prev
next
out of 47

Q&A Labor 1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    1/47

    Labor Law 1

    2000 CASESQ: X had been working for a year as a security guard with comany A!" a sistercomany of comany #! $e was hired on %anuary 1" 1&'' as he was among thoseabsorbed by comany # when it took o(er the security contracts of its sister

    comany A! $e was forced by comany # to sign a new robationary contract for )mos* and on August 1" 1&''" his em+oyment was terminated for a++eged+y s+eeingon ost and ,uarre+ing with a co-worker! .as # a regu+ar em+oyee and therebyi++ega++y dismissed/

    A: es! #s em+oyment with comany # was ust a continuation of his em+oymentwith comany A! 3he Court cannot sanction the ractice of comanies that e4ectsthe transfer of its em+oyees to another entity whose owners are the same" in orderto deri(e subect em+oyees of the bene5ts he is entit+ed to under the +aw!6e(erthe+ess" # attained the status of a regu+ar em+oyee with comany # uoncom+etion of his si7-month eriod of robation! $e started working on %anuary 80"1&''* and the end of the eriod of robation was on %u+y 29" 1&''! .hen he was

    dismissed on August 1" he was a+ready a regu+ar em+oyee with a security oftenure! ri(ate resondents a++eged (io+ations were 5rst infractions and do notamount to (a+id grounds for terminating em+oyment! (A Prime SecurityServices, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. 107320, January 1, 2000!Q: ;. is a union whose C#A with the comany A e7ired! =uringrenegotiations" the management ane+ arri(ed +ate causing the union ane+ to wa+kout! 3he management addressed a +etter of ao+ogy to the union and re,uested fornegotiations to resume! 3he union ane+ did not show u desite +etters frommanagement ad(ising the former of the C#A meetings! Conse,uent+y" the unionstruck! A com+aint was 5+ed by ?o+den =onuts to dec+are the strike i++ega+!Counse+ for the union strikers +eaded for a comromise whereuon a 2@9 out of2)2 members agreed to a comromise sett+ement whereby they sha++ be aidsearation ay in e7change for the dismissa+ of the crimina+ and unfair +aborractice cases 5+ed by etitioners against them! Cou+d the union comromise orwai(e the rights to security of tenure and money c+aims of its minority members"without the +atters consent/

    A: 6o! Absent a showing of the unions secia+ authority to comromise theindi(idua+ c+aims of ri(ate resondents for reinstatement and backwages" there isno (a+id wai(er of the aforesaid rights! 3he udgment of the Labor Arbiter uho+dingthe dismissa+ of ri(ate resondents based on the comromise agreement does notha(e the e4ect of res udicata those who did not agree thereto since there,uirement of identity of arties is not satis5ed! A udgment uon a comromiseagreement is conc+usi(e on+y uon arties thereto and their ri(ies! ri(ateresondents ha(e not wai(ed their right to security of tenure nor can they be barredfrom entit+ement of their indi(idua+ c+aims! Since there was no e(idence thatri(ate resondents committed any i++ega+ act" etitioners fai+ure to reinstate themafter the sett+ement of the strike amounts to i++ega+ dismissa+! (G"#$en %"nuts,Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N"s. 113&&&'&, January 1, 2000!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    2/47

    Q: nion A" of which X was a art" 5+ed with the =BLE a notice of strike raisingcharges of L and i++ega+ dismissa+ against Comany A! 3he Labor Arbiter orderedComany A to ay X searation ay of month ay for e(ery year of ser(ice! X5+ed a motion for e7ecution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter! 3he Dehabi+itationDecei(er of Comany A submitted a

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    3/47

    contracts! 3he a4ected workers c+aimed they were dismissed because of theirunion acti(ities* and thus staged a strike! 3he strike was dec+ared i++ega+ and theworkers were deemed to ha(e +ost their em+oyment status! .ere the workers(a+id+y dismissed/

    A 4es. 56e c"ntracts " em#"yment " etiti"ners attest t" t6e act t6at

    t6ey 8ere 6ire$ "r seci9c r":ects an$ t6eir em#"yment 8asc"termin"us 8it6 t6e c"m#eti"n " t6e r":ect "r 86ic6 t6ey 6a$ *een6ire$. A#s", t6ey 8ere in"rme$ in a$vance t6at sai$ r":ect "run$erta;in "r 86ic6 t6ey 8ere 6ire$ 8"u#$ en$ "n a state$ "r$etermina*#e $ate. Since t6e 8"r;ers 8ere r":ect em#"yees, t6eirem#"yment #ea##y en$e$ u"n c"m#eti"n " t6eir resective r":ects.(Ass"ciati"n " 5ra$e rom %une 1&&2 to

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    4/47

    to a4ord the em+oyee an oortunity to be heard on any charge against him" forthere is none! 3he urose is to gi(e him time to reare for the e(entua+ +oss ofhis ob and the =BLE to determine whether economic causes do e7ist ustifying thetermination of his em+oyment! .ith resect to Art! 2'8" the em+oyers fai+ure tocom+y with the notice re,uirement does not constitute a denia+ of due rocess buta mere fai+ure to obser(e a rocedure for the termination of em+oyment which

    makes the termination of em+oyment mere+y ine4ectua+!f the em+oyees searation is without cause" instead of being gi(en searationay" he shou+d be reinstated! n either case" whether he is reinstated or gi(ensearation ay" he shou+d be aid fu++ backwages if he has been +aid o4 withoutwritten notice at +east 80 days in ad(ance!.ith resect to dismissa+s under 2'2" if he was dismissed for any of the ust causesin 2'2" he shou+d not be reinstated! $owe(er" he must be aid backwages fromthe time his em+oyment was terminated unti+ it is determined that the terminationis for a ust cause because the fai+ure to hear him renders the termination of hisem+oyment without +ega+ e4ect! (Serran" v. NLRC, G.R. N". 11700, January27, 2000!

    Q:A was em+oyed as HhousekeeerI with Comany #! $e a+so owned a car-for-hirewhich he rented to # who oerated the car as a ta7i! Bne day" # aroached thefront desk c+erk at etitioners hote+ re,uesting a co++ectib+e of 2000 be added to acertain ;orean guests"

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    5/47

    A: es! >ai+ure to submit the strike (ote to the 6CC with additiona+ contractua+ workers! nC! =ue to Js +ength of ser(ice" he had attained thestatus of regu+ar em+oyee and thus cannot be terminated without ust or (a+idcause! D>C fai+ed to ro(e that his dismissa+ was for cause and that he wasa4orded rocedura+ due rocess! J is thus entit+ed to reinstatement +us fu++backwages from his dismissa+ u to actua+ reinstatement! (-in"ya v. NLRC, G.R.N". 12&&, ?e*ruary 2, 2000!

    Q: # is a +ady Security ?uard of Comany B! She was +ast assigned at Jicente

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    6/47

    demotion in rank or diminution of sa+aries" bene5ts and other ri(i+eges! n thiscase" the transfer was done in good faith and in the best interest of the businessenterrise! E(idence does not show that Comany B discriminated against # ine4ecting her transfer as such was done to com+y with a reasonab+e re,uest! 3hemere incon(enience of a new ob assignment does not by itse+f make the transferi++ega+! (@SS Security an$ A##ie$ Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. N". 11272,

    ?e*ruary , 2000!

    Q: Comany . is conducts a rinting business in Sta! CruG

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    7/47

    Q: A" # and C were dri(ers of Comany Q dri(ing the +atters ta7icabs e(ery otherday on a 2M hour work schedu+e under the boundary system where etitioners earnan a(erage of M00 dai+y and ri(ate resondent regu+ar+y deducts an amount forthe washing of the ta7i units! A" # and C decided to form a +abor union! Later"Comany Q refused to +et etitioners dri(e their ta7icabs! A" # and C 5+ed with the

    +abor arbiter a com+aint for L" i++ega+ dismissa+" and i++ega+ deductions! 3he 6LDCfound for A" # and C stating that dismissa+ must be for ust cause and after duerocess! Comany QNs 5rst motion for reconsideration was denied! t 5+ed anotherederation ! A bitter disagreement ensued betweenthe >ederation and the nion < cu+minating in the +atters dec+aration of genera+autonomy from the former! 3he federation asked the comany to sto theremittance of nion ederation 5+ed anotice of strike with the 6C

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    8/47

    a++egations! 3he issue is not a ure+y intra-union matter as it was +ater on con(ertedinto a termination disute when the comany dismissed the etitioners from workwithout the bene5t of a searate notice and hearing! As to the act of disaF+iation bythe +oca+ union* it is sett+ed that a +oca+ union has the right to disaF+iate from itsmother union in the absence of seci5c ro(isions in the federations constitutionrohibiting such! 3here was no such ro(ision in federation L?.s constitution!

    Q: n the abo(e case" was the strike i++ega+/

    A: 6o! As to the +ega+ity of the strike* it was based on the termination disute andetitioners be+ie(ed in good faith that in dismissing them" the comany was gui+tyof L! 3he no-strike" no +ockout ro(ision in the C#A can on+y be in(oked when thestrike is economic! As to the (io+ence" both arties agreed that the (io+ence was notattributed to the striking em+oyees a+one as the comany itse+f hired men to acifythe strikers! Such (io+ence cannot be a ground for dec+aring the strikei++ega+! (/a#ayan Sama6an n ma /anaa8a sa /. Green9e#$(/S/G0

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    9/47

    A: 6o! 3he erfection of an aea+ within the reg+ementary eriod and in themanner rescribed by +aw is urisdictiona+" and noncom+iance with such +ega+re,uirement is fata+ and has the e4ect of rendering the udgment 5na+ ande7ecutory! erfection of an aea+ inc+udes the 5+ing" within the rescribed eriodof the memorandum of aea+ and osting of the aea+ bond! n cases where the

    udgment in(o+(es a monetary award" as in this case" the aea+ may be erfectedon+y uon osting of a cash or surety bond to the 6LDC! Since the X recei(ed theLAs decision on Ari+ 8" they had on+y unti+ Ari+ 18 to 5+e their aea+! 3he bondwas osted on+y on Ari+ 80* beyond the reg+ementary eriod! 3he re,uirement ofosting the bond has on+y been re+a7ed on grounds of substantia+ ustice and secia+circumstances which are not attendant in this case! >urthermore" the bond ostedwas not genuine! 3he decision can no +onger be amended nor a+tered by the +abortribuna+! (Navarr" v. NLRC, G.R. N". 11&&, /arc6 1, 2000!Q: A" is a member of the 6>L" em+oyed by X in the ata+on Coconut Estate inOamboanga City! ursuant to DA ))@9" the Comrehensi(e Agrarian Deform Law"the ata+on Cocount Estate was warded to the ata+on Estate Deform Association" of

    which A is a member and co-owner! As a resu+t of this ac,uisition" the ata+onEstate shut down oerations and the em+oyment of A was se(ered! A did notrecei(e searation ay! A became co-owner of the +and and subse,uent+y 5+ed acom+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+! Shou+d X" who had been come++ed to ceaseoerations because of comu+sory ac,uisition by the go(ernment of his +and foruroses of agrarian reform" be made +iab+e to ay searation ay to A/

    A N". 56e ecu#iar circumstance in t6e case at *ar inv"#ves neit6er t6ec#"sure " an esta*#is6ment n"r a re$ucti"n in ers"nne# as c"ntem#ate$in Artic#e 23. 56e c#"sure c"ntem#ate$ in 23 is a v"#untary act "n t6eart " t6e em#"yer. 56e La*"r C"$e $"es n"t c"ntem#ate a situati"n86ere t6e c#"sure is "rce$ u"n t6e em#"yer. As suc6, etiti"ners aren"t entit#e$ t" searati"n ay as rivate res"n$ents $i$ n"t v"#untarys6ut $"8n "erati"ns as t6ey even s"u6t t" *e e>emte$ r"m t6ec"verae " RA &&7. (Nati"na# ?e$erati"n " La*"r v. NLRC, G.R. N".12771, /arc6 2, 2000!

