● RENO FOODS, INC VS.

NLM
● FACTS:
● Reno Foods – manufacturer of canned meat products.
● Nenita Capor – employee of Reno Foods until dismissal on
October 27,1998.
● It is the SOP of RF to conduct reasonable search upon leaving
the company premises.
● October 19, 1998 – guard found 6 canned goods wrapped in
leggings in NC’s bag.
● RF gave opportunities to NC to explain her side together with her
union. Notice of Termination was given and another labor-
management grievance conference was held on November 17,
1999.
● December 8, 1998 – RF filed qualified theft.
● April 5, 1999 – probable cause was found.
● NLM filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims with
NLRC: provide back wages and damages.
● LA: serious misconduct – just cause for termination and does not
deserve reinstatement and backwages. Those who commit theft
may be validly terminated and not entitled to separation pay.
● NLRC: LA right but provide separation pay.
● CA: The jurisprudence of PLDT vs. NLRC is not absolute but
merely directory.
●
● ISSUE:
● WON NLRC committed GAD amounting to LOJ in granting financial
assistance to an employee who was validly dismissed for theft of company
property.
●
● HELD:
● Conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause
for termination of employment. (Nicolas v NLRC)
● Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while labor
disputes require only substantial evidence.
● The dismissal was valid.
● Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination
in not attributable to the employee’s fault or in illegal dismissal
which reinstatement is no longer feasible.
● Theft of company property is serious misconduct.
● ARTICLE 282 Termination by Employer - An employer may
terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
○ Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee
of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;
○ Gross or habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
○ Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized
representative;
 ○ Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against
the person of his employer or any immediate member of
his family or his duly authorized representative and
○ Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
● To hold otherwise, even in the name of compassion, would be to
send a wrong signal not only that crime pays but also that one
can enrich himself at the expense of another in the name of
social justice.
●
● E. Constitutional Rights of Laborers
●
● Article 2, Section 10 – The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.

CALALANG V. WILLIAMS
FACTS:
● National Traffic Commission – resolution on July 17, 1940: animal-drawn
vehicles be prohibited from passing along
○ Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de La Barca to
Dasmarinas St. (730am to 1230pm and 130pm-530pm)
○ Rizal Ave extending from the railroad crossing Anitipolo St to
Echague St (7-11pm)
● Calalang (private citizen) – prohibition on the resolution.
●
● ISSUE:
● WON the RR promulgated by the DPW infringe the constitutional precept
regarding the promotion of social justice.
●
● HELD:
● promotion of social justice is achieved not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group.

● What is Social Justice?

● Social Justice is
● “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,”
● but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
force by the State
● so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated.
●
● Social justice means
● the promotion of the welfare of the people,
● the adoption by the Government of measures calculated
● to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
● through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium
● in the interrelations of the members of the community,
● constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
● or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
● underlying the existence of all governments
● on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
●
● Social justice, therefore, must be founded
● on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence
● among divers and diverse units of a society
● and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups
● as a combined force in our social, and economic life,
● consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state
● of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
● and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number.”
●
● Article 2, Section 18 – The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
●
● Article 7, Section 12 – The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help
them competitively.

● Article 8, Section 1- The Congress shall give the highest priority to the
enactment of measures to protect and enhance the right of all people to human
dignity, reduce social and economic and political inequalities, and remove cultureal
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To
this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
property and its increments.

