TITLE FACTS
Hanford Incorporated  Aug 1998, respondent
v Shirley Joseph tendered resignation which
petitioner accepted
 After petitioner paid
necessary money claims,
respondent requested for
the payment of her
separation pay in accordance
with the CBA
 Petitioner denied request
since under the Labor Code,
voluntary resignation is not
one of the grounds which
justifies the grant of
separation pay
LA: granted respondents petition
NLRC: affirmed decision
CA; company CBA expressly provides
for the payment of separation pay
North Davao Mining  Petitioner was initially
Corporation v NLRC privately-owned but PNB
became a part-owner as a
result of a conversion into
equity of loans from the said
bank.
 PNB then transferred all its
loans to and equity in North
Davao in favor of the
national government, which
by virtue of Proclamation No.
50, later turned them over to
petitioner Asset Privatization
Trust. By the end of 1990,
ISSUE RULING NOTES
 Whether  As held by the lower courts,
respondent is it is very clear from the CBA
entitled to that when an employee or
separation pay worker voluntarily resigns
due to, among others,
separation from the
company without cause,
such as voluntary
resignation, then he is
entitled to separation pay
 Petitioners granted previous
employees separation pay
upon retirement. Under the
Labor Code, retirement is not
also a ground for the
payment of separation pay. If
petitioners could be liberal
to those who retired, there is
no reason why they should
also not extend such
liberality to respondent
considering that she served
for the company for twenty-
one years.
1. Whether an 1. Art. 283 provides that the 1. Art. 283. Closure of
employer grant of separation benefits establishment and reduction
of personnel. - The employer
whose is in case of closure or may also terminate the
business cessation of operation of employment of any employee
operations business establishments and due to the installation of labor
saving devices, redundancy,
ceased due to not due to serious business retrenchment to prevent
business losses or financial reverses. losses or the closing or
losses is In the instant case, where cessation of operation of the
obliged to pay the aggregate losses establishment or under-taking
unless the closing is for the
separation pay amounted to over Php20B – purpose of circumventing the
2. Whether time the Labor Code does not provisions of this Title, by
spent in impose any obligation upon serving a written notice on the
workers and the Ministry of
collecting the employer to pay Labor and Employment at
wages in a separation benefits least one (1) month before the
intended date thereof. In case
 the government owned most
of the common stock and all
of the preferred stocks of the
said company
 Respondent Wilfredo
Guillema was one of the
employees who were
separated by reason of the
company’s closure
 1992, the company
completely ceased
operations due to serious
business reverses
 The complaint of
respondents is rooted upon
the basis of their separation
pay of 12.5 days pay for
every year of service as
compared to the 30 days pay
per service of the employees
back when the company was
still operating
LA,NLRC: 30 days pay
Conrado Tan v  Timbal and his co-employee
Restituto Timbal received a letter from their
general manager Tan
informing them that they
were found to be one of
those who filed a complaint
with the SSS in which they
claimed that their employer
was not remitting its
employees the necessary
place other 2. From the evidence on of termination due to the
installation of labor saving
than the place record, the Court finds that devices or redundancy, the
of the hours spent by worker affected thereby shall
employment is complainants in collecting be entitled to a separation pay
equivalent to at least his one
compensable salaries at a bank in Tagum,
(1) month pay or to at least
even though Davao shall be compensable one (1) month pay for every
done during hours worked. year of service, whichever is
official time higher. In case of
retrenchment to prevent
3. Whether losses and in cases of
private closures or cessation of
respondents operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious
are entitled to business losses or financial
transportation reverses, the separation pay
expenses in shall be equivalent to one (1)
the absence of month pay or at least one-half
() month pay for every year of
evidence that service, whichever is
expenses were higher. A fraction of at least
incurred six (6) months shall be
considered one (1) whole year
2. Section 4. Place of payment. -
(a) As a general rule, the
place of payment shall be at
or near the place of
undertaking. Payment in a
place other than the
workplace shall be
permissible only under the
following circumstances:
(2) When the employer
provides free transportation to
the employees back and
forth; and
 Whether the  Under the decision of the LA,
petitioner is only the NSC was found
jointly and liable to pay monetary
severally liable awards, not including Tan.
with NSC for The decision of the LA had
monetary become final and executor
awards in  None of the parties in the
favor of case before the LA appealed
respondent the decision hence the same
became final and executory.
 premiums It was therefore removed
 After submitting their from the jurisdiction of the
explanation, respondent was LA or the NLRC to further
instructed to return the amend or alter it. Thus the
following day only to be proceedings held for the
stopped by the guard and purpose of changing it are
was handed a memorandum null and void for lack of
signed by Tan stating that he jurisdiction.
was suspended indefinitely.
