether or not the Court of Appeals seriously erred in CO., LTD., Vs Gil Flores
affirming the assailed Resolutions of the NLRC which upheld
the legality of respondents termination from employment. This case is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set
aside the CA Decision which ordered petitioners Varorient
HELD: Shipping Co., Inc. and Aria Maritime Co., Ltd., jointly and
severally, to pay respondent Gil A. Flores the balance of
sickness wages in the amount of US$3,790.00, or its peso
No. Petition was denied And Sc upheld the decision of the equivalent at the time of actual payment, and to reimburse
CA. his medical and surgical expenses in the total amount
of P15,373.26, instead of P13,579.76.
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are accorded with
respect and finality, particularly if they coincide with those The antecedent facts are as follows:
of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC when supported by
substantial evidence. The reason for this is that quasi- On April 7, 1997, petitioners employed respondent, in behalf
judicial agencies, like the Arbitration Board and the NLRC, of its foreign principal, Aria Maritime Co., Ltd. for the
have acquired a unique expertise because their jurisdictions position of Chief Officer on board M/V Aria, per Contract of
Employment dated April 7, 1997, duly approved by the
are confined to specific matters.[7] Whether or not
POEA, for a period of 12 months, with a total fixed monthly
respondents committed dishonesty and fraudulent salary of US$2,100.00.
conspiracy is indeed a factual question.
On April 16, 1997, during his employment, he was treated
for three days due to the shooting pain on his right foot. On

29
June 19, 1997, he was diagnosed with sciatic neuralgia and of about P40,400.00) as settlement for his sickness wages
declared not fit to work. The doctor recommended his and other benefits, as evidenced by the Receipt and
repatriation to the Philippines for continuing treatment. Quitclaim dated June 25, 1997, executed by respondent; and
that respondent is not entitled to moral and exemplary
On June 21, 1997, respondent was repatriated to the damages and attorney's fees. By way of counterclaim, they
Philippines. When he reported back to work, he was referred sought recovery of litigation expenses, actual damages, and
to the company physician, Dr. John H.E. Cusi who, in turn, attorney's fees in an amount not less than P20,000.00 and,
referred him to Dr. Irene B. Roman-Igual, a neurologist at also, exemplary damages in an amount at the discretion of
Makati Medical Center. Dr. Igual recommended confinement the labor arbiter.
for at least two weeks for P.T. and medications.
On September 7, 1998, Acting Executive Labor Arbiter
In a letter to petitioner Varorient dated July 29, 1997, Flores, Pedro C.Ramos dismissed respondent's complaint for
through his counsel, stated that he was forced to seek permanent and total disability benefits, sickness wages and
medical treatment at his own expense. Flores demanded all other claims and, likewise, petitioners'
that petitioners should provide him medical treatment and counterclaim for damages, for lack of merit.
pay him sickness wages and disability compensation, within
five (5) days from receipt of the letter; otherwise, he would On May 25, 1999, the NLRC rendered a Decision which
be constrained to institute appropriate legal action against reversed and set aside the Decision of the labor arbiter. It
them. ruled that respondent is entitled to sickness wages and to
free medical and hospital treatment for the injury he
On September 19, 1997, respondent filed a Complaint sustained during the term of his contract. The NLRC also
against petitioners. In his Position Paper, respondent sought declared that respondent is entitled to sickness wages
reimbursement of his medical expenses and asserted that equivalent to 120 days in the amount of US$4,800.00, less
petitioners are liable to pay him sickness wages, the amount of US$1,010.00 which he had received, as full
compensatory damages, moral damages, and attorney's settlement of the claim from the petitioners, per Receipt and
fees. However, respondent withdrew his claim for disability Quitclaim dated June 25, 1997, or a net total of
benefits with reservation to re-file a complaint should there US$3,790.00. However, the NLRC denied respondent's claim
be a recurrence of his injury. for compensatory damages, as the contractual benefit of
sickness wages provided for under the Standard Contract is
In their Position Paper, petitioners countered that already a compensatory measure intended to assist the
respondent is not entitled to the benefits arising from his injured seaman during the term of his contract.
alleged permanent and total disability as he was later
declared to be fit to work per Certification dated November Both parties filed their respective Motion for
7, 1997 by Dr. Copernico J. Villaruel, Jr., the attending reconsiderations. The NLRC denied respondent's motion for
orthopedic surgeon at the Philippine General Hospital; that reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 30, 1999 and,
respondent can no longer seek continuation of his medical likewise, petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its
treatment and claim for sickness wages and reimbursement Resolution dated August 18, 1999.
of medical expenses because upon his repatriation, he had
received the amount of US$1,010.00 (or the equivalent then

30
On petition for review by petitioners, the CA affirmed the have voluntarily entered into such a quitclaim. There are
Decision dated May 25, 1999 and the Resolution dated other requisites, to wit: (a) that there was no fraud or deceit
August 18, 1999 of the NLRC. As the CA denied their motion on the part of any of the parties; (b) that the consideration
for reconsideration in the Resolution dated January 29, of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c) that the
2004, the petitioners filed this motion. contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with
Petitioners argue that the Receipt and Quitclaim sufficed to a right recognized by law.
cover the balance of the sickness wages, after deducting the
cash advances, which respondent would be entitled to; while A perusal of the provisions of the Receipt and Quitclaim
respondent questions the veracity of the said document. shows that respondent would be releasing and discharging
petitioners from all claims, demands, causes of action, and
Issue: the like in an all-encompassing manner, including the fact
that he had not contracted or suffered any illness or injury in
Whether or not the Receipt and Quitclaim can be considered the course of his employment and that he was discharged in
substantial compliance to the contractual obligation by good and perfect health. These stipulations clearly placed
petitioners under the standard employment contract respondent in a disadvantageous position vis--vis the
petitioners.
Ruling:
Thus SC denied the petition. The Decision dated February
28, 2003 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2004 of the
The Receipt and Quitclaim executed by respondent lacks the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55512, which affirmed
elements of voluntariness and free will and, therefore, does with modification the Decision dated May 25, 1999 and
not absolve petitioners from liability in paying him the Resolution dated August 18, 1999 of the National Labor
sickness wages and other monetary claims. Relations Commission, are AFFIRMED.

Although respondent avers that his signature on the said


quitclaim was a forgery, the CA relied on the factual findings
of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that gave credence to it.
Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club
In More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC,the Court ruled that Incorporated vs.
the law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive
less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, 395
nor prevent him from demanding benefits to which he is SCRA 699, G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003
entitled. Quitclaims executed by the employees are thus
commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and FACTS:
ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers
legal rights, considering the economic disadvantage of the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)Philippine
employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO) is
necessity. Thus, it is never enough to assert that the parties a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority of

31
the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. It filed a juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally.
petition for certification election before the DOLE Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated vs.
Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No. IV. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, 395 SCRA
699, G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003
Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated
(THIGCI) opposed THEUs petition for certification election As for petitioners allegation that some of the signatures in
on the ground that the list of union members submitted the petition for certification election were obtained through
by it was defective and fatally flawed. Allegedly, it fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the proper
included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a petition for
terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to
well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a corporation intervene in a petition for certification election.
distinct and separate from THIGCI. It was also said that out
of the 192 signatories to the petition, only 71 were actual
rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. THIGCI also alleged that LEONORA A. GESITE, FE LAMOSTE, ADELAIDA
some of the signatures in the list of union members were MACALINDOG, and GUIA C. AGATON, petitioners, vs.
secured through fraudulent and deceitful means. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, and THE SECRETARY OF THE
On the other hand, THEU asserted that it had DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
complied with all the requirements for valid affiliation SPORTS, respondents.
and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor
Facts:
organizations pursuant to DOLE Department Order No. 9,
series of 1997.o Thus, THEU argues that the Med-Arbiter Petitioners are public school teachers of the E. de los Santos
should, pursuant to Article 257 of the Labor Code and Elementary School in Manila who took direct mass actions
Section 11, Rule XI of DOLE Department Order No. 09, related to their grievances by not conducting classes on
automatically order the conduct of a certification election. September 19-21, 1990 despite the return to work order
made by DECS Secretary Isidro Cario. DECS Secretary filed
ISSUE: administrative complaints against them for defying his
Whether or not THEU can represent majority of the rank- return-to-work order. They were charged with grave
and-file employees of THIGCI in certification election. misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of the Civil
Service Law and Regulations, refusal to perform official duty,
HELD: gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, and absence without official leave.
Yes. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not
Despite receipt of notice to file their answer within seventy-
among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is
two (72) hours but not more than five (5) days, petitioners
due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under
failed to do so. Consequently, they were deemed to have
the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of
waived their right to controvert the charges. They were
Article 239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code.
found guilty as charged and ordered dismissed from the
THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of
service. Subsequently, this penalty was reduced to nine (9)
registration, should be considered to have already acquired
months suspension for petitioners Adelaida Macalindong and

