Labor Relations Law 2017 Syllabus

LABOR RELATIONS LAW COURSE OUTLINE (Updated 16 November 2016) For L YCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY, AD AM SON UNIVERSITY AN D FAR EA STERN UNIVERSITY

Atty. Ada D. Abad 0917-526-9732

Course description: [Cases, recitations and lectures, 3 hours a week – week – 3 3 units] Study of the General Principles of the Labor Code, Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations, governing areas on government machinery, labor organizations, unfair labor practices, representation issue; collective bargaining and administration agreements, grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, lockouts, strikes and other concerted activities; Book VI on Post-Employment, covering areas such as classes of employees, termination of employment and retirement; Book VII on penal provisions of the Labor Code and prescription of actions and claims. Additional for Bar exams: Jurisdiction, remedies, actions and procedures in labor cases.

Methodology: A combination of the Socratic method of recitation, case studies and a highly participatory and interactive approach to practical situations and problems confronting labor-management relationships relationshi ps within the company. The study of law, while inherently a serious matter, can also be fun! Course requirements: Recitation (incl quizzes) and attendance: 15% Three (3) Group pro projects jects for following following topics: (25%) First group project 5% For management team and Indep contractor – company – company structure and employees’ contracts For Majority and Minority unions – unions – Union Union Constitution and By-laws, Minutes etc. 



Second group project: 10% Collective Bargaining Negotiations Third group project: 10% Personnel Discipline Midterm examinations (30%) Final Examinations (30%)

1 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS – Dean Dean Ada D. Abad

Reference Materials: Azucena, Azucena, Cesario A., Jr. The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II , National Book Store, Inc., Manila, 1993 rev. ed. Fernandez, Perfecto V. 1980.

Labor Relations Law. Law . Tala Publishing Corp., Quezon City

Abad, Antonio H. Jr. and Abad, Anna Maria D. Compendium on Labor Law. Rex Book Store, 84 P. Florentino St., Quezon City. Fifth edition, 2015. Foz, Vicente, editor. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, with Appendices and Abstracts, Abstracts , 2012 edition. Philippine Law Gazette, 28 Consult st., Fairview Park, Quezon City. (may be purchased at National Book Store).

A. INTRODUCTION (Azucena Volume I, pp. 7-19; Fernandez, pp. 1 - 38) 1. Constitutional Constitut ional and statutory basis 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4

Consti., art. 2, secs. 9-14, 18 and 20. Consti., art. 3, secs. 10 and 18 Consti., art. 13, sec. 3 Labor Code, art. 112 Civil Code, Article 1700

2. General principles of labor law 2.1

Existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary for the application of labor laws (See Section B for cases) a) Employment not merely a contractual relationship: Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005] b) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee relationship? Danilo P. Javier (Bitoy Javier) vs. FlyAce Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, 15 February 2012 Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, G.R. No. 192998, 02 April 2014

2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity of the exercise of its prerogatives 2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative proceedings Alilem Credit Cooperative vs. Bandiola, G.R. No. 173489, 25 February 2013, J. Peralta.


2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity, liberal interpretation of law in favor of workers Price vs. Innodata Phils., 567 SCRA 122 [2008] BPI vs. BPI Employees Union – – Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August 2012 Philippine Journalist Inc. vs.Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26 June 2013 National Union Of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) - Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014. En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013

2.5 But management rights likewise protected Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No 191281, 05 December 2012.

2.6 Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - Consti, Art XIII, Sec. 3 Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171

2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Distribut ive Justice: Balancing of interests in case workers and management’s rights collide . Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service [PET INC.], G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009 Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber Industries, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September 2013

B. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (Azucena Volume I, pp. 16-27; Fernandez, pp. 61-97) 1. Employer defined: defined : Art. 212 (e), LC; DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (s) 2. Employee defined: Art. 212 (f), LC DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r) 3. Employer relationship as matrix 3.1 Concept of employer-employee employer-empl oyee relationship relationshi p 3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship (Memory aid: South West Disaster Control) a. b. c. d.

S election election and hiring Payment of W ages Power of D ismissal ismissal C o n t r o l test test

Cases: Republic of the Philippines represented by the Social Security Commission and Social Security Services vs. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, 23 November 2007 Legend Hotel [Manila], owned by Titanium Corporation, et al. vs. Hernani S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa. G.R. No. 153511, 18 July 2012.


Hacienda Leddy, et al. vs. Paquito Villegas, G.R. No. 179654, 22 September 2014 3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of Labor or the National Labor Relations Commission? People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils ) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652, 08 May 2009 See also: also : Meteoro et al vs. Creative Creatures, GR 171275, 13 July 2009 3.4 Reasonable causal connection: Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2014 Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute? Smart Communications vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA 434, 27 Jan 2008 Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009. Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company car falls within ambit of the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction. Domondon vs. NLRC, 471 SCRA 559 [2005] 3.5 Corporate officer or employee? Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316 Arsenio Z. Locsin Locsin vs. Nissan Nissan Lease Lease Phils. Inc. Inc. and Luis Luis Banson, Banson, G.R. No. 185567, 20 October 2010. Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. G.R. No.168757, 19 January 2011 Raul C. Cosare Cosare vs. Broadcom Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Dante Arevalo, G.R. No. No. 201298, 05 February 2014 3.6 Effect when NO employer-empl employer-employee oyee relationship relation ship exists, or when the main issue does not involve Er-Ee relationship - jurisdiction jurisdict ion devolves with the regular courts Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427 Georg Grotjahn GMBH vs. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216 Eviota vs. Court of Appeals, 407 SCRA 394 [2003]

4. WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST Re: VALID JOB CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS DOLE Department Order No. 18 series of 2002; Dept. Order No. 18-A, 14 November 2011 and Dept. Order No. 1, series of 2012. 4.1

Management prerogative to contract out of services Asian Alcohol Alcohol Corp vs. vs. NLRC, 305 305 SCRA 416 416 [1999] [1999] Meralco vs. Quisumbing, 22 February 2000 Alviado et. al. vs. Procter & Gamble, and Promm Gemm, G.R. No. 160506, 09 March 2010 Goya Inc. vs. Goya Inc. Employees Union-FFW, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013.


4.2

Independent contractor/ Job-contracting Job-contra cting vs. Labor-only Labor-onl y contracting (Art. 106, LC; Dept. Order No. 18-02 [21 February 2002]; Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011) Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. vs. Leonardo Largado, et al., G.R. No. 205300, 18 March 2015 Alilin vs. Petron, Petron, G.R. G.R. No. 177592, 177592, 09 June June 2014. 2014. HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING. -- Garden of Memories Park and Life Plan vs. nd NLRC 2 Division, G.R. No. 160278, 08 Feb 2012, 665 SCRA 293, J. Mendoza, citing 7K Corporation vs. NLRC, GR 148490, 22 Nov 2006, 507 SCRA 509, 523 THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. EMPLOYEE. -- Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs.

Arlene S. Espiritu Espiritu G.R. G.R. No. 204944-45, 204944-45, 03 December December 2014 4.3 Examples Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees. Semblante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, 15 August 2011. Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent Temic Automotive Phils. vs. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union –FFW, –FFW, G.R. No. 18695, 23 December 2009 Television Company vs. Talent Jose Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004 Compare with: ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, GR 164156, 26 Sept 2006 and Farley Fulache et al vs. ABS-CBN, GR 183810, 21 Jan 2010 Nelson Begino vs. ABS-CBN, GR No. 199166, 20 April 2015 Insurance company vs. commission agents Insular Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459 Contra: Tongko vs. Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company (Phils.) Inc., G.R. No. 167622, 29 June 2010, En Banc 4.4

Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job Contracting Arrangements: capitalization, other requirements and negative list     

4.5

Mandatory registration registrat ion of independent contractors (DO18, s11) Requirements Requirements for registration Declaration of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (DO18A, s3[g]) Capitalization Capitalizati on of at least P3Million (DO18A, s13[l]) THE NEGATIVE LIST LIST - What cannot be subcontracted out (DO18, as amended by DO18A , s7) Liability of principal for unpaid wages of the employees of job contractor – contractor – Solidary Solidary liability as to wages and monetary claims Compare with: Liability of principal principal to labor-only contracting employees – employees – solidary solidary liability as to ALL claims


4.5 Effect of DOLE Certification Certificati on as legitimate job contractor Ramy Gallego vs. Bayer Phils. G.R. No. 179807, 31 July 2009 Compare with: Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Ricky dela Cruz, supra. and Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Agito, G.R.No. 179546, 13 Feb 09

5.

COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6: 6: (Azucena Volume I, pp. 23-27; Fernandez, pp. 76-87) 5.1 Covered employment a. b. c. d.

Industrial and agricultural employees Employees of labor organization Employees of independent contractor Employees of non-stock, non-profit organizations

5.2 Excluded employment a. Government employees Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 428 Manila Public School Teachers Assn. Vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323 Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 283 Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA Abanilla vs. Comm on Audit, 468 468 SCRA 87 [2005] Compare with: Employees of GOCCs Lumanta vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 79 b. Exempted employers c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize

C. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES (Azucena Vol. I, pp. 19-22; Fernandez, pp. 99-104) MEMORIZE ELEMENTS: Valid exercise of management prerogatives The free will of the management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied, PROVIDED THAT THE SAME IS EXERCISED: • •

•

IN GOOD FAITH (BONA-FIDE IN CHARACTER), CHARACTER ), FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYER’S INTEREST; INTEREST ; AND NOT TO CIRCUMVENT THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES . (Capitol Medical Center vs. Meriz; San Miguel Brewery and Union Carbide cases).


1. Generally: San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25 2. Examples of the exercise of management prerogatives 2.1

Hiring of personnel and size of workforce Wiltshire File Co. vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 665

2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., G.R. 198783, 15 April 2013 2.3

Prohibition Prohibiti on against Elective Office Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 184885, 07 March 2012

2.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct Briccio “Ricky” Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino -David, G.R. 181881, 18 October 2012 2.5

Transfer of employees Pharmacia and UPJOHN, Inc. (now Pfizer Philippines, Inc.) vs. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172724, 23 August 2010 Prince Transport vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011. May employee refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a grievance? Manila Pavillion vs. Henry Delada, G.R. No. 189947, 189947, 25 January 2012

2.6

Terms and conditions upon hiring; qualification and change in law St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees’ Union – AFW vs. NLRC, 517 SCRA 677 [2007]

2.7

Terms and conditions upon hiring; ban on spouses in same company: Star Paper vs. Simbol, 487 SCRA 228 [2006] Compare with: Stipulations against marriage Duncan Association of Detailman – – PGTWO and Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 164774, 12 April 2006; 438 SCRA 343 [2004]

2.8 Terms and conditions upon hiring; non-compete clauses Ollendorf vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 585 [1918] Red Line Transportation Co. vs. Bachrach Motor Co, 67 Phil. 77 Dator vs. UST, Rev. Frs. Tamerlane Lana and Rodel Aligan, 31 Aug. 2006

Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila, 550 SCRA 415 [28 March 2008] Avon Cosmetics Cosmetics Vs. Leticia Leticia Luna, Luna, Gr No. 153674, 153674, 20 Dec 2006 2.9 Imposition of weight requirement: requirement: Armando G. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008. 2008 .


2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours Philippine Graphic Arts vs.NLRC, 166 SCRA 188 [1988] Linton Comml. Co. vs. Herrera, 535 SCRA 434 [2007] 2.11 Reorganization as an exercise of management prerogatives Jonathan V. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, 25 January 2011.

3. Policies as to employee classification/status - pertains to coverage purposes (Azucena, pp. 500-536) Natl. Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 311 Pier 8 Arrastre vs. Roldan-Confesor, 241 SCRA 294 [1995] Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013 Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” Philex Gold Phils. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors’ Union, 468 SCRA 111 [2005] 3.1 Regular vs. casual employees , Art. 280 LC Policy Instructions No.12; Dept. Order No. 10, Art. IV amending Sec. 5, Rule 1, Bk. IV of Implementing Rules)

3.2 Probationary employees, Art. 282 LC, Policy Insts No. 11; Dept. Order No. 10, Article V amending Sec. 6, Rule 1, Book VI of Implementing Rules Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250 Mariwasa vs. Leogario, 169 SCRA 465 Intl. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606 Extended probationary period; when allowed. Ver Buiser vs. GTE Directories, 131 SCRA 151 University of the East, Dean Eleanor Javier et. al vs. Analiza Pepanio and Mariti D. Bueno, G.R. No. 193891, 23 January 2013 Training plus probationary period equals double probation: Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 417 [1993] No need to inform probationary employee that he has to comply with all company rules and regulations Phil. Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay, GR 164532, 24 July 2007 ON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT WITH A TERM: Pines City Educational Ctr. vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 [1993] Lacuesta vs. Ateneo de Manila, 477 SCRA 217 [2005] Woodbridge vs. Pe Benito, 570 SCRA 164 [2008] But probationary nature to prevail over term: Yolanda Mercado vs. AMA Computer College Paranaque, 13 Apr 2010 Colegio del Santissimo Rosario vs. Rojo, G.R. No. 170388, 03 September 2013.


3.3 Term employment Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702 Pakistan Air Lines vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 90 Cielo vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 410 Phil. Village Hotel vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 423 Anderson vs. vs. NLRC, 252 252 SCRA 116 [1996] [1996] AMA Computer Computer College Paranaque vs. Austria, Austria, 538 SCRA SCRA 438 [2007] [2007] Jamaias VS NLRC, G.R. NO. 159350, 09 March 2016 CONTRA: CONTRA: Viernes, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commissions, Commiss ions, et al., 400 SCRA 557 [04 Apr 2003]

3.4 Project employees, Art. 280 LC, Policy Instructions No. 20 DOLE Dept Order No. 19, series of 1993, Section 2.2 [e] and [f] Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Visca, 567 SCRA 269 [2008]

Indicators of project employment, enumerated: Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez, GR 170181, 26 June 2008 Absence of definite duration for projects lead to conclusion of regular employment. – employment. – PNOC-Energy PNOC-Energy Devlpt Bd vs. NLRC, 521 SCRA 222 [2007]

3.5 Seasonal Employees Mercado vs. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332 Hacienda Fatima vs. Natl Federation of Sugarcane Workers, 396 SCRA 518 [28 Jan 2003] EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS. Gapayao vs. Fulo and SSS, G.R. No. 193493, 13 June 2013 (Sereno, C.J.) Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No. 186439. 15 January 2014. J Brion.

3.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees Art. 212 (m), LC; Policy Instructions Instructions No. 8 Rural Bank of Cantilan vs. Julve, 517 SCRA 17 [2007] Echevarria vs. Venutek Medika, 516 SCRA 72 [2007]

D.

