Você está na página 1de 12

Marian C.

Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Parties and Case
Number

IV. Strikes
Business of
the
Company
Electronics
Manufacturin
g

Work of
the
Employee
Head of
the
Material
Managem
ent
Control
Departme
nt

2. The Manila Hotel


Corporation and
Manila Hotel Intl,
Ltd vs. NLRC,
Arbiter Ceferina
J. Diosana and
Marcelo G.
Santos
(G.R. No.
120077, October
14, 2000)

Hotel
Management

Overseas
Contract
Worker as
Printer

3. Food Traders
House, Inc. vs.
NLRC and
Barbara A.

Food
business

Marketing
Manager

1. Dai-Chi
Electronics
Manufacturing
Corporation vs.
Hon. Martin S.
Villarama, Jr.,
presiding Judge
RTC Br. 156,
Pasig, Metro
Manila and
Adonis C.
Limjuco
(G.R. No.
112940,
November 21,
199)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Does the NLRC have


Jurisdiction?

What happened to
the case?

No. The petitioner does


not ask for any relief
under the Labor Code
of the Philippines. It
seeks to recover
damages agreed upon
in the contract as
redress for private
respondents breach of
his contractual
obligation to its
damage and
prejudice. Such cause
of action is within the
realm of Civil Law, and
jurisdiction over the
controversy belongs to
the regular courts. More
so when we considered
that the stipulation
refers to the postemployment relations
of the parties.
No. The court ruled
that the POEA not the
NLRC had jurisdiction
over the case.
Cconsidering that the
NLRC was forum nonconveniens and
considering further that
no employer-employee
relationship existed
between MHICL, MHC
and respondent Santos,
Labor Arbiter Ceferina J.
Diosana clearly had no
jurisdiction over
respondent's claim. The
lack of jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter was
obvious from the
allegations of the
complaint. His failure to
dismiss the case
amounts to grave
abuse of discretion.
No. The court ruled that
the NLRC shall have
exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all
cases decided by labor

The Orders of the


Regional Trial Court
dated September 20,
1993 and November
29, 1993 are set aside.
The trial court is
ordered to continue
with the proceedings in
Civil Case No. 63448.

The Court hereby


GRANTS the petition for
certiorari and Annuls
the orders and
resolutions of the
National Labor
Relations Commission
dated May 31, 1993,
December 15, 1994
and March 30, 1995 in
NLRC NCR CA No.
002101-91 (NLRC NCR
Case No. 00-02-0105890).

The Decision of public


respondent NLRC is
modified. Private
respondent Barbara A.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Camacho-Espino

arbiters. This simply


means that if a claim
does not fall within the
exclusive original
jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter, the NLRC
cannot have appellate
jurisdiction thereon,
much less receive
additional evidence. As
a result, the NLRC
gravely abused its
discretion when it
affirmed the
garnishment of Espinos
salary and allowed its
set-off against Espinos
personal loan on the
ground that it does not
fall within the Labor
Arbiters exclusive
original jurisdiction.

4. Purificacion Y.
Manliguez,
Antonina Y. Luis
and Benjamin C.
Ybanez vs Court
of Appeals, et al
(G.R. No. 92598,
May 20, 1994)

No. respondent court


erred in holding that
the trial court does not
have jurisdiction over
the case filed by
petitioners. It is at once
evident that the Civil
Case No. Ceb-6917 is
not a labor case. No
employer-employee
relationship exists
between petitioners
and the other parties,
and no issue is involved
which may be resolved
by reference to the
Labor Code, other labor
statutes, or any
collective bargaining
agreement. Neither can
we characterize
petitioner's action
before the trial court as
arising out of a labor
dispute. It was not
brought to reverse or
modify the judgment of
the Department of
Labor and Employment
(DOLE). Neither did it
question the validity of,
or pray for, the quashal
of the writ of execution
against Inductocast.
Yes. The Labor Arbiter
a quo has jurisdiction
over respondents claim
because no restrictive
words like only,