32
Guia Agaton and six (6) months suspension for petitioners admitted facts, these mass actions were to all intents and
Leonora Gesite and Fe Lamoste. purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it
Petitioners interposed an appeal to the Merit System was the teachers duty to perform, undertaken for essentially
Protection Board, but it was denied for lack of merit. On economic reasons.
appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the same was
also denied. The CSC imposed upon them the penalty of six
(6) months suspension without pay. Their respective motions It is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and
for reconsideration were denied. Hence, petitioners filed that petitioners purpose was to realize their demands by
with Supreme Court a special civil action for certiorari, which withholding their services. The fact that the conventional
was referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to term strike was not used by the striking employees to
Administrative Circular No. 1-95. The Court of Appeals describe their common course of action is inconsequential,
dismissed petitions for lack of merit and assailed since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance,
Resolutions by Civil Service Commission. Petitioners filed will be deemed to be controlling (Board of Education vs.
petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. New Jersey Education Association (1968) 53 NJ 29, 247 A2d
867). Actually, petitioners here were not charged
Issue: administratively because they engaged in strike. Former
DECS Secretary Isidro Cario filed administrative complaints
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE against them because, as aptly held by the Court of
DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FINDING Appeals, they were absent from classes from September 19-
THEM LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST 21, 1990, in violation of his return-to-work order. Their
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE WHEN THEY ONLY EXERCISED unauthorized absences disrupted classes and prejudiced the
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY TO welfare of the school children.
AIR THEIR GRIEVANCES
Ruling: It is relevant to state at this point that the settled rule in this
jurisdiction is that employees in the public service may not
While petitioners admit their participation in the mass engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts, and other forms of
actions of the public school teachers in September to mid- mass action that will lead in the temporary stoppage or
October, 1990 which temporarily disrupted classes in Metro disruption of public service. The right of government
Manila, they assert, however, that they were not on strike. employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions
Rather, they were merely exercising their Constitutional or associations only, without including the right to strike.
right to peaceably assemble and petition the government Here, petitioners, in joining the mass actions, failed to hold
for redress of their grievances. Thus, they may not be classes to the prejudice of their students. While petitioners
penalized administratively. The issue of whether or not the have the right to assemble peaceably to air their
mass action launched by the public school teachers during grievances, however, they should have exercised such right
the period from September up to the first half of October, in a lawful manner.
1990 was a strike has been decided by this Court in a
resolution, dated December 18, 1990, in the herein cited WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
case of Manila Public School Teachers Association, et al. vs. of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
Laguio, Jr. (G.R. Nos. 95445 & 95590, August 6, 1991, 200
SCRA 323). It was there held that from the pleaded and

33
General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union- No. The CA correctly found that, based on the evidence,
Tupas vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and,
G.R. No. 178647, February 13, 2009 therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor practice. JLBP was a
legitimate, independent contractor and that CCBPI Gen San
Facts: engaged the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies
Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. (CCBPI) created by the freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head
experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Office.
Asian economic crisis, thus to curb the negative effects on
the company, it implemented three (3) waves of an Early The companys action to contract-out the services and
Retirement Program. An inter-office memorandum was also functions performed by Union members did not constitute
issued mandating to put on hold all requests for hiring to unfair labor practice as this was not directed at the
fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in members right to self-organization.
[the] Head Office and in the Plants.
Article 248 of the Labor Code provides:
Faced with the freeze hiring directive, CCBPI Gen San ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS. It shall
engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation (JLBP), a be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following
manning agency. Petitioner then filed with the National unfair labor practices:
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike
on the ground of alleged unfair labor practice committed by xxx
CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by
performed by union members. union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
In a Resolution, the NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of organization;
unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. xxx
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. The CA uphold the NLRCs finding that CCBPI was Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers
not guilty of unfair labor practice. It held that the contract right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the
between CCBPI and JLBP did not amount to labor-only workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a
contracting. It found that JLBP was an independent CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not
contractor and that the decision to contract out jobs was a unfair labor practices. Both the NLRC and the CA found that
valid exercise of management prerogative to meet exigent petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor
circumstances. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari practice. It was the Union that had the burden of adducing
under Rule 45. substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor
practice, which burden it failed to discharge.
Issue:
Whether or not CCBPIs contracting-out of jobs to JLBP
PUREFOODS CORPORATION vs. NAGKAKAISANG
amounted to unfair labor practice.
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PUREFOODS RANK-
Ruling: AND-FILE, ST. THOMAS FREE WORKERS UNION,
PUREFOODS GRANDPARENT FARM WORKERS UNION

34
and PUREFOODS UNIFIED LABOR ORGANIZATION In the meantime, STFWU and PGFWU also submitted their
respective proposals for CBA renewal, and their general
membership resolutions which, among others, affirmed the
G.R. No. 150896 August 28, 2008 two organizations affiliation with PULO. Purefoods refused to
negotiate with the unions should a PULO representative be
FACTS:
in the panel.
Three labor organizations and a federation are respondents
in this caseNagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa Ng
On July 24, 1995, however, the petitioner company
Purefoods Rank-And-File (NAGSAMA-Purefoods), the
concluded a new CBA with another union in its farm in
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of
Malvar, Batangas. Five days thereafter, four company
Purefoods meat division throughout Luzon; St. Thomas Free
employees facilitated the transfer of around 23,000 chickens
Workers Union (STFWU), of those in the farm in Sto. Tomas,
from the poultry farm in Sto. Tomas, Batangas (where
Batangas; and Purefoods Grandparent Farm Workers Union
STFWU was the exclusive bargaining agent) to that in
(PGFWU), of those in the poultry farm in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
Malvar. The following day, the regular rank-and-file workers
These organizations were affiliates of the respondent
in the Sto. Tomas farm were refused entry in the company
federation, Purefoods Unified Labor Organization (PULO).
premises; and on July 31, 1995, 22 STFWU members were
terminated from employment. The farm manager,
On February 8, 1995, NAGSAMA-Purefoods manifested to
supervisors and electrical workers of the Sto. Tomas farm,
petitioner corporation its desire to re-negotiate the
who were members of another union, were nevertheless
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) Together with its
retained by the company in its employ.
demands and proposal, the organization submitted to the
company its General Membership Resolution approving and
Aggrieved, the four respondent labor organizations jointly
supporting the unions affiliation with PULO, it also adopted
instituted a complaint for unfair labor practice (ULP), illegal
the draft CBA proposals of the federation, and authorized a
lockout/dismissal and damages, with the Labor Arbitration
negotiating panel which included among others a PULO
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
representative. Purefoods refused to recognize PULO and its
participation, even as a mere observer, in the negotiation.
In the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter (LA), Purefoods
Consequently, the negotiation of the terms of the CBA
interposed, among others, the defenses that PULO was not a
resulted in a deadlock. A notice of strike was then filed by
legitimate labor organization or federation for it did not have
NAGSAMA-Purefoods on May 15, 1995. In the subsequent
the required minimum number of member unions; that the
conciliation conference, the deadlock issues were settled
closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was not arbitrary but was the
except the matter of the companys recognition of the
result of the financial non-viability of the operations therein,
unions affiliation with PULO.
or the consequence of the landowners pre-termination of
the lease agreement; that the other complainants had no
cause of action considering that it was only the Sto. Tomas

35
farm which was closed; that the termination of the Whether or not the refusal of Purefoods to recognized PULO
employees complied with the 30-day notice requirement as a labor organizations affiliation constituted undue
and that the said employees were paid 30-day advance interference in, and restraint on the exercise of the
salary in addition to separation pay; and that the concerned employees right to self-organization and free collective
union, STFWU, lost its status as bargaining representative bargaining
when the Sto. Tomas farm was closed.
RULING:
LA rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint, and
declaring that the company neither committed ULP nor Yes. The closure of the Sto. Tomas farm was made in bad
illegally dismissed the employees. faith. Badges of bad faith are evident from the following acts
of the petitioner: it unjustifiably refused to recognize the
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the LA, ordered STFWUs and the other unions affiliation with PULO; it
the payment of moral and exemplary damages and the concluded a new CBA with another union in another farm
reinstatement with full backwages of the STFWU member. during the agreed indefinite suspension of the collective
The labor commission ruled that the petitioner companys bargaining negotiations; it surreptitiously transferred and
refusal to recognize the labor organizations affiliation with continued its business in a less hostile environment; and it
PULO was unjustified considering that the latter had been suddenly terminated the STFWU members, but retained and
granted the status of a federation by the Bureau of Labor brought the non-members to the Malvar farm. Petitioner
Relations; and that this refusal constituted undue presented no evidence to support the contention that it was
interference in, and restraint on the exercise of the incurring losses or that the subject farms lease agreement
employees right to self-organization and free collective was pre-terminated. Ineluctably, the closure of the Sto.
bargaining, and that the real motive of the company in the Tomas farm circumvented the labor organizations right to
sudden closure of the Sto. Tomas farm and the mass collective bargaining and violated the members right to
dismissal of the STFWU members was union busting, as only security of tenure. Furthermore, the sudden termination of
the union members were locked out, and the company the STFWU members is tainted with ULP because it was
subsequently resumed operations of the closed farm under done to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
a new contract with the landowner. exercise of their right to self-organization.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner


corporation filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Petitioner company is ordered to: (1) reinstate the illegally
Appeals (CA). However, CA denied petitioners motion for dismissed STFWU members and pay them full backwages
reconsideration. from the time of illegal termination up to actual
reinstatement; (2) if reinstatement is no longer feasible, pay
ISSUE: the illegally dismissed STFWU members their separation pay

36
equivalent to one month pay, or one-half month pay for The med arbiter denied the petition for certification election
every year of service, whichever is higher; and (3) pay on the ground that the bargaining unit is inappropriate.
moral and exemplary damages in the aggregate amount Private respondent appealed to the SOLE and the latter
of P500,000.00 to the said illegally dismissed STFWU reversed the ruling of the med arbiter and ordered two
members. certification elections, one among teaching personnel and
another for non- teaching personnel. Petitioner filed a
HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. HON. petition for certiorari before the CA with prayer for
PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, in her official capacity as Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The
Secretary of the Department of Labor and CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the vice-principals,
Employment, and PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG coordinators and department heads are not managerial nor
ANAKPAWIS HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL supervisory employees. Anent the alleged mixture of
TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (HCCS- teaching and non-teaching personnel, the CA agreed with
TELU-PIGLAS), Respondents. petitioner that the nature of the formers work does not
coincide with that of the latter.
G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same
FACTS was denied. Hence, this petition.

