1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

JUST CAUSE
2.
What happened was not a simple case of oversight and
could not be attributed to a simple lapse of judgment. No amount
of good intent, or previous conscientious performance of duty,
can assuage the damage Mateo caused LBC when he failed to
exercise the requisite degree of diligence required of him under
the circumstances.

UPDATE ON LABOR LAW

RULINGS IN CERTAIN 2009
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
DEAN FROILAN M. BACUNGAN

4
5

bl

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an

Sycip, Gorres,
orres,
Com
Velayo & Company
vs. De R
Raedt

an

JUST CAUSE
1.The services of a regular employee may be terminated only for
just or authorized causes, including gross and habitual
negligence under Article 282, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code.
Gross negligence is characterized by want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act,
not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected.

R
o

an

R
o

LBC EXPRESS
EXPR
METRO MANILA,
INC. VS. MATEO
G.R. NO. 168215. JUNE 9, 2009

REQUIREMENT of DUE PROCESS

R
h memorandum directing Mateo to be
The
p
present for investigation clearly provided
the reasons or grounds for Mateos
investigation. As stated there, the grounds
were the alleged carnapping of motorcycle
and the alleged pilferage of a package.
Nothing could be clearer. What tthe law
he employee
empl
merely requires is that the
be
ular acts or omissions
informed of the particular
sal is s
for which his dismissal
sought. The
that Mateo was
memorandum did justt that.
he opportunity
po
thereafter given the
to explain
s hand
his side and was
handed the requisite
second notice (of term
termination). Procedural
due process was th
therefore complied with.

bl
es

an

Ba
r

R
o

bl

es

Ba
r

BY:

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

R. No
G.R.
No. 161366.
June 16, 2009

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

EXISTENCE of EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE

RELATIONSHIP
CONTROL TEST
1.To determine the existence of an employer
employee relationship, case law has
consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit;
(a)
the selection and engagement of the
employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal;
(d) the employers power to control the
employee on the means and
methods
by which the work is
accomplished.

Ba
r

11

bl

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an
C

Triumph International
al (Phi
(Phils.),
ostol
Inc. vs. Apostol

an

1644
G.R. No.. 164423.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

12

e 16, 2009
2
June

Balladares vs.
Peak Ventures
Corporation
G.R. No. 161794.
June 16, 2009

R
o

es

an

R
o

2.
There
existed no employer employee
ere ex
relationship between the parties. De Raedt is
an independent contractor, who was engaged
ed
by SGV to render services to SGVs client TMI,
and ultimately to DA on the CECAP project,
ect,
regarding matters in the field of her special
pecial
knowledge and training for a specific
period of
fic perio
time.

The so called control test is the most

importantt indicator of the presence or absence
of an employer
mployer employee relationship.

This Court has held in a plethora of

T
c
se that reliance on the Servando ruling
cases
is no longer tenable in view of the
enactment of R.A. No. 7730, amending
Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code. The
Secretary of Labor or his duly
y authorized
powe
representatives is now empowered
to hear
y proc
and decide, in a summary
proceeding, any
matter involving the recovery of any amount
oneta claims arising
of wages and other monetary
out of employer em
employee
relations at the
o
pection even if the amount of
time of the inspection,
y claim exceeds P5, 000.00.
the monetary

bl
es

EXISTENCE of EMPLOYER
MPLOY
EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP
RELATIO

Ba

an
R
o

bl

es

10

Ba
r

It should be noted that petitioners complaint involved

underpayment of wages and other benefits. In order to verify the
allegations in the complaint, DOLE conducted an inspection,
which yielded proof of violations of labor standards. By the nature
of the complaint and from the result of the inspection, the
authority of the DOLE, under Article 128, came into play
regardless of the monetary value of the claims involved.

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

As a general rule, petitions for

review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure filed before this Court may
only raise questions of law. However,
jurisprudence has recognized several
exceptions to this rule.

Dismissals of employees have two facets:

1.The legality of the act of dismissal, which
constitutes substantive due process;

16
As previously mentioned, fraud or willful breach of the
ploy
employers
trust is a just cause for termination of employment
u
under Article 282 ( c ) of the Labor Code. This provision is
premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a
p
position of trust and confidence, a situation which exists where
such employee is entrusted by the employer with confidence on
delicate matters, such as care and protection, handling or custody
of the employers property.

17

bl

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

18

an

Treatment of managerial employees distinguished

stinguishe from
that of the rank and file personnel insofar as the application
of
ap
the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence
With
ce is concerned.
conc
respect to rank and file personnel,
and
l, loss of trust
tr
confidence, as ground for valid dismissal,
requires proof of
smissal, requ
involvement in the alleged events
question, and that mere
s in questio
uncorroborated assertions and accusations
ccusatio by the employer will
not be sufficient.