5. Pacific
Consultants
International
Asia, Inc. and
Jens Peter

Providing
specialty and
technical
services both
in and out of

Sector
Manager Water and
Sanitation
as per

Camacho-Espino is
awarded full back
wages, including 13th
month pay and other
benefits, computed
from 31 January 1992,
the date when her
compensation was
withheld, until 4 July
1994, the date of her
actual reinstatement.
Meanwhile, the
garnishment of private
respondent Barbara A.
Camacho-Espinos
salary and allowing the
set-off against her
supposed personal loan
with Alinas is nullified
and disregarded.
The petition for review
is granted. The
Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 18017, dated
November 16, 1989, is
reversed and set aside.
The Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City, Branch 8
is ordered to try Civil
Case Ceb-6917 on its
merit. No costs.

The petition is denied.


The decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 76563 is
affirmed. This case is

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Henrichsen vs.
Klaus K.
Schonfeld
(G.R. No.
166920.
February 19,
2007)

6. Deltaventures
Resources, Inc.
vs Hon. Fernando
P. Cabato,
Presiding Judge
RTC La Trinidad
Benguet Br. 62,
Hon. Gelacio L.
Rivera, Jr,
Executive Labor
Arbiter, NLRCCAR, Baguio City,
Adam P. VenturaDeputy Sheriff,
NLRC-CAR
Baguio City,
Alejandro
Bernardino,
Augusto
Granados,
Pilando Tangay,
Nestor Rabang,
Ray Dayap, Myra

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm
the
Philippines

Letter of
Employme
nt dated
January
1998

solely, exclusively in
this court, in no other
court save -,
particularly, nowhere
else but/except-, or
words of equal import
were stated in the
contract. It cannot be
said that the court of
arbitration in London is
an exclusive venue to
bring forth any
complaint arising out of
the employment
contract. Philippine
Court may assume
jurisdiction over the
case if it chooses to do
so; provided, that the
following requisites are
met: (1) that the
Philippine Court is one
to which the parties
may conveniently resort
to; (2) that the
Philippine Court is in a
position to make an
intelligent decision as
to the law and the
facts; and, (3) that the
Philippine Court has or
is likely to have power
to enforce its decision.
Admittedly, all the
foregoing requisites are
present in this case
Yes. The court ruled
that by filing the
petitioner third-party
claim with the deputy
sheriff, it submitted
itself to the jurisdiction
of the Commission
acting through the
Labor Arbiter. It failed
to perceive the fact that
what it is really
controverting is the
decision of the Labor
Arbiter and not the act
of the deputy sheriff in
executing said order
issued as a
consequence of said
decision rendered.
The broad powers
granted to the Labor
Arbiter and to the
National Labor
Relations Commission
by Articles 217, 218
and 224 of the Labor

remanded to the Labor


Arbiter for disposition of
the case on the merits.
Cost against
petitioners.

The petition
for certiorari and
prohibition is denied.
The assailed Orders of
respondent Judge
Fernando P. Cabato
dated November 7,
1994 and December
14, 1994, respectively
are affirmed. The
records of this case are
hereby remanded to
the National Labor
Relations Commission
for further proceedings.
Cost against the
petitioner.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Bayaona, Violy
LIbao, Aida
Libao, Jesus
Gatcho and
Gregorio Dulay
(G.R. No.
118216, March 9,
2000)

7. Republic of the
Philippines,
represented by
the Social
Security
Commission and
Social Security
System vs.
Asiapro
Cooperative
(G.R. No.
172101,
November 23,
2007)

Cooperative

8. Philippines
National Bank vs.
Florence O.
Cabansag
(G.R. No.
157010, June 21,
2005)

Bank

Code can only be


interpreted as vesting
in them jurisdiction
over incidents arising
from, in connection with
or relating to labor
disputes, as the
controversy under
consideration, to the
exclusion of the regular
courts.
Having established that
jurisdiction over the
case rests with the
Commission, we find no
grave abuse of
discretion on the part of
respondent Judge
Cabato in denying
petitioner's motion for
the issuance of an
injunction against the
decision of the National
Labor Relations
Commission.
No. The court ruled that
the question on the
existence of an
employer-employee
relationship for the
purpose of
determining the
coverage of the
Social Security
System is explicitly
excluded from the
jurisdiction of the NLRC
and falls within the
jurisdiction of the SSC
which is primarily
charged with the duty
of settling disputes
arising under the Social
Security Law of 1997.