On May 31, 2002, a petition for certification election was ISSUE


filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng
Anakpawis Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Whether or not a petition for certification election is
Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS). In its Comment dismissible on the ground that:
and Position Paper, petitioner raised that the members of 1. the labor organizations membership allegedly
the union are a mixture of managerial, supervisory, and consists of supervisory and rank-and-file
rank-and-file employees as three (3) are vice-principals, one employees
(1) is a department head/supervisor, and eleven (11) are 2. the improper mixture of teaching and non-
coordinators. It is likewise a mixture of teaching and non- teaching personnel due to the absence of
teaching personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord mutuality of interest among its members
with Article 245 of the Labor Code, private respondent is an
illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file a RULING
petition for certification election, as held in Toyota Motor
Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines 1. No. When the issue of the effect of mingling was brought
Corporation Labor Union and in Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), to the fore in Toyota, the Court, citing Article 245 of the
Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment. Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, it was held:

37
Clearly, based on this provision, a labor organization is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-
composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor
is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or Code does not provide for the effects thereof.
purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one,
an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and Thus, the Court held that after a labor organization has been
supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between
petition for certification election for the purpose of collective supervisory and rank-and-file employees in its membership
bargaining. cannot affect its legitimacy for that is not among the
grounds for cancellation of its registration, unless such
In Dunlop, in which the labor organization that filed a mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false
petition for certification election was one for supervisory statement or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
employees, but in which the membership included rank-and-
file employees, the Court reiterated that such labor In San Miguel Corp. (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v.
organization had no legal right to file a certification election Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San Miguel Packaging
to represent a bargaining unit composed of supervisors for Products-San Miguel Corp. Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-
as long as it counted rank-and-file employees among its FFW, the Court explained that since the 1997 Amended
members. Omnibus Rules does not require a local or chapter to provide
a list of its members, it would be improper for the DOLE to
It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification deny recognition to said local or chapter on account of any
election involved in Toyota and Dunlop were filed on question pertaining to its individual members.
November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively;
hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases. More to the point is Air Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of
Labor Relations, the Court therein reiterated its ruling in
But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Tagaytay Highlands that the inclusion in a union of
Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, disqualified employees is not among the grounds for
series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
Then came Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article
Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO in which the 239 of the Labor Code.
core issue was whether mingling affects the legitimacy of a
labor organization and its right to file a petition for All said, while the latest issuance is R.A. No. 9481, the 1997
certification election. This time, given the altered legal Amended Omnibus Rules, as interpreted by the Court in
milieu, the Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop Tagaytay Highlands, San Miguel and Air Philippines, had
and reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there

38
already set the tone for it. Toyota and Dunlop no longer hold Manila Midtown Hotel vs VA Borromeo [G.R. No.
sway in the present altered state of the law and the rules. 138305. September 22, 2004]

2. No. Petitioner appears to have confused the concepts of F: The controversy at bar arose from a complaint filed with
membership in a bargaining unit and membership in a the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator, National Conciliation
union. In emphasizing the phrase "to the exclusion of and Mediation Board (NCMB) by the Manila Midtown Hotel
academic employees" stated in U.P. v. Ferrer-Calleja, Employees Labor Union (MMHELU-NUWHRAIN), respondent
petitioner believed that the petitioning union could not union, against the Manila Midtown Hotel, petitioner,
admit academic employees of the university to its docketed as VA Case No. 026. The complainant prayed for
membership. But such was not the intention of the Supreme the reinstatement of respondent union members concerned
Court. or payment of their separation pay, plus their full
backwages and other privileges and benefits, or their
A bargaining unit is a group of employees sought to be monetary equivalent, considering that they were illegally
represented by a petitioning union. Such employees need dismissed from the service. Said complaint was decided by
not be members of a union seeking the conduct of a the VA in favor of the union members.
certification election. A union certified as an exclusive
bargaining agent represents not only its members but also Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging
other employees who are not union members. that the Labor Arbiter, not the Office of the Voluntary
Arbitrator, has jurisdiction over the case of illegal dismissal.
In the same manner, the teaching and non-teaching Upon its denial, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a
personnel of petitioner school must form separate petition for certiorari, the Appellate Court rendered a
bargaining units. Thus, the order for the conduct of two Decision dismissing the petition. From this decision,
separate certification elections, one involving teaching petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
personnel and the other involving non-teaching personnel. It denied. Petitioner then filed with SC a petition for review on
should be stressed that in the subject petition, private certiorari, a motion for reconsideration but was denied with
respondent union sought the conduct of a certification finality
election among all the rank-and-file personnel of petitioner
school. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in the U.P. The Assailed decision read as follows:
case prohibits us from commingling teaching and non-
teaching personnel in one bargaining unit, they have to be {In due course, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a
separated into two separate bargaining units with two Decision holding that respondent union members
separate certification elections to determine whether the Rowena Cao, Angelita Ignacio, Jesus Viray and
employees in the respective bargaining units desired to be Renato Manaois were illegally dismissed from the
represented by private respondent. service.

39
Further, Management is admonished to be more One final note. Even if we consider petitioners petition for
circumspect in the handling and dealing of its certiorari as an ordinary appeal (petition for review), still the
employees in the future where due process of law is Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Voluntary
mandatory. And that a stern warning is imposed (in Arbitrators Decision of January 18, 1999 which declared that
future controversies) not to settle cases with respondent union members were illegally dismissed from
employees short of the Voluntary Arbitrator Office the service. In fact, records show that petitioner has not
and without its prior knowledge to avoid any questioned the Appellate Courts finding that the termination
complications that may arise thereat in his handling of respondent union members is illegal.
of the controversies brought before him.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Unless the Honorable High Court will resolve that this Decision dated January 18, 1999 and Resolution dated April
Office has no jurisdiction to act on the matter, this 19, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48543
resolution stands and is final and executory.} are hereby AFFIRMED.

Issue: WON VA has jurisdiction over cases of illegal HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.MEDICAL
dismissal? CENTER MANILA, petitioner, vs. HOSPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.MEDICAL CENTER
Held: Yes. Citing Alviado vs. MJG General Merchandize, 1[5] MANILA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW and EDNA R.
we ruled: DE CASTRO, respondents.

The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot FACTS:


be made to depend on the convenience of a party. Such a
definitive judgment is no longer subject to change, revision, Respondent De Castro was a staff nurse at Medical Center
amendment or reversal and the court loses jurisdiction over Manila. Calixijan, HRD Officer of Medical Center Manila
it, except to order its execution. issued a notice of termination upon respondent De Castro
for alleged (1) negligence to follow company policy on what
to do with patient RufinaCausaren who fell from a hospital
Indeed, once a decision or resolution becomes final and
bed; (2) failure to record and refer the incident to the
executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court or tribunal to
physician-on-duty allowing a significant lapse of time before
order its execution. Such order, we repeat, is not
reporting the incident; (3) deliberately instructing the staff
appealable.
to follow her version of the incident in order to cover up the
lapse; and (4) negligence and carelessness in carrying out
her duty as staff nurse-on-duty when the incident happened.

40
Respondent De Castro, with the assistance of Medical Center the Employees Handbook of petitioner hospital, respondent
Manila Employees Association-AFW, filed a Complaint for De Castros infraction is classified as a less serious offense
illegal dismissal against petitioners with prayer for for "commission of negligent acts during working time" as
reinstatement and payment of full backwages without loss set forth in subparagraph 11, paragraph 3 (B) of Chapter
of seniority rights, P20,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00 XI[10] thereof. Petitioners anchor respondent De Castros
exemplary damages, and 10% of the total monetary award termination of employment on the ground of serious
as attorney's fees. misconduct for failure to personally attend to patient
Causaren who fell from the bed as she was trying to reach
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent De Castro, for the bedpan. Based on her evaluation of the situation,
stating that although De Castro committed the act respondent De Castro saw no necessity to record in the
complained of, being her first offense, the penalty to be chart of patient Causarenthe fact that she fell from the bed
meted should not be dismissal from service, but merely 7 to as the patient did not suffer any injury and her vital signs
14 days suspension as the same was classified as a less were normal. She surmised that the incident was not of a
serious offense under the Employee's Handbook. magnitude that would require medical intervention as even
the patient and her niece did not press charges against her
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, stating
by reason of the subject incident.
that respondent De Castro lacked diligence and prudence in
carrying out her duty when, instead of personally checking Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both
on the condition of patient Causaren after she fell from the gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care
bed, she merely sent ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to do in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies
the same in her behalf and for influencing her staff to repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
conceal the incident. depending upon the circumstances. A single or isolated act
of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the
The CA reversed the NLRC's ruling and reinstated the Labor
dismissal of the employee.
Arbiter's ruling.
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the illegal
of care that a reasonably prudent person would have
dismissal of respondent De Castro.
exercised in a similar situation. The Court emphasizes that
HELD: The petition is unmeritorious. the nature of the business of a hospital requires a higher
degree of caution and exacting standard of diligence in
LABOR LAW - Illegal dismissals; negligence patient management and health care as what is involved are
lives of patients who seek urgent medical assistance. An act
Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer or omission that falls short of the required degree of care
may terminate an employment for gross and habitual and diligence amounts to serious misconduct which
neglect by the employee of his duties. The CA ruled that per constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissal.

