Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
LABOR LAW
By:
MANUEL R.
Dean
commit
1).
the
employer,
persons
another;
2). the
working
sexual
BUSTAMANTE
(RA 7877)
harassment,
the
following
Can
considered
must
be
present:
employer,
employee,
manager,
supervisor,
agent
of
the
teacher, instructor, professor, coach trainer, or any other
has
authority,
influence
or
moral
ascendancy
over
authority,
influence
environment:
or
moral
ascendancy
Q:
elements
greeting
by
kissing
on
as sexual harassment?
the
or
cheek,
exists
otherwise
in
in
required
beso-beso
a
a
fashion,
be
A:
Ernesto
Acosta,
April
2,
2002).
c. Handicraft
workers
on
pakyaw
d,
Tailors,
pressers
and
stitchers
in
COD
tailoring
department
Cases
where
there
independent contractor)
a. Insurance
company
is
no
vis--vis
employer-employee
commission
agents
relationship
(but
one
of
2
b. Company
Machine
c.
vs.
vs.
Drilon,
Softdrinks
collecting
193
agents
SCRA
company
270,
vs.
on
commission
basis
(Singer Sewing
1991).
independent
contractors
selling
softdrinks
d. Shoe shine
DIFFERENCE
boys
BETWEEN
AN
EMPLOYEE
AND
INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR
ALEXANDER LOPEZ
vs.
MWSS
2005
The control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control ,
and not the exercise
thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it is not enough that
the
former has a right to wield the power.
While petitioners were contractcollectors and were even subject to disciplinary measures . Contrary to MWSS
assertion that petitioners were free to adopt their own method/strategy in the
matter of collection, the Agreement clearly provided that the procedure
and/or
manner
of
the collection
of
bills
to
be
followed
shall
be in accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Manual
of
Procedures.
3.
Test
KINDS
in
OF
EMPLOYMENT
determining
regular
employment;
reasonable
connection
rule
SCRA 643,
1992)
PROBATIONARY
Probationary
period
of
EMPLOYMENT
employment;
general
rule
and
exception
During
tenure
the
probationary
period,
the
employee
enjoys
security
of
WILLIAM
M. SORIANO
699 SCRA 88
FACTS: Soriano
was
hired
as
legal
assistant by
basis.
Eight
(8)
day
prior
to
the
completion
probationary
period,
the
employers
department
head
was being terminated from employment due to the
expenses.
Univac
on
probationary
of
his
six
months
informed
him
that
he
companys
cost
cutting
On
the
other
hand,
Univac
claimed
that
during
the
companys
meeting,
Soriano expressed his
intention to leave the company because he
wanted to review for the bar examinations and
also in that meeting,
he
was informed of his unsatisfactory performance.
ISSUE:
Whether
employee.
the
employer
is
guilty
of
illegal
dismissal
of
probationary
HELD:
YES.
The
power
of
the
employer
to
terminate
a
probationary
employee
is
subject
to
three
limitations ,
namely:
(1)
it
must
be
exercised
in accordance with the specific
requirements
of the contract ; (2)
the
dissatisfaction
on
the
part
of
the
employer
must
be
real
and
in
good
faith,
not
feigned
so
as
to
circumvent
the
contract
or
the
law;
and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.
It
is
undisputed that
Soriano was hired as a
probationary employee .
As
such,
he
did
not
enjoy
a
permanent
status .
Nevertheless,
he
is
accorded
the
constitutional
protection
of
security
of
tenure
which
means
that
he
can
only
be
dismissed
from
employment
for
a
just
cause
or
when
he
fails
to
qualify
as
a
regular
employee
in
accordance
with
reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of
his engagement.
In this case, not only did the employer fail to show that
Soriano
was
apprised
of
the
standards
for
regularization
but
it
was
likewise
not
shown how these standards had been applied in his case.
December
11,
2013,
712
SCRA
418
FACTS:
Manaois
applied
for
a
position
as
full-time
instructor
for
school
year 2000-2001
at
SSC.
She mentioned in her application letter that she
had
been
taking
masteral
studies
majoring
in
creative
writing
at
UP
Diliman and she was completing her masters thesis.
SSC
approved
her
application
on
the
basis
that
she
finishes
her
MA.
At
the completion
terminated her
services
ISSUE:
for
a
private
of
for
her third
failure to
Whether
the
completion
tertiary
level
educator
educational institution.
of
to
year of probationary
employment,
finish her masters degree.
a
masters degree
is
earn
the
status
of
SSC
required
in
order
permanency
in
a
HELD: YES.
The
mere
completion
of
the
3
year
probationary
period
does
not
guarantee
that
the
employee
will
automatically
acquire
a
permanent
status.
Probationer
can
only
qualify
upon
fulfillment
of
the
reasonable
standards
set
for
permanent
employment
as
a
member
of
the
teaching
personnel.
Probationary
employment
refers
to the
trial
stage
or
period
during
which
the
employer
examines
the
competency
and
qualification
of
job
applicants
and
determines
whether
they
are
qualified
to
be
extended
permanent employment
status.
Such an arrangement
allows an
employer the
ability
to
scrutinize
the
fitness
and
competency
of
the
probationary
employee while on the job.
for
Here,
Manaois failed
to
comply with the stated academic
the position of a permanent
full-time faculty member.
PROJECT
Principal
test
for
determining
requirements
EMPLOYMENT
project
employees
The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly
characterized
as
project
employees as distinguished
from
regular employees
is whether
or
not
the
project employees
were
assigned
to
carry
out
a
specific
project
or
undertaking,
the duration (and scope) of which were
specified at the time the employees were
engaged
for
that project. (ALU-TUCP
vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678, 1994).
one
Project
employees
year are deemed
who
worked
for
regular employees.
an
aggregate
period
of
at
least
Working
Men,
May 9,
2003).
Failure
of
the
employer
to
report
to
the
nearest
employment
office
the
termination
of
workers
everytime
a
project
is
completed
proves
that
the employees are not project employees (Fernandez vs. NLRC). Contrariwise,
the
faithful
and
regular
effort
of
the
Company
in
reporting
every
completion
of its project and submitting the lay-off
list of its employees proves
the
nature
of
employment
of
the
workers
involved
therein
as
project
employees.