Branch
Credit
Officer

Yes. The court ruled


that petitioner cannot
escape the application
of Philippine laws or the
jurisdiction of the NLRC
and the labor arbiter
because the issue here
involves termination of
an overseas Filipino
worker. The fact that
respondent applied for

The instant petition is is


hereby granted. The
Decision and the
Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 87236, dated 5
January 2006 and 20
March 2006,
respectively, are
hereby reverse and set
aside. The Orders of the
petitioner SSC dated 17
February 2004 and 16
September 2004 are
hereby reinstated. The
petitioner SSC is
hereby directed to
continue hearing the
petition-complaint filed
before it by the
petitioner SSS as
regards the compulsory
coverage of the
respondent cooperative
and its ownersmembers. No costs.
The petition is denied
and the assailed
decision and resolution
are affirmed. Cost
against the petitioner.
[Petitioners] likewise
acted in a wanton,
oppressive or
malevolent manner in
terminating

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

9. Calamba Medical
Center, Inc. vs.
NLRC, Ronald
Lanzanas and
Merceditha
Lanzanas
(G.R. No.
176484,
November 25,
2008)

Hospital

Doctors

10.Ma. Isabel T.
Santos,
represented by
Antonio P. Santos

French
Pharmaceuti
cal Company

Human
Resource
Manager

and secured an
Overseas Employment
Certificate from the
POEA through the
Philippine Embassy in
Singapore. The
Certificate, declared her
a bona fide contract
worker for Singapore.
Under Philippine law,
this document
authorized her working
status in a foreign
country and entitled her
to all benefits and
processes under our
statutes. At the time
her employment was
illegally terminated, she
already possessed the
POEA employment
Certificate.
Moreover, petitioner
admits that it is a
Philippine corporation
doing business through
a branch office in
Singapore and
respondents
employment by the
Singapore branch office
had to be approved by
Benjamin P. Palma
Gil, the president of the
bank whose principal
offices were in Manila.
With more reason does
this fact reinforce the
presumption that
respondent falls under
the legal definition
of migrant worker, in
this case one deployed
in Singapore.
Yes. The court ruled
that the NLRC has
jurisdiction at the case
at bar because the
respondents were not
undergoing any
specialization training.
They were considered
as non-training general
practitioners assigned
at the emergency
rooms and ward
sections.
Yes. The court held that
the petitioners claim for
illegal deductions falls
within tribunals
jurisdiction. It is

[respondents]
employment and are
therefore liable for
exemplary damages.
This should served [sic]
as protection to other
employees of
[petitioner] company,
and by way of example
or correction for the
public good so that
persons similarly
minded as [petitioners]
would be deterred from
committing the same
acts.
The Court also affirms
the award of attorneys
fees. It is settled that
when an action is
instituted for the
recovery of wages, or
when employees are
forced to litigate and
consequently incur
expenses to protect
their rights and
interests, the grant of
attorneys fees is
legally justifiable.37

The Decision of the


Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 75871 is
affirmed with
modification in that the
award by the NLRC of
10% of the total
judgment award as
attorneys fees is
reinstated. In all other
aspects, the decision of
the appellate court is
affirmed.
The Petition is denied
for lack of merit. The
Court of Appeals
decision dated August
12, 2004 and its

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

vs. Servier
Philippnes, Inc
and NLRC
(G.R. No.
166377,
November 28,
2008)

Parties and Case


Number
1. National Union of
Workers in the
Hotel Restaurant
and Allied
Industries
(NUWHRAIN-APL-

noteworthy that
petitioner demanded
the completion of her
retirement benefits,
including the amount
withheld by respondent
for taxation purposes.
The issue of deduction
for tax purposes is a
money claim arising
from the employeremployee relationship
which clearly falls
within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC.