41
However, in some cases, the Court had ruled that purpose loan. Thereafter, petitioner issued a no negative
sanctioning an erring employee with suspension would data bank policy for the implementation/availment of the
suffice as the extreme penalty of dismissal would be too manpower loans which the respondent objected to, thus,
harsh. Considering that this was the first offense of resulting into labor-management dialogues. BPI argues that
respondent De Castro in her nine (9) years of employment the NDB requirement is an accepted practice in the banking
with petitioner hospital as a staff nurse without any previous industry and recognized by the BSP. The union opposed the
derogatory record and, further, as her lapse was not requirement since it was not included in the CBA
characterized by any wrongful motive or deceitful conduct,
the Court deems it appropriate that, instead of the harsh Issue:
penalty of dismissal, she would be suspended for a period of
Whether or not the subsequent requirement of NDB for
six (6) months without pay, inclusive of the suspension for a
availment of loans valid?
period of 14 days which she had earlier served. Thereafter,
petitioner hospital should reinstate respondent Edna R. De Ruling:
Castro to her former position without loss of seniority rights,
full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, No. The NDB was not part of the agreement of the CBA. The
or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration CBA contains all agreements of the parties and must be
of her suspension of six (6) months up to the time of actual followed by all parties. The agreement must prevail; to
reinstatement. include such policy after the effectivity of the CBA is
deceptive and goes beyond the original agreement between
Petition is DENIED. the contracting parties. Article 1702 of the New Civil Code
provides that, in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Bank of the labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and
Philippine Island Employees Union-Metro Manila, 678 decent living of the laborer. Thus, this Court has ruled that
SCRA 674, G.R. No. 175678 August 22, 2012 any doubt or ambiguity in the contract between
management and the union members should be resolved in
Facts:
favor of the latter.
Bank of the Philippine Islands Employees Union-Metro Manila
The CBA in this case contains no provision on the no
(BPIEU-MM), a legitimate labor organization and the sole and
negative data bank policy as a prerequisite in the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-
entitlement of the benefits it set forth for the employees.
and-file employees of petitioner BPI in Metro Manila and
Although it can be said that BPI is authorized to issue rules
petitioner BPI have an existing Collective Bargaining
and regulations pertinent to the availment and
Agreement (CBA),3 which took effect on April 1, 2001. Under
administration of the loans under the CBA, the additional
the CBA, BPI offers several loan benefits to its employees
rules and regulations, however, must not impose new
such Housing Loan, Car Loan, Emergency Loan, and Multi-
conditions which are not contemplated in the CBA and

42
should be within the realm of reasonableness. It must be submitted on May 16, 1995 her Answer to the
remembered that negotiations between an employer and a memorandum.
union transpire before they agree on the terms and
conditions contained in the CBA. If the petitioner, indeed,
intended to include a no negative data bank policy in the Respondents terminated the services of petitioner effective
CBA, it should have presented such proposal to the union June 15, 1995. Waiving her right to resolve her case
during the negotiations.
through the grievance machinery, petitioner filed a
This Court also notes petitioners argument that the no complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents
negative data bank policy is intended to exact a high
before the National Labor Relations Commission, which
standard of conduct from its employees. However, the terms
and conditions of the CBA must prevail. Petitioner can referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation
propose the inclusion of the said policy upon the expiration Board. By Submission Agreement dated June 20, 1995
of the CBA, during the negotiations for a new CBA, but in the signed by their respective counsels, both parties agreed to
meantime, it has to honor the provisions of the existing CBA.
submit for voluntary arbitration the dispute. The voluntary
MARILOU GUANZON APALISOK arbitrator subsequently ruled for the petitioner and rendered
vs.
an Award in her favor. Respondents moved for
RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK RADIO STATION DYKC
and STATION MANAGER GEORGE SUAZO reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, respondents filed
G.R. No. 138094 May 29, 2003 a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court but it was
FACTS: referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
nullified and set aside the voluntary arbitration award on the
On May 15, 1995, petitioner Marilou Gaunzon Apalisok, then
ground of lack of jurisdiction. It held that the option of
Production Chief of Radio Philippines Network (RPN) Station
petitioner not to subject the dispute to the grievance
DYKC, received a Memorandum from Branches Operations
machinery provided for in the CBA was tantamount
Manager Gilito Datoc asking her to submit a written
to relinquishing her right to avail of the aid of a voluntary
explanation why no disciplinary action should be taken
arbitrator in settling the dispute which "likewise converted
against her for performance of acts hostile to RPN, and
an unresolved grievance into a resolved one." Petitioner
arrogant, disrespectful and defiant behavior towards her
moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this
superior Station Manager George Suazo. Petitioner
petition for review.

43
ISSUE: vote, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting. Unless the
Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator had jurisdiction over NCMB is notified of the date, place and time of the meeting
petitioner's complaint. of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote, the
NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the
RULING: same, if and when it decides to exercise its power of
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Voluntary supervision.

Arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties' controversy. The A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending
Supreme Court set aside the Decision of the Court of dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of strike.
Thereafter, the NCMB, through its conciliator-mediators,
Appeals as Article 262 of the Labor Code provides that upon
shall call the parties to a conference at the soonest possible
agreement of the parties, the voluntary arbitrator can hear time in order to actively assist them in exploring all
and decide all other labor disputes. According to the Court, possibilities for amicable settlement. In the event of the
contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, voluntary failure in the conciliation/mediation proceedings, the parties
shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary
arbitration as a mode of settling the dispute was not forced arbitration. However, if the parties refuse, the union may
upon respondents. Both parties indeed agreed to submit the hold a strike vote, and if the requisite number of votes is
issue of the validity of the dismissal of petitioner to the obtained, a strike may ensue. The purpose of the strike vote
is to ensure that the decision to strike broadly rests with the
jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator by the Submission
majority of the union members in general and not with a
Agreement duly signed by their respective counsels. mere minority, and at the same time, discourage wildcat
strikes, union bossism and even corruption. A strike vote
report submitted to the NCMB at least seven days prior to
the intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was,
Capitol Medical Center, Inc. vs. NLRC (GR No. 147080, indeed, taken. In the event that the report is false, the
April 26, 2005) seven-day period affords the members an opportunity to
take the appropriate remedy before it is too late. The 15 to
Facts: BBB Union failed to comply with the 24-hour prior 30 day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties
notice requirement to the NCMB before it conducted strike the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the
vote meeting. assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator, while the
seven-day strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an
Issue: WON the strike conducted was illegal. opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really
carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union
Ruling: A union intending to stage a strike is mandated to
members.
notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike

44
The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP) is a labor
vote to the NCMB at least 24 hours before the meeting for union of rank and file employees in PLDT.
the said purpose is designed to (a) inform the NCMB of the The members of respondent union learned that a
redundancy program would be implemented by the
intent of the union to conduct a strike vote; (b) give the
petitioner. Thereupon it filed a Notice of Strike with the
NCMB ample time to decide on whether or not there is a National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on 04
need to supervise the conduct of the strike vote to prevent November 2002. The Notice fundamentally contained the
any acts of violence and/or irregularities attendant thereto; following:
and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, to wit:
the request of an interested party including the employer, to 1. PLDTs abolition of the Provisioning Support Division, in
supervise the strike vote, to give it ample time to prepare violation of the duty to
bargain collectively with MKP in good faith.
for the deployment of the requisite personnel, including
2. PLDTs unreasonable refusal to honor its commitment
peace officers if need be. Unless and until the NCMB is before this Honorable Office that it will provide MKP its
notified at least 24 hours of the unions decision to conduct a comprehensive plan/s with respect to personnel
strike vote, and the date, place, and time thereof, the NCMB downsizing/reorganization and closure of exchanges. Such
cannot determine for itself whether to supervise a strike refusal violates its duty to bargain collectively with MKP in
vote meeting or not and insure its peaceful and regular good faith.
conduct. The failure of a union to comply with the 3. PLDTs continued hiring of contractual, temporary,
project and casual employees for regular jobs performed
requirement of the giving of notice to the NCMB at least 24
by union members, resulting in the decimation of the union
hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will membership and in the denial of the right to self-
render the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal. organization to the concerned employees.
4. PLDTs gross violation of the legal and CBA provisions on
No labor organization shall declare a strike unless supported overtime work and compensation.
by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by 5. PLDTs gross violation of the CBA provisions on
secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The promotions and job grade re-evaluation or reclassification.
requirement is mandatory and the failure of a union to On 11 November 2002, another Notice of Strike was filed by
comply therewith renders the strike illegal. the private respondent, which contained the following:
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, to wit: PLDTs alleged
restructuring of its GMM Operation Services.
A number of conciliation meetings, conducted by the NCMB,
PLDT CO. INC., v. MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON National Capital Region, were held between the parties.
SA PILIPINAS However, these efforts proved futile. On 23 December 2002,
G.R. No. 162783, July 14, 2005 the private respondent staged a strike. On 31 December
FACTS: 2002, three hundred eighty three (383) union members
Petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. were terminated from service pursuant to PLDTs
(PLDT) is a domestic corporation engaged in the redundancy program.
telecommunications business.Private respondent, On 02 January 2003, the Secretary, Patricia Sto. Tomas,
issued an Order in NCMB- NCR-NS-11-405-02 and NCMB-