He refused to recognize such
and returned the next day
only to be denied entry again
 Timbal and his co-worker
filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the NLRC
 Respondents alleged that the
complaints regarding the SSS
falsely charged NSC of not
paying the required SSS
premium contributions and
that the complainants were
suspended as a result of the
criminal case
LA: respondents failed to prove the
charge that Timbal falsely accused
them and such charge was a result of
an investigation conducted by their
field representative
NLRC: granted motion of
respondents setting aside the writ of
execution filed of the LA
CA: denied Tan’s MR
Brion v South  Respondent became a  Whether the  It is expressly stated in SDA’s
Philippine Mission of member of SDA and retirement Retirement Plan that such
the Seventh Day eventually was promoted to benefits of benefits are for those who
Adventist Church an ordained minister and petitioner have devoted their lives
president of of the SDA in should be work for the SDA. It refers to
BUtuan City reinstated past actions rendered by the
 Due to corruption charges retiree to the defendant
 and indiscretion with a church. There is no doubt
masseuse he was transferred that plaintiff has devoted his
and demoted as a school life to the service. That is the
director in another location reason he is qualified to
 He eventually retired and benefit.
received a monthly amount
as retirement benefit as
practiced by SDA
 Petitioner got into an
argument with another
pastor which culminated into
the emergence of another
religious group. He recruited
some members of the SDA
and criticized such church
which resulted into his
excommunication from SDA
and the denial of his
retirement benefits
 Petitioner filed an action for
mandamus with the RTC
asking for the reinstatement
of his retirement bonus
RTC: ordered the reinstatement of
RB
CA: set aside decision of the RTC

Sta. Catalina College v  1955 - HIlaria was hired in
NLRC petitioner school.
 1970 - She applied for and
was granted one year leave
without pay on account of
her ailing mother. After the
expiration of her leave, she
had not been heard from by
the school
 1982 - she applied anew at
petitioner school and in
1997, was awarded gratuity
  As a general rule, the factual findings
and conclusions of quasi-judicial
agencies such as the NLRC are, on
appeal, accorded great weight and
respect and even finality as long as they
are supported by substantial evidence
or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable man might accept
as adequate to justify a
conclusion.[17] Where, as in the present
case, the findings of the NLRC
contradict those of the Labor Arbiter,
this Court must of necessity examine
the records and the evidence presented
to determine which finding should be
preferred as more conformable with the
 pay for thiry years of service.
 1997 - Hilaria retired after
reaching the required age for
retirement and the school
pegged her retirement
benefits computed on the
basis of fifteen years of
service, excluding 1955 –
1970 in the computation
 Hilaria filed a complaint to
the NLRC
evidentiary facts
 To prove abandonment, the employer
must show that the employee
deliberately and unjustifiably refused to
resume his employment without any
intention of returning.[20] There must be
a concurrence of the intention to
abandon and some overt acts from
which an employee may be deduced as
having no more intention to work.[21] The
law, however, does not enumerate what
specific overt acts can be considered as
strong evidence of the intention to sever
the employee-employer relationship.[22]
 It is not disputed that the approved one
year leave of absence without pay of
Hilaria expired in 1971, without her, it
bears repeating, requesting for
extension thereof or notifying petitioner
school if and when she would resume
teaching. Nor is it disputed that she was
rehired only in 1982 after filing anew an
application, without her proffering any
explanation for her more than a decade
of absence. Under the circumstances,
abandonment of work at petitioner
school in 1971 is indubitably manifest.
 As regards the requirement of notice of
termination, it was error for the CA to
apply Sec 2, Rule XIV, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Code.[23] It should be noted that when
Hilaria abandoned her teaching position
in 1971, the law in force was Republic
Act 1052 or the Termination Pay Law,
as amended by Republic Act 1787,
Section 1
 As Hilaria was considered a new
employee when she rejoined petitioner
school upon re-applying in 1982, her
retirement benefits should thus be
computed only on the basis of her years
of service from 1982 to 199