Business
of the
Company
Hotel
Manageme
nt

IV. Strikes
Work of
Is there a valid strike?
the
Employee
Hotel
No. The court holds that
service
the Unions concerted
attendants violation of the Hotels
, staffs
Grooming Standards
which resulted in the
temporary cessation and

resolution dated
December 17, 2004 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 75705
are affirmed.

What happened to
the case?
The CA's May 6, 2004
Decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 70778 is
hereby affirmed.
The CA's January 19,
2004 Decision in CAG.R. SP No. 76568 is

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

IUF) Dusit Hotel


Nikko chapter vs.
CA (Former
Eighth Division),
NLRC, Philippine
Hoteliers Inc,
owner and
operator of Dusit
Hotel Nikko
and/or Chiyuki
Fujimoto, and
Esperanza V.
Alvarez
(G.R. No.
163942,
Novembe
r 11, 2006)

disruption of the Hotels


operations is an
unprotected act and
should consider as an
illegal strike. The Unions
concerted action which
disrupted the Hotel's
operations clearly violated
the CBA's "No Strike, No
Lockout" provision.

hereby set aside. The


October 9, 2002
Decision of the NLRC in
NLRC NCR CC No.
000215-02 is
hereby affirmed with
modiffications, as
follows:
The 29 Union officials
are hereby declared to
have lost their
employment status.
The 61 Union
members are
hereby reinstated to
their former positions
without backwages. In
view of the possibility
that the Hotel might
have already hired
regular replacements
for the afore-listed 61
employees, the Hotel
may opt to
pay separation
pay computed at one
(1) month's pay for
every year of service
in lieu
of reinstatement, a
fraction of six (6)
months being
considered one year of
service.

Yes. The court ruled that


NFSW strike is illegal. The
NFSW declared the strike
six (6) days after filing a
strike notice, i.e., before
the lapse of the
mandatory cooling-off
period. It also failed to file
with the MOLE before
launching the strike a
report on the strike-vote,
when it should have filed
such report "at least
seven (7) days before the
intended strike." Under
the circumstances, the
court perforce constrained
to conclude that the strike
staged by petitioner is not
in conformity with law.
It defends; the Court
prefers to rule likewise on
the legality or illegality of
the strike and determined

The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit.

NUWHRAIN-Dusit
Hotel Nikko
Chapter vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Philippine
Hotelier, Inc.
(G.R. No.
166295,
November 11,
2008)
2. National
Federation of
Sugar Workers
(NF SW) vs.
Ethelwoldo R.
Ovejera, Central
Azucarera de la
Carlota (CAC),
Col. Rogelio
Deinla, as
Provincial
Commander,
3311st P.C.
Command,
Negros
Occidental
(G.R. No. l59743, May 31,
1982)

Sugar
Plantation

Sugar
Planters
and Sugar
Workers

3. Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union
FFW vs.

Semicondu
ctors

Factory
workers

The Petition in G.R.


No. 122743 is granted.
Respondent Temic
Telefunken
Microelectronics

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Temic Telefunken
Micro-Electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs
Temic Telefunken
Micro-electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs.
Hon. Leonardo A.
Quisumbing in
his capacity as
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment,
and Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees
Union-FFW
(G.R. No. 122743
& 127215,
December 12,
1997)

4. Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus
Company (BLTB
Co.) vs. NLRC,
Tinig at Lakas ng
Manggagawa sa
BLTBCO-NAFLU
and its reinstated
one hundred
ninety (190)
members
(G.R. No.
101858, August
21, 1992)

the individual liability of


the strikers. if any, to put
an end to this protracted
labor dispute, this Court is
unable to do so as the
record is wanting of any
evidence to support a
conclusion. We thus order
the Secretary of Labor to
resolve the instant case
with utmost dispatch and
determine whether the
strike was illegal and the
liability of the individual
strikers, if any.