45
NCR-NS-11-412-02. Portions of the Order are reproduced Undoubtedly, on 22 December 2002, the members of the
hereunder: private respondent who were dismissed due to alleged
redundancy were still employed by the petitioner and
xxx Accordingly, the strike staged by the Union is hereby holding their respective positions. This is the status quo that
enjoined. All striking workers must be maintained.
are hereby directed to return to work within twenty four (24)
hours from receipt of this REYNALDO Q. AGULLANO vs CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING
Order, except those who were terminated due to and CATALINA LEONEN PIZARRO
redundancy. The employer is hereby G.R. No. 164850
enjoined to accept the striking workers under the same FACTS:
terms and conditions prevailing
prior to the strike. The parties are likewise directed to cease On February 15, 1999, respondent Christian Publishing, a
and desist from committing single proprietorship engaged in the business of publishing
any act that might worsen the situation. xxx
books and printing in general, and owned by Catalina
ISSUE: WHETHER THE SUBJECT ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY Leonen Pizarro, hired petitioner Reynaldo Q. Agullano as
OF THE DOLE EXCLUDING FROM THE RETURN-TO-WORK printing manager, with a monthly salary of P11,000.00. It
ORDER THE WORKERS DISMISSED DUE TO THE was part of petitioners duties to meet with prospective
REDUNDANCY PROGRAM OF PETITIONER, ARE VALID OR clients and to attend meetings of printing organizations. On
NOT. March 30, 2000, petitioner failed to attend a pre-bidding
RULING:
meeting at the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
Assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute, or as in this
case the certification of the same to the NLRC for (DECS) over certain DECS projects to which respondent had
compulsory arbitration, always co-exists with an order for pre-qualified. On the same day, petitioner also missed the
workers to return to work immediately and for employers to general membership meeting of the Printing Industries
readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions Association of the Philippines (PIAP). HR Department thru
prevailing before the strike or lockout. Ms. Venus F. Barnuevo, sent to petitioner a memorandum
Time and again, this Court has held that when an official requiring Agullano to explain within 24 hours upon receiving
bypasses the law on the asserted ground of attaining a
the memo on his absence to attend the DECS Meeting and
laudable objective, the same will not be maintained if the
intendment or purpose of the law would be defeated. PIAP General Membership meeting. On the same day,
One last piece, records would show that the strike occurred petitioner submitted his explanation through a letter,
on 23 December 2002. Article 263(g) directs that the wherein he apologized to respondent saying that he forgot
employer must readmit all workers under the same terms about these engagements. Petitioner explained that he
and conditions prevailing before the strike. Since the strike arrived at the office in short pants and had to return home
was held on the aforementioned date, then the condition to change his attire, but that there was an on-going
prevailing before it, which was the condition present on 22
transport strike which caused his inability to keep the
December 2002, must be maintained.
appointments. HR Coordinator sent a memorandum to
petitioner regarding his habitual tardiness and absences

46
despite several warnings, which led to petitioners first written notice requirement. Albeit this memorandum
termination from employment. required the petitioner to explain his absence in those two
important meetings, there was clearly no intimation that the
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC for petitioner would be terminated from employment for this
illegal dismissal and damages. singular offense.

ISSUE: Second, there was no hearing or conference called by the


respondent at which petitioner could have presented his
Whether or not, petitioner was illegally dismissed?
defenses. The absence of a hearing or conference likewise
vitiates the July 25, 2000 memorandum.

HELD Third, if the July 25, 2000 memorandum is to be


considered the first notice, it would suffer from patent
Yes. infirmities, and not just from the lack of a hearing or
conference. It does not grant the petitioner an opportunity
Dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of to answer the charges of absenteeism and tardiness; it does
dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, not give him time to seek the assistance of counsel; and
second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which most tellingly, it was to be followed the very next day with
constitutes procedural due process. the notice of termination, effective immediately.

Clearly, petitioners unexplained absences and tardiness The respondents lamely proffer the hypothesis that there
constitute habitual and gross neglect of duties. Ostensibly, was substantial compliance with the twin notice and hearing
there was compliance by respondent with the first facet of a requirement. Unfortunately, the records are bereft of any
valid dismissal as there appears a just cause therefor. proof of compliance, much less substantial compliance.
However, on the second requisite, i.e., procedural due
process, we find the respondents compliance with the twin In sum, we hold that the dismissal of petitioner from
notice requirement sadly wanting and inadequate. employment was attended by a violation, by the
respondents, of procedural due process.
A careful examination of the disciplinary procedure adopted
by the respondent which led to the dismissal of petitioner HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.MEDICAL
shows that the respondent merely paid lip service to the CENTER MANILA, petitioner, vs. HOSPITAL
procedural due process requirement. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.MEDICAL CENTER
MANILA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW and EDNA R.
First, the March 31, 2000 memorandum of respondent
DE CASTRO, respondents.
issued to the petitioner, after the latter failed to attend the
DECS and the PIAP meetings, obviously did not satisfy the FACTS:

47
The CA reversed the NLRC's ruling and reinstated the Labor
Arbiter's ruling.
Respondent De Castro was a staff nurse at Medical Center
Manila. Calixijan, HRD Officer of Medical Center Manila ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the illegal
issued a notice of termination upon respondent De Castro dismissal of respondent De Castro.
for alleged (1) negligence to follow company policy on what
to do with patient RufinaCausaren who fell from a hospital
bed; (2) failure to record and refer the incident to the
HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.
physician-on-duty allowing a significant lapse of time before
reporting the incident; (3) deliberately instructing the staff LABOR LAW - Illegal dismissals; negligence
to follow her version of the incident in order to cover up the
lapse; and (4) negligence and carelessness in carrying out Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer
her duty as staff nurse-on-duty when the incident happened. may terminate an employment for gross and habitual
neglect by the employee of his duties. The CA ruled that per
Respondent De Castro, with the assistance of Medical Center the Employees Handbook of petitioner hospital, respondent
Manila Employees Association-AFW, filed a Complaint for De Castros infraction is classified as a less serious offense
illegal dismissal against petitioners with prayer for for "commission of negligent acts during working time" as
reinstatement and payment of full backwages without loss set forth in subparagraph 11, paragraph 3 (B) of Chapter
of seniority rights, P20,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00 XI[10] thereof. Petitioners anchor respondent De Castros
exemplary damages, and 10% of the total monetary award termination of employment on the ground of serious
as attorney's fees. misconduct for failure to personally attend to patient
Causaren who fell from the bed as she was trying to reach
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent De Castro,
for the bedpan. Based on her evaluation of the situation,
stating that although De Castro committed the act
respondent De Castro saw no necessity to record in the
complained of, being her first offense, the penalty to be
chart of patient Causarenthe fact that she fell from the bed
meted should not be dismissal from service, but merely 7 to
as the patient did not suffer any injury and her vital signs
14 days suspension as the same was classified as a less
were normal. She surmised that the incident was not of a
serious offense under the Employee's Handbook.
magnitude that would require medical intervention as even
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, stating the patient and her niece did not press charges against her
that respondent De Castro lacked diligence and prudence in by reason of the subject incident.
carrying out her duty when, instead of personally checking
on the condition of patient Causaren after she fell from the
bed, she merely sent ward-clerk orientee Guillergan to do Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both
the same in her behalf and for influencing her staff to gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care
conceal the incident.

48
in the performance of one's duties. Habitual neglect implies Petition is DENIED.
repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time,
depending upon the circumstances. A single or isolated act
of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the
dismissal of the employee. ATLAS FARMS, INC., vs.
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard
of care that a reasonably prudent person would have NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JAIME O.
exercised in a similar situation. The Court emphasizes that DELA PEA and MARCIAL I. ABION
the nature of the business of a hospital requires a higher
degree of caution and exacting standard of diligence in
patient management and health care as what is involved are
Facts:
lives of patients who seek urgent medical assistance. An act
or omission that falls short of the required degree of care Private respondent Jaime O. Dela Pea was re-hired by
and diligence amounts to serious misconduct which petitioner and given the additional job of feedmill operator.
constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissal. Pea was allegedly caught urinating in the company premises
not intended for that purpose. The farm manager issued a
However, in some cases, the Court had ruled that
formal notice directing him to explain why disciplinary
sanctioning an erring employee with suspension would
action should not be taken against him for violating
suffice as the extreme penalty of dismissal would be too
company rules and regulations. Pea refused to accept such
harsh. Considering that this was the first offense of
notice, and he never bothered to explain his side. Thus, a
respondent De Castro in her nine (9) years of employment
notice of termination with payment of his monetary benefits
with petitioner hospital as a staff nurse without any previous
was sent to him. He duly acknowledged receipt of his
derogatory record and, further, as her lapse was not
separation pay.
characterized by any wrongful motive or deceitful conduct,
the Court deems it appropriate that, instead of the harsh Co-respondent Marcial I. Abion was a carpenter/ mason and
penalty of dismissal, she would be suspended for a period of a maintenance man, he caused the clogging of the drainage
six (6) months without pay, inclusive of the suspension for a which cause damages worth several hundred of thousands
period of 14 days which she had earlier served. Thereafter, pesos. Petitioner sent a written notice to Abion, requiring
petitioner hospital should reinstate respondent Edna R. De him to explain what happened, otherwise, disciplinary action
Castro to her former position without loss of seniority rights, would be taken against him. According to the petitioner, he
full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, refused to give written explanation and receive notice.
or their monetary equivalent, computed from the expiration Consequently, the company terminated his services.
of her suspension of six (6) months up to the time of actual
reinstatement.