●
● Article 8, Section 3 – The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organizations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
●
● Article 8, Section 14 - Women – Labor is entitled to seats allotted to party-list
representative for 3 consecutive terms after ratification.
●
F. Employer-Employee Relationship

TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. VS. SERVANA

● FACTS:
● TAPE – domestic corporation engaged in the production of television
programs.
● Antonio Tuviera – president
● Roberto Servana – security guard from 1987 – 2000
● RS – filed illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits. He was detailed
at Broadway Centrum.
● March 2, 2000 – RS received a memo informing him of his impending
dismissal because TAPE would be contracting the services of a
professional security agency.
 ○ Monthly salary: P6,000
○ HP, Unpaid VL and SL were withheld
● RS: dismissal was without due process and violative of existing labor laws.
● TAPE: LA had no jurisdiction because there was no ee-er relationship.
○ RS was initially employed as security guard for RPN9
○ tasked to assist TAPE during live productions (crowd control)
○ was only part of a support group and is a talent – provide security to
prod staff, stars and guests of EB and crowd control
○ agreement of TAPE with RS that TAPE will continue to use his
services until such time that the latter would hire a professional
security agency
○ TAPE never prevented RS to seek other employment
○ 1999 – TAPE started to negotiate with a professional security
agency
○ 2000 – TAPE sent a memo to those with jobs redundant with the
professional security agency.
○ RS is an IC falling under talent group category.
● LA: RS is a regular employee.
○ nature of the work is NECESSASRY AND DESIRABLE IN THE
USUAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF TAPE
○ termination was valid: redundancy
○ pay separation pay
● NLRC: reversed
○ Primary standard to determine regularity of employment is
the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer.
○ Security services is not necessary and desirable to the
usual business of TAPE. Even without RS’ services, TAPE’s
business will not stop.
○ RS is a program employee.
■ did not have working hours
■ worked for other companies: MZet.
● CA: RS regular employee
●
● ISSUE:
● WON RS is a regular employee.
●
● HELD:
● FOUR-FOLD TEST
○ selection and engagement of employee
■ TAPE admitted having engaged in the services of RS after
TAPE ended relations with RPN 9.

○ payment of wages
■ RS’s monthly salary was P5,444.44
○ power of dismissal
■ Memorandum was given to RS on March 2000 that his
services will be terminated as soon as the services of the
 new security agency begins.

○ exercise of power to control employee’s conduct.