Bus
Company

Was not
mentioned

Yes. The Secretary of


Labor assumed
jurisdiction over the
dispute and certified the
dispute to the NLRC. A
copy of the certification
order was served upon
the NAFLU and on the
TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU.
However it was noted in
the notice of order that
union secretary Jerry
Soriano refused to receive
it. Union officers and
members went on strike
and maintained picket
lines blocking the
premises of BLTBCos
terminals. A return to
work order was published
by BLTBCo to called on all
striking workers to return.

(Phils.), Inc. is ordered


to accept back
immediately all
striking workers of
Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees FFW
Without exception.
In G.R. No. 127215,
the petition is
Dismissed for lack of
merit. Accordingly,
respondent Secretary
of Labor and
Employment is
directed to ensure the
effective enforcement
of the writ of execution
he issued and
determine with
dispatch the legality of
the strike as well as
the liability of the
individual strikers. If
any, the members of
the Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union
FFW are warned that a
repetition of the same
or similar mass
demonstration within
or about the premises
of the Court will be
dealt with severely.
The petition is
dismissed. The
resolutions dated July
19, 1991, and
September 16, 1991,
are affirmed. The
temporary restraining
order dated November
6, 1991, is lifted. Costs
against the petitioner.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

5. Zamboanga
Wood Products,
Inc. vs NLRC,
National
Federation of
Labor, Dionisio
Estioca and the
Strikers
(G.R. No. L82088, October
13, 1989)

Wood
Products

First hired
in May
1977 as a
clerk in its
personnel
departmen
t. In 1980,
he rose to
become a
personnel
aide. On
July 1,
1981, he
became
the
Personnel
Supervisor
,a
supervisor
y and/or
manageria
l position,
next in
rank to the
Personnel
Manager.

No. The Court ruled that


the illegal dismissal of
Estioca and the
Companys union-busting
efforts were legal grounds
for the strike. In fact, the
Company did not deny the
charge of union busting
levelled by the
respondents. Union
busting, or interference
with the formation of a
union, constitute an unfair
labor practice, hence a
valid ground for the
declaration of a strike.

6. Union of Filipro
Emploees (UFE)
vs. Nestle
Philippines, Inc.,
NLRC, Hon.
Eduardo G.
Magno, Hon.
Zosimo T. Vasallo
and Hon.
Evangeline S.
Lubaton
(G.R. No. 8871013, December
19, 1990)

Dairy
Products

Wood
processing
plants
workers,
administra
tive and
technical
services

No. The court ruled that a


strike that is undertaken
despite the issuance by
the Secretary of Labor on
an assumption or
certification order
becomes a prohibited
activity and thus illegal,
pursuant to the second
paragraph of Art. 264 of
the Labor Code as
amended. The return to
work order does not so
much confer a right as it
imposes a duty; and while
as a right it may be
waived, it must be
discharged as a duty even
against the worker's will.
Returning to work in this
situation is not a matter
of option or voluntariness
but of obligation. The
worker must return to his
job together with his co-

The petition for


certiorari is dismissed.
The decision of the
NLRC in Certified Case.
No. 0309 is affirmed
with modification by
ordering the petitioner
Zamboanga Wood
Products, Inc. to
reinstate the strikers,
including Dionisio
Estioca to their former
positions without loss
of seniority rights and
with backwages from
August 19, 1982 when
they offered to report
for work, up to August
1984 when they were
readmitted by the
Company. With respect
to Estioca, his
backwages shall not
exceed a period of
three (3) years from
April 30, 1982. The
fine of P10,000
imposed on the
petitioner for its delay
in complying with the
Secretarys return-towork order, is affirmed.
Costs against the
petitioner.
The petition is
dismissed, and the
decision of public
respondent NLRC,
dated November 2,
1988, and its
Resolution, dated
March 7, 1989, are
both affirmed in their
entirety. No costs.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm
workers so the operations
of the company can be
resumed and it can
continue serving the
public and promoting its
interest.