49
Thus respondents filed a case of Illegal Dismissal, however, (1) whether private respondents were legally and validly
the Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaints on the ground dismissed; and (2) whether the labor arbiter and the NLRC
the grievance machinery in the CBA has not yet been had jurisdiction to decide complaints for illegal dismissal.
exhausted. Then, the private respondents re-filed their case
in the NLRC because the petitioners lack of sympathy to Held:
engage in conciliation proceedings.
(1) No, the private respondents were neither legally nor
Their cases were consolidated in the NLRC. At the initial validly dismissed. The first issue primarily involves questions
mandatory conference, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, of fact, which can serve as basis for the conclusion that
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging private private respondents were legally and validly dismissed. The
respondents themselves admitted that they were members burden of proving that the dismissal of private respondents
of the employees union with which petitioner had an was legal and valid falls upon petitioner. The NLRC found
existing CBA. This being the case, according to petitioner, that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that both
jurisdiction over the case belonged to the grievance private respondents committed certain acts that violated
machinery and thereafter the voluntary arbitrator, as company rules and regulations,[11] hence we find no factual
provided in the CBA. basis to say that private respondents dismissal was in
order. We see no compelling reason to deviate from the
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit NLRC ruling that their dismissal was illegal, absent a
finding that the case is one of illegal dismissal and did not showing that it reached its conclusion arbitrarily.
involve the interpretation or implementation of any CBA [12]
Moreover, factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-
provision. Further, the labor arbiter found that although both judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even
complainants did not substantiate their claims of illegal finality, aside from the consideration here that this Court is
dismissal, there was proof that private respondents not a trier of facts.
voluntarily accepted their separation pay and petitioners
financial assistance. (2) Yes, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction to
decide complaints for illegal dismissal. Anent the second
Thus, private respondents brought the case to the NLRC issue, Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that labor
which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Dissatisfied arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
with the decision the petitioner went to the CA by way of termination disputes. A possible exception is provided in
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65. Article 261 of the Labor Code, which provides that-

Hence, the petition. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators


shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
Issue: decide all unresolved grievances arising from the

50
interpretation or implementation of the Collective Over Termination Cases and Providing Guidelines for the
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the Referral of Said Cases Originally Filed with the NLRC to the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies NCMB, termination cases arising in or resulting from the
referred to in the immediately preceding interpretation and implementation of collective bargaining
article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining agreements and interpretation and enforcement of company
Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall personnel policies which were initially processed at the
no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be various steps of the plant-level Grievance Procedures under
resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining the parties collective bargaining agreements fall within the
Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and or pursuant to Art. 217 (c) and Art. 261 of the Labor Code; and,
malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of if filed before the Labor Arbiter, these cases shall be
such agreement. dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction and
referred to the concerned NCMB Regional Branch for
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional appropriate action towards an expeditious selection by the
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall parties of a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators based
not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under the on the procedures agreed upon in the CBA.
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately As earlier stated, the instant case is a termination dispute
dispose and refer the same to the grievance Machinery or falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Labor Arbiter, and does not specifically involve the
application, implementation or enforcement of company
But as held in Vivero vs. CA,[14] petitioner cannot arrogate personnel policies contemplated in Policy Instruction No.
into the powers of Voluntary Arbitrators the original and 56. Consequently, Policy Instruction No. 56 does not apply in
exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters over unfair labor the case at bar.
practices, termination disputes, and claims for damages, in
the absence of an express agreement between the parties in JAIME D. VIERNES, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
order for Article 262 of the Labor Code [Jurisdiction over COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), and BENGUET
other labor disputes] to apply in the case at bar. ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (BENECO)

Moreover, per Justice Bellosillo: FACTS:

It may be observed that under Policy Instruction No. 56 of JaimeD. Biernes and Fifteen (15) in all consolidated cases
the Secretary of Labor, dated 6 April 1993, Clarifying the for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and claim for
Jurisdiction Between Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor Arbiters indemnity pay against a common respondent, the Benguet

51
Electric Cooperative, Inc., (BENECO for short) represented . Whether the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of
by its Acting General Manager, Gerardo P. Versoza. discretion in ordering the reinstatement of petitioners to
their former position as meter readers on probationary
Complainants services as meter readers were contracted for status in spite of its finding that they are regular employees
hardly a months duration, or from October 8 to 31, under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
1990. Their employment contracts, couched in identical
terms, read: Whether the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in limiting the backwages of petitioners to one
The said term notwithstanding, the complainants were year only in spite of its finding that they were illegally
allowed to work beyond October 31, 1990, or until January dismissed, which is contrary to the mandate of full
2, 1991. On January 3, 1991, they were each served their backwages until actual reinstatement but not to exceed
identical notices of termination dated December 29, three years.
1990. The same read:
RULING:
Please be informed that effective at the close of office hours
of December 31, 1990, your services with the BENECO will No. The supreme court said that there are two separate
be terminated. Your termination has nothing to do with your instances whereby it can be determined that an
performance. Rather, it is because we have to retrench on employment is regular: (1) The particular activity performed
personnel as we are already overstaffed. by the employee is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; or (2) if the employee
On the same date, the complainants filed separate has been performing the job for at least a year.
complaints for illegal dismissal. And following the
amendment of said complaints, they submitted their joint Herein petitioners fall under the first category. They
position paper on April 4, 1991. Respondent filed its position were engaged to perform activities that are necessary to the
paper on April 2, 1991. usual business of private respondent. We agree with the
labor arbiters pronouncement that the job of a meter reader
It is the contention of the complainants that they were not is necessary to the business of private respondent because
apprentices but regular employees whose services were unless a meter reader records the electric consumption of
illegally and unjustly terminated in a manner that was the subscribing public, there could not be a valid basis for
whimsical and capricious. On the other hand, the billing the customers of private respondent. The fact that
respondent invokes Article 283 of the Labor Code in defense the petitioners were allowed to continue working after the
of the questioned dismissal expiration of their employment contract is evidence of the
necessity and desirability of their service to private
ISSUES: respondents business. In addition, during the preliminary

52
hearing of the case on February 4, 1991, private respondent
even offered to enter into another temporary employment On March 14, 2003, QGSIA hired petitioner as a security
contract with petitioners. This only proves private guard and gave him various assignments, the last of which
was at the West Burnham Place Condominium in Baguio
respondents need for the services of herein petitioners. With
City. On September 28, 2010, the deputy manager of QGSIA,
the continuation of their employment beyond the original Rhegan Basabica, visited petitioner at his post and told the
term, petitioners have become full-fledged regular latter that he would be placed on a floating status, but was
employees. The fact alone that petitioners have rendered assured that he would be given a new assignment. At the
service for a period of less than six months does not make same time, petitioner was ordered to report to the QGSIA
their employment status as probationary. Office the next day for further instructions. Despite such
assurance and his repeated trips for follow up to the QGSIA
Office, petitioner was not given any new assignment as
Since petitioners are already regular employees at the time
there was allegedly no vacancy yet. [6] Hence, he remained
of their illegal dismissal from employment, they are entitled on floating status.
to be reinstated to their former position as regular
employees, not merely probationary. On November 11, 2010, petitioner filed a complaint for
money claims such as wages, overtime pay, premium pay
As to the second issue, Article 279 of the Labor Code, as for holidays and rest days, night shift differentials,
13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay against
amended by R.A. No. 6715, which took effect on March 21,
respondents before the NLRC (First Complaint).However, the
1989, provides that an illegally dismissed employee is parties were able to amicably settle the controversy, as
entitled to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to evidenced by a Waiver/Quitclaim and Release dated
his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed February 3, 2011, which provides, among others, that
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up petitioner is withdrawing his complaint against respondents
to the time of his actual reinstatement. Since petitioners and that he received a total of P10,000.00 from respondents
were employed on October 8, 1990, the amended provisions "for and [in] consideration of the settlement of all
[petitioner's] claims which might have arisen as
of Article 279 of the Labor Code shall apply to the present
consequence of [petitioner's] employment." On even date,
case. Hence, it was patently erroneous, tantamount to grave the Labor Arbiter (LA) issued an Order approving and
abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in granting the amicable settlement and ordering the dismissal
limiting to one year the backwages awarded to petitioners. of the First Complaint with prejudice.