    Q: A and # were em+oyed by Comany E! A a+ied for a +ea(e of absence andinformed the Berations

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    10/47

    ri(ate resondents for 20 years as they were reeated+y re-hired after thee7iration of their resecti(e contracts" it is c+ear that their ser(ice was necessaryand indisensab+e to ri(ate resondents business! 3herefore" they cou+d on+y bedismissed for ust and (a+id cause! 3here is no showing that they abandoned their

    ob as there was no showing of their unusti5ed refusa+ to resumeem+oyment! (/i##ares v. NLRC, G.R. N". 1102, /arc6 1, 2000!

    Q: X is a members of nion S! 3he E7ecuti(e #oard of nion S decided to retain theser(ices of their counse+ in connection with negotiations for a new C#A! A genera+membershi meeting was ca++ed where maority of union members aro(ed areso+ution con5rming the decision to engage the ser(ices of the unions counse+"Atty! Lacsina! 3he reso+ution ro(ided that 10P of the tota+ economic bene5ts thatmay be secured be gi(en to the counse+ at attorneys fees! A+so it contained anauthoriGation for So+idbank Cororation to check-o4 said attorneys fees from the5rst +um sum of ayment of bene5ts under the new C#A! X issued a com+aint fori++ega+ deduction!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    11/47

    constitutes a serious o4ense under etitioners Code of =isci+ine! 3he fact that ALfai+ed to show it su4ered +osses in re(enue is immateria+ as ri(ate resondentsmere attemt to deri(e etitioner of its +awfu+ remedy is a+ready tantamount tofraud! 3herefore" A was (a+id+y dismissed and as such was for a ust cause" he is notentit+ed to backwages nor searation ay! (PAL v. NLRC, G.R. N". 12&0, /arc61&, 2000!

    Q: 3he 6>L was the so+e and e7c+usi(e bargaining reresentati(e for the rank and5+e em+oyees of Comany X! 6>L started to negotiate for better terms andconditions of em+oyment* which were met with resistance by Comany X! 3he 6>L5+ed a com+aint for L on the ground of refusa+ to bargain co++ecti(e+y! LA issuedan order dec+aring the comany gui+ty of L and ordering the C#A roosa+ssubmitted by the 6>L as the C#A between the arties! Later" c+aimed that he waswrongfu++y e7c+uded from the bene5ts under the C#A 5+ed a etition for re+ief!Comany X asserts that is not entit+ed to the bene5ts under the C#A because hewas hired after the term of a C#A and therefore" is not a arty to the agreement andmay not c+aim bene5ts thereunder! As for the C#A" Comany X maintains that theforce and e4ect of the C#As terms are +imited to on+y three years and cannot

    e7tend to terms and conditions which ceased to ha(e force and e4ect! Are theassertions of Comany X correct/

    A: 6o! As to its 5rst assertion" shou+d be ab+e to c+aim bene5ts under the C#A! 3hebene5ts under the C#A shou+d be e7tended to those who on+y became such after ite7ired" to e7c+ude them wou+d constitute undue discrimination! n fact" when aC#A is entered into by the union reresenting the em+oyees and the em+oyer"e(en the non-union members are entit+ed to the bene5ts of the contract! As to itsassertion that the C#As terms are +imited to on+y three years" it is c+ear from Art!2@8 that unti+ a new C#A has been e7ecuted by and between the arties" they areduty bound to kee the status ,uo and to continue in fu++ force and e4ect the termsand conditions of the e7isting agreement! n the case at bar" no new agreement

    was entered between the arties ending aea+ of the decision in the 6LDC!Conse,uent+y" the em+oyees wou+d be deri(ed of a substantia+ amount ofmonetary bene5ts if the terms and conditions of the C#A were not to remain inforce and e4ect which runs counter to the intent of the Labor Code to curb +aborunrest and romote industria+ eace! (Ne8 Paci9c 5im*er Su#y C". v. NLRC,G.R. N". 1222, /arc6 17, 2000!

    Q: A was em+oyed as a data encoder by ri(ate resondent! >rom 1&'' unti+ 1&&1"she entered into 18 em+oyment contracts with ri(ate resondent" each contractfor a eriod of 8 months! n Setember 1&&1" A and 12 other em+oyees a++eged+yagreed to the 5+ing of a CE of the rank and 5+e em+oyees of ri(ate resondent!Subse,uent+y" A recei(ed a termination +etter due to H+ow (o+ume of work!I A 5+ed acom+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+! .as A a regu+ar em+oyee entit+ed to tenuria+security/

    A: es! E(en though etitioner is a roect em+oyee" as in the case of

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    12/47

    2! the tasks erformed by the a++eged Hroect em+oyeeI are (ita+" necessary andindisensab+e to the usua+ business and trade of the em+oyer!A was em+oyed as a data encoder erforming duties" which are usua++y necessaryor desirab+e in the usua+ business or trade of the em+oyer" continuous+y for aeriod of more than 8 years! #eing a regu+ar em+oyee" A is entit+ed to security oftenure and cou+d on+y be dismissed for a ust and authoriGed cause* +ow (o+ume of

    work is not a (a+id cause for dismissa+ under Arts! 2'2 or 2'8! $a(ing worked formore than 8 years" A is a+so entit+ed to ser(ice incenti(e +ea(e bene5ts from 1&'&unti+ her actua+ reinstatement since such is demandab+e after one year of ser(ice"whether continuous or broken! (Im*ui$" v. NLRC, G.R. N". 1173, /arc6 31,2000!

    Q: A was em+oyed as a security guard by Comany X! =uring a routinary meetingof the security guards" A stood u and shouted at the residing oFcer! She wasthen susended for 1@ days! Later" she recei(ed a +etter that she was reassignedand re,uired to reort to resondents

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    13/47

    A: es! Comuter oerators were resent+y doing c+erica+ and routinary work andhad nothing to do with the setting of management o+icies for the uni(ersity! 3heaccess they ha(e to information to the ni(ersitys oerations are not necessari+ycon5dentia+! 3he e7ress e7c+usion of the comuter oerators in the ast does notose a bar to re-negotiation for future inc+usion of the said em+oyees in the

    bargaining unit! A+so" as to the em+oyees of the CS#" they were roer+y e7c+udedat the two education institutions ha(e their own searate uridica+ ersona+ity! K=e +aSa++e ni(ersity (! =e La Sa++e ni(ersity Em+oyees Association" ?!D! 6o! 10&002"Ari+ 12" 2000

    Q: A recei(ed a +etter ca++ing to his attention his conduct during a Sa+es and

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    14/47

    em+oyee who is dismissed for ust cause is not entit+ed to any 5nancia+ assistance"due to e,uity considerations as this was Xs 5rst o4ense in 1' years of ser(ice" he isto be granted searation ay by way of 5nancia+ assistance of months ay fore(ery year of ser(ice! (Aarente, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. N". 117&2, Ari# 27,2000!

    Q: was a comany nurse for the Comany O! A memorandum was issued by theersonne+ manager of Comany O to asking her to e7+ain why no action shou+dbe taken against her for K1 throwing a sta+er at +ant manager .i++iam Chua* K2for +osing the amount of 1"M'' entrusted to her" K8 for asking a co-em+oyee tounch in her time card one morning when she was not there! She was then +acedon re(enti(e susension! Another memorandum was sent to her asking her toe7+ain why she fai+ed to rocess the A3< a+ications of her co-em+oyees! Shesubmitted a written e7+anation as to the +oss of the 1"M'' and the unching in ofher time card! A third memorandum was sent to her informing her of hertermination from ser(ice for gross and habitua+ neg+ect of duties" seriousmisconduct" and fraud or wi++fu+ breach of trust! c+aims that her throwing of thesta+er at +ant manager .i++iam Chua was because the +atter had been making

    se7ua+ ad(ances on her since her 5rst year of em+oyment and that when she wou+dnot accede to his re,uests" he threatened that he wou+d cause her termination fromser(ice! As to the other charges" she c+aimed that they were not done with ma+ice orbad faith! .as i++ega++y dismissed" and if so" is she entit+ed to reco(er damages/

    A 4es. 56e r"un$s *y 86ic6 an em#"yer may va#i$#y terminate t6eservices " an em#"yee must *e strict#y c"nstrue$. 5" c"nstitute seri"usmisc"n$uct t" :ustiy $ismissa#, t6e acts must *e $"ne in re#ati"n t" t6eer"rmance " 6er $uties as 8"u#$ s6"8 6er t" *e un9t t" c"ntinue8"r;in "r 6er em#"yer. 56e acts c"m#aine$ " $i$ n"t ertain t" 6er$uties as a nurse neit6er $i$ t6ey c"nstitute seri"us misc"n$uct. @n t6eBuesti"n " $amaes, a#t6"u6 4 a##"8e$ "ur years t" ass *e"re c"min"ut 8it6 6er em#"yer)s se>ua# im"siti"nsE t6e time t" $" s" a$mitte$#yvaries $een$in u"n t6e nee$s, circumstances an$ em"ti"na# t6res6"#$" eac6 ers"n. It is c#ear t6at 4 6as suere$ an>iety, s#ee#ess ni6ts,*esmirc6e$ reutati"n an$ s"cia# 6umi#iati"n *y reas"n " t6e actc"m#aine$ ". 56us, s6e s6"u#$ *e entit#e$ t" m"ra# an$ e>em#ary$amaes "r t6e "ressive manner 8it6 86ic6 etiti"ner)s eecte$ 6er$ismissa# an$ t" serve as a 8arnin t" "Fcers 86" ta;e a$vantae "t6eir ascen$ancy "ver t6eir em#"yees. (P6i#iine Ae"#us Aut"m"tive

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    15/47

    A: 6o! 3he Court ru+ed that since the dismissa+ is due to an authoriGed cause on+ynotice is re,uired and that the em+oyee has no right to resent his side! 3he 80day notice is needed in order to a4ord the em+oyee enough time to +ook for workand to gi(e the =BLE time to +ook into the (a+idity of the authoriGed cause! 80 daysay is not enough to re+ace the notice re,uirement because it wou+d not ser(e the

    urose of the notice! Additiona++y" backwages are not a se(ere unishmentbecause it is a conse,uence of the em+oyers fai+ure to gi(e notice and duerocess and the em+oyee is therefore not deemed terminated so he shou+d becomensated for that eriod! (Serran" vs NLRC, GR N" 11700, /ay , 2000!

    Q: A and # 5+ed a etition for certi5cation e+ection! 3heir etition was granted butthey +ost in the e+ection as maority of the em+oyees (oted for Hno unionI! 3hene7t day" they fai+ed to reort for work! 3hey c+aim that they were barred fromentering the remises! 3hey 5+ed a suit for i++ega+ dismissa+ and backwages! 3hecomany denied these a++egations and a++eged that A and # refused to return towork desite their attention being ca++ed! .ere A and # +ega++y dismissed/

    A: 6o! 3he Court ru+ed that an immediate 5+ing of a com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+ isincomatib+e with abandonment! Abandonment is a matter of intention! 3heremust be roof of de+iberate and unusti5ed intent to se(er the em+oyer-em+oyeere+ationshi! 3his burden rests on the em+oyer! n this case" the em+oyer fai+ed todo so! Since they were i++ega++y dismissed" the em+oyees are entit+ed toreinstatement with fu++ backwages" undiminished by their earningse+sewhere! (-i##ar v. NLRC, GR N" 1303, /ay 11, 2000!