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule II Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007) 1. Principles of distributive and social justice found in the constitution; rights of workers ART II (State (State Policies), Policies), Sec. 9 ART. III, Secs. Secs. 1 and and 8;


ART. XII (National (National Economy Economy and and Patrimony), Patrimony), Secs. 1, 1, 6 and 12. 12. ART XIII (Social (Social Justice & Human Rights; Rights; Labor), Labor), Secs. 1 & 3 Article 3, Labor Labor Code: Declaration of of Policy 2. Who cannot unionize for purposes of collective bargaining (Azucena, pp. 140-149) 2.1 Government employees [ supra., Part B, sec. 5.2 (a) ] 2.2 Employees of government-owned government- owned and controlled corporations with original charters 2.3 Members of a cooperative Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Caleja, 180 SCRA 740 BUT: BUT: Republic of the Philippines represented by SSS vs. AsiaPro Cooperative, G.R. No. 172101, 23 Nov 2007

2.4 Managerial employees, employees , Art. 245 cf. Art. 212 [m], Labor Code Dept. Order No. 9, Rule II, Sec. 2; Dept Order 40, R1 S1(hh) Higher standards required of managers: Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007] 2.5 Confidential Confidenti al employees: Doctrine of necessary implication implicatio n Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339 Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA 517 Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000] Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 162025, 03 August 2010. Contra: De la Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn ., 330 SCRA 363 [2000] San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees Union vs. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 [1997] 2.6 Employees of International Organizations or Specialized Agencies which are registered with the United Nations and enjoys diplomatic immunity Contra: German Agency for Technical Cooperation ( GTZ) vs. CA, GR No. 152318, 16 April 2009

3. Who can unionize for purposes of collective bargaining (Azucena, pp. 140-149; Art. 245 LC cf. B5 R2 S1, IRR) 3.1 Supervisory employees (cannot employees (cannot join with rank and file) Defined: Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (xx) B u t n o t e : C a n t h e y b el el o n g t o t h e s a m e Fe Fe d e ra ra t i o n ? Atlas Lithographic vs. Usec Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9481, Section 8, amending Article 245 of the Labor Code.


3.2 Rank and file employees (But employees (But cannot join supervisory union) Defined: Defined : DO40, R1 S1 (nn) 3.3 Security guards Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (supra.) 210 SCRA 339 3.4 Alien employees with valid working permits Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule II, Sec. 2

E. LABOR ORGANIZATION Azucena, Azucena, pp. 95-105; 95-105; Fernandez, Fernandez, 213-278 213-278 DOLE Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule III Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)

1. Definitions 1.1 Labor organization - Art. 212 (g); Dept. Order No. 9, RI, S(h) DO 40, R1, S1 (cc) 1.2 Legitimate labor organization - 212 (h); DO 9, RI, S(i); DO 40, R1, S1 (ee) Effect: Art. 242, LC Book 5, Rule 2, Sec. 10, IRR 1.3 Company union - Art. 212 (i) 1.4 Others: Others: Legitimate Workers’ Association, DO40, R1 S1 (ff) 2. Rationale for unionization 3.

Union registration and procedure (Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule 3, Sections 1-11; Article 234 LC as amended by Rep. Act No. 9481) 3.1 Independent union, requirements for organization Art. 234, LC; LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO DO 9, RIII, S(i); S(i); DO40 R3 S2 Republic Act No. 9481, Section 1, amending Art. 234, LC 3.2 Affiliation with federation or national union, requirements for orgn. Art. 234 & 237, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(II) ; DO40 R3 S2, S6-9 Art. 234-A, LC as inserted b y Republic Act No. 9481

Chartered Local, defined under DO No. 40, RI S1(i) San Miguel Corp [Mandaue PPP] vs. Mandaue Packing Products Plants – – San Miguel Corporation Monthlies and Rank-and-File Union – – FFW, 467 SCRA 107 [2005] 3.3 Attestation requirements requirements - verified by Secretary/Treasurer, and attested by President thereof - DO 9, RV, S2(i) Whether charter certificate issued by Federation needs to be certified and attested to by the local union officers, as part of the registration requirements of a charter –


Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Cehmical Soidarily of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER) vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., GR 169717, 16 March 2011. 3.4 Action by the Bureau of Labor Relations Arts. 235-236, 235-236, LC; B5 B5 R2 S5-6, IRR; DO 9, 9, RV, S3-4 3.5 Reportorial requirements Article 242-A, 242-A, LC, as inserted inserted by Rep. Act No. No. 9481, Sec. Sec. 7 3.6 Cancellation Arts. 238-239; 238-239; B5 R2 R2 S7-11, IRR; IRR; DO 9, RVII Republic Act No. 9481, secs. 5-9, amending Art. 239, LC ; effect of amendment Takata (Philippines) Corporation vs Bureau of Labor Relations and Samahang Lakas Manggagawa Ng Takata (Salamat), Respondents. G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014 











Discrepancies in number of members stated in application, whether a ground for cancellation on account of fraud Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor, GR 183317, 21 December 2009 Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle Ridge Employees Union [EREU], G.R. No. 178989, 18 March 2010 Failure to submit annual financial report; no longer a ground for cancellation of union registration The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), G.R. No. 178296, 12 January 2011 Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s registration is not per se an act of ULP Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669 (1999) Registration of union not subject to collateral attack San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO vs. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union – Pambansang – Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP), 533 SCRA 125 [2007] Inclusion of supervisory employees in the R&F union is NOT a ground to impugn the legitimacy of the union. union . – SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMA Corp., G.R. No. 167141, 13 Mar 2009 Compare with requirements under new law, Republic Act No. 9481, Secs. 4-5, amending Articles 238 and 239 of Labor Code; also Article 238-A, 238-A, LC






Pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration will not preclude collective bargaining Legend International Resorts vs. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, GR 169754, 23 February 2011. Voluntary cancellation – Article – Article 239-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481, 9481, Sec. Sec. 6

4. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 241, LC) 4.1 Direct election and tenure of officers (Art. 241 [c, f and k]) Cruz vs. Calleja, 188 SCRA 520 4.2 Payment of membership dues and other assessments (Art. 241 [g-j, n]) Palacol vs. Calleja, 182 SCRA 710 4.3 Attorney’s fees Gabriel vs. Secretary of Labor, 328 SCRA 247 [2000] 5. Right to Disaffiliate Disaffiliat e from Mother Union Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR, 137 SCRA 42 Philippine Skylanders Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. 127374, 31 Jan. 2002 Cirtek Employees Labor Union – FFW – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190516, 06 June 2011.

F. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT Azucena, Azucena, pp. 233-243; 233-243; Fernandez, Fernandez, 279-290 279-290 Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003] Republic Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007] 1. Bargaining unit defined - Art. 255, LC DO 40, R1 S1 (d) 2. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit 2.1 Generally -- community of interest exception: exception : Globe Doctrine -- desire of employees 2.2

Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees – Rep. – Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 245, LC

2.3

Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit Unit - Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, inserting Art. 245-A, LC


G. CERTIFICATION ELECTION Azucena, Azucena, pp. 244-265; 244-265; Fernandez, Fernandez, 290-347 290-347 Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], RVIII Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)

1. Role of Employer during certification elections – Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 12, inserting Art. 258-A, LC 2. Other kinds of recognition of employee representatives excluding certification elections 2.1 Direct certification certification - not allowed 2.2 Voluntary recognition, recognition , Dept. Order No. 9, Rul e X 2.3 Consent election, election, DO 9, RI, S (ee); DO40 R8 S10 Effect of consent election: DO40 R8 S23 3. Certification election and procedure Art. 256-257, 256-257, LC; B5 R5 S1-9, S1-9, IRR, Dept. Order No. 40 [2003], Rule8 and 9 Rep. Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007], secs. 10 and 11 3.1 Definition and nature of CE -CE -- B5 R1 S1[x], IRR; DO 9, RI, S(dd) DO 40, R1 S1 (d) Excl. bargaining represntve: DOLE represntve: DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r) NUHRWRAIN – NUHRWRAIN – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR, Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union and Acesite Phils. Hotel Corp., GR No. 181531, 31 July 2009 Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sec of Labor et al, GR 183317, 21 December 2009 3.2 Who may, and where to, file petition for CE B5 R5 S1-2, IRR; DO 9, Rule XI, S1-2; DO40 R8 S1-2 Republic Act No. 9481, sec. 10, amending Art 256, LC 3.2.1 Challenging the petition for CE Toyota Motors vs. Toyota MPC Labor Union, 268 SCRA 571 [1997] Tagaytay Highlands Intl Golf Club, Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union – Union – PGTWO, PGTWO, 395 SCRA 699 [22 Jan 2003] 3.2.2 Filing of petition for cancellation of Unio n’s registration is not per se an act of ULP, 3.2.3 Form and content of petition: DO40 petition: DO40 R8 S4