However, on September 14, 2011, petitioner filed another


complaint, this time, for illegal dismissal with prayer for
RAFAEL B. QUILLOPA, PETITIONER, VS. QUALITY
payment of full backwages, separation pay, and attorney's
GUARDS SERVICES AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND
fees, against respondents before the NLRC. ] In his Position
ISMAEL BASABICA, JR., RESPONDENTS.
Paper, petitioner alleged that after the settlement of the
First Complaint, he waited for a new posting or assignment,
FACTS: but to no avail. In this relation, petitioner contended that
respondents' continued failure to reinstate him to his

53
previous assignment or to give him a new one should be prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where
construed as a termination of his employment, considering his service, as security guard, will be most beneficial to the
that he had been on floating status for almost one (1) year. client. Temporary off-detail or the period of time
security guards are made to wait until they are
ISSUE: transferred or assigned to a new post or client does
not constitute constructive dismissal, so long as such
I. Whether or not the Security Guards floating status status does not continue beyond six months.
constitutes constructively dismissal. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MR. NAPOLEON L.
NAZARENO, AND MR. RICKY P. ISLA, Petitioners, v. JOSE
HELD:
LENI Z. SOLIDUM, Respondent.
Yes, the Security Guard was constructively dismissed.
Facts:
To clarify, placing a security guard in temporary "off-detail"
or "floating status" is part of management prerogative of the Solidum was dismissed for dishonesty-related offenses. The
employer-security agency and does not, per se, constitute a Labor Arbiter ruled that he was illegally dismissed and
severance of the employer-employee relationship. However, thereby entitled to reinstatement and full back wages.
being an exercise of management prerogative, it must be Solidum received the copy of LAs decision on July 13, 2006.
exercised in good faith - that is, one which is intended for Smart appealed before the NLRC. While appeal was pending,
the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the
the LA issued writs of execution covering the period of July
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the
employees under special laws or under valid agreements. 21, 2006 to January 22, 2009 for the collection of Solidums
Moreover, due to the grim economic consequences to the the accrued salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and
security guard in which he does not receive any salary while bonuses.
in temporary "off-detail" or "floating status," the employer-
security agency should bear the burden of proving that In January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the LAs decision.
there are no posts available to which the security guard Solidum filed a motion for reconsideration.
temporarily out of work can be assigned. Furthermore, the
security guard must not remain in such status for a period of While waiting for the NLRC resolution, on May 4, 2009,
more than six (6) months; otherwise, he is deemed Solidum filed before the LA an ex parte motion for a writ of
terminated. The Court's ruling in Nationwide Security and
execution to be issued ordering the sheriff to collect from
Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama is instructive on this
matter, to wit: Smart his salaries, etc. which accrued from January 21, 2009
to April 20, 2009. The LA, however, denied the issuance of
In cases involving security guards, a relief and transfer order writ of execution on the ground that the NLRC has reversed
in itself does not sever employment relationship between a its decision, so that Solidum is no longer entitled to his claim
security guard and his agency. An employee has the right to of reinstatement when the NLRC decision was rendered.
security of tenure, but this does not give him a vested right
to his position as would deprive the company of its

54
In May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidums motion for card or certification from the post office, the finality of the
reconsideration. Copy of the decision was mailed to Solidum decision shall be determined by the Clerk of Court by giving
on July 11, 2009. In its entry of judgment, it was confirmed 60 calendar days from the mailing of the decision.
that the NLRC May 29, 2009 resolution has become final and
executory on August 10, 2009. Here, it appears that there was no return card or
certification or it was delayed after the copy of the decision
Issue 1: W/N the Labor Arbiter is correct in denying the was mailed on June 11, 2009. Hence, an allowance of 60
issuance of writ of execution calendar days was given for the delay making it final and
executory only on August 10, 2009.
No. The Labor Arbiter should have issued the writ of
execution because its reinstatement order was still JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM vs. SMART COMMUNICATIONS,
enforceable for the period of January 21 to April 20, 2009. INC.

It is a well-settled jurisprudential rule that employees are G.R. No. 197836.December 7, 2015
entitled to their accrued salaries, allowances, benefits,
incentives and bonuses until the NLRCs reversal of the FACTS:
labor arbiters order of reinstatement becomes final and
executory. Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) hired Jose Leni Solidum
(Solidum) as Department Head of Smart Prepaid/Buddy
Here, the NLRCs May 29, 2009 resolution on Solidums Activations under the Product Marketing Group. Existing
motion for reconsideration became final on August 10, 2009, company procedures provide that a department head shall
as shown in the entry of judgment. Hence, Solidum is approve project proposals coming from his marketing
entitled to his reinstatement salaries and benefits which assistants and product managers/officers. Once approved, a
started from July 13, 2006 and until August 10, 2009. finance officer will assign a reference number to the project
with a stated budget allocation. If the Company decides to
Issue 2: W/N August 10, 2009 is the true date of finality of engage the services of a duly accredited creative agency,
the department head will coordinate with it to discuss the
the May 29, 2009 decision
details of the project. The implementation details and total
amount of the project will then be included in a Cost
Yes. Since the Entry of Judgment confirms that August 10,
Estimate (CE) submitted to the Company, routed for
2009 is the date of finality of the NLRC decision promulgated approval, and returned to the selected agency for
on May 29, 2009, then it is so. implementation. After the project is carried out, the agency
will bill the Company by sending the CE with attached
As a general rule under Sec 14 of the 2002 New Rules of invoices and other supporting documents.
NLRC Procedure, decisions of the NLRC shall become final
after 10 days from the receipt of the decision by the parties. Solidum received a Notice to Explain of even date from the
But when there is delay as shown by the absence of return Company charging him with acts of dishonesty and breach
of trust and confidence. In summary, he was charged with

55
violating various company policies by misrepresenting and continued presence in the company premises during the
using his position and influence in his grant plot to defraud investigation poses serious and imminent threat to the life
Smart by conceptualizing fictitious marketing events, or property of the employer and coworkers.
appointing fictitious advertising agencies to supposedly The relevant provisions regarding preventive suspensions
carry out marketing events and submitting fictitious are found in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the
documents to make it appear that the marketing events Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Omnibus
transpired. Solidum was placed under preventive suspension Rules), as amended by Department Order No. 9, Series of
without pay for a period of thirty (30) days. 1997, which read as follows:

In the audit investigation, it was revealed that Solidum Section8.Preventive suspension.The employer
approved/noted several CEs covering activities for which may place the worker concerned under preventive
payments were made but did not actually carried out. suspension only if his continued employment poses a
Unaccredited third parties were also engaged in the serious and imminent threat to the life or property of
implementation of the projects. Solidum was again the employer or of his coworkers.
preventively suspended for another ten (10) days. Section9.Period of suspension.No preventive
Afterwards, Smart imposed an additional preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days.
suspension of ten (10) days when Solidum refused to accept The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in
the documents he requested. Thereafter, Solidum was his former or in a substantially equivalent position or
dismissed due to breach of trust. the employer may extend the period of suspension
provided that during the period of extension, he pays
Aggrieved, Solidum filed a complaint dated November 19, the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In
2005 for illegal suspension and dismissal with money claims such case, the worker shall not be bound to
before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC claiming that his reimburse the amount paid to him during the
extended suspension and subsequent termination were extension if the employer decides, after completion
without just cause and due process. He claims that his of the hearing, to dismiss the worker.
preventive suspension of 20 days is an extension of his
initial 30-day suspension and, hence, illegal and constitutes Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the
constructive dismissal. protection of the companys property pending investigation
of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by
ISSUE: Whether or not Solidums additional 20 days the employee. The employer may place the worker
preventive suspension is valid. concerned under preventive suspension if his continued
employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life
HELD: or property of the employer or of his coworkers. However,
when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to
Yes. On the same vein, the respondent was validly placed
justify an employees preventive suspension; the latter is
under second preventive suspension for the reason that
pending investigation of separate and distinct set of entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of
offenses committed by the respondent as contained in the preventive suspension.
second Notice to Explain dated 21 October 2005, his

56
While the Omnibus Rules limits the period of preventive to post a cash bond in the amount of P10,000.00 and
suspension to thirty (30) days, such time frame pertains P7,000.00, respectively.
only to one offense by the employee. For an offense, it
cannot go beyond 30 days. However, if the employee is In 2006 following a drastic drop in net income in 2005, and
charged with another offense, then the employer is entitled Magsila was among those retrenched Magsila was informed
to impose a preventive suspension not to exceed 30 days of his termination effective March 31, 2006, given the option
specifically for the new infraction. Indeed, a fresh preventive not to report for work beginning February 27, 2006, and
suspension can be imposed for a separate or distinct advised to turn over his responsibilities and clear his
offense. Thus, an employer is well within its rights to accountabilities to facilitate the release of his final pay.
preventively suspend an employee for other wrongdoings However, Magsila's final pay and other benefits were not
that may be later discovered while the first investigation is released due to alleged discovery of
ongoing. As in this case, Smart was able to uncover other unauthorized/undocumented deductions, which he
wrongdoings committed by Solidum during the investigation purportedly failed to explain. Meanwhile, in response to
for the initial charges against him. These newly discovered several anonymous complaints against Esloyo for alleged
transgressions would, thus, require an additional period to misbehavior and violations of various company rules and
investigate. regulations, such as sexual harassment, misappropriation of
company funds/ property, falsification/padding of reports
QUANTUM FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. and serious misconduct, QFI's auditor, Vilma A. Almendrala,
conducted an audit/investigation Esloyo submitted his
MARCELINO ESLOYO AND GLEN MAGSILA, Respondent. written explanation denying the charges, which QFI found to
be unsatisfactory. Consequently, in a letter19 dated March
31, 2006, Esloyo was informed of his termination from work
effective April 3, 2006 on the ground of loss of trust and
FACTS:
confidence due to his numerous violations of the company
Petitioner Quantum Foods, Inc. (QFI) is a domestic rules and regulations.
corporation engaged in the distribution and selling of food
products nationwide, it hired Esloyo as Major Accounts
Aggrieved, Esloyo and Magsila (respondents) filed separate
Representative on December 14, 1998, whose consistent
complaints for illegal dismissal, Esloyo asserted that his
good performance led to successive promotions, until his
dismissal was illegal, claiming that: (a) the charges were all
promotion to the position of Regional Sales Manager for
fabricated; (b) no formal investigation was conducted; and
Visayas and Mindanao in 2004 and On the other hand, it
(c) he was not given the opportunity to confront his
hired Magsila as Key Accounts Representative for the Panay
accusers; adding too that prior to the March 24, 2006 Show
Area on March 1, 2005 on a probationary status and gave
Cause Memorandum, he received an e-mail memorandum
him a "permanent" status on August 31, 2005. In the course
directing him to report to the head office for re-assignment
of their employment, Esloyo and Magsila were each required

57
but was, instead, placed on floating status. 22 Magsila, on the
other hand, averred that there was no valid retrenchment as (c) If made purely on questions of law; and
the losses claimed by QFI were unsubstantiated and that he
was merely replaced. (d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the
ISSUE: appellant.

Whether or not the CA erred in ascribing grave abuse of


discretion on the part of the NLRC in giving due course to Notably, while QFI timely filed its Notice of Appeal and
QFI's appeal. Memorandum of Appeal, it was only accompanied by a
partial bond with a Motion to Reduce Bond, and not a bond
in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment, the
effects of which will be discussed later. The appeal likewise
suffered from the following deficiencies, inter alia: (a) the
HELD: verification was signed by QFI HR Manager dela Cruz,
without the requisite board resolution authorizing him to
There is merit in the petition. sign for and in behalf of QFI; and (b) it was unaccompanied
by a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Nonetheless, QFI
In labor cases, the law governing appeals from the LA's subsequently submitted its Verification/Certification of Non-
ruling to the NLRC is Article 22954 of the Labor Code which Forum Shopping and related documents, explaining that the
provides: failure to attach said documents was due to the
inadvertence of its counsel who was then recuperating from
the open cholecystectomy performed on him, and that the
ART. 229. Appeal. - Decisions, awards, or orders of the appeal was based on meritorious grounds.
Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar In the present case, it is apparent that the plausible merit of
days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such the case was the "special circumstance" or "compelling
appeal may be entertained only on any of the following reason" that prompted the NLRC to relax the certification
grounds:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary requirement and give due course to QFI's appeal as it, in
fact, arrived at a contrary ruling from that of the LA. It is well
(a) If there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion to emphasize that technical rules are not binding in cases
on the part of the Labor Arbiter; submitted before the NLRC. In fact, labor officials are
enjoined to use every and reasonable means to ascertain
(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without
fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption; regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of

58
due process. Consequently, the NLRC cannot be faulted for In this regard, it bears stressing that the reduction of the
relaxing its own rules in the interest of substantial justice. bond provided thereunder is not a matter of right on the
part of the movant and its grant still lies within the sound
Coming now to the bond requirement, while it has been discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious
settled that the posting of a cash or surety bond grounds and the reasonableness of the bond tendered under
is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases the circumstances. The requirement on the existence of a
involving monetary awards from the decision of the LA,63 in "meritorious ground" delves on the worth of the parties'
several cases,64 the Court has relaxed this stringent arguments, taking into account their respective rights and
requirement whenever justified. Thus, the Rules - specifically the circumstances that attend the case. However, the CA
Section 6, Rule VI - thereof, allow the reduction of the appeal held that the grounds relied upon by QFI are not meritorious,
bond upon a showing of: (a) the existence of a meritorious and that the partial bond posted was not reasonable in
ground for reduction, and (b) the posting of a bond in a relation to the monetary judgment.
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award, to Case law has held that for purposes of justifying the
wit: reduction of the appeal bond, the merit referred to may
pertain to (a) an appellant's lack of financial capability to
pay the full amount of the bond, or (b) 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.

To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the


NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to
seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried
out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond
requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to
reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be
accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond
equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of
the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the
reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an
appellant's motion is pending resolution by the Commission.
In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for
the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall
exclude damages and attorney's fees. Only after the posting

59
of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant's Hijo Resources Corporation vs. Epifanio P. Mejares,
period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be et. al.
deemed suspended. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016
Hence, the posting of a P400,000.00 cash bond equivalent
to more than 20% of the monetary judgment, together with
the Motion to Reduce Bond within the reglementary period
FACTS:
was sufficient to suspend the period to perfect the appeal.
The posting of the said partial bond coupled with the
subsequent posting of a surety bond in an amount
equivalent to the monetary judgment also signified QFI's RESPONDENTS Epifanio P. Mejares, Remegio C. Baluran, Jr.,
good faith and willingness to recognize the final outcome of Dante Saycon, and Cecilio Cucharo were among the
its appeal. complainants represented by their labor union named
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo ng Bit, Djevon, at Raquilla Farms
It should be emphasized that the NLRC has full discretion to sa Hijo Resources Corporation (NAMABDJERA-HRC), who
grant or deny the motion to reduce bond, and its ruling will filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
not be disturbed unless tainted with grave abuse of an illegal dismissal case against petitioner Hijo Resources
discretion. Verily, an act of a court or tribunal can only be Corp. (HRC).
considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion
when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which
clearly is not extant with respect to the NLRC's cognizance On Aug. 24, 2007, respondents union filed a petition for
of QFI's appeal. Far from having gravely abused its certification election before the Department of Labor and
discretion, the NLRC correctly preferred substantial justice Employment (DOLE). On Nov. 19, 2007al, DOLE Med-Arbiter
over the rigid and stringent application of procedural rules. Lito A. Jasa issued an order dismissing the petition on the
This, by all means, is not a case of grave abuse of discretion ground that there was no employer-employee relationship
calling for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, warranting the between complainants (members of NAMABDJERA-HRC) and
reversal of the CA's ruling granting the certiorari petition HRC. Complainants did not appeal the order of med-arbiter
and the remand of the case to the C A for appropriate Jasa but pursued the illegal dismissal case they filed.
action.
====================================
==================================== On Jan. 4, 2008, HRC moved to dismiss the complaint for
============= illegal dismissal anchored on the following arguments: (1)
lack of jurisdiction under the principle of res judicata; and
(2) the order of the Med-Arbiter finding that complainants

60
were not employees of HRC, which complainants did not In Sandoval, the DOLE Undersecretary reversed the finding
appeal, had become final and executory. of the med-arbiter in a certification election case and ruled
that there was no employer-employee relationship between
ISSUE: Whether or not the motion will prosper. the members of the petitioner union and Sandoval
Shipyards, Inc. (SSI), since the former were employees of
the subcontractors. Subsequently, several illegal dismissal
HELD: cases were filed by some members of the petitioner union
against SSI. Both the labor arbiter and the NLRC ruled that
No. In this case, the med-arbiter issued an order dated Nov. there was no employer-employee relationship between the
19, 2007, dismissing the certification election case because parties, citing the resolution of the DOLE Undersecretary in
of lack of employer-employee relationship between HRC and the certification election case.
the members of the respondent union. The order dismissing
the petition was issued after the members of the respondent
union were terminated from their employment in September
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC ruling and held that
2007, which led to the filing of the illegal dismissal case
the members of the petitioner union were employees of SSI.
before the NLRC on Sept. 19, 2007. Considering their
On appeal, this Court affirmed the appellate courts decision
termination from work, it would have been futile for the
and ruled that the labor arbiter and the NLRC erred in
members of the respondent union to appeal the med-
relying on the pronouncement of the DOLE Undersecretary
arbiters order in the certification election case to the DOLE
that there was no employer-employee relationship between
Secretary. Instead, they pursued the illegal dismissal case
the parties. The Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf
filed before the NLRC.
case that the decision in a certification election case, by the
The Court is tasked to resolve the issue of whether the labor very nature of that proceeding, does not foreclose all further
arbiter in the illegal dismissal case is bound by the ruling of dispute between the parties as to the existence or non-
the med-arbiter regarding the existence or non-existence of existence of an employer-employee relationship between
employer-employee relationship between the parties in the them.
certification election case.

The Court rules in the negative. As found by the Court of


This case is different from the Chris Garments case cited by
Appeals, the facts in this case are very similar to those in
the NLRC where the Court held that the matter of employer-
the Sandoval case, which also involved the issue of whether
employee relationship has been resolved with finality by the
the ruling in a certification election case on the existence or
DOLE Secretary, whose factual findings were not appealed
non-existence of an employer-employee relationship
by the losing party.
operates as res judicata in the illegal dismissal case filed
before the NLRC.

61
As mentioned earlier, the med-arbiters order in this case relationship between the parties, which the respondent
dismissing the petition for certification election on the basis union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because
of non-existence of employer-employee relationship was of the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to
issued after the members of the respondent union were denying due process to the complainants in the illegal
dismissed from their employment. The purpose of a petition dismissal case. This, we cannot allow.
for certification election is to determine which organization
will represent the employees in their collective bargaining
with the employer. The respondent union, without its
member-employees, was thus stripped of its personality to
challenge the med-arbiters decision in the certification
election case. Thus, the members of the respondent union
were left with no option but to pursue their illegal dismissal
case filed before the labor arbiter. To dismiss the illegal
dismissal case filed before the labor arbiter on the basis of
the pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification
election case that there was no employer-employee

62

También podría gustarte