SCRA 347
FACTS:
Bello
was
employed
by
DMCI
as
a
mason
without
interruption
from
February
1,
1990
until
October
10,
1997.
He
had
a
very diligent and devoted worker and his job as a
mason had
necessary and desirable
in
the usual business or
trade of
DMCI.
any
been
been
During his
employment, he
had
been
diagnosed
pulmonary tuberculosis,
thereby
necessitating
his
leave
to
of
from
Upon
refused
to
work
but
DMCI
had
a
termination paper.
his
recovery,
he
accept
him and
ISSUE: Whether
employee.
Bello
is
had
reported
instead handed
regular
back
to
to him
employee
and
no
be suffering
absence.
longer
project
employee
is
one
the
completion
been
determined
who
is
hired
or
termination
at
the
time
for
specific
project
of
such
project
of
engagement
of
It
is
settled
that
the extension of
the
employment
of
a
employee
long
after
the
supposed
project
has
been
completed
the employee
from
the scope of
a
project
employee and
makes
regular
employee.
or
or
the
project
removes
him a
PNCC
the
of
services
of
as to the
a
project employee
duration, he becomes
SEASONAL
is
extended
without
a regular employee.
EMPLOYMENT
any
to
Seasonal
workers
who
work
for
more
than
one
season
are
deemed
have
acquired
regular
employment . (Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of
Seasonal
workers
during
the
off-season
are
merely
considered
on
leave.
Effect
of
repeated
service
upon
status
of
In this case, it may appear that the work in the company is seasonal,
however, the records reveal that the employee was repeatedly re-hired , sufficiently
evidencing the necessity
and
indispensability of her services to the formers
business or trade. Owing to her length of service , she became a regular
employee, by operation of law, one year after she was employed . Being a
regular employee, she enjoys security of tenure in the sense that she cannot
be dismissed from employment
except for just and authorized cause . (Gaco vs.
NLRC, 230 SCRA 260, 1994).
JAIME
N.
GAPAYAO
vs.
SSS
Fulo
be
considered
regular
employee
HELD: YES.
Pakyaw
workers
are
considered
employees
for
as
long
as
their
employers
exercise
control
over
them .
Here,
Gapayao
wielded
control
over
the
deceased
in
the
discharge
of
his
functions .
Being
the
owner
of
the
farm
on
which
the
deceased
worked ,
Gapayao,
on
his
own
or
through
his
overseer,
necessarily
had
the
right
to
review
the
quality
of
work
produced
by
his
laborers.
It
matters
not
whether
the
deceased
conducted
his
work
inside
Gapayaos
farm
or
not
because
the
latter
retained the right of control him in his work.
Farm workers generally fall
under the definition of seasonal employees .
Regular
seasonal
employees
are
those
called
to
work
from
time
to
time .
The nature of their relationship with
the
employer is
that during the off
season,
they
are
temporarily
laid
off,
but
reemployed
during
the
summer
season
or
when
their
services
may
be
needed .
They
are
in
regular
employment
because
of
the
nature
of
their
job
and
not
because of
the
length of time they have worked.
Indeed
the
deceased
was
a
farm
worker
who
was
in
the
regular
employ
of
Gapayao.
From year
to
year,
starting
January
1983
up
until
his
death,
the
deceased
had
been
working
on
Gapayaos
land
by
harvesting
abaca and
coconut,
processing copra
and
cleaning
weeds.
His
employment was continuous in the sense that it was done for more than
one
harvesting
season.
Moreover,
no
amount
of
reasoning
could
detract
from
the
fact
that
these
tasks
were
necessary
or
desirable
in
the
usual business
of Gapayao.
CASUAL
EMPLOYMENT
6
Their employment
is
contractually
fixed
for
a
certain
period
of
time.
They
fall
under
the
exception
of
Article
280
whose
employment
has
been
fixed
for
a
specific
project
or
undertaking,
the
completion or
termination of which has been determined at
the
time of
engagement
of
the
employee or where the
work or
services to be performed is seasonal
in nature and
the
employment
is
for
the
duration
of
the
season.
(Millares vs. NLRC, 385 SCRA 306, 2002).
JOB
CONTRACTING
Permissible
AND
job
LABOR-ONLY
contracting
or
CONTRACTING
subcontracting
Effect of a
finding
that
contractor
is
labor-only contractor
Liability
In
legitimate
job
contracting,
the
law
creates
an
employer-employee
relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid
their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the
job contractor only
for the payment of the employees wages
whenever the
contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not
responsible to any claim made by the employees.
(San Miguel Corporation
vs.
MAERC-Integrated Services, Inc.)
4.
MANAGEMENT
PREROGATIVE
Exercised
The free
purpose cannot
in
good
faith
Where
transfer
may
constitute
constructive
dismissal
To
say
that
the
employees
were
not
constructively
dismissed inasmuch
as the transfer
was
effected
without
demotion
in
rank
or
diminution
of
salary
benefits
is,
in
this
case,
inaccurate.
It
is
well
to
remember
that
constructive
dismissal
does
not
always
involve
forthright
dismissal
or
diminution
in
rank,
compensation, benefits
and
privileges. For an
act
of
clear
discrimination,
insensibility,
or
disdain
by
an
employer
may
become
so
unbearable
on
the
part
of
the
employee
that it could
7
foreclose
any
choice
by
him
except
to
forego
his
continued
employment .
Employment
contracts
providing
for
disclosure
of
marriages
An
employment
contract
providing
for
a
disclosure
to
management
of
any
existing
or
future
relationship
with
competitor
company
is
valid
exercise
of
management
prerogatives.
A
companys
policy
prohibiting
an
employee
from
having
relationship
with
an
employee
of
a
competitor
company
is
a
valid
exercise
of
management
prerogative .
The
company
has
a
right
to
guard
its
trade
secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential
programs
and
information
from
competitors .
(Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. G. R. 162994, September
17, 2004).
No. 173489,
February
25,
2013,
FACTS:
Bandiola
carried
an
illicit
relationship
his
fellow
worker
in
the
office.