3.3 When to file petition for CE - DO40 R8 S3 3.3.1 If unorganized establishment - at any time (B5 R5 S3-6, IRR) - Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 257, LC 3.3.2 If organized establishment Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, 8, amending Art. 256, LC a) No duly registered CBA - at any time b) With duly registered CBA 1) Contract bar rule rule - only during freedom period (Art. 232, LC; B5 R5 S4, IRR) FVC Labor Union-PGTWO vs. Sama Samang Nagkakaisang Mangggagawa sa FVC-SIGLO, GR 176249, 27 November 2009 2) One year bar rule (B5 rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR) 3) Deadlock bar rule (B5 rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR) 4. Denial of Petition for Certification Election; 4.1 Grounds for denial: Dept Order No. 40, R8 S14-15 4.2 Appellate procedure in case of denial Dept Order No. 40, R8 S17-22 5. Procedure in the Conduct of the Certification Elections Dept Order No. 40, R9 Sections 1 to 20 5.1 5.2

Raffle and pre-election pre-electi on conference Qualification Qualificati on of voters; inclusion-exclusion inclusion- exclusion proceedings May probationary employees vote in the certification elections, if the CBA provision explicitly excludes them in the vote? NUHRWRAIN – NUHRWRAIN – Manila Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR, Holiday Inn Mnaila Pavilion Hotel Labor Unino and Acesite Phils. Hotel Corp., GR No. 181531, 31 July 2009

5.3 Voting proper 5.4 Challenging the votes; on-the-spot questions 5.5 Canvass of votes 5.6 Certification Certifica tion of Collective Bargaining Agent 6. Run-off Elections Elections - DO 9, Rule XIII; Dept Order No. 40, R10 7. Failure of elections - Dept Order No. 40, R17 and 18

MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS HERE 15 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS – Dean Dean Ada D. Abad

H. INTER-UNION AND INTRA-UNION DISPUTES DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003 1. What are inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s1&2]. . QUESTION: In cases where there are two contending factions of officers in an inter-union dispute (of the majority union), may the employer unilaterally refuse to remit union dues to on the pretext that there is an on-going intra-union dispute between the two factions? Is the nonremittance of union dues constitutive of ULP as an interference in internal affairs of the Union? De la Salle University vs. De la Salle University Employees Association. Association . G.R. No. 169254, 23 August 2012

2. What are effects of pendency of inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s3]. 3. Who may file an inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s4]. 4. Where to file inter- or intra-union disputes.

I. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Azucena, Azucena, 199-233) 199-233) Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003] 1. Duty to bargain collectively 1.1 a. Defined

b. Two kinds of Bargaining: Single enterprise bargaining - One where any voluntarily recognized or certified certifi ed labor union may demand negotiations with its employer for terms and conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining unit concerned. Multiple Employer bargaining – – One where a legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree in writing to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining, provided: (1) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent exclusive bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in multiemployer bargaining;


(2) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in multi-employer bargaining; and (3) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer units who consent to multi-employer bargaining may participate in multi-employer bargaining. 1.2 When duty to bargain exists/begins 1.2.1 In the absence of a CBA CBA - Art. 251, LC 1.2.2 Existence of a CBA - only during freedom period, Art. 253, LC 1.3 Effect of refusal to bargain - constitutes ULP under Art. 258 (g) Divine Word Univ. vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 759 Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587 [2000] 1.4

When duty to bargain ceases

1.5

Standard of conduct required Surface bargaining Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs. Secretary Nieves Confesor and Standard Chartered Bank, GR No. 11497, 16 June 2004 Individual bargaining Insular Life Assurance Employees-NATO vs. Insular Life Assurance Ltd., 76 SCRA 50 citing Melo Photo Supply Corp. vs. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332

2. What are bargainable issues - Art. 252, LC 3. Bargaining Deadlock

3.1 When is there a deadlock in collective bargaining Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 503 (1997) 3.2 Difference between economic and non-economic provisions San Miguel Food vs. SMC Employees Unino – – PTGWO, 535 SCRA 133 [2007].

3.3 Remedies - Notice of strike or notice of lock-out 30-day cooling-period and 7-day strike ban

J. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003]

1. Definition Definition - B5 R1 S1 (jj), IRR


Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring vs. Abarquez, 220 SCRA 197 PT&T vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 193 [1995

2. Contents Contents - supra., IRR

2.1 Mandatory subjects a) Compliance with minimum labor standards; what is effect of substandard contract RFM Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU, GR No. 162324, 04 February 2009. b) Grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 204 SCRA 1 (1999) c) No strike/no lockout clause Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000] 2.2

Union dues vs. Agency fees/special assessments; check-off Art. 241 (r); Art. 222 (b) (b) Palacol vs. Calleja, 26 Feb. 1990 Effect if ER fails to implement check-off Holy Cross of Davao vs. Joaquin, 263 SCRA 358 [18 Oct 1996]

2.3 Union security clauses: nature and kinds Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union - Davao Chapter Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, 10 August 2010; En Banc. Termination due to union security clause Olvido vs. CA, 536 SCRA 81 [2007] Inguillo vs. First Philippines Scales, Inc., 588 SCRA 471 [2009] PICOP Resources, Inc. (PRI) vs. Anacleto Taneca et. al, G.R. No. 160828, 09 August 2010 2.4 Signing bonus Caltex Refinery, supra. 279 SCRA 218 2.5

Interpretation in favor favor of labor in cases of doubt or ambiguity ambiguity (see (see also: General Principles in Part A Section 2.4): BPI vs. BPI Employees Union – Metro – Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August 2012 Philippine Journalist Inc. vs.Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26 June 2013


En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013 National Union Of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) - Philippine Plaza Chapter Vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014

3. Signing and ratification ratificatio n ALU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, Ferrer-Calleja, 173 173 SCRA 178 178 4. Effect: 4.1

With respect to successor-employer successor-empl oyer E. Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1 Metrobank Union vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 268

4.2

With respect to a change in exclusive bargaining agent Substitutionary Substitutionary Doctrine Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI Ees Union, 23 SCRA 465

5. Procedure in registration registratio n of CBA Art. 231, LC; B5 R9 S1, IRR; IRR; DO 9, Rule XVI, Secs. Secs. 1-5

6. Scope of the agreement; who may avail of benefits Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs. San Miguel Brewery New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 404 [2000]

7. Duration of the CBA (Art. 253-A) 7.1 Economic provisions of the CBA: 3 years DUTY OF PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PENDING RENEGOTIATION. -- General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union [GMC-ILU] vs. General Milling Corporation/General Milling Corporation vs.General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union [GMC-ILU], et al., G.R. Nos. 183122/183889, 15 June 2011. 2011 .

7.2 Representation Representatio n question: 5 years - contract bar rule, DO 9 Rule XVI, Sec. 4 May parties negotiate and agree to extend term of exclusive bargaining status of majority union? FVC Labor Union – – Phil Transport and General Workers Org. (FVCLUPTGWO) vs Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organization (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO), GR 176249, 27 Nov 2009. 7.3 Retroactivity – Retroactivity – Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC, 23 SCRA 465


Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999) Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172 [2000]

K. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. Concept: Article Concept: Article 247, 247, Labor Code. Code. 2. Test to determine ULP Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., 37 SCRA SCRA 244 [1971] [1971] De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 [2001] 2. Unfair Labor Practices of employers, Art. 248 LC LC 2.1

Interference Interfer ence in the right to self-organization self-org anization Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, 28 January 2003 Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011 2014 ULP CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS ORCHESTRATED ACTIVITIES TO SUBVERT CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS. T & H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation et. al. vs. T & H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union, et. al., G.R. No. 191714, 26 February 2014, J. Mendoza.