7. Henry Bacus,
Maximo Dangga,
Salvador Flores,
Victor Fuentes,
Santiago
Lacquiao, Luz
Fuentes,
Eleodoro Gajo,
Juanito Genilla,
Godofredo GacAng, and Calixto
Coyno vs. Hon.
Blas F. Ople,
Minister of Labor
of Employment
and Findlay Millar
Timber Company
(G.R. No. L58856, October
23, 1984)

Logging
and
Manufactu
re of
plywood,
veneer
and other
lumber
products.

8. Sukhothai
Cuisine and
Restaurant vs.
CA, NLRC,
Philippine Labor
Alliance Council
(PLAC), Local 460
Sukhothai
Restaurant
Chapter
(G.R. No.
150437, July 17,
2006)

Restaurant

Cook

Yes, the court ruled that


strike is illegal and at very
least, respondent Minister
of Labor and Employment
should have viewed the
strike as premature. In the
instant case, it is not
disputed that, indeed, the
Company did not pay the
salaries of the workers for
one and a half months,
more or less. Such act of
the Company broke the
patience of the workers
and those who depended
on them for support and
daily subsistence. On the
other hand, the act of the
workers in demanding a
valid grievance for the
payment of their salaries
is inspired by their honest
belief that the Company
was committing acts
inimical to their interests
relative to wages which,
basically, is a violation of
the CBA existing between
the parties.
Yes. The court has held
that strikes staged in
violation of agreements
providing for arbitration
are illegal, since these
agreements must be
strictly adhered to and
respected if their ends are
to be achieved. The
rationale of the
prohibition under Article
264 is that once
jurisdiction over the labor
dispute has been properly
acquired by competent
authority, that jurisdiction
should not be interfered
with by the application of
the coercive processes of
a strike. Indeed it is
among the chief policies

The petition is hereby


granted. The decision
of the Ministry of Labor
and Employment
dated October 18,
1979 is declared NULL
and VOID and hereby
SET ASIDE.
Respondent Minister of
Labor and Employment
is hereby ordered to
conduct a hearing in
MOLE Case No. 003-79
on charges of serious
acts of violence
against the petitioners
giving them the
opportunity to be
heard and present
their evidence.
Pending resolution of
the aforesaid case on
the merit, respondent
Company is hereby
ordered to reinstate
the ten (10) petitioners
herein to their former
positions without loss
of seniority rights and
privileges.

The petition is
granted. The Decision
and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals
together with the
Decision dated
November 29, 2000 of
the National Labor
Relations Commission
are reserved and set
aside. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter
dated October 12,
1999 is reinstated. The
Court finds the strike
illegal and, as a
consequence thereto,
the union officers who
participated in the
illegal strike and in the
commission of illegal

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

9. Far Eastern
University-Dr.
Nicanor Reyes
Medical
Foundation (FEUNRMF) and Lilia
P. Luna, M.D. vs.
FEU-NRMF
Employees
AssociationAlliance of
Filipino Workers
(FEU-NRMFEAAFW), Union
Officers, the
Alliance of
Filipino Workers
(AFW), federation
officers Gregorio
C. Del Prado and
Jose Umali
(G.R. No.
168362,

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Medical
Institution
(Hospital)