He
was
the grounds under Personnel Policy.
ISSUE:
Whether
Bandiola
is
validly
691
BANDIOLA, JR.
SCRA
with
a
dismissed
533
married woman,
based
on
one
not
of
dismissed.
HELD: YES.
An
employer is
free to regulate all
aspects
of
employment
it
may make
reasonable rules
and regulations for the government of its
employees which become part
of
the contract
of
employment
provided they
are made known
to the employees.
6. SEPARATION PAY
Q:
Will
an
employee
who
voluntarily
resigns
be
granted
separation
pay?
are
the
instances
when
award
of
separation
pay
is
proper?
A: Under
the
Code,
separation
pay
may be
awarded
only
in
cases
when
the termination of employment is due to:
a)
installation of labor saving devices;
b)
redundancy;
c)
retrenchment;
d)
closing or cessation of business operations;
e)
disease
of
an
employee
and
his
continued
employment is
prejudicial
to himself
or
his co-employees;
and
f)
when
an
employee
is
illegally
dismissed
but
reinstatement
is
no longer feasible.
Q:
When
may
an
employer
refuse
to
provide
separation
pay?
A: Separation
pay
shall
be
allowed
as
a
measure
of
social
justice
only
in
those
instances
where
the
employee
is
validly
dismissed
for
causes
other
than
serious
misconduct
or
those
reflecting
on
his
moral
character.
Where
the
reason
for
the
valid
dismissal
is
an
offense
involving
moral
turpitude, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee
separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called,
on
the
ground
of
social
justice. (Alan D. Gustilo vs. Wyeth Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 149629, October 4, 2004)
UNILEVER
PHILIPPINES,
G.R.
No.
201701,
INC.
June
vs.
3,
MARIA
2013,
697
RUBY
SCRA
M.
RIVERA
136
FACTS:
Rivera
was
dismissed
from
work
because
she
intentionally
circumvented
a
strict
company
policy,
manipulated
another
entity
to
carry
out
her
instructions
without
companys
knowledge
and
approval
and
directed the diversion of
funds, which she even admitted doing
under
the
guise
of
shortening
laborious
process
of
securing
funds
for
promotional
activities
from the
head office. These
transgressions
were
serious offenses
that
warranted
her
dismissal
from
employment
and
proved
that
her
termination from work was for a just cause.
ISSUE:
Whether
she
is
entitled
for
separation
pay.
HELD: YES.
She
was
granted
separation
pay
as
an
act
of
social
justice
or
on equitable
grounds
taking into considerations two (2) criteria
that it is required that a
dismissal for a
just
cause (1)
was
not for
serious misconduct and (2)
did not
reflect on the moral character of the
employee.
of
employer-employee
relationship
is
necessary
Who
may
unionize
for
purposes
of
collective
bargaining
negotiations?
Test
to
determine
the
constituency
of
in
8.
bargaining
unit
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Nature
of
Certification
Election
Role
of
employer
in
certification
a party in
workers.
election
certification
election,
which
Exception:
Where the employer has to file a petition for certification
election pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to
bargain collectively. Even then, it becomes
a
neutral
bystander. (Asian Design and
Mfg. Corp. vs. Calleja, 174 SCRA 477, 1989).
Petition
to
question
Jurisdiction
in
determining employer-employee
certification election cases
relationship
in
Disaffiliation
of
the
local
union
from
the
mother
union
Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a
local
union
or
independent
union
only
during
the
60-day
freedom
period
immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. Even before the onset of the
freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the
mother union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such
disaffiliation must be affected by a majority of the members in the bargaining
unit. This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part
of
the
majority of the member of the union. (Associated Labor Union-PTGWO vs.
NLRC,
188
SCRA
Date
123,
1990).
of
acquisition
of
legal
personality
of
union
HERITAGE
HOTEL
MANILA
July
vs.
23,
SECRETARY OF
2014, 730
SCRA
LABOR
400
FACTS:
On October 11, 1995, National Union of Workers (NUWHRAIN) filed a
petition
for
certification
election
seeking
to
represent
all
the
supervisory
employees
of Heritage Hotel Manila.
On February 14, 1996,
Heritage
the
conduct
of
the
certification
membership
of
NUWHRAIN
consisted
file
employees.
Hotel
Manila
filed
an
opposition
on
election
on
the
ground
that
the
of
managerial ,
confidential
and
rank-in-
On May 12, 2000, Heritage Hotel filed a petition for the cancellation of
NUWHRAINs
registration
as
a
labor
union for
failure to
submit its
annual
financial reports
and an
updated list of members as
required by articles
238 and 239 of
the Labor Code.
and
The
certification
election
obtained the
majority
votes of
proceeded
as
the bargaining
scheduled
unit.
and
NUWHRAIN
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the
employer has the legal
right to oppose the
certification
election on
the
ground
that
the
membership
of
the union consisted of
managerial, confidential
and
rank-and-file
employees.
(2)
Whether
the
filing
of
the
of
unions
registration
bar
the
election.
petition
conduct
for
of
the
the
cancellation
certification
union
rights
is
that
the
workers ,
and
the
employer
election is
concern.
10
Except
when
it
is
requested
to
bargain
collectively ,
an
employer is
a
mere
bystander
to
any
petition
to
any
petition
for
certification
election, such proceeding is
non-adversarial
and
merely
investigative , for
the
purpose
thereof
is
to
determine
which
organization
will
represent
the
employees
in
their
collective
bargaining
with
the
employer.
The
choice of
their
representative
is
the exclusive concern
of
the
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein ; it cannot
interfere
with, much
less
oppose,
the
process by
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
an
appeal
from
it ,
not
even a
mere
allegation that
some
employees
participating
in
a
petition
for
certification
election
are
actually
managerial
employees
will
lend
an
employer
legal personality to block the
certification election.
The
employers
informed thereof.
only
right
in
The
employers
meddling
in
among its
employees unduly gave
to establish a
company
union.
the
the
rise
proceeding
conduct
to the
is
to
be
notified
or
of
the
certification election
suspicion that it
intended
(2) NO. Under the long established rule, the filing of the petition for
cancellation of
NUWHRAINs
registration should
not
bar the
conduct of
certification election.
the
the
In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the registration
would
have
prevented
NUWHRAIN
from
continuing
to enjoy
all
the
rights
conferred
on it as
a
legitimate
labor
union , including
the right
to the
petition for the certification election.