2.2

Refusal to bargain collectively Divine World vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]

2.3

Gross violation violation of the CBA; need not be limited to economic provisions if GROSS PER SE. Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs. Bayer Philippines, GR No. 162943, 06 Dec 2010.

2.4

Question: Is a lump-sum amount in lieu of wage increases during CBA negotiations tantamount to bargaining in bad faith? Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, 07 April 2014.

3. Unfair Labor Practices of labor organizations, Art. 249 LC 3.1 Interference in the employee’s right to self -organization, self -organization, or to discriminate against him Salunga vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 21 SCRA 216 (1967) Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368 (1987)


4. When not ULP: General Santos Coca-cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. Coca Cola Botters et al., GR 178647, 13 February 2009

Suspension of CBA due to financial losses not ULP: Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association, et al. vs.. Manila Mining corp, et al., G.R. Nos. 178222-23, 29 September 2010

L. STRIKES, PICKETING AND LOCK-OUTS Azucena, Azucena, pp. 292 - 385 Art. 263 - 266, Labor Labor Code Rule 8, Secs. 1-14, Impl. Rules and Reglns. Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule XXII, Secs. 1-14 Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003] 1. Constitutional basis and definition DO 40, S1, R1 (uu to ww) Gold City Integrated Port Services vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 627 [1995] Lapanday Workers Union vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 95 [1995] Great Pacific Life Employees Union vs. Grepalife, 303 SCRA 113 [1999] Association of Independent Independent Unions in the Phils. Vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 219 (1999)

1.1 Mass leave is not equivalent to a strike. - Alex Q. Naranjo, Naranjo, et al. vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 193789, 19 September 2012 2. Who may declare a strike or lock-out; when it may be declared B5 R8 S2 IRR; Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1-2 3. Requisites for valid strike or lock-out : Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1 First City Interlink vs. Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 [1997] Pilipino Telephone Corp vs. Pilipino Telephone Ees Assn. (PILTEA), 525 SCRA 361 [2007] Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Association.(TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 [2007] SIX CATEGORIES OF ILLEGAL STRIKE STRIKE :Toyota Motor Phils Workers Assn. (TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 (2007). 3.1 Lawful purpose 3.1.1 Economic strike/lock-out; Deadlock defined Capitol Medical Center Alliance vs. Laguesma, supra., supra.,


267 SCRA 503 [1997] 3.1.2 ULP strike/lock-out cf. Arts. 248-249, LC Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s r egistration r egistration is not per se an act of ULP – ULP – Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669 (1999) Welga ng Bayan not a valid purpose Biflex Phils. Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Filflex Ind’l and Mfg., 511 SCRA 247 [2007] No lawful purpose when conducted by a union which is not a legitimate labor organization Manila Diamond Hotel vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G.R. No. 158075, 30 June 2006 Abaria vs. NLRC, NLRC, G.R. No. No. 154113. 154113. 07 December December 2011. 2011. Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 155306, 28 August 2013, 2013 , Leonardo-De Castro, J QUESTION: May employees who have gone on mass leaves without prior authorization be presumed to have conducted an illegal strike? Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al. G.R. No. 171118. 10 September 2012, J. Peralta. -

3.2 Lawful means 3.2.1 Art. 264 (b) and (e), LC 3.2.2 Guidelines on Removal of Illegal Blockades at Factory Gates, Gates, DOLE Memorandum dated 22 October 1987 3.2.3 Guidelines for the Conduct of INP/AFP Personnel during Strikes, Lock-outs and Labor Disputes in General, effective 22 October 1987 3.2.4 Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Secs. 10-13 Phil. Marine Officers Guild vs. Compania Maritima, 22 SCRA 113 United Seamens Union of the Philippines vs. Davao Shipowners Asso., 20 SCRA 1226 1226 Almira vs. B.F. B.F. Goodrich, Goodrich, 58 SCRA 1290 Ilaw at Buklod Manggagawa vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 586 Note: Violence committed on both sides during the strike Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000] 3.2.5 Liability of Union officers and members in illegal strikes Allied Banking Banking Corp. vs. vs. NLRC, 258 258 SCRA 724 724 [1996] [1996] C. Alcantara Alcant ara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara


& Sons, Inc., et al. / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al ., G.R. ., G.R. No. 155109/G.R. No. 155135/G.R. No. 179220, 29 September 2010. Club Filipino, Inc., et al. vs. Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, 14 January 2015

3.3 Compliance with procedural requirements 3.3.1 Strike vote/Lock-out vote/Lock-o ut vote (Dept. Order No. 9, R22, S7-8) 3.3.2 Notice of strike/lock-out (Dept. Order 9, R22, S3-5) San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1 [1999] Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. NLRC , 318 SCRA 68 [1999] 3.3.3 Cooling-off Cooling-of f period a. Economic strike: 30 days b. ULP strike: 15 days c. Exceptions - Art. 263 (b); B5 R8 S3, IRR 3.3.4 Seven-day strike ban National Fedn. of Sugar Workers vs. Ovejera, 114 SCRA 354 First City Interlink vs. Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 [1997] 3.3.5 Conciliation proceedings (Dept. Order 9, R22, S6) GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452 San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418 [10 June 2003] 3.3.6 Improved offer balloting (Dept. Order 9, R22, S9)

3.4 Good faith strike People’s Indl. & Comml. (FFW) vs. PICC, 15 March 1982 Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR, 90 SCRA 135 CONTRA: Not a good defense in cases of procedural infirmity Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organizations of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries, G.R. No. 1534664, 18 July 2003 3.5

Liability of company who fails to immediately reinstate the union member for participating in an illegal strike; extent of backwages. C. Alcantara and Sons vs Court of Appeals and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo Sa Alsons-SPFL, G.R. No. 155109, 14 March 2012. J Peralta.

4. Effect of a no strike/no lock-out clause in CBA Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR, supra., 90 SCRA 135 Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 17 Feb. 1993

5. Assumption of Jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor or Certification of the labor dispute to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration, Art. 264 (g), LC


Saulog Transit vs. Lazaro, 128 SCRA 591 Telefunken Semi-conductors Ees Union-FFW vs. CA, 348 SCRA 565 [2000] 5.1 Discretion of the Secretary FEATI University vs. Bautista, 18 SCRA 1191 Extent of discretion: 





May order the suspension of the termination aspect of a labor dispute - University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 151379, 14 Jan. 2009 May give an award higher than what was agreed upon by the management and union - Cirtek Employees Labor Union – – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190515, 15 November 2010. May not use unaudited financial statements as basis for decision regarding wage increases – Asia – Asia Brewery vs. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia, G.R. 171594-96, 18 September 2013

5.2 Nature and Effect of Assumption and Certification Orders Intl. Pharma. vs. Sec. of Labor, 205 SCRA 59 

Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement during strike proceedings Manila Diamond Hotel Employees’ Union vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140518, 12/16/2004

5.3 Effect of Defiance Defiance of Return-to-Work Orders Orders a) Hearing not necessary; akin to contempt of court St. Scholastica’s College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, 210 SCRA 565 Allied Banking Banking Corp. vs. vs. NLRC, s u p r a . 258 SCRA 724 [1996] Telefunken Semi-conductors, s u p r a . b) CONTRA: New twist twist on defiance of return to work order Solidbank vs. Gamier et al, GR 159460, 15 Nov 2010; Solidbank vs. Solidbank Union et al., GR 159461, 15 Nov 2010

