LABOR DOCTRINES

Chateau Royale Sports and Country Club vs. Balba and Constante
G.R. No. 197492 January 18, 2017

There should be a balance between the scope of and limitation of the exercise of
management prerogative and the right to security of tenure of employees. The
management has a wide discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including
the transfer and re-assignment of employees according to the exigencies of the
business. There should be an urgency and genuine business necessity. Even though
the transfer of the employees might be inconvenient for them, the transfer would
open the way for their eventual career growth, with the corresponding increase in
pay.

Maria Lourdes De Jesus vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 164662 February 18, 2013

The failure of the employee to fully account her collections is sufficient justification
for the company to lose its trust and confidence in her. Loss of trust and
confidence, as a ground for dismissing an employee, does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if there is some basis for such loss of confidence,
or the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that the employee concerned is
responsible for the misconduct, as to be unworthy of the trust and confidence
demanded by her position.

D. M. Consunji Corp. vs. Bello

G.R. No. 159371 July 29, 2013

The employer who interposes the defense of voluntary resignation of the employee
in an illegal dismissal case must prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence
that the resignation was voluntary; and that the employer cannot rely on the
weakness of the defense of the employee.

Escario vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 160302 September 27, 2010

Under the principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor, employees dismissed
for joining a strike (legal or illegal) are not entitled to backwages for the period of
strike because they performed no work during the strike.

International Hotel Corp. vs. Joaquin and Suarez

G.R. No. 158361 April 10, 2013

Under the principle of quantum meruit, a contractor is allowed to recover the

reasonable value of the services rendered despite the lack of written contract. The
measure of recovery under the principle should relate to the reasonable value of
the services performed. The principle prevents undue enrichment based on the
equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain any benefit without paying
for it. The principle should only be applied if no express contract was entered into,
and no specific statutory provision was applicable.

Charlie Jao vs. BCC Products Sales Inc.

G.R. No. 163700 April 18, 2012

To determine whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship, the

following elements should be present: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished. The power to control is the most important element.

Legend Hotel Manila vs. Realuyo

G.R. No. 153511 July 18, 2012

Retrenchment is a management prerogative resorted to by employers to avoid or to

minimize business losses. The employer should meet the following standards to
justify retrenchment as a valid cause for the dismissal of employees: (1) The
expected loses should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent; (2)
The substantial losses apprehended must be reasonable imminent; (3) The
retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the
expected losses; and (4) The alleged losses, if already incurred, and the expected
imminent losses sought to be forestalled must be proved by sufficient and
convincing evidence. The burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid cause
rests upon the employer. Also, the employer must prove that the losses incurred or
expected to be incurred by him are substantial and that retrenchment is reasonably
necessary to avert such losses.

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. The Lepanto Capataz Union

G.R. No. 157086 February 18, 2013

Employees who are performing functions different from those performed by the
rank-and-file employees could by themselves form a union that is separate and
distinct from the labor organization of rank-and-file employees.

Re: Letter Complaint of Fabiana against Hon. Reyes

A.M. No. CA-13-51-J July 2, 2013

The surviving spouse of the employee cannot substitute a proper judicial remedy
with an administrative complaint to claim for death benefits. The disciplinary
proceedings and criminal actions brought against any Judge or Justice in relation to
the performance of official functions are neither complementary to nor suppletory of
appropriate judicial remedies, nor a substitute for such remedies.

Manila Jockey Club, Inc. vs. Trajano

G.R. No. 160982 June 26, 2013

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority

rights and other privileges, and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent. Reinstatement is no longer possible when:
(1) the former position of the illegally dismissed employee no longer exists; (2) the
employers business has closed down; (3) the employer-employee relationship has
already been strained as to render the reinstatement impossible. In case the
reinstatement is no longer possible, an award of separation pay, in lieu of
reinstatement, will be justified. The backwages shall be reckoned from the time her
wages were withheld until the finality of the decision.

Masing and Sons Development Corp. vs. Rogelio

G.R. No. 161787 April 27, 2011

Doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer in
any controversy between a laborer and his master. In case of doubt, the doubt is
resolved in favor of labor, in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborers.

Matling Industrial and Commercial Corp. vs. Coros

G.R. No. 157802 October 13, 2010

The complaint for illegal dismissal of a regular employee is cognizable by the Labor
Arbiter while the complaint for illegal dismissal of a corporate officer is cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court.