The
employers
accused of
interfering
petition for
cancellation
union
activities.
of
union
registration
can
be
is the
equivalent of
For
without
such
Labor Code.
Under RA 9481,
it
amended and inserted in the Labor
Code Article
242-A on reportorial
requirements
shall
not
be
a ground for
cancellation
of
union
registration
but
shall
subject
the
erring
officers
or
members to
suspension, expulsion from
membership or any appropriate penalty.
9. COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
vs.
NLRC,
255
SCRA
parties
Collective
Bargaining
Agreements
are
unenforceable
thereto. (Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1, 1993).
and
compliance
(Marcopper
Mining
322).
against
persons
not
GOOD
FAITH
BARGAINING AND
CO-EXIST
CBA
DEADLOCK MAY
11
TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
G.R. No. 170007,
April 7, 2014,
720
SCRA
631
FACTS:
The
company
and
the
union
started
negotiation
for
a
new
CBA. After
several
negotiation, the
company proposed the
declaration of
a
deadlock and
recommended that the
help of
a
third party be
sought.
On
that
same
day,
the
union
filed
a
Notice
of
Strike
in
the
NCMB
alleging
bad
faith
bargaining
on
the
part
of
the
company .
The
NCMB
immediately
summoned
the
parties
for
the
mandatory
conciliation
mediation
proceedings
but
the
parties
failed
to
reach
an
amicable
settlement.
During
the
strike vote.
The
unanimously voted
cooling
off
period,
the
members
of
the
union ,
for
the
holding of
a
Upon being
for
Assumption
Employment.
aware
of
ISSUE:
Whether
the
company.
there
union
conducted
who
participated
strike.
of this
development , the
company
Jurisdiction
with
the
Secretary
is
an
absence
of
good
faith
the
necessary
in the voting ,
filed
of
on
a
petition
Labor
and
the
part
of
HELD:
NO.
While
the
purpose
of
collective bargaining is the reaching
of
an
agreement
between
the
employer
and
the
employees
union
resulting in a
binding
contract
between the
parties , the failure
to
reach
an agreement after
negotiation continued
for
a
reasonable period does
not
mean lack of
good
faith.
The
laws
invite
and
contemplate
a
collective
bargaining
contract
but
do
not
compel
one.
For
after
all,
a
CBA,
like
any
contract
is
a
product
of
mutual consent
and not of
compulsion .
As
such,
the duty
to
bargain does not
include the
obligation to
reach an
agreement.
As
bargaining
there
was
no
with
the union,
Each
party
found
willing to
yield.
was
bad
faith
on
the
deadlock
was
possible
the
others
offer
part
and
unacceptable
The
company
suggested
seeking
the
assistance
of
settle
the
issue
but
the
union
preferred
the
remedy
of
strike. Each party was
adamant
in its
position.
a
Because
complete
of
did
Shell
occur.
and
a
of
neither
third
filing
in
its
party
party
to
a
notice
was actually
parties.
The
absence of the parties
mutual declaration of
deadlock
does
not
mean that there
was no deadlock. At
most, it would have been simply
a recognition of the prevailing status quo
between
the
parties.
such
What
was
a deadlock
lacking
was
because the
the
formal
recognition
or
the
union refused a
declaration of
existence
deadlock.
of
As the
term
assume
jurisdiction
connotes,
the intent
of
the
law
is to give the Labor Secretary
full
authority to resolve all
matters within
the
dispute
that
give
rise
to
or
which
arose
out
of
the
strike
or
lockout.
It includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or
related
to
the dispute
including cases over
which the
labor arbiter has
exclusive jurisdiction.
12
10.
UNFAIR
Test
to
LABOR
PRACTICE
determine
whether
or
not
employer
is
guilty
of
ULP
The
test
of
whether
an
employer
has
interfered
with
and
coerced
employees
within
the
meaning
of
Art.
248
(a)
of
the
Labor
Code
is
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be
said
tends
to
interfere
with
the
free
exercise
of
employees
right
to
self-organization
and
it
is
not
necessary
that
there
be
direct
evidence
that
any
employee
was
in
fact
intimidated
or
coerced
by
statement
of
threats
of
the
employer
if
there
is
a
reasonable
interference
that
anti-union
conduct
of
the
employer
does
not
have
and
adverse
effect
of
self-organization
and
collective bargaining . (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees
Association-NATU vs. Insurance Life Insurance Co., 37 SCRA 244, 1971).
ULP
of
Labor
Organization
Unions
are
not
entitled
to
arbitrarily
exclude
qualified
applicants
for
membership, and
a
closed-shop
provision
would
not
justify
the
employer
in
discharging,
or
a
union
in
insisting
upon
a
discharge
of
an
employee
whom
the
union
thus
refuses
to
admit
to
membership,
without
any
reasonable
ground
therefore.
Needless
to
say,
if
said
unions
may
be
compelled
to
admit
new
members ,
who
have
requisites
qualifications,
with
more
reason
may
the
law
and
the
courts
exercise
coercive
power
when
the
employee
involved
is
a
long
standing union
member, who, owing to provocations of union officers, was impelled to tender
his resignation,
which
he
forthwith
withdrew
or
revoked. (Salunga vs. CIR, 21
SCRA 216, 1967)
Union
Security
Clause
11. STRIKES
if
AND
LOCKOUTS
Good faith
no
longer
no procedural compliance
A unions claim of
procedural steps for a
a defense
for
valid
strike
good faith is
lawful strike.
Lawful
are
means
in
conducting
strike
Seven-day
strike
ban
13
of the law is required as substantial compliance with a mandatory
will not suffice. (CCBPI Postmix Workers Union vs. NLRC, 299 SCRA 410, 1998).
Compensation
of
striking
provision
workers
The
union
members
who
were
merely
instigated
to
participate
in
the
illegal strike
should
be
treated
differently
from
their
leaders .