    Q: A schoo+ em+oys both +oca+-hire and foreign-hire teachers! 3he foreign-hireteachers were gi(en an added 2@P in their sa+ary and some bene5ts +iketransortation and housing" shiing costs etc! 3hese were gi(en based on twothings: dis+ocation and +imited tenure! 3he added comensation was the schoo+s

    way of remaining cometiti(e on an internationa+ +e(e+ in terms of attractingcometent teachers! 3he +oca+-hire teachers" art of the union contested thedi4erence" a dead+ock resu+ted so the teachers went on strike! s therediscrimination in terms of wages/

    A: es" there is discrimination! 3he rinci+e He,ua+ ay for e,ua+ workI shou+da+y in this case! ersons who work with substantia++y e,ua+ ,ua+i5cations" ski++"e4ort and resonsibi+ity" under simi+ar conditions" shou+d be aid simi+ar sa+aries! fan em+oyee is aid +ess it is uon the em+oyer to e7+ain why the em+oyee istreated di4erent+y! =is+ocation and +imited tenure cannot ser(e as ade,uate or (a+idbases for the di4erence in the sa+ary rates! 3he other bene5ts are enough to makeu for these two factors! 3here is no reasonab+e distinction between the work of a+oca+-hire and a foreign-hire that wi++ ustify the di4erence! (Internati"na# Sc6""#A##iance " =$ucat"rs v. uisum*in, GR N" 12, June 1, 2000!

    Q: A comany was found to ha(e underaid their em+oyees and did not ay the18thmonth ay on a routine insection conducted by =BLE! 3he regiona+ directorordered the comany to ay the de5ciency! Subse,uent+y" the 6LDC aFrmed theorder! A wai(er was signed by 10' of the workers where they reduced by ha+f theamount that was due! =BLE aro(ed the wai(er saying that it was not contrary to

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    16/47

    +aw" good customs and ub+ic o+icy! Later" etitioner 5+ed a motion forreconsideration a++eging undue inuence" coercion" intimidation" and no assistanceof counse+! 3he motion was denied! Eduardo 6ietes" c+aiming that he reresentedthe workers" 5+ed a osition aer with the same argument! 3he 6LDC dismissedthe case for fai+ure to ac,uire urisdiction! $e again 5+ed an aea+ but the aea+was denied for being 5+ed out of time! 3he aea+ was 5+ed & days +ate a+ong with

    the aea+ fee and research fee! .as the aea+ was 5+ed out of time/

    A: es" the aea+ was 5+ed out of time! 3he erfection of an aea+ within thereg+amentary eriod and in the manner rescribed by +aw is mandatory and

    urisdictiona+! 6on-com+iance renders the udgement aea+ed 5na+ ande7ecutory! An aea+ is erfected when there is roof of ayment of the aea+ feeand in cases of the em+oyer aea+ing and there is a monetary award" ayment ofthe aea+ bond! A mere notice of aea+ without com+ying with the otherre,uisites sha++ not sto the running of the eriod for erfecting an aea+!Sometimes though" in the interest of ustice" +ate aea+s ha(e been a++owed! Aninstance is a c+ass suit! n this case there is no e(idence that there is a c+ass suit!

    3here is no e(idence that the workers chose 6ietes to reresent them! 3here is no

    showing that the workers are oined by a common interest! As there is no basis toin(a+idate the wai(er the workers signed" the wai(er is (a+id! ("r;ers " AntiBue=#ectric C""erative v. NLRC, GR N" 1200&2, June , 2000!

    Q: X was a radio oerator on board a shi where he had a contract for 12 months!$e was re,uired to submit himse+f to a medica+ e7amination! rior to this" he had aacemaker inserted to he+ his cardio(ascu+ar functioning but he was sti++ dec+ared5t to work! Bn board the (esse+" he had bouts of coughing and he needed oenheart surgery! $e 5+ed for sickness and disabi+ity bene5ts with the BEA and thesewere awarded to him! s the sickness comensab+e/

    A: es" it is comensab+e! Comensabi+ity of the i++ness or death of seamen need not

    deend on whether the i++ness was work connected or not!t is suFcient that thei++ness occurred during the term of the em+oyment contract! t wi++ a+so be reca++edthat etitioners admitted that ri(ate resondentNs work as a radio oFcer e7osedhim to di4erent c+imates and unredictab+e weather" which cou+d trigger a heartattack or heart fai+ure! E(en assuming that the ai+ment of the worker wascontracted rior to his em+oyment" this sti++ wou+d not deri(e him of comensationbene5ts! >or what matters is that his work had contributed, even in a small degree,to the development of the disease and in bringing about his e(entua+ death!6either is it necessary" in order to reco(er comensation" that the em+oyee mustha(e been in erfect hea+th at the time he contracted the disease! (Seau##S6i/anaement an$ 5rans"rt Inc. v. NLRC, GR N" 123&1, June , 2000!

    Q: X is a merchandiser of resondent comany! $e withdraws stocks from thewarehouse" 57es the rices" rice-tagging" dis+aying the roducts and in(entory!$e was aid by the comany through an agent! $e asked for regu+ariGation of hisstatus! 3he comany denied any em+oyer-em+oyee re+ationshi! 3hey c+aim thatthey used an agent or indeendent contractors to se++ the merchandise! .as there+abor-on+y contracting/

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    17/47

    A: 6o! 3he agent is a +egitimate indeendent contractor! Labor-on+y contractoroccurs on+y when the contractor mere+y recruits" su+ies or +aces workers toerform a ob for a rincia+! 3he +abor-on+y contractor does not ha(e substantia+caita+ or in(estment and the workers recruited erform acti(ities direct+y re+ated tothe rincia+ business of the em+oyer! 3here is ermissib+e contracting on+y whenthe contractor carries an indeendent business and undertakes the contract in his

    own manner and method" free from the contro+ of the rincia+ and the contractorhas substantia+ caita+ or in(estment! 3he agent" and not the comany" a+soe7ercises contro+ o(er the etitioners! 6o documents were submitted to ro(e thatthe comany e7ercised contro+ o(er them! 3he agent hired the etitioners! 3heagent a+so ays the etitioners" no e(idence was submitted showing that it was thecomany aying them and not the agent! t was a+so the agent who terminatedtheir ser(ices! #y etitioning for regu+ariGation" the etitioners concede that theyare not regu+ar em+oyees! (=scari" v. NLRC, GR N" 120, June , 2000!

    Q: X was origina++y em+oyed by D Cororation as a muRer secia+ist" and wassubse,uent+y aointed suer(isor ! $e was instructed to reort at ri(ateresondents main oFce where he was informed by the comanys ersonne+

    manager that he wou+d be transferred to its Sucat +ant due to his fai+ure to meethis sa+es ,uota" and for that reason" his suer(isors a++owance wou+d be withdrawn!>or a short time" X reorted for work at the Sucat +ant* howe(er" he rotested histransfer" subse,uent+y 5+ing a com+aint for i++ega+ termination! X decries histransfer as being (io+ati(e of his security of tenure" the c+ear im+ication being thathe was constructi(e+y dismissed! .as X constructi(e+y dismissed/

    A: 6o! .e ha(e he+d that an em+oyer acts we++ within its rights in transferring anem+oyee as it sees 5t ro(ided that there is no demotion in rank or diminution inay! 3he two circumstances are deemed badges of bad faith" and thus constituti(eof constructi(e dismissa+! n this regard" constructi(e dismissa+ is de5ned as Hanin(o+untary resignation resorted to when continued em+oyment becomes

    imossib+e" unreasonab+e" or un+ike+y* when there is a demotion in rank ordiminution in ay* or when a c+ear discrimination" insensibi+ity or disdain by anem+oyer becomes unbearab+e to the em+oyee!I t shou+d be borne in mind"howe(er" that the right to demote an em+oyee a+so fa++s within the category ofmanagement rerogati(es! An em+oyer is entit+ed to imose roducti(itystandards for its workers" and in fact" non-com+iance may be (isited with a ena+tye(en more se(ere than demotion! >ai+ure to obser(e rescribed standards of work"or to fu+5++ reasonab+e work assignments due to ineFciency may constitute ustcause for dismissa+!(Le"nar$" v. NLRC, G.R. N". 12303, June 1&, 2000!

    Q: was em+oyed as a mechanic! $e was dismissed after the comany found outthat he was doing side+ine work! t wou+d aear that +ate in the e(ening of the dayin ,uestion" the dri(er of a red Coro++a arri(ed at the sho +ooking for ! 3he dri(ersaid that" as rearranged" he was to ick u who wou+d erform a ri(ate ser(iceon the (ehic+e! .hen reorts of the side+ine work reached management" itconfronted and asked for an e7+anation! According to ri(ate resondent" ga(econtradictory e7cuses" e(entua++y c+aiming that the unauthoriGed ser(ice was for anaunt! .hen ressed to resent his aunt" it was then that stoed reorting forwork" 5+ing his com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+ some ten months after his a++eged

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    18/47

    termination! was e(en em+oyed by another comany thereafter! .as thereabandonment of work/

    A: es! " after being ressed by the resondent comany to resent the customerregarding his unauthoriGed so+icitation of side+ine work from the +atter and whom hec+aims to be his aunt" he ne(er reorted back to work anymore! t must be stressed

    that whi+e a++eges that he was i++ega++y dismissed from his em+oyment by theresondents" surrising+y" he ne(er stated any reason why the resondents wou+dwant to ease him out from his ob!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    19/47

    A: 6o! 3o constitute abandonment" two e+ements must concur: K1 the fai+ure toreort for work or absence without (a+id or usti5ab+e reason" and K2 a c+earintention to se(er the em+oyer-em+oyee re+ationshi! Such is disuted by the factthat ri(ate resondent immediate+y reorted back for work and +ost no time in5+ing a case for i++ega+ dismissa+ against etitioners! (Ica8at v. NLRC, GR13372, June 20, 2000!

    Q: X was em+oyed as manager by a comany for its $ea+thcare =i(ision! n Ari+1&&)" 5ctitious in(oices were sent to c+ients made to inate the gross re(enues ofthe $ea+thcare =i(ision* and 6okom was +aced on re(enti(e susension as initia+5ndings showed her to be in(o+(ed in such anoma+y! X admitted the irregu+aritiesand made no e7+anation! She a+so fai+ed to aear during the hearing! After thein(estigation" Xs em+oyment was terminated! X was found to ha(e beendismissed for Hfraud or wi++fu+ breachI of the trust reosed on her by her em+oyeror du+y authoriGed reresentati(e! .as X +ega++y dismissed/

    A: es! n the case at bar" etitioners osition demanded a high degree ofresonsibi+ity" inc+uding the unearthing of fraudu+ent and irregu+ar acti(ities!

    etitioner fai+ed to do such and her bare denia+s did not disro(e her gui+t! 3heordinary ru+e is that one who has know+edge ecu+iar+y within his contro+" andrefuses to di(u+ge it" cannot com+ain if the court uts the most unfa(orab+econstruction uon his si+ence" and infers that a disc+osure wou+d ha(e shown thefact to be as c+aimed by the oosing arty! Loss of con5dence is one of the ustcauses for a (a+id dismissa+* and it is enough that there be Hsome basisI for such+oss of con5dence! 3he guide+ines for the a+ication of the doctrine of +oss ofcon5dence as enunciated in Midas Touch Food Corporation" are:a!!!!!+oss of con5dence shou+d not be simu+ated*b!!!!!it shou+d not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are imroer" i++ega+ orunusti5ed*c!!!!!it may not be arbitrari+y asserted in the face of o(erwhe+ming e(idence to the

    contrary* andd!!!!!it must be genuine" not a mere afterthought to ustify ear+ier action taken inbad faith!An em+oyer enoys a wide +atitude in the romu+gation of comany ru+es* and inthis case" the o+icies of resondent were fair and reasonab+e!(N";"m v. NLRC,G.R. N".1003, Ju#y 1, 2000!Q: X" resident of the e7c+usi(e bargaining agent initiated renegotiations of its C#Awith the comany for the +ast two years of the C#As @ year +ifetime from 1&'&-1&&M! Bn the same year" the union e+ected a new set of oFcers with O as the new+ye+ected resident! O wanted to continue renegotiation" but the comany c+aimedthat the C#A was a+ready reared for signing! 3he C#A was submitted to areferendum which was reected by the union members! Later" the union noti5ed the6C

