Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
Guideposts of Labor Law
Title Facts
PASEI v. Drilon The Department of Labor and
GR No. 81958 Employment issued Department
30 June 1998 Order No. 1, entitled “Guidelines
Sarmiento, J. Governing the Temporary
Suspension of Deployment of
Filipino Domestic and Household
Workers.” Philippine Association of
Service Exporters, Inc., a firm
engaged principally in the
recruitment of Filipino workers, male
and female, for overseas placement,
challenges the DO for being
unconstitutional.
ISAE v. Quisumbing International School is a domestic
GR No. 128845 educational institution established
1 June 2000 primarily for dependents of foreign
Kapunan, J. diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents. As such, it hires
both foreign and local teachers as
members of its faculty, classifying
them into (1) foreign-hires; and (2)
local-hires. The foreign hires get
higher salaries and more benefits
than their local counterparts, which is
justified by the school with 2
significant economic disadvantages:
(a) the dislocation factor, and (b)
limited tenure.
The local hires decry this
classification as being
discriminatory. The DOLE initially
ruled in favor of the school.
Issue/s
W/N Department Order No. 1 is a
valid implementation of the Labor
Code.
W/N the point-of-hire classification
employed by IS is discriminatory to
Filipinos.
W/N the foreign-hires should belong
to the same bargaining unit as the
local-hires.
Ruling
YES. The Labor Code itself vests the
DOLE with rulemaking powers in
the enforcement thereof, and DO 1 is
a valid implementation of the basic
policy of the Labor Code, namely to
“afford protection to labor.” It is bad
enough that the country has to send
its sons and daughters to strange
lands because it cannot satisfy their
employment needs at home. Under
these circumstances, the Government
is duty-bound to insure that our
toiling expatriates have adequate
protection, personally and
economically, while away from
home.
YES. There is no reasonable
distinction between the services
rendered by foreign-hires and local-
hires. Although the school contends
that the ISAE has not adduced
evidence that local-hires perform
work equal to that of the foreign-
hires, the presumption is that
employees which have the same
position and rank perform equal
work. There is no evidence that
foreign-hires perform 25% more
efficiently or effectively than the
local-hires. Both groups have similar
functions and responsibilities, which
they perform under similar working
conditions. While the Court
recognizes the need of the school to
attract foreign-hires, salaries should
not be used as an enticement to the
prejudice of local-hires. The local-
hires perform the same services as
foreign-hires and they ought to be
paid the same salaries as the latter.
NO. The basic test of an asserted
bargaining unit’s acceptability is
whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure
to all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
Doctrine
“Protection to labor” does not signify
the promotion of employment alone.
What concerns the Constitution more
paramountly is that such an
employment be, above all, decent,
just, and humane.
“Equal pay for equal work” –
Persons who work with substantially
equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar
conditions, should be paid similar
salaries.
Discrimination, particularly in terms
of wages, is frowned upon by the
Labor Code.
The Constitution enjoins the State to
“protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare,” “to afford
labor full protection.” The State,
therefore, has the right and duty to
regulate the relations between labor
and capital. These relations are not
merely contractual but are so
impressed with public interest that
labor contracts, collective bargaining
agreements included, must yield to
the common good.
A bargaining unit is a group of
employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, consistent
with equity to the employer, indicate
to be the best suited to serve the
1
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
UST Faculty Union, et al. v. Bitonio When a notice was posted that the
GR No. 131235 UST Faculty Union was to hold its
16 November 1999 election of new officers on 5 October
Panganiban, J. 1996, the old set of officers contested
this notice because the Commission
on Elections that the notice was
constituted was allegedly not in
accordance with the USTFU’s
constitution and by-laws. The Med-
Arbiter issued a TRO enjoining the
new officers from conducting the
elections.
W/N the election of new officers was
a legitimate exercise of USTFU’s
members’ right to self-organization.
Although foreign-hires perform reciprocal rights and duties of the
similar functions under the same parties under the collective
working conditions as the local-hires, bargaining provisions of the law.
foreign-hires are accorded certain
benefits not granted to local-hires.
These benefits are reasonably related
to their status as foreign-hires, and
justify the exclusion of the former
from the latter. To include foreign-
hires in a bargaining unit with local-
hires would not assure either group
the exercise of their respective
collective bargaining rights.
Obiter:
The Constitution specifically
provides that labor is entitled to
“humane conditions of work.” These
conditions are not restricted to the
physical workplace—the factory, the
office, or the field—but include as
well the manner by which employers
treat their employees.
The Constitution also directs the
State to promote “equality of
employment opportunities for all.”
Similarly, the Labor Code provides
that the State shall “ensure equal
work opportunities regardless of sex,
race, or creed.” It would be an affront
to both the spirit and the letter of
these provisions if the State, in spite
of its primordial obligation to
promote and ensure equal
employment opportunities, closes its
eyes to unequal and discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment.
NO. The said election is not binding, Self-organization is a fundamental
because it cannot be properly called a right guaranteed by the Philippine
union election for the procedures laid Constitution and the Labor Code.
down in the USTFU’s CBL was not Employees have the right to form,
followed. join, or assist labor organizations for
1. The 4 October assembly the purpose of collective bargaining
was not called by the or for their mutual aid and protection.
USTFU. It was merely a Whether employed for a definite
convocation of faculty period or not, any employee shall be
clubs. It was not considered as such, beginning on his
convened in accordance first day of service, for purposes of
with the provision on membership in a labor union.
2
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
The TRO notwithstanding, a general
assembly was called for by the
secretary general of the UST on 4
October 1996, where a new set of
USTFU officers were elected by
acclamation and clapping of hands.
Some of the participants were not
members of the USTFU. The new set
of officers subsequently entered into
another CBA with UST from June
1996 to May 2001.
Acting upon the petition of the old
officers, Director Bitonio, the labor
secretary, held that the 4 October
1996 election was void.
Calalang v. Williams The National Traffic Commission
GR No. L-47800 recommended to the Director of
2 December 1940 Public Works that animal-drawn
Laurel, J. vehicles be prohibited from passing
W/N the Constitution and Bylaws of
the USTFU were suspended during
the 4 October elections.
W/N the ratification of the new CBA
validated the 4 October elections.
W/N CA No. 548 constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power.
general membership
meetings as found in the
USTFU’s CBL.
2. There was no
Commission on Elections
to oversee the election, as
mandated by the
USTFU’s CBL.
3. The purported election
was not done by secret
balloting, in violation of
the USTFU’s CBL.
NO. The union’s CBL is the
fundamental law that governs the
relationship between and among the
members of the union. It is where the
rights, duties and obligations,
powers, functions, and authority of
the officers as well as the members
are defined. It is the organic law that
determines the validity of acts done
by any officer or member of the
union. Without respect for the CBL,
a union as a democratic institution
degenerates into nothing more than a
group of individuals governed by
mob rule. Moreover, allowing a non-
union member to initiate the
suspension of a union’s CBL, and
non-union members to participate in
a union election on the premise that
the union’s CBL had been suspended
in the meantime, is incompatible with
the freedom of association and
protection of the right to organize.
NO. Ratified were the new terms of
the new CBA, not the issue of union
leadership—a matter that should be
decided only by union members in
the proper forum at the proper time
and after observance of proper
procedures.
NO. The provisions of CA 548 does
not confer legislative power upon the
Director of Public Works and the
Secretary of Public Works and
Corollary to this right is the
prerogative not to join, affiliate with
or assist a labor union.
To become a union member, an
employee must, as a rule, not only
signify the intent to become one, but
also take some positive steps to
realize that intent. An employee who
becomes a union member acquires
the rights and the concomitant
obligations that go with this new
status and becomes bound by the
union’s rules and regulations.
Union election v. Certification
election – A union election is held
pursuant to the union’s constitution
and bylaws, and the right to vote in it
is enjoyed only by union members. A
certification election is the process of
determining, through secret ballot,
the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit, for
purposes of collective bargaining. All
employees belonging to the
appropriate bargaining unit can vote.
The importance of a union’s
constitution and bylaws embody a
covenant between a union and its
members and constitute the
fundamental law governing the
members’ rights and obligations.
Where ILO Convention No. 87
speaks of a union’s full freedom to
draw up its constitution and rules, it
includes freedom from interference
by persons who are not members of
the union.
Mob hysteria, however well-
intentioned, is not a substitute for the
rule of law.
The Legislature cannot delegate its
power to make the law; but it can
make a law to delegate a power to
determine some fact or state of things
3
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
on Rizal Avenue from the points of
Antipolo Street to Azcarraga Street at
specific times during the day.
Pursuant to the recommendation, and
the powers conferred to it by
Commonwealth Act No. 548, the
Director of Public Works approved
the recommendation, and the Mayor
of Manila and the Acting Chief of
Police of Manila started to enforce
the said measures. As a consequence
of the enforcement, all animal-drawn
vehicles are not allowed to pass and
pick up passengers in the places
mentioned—to the detriment not only
of their owners but of the riding
public as well.
CA No. 548 authorizes the Director
of Public Works, with the approval
of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, to promulgate rules
and regulations for the regulation and
control of the use of and traffic on
national roads and streets.
W/N the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Director of
Public Works and the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications
pursuant to the powers conferred
upon them by CA 548 constitute
unlawful interference with legitimate
business or trade and abridge the
right to personal liberty and freedom
of locomotion.
W/N the rules and regulations
infringe upon the constitutional
precept regarding the promotion of
social justice.
Communications. The delegated
power, if at all, is not the
determination of what the law shall
be, but merely the ascertainment of
the facts and circumstances upon
which the application of said law is
to be predicated. To promulgate rules
and regulations on the use of national
roads and to determine when and
how long a national road should be
closed to traffic, in view of the
condition of the road or the traffic
thereon and the requirements of
public convenience and interest, is an
administrative function which cannot
be directly discharged by the
National Assembly.
NO. Said Act aims to promote safe
transit upon and avoid obstructions
on national roads, in the interest and
convenience of the public. In
enacting said law, the National
Assembly was prompted by
considerations of public convenience
and welfare. It was inspired by a
desire to relieve congestion of traffic,
which is, to say the least, a menace to
public safety. Public welfare, then,
lies at the bottom of the enactment of
said law, and the state in order to
promote the general welfare may
interfere with personal liberty, with
property and with business and
occupations. Persons and property
may be subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the general comfort, health,
and prosperity of the state.
NO. Social justice must be founded
on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among diverse units
of a society and the protection that
should be equally and evenly
extended to all groups as a combined
force in our social and economic life,
consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of
promoting the health, comfort, and
upon which the law makes, or intends
to make, its own action depend. To
deny this would stop the wheels of
government. There are many things
upon which wise and useful
legislation must depend which cannot
be known to the law-making power,
and, must, therefore, be a subject of
inquiry and determination outside the
halls of legislation.
The paradox lies in the fact that the
apparent curtailment of liberty is
precisely the very means of insuring
its preservation.
Social justice is neither communism,
nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of
laws and the equalization of social
and economic forces by the State so
that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at
least be approximated. Social justice
means the promotion of the welfare
of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated
to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in
the interrelations of the members of
the community, constitutionally,
through the adoption of measures
legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise
of powers underlying the existence of
all governments on the time-honored
principle of salus populi est suprema
lex.
4
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
AMA Computer College v. Rolando Rolando Austria was hired by AMA
Austria on probationary employment as a
GR No. 164078 college dean, and was confirmed as
23 November 2007 such by AMA’s Officer-in-Charge of
Nachura, J. Academic Affairs.
On the same month that he was
confirmed, Austria was charged with
violating AMA’s Employees’
Conduct and Discipline provided in
its orientation handbook. He was
then placed on preventive
suspension, and was eventually
dismissed. Austria filed an illegal
dismissal complaint against AMA.
Toyota Motors Phils. Corp. Workers Because of Toyota’s refusal to
Association v. NLRC negotiate with the Union regarding
GR Nos. 158786, 158789, and the collective bargaining agreement,
158798-99 the Union staged a strike on February
19 October 2007 2001 which became detrimental to
Velasco, Jr., J. Toyota’s business. As a result,
Toyota terminated 227 employees.