Part
of
the
benign
consideration
for
labor
is
the
policy
of
reinstating
rank-and-file
workers
who
were
merely
misled
in
supporting
illegal
strikes.
Nonetheless,
these
reinstated
workers
shall
not
be
entitled
to
backwages
as
they
should
not
be
compensated
for
services
skipped
during
the
illegal
strike. (Lapanday Workers Union vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 97, 1995).
Requisites
for
valid
lockout
jurisdiction
notice of
notice
of
progress
to
avoid
of
power.
requires
hearing ,
order
does
not
The
authority
of
the
Secretary
of
Labor
to
assume
jurisdiction
in
accordance
with
Art.
263
(g)
of
the
Labor
Code
necessarily
includes
and
extends
to
all
questions
and
controversies
arising
from
the
labor
dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
(International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 205 SCRA 59, 1992).
13. TERMINATION
As
OF
an
EMPLOYMENT
Exercise
of
Management
Prerogative
The
discipline
of
prerogative
is
exercised
interest
and
need
not
employees
by
law
or
employees
is
a
management
prerogative .
If
this
in
good
faith
for
the
advancement
of
employers
for
the
purpose
of
defeating
the
rights
of
the
contract,
the
court
will
uphold it . (SMB Sales Force
Union vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25, 1989).
14
employers
exercise
of
his
management
Constructive
After
30-day
reinstated to his
period
amounts
Dismissal
period
of
preventive
suspension ,
the
employee
must
be
former position because
suspension
beyond
this
maximum
to
constructive
dismissal. (Hyatt Taxi Services vs. Catinoy, 359 SCRA
686, 2001).
Temporary
Lay-off
Suspension
of
operations
Article
286
of
the
Labor
Code
is
clear -- there
is
termination
of
employment when an otherwise bona fide suspension of
work
exceeds
6
months. The cessation of employment for more than six months was patent
and the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a
just or authorized cause. (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Rolando Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May
16, 2005).
14.
JURISDICTION
Money
Claim
Factors
in
determining
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
of
Labor
Arbiters
Complaints for illegal dismissal filed by the employees who were terminated
pursuant to the CBAs union security clause falls within the jurisdiction of the
Labor
Arbiter
and not the Grievance Machinery. (Sanyo Phil. Workers Union-PSSLU vs.
Caizares, 211 SCRA 361, 1994).
Jurisdiction
of
Regional
Director
The Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over
labor
standard
cases,
and
is
therefore
empowered
to
adjudicate
uncontested
money claims of persons still employed. (Maternity Childrens Hospital vs. Secretary of
Labor, 174 SCRA 632, 1989).
15
15. REMEDIES
Appeal
The requirement to perfect the appeal from the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC
within 10 calendar days (Art. 223) is mandatory and jurisdictional . Failure to do
so renders the questioned decision final and executory , and is deprive the
appellate court
or
body of the legal authority to alter the
final judgment ,
much less to entertain, the appeal. (Sublay vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 188, 2000).
An
appeal
is
perfected
to
the
NLRC
once
an
appellant
files
the
memorandum of appeal, pays the required appeal fee and, where an employer
appeals
and a monetary
award
is involved , the latter posts an appeal bond
or
submits a surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company . (Soliman
Security Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 514, 2000)
Where the decision of the Labor Arbiter involves a monetary award , the
appeal is deemed perfected only upon the posting of a cash
or surety bond
but also within
ten (10) days from receipt to such decision in an amount
equivalent to the monetary award. (Mary Abigalis Food Services vs. Court of Appeals, G.
R. No. 140294, May 9, 2005)
Motion
for
Reconsideration
Before a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may
be availed of, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine
qua non to afford an opportunity for the correction of the error or
mistake
complained of (ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members vs. ABS CBN Broadcasting Corp.,
304 SCRA 199). However, as
an
exception, the failure of an appellant to file a
motion for reconsideration may be excused
where the error sought to be
reviewed is a patent nullity. (Zurbano vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 556, 1993)
not
A
be
Petition
for
Certiorari
under
pleading
Rule
which
should
65
The period or manner of appeal from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals
governed by Rule 65 pursuant to the ruling in the case of St. Martin Funeral
Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494, 1998 . It states that the petition may be filed not
later than 60 days from notice of the judgment , or resolution sought to be
assailed.
is
The fact that the assailed decision becomes final and executory after
a
ten-day period does not preclude the adverse party from challenging it by way
of an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
He
may even further pray for the issuance of a restraining order or a temporary
injunction to prevent the immediate execution of the assailed decision . (Caramol vs.
NLRC, 225 SCRA 582, 1993).
Petition
for
Review
under
Rule
45
Review
of
decision
of
Secretary
of
Labor
In conformity with the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, the remedy
of an aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for reconsideration with the
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Labor
as
a
precondition
for
any
further
or
subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari
to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
If the petition for cancellation is directly filed with BLR , its decision
canceling union registration is not yet final and executory as it may still be
appealed to the Office of the Secretary. However, if the petition for cancellation
was filed with the Regional Office , the decision of the BLR resolving an
appeal
of
the
said
Regional
Office
is
final
and
executory . (Abbot Laboratories
Philippines, Inc. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392, 2000).
Review
of
decision
of
Voluntary
Arbitrators
16
Sections 1,
3
and
4
of
the
Rule
43
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
provides the rule on appeals . In consonance with Rule 43 ,
the petitioner, upon receipt of a copy of the Voluntary Arbitrators Decision ,
should have filed with the CA , within the 15-day reglementary period , a petition
for review, not a petition for certiorari, which is not a substitute for a lapsed
appeal. Without
an appeal (petition for review) seasonably filed, the questioned
Decision
of
the
Voluntary
Arbitrator
became
final
and
executory
after
ten
calendar days from notice. Moreover, Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides
that the award
or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrator shall be final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt of
the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Indeed, once a decision or
resolution becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court
or tribunal to order its execution.
Such order is not appealable. (Manila Midtown
Hotel vs. Voluntary Arbitrators Borromeo, G. R. No. 138305, September 22, 2004).