■ bundy cards are evident proof of TAPE’s control over RS.
■ RS cannot be an independent contractor
● a legitimate job contractor carries on a distinct
and independent business and undertakes to
perform the job, work or service on its own
account and under its own responsibility
according to his own manner and method, FREE
FROM THE CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF THE
PRINCIPAL in all matters connected with the
performance of the work except as to the results
thereof.
● The control test is the most important factor
○ there is an employer-employee relationship when the person whom
the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end achieved BUT ALSO THE MANNER AND MEANS TO
ACHIEVE THAT END.
● independent contractor – not an employee of the employer
● talent/program employee – employee
● RS has been continuously under the employment of TAPE for 5 years.
○ ARTICLE 280 LC Regular and Casual Employment – The
provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, EXCEPT
WHERE THE 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 SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED IS SEASONAL IN
NATURE AND EMPLOYEMENT IS FOR THE DURATION OF THE
SEASON.
●
● PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING VS. SOLE
● FACTS:
● Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint before the DOLE (Cebu).
● September 23, 2003 – DOLE conducted a plant level inspection
○ Non-dimunition of benefits: Bombo denies EE-ER relationship
○ JJ is a drama talent hired on a per drama participation basis.
● February 27, 2004 – DOLE RD: JJ is an employee and is entitled to
money claims.
● BOMBO: no EE-ER because it was the drama directors and producers
who paid, supervised and disciplined respondent.
● CA: DOLE Secretary had the power to enforce compliance with labor
standard laws irrespective of the amount of individual claims.
● BOMBO: NLRC and not DOLE Sec has jurisdiction over respondent’s
claim. (Art. 217 and 128, LC)
 ● JJ: CA did not abuse discretion.
○ RA 7730 – removes jurisdiction of SOLE/authorized representatives
from the effects of the restrictive provisions of Art. 129and 217 of
LC regarding the confinement of jurisdiction based on the amount of
claims.
● ISSUE:
● Does the SOLE have the power to determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship?
●
● HELD:
● ARTICLE 128 (b) - Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217
of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of
employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue
compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of
this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made
in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized
representative shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for
the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer
contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and
raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered
in the course of inspection. (emphasis supplied)
● The visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE is for cases where the
relationship of employer-employee still exists.
● EXCEPTION TO DOLE’S POWER
○ EE-ER has ceased
○ or never existed.
● no longer exists because severed - original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the labor arbiters.
● no longer exists (WON accompanied with an allegation of illegal dismissal
– RD of NLRC
● The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory
prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of the SOLE.
○ to eliminate of competing conclusions of SOLE (Admin official) and
NLRC (Quasi-judicial body)
● SOLE is granted visitorial and enforcement powers to
○ determine violations
○ enforce Labor laws
● A mere assertion of absence of EE-ER does not deprive DOLE of
jurisdiction over the claim under Art 128 LC
● in the first place, they should have determined the EE-ER.
● Since there is no EE-ER, RD DOLE had no jurisdiction over the JJ’s
complaint.
● DOLE’s prerogative depends on the existence of an EE-ER.
●
● TONGKO VS. MANULIFE
●
● FACTS:
● MANULIFE – domestic corporation engaged in life insurance
 ● Gregorio Tongko – Career Agent’s Agremeent
○ GT is an independent contractor and cannot be interpreted as an
ee-er
○ GT shall canvass applications for insurances and receive payment
through his sales.
○ ML may terminate the agreement for breach or violations of the
provisions and is given 15 days notice.
● 1983 – GT becomes Unit Manager
● 1990 – GT: Branch Manager
● 2001 – Manulife started manpower development programs in the regional
sales management level.
● November 6, 2001 – Manulife Pres writes to GT
○ your region is the lowest performer
○ your comments are baseless
○ please make the necessary changes:
■ hire at your expense a competent assistant
■ Kevin will take over a branch
● December 18, 2001 – Manulife Pres wrote to GT
○ you failed to do your part
○ terminated GT
● November 25,2002 – GT files with NLRC for ID
● Tongko: there Is ee-er
○ Pres gave him specific directives on how to manage his area
○ Manulife hired, promoted and gave various assignments.
○ M set objectives
○ prescribed a code of Conduct
○ the letter showed who was in control
○ termination letter
○ termination was without basis and there was no due process
● MANLIFE: Tongko is not an employee, therefore NLRC had no jurisdiction.
● LA: dismissed complaint for lack of EE-ER
● NLRC: reversed LA, Tongko ID
○ there is ee-er
○ Manu liable for dismissal
○ Manu exercised control over GT
● CA: no ee-er and NLRC had no jurisdiction
●
● ISSUE:
● EE-ER of Tongko
●
● HELD:
● Tongko is EE

●
●
● Name of Decree
● ARTICLE 1 - This Decree shall be known as the "Labor Code of the Philippines".
●
● Date of Effectivity
● ARTICLE 2 - This Code shall take effect six (6) months after its promulgation.
●
● Declaration of Basic Policy
● ARTICLE 3 - The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure
equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers
and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
●
● Q: What is the purpose of labor legislation?
● A: The purpose of labor legislation is to give life into the Constitutional mandate of providing
protection to labor by promoting full employment, ensuring equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race or creed, regulating the relations between workers and employers and assuring that the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and human conditions
of work.
●
Construction in Favor of Labor
ARTICLE 4 - Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
labor.

■ the law must protect labor, at least, to the extent of raising him to equal footing in bargaining
relations with capital and to shield him from abuses bought about by the necessity for survival.

Q: What is the concept of liberal approach in interpreting the Labor Code and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations in favor of labor?
A: This concept of liberal approach is enshrined both in the Labor Code and the Civil Code. More
specifically, the Labor Code declares that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of the Coe, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of
labor. The Civil Code likewise pronounces that “in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.”
This concept, however, should not apply where the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code leave no
room for doubt either in their interpretation or application.

Rules and Regulations

● ARTICLE 5 - The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the
administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15)
days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation.
●
● Exception: interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public.
●
●
● Applicability
● ARTICLE 6 - All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as may
otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.(As
amended by Presidential Decree No. 570-A, November 1, 1974.)

GR: Private Sector

Labor Code is applicable to all employees whether
● agricultural or non-agricultural;
● industrial or commercial;
● profit or not
E: Government Employees – working in all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, of
 the Government, including GOCC with original charters.

● Governement employees are governed by the Civil Service law.

● National Assembly standardizes their salaries.

Civil Service
● embraces all branches, subdivisions; instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including GOCC with original charters

Government employees
● may form unions or associations.
● for unresolved grievances – Public Sector Labor-Management Council
● but they may not resort to strikes, walk-outs and other temporary work stoppages

GOCC’s without original charter

● governed by the Labor code
● jurisdiction of DOLE

Employees of International Organizations and Intergovernmental bodies

● not covered by the Philippine Labor Laws
● NLRC/DOLE cannot take cognizance of cases
● immunity from local jurisdiction
○ objective: avoid the danger partiality and interference by the host country in their
internal workings
● REMEDY: file a complaint before the DFA

SEAFDEC VS. NLRC

FACTS:
● SEAFDEC-AQC – department of an international organization; Japan as the sponsoring
country
● April 20, 1975 – Lazaga was employed as Research Associate (probationary)
● January 5, 1983 – JL appointed as Senior External Affairs (bs- P8000, allowance P4000)
● Lazaga – Professional
● May 8, 1986 – Lacanilao (Chief of SEAFDEC) sent notice of termination to private
respondent and informed that JL was entitled to separation benefits
● SEAFDEC was unable to pay
● March 18, 1987 – JL files for non-payment of separation benefits plus moral damages
with NLRC
● SEAFDEC – NLRC has no jurisdiction; SEAFDEC is international organization.
● LA: pay separation pay and other benefits
● NLRC: affirmed LA
● MR denied
●
● ISSUE:
● WON SEAFEC is within the jurisdiction of NLRC since it is immune from suit due to its
international character.
●
● HELD:
● SEAFDEC is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of NLRC.
○ Established by different countries.
○ purpose: promotion of fisheries by mutual cooperation
● Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments
(AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in
whose territory its office is located.

PNOC-EDC vs. LEOGARIO

FACTS:
● PNOC-EDC – subsidiary of PNOC
 ● January 20, 1978 – PNOCEDC filed with MOLE a clearance application to
dismiss/terminate the services of private respondent, Ellelina (contractual employee)
● reason for dismissal: Ellelina’s alleged commission of a crime (alarm or public scandal)
because of trying to grab the armalite rifle of the PC officer outside the building.
● MOLE – initially cleared, then revoked. reinstate Ellelina, without loss of seniority rights
and backwages
● PNOCEDC appealed to MOLE
○ Art 277, LC – MOLE has no jurisdiction over petitioner sicne it is a GOCC
○ dismissal is valid because it is upon the commission of a crime
● MOLE:
○ PNOCEDC is still covered by the labor code – private corporation under Corpo
Law
○ dismissal is too harsh

ISSUE:
● WON Ellelina as a GOCC employee is governed by the Labor Code.

HELD:
● Art 277, LC - The terms and conditions of employment of all government employees,
including employees of government- owned and controlled corporations shall be
governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations .
● Constitution - The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
● the test in determining whether a government-owned or controlled corporation is
subject to the Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation such that government
corporations created by special charter are subject to its provisions while those
incorporated under the general Corporation Law are not within its coverage.
● the PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the general Corporation Law, is a
government-owned or controlled corporation whose employees are subject to the
provisions of the Labor Code.
●
● PALOMA vs. PAL
● FACTS:
● Paloma – 35 years of service with PAL (SVP Finance)
● November 30, 1992 – nine months before Paloma’s retirement, PAL was privatized.
● PAL paid Paloma P5M, and in turn Paloma signed a document of Release and Quitclaim.
● Paloma: I have 450 accrued sick leave and PAL only paid 18 days.
○ letter provided that Paloma had 230 sick leave credits
○ EE is entitled to accumulate sick leave with pay = 230 days
○ Had there been no ceiling as mandated by Company policy, your sick leave
credits would have totaled 450 days to date.
● Paloma files with NLRC
○ i have 450 days commutable pursuant to EO 1077 – government employees are
allowed to get all accrued vacation and sick leaves.
● LA:
○ PAL to pay the 162 of the accumulated sick leave credits
○ PAL is not covered by the civil service system. EO 1077 , applies only to
government officers and employees covered by the civil service, exclusive of the
members of the judiciary whose leave and retirement system is covered by a
special law.
● NLRC: affirmed LA
● CA – dismissed
● CA(MR):
○ PAL, at the time of the issuance of EO 1077, was still a GOCC and that Paloma
had already 29 years of service at that time. The appellate court also stated that
since PAL had then no existing retirement program, the provisions of EO 1077
shall serve as a retirement program for Paloma who had meanwhile acquired
vested rights under the EO pursuant to Arts. 100[16] and 287[17]of the Labor Code.
● ISSUE:
● WON EO 1077 is applicable to Paloma.
● May an employee of a non-government corporation invoke EO1077 which are soley for the
benefit of government officers and employees covered by the civil service?
●
● HELD:
● 1987 Consti – Civil Service – GOCC with original charter
● EO 1077
○ number of days of vacation and sick leaves creditable to a government officer or
employee is limited to 300 days
○ Any officer [or] employee of the government who retires or voluntary resigns or is
separated from the service through no fault of his own and whose leave benefits
are not covered by special law, shall be entitled to the commutation of all the
accumulated vacation and/or sick leaves to his credit, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays,without limitation as to the number of days of
vacation and sick leaves that he may accumulate.
● PAL never ceased to be operated as a private corporation, and was not subjected
to the Civil Service Law
○ The personnel were never considered government employees.
○ Paloma cannot plausibly be accorded the benefits of EO 1077 which, to stress,
was issued to narrow the gap between the leave privileges between the members
of the judiciary, on one hand, and other government officers and employees in
the civil service, on the other.
● Paloma not entitled to the benefits granted in EO 1077; existing company policy on
the matter applies
● NLRC and the CA, by their act of allowing commutation to cash, erred as they virtually
read in the policy something not written or intended therein. Indeed, no law provides for
commutation of unused or accrued sick leave credits in the private sector.

LOPEZ VS. MWSS

FACTS:
● 1997 – MWSS entered into a Concession Agreement with Manila Water Service and
Benpress-Lyonnaise.
● Regular employees of MWSS, except those who retired or opted to remain with MWSS
were absorbed by the Concessionaires. Regular employees of MWSS were paid
retirement benefits.
● MWSS: contract-collectors of MWSS are not its employees and are not entitled to
benefits due regular gov’t employees.
● CSC: bill collector-contractor is not an MWSS employee. they are not permanent
employees of MWSS and not included in the list submitted in the concessionaire and not
entitled to severance pay.
● CA:CSC specifically stated that contract collectors are not MWSS employees and not
entitled to severance pay.
● ISSUE:
● WON petitioners were employees of MWSS and entitled for benefits they claim.
● HELD:
● There is no reason not to apply this principle in favor of workers in the government. The
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, as employers,
should set the example in upholding the rights and interests of the working class.
● MWSS is a GOCC with own charter (RA 6234) – jurisdiction of CSC
● Lopez is an employee of MWSS.
○ MWSS selected when it contracted the services and provided separate contracts
or agreements.
○ MWSS had the power to dismiss.
○ Power to Control showed in Article 7 of agreement
● MWSS pay terminal leave pay and separation pay and/or severance pay to petitioners.
●
●