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    20/47

    arties again discussed the ground ru+es for the C#A renegotiations* howe(er thecomany stoed negotiations after a++eged+y recei(ing information that a newgrou of em+oyees had 5+ed a etition for Certi5cation E+ections! 3he union he+d astike and the Secretary assumed urisdiction ordering a++ striking workers to returnto work! A++ were readmitted e7cet O!1! s the comany gui+ty of unfair +abor ractice by refusing to bargain with the

    union when it uni+atera++y susended the ongoing negotiations for a new C#A uonmere information that a etition for certi5cation has been 5+ed by another+egitimate +abor organiGation/2! =oes the termination of the union resident amount to an interference of theem+oyees right to se+f-organiGation/

    A:1! 6o! 3he duty to bargain co++ecti(e+y inc+udes the mutua+ ob+igation to meet and

    con(ene romt+y and e7editious+y in good faith for the urose of negotiating anagreement! etitioner fai+ed to make a time+y re+y to the unions roosa+s"thereby (io+ating the roer rocedure in co++ecti(e bargaining as ro(ided in Artic+e2@0! n order to a++ow the em+oyer to (a+id+y susend the bargaining rocess" there

    must be a (a+id CE raising a +egitimate reresentation issue! n this case" theetition was 5+ed outside the )0-day freedom eriod* therefore there was no+egitimate reresentation issue and the 5+ing of the CE did not constitute a bar tothe ongoing negotiation!

    2. es! 3he dismissa+ was in (io+ation of the em+oyees right to se+f-organiGation!3he dismissa+ must be made ursuant to the tenets of e,uity and fair +ay* whereinthe em+oyers right to terminate the ser(ices of an em+oyee must be e7ercised ingood faith* furthermore" it must not amount to interfering with" restraining orcoercing em+oyees in their right to se+f-organiGation! 3he factua+ backdro of theAmbas termination re(ea+s that such was done in order to stri the union of a+eader! Admitted+y" management has the rerogati(e to disci+ine its em+oyees forinsubordination! #ut when the e7ercise of such management right tends to interfere

    with the em+oyees right to se+f-organiGation" it amounts to union-busting and istherefore a rohibited act! (C"#ei" $e San Juan $e Letran v. Ass"ciati"n "=m#"yees an$ ?acu#ty " Letran, G.R. 1171, Setem*er 1, 2000!

    Q: X was em+oyed as sewer by a cororation engaged in the business of sewingcostumes" gowns and casua+ and forma+ dresses! E(entua++y" she started to fee+chest ains! She then 5+ed a +ea(e of absence from work as the chest ains becameunbearab+e! After subecting herse+f to medica+ e7amination" she was found to besu4ering from Atherosc+erotic heart disease" Atria+ >ibri++ation" Cardiac Arrhythmia!on recommendation of her doctor" she resigned from her work hoing that with amuch-needed com+ete rest" she wi++ be cured! She +ater 5+ed a disabi+ity c+aim withthe SSS from the Em+oyees Comensation >und" under residentia+ =ecree 6o!)2)" as amended! .as the sickness comensab+e/

    A: es" the i++ness is comensab+e! nder the Labor Code" as amended" the +awa+icab+e to the case at bar" in order for the em+oyee to be entit+ed to sickness ordeath bene5ts" the sickness or death resu+ting therefrom must be or must ha(eresu+ted from either Ka any i++ness de5nite+y acceted as an occuationa+ disease+isted by the Commission" or Kb any i++ness caused by em+oyment" subect to roofthat the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions!I n other

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    21/47

    words" Hfor a sickness and the resu+ting disabi+ity or death to be comensab+e" thesaid sickness must be an occuationa+ disease +isted under Anne7 HAI the AmendedDu+es on Em+oyees Comensation* otherwise" the c+aimant or em+oyee concernedmust ro(e that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the workingcondition!Indisutab+y" cardio(ascu+ar diseases" which" as herein abo(e-stated inc+ude

    atherosc+erotic heart disease" atria+ 5bri++ation" cardiac arrhythmia" are +isted ascomensab+e occuationa+ diseases in the Du+es of the Em+oyees ComensationCommission" hence" no further roof of casua+ re+ation between the disease andc+aimants work is necessary! (Sa#m"ne v. =m#"yees) C"mensati"nC"mmissi"n an$ S"cia# Security System, G.R. N". 1232, Setem*er 2&,2000!

    1 CAS=S

    Q! A ight surgeon at AL" was on duty from M m unti+ 12 midnight! At around 9m" he +eft the c+inic to ha(e his dinner at his residence" a @-minute dri(e away!

    .hi+e he was away" the c+inic recei(ed an emergency ca++ for a AL em+oyeesu4ered from a heart attack! 3he nurse on duty honed the doctor at home toinform him of the emergency" then rushed the atient to the hosita+ at 9:@0 m!

    3he doctor arri(ed at 9:@1 m! 3he atient died the fo++owing day! Afterin(estigation" the doctor was charged with abandonment of ost whi+e on duty" andwas +ater susended for 8 months! .as this susension +ega+/

    A! 3he susension was i++ega+! Artic+e '8 of the Labor Code K6orma+ hours of .orkro(ides that $ea+th ersonne+ ! ! ! sha++ ho+d regu+ar oFce hours for eight K' hoursa day" for 5(e K@ days a week" exclusive of time for meals" T KSee Art! '@ -

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    22/47

    found in fa(or of the em+oyee and ordered etitioner Comany to reinstate himwith back wages" sa+ary di4erentia+s" 18thmonth ay and ser(ice incenti(e ay! 3he6LDC re(ersed the decision and ru+ed that ri(ate resondent was not entit+ed toreinstatement with back wages e7cet for the award of sa+ary di4erentia+s due tounderayment!

    A! 3he SC agrees with the LA and he+d that ri(ate resondent was indeed i++ega++ydismissed! t was on+y uon his com+aint regarding his +ow sa+ary that he was no+onger a++owed to reort for work! 3his amounted to dismissa+ without cause andwithout the re,uisite written notice! Such circumstances make it diFcu+t to sustainany a++egation of abandonment! Abandonment" as a ust and (a+id cause fortermination" re,uires a de+iberate and unusti5ed refusa+ of an em+oyee to resumehis work" cou+ed with a c+ear absence of any intention of returning to his or herwork!.ith regard to the sa+ary di4erentia+s granted" etitioners c+aim e7emtion underDA )929 K.age Dationa+iGation Act and the Du+es m+ementing .age Brder 6os!6CD-01 and 6CD-01-A" as we++ as .age Brder 6os! 6CD-02 and 6CD-02-A! $owe(er"regard+ess of the factua+ circumstances in this case" the SC was not con(inced as

    the etitioners cou+d not e(en show any aro(ed a+ication for e7emtion" asre,uired by the a+icab+e guide+ines issued by the Commission!(C. P#anasC"mmercia# v. NLRC, 303 SCRA (1!!

    Q! s due rocess ser(ed e(en when the decision of the Labor arbiter is based so+e+yon osition aers/

    A! etitioner +ikewise contends that it was not granted its right to due rocess" asthe decision of the LA was based ure+y on osition aers! 3he standard of duerocess that must be met in administrati(e tribuna+s a++ows a certain degree of+atitude as +ong as fairness is not ignored! UAdamson V Adamson" nc! (! Amores"1@2 SCDA 289" 2@0 K1&'9W $ence it is not +ega++y obectionab+e" for being (io+ati(e

    of due rocess" for the LA to reso+(e a case based so+e+y on osition aers"aFda(its or documentary e(idence submitted by the arties! (C/P ?e$era#Security Aency, Inc. v. NLRC, 303 SCRA (1!!

    Q! .hi+e etitioner was assigned to sort out reects in a ri(ate resondentsbakery" he went to the comfort room to answer the ca++ of nature" with theermission of his checker! $owe(er" when the owner saw that etitioner was not athis station" he demanded from him a written e7+anation for abandoning his work!$a(ing (erba++y e7+ained that he had to answer the ca++ of nature" etitioner no+onger submitted a written e7+anation" be+ie(ing that his (erba+ denia+ wou+dsuFce! $owe(er" he was susended for 1@ days! Bn another occasion" etitionerhad to answer the ca++ of nature! 3his time" he re,uested his fe++ow worker tore+ace him whi+e he was away! 3he owner" howe(er" once again noticed that hewas gone and demanded a written e7+anation for his absence! ;nowing better"etitioner com+ied with the demand! >inding etitioners e7+anationunsatisfactory" the Comany ser(ed etitioner a notice of termination!

    A! etitioners act of re+ie(ing himse+f can hard+y be characteriGed as abandonment"much +ess a wi++fu+ or intentiona+ disobedience of comany ru+es since bowe+mo(ements are hard+y contro++ab+e! Aside from the discomfort it causes" restraining

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    23/47

    ones bowe+ mo(ements ad(erse+y a4ects the eFciency and hea+th of the worker!6either cou+d it ha(e disruted the oerations of the comany as to cause itirrearab+e damage! As such" answering the ca++ of nature is a (a+id reason to +ea(ethe work area! K%ima*aya" v. NLRC, 303 SCRA & (1!!

    Q! A room attendant of the Sheraton" oerated by etitioner" was dismissed for

    ha(ing been caught by a hote+ guest with his +eft hand inside the guests suitcase!After being charged and terminated based on the comany ru+es regarding ,ua+i5edtheft" he 5+ed a com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+! $e reasons that he was mere+y+acing the be+ongings of the hote+ guest into the +atters suitcase" as they werescattered on the oor! .as the dismissa+ i++ega+/

    A! es! etitioner reasons that the em+oyee was caught in agrante de+icto" and istherefore a cause for dismissa+! $owe(er" absent any e(idence that wou+dsubstantiate such imutation against the em+oyee" susicions and base+essconc+usions by em+oyers are not +ega+ usti5cation for dismissing em+oyees! 3heburden of roof to show the (a+idity of the dismissa+ +ies on the em+oyer! 6otab+y" itwas shown that the hote+ guest +ost nothing! K/arana8 "te#s an$ Res"rt

    C"r"rati"n v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 1 (1!!

    Q! etitioner was a checker in the warehouse of resondent Comany who met anaccident whi+e in the course of erforming his ob! $is hand was inned down by acrane which resu+ted in its deformity and tota+ disabi+ity of his midd+e 5nger! $e wasgi(en a month of sick +ea(e which he e7tended for another month! Later" hedisco(ered that the Comany had terminated his ser(ices! $e then 5+ed acom+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+! 3he LA found that there was an i++ega+ dismissa+! nits aea+ to the 6LDC" the Comany a++eged that the rea+ reason why etitioner wasdismissed was due to se(era+ gamb+ing incidents in the work area! 3his e7+anationwas acceted by the 6DLC" which omitted reinstatement and backwages from the

    award of the LA! etitioner oints out that the issue of gamb+ing was raised on+y bythe resondents uon aea+! 6ot ha(ing been a++eged in the osition aers of theresondents at the ear+iest instance" shou+d the 6LDC ha(e considered theComanys gamb+ing a++egations/

    A! 3he Comany was a++owed to submit HAnne7 2I which contained the gamb+inga++egations with the LA" there was no showing whether the 6LDC ga(e the etitionera c+ear chance to rebut the contention! Considering the +ateness of its submission"and the critica+ fact it a++eged" this was the +east that shou+d ha(e been done by the6LDC! 3herefore" etition granted! 6LDC committed gra(e abuse of discretion! LAsdecision reinstated! K-i##a v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 1 (1!!