16.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS
The general
rule
is
that
when
a
decision
becomes final and
executory, it is the ministerial of the court to issue a writ of execution to
enforce the judgment. (Torres vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 311, 2000) . As an exception to the
rule, a writ of execution may be refused on equitable grounds as when there
was a change in the situation of the parties that would make execution
inequitable or when certain circumstances, which transpired after judgment became
final, rendered execution of judgment unjust. (Baclayan vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 761,
1990).
Under Rule 39, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure , a final
and executory judgment may be executed on motion within 5 years from the
date of its entry. After the lapse of such time , and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. This rule
applies to labor cases as the Rules of Court are applicable to labor cases in
a suppletory capacity. (Tag Fibers vs. NLRC, 344 SCRA 29, 2000).
17. DOCTRINES
Q: Explain the
principle
of
Fair
days
wage
for
fair
days
labor?
A:
The
age-old
rule
governing
the
relation
between
labor
and
capital , or
management and employee of a
fair days wage for a fair days
labor
remains as the basic factor in determining employees wages. If there is no
work performed
by the employee , there can be no wage
or pay
unless, of
course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work, but was illegally
locked
out,
suspended
or
dismissed,
or
otherwise
illegally
prevented
from
working (Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs. Brillantes, 279 SCRA 218),
a
situation which we find is not present in the instant case.
It would neither
be fair nor
just to allow private respondents to discover something they have
not earned and could not have earned because they did not render services at
the Kalibo office during the stated period . ( Aklan Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
121439, January 25, 2000.)
Q:
What
is
A:
Persons
responsibility,
School
Q:
the
Equal
pay
for
equal
work
principle?
qualifications ,
skills, effort and
paid similar salaries. (International
What
is
Red
Circle
Rate?
A: Red Circle Rate allowance is an amount, not included in the basic salary,
that is granted by the company to an employee who is promoted to a higher
position
grade
but
whose
equal
actual
basic
salary
at
the
time
of
the
promotion already exceeds the maximum salary for the position to which he or
she is promoted. It
applies
to
specific
individuals
whose
salary
levels
are
unique
with
respect
to
their new
and
higher
positions . (Meralco vs. Secretary
of Labor).
Q:
Are
non-Muslim
entitled
to
Muslim
Holiday
pay?
A:
Yes. While Article 3 (3) of the Code of Muslim Laws provides that the
provisions of the Code shall be applicable only to Muslims,
there should no
distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regard the payment of benefits
of Muslim Holidays. Otherwise, Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not
entitled to holiday pays on Christian Holidays as declared
by law as regular
holidays. (San Miguel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 30 January 2002).
17
Q:
What
is
surface
bargaining
A:
Surface
Bargaining
negotiating without any
as
legal
or
blue
sky
bargaining?
defined as
going
intent to reach an
through
the
motions
of
agreement . (Standard Chartered Bank
Employees Union vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004).
Q:
What
is
yellow
dog
contract?
A: It is a
promise exacted
that
they are
not
to
belong
their period of
employment.
Q:
What
is
substitutionary
from
to
workers as
or
attempt
a
to
condition of
employment
foster
a
union
during
doctrine?
A: This doctrine
holds that
since
the CBA
is
binding on
the parties for
the period therein
specified,
the
employees
cannot validly revoke the same
by
the simple
expedient
of
changing
their
bargaining
representative.
If
the
employees
do
change their representative,
the CBA
nonetheless
continues
to
bind
the
parties,
though
the new
agent
may
bargain
for
the
shortening
of
the
contract
period.
Q:
What
is
the
Doctrine
of
INNOCENT
BY-STANDER?
A: The
right
to
picket
is
not
absolute.
sphere
of
communication or
demonstration
to
establishments or persons
with
no
industrial
dispute.
Q:
What
is
the
A:
The
rule
agreements
are
contracts being
Exceptions:
(1) When
(b) When
(c) When
Q:
What
is
Successor-in-interest
The
courts
can
confine
the
the
disputants
and
insulate
connection
or
interest to the
Doctrine?
is
that
employment
contracts
and
not enforceable against
a transferee of
in personal,
thus binding only between
collective
bargaining
an enterprise ,
labor
the parties.
expressly
assumed by
the transferor;
transfer was done with intent to circumvent
transfer was
clothed with bad faith.
the
Doctrine
of
MEANS
the
law;
and PURPOSES?
A:
A
strike
is
legal
when
lawful
means
concur
with
lawful
purpose
or
a
strike
may
be
legal
at
the
start
but
it
may
be
declared
illegal
when the means used in attaining the same are illegal.
Q:
What
is
featherbedding?
A: Featherbedding
refers
to the practice
of
the
union
or
its
agents in
causing
or
attempting
to cause
an
employer
to pay
or
deliver
or
agree
to
pay
or
deliver
money
or
other things of value, in
the nature of
an
action,
for
services
which are not
performed or not
to be performed.
The
essence
of
featherbedding
is
the
exaction of
money ,
or
other things
of
value from
the
employer by
the
union .
It
is
not
featherbedding
where
work is performed
no matter how
unnecessary
or
useless it may
be.
FACTS: Rodolfo Signey died on May 21, 2001, in his SSS member records, he had
designated his common-law wife, Yolanda as primary beneficiaries and his four
illegitimate children as
secondary beneficiaries. The deceased had
a
legal wife,
Editha, while their only legitimate child predeceased him.
ISSUE: Who
is
entitled
to
the
HELD: YOLANDA
is
disqualified
wife while
it
follows
that
the
deceased, because the legitimate
death
benefits?
to
be
a
beneficiary
being
a
common-law
dependant
illegitimate
minor
children
of
the
child of the deceased predeceased him , as
18
the
only
qualified
100% of the death
primary beneficiaries
benefits.
of
the
deceased ,
are
entitled
to
EXTRA-MARITAL
A JUST
record
showed
convincingly
the
extraco-teacher .
Hence,
his
termination
is
the Labor Code.
No.
170099,
ISSUE: Whether
or
not
an
motion to reduce bond?
November
appeal
is
28,
2009,
perfected
539
SCRA 159
by
its
timely
filing
of
HELD: NO. An employer who files a motion to reduce the appeal bond is
still
required to post the full amount of cash
or surety bond within the
ten-day reglementary period, even pending resolution of his motion.