6. Picketing and other forms of concerted activities activities Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Sec. 12 6.1 Nature of picketing - includes stationing persons at the site of the labor dispute, or even at run-away shop MSF Tire and Rubber vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 784 [1999] Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant EEs Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437 [2007]

6.2 Limitations: 6.2.1. Moving picket 6.2.2 Must not affect neutral parties


Liwayway Publications vs. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, 23 Oct. 1981

6.2.3 Private homes not allowed 6.2.4 Without violence and intimidation 6.3 Other forms of concerted activities

M. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT Articles 282 – 282 – 286, 286, Labor Code; IRR, Book VI, R1 S1-14. Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXIII, Secs. 1-9 1. GENERALLY: GENERALLY: 1.1 No termination without just cause and due process; rationale behind principle (Dept. Order No. 9, R23, S1) Employee not required to prove innocence of the charges leveled against him. - Phil. Transmarine vs. Carilla, 525 SCRA 586 [2007] 1.2 Management prerogative; Company rules and regulations San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25 [1989]

2. SOME GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION , Art. 282-285, LC

JUST CAUSES FOR TERMINATION Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Assn vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 [2007] BUT EMPLOYEE MUST PROVE FACT OF DISMISSAL FIRST: Lilia Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy et. al., G.R. No. 172295, 23 Dec 2008 Bitoy Javier (Danilo P. Javier) vs. Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo,G.R. Castillo ,G.R. No. 192558, 15 Feb 2012.

2.1

Serious misconduct Torreda vs. Toshiba Information Equip., 523 SCRA 133 [2007] Fighting within company premises: Supreme Steel Pipe Corp vs. Berdaje, 522 SCRA 155 [2007] Alex Gurango vs. Best Chemicals and Plastics Inc. and Moon Pyo Hong, G.R. No. G.R. No. 174593, 25 August 2010 Northwest Airlines vs. Concepcion Del Rosario, GR. 157633, 10 Sept 2014. Cesar Naguit vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188839, 22 June 2015 Attitude problem e.g., negative attitude: Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992] Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA [2008]


Serious misconduct by manager Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007] Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service (PET INC.), G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009 Moonlighting: Moonlighting: Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Balagot, 513 SCRA 672 [2007]. Theft by employee: Caltex (Phils.), Inc vs. Agad, G.R. No. 162017, 23 April 2010; Villamor Golf Club vs. Pehid, G.R. No. 166152, 04 October 2005. Cosmos Bottling Vs. Wilson Fermin, G.R. 193676 and Wilson Fermin Vs. Cosmos Bottling, GR 194303, 20 June 2012 Drug abuse as serious misconduct: See also: REQUIREMTS FOR VALID DRUG TEST TEST under RA 9156. AER vs. Progresibon Progresibong g Union sa AER, 15 July 2011 2011 citing Nacague Nacague vs. vs. Suplicio Case, Aug 2010 Bughaw Jr. Vs. Treasure Island, 550 SCRA 307 [2008] Plantation Bay Resort and Spa vs. Dubrico, 04 Dec 2009 Mirant Philippines vs. Joselito A. Caro, G.R. No. 181490, 23 April 2014. Conspiracy in commission of theft: White Diamond Trading Corporation vs. NBLRC, G.R. No. 186019, 29 March 2010 Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 164118, 09 February 2010 Committing offenses penalized with three suspensions within a twelve-month period: Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-NUHWRAIN Vs. Magsalin, GR No. 164939, 06 June 2011 Contra: When not serious misconduct RCPI vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114777, 05 July 1996 – stapler – stapler case VH Manufacturing vs. NLRC, 322 SCRA 417 [2000] – sleeping – sleeping on the job; dismissal too harsh a penalty Collegio de San Juan de Letran – – Calamba vs. Villas, 399 SCRA 550 [26 March 2003] Uttering of invectives: Samson vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 460 [2000] Punzal vs. ESTI Technologies, 518 SCRA 66 [2007] Roque B. Benitez, et al., vs. Santa Fe Moving and Relocation Services, et al., G.R. No. 208163, 20 April 2015. Libel: Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et al. vs. Visayan Electric Company, Inc., (VECO), G.R. No. 205575, 22 July 2015.

2.2 Gross insubordination


The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines, Inc. vs. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015 Employee’s refusal to comply with rules and regulations by simple expedient of challenging reasonableness, not allowable: GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452 [1991] What if the act were within discretionary powers of manager? ePacific Global Contact Center vs. Cabansay, 538 SCRA 498 [2007] Prudential Bank vs. Antonio Mauricio et al., GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012. Contra: Refusal to comply due to valid reason Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc., Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III v. Virginia E. Pacia, G.R. No. 171189, 09 March 2011 Contra: Violation of company company rules and and regulations, tolerance tolerance thereof. thereof. Permex, Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [24 Jan 2000]; citing Tide Water Association Oil Co. vs. Victory Employees Employees and Laborer’s Association, Association, 85 Phil. 166. 2.3 Gross negligence/habitual neglect of duty Dr. Phylis C. Rio, et al, vs. Colegio De Sta. Rosa – – Makati Makati et. al., G.R. No. 189629, 06 Aug 2014. Habitual absences/tardiness as form of neglect San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union v San Juan De Dios and NLRC, 28 May 2005 May gross and habitual neglect likewise be considered as serious misconduct? Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 171023, 171023, 18 December 2009. Single isolated act of negligence insufficient ground for termination St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan vs. Estrelito Nazario, G.R. No. 152166, 20 October 2010 Totality of Infractions ruling: Mansion Printing Center and Clement Cheng vs Diosdado Bitara, Jr. , G.R. No. 168120, 15 January 2012. 2.4 Abandonment Hilton Heavy Equipment vs. Ananias Dy, G.R. No. 164860, 02 February 2010. Essencia Q. Manarpiis vs. Texan Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 197011, 28 January 2015 2.5 Fraud Felix vs. Enertech Systems, 355 SCRA 680 [2001] Pfizer vs. Lleander vs. Galan, G.R. No. 158460, 24 Aug. 2007 Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, 03 June 2013 N.B.: Concealment of pregnancy; dismissal too harsh Lakpue Drug vs. Balga, G.R. 166379, 20 Oct 2005]


2.6 Loss of Confidence/Breach of Trust Philippine Plaza Holdings vs. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, 27 Feb 2013. Hormillosa Hormillos a vs. Coca Cola, G.R. No. 198699, 09 September 2013 St. Luke’s Medical Center Vs. Ma. Theresa Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, 11 March 2015 Managerial employee Prudential Bank vs.Antonio Mauricio, GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012 Cecilia Manese vs. Jollibee Foods, G.R. No. 17-454, 11 October 2012 De Leon Cruz vs. BPI, G.R. No. 173357, 13 February 2013 Two kinds of positions of trust identified : Abelardo Abel Abel vs. Philex Philex Mining, Mining, GR 178976, 178976, 31 July July 2009 Carlos Valenzuela vs. Caltex, GR 169965-66, 15 Dec 2010

Bus conductor is a confidential employee: Mapili vs. Phil. Rabbit Bus Line, G.R. No. 172506, 27 July 2011. Rank and file NOT entrusted with custody of property, cannot be terminated for loss of trust and confidence Century Iron Works vs. Banas, G.R. 184116, 19 June 2013 Difference in termination of confidential employees vs rank-and-file Phil. Transmarine Carriers vs. Carilla, 535 SCRA 893 [2007] Tirazona vs. CA, 548 SCRA 560 (2008) Tampering of company records sufficient for loss of trust Eats Cetera Food Services vs. Letran, GR 179507, 02 Oct 2009 May an employee be terminated even if he did not benefit from the fraud committed? Eric Dela Cruz V. Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. 180465, 31 July 2009

2.7 Incompetence EDI Staffbuilders Intl. vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 409 [2007] Contra: Inefficiency of employee; condonation by employer -Bebina G. Salvaloza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gulf Pacific Security Agency, Inc., and Angel Quizon, G.R. No. 182086, 24 November 2010 2.8 Commission of a crime Torreda vs. Toshiba Info Equip., 515 SCRA 133 [2007]

AUTHORIZED CAUSES OF TERMINATION


2.9 Redundancy Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 [1995] Nelson Culili vs. Eastern Telecom, GR 165381, 09 Feb 2011 Alleged redundancy contradictory to “voluntary” retirement. – General Milling Corporation vs. Violeta L. Viajar. G.R. No. 181738, 30 January 2013. 2.10 Retrenchment or business reverses Businessday vs. NLRC, 221 SCRA 9 San Miguel Jeepney vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 [1996] Navotas Shipyard Corporation and Jesus Villaflor Montallana et. al., G.R. No. 190053, 24 March 2014

vs.