    Q! Suer(isory em+oyees of S

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    24/47

    A! 6o the em+oyees were not (a+id+y retired! 3he mere absence of actua+ hysica+force to come+ them to ink their a+ication for retirement did not make it(o+untary! 3hey were confronted with the danger of being ob+ess! 3heiraccetance of bene5ts did not +ikewise amount to estoe+! f the intention to retireis not c+ear+y estab+ished or if the retirement is in(o+untary" such is to be treated asa discharge! n any case" the C#A is not a+icab+e to them as it e7ress+y e7c+uded

    suer(isory ositions which etitioners occuy! (San /iue# C"r"rati"n v.NLRCE Ju#y 23, 1!

    Q! San

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    25/47

    on the em+oyer to show an une,ui(oca+ intent on the art of the em+oyee todiscontinue em+oyment! 3wo e+ements must be ro(ed: the intention of anem+oyee to abandon and an o(ert act from which it may be inferred that theem+oyee has no more intent to resume his work! t is un+ike+y that the em+oyeesabandoned their obs" considering the +ength of their ser(ice K10-19 years! n fact"no o(ert act was ro(en by the comany from which the intention of the em+oyees

    to desist from em+oyment may be shown!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    26/47

    A: es! ++ega+ recruitment is committed when the K1 o4ender has no (a+id +icense orauthority* and K2 he undertakes any acti(ity within the meaning of Hrecruitmentand +acementI under the Labor Code! t is the +ack of necessary +icense orauthority that renders the recruitment acti(ity un+awfu+ or crimina+! 3here is i++ega+recruitment when one urorts to ha(e the abi+ity to send a worker abroad throughwithout +icense and authority to do so! (Pe"#e v. H"rr"me", 30 SCRA 10, 2

    /arc6 1!

    Q: At the time A 5+ed a etition for certi5cation e+ection" there was an e7istingC#A between the comany and CCEA" the incumbent bargaining agent for a++ therank and 5+e em+oyees! 3his etition was oosed by CCEA on the ground of thecontract bar ru+e! A 5+ed a notice of strike citing union busting and unfair +aborractice as grounds! 3he union roceeded to stage a strike" in the course of which"i++ega+ acts were eretrated! .hen A ignored the 3DB enoining the unionmembers to refrain from b+ocking the road" the comany dismissed se(era+em+oyees on the ground of i++ega+ strike and i++ega+ acts eretrated in connectionwith the strike! A is ,uestioning the +ega+ity of the dismissa+ of se(era+ Amember em+oyees! .as the strike i++ega+/ .as the dismissa+ of the A member

    em+oyees (a+id/

    A: 3he Court was not ersuaded by the a++egation of union busting! 3he strikestaged by A was a union-recognition-strike! 3he etition for certi5cation e+ectionKCE shou+d not ha(e been entertained because of the contract bar ru+e! A CEmay on+y be entertained )0 days before the e7iration of a C#A Kfreedom eriod! 3he strike staged by A was i++ega+ as they formed human barricades tob+ock roads and re(ented co-workers from entering comany remises! E(en if thestrike is (a+id because its obect or urose is +awfu+" the strike may sti++ be dec+aredas in(a+id where the means em+oyed are i++ega+! nion oFcers who knowing+yarticiate in the commission of i++ega+ acts in a strike may be dec+ared to ha(e +osthis em+oyment status but an ordinary striking em+oyee cannot be terminated for

    mere articiation in an i++ega+ strike! $owe(er" there must be roof that hecommitted i++ega+ acts during the strike! >or the se(erest ena+ty to dismissa+ toattach" the erring strikers must be du+y identi5ed! Sim+y referring to them asHstrikersI is not enough to ustify their dismissa+! 3he etitioning members of Aare ordered reinstated with fu++ backwages!(Ass"ciati"n " In$een$ent

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    27/47

    the (eracity of the audited 5nancia+ documents resented by AAC to the LaborArbiter" neither did they obect to the documents admissibi+ity! t is on+y necessarythat the em+oyees show that its +osses increased through a eriod of time and thatthe condition of the comany is not +ike+y to imro(e in the near future! 3hea++egation of union busting is a+so bereft of roof! 3he records show that the ositionon @1 other non-union members were abo+ished due to business +oses!

    3he Court genera++y ho+ds ,uitc+aims to be contrary to ub+ic o+icy! et as inthe instant case" as there is no showing that the ,uitc+aims were e7ecuted induress" they are binding on the arties! (Asian A#c"6"# C"r"rati"n v. NLRC,30 SCRA 1&, 2 /arc6 1!

    Q: CB grants certain a++owances to its em+oyees deending on thecircumstances and need for such! 3he a++owances in ,uestion ertains to thefo++owing:

    1! Sta4ree housing faci+ities to suer(isory and manageria+em+oyees assigned in #is+ig! =ue to shortage of housing faci+ities" the comanywas constrained to grant a++owances to those who +i(e or rent houses near the(icinity of the mi++ site!

    2! 3ransortation A++owance: granted to

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    28/47

    #

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    29/47

    decision asserting that S retired a+most a year rior to the e4ecti(ity of the said +awK9 %anuary 1&&8" and thus the retirement bene5ts under DA 9)M1 shou+d not bea+ied retroacti(e+y! .as S entit+ed to the retirement bene5ts under DA 9)M1/

    A: 6o! 3he Court he+d in a re(ious case that DA 9)M1 granting retirement bene5tsis undoubted+y a socia+ +egis+ation! 3here shou+d be +itt+e doubt about the fact that

    the +aw can a+y to +abor contracts sti++ e7isting at the time the statute has takene4ect" and that its bene5ts can be reckoned not on+y from the date of the +awsenactment but retroacti(e+y to the time said em+oyment contract ha(e started! 3heaforecited doctrine was e+aborated uon by enumerating the circumstances whichmust concur before the +aw cou+d be gi(en retroacti(e e4ect: K1 the c+aimant muststi++ be an em+oyee of the em+oyer at the time the statute took e4ect* and K2 thec+aimant has com+ied with the re,uirements for e+igibi+ity under the statute! n thecase under scrutiny" S retired and ceased to be an em+oyee of %JAC Cororatione+e(en months before the e4ecti(ity of DA 9)M1! t is thus decisi(e+y c+ear that thero(isions of DA 9)M1 cou+d not be gi(en retroacti(e e4ect in his fa(or! (J.-.Ane#es C"nstructi"n C"r"rati"n v. NLRC, 30 SCRA 73, 1 Ari# 1!

    Q: 3he cororation and AL inked a C#A e4ecti(e unti+ 1&&@! 1M days before thee7iration of the said C#A" 6A>L 5+ed a etition for certi5cation e+ection" whichwas granted by the

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    30/47

    ru+ed otherwise! t decided that Has a+ied to a eace oFcer" As work +ace is notcon5ned to the o+ice recinct or any station" but to any +ace where his ser(ices"as a +awman" to maintain eace and security" are re,uired! At the time of his death"A was dri(ing his tricyc+e at the town com+e7 where the o+ice assistance center is+ocated! 3here can be no disute therefore that he met his death +itera++y in his+ace of work! o+icemen" by the nature of their functions" are deemed to be on a

    round-the-c+ock duty!I

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    31/47

    Q: hi+iine Dabbit nc! KD em+oyed E as a bus conductor! Bn 1&9@" etitionerterminated the ser(ices of E" romting him to sue D for i++ega+ dismissa+! 3heLabor Arbiter dec+ared the dismissa+ to be i++ega+ and ordered reinstatement with fu++backwages! D aea+ed to the 6LDC but the aea+ was dismissed" as the samewas not 5+ed within the reg+ementary eriod! D aea+ed to the BFce of theresident" which directed D to reinstate E but on+y ay backwages for si7 months!

    E was aid the backwages but he was not reinstated! 3hus" he mo(ed for a secondwrit of e7ecution on 1&'@ and the ayment of backwages from 1&9& Kthe date heresented himse+f for reinstatement unti+ he cou+d actua++y be reinstated! 3he 6LDCgranted the .rit of E7ecution! =id the 6LDC committed a gra(e abuse of discretionin modifying the amending the 5na+ and e7ecutory order of the BFce of theresident" and in enforcing by mere motion the 5na+ udgment of the BFce of theresident desite the +ase of se(en years/

    A: 6o! D cannot +ega++y in(oke in this case the strict a+ication of the ru+e +imitinge7ecution of udgment by mere motion within a eriod of @ years on+y! 3here ha(ebeen cases where the Court a++owed e7ecution by mere motion e(en after the +aseof @ years! 3heir common denominator in those instances was the de+ay caused or

    occasion by the actions of the udgment debtor andor those incurred for his bene5t!n the instant case" D undu+y de+ayed the fu++ im+ementation of the 5na+ decisionof the BFce of the resident by ing numerous di+atory aea+s and ersistent+yrefusing to reinstate ri(ate resondent E! 3echnica+ities ha(e no room in +aborcases where the Du+es of Court are a+ied on+y in a su+etory manner and on+y toe4ectuate the obecti(es of the Labor Code" and not to defeat them! D can no +onger assai+ the roriety of the 5na+ decision of the BFce of theresident issued way back in

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    32/47

    testimonies of the recruits une,ui(oca++y ro(e that DC romised the three obsabroad ro(ided they wou+d ay the +acement fee! 3he fact that each of them aidthe down ayment is e(idence by the receits issued and signed by DC! (Pe"#e "t6e P6i#iines v. Casti##"n, 30& SCRA 271, 21 Ari# 1!

    Q: AA is the owner of a farm who em+oyed the etitioners C and ! etitioners

    contended that they were (erba++y to+d by AA to sto working and terminated theirem+oyment without informing them of the reason for their intended dismissa+!$ence" they charged AA for i++ega+ dismissa+ with money c+aims! AA asserts that Cand were dismissed for (a+id causes" as they were gui+ty of insubordination" bothdisobeying the rescribed manner and rocedure of doing their ob! 3he LaborArbiter ru+ed that there was no ust cause for termination! Bn aea+" the 6LDCre(ersed the decision of the Labor Arbiter for gross insuFciency of e(idence tosustain the decision" remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for the recetion offurther e(idence! .as the remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter roer/

    A: 6o! 3he remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter for the recetion of e(idence hasno +ega+ or actua+ basis! Subect to the re,uirements of due rocess" roceedings

    before the Labor Arbiter are genera++y non-+itigious" because technica+ ru+es androcedures of ordinary courts of +aw do not strict+y a+y! 3hus" a forma+ or tria+-tyehearing is not a+ways essentia+! n the absence of any a+ab+e error" arbitrarinessor artia+ity" the method adoted by the Labor Arbiter to decide a case must beresected by the 6LDC!

    AA was not deri(ed of due rocess of +aw" the essence of which is sim+y theoortunity to be heard! t must be stressed that a++ the arties to the case weregi(en e,ua+ oortunities to air their resecti(e ositions before the Labor Arbiter!

    3hat AA fai+ed to fu++y air his osition by his own inaction or neg+igence does notconstitute deri(ation of due rocess. (CaKete an$ Isa*i$a v. Nati"na# La*"rRe#ati"ns C"mmissi"n, 30& SCRA 32, 21 Ari# 1!