UNIVERSITY PLANS,
INC.
The
NLRC
was
not
precluded
from
making
a
preliminary
determination
of
the
employers
financial
capacity
to
post
the
required
bond
without
necessarily
passing
upon
the merits of the
justification
for
the
reduced
bond,
the
evidence
for
the
purpose
would
necessarily
be
less
than
the evidence
required
for a ruling
on
the
merit.
UNION REGISTRATION
20%
of the
Bargaining
Unit
19
TAKATA PHILIPPINES
vs.
BUREAU
June 4, 2014,
OF
725
LABOR
SCRA
RELATIONS
61
FACTS:
On July 7, 2009, Takata filed
with DOLE Regional Office
a
petition
for
cancellation
of the certificate of union registration of
SALAMAT
on
the
ground of misrepresentation, false
statement
and
fraud
with
respect
to
the
numbers
who
participated
in
the
organization meeting
on May
1, 2009.
During
the
organizational
meeting
of
SALAMAT ,
only
68
attendees
signed
the
attendance
sheet
and
which
number
comprised
only
17%
of
the total number
of 396 regular rank-in-file
employees . Takata
claimed
that
the union
failed to comply the 20%
minimum
membership requirement.
union
were
listed
in
the
On the other
hand,
SALAMAT
claimed that the
119
union
members
were
more
than
the
20%
required
for
union
registration
and
further
argued
that
the
68
attendees
to
the
organizational
meeting
constituted
more
than 50%
of the total union membership
of 119.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the 68
attendees
in
the
obviously
less
than
20%
of
the
regular
rank-and-file
employees.
(2)
Whether
the
119
union
properly
represented
the
396
employees.
HELD: (1)
than 50%
organization meeting
total
number
of
members
members
was
396
with
no
signature
of
the
rank-and-file
The
68 attendees
to
the organizational
of
the
total union
membership.
meeting
represents
more
The
list of
employees
who
participated
in
the
organization
meeting
was
a
separate
and distinct
requirement
from the list
of the name
of
members
comprising
at
least
20%
of
the
employees
in
the
bargaining
unit.
of
(2) YES.
the 119
The
registration
There
union
119
as
Therefore,
cancellation
of
was
no
members.
requirement
for
signatures
opposite
the
names
union
members
were
more
than
the
20%
for
union
well the
requirement
for
petition
for
certification election.
no ground of misrepresentation
the
union registration
was
present
to
warrant
the
Retraction
MARIWASA SIAM CERAMICS, INC. vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 183317, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 706
FACTS: SMMSC was issued a Certificate of
Registration as a legitimate labor
organization
by
the
DOLE.
A
month
later,
Mariwasa
filed
a petition for
Cancellation of Union Registration against SMMSC for
failure to
comply with
the 20% union membership requirement for
its
registration as
a legitimate
labor
organization
because
102
employees
had
executed
affidavits
of
recantation of
their union membership.
ISSUE: Whether
the
Union
Registration
should
be
the affidavits executed by the employees
recanting
cancelled
by
reason
of
their union membership.
HELD:
NO.
Withdrawals
made
before
the
filing
of
the
petition
for
certification
election
are
presumed
voluntary
unless
there
is
a
convincing
proof to the contrary,
whereas
withdrawals
made
after
the
filing of the
petition
are
deemed involuntary, because
then the employees
supporting the
petition
become
known
to
the
employer
since
their
names
are
attached
to
the
petition.
Thus, the
employer
may
use
foul
means
for
said
employees to
withdraw
their
support.
The
fact
remains
that
at
the
time
of
the
unions
application
for
registration,
the
affiants
were
members
of
SMMSC
and
they
comprised
more than the required 20% membership for
purposes of registration as a
20
labor
union.
Article
234
of
the
Labor
Code
merely
requires
a
20%
minimum
membership
during
the
application
for
union
membership .
It
does
not
mandate
that
a
union
must
maintain
the
20%
minimum
membership
requirement all throughout its
existence.
Cancellation
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
vs. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 92
ISSUE: Whether the
inclusion
cancellation
for
registration
of
as
disqualified
employees
is
the
legitimate
labor
organization.
ground
for
HELD: NO.
The
inclusion
in
the
union
of
disqualified
employees
is
not
among
the
grounds
for
cancellation
of
registration
unless
such
inclusion
is
due
to
misrepresentation,
false
statement
or
fraud
under
the
Labor
Code.
Thus,
CLUP
having
been
validly
issued
a
certificate
of
registration ,
should be considered as having acquired juridical personality which may not
be attacked collaterally.
The
legal
certification
personality
of
the
union
election proceedings.
cannot
be
collaterally
attacked
in
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
NELSON GAN vs. GALDERMA PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 177167, January 17, 2013, 688 SCRA 666
FACTS: Nelson
was hired by Galderma
as Product
Manager for its Consumer
Products
Division
to
handle the marketing of CBPL.
With
his
satisfactory
performance
since
during
the
first
year,
Nelson
was
acknowledged
and
rewarded
by
Galderma
through
positive
performance
appraisal,
salary
and
benefits increases, and informal notations
on
his
marketing reports.
Nelsons above-average
performance in handling CBPL continued in the first
quarter
of
2002.
On April 11, 2002, feeling he was harassed,
coerced and
intimated by his superior, Nelson severed his
employment
ties
with
Galderma.
On the same day, his immediate superior at
the time accepted the resignation
tendered.
ISSUE:
Whether
Nelson
was
illegally
or
constructively
is
defined
impossible,
dismissed.
as
quitting
of
work
because
unreasonable or unlikely.
The
test of constructive
dismissal
is whether a reasonable
person in
the
employees
position
would
have
felt
compelled
to
give
up
his
employment/position
under
the
circumstances.