Innocencio

Contra: separation pay not necessary in case of bankruptcy North Davao Mining vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 721 [1996] Audited financial statements as proof of serious business losses Virgilio Anabe vs. AsiaKonstruct, GR 183233, 23 Dec 2009 Notice to DOLE/employee plus payment of separation pay to all affected employees Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 533 [1995]. 2.11 Closure Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005] Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP et. al. vs. Benson Industries, Inc. G.R. No. 200746, 06 August 2014. W h e n d o n e i n b a d f a it it h : Penafrancia Tours and Travel Transport vs.

Sarmiento, GR 178397, 20 Oct 2010. 2.12 Disease - continued employment must be prejudicial to own health and co-workers Sevillana vs. International Corp., 356 SCRA 451 [16 April 2001] Romeo Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan, doing business under the name and style Yuhans Enterprises, G.R. No. 169191, 01 June 2011. Wuerth Philippines, Inc. vs. Rodante Ynson, G.R. No. 175932, 15 February 2012. Eleazar S. Padillo vs. Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 199338, 21 January 2013. 2.13 Merger or consolidation with another company First Gen. Marketing vs. NLRC, 223 SCRA 337 [1993] Manlimos vs. NLRC, 242 SCRA 145 [1995]

3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: CIRCUMSTANCES: 3.1 Preventive suspension JRS Business vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 445 [1995] Cadiz vs. Court of Appeals, 474 SCRA 232 [2005] 3.2 Suspension – Suspension – where where allowed for more than one month


Deles vs. NLRC, s u p r a . Gross negligence, 327 SCRA 541 [2000] 3.3 Constructive dismissal McMer Corporation, Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al. G.R. No. 193421; June 04, 2014 3.4 Floating status not to exceed 6 months Bebiana Salvaloza vs. NLRC Gulf Pacific Agency et al., GR 182086, 24 Nov 2010 Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., et. al., vs. Maia Angela Reyes, G.R. No. 177816, 03 August 2011. 

Suspension of operations on account of business losses Nasipit Lumber Company, et al. vs. National Org anization of Workingmen (NOWM), et al., G.R. No. 146225, 11/25/2004 G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop et al. vs. Ricardo Ambos et. al., G.R. No. 174184, 28 January 2015 .

3.5 Last-In First-Out (LIFO) rule Maya Farms Employees Org. vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 508 3.6 Totality of infractions rule Mendoza vs. NLRC, 195 SCRA 606 [1991] Villeno vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 108153 [26 Dec. 1995] Meralco vs. NLRC, i b i d . Contra: Acebedo Optical vs. NLRC, 527 SCRA 655 [2007] 3.7 Length of service Citibank NA vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212 [1995] Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September 2013 3.8 Demotion Leonardo vs. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589 [2000] 3.9 Employee’s abrasive character and failure to get along with other co employees Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992] Heavylift Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 473 SCRA 541 [2005] Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA (2008). 3.10 Resignation instead of termination Mendoza vs. HMS Credit Corp., et. al., G.R. No. 187232, 17 April 2013; citing San Miguel Properties vs. Gucaban, 654 SCRA 18 [2011] General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar, G.R. No. 181783, 30 January 2013; citing Quevedo vs. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., 599 SCRA 438 [2009] N.B.: Signing of Release Waivers and Quitclaims Becton Dickinson Phils. vs. NLRC, 475 SCRA 125 [2005] Goodrich Manfuacturing vs. Ativo et al., GR 188002, 01 Feb 2010 Telex is not equivalent to tender of resignation.


Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers Maritime Services, Inc. Ltd. vs. Nathaniel Doza, et al., G.R. No. 175558. 08 February 2012 3.11 Immorality/Sexual Harassment Republic Act No. 7877 Chua-Qua vs. Clave, 189 SCRA 117 [1990] Dr. Rico Jacutin vs. PP, G.R. No. 140604, 06 March 2002. Lourdes Domingo vs. Rogelio Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008. Cheryll Santos Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrave, et al., G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015 Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital and Colleges , G.R. No. 187417, 15 March 2016 Contra; when not sexual harassment Atty. Susan Aquino vs. Hon. Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, A.M. No. CTA – CTA –01-1, 01-1, 02 April 2002. 2002 . Contra: when not immorality, re: live-in relationships Toledo vs. Toledo 544 SCRA 27 3.12 Termination instigated by Union on account of Union Security Clause Malayang Samahan sa M Greenfield, supra., 326 SCRA 428 [2000] Alabang Country Country Vs. Vs. NLRC, 545 545 SCRA 351 351 [2008]. [2008]. Inguillio vs. First Phil. Scales, GR No. 165407, 05 June 2009 3.13 Effect when employer choses to extend suspension period Pido vs. NLRC, 516 SCRA 68 [2007]

4. PROCEDURE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT Art. 282, Lc; Lc; B5 R14 S1-11, S1-11, IRR; IRR; Dept. Order Order No. 9, Rule 23, Sec. Sec. 2-9) 4.1

General Rule: Twin requirements of notice and hearing complied with for valid termination

must be

Reasonable period to answer, interpreted as FIVE days: King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac, 526 SCRA 116 [2007] Requirements of Charge Sheet/Notice of Appraisal: Magro Placement vs. Hernandez, 526 SCRA 408 [2007] Genuino vs. NLRC, 539 SCRA 342 [2007] Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201701, 03 June 2013 Is the employer required to inform the employee in the appraisal/charge sheet that he may be terminated for the infraction? Dolores T. Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club et. al., G.R. No. 173012, 13 June 2012


4.2

Exception:

WENPHIL doctrine, as affirmed by the AGABON vs NLRC case [17 Nov. 2004]; SERRANO ruling overturned

Wenphil vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69 [1989] Serrano vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 [2000] Agabon vs. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573 [17 Nov. 2004]

See: Section 5.2 on Illegality of the Manner of Dismissal 4.3

Administrative Administrat ive Hearing/investigation Hearing/investi gation not required: Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, 584 SCR A SCR A 110 [2009], En Banc When employee has voluntarily admitted guilt Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]

4.4 Right to counsel on the part of the employee – – is this mandatory and indispensable as part of due process? Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011,

5. Burden of proof rests upon employer to show just cause and due process Segismundo vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 167 [1994] Domasig vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 779 [1996] Medenilla vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, 328 SCRA 1 [2000] De Guzman vs. NLRC, 540 SCRA 21 [2007] Testimonies, how treated: Philippine Airlines vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 273 [2000]

6. NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISMISSAL Art. 279, LC; LC; cf. Art. 223, LC effect effect of appeal appeal 6.1 Where there is just cause and due process, employee NOT entitled to separation pay Unilever vs. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201710, 03 June 2013 6.2 Where there is illegality of the act of dismissal cause