Outraged, the Union staged more
strikes from March to April 2001,
eventually barricading the entrance
Whether Austria was a regular
employee, or an employee with a
fixed term.
W/N Austria was lawfully dismissed.
W/N the mass actions committed by
the Union on different occasions are
illegal strikes.
quiet of all persons, and of bringing
about “the greatest good to the
greatest number.”
Austria was an employee with a
FIXED TERM. The position of dean
is normally an employment for a
fixed term.
NO. True, AMA erred in dismissing
Austria, acting on the mistaken belief
that he was liable for the charges
leveled against him. But he cannot
also claim entitlement to any benefit
flowing from employment after 17
September 2000, because the
employment, which is the source of
the benefits, had, by then, already
ceased to exist.
YES.
1. Shrouded as
demonstrations, they were
in reality temporary
stoppages of work
perpetrated through the
concerted action of the
employees who
deliberately failed to
report for work on the
convenient excuse that
When the findings of the National
Labor Relations Commission
contradict those of the Labor Arbiter,
the Supreme Court, in the exercise of
its equity jurisdiction, may look into
the records of the case and reexamine
the questioned findings.
The decisive determinant in term
employment should not be the
activities that the employee is called
upon to perform, but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of
their employment relationship.
A contract of employment for a
definite period terminates on its own
force at the end of such period. The
lack of notice of termination is of no
consequence because when the
contract specifies the length of its
duration, it comes to an end upon the
expiration of such period.
While the Court adheres to the
principle of social justice and
protection to labor, the constitutional
policy to provide such protection to
labor is not meant to be an instrument
to oppress employers. The
commitment under the fundamental
law is that the cause of labor does not
prevent us from sustaining the
employer when the law is clearly on
its side.
Six categories of an illegal strike:
1. When it is contrary to a
specific prohibition of
law, such as strike by
employees performing
governmental functions;
2. When it violates a specific
requirement of law;
3. When it is declared for an
unlawful purpose, such as
5
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
of Toyota’s two plants. they will hold a rally at
the BLR and DOLE
Upon assumption of the DOLE offices. It becomes
Secretary of jurisdiction over the obvious that the real and
case, he directed that the status quo ultimate goal of the Union
be upheld and ordered the striking is to coerce Toyota to
employees to return to work and for finally acknowledge the
Toyota to have them reinstated. Union as the sole
Despite the order, some reinstated bargaining agent of the
workers still went on strike on May company. This is not a
2001. legal and valid exercise of
the right of assembly and
NLRC subsequently declared that the to demand redress of
strikes were illegal, that the dismissal grievance. Moreover, the
of the 227 employees was legal, and February 2001 concerted
forfeiting the employment status of actions were undertaken
the reinstated employees for without satisfying the
participating in the subsequent prerequisites for a valid
strikes. strike under Art. 263 of
the Labor Code, which
renders the strike illegal.
2. With respect to the March
and April 2001 strikes,
however, they were
initially legal as the legal
requirements were met.
But when Toyota’s plants
were blocked, they
became illegal because
unlawful means were
employed.
3. With respect to the May
2001 strikes, although
there was no work
disruption in the two
Toyota plants, the fact
still remains that the
Union and its members
picketed and performed
concerted actions in front
of the Company premises.
This is a patent violation
of the assumption of
jurisdiction and
certification Order of the
DOLE Secretary. While
there are no work
stoppages, the pickets and
concerted actions outside
the plants have a
inducing the employer to
commit an unfair labor
practice against non-union
employees;
4. When it employs unlawful
means in the pursuit of its
objective, such as a
widespread terrorism of
non-strikers;
5. When it is declared in
violation of an existing
injunction;
6. When it is contrary to an
existing agreement, such
as a no-strike clause or
conclusive arbitration
clause.
A strike means any temporary
stoppage of work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute.
A labor dispute includes any
controversy or matter concerning
terms or conditions of employment or
the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or arranging
the terms and conditions of
employment, regardless of whether
the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of the employer and the
employee.
