CASE DIGEST: HILARIO S. RAMIREZ VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Respondent Mario Valcueba filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of
wage differential, 13th month pay differential, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest
days, and service incentive leaves with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys
fees, against Hilario Ramirez. Valcueba claimed that Ramirez hired him as mechanic and was
paid per day from 1999 to 2006. On Feb. 27, 2006, Valcueba was advised not to return to work
unless he would agree to work on a pakyaw basis. On the other hand, Ramirez contended that
Valcueba fails to obey the formers lawful order when he had an emergency call and requested
Valcueba to report to Calawisan Station to repair a taxi unit of Ramirez since the mechanic
assigned in the said station was absent. Ramirez insisted that he did not terminate the
complainant, it was the latter who abandoned his job following his absence the following day
after the emergency call without any leave of absence. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
finding Ramirez not guilty of illegal dismissal and awarded complainant for 13 th month pay and
wage differential for a total of P45, 825.98 and the reinstatement of complainant. Ramirez filed a
memorandum of appeal with urgent motion to reduce bond before the NLRC. For failure to post
a reasonable amount and to offer meritorious grounds, NLRC dismissed his appeal. He went to
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition outright for failure of Ramirez
to properly verify his petition and to state material dates. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ramirez has complied with the requirements to perfect his appeal.
HELD:
Under Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of NLRC which explicitly reaffirms the
jurisdictional principle in Art. 223 of the Labor Code, appeals involving monetary awards are
perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment
of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash
or surety bond. The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. Clearly, the filing of the bond
is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that must be complied with in order to
confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance with the requirement renders the decision
of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the
employer, this is subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based
on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted
by the appellant; otherwise, the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of
the period to perfect an appeal. The NLRC was justified in denying the motion for there was no
meritorious grounds offered by the appellant and the P10, 000.00 bond posted by the latter is not
a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award of P45, 825.98.
Ramirezs failure to verify and state material dates as required under the rules warranted
the outright dismissal of his petition before the Court of Appeals . In an actions filed under Rule
65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure to
comply shall be a ground for dismissal.
Hence, the Supreme Court finds no sufficient justification to set aside the NLRC and
Court of Appeals resolutions. Thus, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is already final and
executory and binding upon this Court.

CASE DIGEST: YSS EMPLOYEES UNION- PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND

GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION VS. YSS LABORATORIES INC.
FACTS:
In order to arrest escalating business losses, YSS Laboratories, a domestic corporation
engaged in Pharmaceutical business implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11
employees purportedly chosen in accordance with the reasonable standards established by the
company. Of the 11 employees sought to be retrenched, nine were officers and members of
YSSEU, a duly registered labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of the rank-and-file employees of YSS. Claiming that YSS Laboratories was guilty of
discrimination and union-busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program, YSSEU decided
to hold a valid strike. A number of conciliation proceedings were made by the NCMB-NCR but
still the dispute was not resolved. This prompted the Sectary of Labor to intervene. Finding that
the labor dispute was inimical to the national interest, it certifies the case to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration and issued two orders: first, directing all striking workers to return to
work and for the Company to accept them back under the same terms and conditions of
employment prior to the strike; second, that the nine retrenched employees be included in the
return to work order. Aggrieved, YSS Laboratories filed a petition under Rule 65 before the
Court of Appeals in which the latter reversed the orders of the Secretary of Labor and granted the
petition of YSS Laboratories. The appellate court found that YSS Laboratories validly carried out
its retrenchment program, which effectively severed the concerned employees employment with
the company. Hence, YSSEU comes to this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the coverage of the
return-to-work- order.
HELD:
The Orders of the Secretary of Labor, certifying the labor dispute involving the herein
parties to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, and enjoining YSSEU to return to work and YSS
Laboratories to admit them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike,
were issued pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Said provision reads:
Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts.
xxxx
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to
work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout.
It should be noted that the primary reason why the strike was conducted in the first place
was to protest the implementation of the retrenchment program, which clearly discriminated
against union officers and members. YSS Laboratories vigorous insistence on the exclusion of
the retrenched employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order seriously impairs the
authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the
national economy. Accordingly, when the Secretary of Labor directed YSS Laboratories to accept
all the striking workers back to work, the Secretary did not exceed his jurisdiction, or gravely
abuse the same, said the Supreme Court. Hence, the petition is granted. The orders of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment are hereby reinstated.

CASE DIGEST: RAMON B. FORMANTES VS. DUNCAN PHARMACEUTICAL,

PHILS., INC.
FACTS:
Ramon B. Formantes, the Acting District Manager of respondent for the Ilocos District,
filed a case for illegal suspension and constructive dismissal against respondent company after
the company excludes him from any meetings and activities of the company, withheld his salary,
and directed one of its district managers to take over his position and functions without prior
notice to him. The company did the foregoing upon a complaint of one of its medical
representative, Cynthia Magat, on the attempt by Ramon Formantes to sexually force himself
upon his subordinate. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision finding the dismissal of Ramon
Formantes valid for an attempt to sexually abuse Cynthia Magat but imposing a penalty on
respondent for its failure to give formal notice and conduct the necessary investigation before
dismissing petitioner. Dissatisfied, Petitioner appeal to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter. Not contented, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the
NLRCs decision with modification of the penalty imposed against the respondent from
P1,000.00 to P5,000.00. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner on the ground of sexual abuse is proper when
the charge against him, stated in the termination letter, was insubordination.
HELD:
In Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that: It is now axiomatic
that if just cause for termination of employment actually exists and is established by substantial
evidence in the course of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the fact that the employer
failed, prior to such termination, to accord to the discharged employee the right of formal notice
of the charge or charges against him and a right to ventilate his side with respect thereto, will not
operate to eradicate said just cause so as to impose on the employer the obligation of reinstating
the employee and otherwise granting him such other concomitant relief as is appropriate in the
premises. x x x
Although petitioner was dismissed from work by the respondent on the ground of
insubordination, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that the ground of sexual abuse
committed against petitioner's subordinate actually exists and was established by substantial
evidence before the LA. The LA would be rendered inutile if she would just seal her lips after
finding that a just cause for dismissal exists merely because the said ground was not stated in the
notice of termination. Thus, we hold the dismissal as valid, but we find that there was noncompliance with the twin procedural requirements of notice and hearing for a lawful dismissal.
Since the dismissal, although for a valid cause, was done without due process of law, the
employer should indemnify the employee with nominal damages.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the sanction imposed on respondent for non-compliance with statutory
due process is increased from P5,000.00 to P30,000.00.