Dismissal without just

a) Reinstatement plus full backwages, or separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458 [1997] Recomputation of backwages is automatically integrated into decision where party has appealed the case: Dario Nacar vs. Gallery Frames et al., G.R. 189871, 13 Aug 2013 When reinstatement is not done in good faith; demotion


Banares vs. Tabaco Women Transport Services, G.R. No. 197353, 01 April 2013 b) Moral and exemplary damges Garcia vs. NLRC, 236 SCRA 632 Zamboanga City Electric Coop. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47 [1995] Ford Phils. Vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA 320 [1997] Nueva Ecija Electric Coop. Vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 86 [2000] Permex Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [2000] c) Attorney’s fees Taganas vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 133 [1995] Tangga-an vs. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 180636, 13 March 2013. Czarina Malvar vs. Kraft Food Phils; Intervenor: Justice Bellosillo., G.R.183952, 09 Sept 2013 d) Liability of corporate officers Carmen Dy-Dumalasa vs. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et. al., G.R. No. 178760 [23 July 2009]. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. vs. Andres G. Ariola, et al., G.R. No. 181974, 01 February 2012. Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 171118, 10 September 2012. 6.3 Illegality in manner of dismissal - Dismissal without due process a) SERRANO RULING (323 SCRA 445 [2000]) now overturned by AGABON VS. VS. NLRC CASE CASE (17 NOV. NOV. 2004); 2004); see above above b) Wenphil doctrine to apply per AGABON case; employee to be awarded indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 c) To be governed exclusively by civil code principles Aurora Land Land Projects Projects vs. NLRC, NLRC, 266 SCRA SCRA 48 [1997] [1997] d) Mere failure to comply with notice requirement on closure or dismissal does not amount to a patently illegal act. – Carag – Carag vs. NLRC, 520 SCRA 28 [2007] e) If dismissal is for authorized cause BUT without due process, then P50,000.00; if dismissal is for just cause BUT without due process, the P30,000.00. -- Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005 g) Factors to consider in determini determining ng nominal damages for failure to comply with due process requirements. -- Industrial Timber Corp. v. Agabon, G.R. No. 164518, 164518, 30 March 2006 2006

7. RELIEFS UNDER THE LABOR CODE 7.1 On reinstatement and strained relations Kunting vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 571 Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260 [1995] Aguilar vs. Burger Burger Machine Machine Holdings, Holdings, 516 SCRA SCRA 609


7.2 On actual reinstatement vs. payroll reinstatement; effect where the original decision finding for illegal termination was reversed on appeal Genuino vs. NLRC, GR 142732-33, 04 Dec 2007 Contra, now prevailing rule: rule : Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines, GR 164856, 20 Jan 2009

7.3 Payment of separation pay not inconsistent with payment of backwages; Lim vs. NLRC, March 1989

7.4 ON BACKWAGES BACKWAGES - Mercury drug rule overturned by RA 67 15 Ferrer vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410 Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 Golden Donuts vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 153 Balladares Jr. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 213 [1995] Bliss Devlpt. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 800 [1995] Cannot be reduced by earnings derived elsewhere : Bustamante vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61 [1996]

7.5 General Rule: Rule: Employee who is lawfully dismissed is not entitled to separation pay Exception: Exception : DIREC (disease; installation installati on of labor-saving devices; redundancy; retrenchment; cessation of business)

N.

JURISDICTION REMEDIES AND APPEAL PROCEDURES --- graph

1. Labor Arbiter Art. 217, Labor Code 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Strikes and Lock-outs Termination disputes ULP cases Damages Small money claims with claim for reinstatement Other claims

Cases: San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719 Sanyo Philippines Workers Union – Union – PSSLU PSSLU vs. Canizares, 211 SCRA 361


San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira, 186 SCRA 496 Contra: Molave Sales, Inc. vs. Laron, 129 SCRA 485 Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597 2. National Labor Relations Commission Art. 217 (b]; Art. 223, 223, Labor Labor Code 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 11-12, series of 2012 Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et al. vs. Estanislao Surio, et al. G.R. No. 154213, 23 August 2012. Requirements for appeal from Labor Arbiter’s Decision: a) Ten days from receipt of Decision b) Appeal fee c) Surety bond in an amount equivalent equivalent to monetary award Meaning of substantial compliance with requirement of appeal bod for perfection of appeal to the NLRC. Phil Touristers Inc Vs. Mas Transit Workers (MTI) – KMU), G.R. No. 201237, 03 September 2014. J. Perlas-Bernabe Mt Carmel Employees’ Union Vs. Mt Carmel School , G.R. No. 186271, 24 Sept 2014, J. Reyes

3. Secretary of Labor Arts. 128 and 263 (g), Labor Code Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union – – FFW vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 565 Phimco Industries, Inc. vs. Brillantes, 304 SCRA 747 National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 405 Jurisd iction of DOLE on its visitorial power

People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.), Vs. The Secretary Of The Department Of Labor And Employment, G.R. No. 179652, 06 March 2012 4. Regional Director - Art. 129 & 217, LC 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Small money claims without reinstatement reinstateme nt Visitorial powers Petition for certification certificati on election Decision of RD appealable to NLRC

Cases: Maternity Children’s Hospital vs. Sec. of Labor, 174 SCRA 632 Odin Security Agency vs. Dela Serna, 182 SCRA 472 SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, 181 SCRA 675 Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 666 5. Bureau of Labor Relations - Art. Art. 226, LC 4.1 Inter-union and intra-union conflicts


4.2 Disputes arising from or affecting labor-management relations except grievances 4.3 Registration of CBA Cases: Pepsi Cola Sales & Advertising Union vs. Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843 Abbot Laboratories Laboratories Phils, Inc. vs. Abbot Laboratories Laboratories Employees Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392 5. Voluntary Arbitrator Art. 261, Labor Code Code Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings, 15 October 2004, Rules IV and VI. Cases: Ludo & Luym Corp. vs. Saordino, 395 SCRA 451 Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268 Tabigue et al vs. Intl Copra Export Corp., GR 183335, 23 Dec 2009 Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013 Cf. Grievance Machinery (Art. 260, Labor Code.) Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47 San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1 6. NCMB - B5 R13 S3, IRR NCMB Manual of Regulations for Conciliation and Mediation, 31 Jan 1992 6.1 Strikes and Lock-outs; See previous chapter on Strikes CONTRA: Labor Injunctions (Arts. 254; 218 and 263, Labor Code.) Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Judge Cabato, 327 SCRA 521 Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 499 San Miguel vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418 7. Court of Appeals Rules 43 and 65, Rules of Civil Procedure Cases: St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 Veloso vs. China Airlines, Ltd., 310 SCRA 274 Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, Abella, 323 323 SCRA 50 50 Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 273 MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 8. Supreme Court Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure Tancinco vs. GSIS, 369 SCRA 221 Abalos vs. vs. Philex Mining Mining Corp., 393 SCRA 134 9. Liability of the Transferee of an Enterprise


Sundowner Dev. Corp. vs. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 Filipinas Port Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 773 10. May employer offset costs of employee’s training from retirement benefits? Bibiano C. Elegir vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 181995, 16 July 2012. 11. Worker s’ preference s’ preference of credit vs lien on unpaid wages, Art. 110 LC DBP vs. NLRC, 229 SCRA 351 DBP s. NLRC, 242 SCRA 59 [1995] Prudential Bank vs. NLRC, G.R. NO. 112592 [19 Dec. 1995] Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., (in his capacity as the Liquidator of ARCAM & Co., Inc.) vs. Philippine National Bank. Bank . G.R. No. 171132, 15 August 2012. 12. Prescriptive period in Labor Code prevails over Civil Code in termination cases Laureano vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 414 [2000] Victory Liner vs. Race, 519 SCRA 497 [2007] Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp vs. Panginiban, 514 SCRA 404 [2007]

FINALS HERE


Labor Relations Law 2017 Syllabus

Recommend Documents