Matugas vs. C.F. Sharp Crew Management Inc.

G.R. No. 214311 December 15, 2014

Illness is compensable only after showing that it was suffered during the term of
employment and that the employee submitted himself for medical examination
within 3 days from repatriation.

Mega-Pro International Resources, Inc. vs. Domingo

G.R. No. 213146 February 2, 2015

Both the substantive and procedural due process in the termination of an employee
must be complied with. If the employee was deprived of both notice and
opportunity to face the accusations against him and a just cause for his termination
does not exist, then, the employer should be liable to the employee for the
payment of full backwages, separation pay and attorneys fees.

Ocean Builders Construction Corp. vs. Spouses Cubacub

G.R. No. 150898 April 13, 2011

The admitted failure to provide to the employees any of the several free emergency
medical and dental services and facilities the Labor Code and the implementing
rules and regulations of the Department of Labor and Employment required
removed the foundation for absolving the employer from liability. Chicken pox is a
self-limiting disease that heals by itself when properly taken care of by giving the
patient sufficient time to rest and administering symptomatic medications. It is
imperative that the chicken pox-afflicted patient should be confined in bed to rest
during the initial stages of the disease; otherwise, the complications of chicken pox,
which are deadly, mat set in. The employer is liable when he still required the
employee to remain on the job despite the employees several requests to be
allowed to have the much needed rest. Thus, the employer willfully disregarded the
deteriorating condition of the employee. Even though the employer rushed the
employee to the hospital when the employee collapsed and paid P1,000 for the
medical bill, these acts of the employer were superficial, too little and too late.

Philippine Airlines Employees Association vs. Hon. Cacdac

G.R. No. 155097 September 27, 2010

The holding of second election of an employees association was an implementation

of Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Resolution. The nullification of the first election
gave way to the holding of the pre-election conferences by the DOLE. The
Employees Association should have first waited for the final election results as
certified by DOLE-NCR before filing the petition for certiorari. The Regional Director
and BLR Director were performing purely ministerial act of enforcing the already
final and executory BLR Resolution directing the conduct of the general election.

People vs. Cagalingan

G.R. No. 198664 November 23, 2016

To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, 3 elements must concur: (1) the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any
of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13
(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section
6 of R.A. 8042; and (3) the offender committed the same against 3 or more
persons, individually or as a group.

Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union

G.R. No. 192601 June 3, 2013

The civil status of the employee as either married or single is not the controlling
consideration in order that a person may qualify as the employees legal dependent.
The fact that the spouse, child or parent is actually dependent for support upon the
employee is the controlling consideration. The concurrence of a legitimate spouse
does not disqualify a child or a parent of the employee from being a legal
dependent provided substantial evidence is adduced to prove the actual
dependency of the child or parent on the support of the employee. The
differentiation among legal dependents is significant only in the event the CBA has
prescribed a hierarchy among them for the granting of a benefit; hence, the use of
the terms primary beneficiaries and secondary beneficiaries for that purpose.

Ramos vs. Digiwave Solutions, Inc.

G.R. No. 205958 December 15, 2014

In illegal dismissal cases, while the employer bears the burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause, absent substantial evidence of the
fact of the employees dismissal from service, there can be no question as to its
legality or illegality. Bare allegations of illegal dismissal cannot be given credence
when uncorroborated by the evidence on record.

Samar-Med Distribution vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 162385 July 15, 2013

In observing the statutory due process, the employer should comply with the twin-
notice requirement: (1) the first written notice would notify the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal was being sought; and (2) the
second written notice would notify him of the employers decision to dismiss said
employee. The second written notice must not be made until after he was given a
reasonable period after receiving the first written notice within which to answer the
charge, and after he was given the ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Even though the
lack of statutory due process would not nullify the dismissal when the dismissal was
for just cause, it would justify the payment of nominal damages.

Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. Tanawan

G.R. No. 160444 August 29, 2012

To be entitled to disability benefits, the seafarer must: (1) prove that the injury was
suffered during the term of the employment; and (2) submit himself to the
company-designated physician for evaluation within 3 days from his repatriation.

Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 157900 July 22, 2013

A change in the corporate name does not make a new corporation, whether
effected by a special act or under a general law. It has no effect on the identity of
the corporation, or on its property, rights, or liabilities. The change in the corporate
name did not give the employer the license to terminate the employees without just
or authorized cause.