Hospital
staffs

of the State to promote


and emphasize the
primacy of free collective
bargaining and
negotiations, including
voluntary arbitration,
mediation, and
conciliation, as modes of
settling labor, or industrial
disputes

acts, namely,
Emmanuel Cayno, Billy
Bacus, Analiza Cablay,
Jose Neil Arcilla, Roel
Esancha, and Claudio
Panaligan, as well as
the union members
who participated in the
commission of illegal
acts during the strike,
namely, Rey Arsenal,
Alex Martinez, Hermie
Raz, Jose Lanorias, Lito
Arce, Cesar Sangreo,
Rolando Fabregas,
Jimmy Balan, Joven
Lualhati, Antonio
Enebrad, Edgar
Eugenio, Albert
Agbuya, Arnel
Salvador, Ricky Del
Prado, Bernie Del
Mundo, Roberto Eco,
Joven Talidong, Leny
Lucente, Rigoberto
Tubaon, Merly Naz,
Lino Salubre, Rolando
Pugong, and John
Bathan, all private
respondents, are
hereby declared to
have lost their
employment status.

Yes. The court ruled that


the strike conducted by
the respondent union was
valid and legal under the
circumstances, therefore
no cogent reason to
dismiss the union officers.
The presumption of
receipt of the copies of
the Assumption of
Jurisdiction Order could
not be lightly inferred
from the circumstances
considering the adverse
effect in case the parties
failed to heed to the
injunction directed by
such Order. Merely
posting copies of the
Assumption of Jurisdiction
Order does not satisfy the
rigid requirement for
proper service outlined by
the above stated
rules. Needless to say, the
manner of service made
by the process server was
invalid and

The instant petition is


denied. Costs against
the petitioner.

Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review

10.Hotel Enterprises
of the
Philippines, Inc.
(HEPI), owner of
Hyatt Regency
vs. Samahan ng
mga
Manggagawa sa
Hyatt-National
Union of Workers
in the Hotel and
Restaurants and
Allied Industries
(SAMASAHNUWRAIN)
(G.R. No.
165756, June 5,
2009)

Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma


Saturday, 5-7pm

Hotel
Manageme
nt

irregular. Respondent
union could not therefore
be adjudged to have
defied the said Order
since it was not properly
apprised thereof.
Housekeep Yes. The court ruled that
ing
the strike staged by
attendant- officers and member of
line, tailor, respondent is, perforce
room
illegal though the
attendant, respondent fully satisfied
messenger the procedural
/mail clerk, requirements prescribed
and
by law, however, a valid
telephone
and legal strike must be
technician based on strikeable
grounds, because if it is
based on a non-strikeable
ground, it is generally
deemed an illegal strike.
Respondent Union went
on strike in the honest
belief that petitioner was
committing ULP after the
latter decided to downsize
its workforce contrary to
the staffing/manning
standards adopted by
both parties under a CBA
forged only four (4)
months earlier. The belief
was bolstered when the
management hired 100
contractual workers to
replace the 48 terminated
regular rank-and-file
employees who were all
Union members. Indeed,
those circumstances
showed prima facie that
the hotel committed ULP.
Thus, even if technically
there was no legal ground
to stage a strike based on
ULP, since the attendant
circumstances support
the belief in good faith
that petitioners
retrenchment scheme was
structured to weaken the
bargaining power of
the Union, the strike, by
exception, may be
considered legal.

The petition is partly


granted. The
downsizing scheme
implemented by
petitioner is hereby
declared a valid
exercise of
management
prerogative. The
penalty of six (6)
months suspension
without pay imposed
in the April 3, 2003
NLRC Resolution is
hereby reduced to two
(2) months, to be
considered in the
Labor Arbiters
computation of the
separation pay to be
received by the Union
officers concerned.
The first batch of
quitclaims signed by
33 of the 48
terminated employees
is hereby declared
invalid and illegal for
failure to state the
proper consideration
therefor, but the
amount received by
the employees
concerned, if any, shall
be deducted from their
separation pay and
other monetary
benefits, subject to the
computation to be
made by the Labor
Arbiter. The second
batch of quitclaims
signed by 85 of the
160 terminated
employees, following
Hyatt Regency Manilas
permanent closure, is
declared valid and
binding.