Since
Nelson
submitted
a
resignation letter,
it
is
incumbent upon him to prove with clear ,
positive,
and
convincing evidence that
his resignation
was
not
voluntary but
was
actually
a
case
of
constructive
dismissal ,
that
it
is
a
product
of
coercion
or
intimidation. Nelson
could not have been
coerced.
as
The
acts
of harassment, if true,
peculiar
circumstances
material
to
do not
suffice
the
execution
to
of
be considered
the
subject
21
resignation
letter
that
is
couched
language. Its content
confirmed
his
in
a
clear ,
concise
and
unmistakable intent
to resign.
categorical
Further,
Nelson
is
no
ordinary
laborer
with
limited
education
and
skills,
he
is
not
a
rank
and
file
employee
with
inadequate
understanding such that
he would be easily beguiled or
forced into doing
something
against
his
will.
He
was
a
management
employee
holding
a
responsible
position.
GIRLY
G. ICO
G.R.
July 9, 2014,
729
SCRA
INC.
439.
June 4,
2014,
725 SCRA 1
Constructive
dismissal
is
defined
as
a
cessation
of
work
because
continued employment
is rendered
impossible , unreasonable or
unlikely;
when
there is
a
demotion in
rank
or
diminution
in pay or both;
or when
a
clear
discrimination,
insensibility,
or
disdain
by
an
employer
becomes
unbearable
to
the employee.
The
test
of
constructive
dismissal
is
whether
a
reasonable
person
in
the
employers
position
would
have
felt
compelled
to
give
up
his
position
under
the
circumstances.
It
is
an
act
amounting
to
dismissal
but
made
to
appear
as
if
is
were
not .
Constructive
dismissal,
is
therefore, a
dismissal in disguise.
As
maybe
gleaned
from
the
records,
what
transpired
on
July
20,
2007 was not merely
an isolated outburst on the part of
the
employer .
The
latters
behavior
towards
his
employee
shows
a
clear
insensibility
rendering the
working
condition of
Libunao
unbearable.
Libunao had reason to dawdle and refuse to comply with the summons of
employer out of severe fear that he will be physically harmed.
In
to
the
incident.
fact, the
situation
same w as
by
going
VICENTE
ANG
clearly
manifested by
his immediate reaction
to
the
Valenzuela
Police
to
report
the
JOAQUIN, JR.
FACTS:
San
Joaquin
testified in
court
relative
to
the
filed
by
his
former
co-employees
against
his
employer,
latter began
treating him with hostility and
antagonism.
tearing
under
Later
his
on,
a
heated
argument
Daily Time Record.
ISSUE:
Whether
the
constructive dismissal.
act
received
of
his
ensued
a
tearing
between
41
criminal
cases
Vicente
Ang.
The
them
Memorandum
from
employees
time
and
Ang
card
led
Ang
placing
him
constitutes
HELD: YES. By
destroying his time card,
Ang discontinued his relationship
with
San
Joaquin.
The
purpose
of
a
time
card
is
to
show
an
employees
attendance
in
office
for
work
and
to
be
paid
accordingly ,
taking into account
the policy of no work, no pay.
A
daily time
record is primarily
to
the
employer
which
could
result
employee for
no work done.
intended to prevent
damage or
in
instances
where
it
pays
loss
an
an
the
695
illegal dismissal
when employees
reasonable six-month period.
SCRA 620
were
placed
on
floating
22
ORCHARD GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB vs. AMELIA R. FRANCISCO
G.R. No. 178125, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 497
Demotion
in
VOLUNTARY
rank
constitutes
constructive
ARBITRATOR
7K
CORPORATION
vs.
EDDIE
voluntary
arbitrator
and
entitlement
to
of
the
parties.
DEATH
AGILE
dismissal.
ALBANICO
has
jurisdiction
backwages
only
over
when
the
legality
of
made
through
FACTS:
Dennis,
petitioner Agile.
son
of
Apolinario,
a
of
complaint
for
Dennis
who
Apolinario
filed
Agile
for
the
death
in
the
high
seas.
was
the
the
DEATH
N. SIADOR
hired
as
ordinary
death
benefits
fell
from
the
seaman
by
against
petitioner
vessel
and
died
According to
Apolinario,
Dennis
actuation a
few
days
and moments
before
the
incident
point
to
the
conclusion
that
Dennis
was
already
mentally
disturbed
a
few
days before
he
plunged
into and
drowned in
the ocean
and
cannot be
considered
willful.
Although
the
unfortunate
incident was undisputed , Agile contends that
someone
saw
Dennis
jumped
overboard.
Additionally,
Agile
argues
that
because
of the
personal
circumstances
of
Dennis
characterized
by
heavy
personal
and
psychological
problems
may
have
driven
him
to
take
his
own
life.
This
was
found
by LA
LAs ruling.
also backed
up by statements
of crew
in
dismissing the complaint. On
appeal,
The
CA
reversed
the
NLRC
to
his
death,
Dennis
had
been
could not
be considered
to have
ISSUE:
Whether
Apolonio
is
entitled
members
and
NLRC
affirmed
and
sustained the
position that
suffering
from
mental
instability
intentionally taken his
life.
to
the
death
as
the
prior
and
benefits.
HELD:
NO.
Under
the
POEA-SEC,
no
compensation
shall
be
payable
in
respect
of
any
injury,
incapacity,
disability
or
death
of
the
seafarer
resulting
from
his
willful
or
criminal
act
or
intentional
breach
of
his
duties,
provided
however,
that
the
employer
can
prove
that
such
injury,
incapacity, disability or death is
directly attributable
to
the
seafarer.
As
a
claimant,
seafarers
death (1) is
the
employment.
Apolinario
has
the
work-related
and (2)
Sufficient
proof of
insanity or
negate the requirement of
willfulness
mental
as a
burden
of
proving
happened during the
sickness may
be
presented
matter of
counter - defense.
Since
the
willfulness
may
be
inferred
from
the
physical
of
the
seafarer,
the
insanity
or
mental
illness
required
to
must be one
that
deprived him of the
full control of his
this
regard,
selected
circumstances
prior
to
and
surrounding
might
have
provided
substantial
evidence
of
the
existence
insanity
or
mental
sickness.
own
Thus,
fault,
having
proved
that
the
his
father, Apolinario,
is
that
the
term of
to
act
itself
be
proven
senses .
In
his
death
of
such
death
of
Dennis
was
through
not
entitled to
death
benefits.
his
23
****GODS WAY IS THE BEST WAY****