Once the DOLE Secretary assumes
jurisdiction over the labor dispute
and certifies the case for compulsory
arbitration with the NLRC, the
parties have to revert to the status
quo ante.
The responsibility of union officials
is greater than that of the members.
They are tasked with the duty to lead
and guide the membership in
decision making on union activities
in accordance with the law,
government rules and regulations,
6
Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
W/N separation pay should be
awarded to the Union members who
participated in the illegal strikes.
demoralizing and even
chilling effect on the
workers inside the plants
and can be considered as
veiled threats of possible
trouble to the workers
when they go out of the
company premises after
work and of impending
disruption of operations to
company officials and
even to customers in the
days to come.
NO. The general rule is that when
just causes for terminating the
services of an employee under Art.
282 of the Labor Code exist, the
employee is not entitled to separation
pay. One exception where separation
pay is given even though an
employee is validly dismissed is
when the court finds justification in
applying the principle of social
justice well entrenched in the 1987
Constitution. But this exception only
applies when the employee is validly
dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct, willful
disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of duty, fraud or willful
breach of trust, commission of a
crime against the employer or his
family, or those reflecting his moral
character. Since the dismissal of the
workers was due to their
participation in the illegal strikes as
well as violation of the Code of
Conduct of the company, the same
constitutes serious misconduct.
Obiter:
While strikes and lockouts have been
recognized as effective bargaining
tools, it is an antiquated notion that
they are truly beneficial, as they only
provide short-term solutions by
forcing concessions from one party;
but staging strikes would damage the
working relationship between
and established labor practices. The
leaders are expected to recommend
actions that are arrived at with
circumspection and contemplation,
and always keep paramount the best
interests of the members and union
within the bounds of law.
Union officers are duty bound to
guide their members to respect the
law. If the officers urge the members
to violate the law and defy the duly
constituted authorities, their dismissal
from the service is a just penalty or
sanction for their unlawful acts.
An ordinary striking worker cannot
be terminated for mere participation
in an illegal strike.
Rule of vicarious liability: Mere
membership in a labor union serves
as basis of liability for acts of
individuals, or for a labor activity,
done on behalf of the union. The
union member is made liable on the
theory that all the members are
engaged in a general conspiracy, and
the unlawful acts of the particular
members are viewed as necessary
incidents of the conspiracy.
The Labor Code does not follow the
vicarious liability rule. It is only
when a striking worker “knowingly
participates in the commission of
illegal acts during a strike” that he
will be penalized with dismissal.
A serious misconduct is a
transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies wrongful
intent and not mere error in
judgment.
Obiter:
Social justice cannot be permitted to
be a refuge of scoundrels any more
7
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
Cebu Metal Corp. v. Gregorio Robert Saliling and the others claimed to be
Saliling regular workers for Cebu Metal
GR No. 154463 Corp. Cebu Metal Corp. claims that
5 September 2006 these workers are only seasonal.
Chico-Nazario, J. When these workers demanded an
increase in their salary, they were
dismissed and were precluded from
entering the compound of Cebu
Metal Corp. Saliling and his
companions then filed a case against
Cebu Metal Corp. for underpayment
of wages and non-payment of
benefits.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Saliling,
et al. were regular company
employees. Upon appeal, the NLRC
reversed the decision, stating that the
said workers were not regular
employees, thus could not be
illegally dismissed. The CA then
reversed the NLRC’s decision based
on the ground that the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion in ruling on an
issue that was not raised on appeal
before it (Cebu Metal allegedly did
not make an issue out of the Labor
Arbiter’s action in ruling on a cause
of action—illegal dismissal was not
specifically stated in the complaint).
Characteristics of Employee-Employer Relationship
Dumpit-Murillo v. CA On 2 October 1995, Thelma Dumpit-
GR No. 164652 Murillo was hired by Associated
8 June 2007 Broadcasting Company (ABC) as a
W/N the NLRC can rule on an issue
which was NOT properly raised
before it.