15

2.
Equally settled is the rule that factual
findings of labor officials, who are deemed to
have acquired expertise in matters within their
jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only
respect but even finality by the courts when
supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the
amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. But these findings are not
infallible. When there is a showing that they
were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the
evidence on record, they may be examined by
the courts.

PROCEDURE

R
o

14

es

an

Ba

R
o

1.The power of the Court

urt of Ape
Apeals to review NLRC decisions via a
nder Ru
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 has been settled as early as
our decision in St. Martin F
Funeral Home vs. NLRC (295 SCRA 494
[1998]). In said
that the proper vehicle for such
d case, we held
h
review is a Special Civ
Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court,
ourt, and tthat the case should be filed in the Court of
Appeals in strict o
observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of
courts.

bl
es

an

PROCEDURE

Ba
r

R
o

bl

es

13

Ba
r

2.The legality in the manner of dismissal,

which constitutes procedural due process.

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

J Marketing
Corporation vs.
Taran

G.R. No. 152928. June

18, 2009

G.R. No. 163924.

Ba
r

Metropolitan Bank and

Trust Company vs.
National Labor
Relations Commission

22

Ba
r

SEPARATION PAY
SEPARAT

2.However, an employer who agrees to expend such benefit as an

incident of the resignation should not be allowed to renege on the
fulfillment of such commitment.

bl

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an

Ritualo vs. Peop

People

o. 178
G.R. No.
178337.

an

It is a jurisprudential rule that where there is an

established employer practice of regularly, knowingly and
voluntarily granting benefits to employees over a significant
period of time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation
on the part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits
ripens into a vested right of the employees and can no longer be
unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the employer.

R
o

20

es

an

Ba

R
o

2.This Court held that the grant of these benefits has ripened into
company practice
which cannot be peremptorily
ractice or policy
p
withdrawn.

1.It is
sw
well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code that
g
grants separation pay to voluntarily resigning employees.

23

1.Retirement; To be considered
nsidered a company practice, the giving of
ve been done over a long period of time,
the benefits should have
n to hav
and must be shown
have been consistent and deliberate.

bl
es

an

RETIREMENT BENEFIT

R
o

bl

es

19

June 18, 2009

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

24

21

June
une 25,
2 2009

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment

and placement as:
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not; Provided, that any person or entity which, in
any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement.

The present violation involves elements of falsification and

dishonesty. Knowing fully what Manalo deserved, Salon gave him
a grade of 6.0 instead of a failing grade. In the process, she
changed in short, falsified her own records by changing the
submitted record and the supporting documents. Viewed in any
light, this is Serious Misconduct under Article 282 (a) of the Labor
Code, and a just cause for termination of employment.

28

Ba
r

DUE
UE PROCESS
PR
REQUIREMENT

an

Salon
notified in writing about the charges
a
against her, she was given a reasonable
opportunity to explain her side; she was also
called to an investigation where, again, she
in w
had the opportunity to explain
why she should
s only dismissed
di
not be dismissed. She was
after the conclusion off the inves
investigation and
ven a se
after she had been given
second notice in
s being
ng terminated as a
writing that she was
faculty member of the s
school. In short, she has
mplain about in terms of the
nothing to complain
e underw
process she
underwent that led to her
l.
dismissal.

r
Ba
o
bl

es

h
an

Pentagon Stee
Steel
ation vs.
Corporation
Courtt of A
Appeals

an

R. N
G.R.
No. 174141.

G.R. No. 158703.

June 26, 2009

27

June 26, 2009

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

30

Technological Institute of
the Philippines Teachers
and Employees
Organization (TIPTEO)
VS. Court of Appeals

29

bl

R
o

26

es

an

R
o

bl
es

Art. 315, par. 2 (a)

( of the revised Penal
merates one of the modes of
Code, enumerates
ting estafa,
estaf thus: xxxx2. By means of
committing
he follo
any of the
following false pretenses or
nt a
fraudulent
acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
he
fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or
falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit,
ansactio
agency, business or imaginary transactions,
or by means of other similar deceits.
ceits.

Ba

ESTAFA

R
o

es

25

Ba
r

To be engaged in illegal recruitment, it is plain that

there must at least be a promise or an offer of employment
from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or
abroad.

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

CONCILIATION and MEDIATION

Alcatel Philippines,
Inc. vs. Relos

Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings

shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be
used as evidence in the Commission; Conciliators and similar
officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any
matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

34

Ba
r

an
R
o

es

31

Ba
r

G.R. No. 164315.