    Q: AL was a seaman on board the (esse+

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    33/47

    remanded to the BEA for the comutation of the death bene5ts to be awarded tothe father of AL!(Lai$ v. Nati"na# La*"r Re#ati"ns C"mmissi"n, 30& SCRA3, 2 Ari# 1!Q: D was em+oyed by the hote+ as a doorman! rofessiona+ shoers hired by thehote+ e(a+uating hote+ em+oyees recommended the transfer of DodrigueG to a non-

    customer-contact osition because of the negati(e feedback on his manner ofro(iding ser(ices to the hote+ guests! A memorandum was +ater issued transferringhim to the +inen room as an attendant! $e resisted the transfer and did not assumehis new ost at the +inen room! 3he hote+ terminated his em+oyment on the groundof insubordination! 3he Labor Arbiter dec+ared the dismissa+ to be +ega+! Bn aea+"the 6LDC re(ersed the decision of the Labor Arbiter dec+aring that the intendedtransfer was in the nature of a disci+inary action! 3he hote+ management contendsthat the em+oyees continuous refusa+ to reort to his new work assignmentconstituted gross insubordination! .as the transfer of the em+oyee a (a+id e7erciseof its management rerogati(e/

    A: es! =isobedience to be a ust cause for dismissa+ en(isages the concurrence of

    at +east two re,uisites Z Ka the em+oyees wrongfu+ conduct must ha(e been wi++fu+or intentiona+* Kb the order (io+ated must ha(e been reasonab+e" +awfu+" madeknown to the em+oyee and must ertain to the duties which he has been engagedto discharge! t is the em+oyers rerogati(e" based on its assessment andercetion of the em+oyees ,ua+i5cation" atitude and cometence" to mo(e himaround in the (arious areas of its business oerations in order to ascertain wherethe em+oyee wi++ function with utmost eFciency and ma7imum roducti(ity orbene5t to the comany! =e+iberate disregard of comany ru+es or de5ance of managementrerogati(e cannot be countenanced! nti+ and un+ess the ru+es or orders aredec+ared to be i++ega+ or imroer by cometent authority" the em+oyees ignore ordisobey them at their eri+! n the case at bat" the em+oyee was reeated+y

    reminded not on+y by management but a+so by his union to reort to work stationbut to no a(ai+! (estin P6i#iine P#aDa "te# v. Nati"na# La*"r Re#ati"nsC"mmissi"n, 30& SCRA &31, 3 /ay 1!

    Q: Accused Enri,ueG romised em+oyment in 3aiwan to at +east M2 eo+e! 3heywere each asked to ay rocessing fees ranging from 8" 890 to @" 000 for whichno receits were issued and to submit documents to faci+itate their tra(e+ andsubse,uent de+oyment abroad! 3he BEA issued a certi5cation showing theEnri,ueG is not +icensed to engage in the recruitment of workers for o(erseasem+oyment! n her defense" Enri,ueG c+aimed that it was her common-+aw husbandwho was engaged in the HbusinessI and she on+y acted as his secretary when shedea+t with the com+ainants! She a++owed him to estab+ish his recruitment oFce ather residence! Enri,ueG c+aimed that she on+y he+ed her husband in the oFce forthree months whi+e he was +ooking for a secretary! art of her duties then was toco++ect the documents submitted by the a+icants and recei(e the money they aidas +acement fees! s she gui+ty of i++ega+ recruitment in +arge-sca+e/

    A: es! 3he essentia+ e+ements of the crime of i++ega+ recruitment in +arge-sca+e canbe summariGed as fo++ows: K1 the accused engages in acts of recruitment and+acement of workers as de5ned in the Labor Code* K2 the accused does not ha(e a

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    34/47

    +icense or authority from the Secretary of Labor to recruit and de+oy workers* andK8 the accused commits the same un+awfu+ acts against three or more ersons"indi(idua++y or as a grou! 3he theory of the defense undu+y strains the credu+ity of the Court! 3hecom+ainants ositi(e+y identi5ed Enri,ueG as the one who dea+t direct+y with themfrom the time they in,uired about the ob rosects abroad unti+ they com+ied with

    the re,uirements and fo++owed u their a+ications! .orth reiterating is the ru+ethat i++ega+ recruitment in +arge-sca+e is malum prohibitum" not malum in se" andthat the fact a+one that a erson (io+ated the +aw warrants her con(iction! Any c+aimof +ack of crimina+ intent is una(ai+ing! KPe"#e " t6e P6i#iines v. =nriBueD,30& SCRA 73, /ay 1!

    Q: Coca Co+a entered into a contract of anitoria+ ser(ices with #%S! Coca Co+a thenhired X 5rst" as a casua+ em+oyee* after the casua+ em+oyment was terminated"Coca Co+a again hired X as a ainter in contractua+ roects! $e was a+so hired by#%S" which assigned him to the Coca Co+a considering his fami+iarity with itsremises! ?oaded by information that Coca Co+a em+oyed re(ious #%S em+oyeeswho 5+ed a com+aint against the comany for regu+ariGation ursuant to a

    comromise agreement" X submitted a simi+ar com+aint against Coca Co+a to theLabor Arbiter* he inc+uded #%S therein as a co-resondent! $e no +onger reorted towork and when o4ered by #%S to work in other 5rms" he refused! $e amended thecom+aint to i++ega+ dismissa+ and underayment of wages! s there an em+oyee-em+oyer re+ationshi in this case/

    A: 6o! 3he Court takes udicia+ notice of the ractice adoted in se(era+ go(ernmentand ri(ate institutions and industries of hiring anitoria+ ser(ices on anHindeendent contractor basisI! A+though anitoria+ ser(ices may be considereddirect+y re+ated to the rincia+ business of an em+oyer" the Court deemed themunnecessary in the conduct of the rincia+ business! 3his udicia+ notice rests onthe assumtion that the indeendent contractor is a +egitimate ob contractor so

    that there can be no doubt as to the e7istence of an em+oyer-em+oyeere+ationshi between the contractor and the worker! t is a+so c+ear that #%Se7ercises contro+ o(er the work of X as most of his assigned task dea+t with themaintenance and sanitation of the comany remises ursuant to #%Ss contractwith the comany! 3he Court ru+ed that no em+oyer-em+oyee re+ation e7ists between X andCoca Co+a yet the +atter sha++ be oint+y and se(era++y +iab+e with #%S for the wagedi4erentia+s and 18th

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    35/47

    the stes of the stairs to the kitchen! Such transfer caused her menta+ torture"which forced her to resign! $owe(er" it was not shown that her transfer wasromted by i++ wi++ of management! ndeed" the resident manager of the hote+swore that the transfer a4ected not on+y the Cost Contro+ oFce but a+so the otheroFces! 3he transfer on+y in(o+(ed a change in +ocation of the oFce! t does notin(o+(e a change in the em+oyees osition! E(en a transfer in osition is (a+id

    when based on sound udgment" unattended by demotion in rank or diminution ofay or bad faith! KA$mira# Rea#ty C"many (A$mira# "te#! v. NLRC, 307SCRA 1&2, 1 /ay 1!

    Q: .hi+e the oi+er was anchored on ort" seaman $ was directed to oen and c+eanthe main engine! 3o accom+ish this" he had to enter a manho+e in a crouchingosition! After working for M consecuti(e days" he e7erienced back ains and footswe++ing! $owe(er" he was instructed to continue with his work unti+ he was 5na++yreatriated to the hi+iines where medica+ e7aminations con5rmed that hesu4ered from a s+ied disc" which re,uired surgery! on hearing that the surgerywou+d cost more than M0"000" the comany disregarded the recommendation forsurgery and instead roosed a +ess cost+y treatment! #ut this did not imro(e the

    condition of $! After se(en months" $ 5+ed a com+aint with the BEA against themaritime agencies for disabi+ity and medica+ bene5ts! 3he em+oyers a++ege that $signed a Deceit and De+ease in fa(or of the maritime agencies whi+e the case wasending in BEA" that aFrmed the 5ndings of the BEA that his i++ness was work-connected! $ suosed+y acknow+edged receit of a certain amount in com+eteand 5na+ sett+ement of a++ his wages" bene5ts and c+aims! 3he maritime agenciesassert that the signed Deceit is a ,uitc+aim that re+eases them from any +iabi+itywhatsoe(er! s the agreement (a+id/

    A: 6o" the +aw does not consider as (a+id any agreement to recei(e +esscomensation than what a worker is entit+ed to reco(er nor re(ent him fromdemanding bene5ts to which he is entit+ed! t is aa++ing that $ wou+d sett+e for a

    meas+y consideration of 1@" 000 which is gross+y inade,uate" that is cou+d not ha(egi(en rise to a (a+id wai(er on the art of the disad(antaged em+oyee! n order that a ,uitc+aim may be (a+id" the re,uisites are: K1 there was nofraud or deceit on the art of any arty* K2 the consideration of the ,uitc+aim iscredib+e and reasonab+e* and K8 that the contract is not contrary to +aw" ub+icorder" ub+ic o+icy" mora+s or good custom! #ut e(en assuming that the ai+ment of$ was contracted rior to his em+oyment with the maritime agency" this fact wou+dnot e7cu+ate etitioners from +iabi+ity! Comensabi+ity of an ai+ment does notdeend on whether the inury or disease was re-e7isting at the time of theem+oyment but rather if the disease or inury is work-re+ated or aggra(ated hiscondition! t is safe to resume" at the (ery +east" the arduous nature of $sem+oyment had contributed to the aggra(ation of his inury" if indeed it was re-e7isting at the time of his em+oyment! 3herefore" it is but ust that he be du+ycomensated for it. (/"re /aritime Aencies an$ A#6a Insurance v. NLRC,307 SCRA 1, 1 /ay 1!

    Q: 3he ?enera+

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    36/47

    underco(er assenger retending to i++ega++y transort dogs! A notice of dismissa+on the ground of serious misconduct was issued! After forma+ in(estigations"dismissa+ was ad(ised and Ange+es was informed of his dismissa+! Ange+es c+aimedthat the entrament was masterminded by the manager as a reta+iation for hisbeing critica+ of the managers administration! $e now c+aims searation ay! s heentit+ed to searation ay/

    A: An em+oyee who is dismissed for ust cause is genera++y not entit+ed tosearation ay! n some cases" the Court awards searation ay to a +ega++ydismissed em+oyee on the grounds of e,uity and socia+ ustice! 3his is not a++owed"though" when the em+oyee has been dismissed for serious misconduct or othercauses reecting on his mora+ character! 3he act of acceting bribe moneyconstituted serious misconduct that warrants the dismissa+ from theser(ice! (P6i#iine Nati"na# C"nstructi"n C"r"rati"n v. NLRC, 307 SCRA21, 1 /ay 1!

    Q: C" a manageria+ em+oyee" was accused of se7ua++y harassing a subordinate" S!After hearing and in(estigation" the

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    37/47

    A: es! E7aminations of union accounts are e7ress+y c+assi5ed by the Du+es ofrocedure on or the ast years" the 3 ga(e D 18thmo! ay! $e a++eged that hewas an em+oyee of +tra Ji++a >ood $aus" and as such" he was entit+ed to thebene5ts accorded to em+oyees under the Labor Code! .hat is D entit+ed to/

    A: ?eniston is a ersona+ dri(er of 3io" and as such" the comany is not ob+iged togrant o(ertime ay" ho+iday ay" remium ay and ser(ice incenti(e +ea(e"inc+uding 18thmo! ay! $owe(er" since 3 admitted that she has gi(en D 18 thmo! ay

    e(ery =ecember" it is but ust to award D such bene5t! (urthermore" the #oard of SD6ECB conc+uded that ad(ancing theinterest of Q instead of the comany" esecia++y since she di(u+ged the contents ofher interna+ memorandum to Q" were inimica+ to the comany and meriteddismissa+! .as E i++ega++y dismissed/

    A: ES! E was a ersonne+ BFcer" ho+ding a manageria+ osition that is considered(ested with a certain amount of discretion and indeendent udgement! She wassim+y doing her ob when she re(iewed Quintos case" and she is not roscribedfrom taking the side of +abor when she makes recommendations as to what must bedone in each situation! A+so" there is no e(idence that Quinto got the coy of the

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    38/47

    interna+ memorandum direct+y from Escu+ano Z she cou+d ha(e ac,uired it fromother sources! As such" Es actions do not ,ua+ify as breach of con5dence or seriousmisconduct! (Suria" %e# N"rte =#ectric C""erative v. NLRC, 30 SCRA233, June 1!.

    Q: DA )91@ was assed creating a new c+assi5cation of em+oyee" the suer(isory

    em+oyee" as not being a member of the rank and 5+e but a+so not considered amanageria+ em+oyee! At around this time" the suer(isory em+oyees of SemiraraCoa+ decided to form their own union and inter(ene in the certi5cation e+ections!$owe(er" the comany 5+ed a motion to dis,ua+ify the suer(isory em+oyees fromarticiating in the certi5cation e+ections" as their functions were manageria+ innature! Shou+d they be a++owed to articiate in the certi5cation e+ections/

    A: es" they shou+d be a++owed! 3he said em+oyees fa++ under the category ofsuer(isory em+oyees! 6othing in the comany o+icies a+ters the nature and dutyof these suer(isory em+oyees to manageria+! 3here is no showing that the owerto disci+ine erring em+oyees is (ested in their immediate suer(isors! As such"they fa++ outside of the restriction on manageria+ em+oyees from oining unions and

    articiating in certi5cation e+ections! (Semirara C"a# C"r"rati"n v. Secretary" La*"r, 30 SCRA 22, June 1!

    Q: Com+ainants are deaf-mutes hired by Comany > as money sorters and countersthrough an agreement ca++ed" [Em+oyment Contract for $andicaed .orker! 3heLabor Arbiter and 6LDC ru+ed that Artic+e 2'0 was not contro++ing as com+ainantswere hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of ci(ic orientedersona+ities whose em+oyments were co(ered by Em+oyment Contracts withsecia+ ro(isions on duration of contract as seci5ed under Art! '0! $ence" theterms of the contract was be the +aw between the arties! Com+ainants a++ege thatthe contracts ser(ed to rec+ude the a+ication of Artic+e 2'0 and to bar them frombecoming regu+ar em+oyees! Comany > submits that com+ainants were hired as

    secia+ workers under Art! '0 of the Labor Code and they ne(er so+icited theser(ices of etitioners! .ere com+ainants regu+ar em+oyees/

    A: es! 3he enactment of DA 9299" the

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    39/47

    +ant! Comany O asked the union to desist from icketing outside its +ant! 3henion refused etitioners re,uest" and Comany O 5+ed a coma+int for inunction!

    3he nion mo(ed to dismiss the com+aint a++eging +ack of urisdiction on the art ofthe tria+ court and that Comany O was an a+ter ego of Comany and not mere+yan Hinnocent by-stander!I

    A: An Hinnocent by-stander"I who seeks to enoin a +abor strike" must satisfy thecourt that its interests are tota++y foreign to the conte7t of the +abor disute! t mustaear that the ine(itab+e resu+t of its e7ercise is to create an imression that a+abor disute with which they ha(e no connection or interest e7ists between themand the icketing union or constitutes an in(asion of their rights! n this case"Comany O c+ear+y has a connection with the +abor disute as the sa+e betweenComany and Comany O re(ea+s a +ega+ re+ation between them that cannot beignored! (/S? 5ire an$ Ru**er, Inc. v. CA, 311 SCRA 7, Auust , 1!

    Q: < was em+oyed by etitioner as a truck dri(er! Bne day" he was accused oftamering with the H(a+eI sheet and he was subse,uent+y barred from enteringcomany remises! < 5+ed a com+aint of i++ega+ dismissa+ against ri(ate

    resondent before the 6LDC! A coy of the summons was sent to etitioners byregistered mai+ and was du+y recei(ed and signed! 3he etitioner was a+so noti5edof the hearing date by registered mai+ but no one aeared for the etitioner! 3heLabor Arbiter deemed etitioners non-aearance as a fai+ure to contro(ert thefacts as c+aimed by < and decided the case exparte! 3he etitioners a++ege thatthey ne(er recei(ed coies of summons or notices and that the Labor Arbiter ne(erac,uired urisdiction o(er them" as there was no (a+id ser(ice of summons! .erethe etitioners denied due rocess/

    A: 6o! 3he bare assertion of etitioner that the ersons who signed the summonswhich were sent by registered mai+ were Himostors or ersons unknown to themIre,uires substantiation by cometent e(idence! n ,uasi-udicia+ roceedings of the

    6LDC" rocedura+ ru+es go(erning ser(ice of summons are not strict+y construed andsubstantia+ com+iance is therefore suFcient! >urther" oFcia+ duty is resumed toha(e been erformed regu+ar+y un+ess the contrary is ro(en! n administrati(eroceedings" due rocess sim+e means the oortunity to e7+ain ones side orseek a reconsideration of the action com+ained of! etitioners were ab+e to 5+e anaea+ before the 6LDC of the Labor Arbiters decision and a arty who has a(ai+edof the oortunity to resent his osition cannot c+aim to ha(e been denied duerocess!

    3he Court a+so ru+ed that < was constructi(e+y dismissed when he wasaccused of tamering with the (a+e sheet and re(ented from going to work! 3heassertion of etitioner that < abandoned his work is a+so without merit as it is high+yi++ogica+ for an em+oyee to abandon his em+oyment and thereafter 5+e a com+aintfor i++ega+ dismissa+! E(en assuming that there was abandonment" there was non-com+iance with the statutory re,uirement of notice* therefore < is entit+ed tosearation ay and backwages!(/asaana C"ncrete Pr"$ucts v. NLRC, 313SCRA 7&, 3 Setem*er 1!

    Q: L was em+oyed by 6ACB-LuGmart" which was managed by etitioner ?arcia! Amau+ing incident occurred in the comany remise in(o+(ing L and anotherem+oyee! 3he fo++owing day after the incident" L submitted his written e7+anation

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    40/47

    of the e(ent! 8 days +ater" L attemted to reort for work but the comany refusedto admit him! L immediate+y 5+ed a com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+ with the 6LDC!After the comany knew of the i++ega+ dismissa+ charge against it" a memorandumwas issued ordering the susension of L! 3he comany asserted that L remains anem+oyee and was mere+y susended for a month! roof of this" the comanyresented the ayro++s where the name of L continued to be +isted as a regu+ar

    em+oyee during the eriod after the a++eged i++ega+ dismissa+! 3he comany c+aimedthat L abandoned his work when he fai+ed to reort for work after notice of return!.as L i++ega++y dismissed/

    A: 3he Court ru+ed that the ayro++ is of doubtfu+ robati(e (a+ue" as it does notcontain the signature of em+oyees as roof that they recei(ed their sa+aries for thesaid eriod! >or a (a+id 5nding of abandonment" two factors must be resent: K1fai+ure to reort for work without any (a+id or usti5ab+e reason* and K2 a c+earintention to se(er the em+oyer-em+oyee re+ationshi manifested by some o(ertacts! t was the comany who refused him entry into the work +ace and made itimossib+e for him to return to work!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    41/47

    fai+!(Hi"enerics /ar;etin an$ Researc6 C"r"rati"n v. NLRC, 313 SCRA7, Setem*er 1!

    Q: X was em+oyed by etitioner Destaurante Las Conchas whi+e the +atter wasin(o+(ed in a +ega+ batt+e with comany o(er the +and being a++eged+y occuied bythe etitioner! Comany was ab+e to obtain a fa(orab+e udgment which e(entua++y

    caused etitioner to (acate the remises! As no other suitab+e +ocation was foundfor etitioner to mo(e" the restaurant was forced to c+ose down" thereby resu+ting inthe termination of em+oyment of X! 6o searation ay was gi(en to X based on theargument of etitioner that on+y c+osure of business not due to business +ossesmandates ayment of searation ay to dismissed em+oyees! Shou+d searationbe gi(en and shou+d the manager of the Destaurante Las Conchas be he+d +iab+e asa cororate oFcer/

    A: 3he Court ru+es that the burden of roof that business +osses actua++y occurredrests on the em+oyers! Since no statements of assets and +iabi+ities certi5ed by aCA or accounting 5rm was o4ered" nor the cororations ncome 3a7 Deturncerti5ed by the #D was shown" such business +osses were not ro(en! As regards

    the +iabi+ity of the manager" genera++y" the oFcers and members of a cororationare not ersona++y +iab+e for the acts done in the erformance of their duties! Ane7cetion is when the em+oyer cororation is no +onger e7isting and is unab+e tosatisfy the udgment in fa(or of the em+oyees! n such a case" the oFcers shou+dbe he+d +iab+e for acting on beha+f of the cororation! (Restaurante Las C"nc6asan$"r %avi$ G"nDa#es vs. L#e", 31 SCRA 2, Set. , 1!

    Q: X was hired by Desondent under a 2 year contract in ;uwait! Bn+y after 1 year"howe(er" X was terminated from em+oyment and was sent back to the hi+iines!X then 5+ed a com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+ with the Labor Arbiter! Desondentswere gi(en by the Labor Arbiter 10 days to answer the charges against!Desondents submitted a bi++ of articu+ars instead a++eging that X was +acking in the

    re,uired narration of facts constituting the causes of action! X" on the other hand"mo(ed to dec+are resondents in defau+t for fai+ing to submit their osition aers!#oth arties agreed that the Labor Arbiter shou+d decide on the motion on the #i++ ofarticu+ars! 3he Labor Arbiter" howe(er" dec+ared the resondents in defau+t forfai+ure to submit their osition aers within the eriod gi(en! .ere theresondents denied due rocess/

    A: es! 3he court ru+es that there was denia+ of due rocess since no notice or orderre,uiring resondents to 5+e their osition aer" nor an order informing the artiesthat the case was a+ready submitted for decision! 3here was an utter absence ofoortunity to be heard at the arbitration +e(e+! .hat the Labor Arbiter shou+d ha(edone was to ru+e on the ending motions" or at +east notify ri(ate resondents thathe wou+d no +onger reso+(e their motions" and to direct them forthwith to submitwithin a reasonab+e time their osition aer as we++ as a++ the e(idence!(a*anavs. NLRC, 31 SCRA 17, Setem*er 1!

    Q: etitioner X was an ta+ian citiGen who was the E7ec! Jice resident and ?en!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    42/47

    was the duty of the comany to secure his work ermit during the term of his oFce!3he Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in fa(or of X! Comany howe(er aea+edsuch decision to the 6LDC! X now ,uestions the urisdiction of 6LDC as he is acororate oFcer" it is the SEC who shou+d ha(e urisdiction! =id the 6LDC ha(e

    urisdiction o(er the case/

    A: 6o! According to Sec @Kc of !=! 6o! &02-A" the SEC e7ercises e7c+usi(eurisdiction o(er contro(ersies o(er regarding the e+ection andor designation ofdirectors" trustees"o!cers" or managers of a cororation" artnershi or association!

    %urisdiction therefore is not which the Labor Arbiter nor the 6LDC!(%e R"ssi vs.NLRC, 31 SCRA 2, Setem*er 1!

    Q: Desondent X was hired by the #+ue =airy to work as a food techno+ogist in the+atters +aboratory! Bne day howe(er" whi+e attending to a c+ient outside comanyremises as accomanied by the comany dri(er" the (ehic+e was hit by a ost" asthere was a tyhoon! Afterwards" X was then transferred from the +aboratory to the(egetab+e rocessing section* she was then barred from the +aboratory! X c+aimsthat she was constructi(e+y dismissed as she was e(ident+y demoted! .as X

    constructi(e+y dismissed from work/

    A: es! 3he Court ru+es that a+though the em+oyer has manageria+ rerogati(e totransfer ersonne+" such must be e7ercised without gra(e abuse of discretion! 3heem+oyer has the burden of roof to show that such transfer was not unreasonab+e"incon(enient or reudicia+ to the em+oyee" nor does it in(o+(e a demotion in rankor a diminution of his sa+aries" ri(i+eges and other bene5ts! 3he comany in thiscase" a++eges that the reason for the transfer was +oss of trust and con5dence! Xhowe(er" was ne(er gi(en the chance to refute such reason" nor was she noti5ed inad(ance of the transfer! (H#ue %airy C"r"rati"n vs. NLRC, 31 SCRA 01,Setem*er 1!Q! A check was mis-osted" resu+ting in an o(erstatement of a c+ients outstandingdai+y ba+ance! 3he resident of the bank sent a +etter to etitioner to e7+ain themis-osting! nterna+ auditors" after in(estigation" reorted that etitioner was+iab+e" and the bank noti5ed her that 20P of the amount wou+d be deducted fromher sa+ary! on etitioners demand for a fu++-dress in(estigation" she was informedof her re(enti(e susension unti+ the end of the in(estigation! etitioner then 5+eda com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+ and damages! .as she i++ega++y dismissed/ =id5+ing of damages amount to abandonment of work/

    A! es" her re(enti(e susension was without (a+id cause since she was susendedoutright! re(enti(e susension beyond the ma7imum eriod amounts toconstructi(e dismissa+! Likewise" her c+aim for damages did not amount toabandonment of work! 3o constitute abandonment" these shou+d concur: 1! >ai+ureto reort for work or absence without (a+id or usti5ab+e cause* and 2! A c+earintention to se(er the em+oyee-em+oyer re+ationshi Kmore determinati(e factormanifested by o(er acts! She mere+y took stes to rotest her inde5nitesusension! $er fai+ure to reort for work was e(en due to her inde5nitesusension! (Premiere %ev)t Han; v. NLRC!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    43/47

    1 CAS=S

    Q! n an i++ega+ dismissa+ case" the Labor Arbiter ru+ed in fa(or of the worker! 3hetota+ monetary award was more than B6E ebruary 2'" 1&&8" theairconditioning unit of the bus which Deyna+do was dri(ing su4ered a mechanica+breakdown! 3he comany to+d Deyna+do to wait unti+ the airconditioning unit wasreaired! 6o other bus was assigned to Deyna+do to kee him gainfu++y em+oyed!Deyna+do continued reorting to his em+oyers oFce for work" on+y to 5nd out thatthe airconditioning unit had not been reaired!

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    44/47

    entit+ed as a matter of right to its e7ecution" that it becomes mere+y the ministeria+duty of the court to issue the e7ecution! 3his genera+ ru+e cannot be a+ied"howe(er" whhere the writ of e7ecution is assai+ed as ha(ing (aried the decision! nthis case" the em+oyer a++eged that the writ of e7ecution materia++y a+tered thedecision! f this a++egation is correct" the ae++ant is entit+ed to the remedy ofaea+! 3he 6LDC is (ested with authority to +ook into the correctness of the

    e7ecution of the decision and to consider suer(ening e(ents that may a4ect suche7ecution! (SGS ?ar =ast Lt$. -. NLRC, 2& SCRA 33, ?e*ruary 12, 1!

    Q! >ederico was a regu+ar work oo+ em+oyee of 6CC! $e was em+oyed in 1&91and worked in (arious construction roects of 6CC! 6 1&9&" he worked for aroect of 6CC in the

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    45/47

    artia++y granting the motion to reduce the amount of the bond" the 6LDC directedthe ae++ant to ost the bond within ten K10 days from receit of the order!nstead of 5+ing the bond" the ae++ant em+oyer 5+ed a motion for reconsiderationof the 6LDCs order reducing the amount of the bond! #ecause of the ae++antem+oyers fai+ure to ost the bond" the 6LDC dismissed the aea+! s the 6LDCsru+ing correct/

    A! es" the ru+ing is correct! 3o ha(e the bond reduced is not a matter of right onthe art of the ae++ant but +ies within the sound discretion of the 6LDC uonshowing of meritorious grounds! After the 6LDC had e7ercised its discretion in57ing the bond" the ae++ant shou+d ha(e com+ied with it! 3o 5+e a subse,uentmotion seeking another reconsideration of the a+ready reduced amount of the bondis to re,uest for an e7tension of time to erfect an aea+ which isrohibited! (/=RS S6"es /anuacturin, Inc. v. NLRC, 2& SCRA &7,?e*ruary 27, 1!

    Q! %uana is a worker in =e+

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    46/47

    the o+ice in(estigation and the actions that may be taken by the owners of theother (ehic+es! Ernesto aitient+y waited! Dea+iGing that he has waited too +ong"Ernesto on =ecember 11" 1&') re,uested #a+iwag 3ransit to reinstate him! #a+iwag

    3ransit forma++y informed him to +ook for another ob because the management hasterminated his ser(ices on account of the (ehicu+ar accident! Bn 6o(ember 1@"1&&0" Ernesto 5+ed a com+aint for i++ega+ dismissa+! 3he +abor arbiter dismissed the

    com+aint on the ground that Ernestos action is barred by rescrition since it was5+ed more than four years from the accrua+ of the cause of action on

  • 7/21/2019 Q&A Labor 1

    47/47

    rea+ity an action for i++ega+ dismissa+! 3he etition shou+d ha(e been 5+ed with the+abor arbiter who has the origina+ and e7c+usi(e urisdiction o(er terminationdisutes! 3he Labor Code does not ro(ide b+anket authority to the 6LDC or any ofits di(isions to issue writs of inunction" considering that the 6ew Du+es of rocedureof the 6LDC makes inunction on+y an anci++ary remedy in ordinary +abordisutes! (PAL v. NLRC, 27 SCRA&72, /arc6 20, 1!


alma/aulas/seminario/documentos/breve... · 2003-02-26 · 1 | j } (-j z v P; GF gde j z q q q ~ Q7 i whgdcfe p cfz%q q q ~ q 1 cfe p cfl SR T shz UI hbdct p c VT hl{g WF*I q q ~

alma/aulas/seminario/documentos/breve... · 2003-02-26 · 1 | j } (-j z v P; GF gde j z q q q ~ Q7 i whgdcfe p cfz%q q q ~ q 1 cfe p cfl SR T shz UI hbdct p c VT hl{g WF*I q q ~

Documents
Plast Labor . MIC TEST STRIP

Plast Labor . MIC TEST STRIP

Documents
Sabes o q[1]

Sabes o q[1]

Spiritual
Cap 1 Termodinâmica q

Cap 1 Termodinâmica q

Documents
La labor del psicólogo forense

La labor del psicólogo forense

Career
Labor Cases 1 PDF

Labor Cases 1 PDF

Documents
Q? Focas #1

Q? Focas #1

Documents
Grupo q fase_2-1

Grupo q fase_2-1

Education
Labor Standard 2

Labor Standard 2

Documents
Q ORG EBAH[1]

Q ORG EBAH[1]

Documents
GOVERNO DO ESTADO DO PIAUÍ Página: 1 SECRETARIA DE … · 2017-09-06 · QWQE GHJL QWQE Q Q GHJL QWQE Q Q Q Q D D D D Q Q Q Q FGH QQE Outras Exigências Outras Exigências Outras

GOVERNO DO ESTADO DO PIAUÍ Página: 1 SECRETARIA DE … · 2017-09-06 · QWQE GHJL QWQE Q Q GHJL QWQE Q Q Q Q D D D D Q Q Q Q FGH QQE Outras Exigências Outras Exigências Outras

Documents
Agitadores - SP Labor

Agitadores - SP Labor

Documents
Doc. N.° 1SDH000717R0607 - L8785 SACE Formula A0-A1-A2€¦ · SACE Formula A0-A1-A2 1 A0 - A1 - A2 III - IV 1 SY/1 + 1 Q/2 1 SY/1 + 1 Q/1 + 1 Q/2 24 Q/2 V4 XV V1 XV 11 11 14 Q/1

Doc. N.° 1SDH000717R0607 - L8785 SACE Formula A0-A1-A2€¦ · SACE Formula A0-A1-A2 1 A0 - A1 - A2 III - IV 1 SY/1 + 1 Q/2 1 SY/1 + 1 Q/1 + 1 Q/2 24 Q/2 V4 XV V1 XV 11 11 14 Q/1

Documents
Calendário Escolar 2018-1 - brasilia.colegiosmaristas.com.br · 1.º ANO DO ENSINO FUNDAMENTAL Outubro Novembro D S T Q Q S S D S T Q Q S S D S T Q Q S S Dezembro 1.º semestre -

Calendário Escolar 2018-1 - brasilia.colegiosmaristas.com.br · 1.º ANO DO ENSINO FUNDAMENTAL Outubro Novembro D S T Q Q S S D S T Q Q S S D S T Q Q S S Dezembro 1.º semestre -

Documents
Overall Labor Effectiveness

Overall Labor Effectiveness

Automotive
Vidas de Duro Labor- Texto 1- História

Vidas de Duro Labor- Texto 1- História

Documents
Labor II - Cases.01

Labor II - Cases.01

Documents
Plast Labor . Produtos para DIAGNÓSTICO

Plast Labor . Produtos para DIAGNÓSTICO

Documents
características do labor naval

características do labor naval

Documents
q. 10001 2019 . 29 2019 fi-q-ñ-È--a q--à-q-fà - q-;-à ... · q. 10001 2019 . 29 2019 fi-q-ñ-È--a q--à-q-fà - q-;-à 27.122019 (stand relieved) I . 1 2 3. 4 5 6 8 I , ,q-rá

q. 10001 2019 . 29 2019 fi-q-ñ-È--a q--à-q-fà - q-;-à ... · q. 10001 2019 . 29 2019 fi-q-ñ-È--a q--à-q-fà - q-;-à 27.122019 (stand relieved) I . 1 2 3. 4 5 6 8 I , ,q-rá

Documents
LABOR Standards 6

LABOR Standards 6

Documents
Labor & Engenho - Unicamp

Labor & Engenho - Unicamp

Documents
Labor - Fraude na terceirização

Labor - Fraude na terceirização

Documents
Revista Labor

Revista Labor

Documents
Roteiro Procedimentos de Levantamentos LABOR - IOPES

Roteiro Procedimentos de Levantamentos LABOR - IOPES

Documents
2011 MB Labor

2011 MB Labor

Documents
Revista Labor - repositorio.ufc.br

Revista Labor - repositorio.ufc.br

Documents
Microbiologia - SP Labor

Microbiologia - SP Labor

Documents
ESSAYS ON LABOR ECONOMICS - UFPE

ESSAYS ON LABOR ECONOMICS - UFPE

Documents
Il~- Z - tre-sc.jus.br · U Q ~ III t"'-~ t"'- ~ t"'-~ ~ t"'-~ r..:~~ 'oC Z ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ONO-~ .~ ~ Q~~e 0 ~ t= ~ 1::,< rJ -< ~ III ~ Z 1-~ ~ ~-Q Z ..c-< Q 0 e ~ ~ ~ = ~ Q C.i ~

Il~- Z - tre-sc.jus.br · U Q ~ III t"'-~ t"'- ~ t"'-~ ~ t"'-~ r..:~~ 'oC Z ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ONO-~ .~ ~ Q~~e 0 ~ t= ~ 1::,< rJ -< ~ III ~ Z 1-~ ~ ~-Q Z ..c-< Q 0 e ~ ~ ~ = ~ Q C.i ~

Documents