W/N Murillo was a regular
employee.
employers and employees, thus
endangering the business that they
both want to succeed. The more
progressive and truly effective means
of dispute resolution lies in
mediation, conciliation, and
arbitration, which do not increase
tension but instead provide relief
from them.
NO. The NLRC’s decision simply
expressed an observation. It was
plain error for the CA to annul and
set aside the decision of the NLRC
on the lone reason that the latter
“dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the
basis of an issue not raised by Private
Respondent in its appeal.” A
painstaking review of the decision of
the NLRC will readily reveal that the
Commission’s finding that
respondent complainants were not
regular employees was the raison
d’etre for the subsequent turnaround
of the state of affairs. And the use of
the word “moreover” clearly
expresses NLRC’s position in
treating the matter of the non-
inclusion of the issue of illegal
dismissal in the complaint merely as
an add-on, adjunct or a supplement to
its finding that respondent
complainants were not regular
employees of petitioner company.
YES. Murillo was a regular
employee under contemplation of
law. The assertion that a talent
than can equity be an impediment to
the punishment of the guilty. Those
who invoke social justice may do so
only if their hands are clean and
their motives blameless and not
simply because they happen to be
poor.
The constitutional guarantee on
social justice is not intended only for
the poor but for the rich as well. It is
a policy of fairness to both labor and
management.
An act of a court or tribunal may only
be considered to have been done in
grave abuse of discretion when the
same was performed in a capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment
which is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty
or to a virtual refusal to perform a
duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility.
The practice of having fixed-term
contracts in the industry does not
automatically make all talent
8
 Labor Standards Digest Matrix 1 – Stef Macapagal
Quisumbing, J. newscaster and co-anchor for
Balitang-Balita, an evening news
program. On 30 September 1999,
after four years of repeated renewals,
Murillo’s talent contract expired. She
sent a letter to the Vice President for
News and Public Affairs of ABC,
signifying her interest in renewing
her contract subject to a salary
increase. When she did not receive a
reply, she demanded for
reinstatement to her former position,
payment of unpaid services from 1
September until 20 October 1999 and
full backwages, and payment of other
benefits due to a regular employee
starting 31 March 1996. ABC told
her a check for her talent fee
covering 16 September until 20
October 1999 had already been
processed, but answered that her
other claims had no basis in fact or in
law. Murillo filed a claim with
NLRC.
The labor arbiter dismissed her
complaint. Upon appeal, the NLRC
reversed the labor arbiter, holding
that an employer-employee
relationship between the parties
existed, and that Murillo was
illegally dismissed. The NLRC also
held that Murillo was entitled to
reinstatement and backwages or
separation pay, aside from 13th month
pay and service incentive leave pay,
moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees. The CA reversed the
NLRC decision on the ground that
Murillo was a fixed-term employee,
as was on her employment contract.
W/N Murillo was illegally dismissed.
contract exists does not necessarily
prevent a regular employment status.
In the case at bar, ABC had control
over the performance of Murillo’s
work. Moreover, Murillo’s duties as
enumerated in her contract indicate
that ABC had control over her work.
Aside from control, ABC also
dictated the work assignments and
payment of Murillo’s wages. ABC
also had the power to dismiss her. All
these being present, clearly, there
existed an employment relationship
between Murillo and ABC.
YES. As a regular employee, Murillo
is entitled to security of tenure and
can be dismissed only for just cause
and after due compliance with
procedural due process. Since ABC
did not observe due process in
constructively dismissing Murillo,
Murillo was illegally dismissed.
contracts valid and compliant with
labor law.
Elements of an employment
relationship:
1. The selection and
engagement of the
employee;
2. The payment of wages;
3. The power of dismissal;
4. Employer’s power to
control.
The most important element is the
employer’s control of the employee’s
conduct, not only as to the result of
the work to be done, but also as to the
means and methods to accomplish it.
Considering regular employment, the
law provides for 2 kinds of
employees, namely:
1. Those who are engaged to
perform activities which
are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer;
2. Those who have rendered
at least one year of
service, whether
continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity
in which they are
employed.
Regular status arises from either the
nature of work of the employee or the
duration of his employment.