July 3, 2009

PROJECT EMPLOYEE

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
NT

bl
es

1.The
he employment of a project employee ends on the
date specified in the employment contract. Therefore,
d
rrespondent was not illegally dismissed but his
employment terminated upon the expiration of his
employment contract. Here, Alcatel employed
respondent as a Site Inspector until 31 December 1995.

ehiring o
a)There is a continuous rehiring
of project employees
on of a pro
even after the cessation
project;

es

med by tthe alleged project

b)The tasks performed
tal, necessary
neces
employee are vital,
and indispensable to
the usual business
trade of the employer.
ess or tr
35

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an
C

ABANDONMENT

TEODOR S. MIRANDA,
ANDA, JR.
vs
s

In evaluating a charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential

rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be
lightly presumes from equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment,
two elements must concur:

R
o

32

bl

2.A project employee or a member

pool may
er of a work
w
acquire the status of a regular employe
employee when the
following concur:

Ba

an

R
o

Offers for compromise

mpromis are irrelevant because
they are not intende
intended as admissions by the
parties making them.
the A true offer of compromise
t, in legal
leg contemplation, involve an
does not,
n on the part of a defendant that he or
admission
she is legally liable, or on the part of a plaintiff,
f,
that his or her claim is groundless or even
doubtful, since it is made with a view to avoid
id
igation. It
controversy and save the expense of litigation.
is the distinguishing mark of an offer o
of
vely,
compromise that it is made tentatively,
ation of mutual
m
hypothetically, and in contemplation
concessions.

1.The failure to report for work or absence without valid or

justifiable reason,

an

RMIN
ASIAN TERMINALS,
INC.

2.A clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the

employer employee relationship.

G.R.
R. No
No. 174316

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

36

33

July 23, 2009

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

SHOP STEWARD

Ba
r

DISMISSALS
ISMISSA
to be LEGAL
When
he there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for
th
the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a
case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to
prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, An
employees dismissal due to serious misconduct must be
supported by substantial evidence.

41

bl

Ba
o
bl

es

h
an
C

DUE PROCESS

Under the Labor Code, there are twin

win requirements
require
to
justify a valid dismissal from employment:
t:

a)The dismissal must be for any off the causes provided in Article
282 of the Labor Code (substantive
ve aspect)
b)The employee must be given
to be heard and to
n an opportunity
oppo
defend himself (procedural aspect)

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

42

39

an

Since the Shop Steward is a union position, the

controversy surrounding his recall from his position as Shop
Steward becomes a dispute within the union. An Internal Union
Dispute or intra union conflict refers to a conflict within or
inside a labor union. It includes all disputes or grievances arising
from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of the
constitution and by laws of a union.

R
o

38

es

an

Ba

R
o

2. A shop
p stew
steward may be
tive o
an elective
official within
the union
nion or key
administrative
nis
personnel,
and it is considered to be
within the same class as
s
s and
union officers, agents
representatives.

bl
es

an

R
o

bl

es

37

Ba
r

1.A shop steward is appointed by

the union in a shop, department,
or plant and serves as
representative of the union,
charged with negotiating and
adjustment of grievances of
employees with the supervisor off
the employer.

TMI, and not on grounds

under labor laws. Though the
end of the contract between the
DA and TMI was not the ground
for the withdrawal of De Raedt
from the CECAP, De Raedt was
disengaged from the project
upon the instruction of SGVs
client.
40

INTRA UNION DISPUTE INVOLVING

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

5/12/2011

DUE PROCESS

es
bl
bl
C

an

o
bl

es

an

Ba

44

es

an

Ba

R
o

an

It is necessary for this Court to clarify and explicitly

declare that no liability for respondents
illegal dismissal should
res
attach to petitioners Aguiluz
and Cruz, and respondents
guiluz an
complaint as against
should be dismissed. Unless they have
st them sh
exceeded theirr authority, c
corporate officers are, as a general rule,
not personally
ally liable for their official acts, because a corporation,
by legal fiction,
tion, has a personality separate and distinct from its
officers, stockholders
and members.
ockhold

Ba

R
o

bl

es

43

Ba
r

The essence of the due process

requirement being a mere opportunity to be
heard, we agree with the Court of Appeals
that although respondent was given a
limited time to explain his side and present
evidence, he, however, was able to refute
the findings of petitioner. Hence, the chance
afforded to respondent, although limited, is
a clear opportunity to be heard on the issue
at hand. What the law abhors and prohibits
y
is the absolute absence of the opportunity
to be heard.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph