1. Marcopper Mining Corporation vs.

was increased with the integration of the

NLRC COLA. The term “basic wage” includes the
G.R. No. 103525 COLA, this is what the law ordains and to
March 29, 1996 which the collective bargaining agreement of
Topic: State Policy Towards Labor the parties must conform.
Digested By: Papa Rex

Citing the case of Philippine Telegraph &

FACTS: Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, the SC held
that when conflicting interests of labor and
• Petitioner, Marcopper Corporation and
capital are to be weighed on the scales of
private respondent National Mines and
social justice, the heavier influence of the
Allied Workers Union entered into a
latter should be counter-balanced by
Collective Bargain Agreement (CBA)
sympathy and compassion the law must
providing for the increase of wage of
accord the underprivileged worker.
the workers by 5% in the years 1986
and 1987.

• Meanwhile, E.O. 178 was promulgated Likewise, in Terminal Facilities and Services
which provides for the Cost of Living Corporation v. NLRC, the SC declared: Any
Allowance (COLA). doubt concerning the rights of labor should be
resolved in its favor pursuant to the social
• The union filed for the repayment of
justice policy.
wage differentials alleging that the
COLA should be included in the
definition of the basic wage, in
The purpose of E.O. No. 178 is to improve the
accordance with E.O. 178.
lot of the workers covered by the said statute.
• The petitioner alleges that it should not We are bound to ensure its fruition.
be included because COLA is not
contemplated to be included in the
definition of basic wage when the CBA WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
was entered into. DISMISSED.
• The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
union, prompting the petitioner to
appeal with the NLRC. The NLRC 2.Malabunga Jr. vs Cathay Pacific Steel Corp.
however dismissed the appeal. Hence, G.R. No. 198515 (June 15, 2015)
the petition.
URMENETA (Doubt in evidence in labor case)

FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether the basic wage should be
construed as the integrated basic wage which • Dominador Malabunga Jr. is a
includes the COLA or not? YES machinist employed by Cathay Pacific
Steel Corporation. In an inventory by
the company, it was shown that one
RULING: aluminum level was issued to the
company’s Fabrication Unit, while
The principle that the CBA is the law between another was issued to Malabunga Jr.
the contracting parties stands strong and
true. However, the present controversy • On July 11 2004, Malabunga Jr.
involves not merely an interpretation of CBA returned an aluminum level. Later on,
provisions. In the interpretation of contracts, Cathay Pacific accused him of theft, as
like the CBA, the Constitutional policy of they alleged that the level he returned
utmost protection and justice to labor should was not the one he was issued with;
be upheld. rather, it was the one issued to the
Fabrication Unit. Cathay Pacific alleged
that he stole the Fabrication Unit’s level
to cover up the fact that he lost his
As mandated by E.O. No. 178, the basic wage
issued level.
of workers, or the statutory minimum wage,
1
 • After the investigation by Cathay October 05, 2016
Pacific, it suspended Malabunga Jr. for
Digested by: Ponfi :>
30 days and made him pay for the
missing aluminum level via salary Topic: Presentation of Evidence
deductions. Malabunga appealed,
however, it was denied.

• Malabunga Jr. then filed a complaint FACTS:

against Cathay Pacific for illegal 1. Ferraris, the owner and manager of
suspension to the Labor Arbiter, petitioner DJIC, engaged the services
however, his complaint was dismissed of respondent and a certain Moonyeen
due to substantial evidence warranting J. Bura-ay (Moonyeen) as cashier and
his suspension. Malabunga then cashier/receptionist, respectively, for a
appealed to the NLRC which ruled in his monthly salary of P3,000.00 each on
favor. Cathay Pacific then filed for December 8, 2002.
appeal at the CA, which reversed the
decision of the NLRC citing that there 2. Respondent Rañeses averred that
was reasonable ground to believe that sometime in January 2005, she asked
Malabunga Jr. indeed committed theft from petitioner Ferraris her share of
of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum SSS contributions and overtime pay for
level. the 11 hours of work rendered per day.
Petitioner Ferraris got infuriated and
ISSUE: told the respondent to seek other
WON Cathay Pacific Steel is guilty of employment. This prompted the
illegally suspending Malabunga Jr. due to respondent to file her complaints
the latter allegedly committing theft before the Social Security System
(YES) (SSS) Office against non-remittance of
SSS contributions. Respondent also
RULING: filed a complaint for
underpayment/nonpayment of wages,
“ x x x this Court cannot sustain its view
overtime pay, holiday pay, service
that petitioner is guilty of theft of
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
company property. It could simply be that
and moral and exemplary damages.
due to the ineffective system within the
warehouse and its inefficient personnel, there 3. Petitioners countered that respondent
was a mix-up of records; worse, it could be and Moonyeen were not terminated
that tools and items within the warehouse from employment. According to them,
were misplaced or lost due to its irresponsible DJIC incurred a shortage in its
personnel. If any, respondent is alone earnings. So, she called the two
responsible; it cannot conveniently put the employees who denied incurring any.
blame on its employees in order to make up That was when she lost her temper and
for or cover its losses caused by its own scolded the respondent thereafter,
disorganized system and inept personnel. requiring them to produce the missing
P400.00. However, the respondent and
From the foregoing, there are serious doubts
Moonyeen merely walked out and did
in the evidence on record as to the factual
not report back to work anymore.
basis of the charges against petitioner. These
doubts shall be resolved in (his) favor in 4. Petitioners further claimed that it was
line with the policy under the Labor Code respondent herself who requested that
to afford protection to labor and construe the SSS contributions not be deducted
doubts in favor of labor. The consistent from her salary because it would only
rule is that if doubts exist between the diminish her take-home pay. On
evidence presented by the employer and February 21, 2006, the Labor Arbiter
the employee, the scales of justice must rendered a Decision in favor of
be tilted in favor of the latter.” petitioners, but granted respondent's
claim for 13th month pay.
3. Dee Jay’s Inn and Café (DJIC) and/or
Melinda Ferraris vs Ma. Lorina Rañeses

G.R. No. 191825

2
ISSUE [relevant to topic lang; since this case MODIFICATION that petitioners Dee Jay's Inn
is also procedural]: WON respondent was and Café and Melinda Ferraris, for just and
illegally dismissed for her to be entitled to her equitable reasons extant in this case, are
money claims. additionally ORDERED to jointly and severally
pay respondent Ma. Lorina P. Rañeses
separation pay equivalent to one (1) month
RULING: NO, the High Court said:"While the salary for every year of service, computed up
general rule in dismissal cases is that the to the time she stopped working, or until
employer has the burden to prove the February 4, 2005.
dismissal was for just or authorized causes
and after due process, said burden is
necessarily shifted to the employee if the NOTES:
alleged dismissal is denied by the employer
• "The burden of proof lies upon who
because a dismissal is supposedly a positive
asserts it, not upon who denies,
and unequivocal act by the employer.
since by the nature of things, he
Accordingly, it is the employee that bears the
who denies a fact cannot produce
burden of proving that in fact he was
any proof of it." (Sevillana vs. I.T.
dismissed. An unsubstantiated allegation on
International Corp., et al.,)
the part of the employee cannot stand as the
same offends due process." (De Paul/King • The rule as exemplified by the Supreme
Philip Customs Tailor, et al. vs. NLRC). Court is: "Where the employee was
not notified that he had been
dismissed from employment
The respondent did not controvert the neither was [he] prevented from
petitioners’ categorical denial and more, she returning to his work, there is no
failed to demonstrate the burden. As such, illegal dismissal.” (Chong Guan
the allegations of the respondent to the effect Trading vs. NLRC)
that she was dismissed remains gratuitous.
• **OK han ira appeal ruling han CA was
pro-respondent CHOS as in: “Corollary
to our finding that respondent was in
In the case at Bench, the positive act and/or
fact illegally terminated, petitioners
the unequivocal act of termination is the
should be ordered to reinstate
Factum Probandum which the respondent
respondent without loss of seniority
miserably failed to demonstrate. The Labor
rights and other privileges, or, in case
Arbiter also noted that petitioner DJIC, as a
reinstatement would no longer be
registered Barangay Micro Business
feasible, to pay respondent separation
Enterprise (BMBE), was exempted from the
pay equivalent to one (1) month salary
coverage of the Minimum Wage Law. The
for every year of service, with payment
Labor Arbiter decreed in the end:
in either cases of [respondent's] full
backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and her other benefits or their
WHEREFORE, premises laid, judgment is monetary equivalent, computed from
hereby rendered dismissing the complaint in February 5, 2005, the date
the instant case for lack of cause of action and [respondent] was illegally dismissed,
for not being impressed with merit. up to the time of her actual
However, petitioners are hereby ordered, reinstatement.” To NLRC they
jointly and severally, to pay respondent the said: “Reliance on De Paul seemed
amount of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) imprudent and misplaced, if not,
representing 13th month pay differential. devious because De Paul was
indefensibly misquoted in the Labor
Arbiter's Decision” AND “It is a well-
DISPOSITION: The Resolution dated August settled doctrine, that if doubts exist
30, 2006 of the National Labor Relations between the evidence presented by the
Commission in NLRC CA No. M-009173-06, employer and the employee, the scales
affirming en toto the Decision dated February of justice must be tilted in favor of the
21, 2006 of the Labor Arbiter in RAB 12-01- latter.” (Nicario v. NLRC, et al. ||
00026- 05, is REINSTATED with equipoise of evidence) BUT again
3
 ginreverse la ini so an adto na’n evidence”. CA further contended that
RULING asya na it hiya. In case la petitioner did not present corroborative and
maask kamo an full na nangyari. competent evidence.

(4) REYES v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW ZERO,

INC.
ISSUE related to topic: WON petitioner was
G.R. No. 222816, October 04, 2017 able to substantiate his claim.

Topic: Burden of proof and substantial

evidence in case for illegal dismissal
RULING: Yes, petitioner’s claim of illegal
Digested by: Daciano Palami dismissal was properly substantiated.

FACTS: Per the SC, Co Say's verbal instruction, being

petitioner’s immediate supervisor, was
1. Petitioner Reyes was allegedly fired from
authoritative, therefore, petitioner was not
work by his Direct Supervisor Vinson Co Say
amiss in thinking that his employment has
on 19 Jan 2012. Reyes was running late that
indeed already been terminated.
day because his son was sick. Co Say called
him and inquired why he was not yet at work.
Reyes apologized and replied that he was on
Furthermore, the "text" messages were
his way.
corroborative, especially when viewed in
2. Co Say refused to listen and told Reyes connection with the factual antecedents and
instead “not to report for work anymore.” Co narration of the petitioner. Co Say’s text said:
Say allegedly added that he will talk to Reyes "Tet will contact you plus turnover". A literal
next week. interpretation of said text message leaves no
doubt that the complainant's days with the
3. Per instructions, Reyes did not report for
respondent company was numbered. In
work anymore and waited for instructions.
employment parlance, the word "turnover" is
4. Finally he received a text from Co Say that associated with severance of employment,
they meet on 26 Jan 2012. On that date, Co such as the “proper "turnover" of pending
Say told him to no longer report for work and work before leaving a company”. Co Say’s
insisted he file a resignation letter. text was followed by a message from Ms. Tet
Manares (HR of Global) which stated: "Kuya,
5. He refused as he believed he did not do pinaayos ko na kay gen salary mo." This is
anything to warrant dismissal. He instituted a consistent with the first message that Tet will
complaint for illegal dismissal. contact the complainant. The 2 text
6. In reply, respondent Global contended that messages, when taken together, support the
Reyes was not dismissed from service and complainant's claim of dismissal.
that he stopped reporting on his own volition
after repeated violation of company rules
(read full text for the violations). Respondent Global asserted that the text
messages should not be given credence in the
Per Global, 18 January 2012 was the last time absence of proper authentication as per Rules
he took steps on the premises of the of Court. The SC however sided with the NLRC
company, despite notices to report for work. by saying that “strict adherence to the rules
7. Global further surmised that Reyes of evidence may be relaxed consistent with
"jumped the gun" by prematurely filing the the higher interest of substantial justice.” In
Complaint for Constructive Dismissal for no labor cases, rules of procedure need not be
apparent reason, in fear that he will be soon applied rigidly and in a technical sense. Thus,
terminated. the "text" messages may be given credence
especially if they corroborate the other pieces
8. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the of evidence presented.
petitioner. The NLRC affirmed the decision.

9. CA however reversed, held that the text

messages dismissing Reyes “hardly meet the The burden of proof then shifted to Global that
standard of clear, positive and convincing Reyes abandoned his work. The SC pointed
4
out that on the days when he supposedly
abandoned his work, Reyes filed applications
for leave and even sent messages to his direct
(5) MARIA VILMA G. DOCTOR and JAIME
supervisor. Evidently, he had no intention of
LAO, JR. vs. NII ENTERPRISES and/or
quitting his job.
MRS. NILDA C. IGNACIO

G.R. No. 194001

Per the SC, “Abandonment requires the
November 22, 2017
deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee
to resume his employment, without any Digested by: Lamoste
intention of returning. For abandonment to
exist, two factors must be present: (1) the Topic:Validity of Dismissal
failure to report for work or absence without Facts:
valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee Before this Court is a Petition for Review on
relationship, with the second element as the Certiorari filed by petitioners Maria Vilma G.
more determinative factor being manifested Doctor (Doctor) and Jaime Lao, Jr. (Lao)
by some overt acts.” Global failed to prove The following events gave rise to the instant
that such abandonment happened. Petitioner Petition:
would not have filed a case for illegal
dismissal if he really intended to abandon his 1. Respondent NII Enterprises is a sole
work. Employees who take steps to protest proprietorship engaged in the business
their dismissal cannot logically be said to have of providing car air-conditioning
abandoned their work. (aircon) services, which is owned by
respondent Ignacio. Petitioners had
been employed by respondents
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on 2. On February 10, 2004, respondent
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Ignacio and petitioner Doctor had a
dated March 22, 2016, of petitioner Allan John serious argument, which prompted
Uy Reyes is GRANTED. Consequently, the petitioner Doctor to file a complaint for
Decision dated August 27, 2015 of the Court slander and threat against respondent
of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, Ignacio at Barangay San Antonio,
and the Decision dated July 31, 2013 of the Makati City.
National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC
LAC No. 01-000289-13 is AFFIRMED and 3. Since efforts to amicably resolve the
REINSTATED. dispute between respondent Ignacio
and petitioner Doctor failed, the
barangay issued a Certification to File
NOTE: To constitute valid dismissal from Action.
employment, two requisites must concur: (1) 4. On February 24, 2004, petitioner
the dismissal must be for a just or authorized Doctor filed a complaint for illegal
cause; and (2) the employee must be dismissal against respondents before
afforded an opportunity to be heard and to the NLRC.
defend himself.
5. Petitioner Lao, who accompanied
petitioner Doctor at the barangay
proceedings, also joined the complaint
for illegal dismissal as a party-
complainant.

6. Respondents countered that after

respondent Ignacio and petitioner
Doctor had a heated altercation
sometime in February 2004, petitioner
Doctor no longer reported for work.
Petitioner Lao similarly absented
himself from work without prior leave.

5
 7. The Labor Arbiter, in his Decision, failed, The Court was convinced that no actual
found that respondents failed to prove dismissal ever happened. [Petitioners] simply
just and valid cause and observance of stopped working and thereafter immediately
due process in petitioners' dismissal. filed the illegal dismissal case. There is no
constructive dismissal either. Hence, there is
8. Respondents filed before the NLRC an
no violation of due process to speak of.
appeal of the foregoing judgment of the
Labor Arbiter.

9. In its Decision, the NLRC partially Disposition:

granted respondents' appeal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
10.Respondents filed a Motion for instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is
Reconsideration,which the NLRC PARTIALLY GRANTED.
denied in a Resolution
6. Alilem Credit Cooperative, Inc., vs
11.Respondents filed before the Court of Salvador M. Bandiola
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari
G.R. No. 173489
Issue:
February 25, 2013
WoN there was Illegal Dismissal
Topic: Substantial Evidence
Ruling:
Facts:
1.No. The Court of Appeals rendered its
• Respondent Bandiola was employed by
Decision finding respondents' Petition
petitioner Alilem Credit Coop Inc. as
meritorious. The appellate court stressed that
bookkeeper. Petitioner's Board of
while the employer has the burden in illegal
Directors (the Board) received a letter
dismissal cases of proving that the
from a certain Napoleon Gao-ay
termination was for valid or authorized cause,
(Napoleon) reporting the alleged
the employee must first establish by
immoral conduct and unbecoming
substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from
behavior of respondent by having an
service, and this, petitioners failed to do.
illicit relationship with Napoleon sister,
Pertinent findings of the Court of Appeals are
Thelma G. Palma (Thelma).
quoted below:
• Respondent claimed that the
accusation was a result of the
It should be noted that [petitioner Doctor] insecurity felt by some members of the
brought a case for threat and slander against cooperative and of the Board because
[respondent Ignacio] before the Barangay but of his growing popularity owing to his
amicable settlement failed as further bitter exemplary record as an employee.
arguments between the parties ensued. On
• On July 10, 1997, the Chairman of the
February 24, 2004, the complaint for illegal
Board sent a letter to respondent
dismissal was filed by [petitioners] against
informing him of the existence of a
[respondents].
prima facie case against him for "illicit
marital affair, an act that brings
discredit to the cooperative
In [petitioners'] position paper , not even a
organization and a cause for
passing mention was made of the previous
termination per AMPC (Alilem Multi-
heated argument between [petitioner Doctor]
Purpose Cooperative) Personnel Policy.
and [respondent Ignacio], but simply stating
that both [petitioners] were barred from the • The LA found respondent to have been
work premises, despite their willingness to do validly dismissed from employment for
so. violation of the cooperative Personnel
Policy. The LA also found no violation of
respondent right to due process as he
With their admission, coupled with the was given ample opportunity to defend
immediate filing of the complaint for illegal himself from the accusation against
dismissal on February 24, 2004 after the him. On appeal, the NLRC set aside the
barangay conciliation on February 20, 2004 LA decision.
6
 With this resolution, respondent was
adequately notified of petitioner decision to
ISSUE:
remove him from his position. Respondent
Whether or not petitioner illegally dismissed cannot now claim that his right to due process
respondent. (NO) was infringed upon. GRANTE

HELD:

No, Bandiola was not illegally dismissed. The

Court of Appeals decision is reversed and set
aside. It is undisputed that respondent was
dismissed from employment for engaging in
extramarital affairs, a ground for termination
of employment stated in petitioner Personnel (7) ASIAN STEEL CORPORATION vs.
Policy. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION (WCC)

G.R. No. L-7636, 27 June 1955

The employer evidence consists of sworn
statements of either relatives or friends of Digested by: Shira G.
Thelma and respondent. They either had
Topic: Employee-employer relationship
direct personal knowledge of the illicit
relationship or revealed circumstances
indicating the existence of such relationship.
FACTS:

1. Carbajosa was hired as an apprentice

There is also no reason to doubt the by the Officer-in-Charge “Kim” in the
statement of Melanie Gao-ay, the wife of factory.
Napoleon, who witnessed the embarrassing
"encounter", to borrow the term she used, 2. Carbajosa, was injured while working
between [respondent] and Thelma in her own in said Corporation’s steel factory in
boarding house. Grace Park, Manila.

The credibility of the persons who bore 3. His two feet were so seriously injured,
witness against him can hardly be they had to be amputated.
questioned because some of these Hospitalizations were paid by the
persons are relatives or friends of either corporation through the direction of the
[respondent] or his lover. In particular, it Acting Manager, Atty. Mercado.
is hard to see how Napoleon Gao-ay, the 4. The referee, having found that the
brother of his lover, Thelma, could have accident arose out of employment,
resorted to a lie just to destroy him when the required the Asian Steel Corporation to
same scandal could also result in tarnishing indemnify in the total sum of two
the reputation of his own family. The motive thousand two hundred forty pesos and
of Napoleon in bringing the matter to the forty centavos (P2246.40) and to pay
attention of the Board of Directors, after the costs.
all, was based on ethical grounds – he
wanted a stop to the affair because it
was a disgrace to the community. ISSUE:

Whether or not Carbajosa was given

Engaging in illicit sexual relations prohibited employment at the corporation. (YES)
under a personnel policy is a ground for
termination even if does not connect to the
performance of his duties. RULING:

Disposition: At the time of the occurrence, it was proved

that Carbajosa was an employee of the
7
corporation. “It may be stated as a general
rule that an agent, who with authority
1. The Philippine Musicians Guild filed a
express, implied, apparent or actual, employs
petition before the CIR that sought to
help for the benefit of his principal’s business,
be certified as the sole and exclusive
thereby creates the relationship of employer
bargaining agency of all musicians
and employee between such help and his
working at LVN Pictures, Inc.,
principal.”
Sampaguita Pictures, Inc., and
Premiere Productions, Inc.

The creation of the employer-employee 2. Ninety-five (95%) percent of all the

relationship should not be adjudged strictly in musicians playing for the musical
accordance with technical legal rules, but recordings of said companies are
rather according to the actualities and members of the Guild.
realities of industrial or business practices.
3. In their answers, LVN and Sampaguita
denied that they have any musicians as
employees, and alleged that the
It was proved that the President of the
musical numbers in the filing of the
corporation, thru his Officer-in-Charge “Kim
companies are furnished by
hired Carbajosa. There was apparent
independent contractors.
authority of Kim, sufficiently ample to create
the relationship of employer and employee for 4. The lower court, however, rejected this
the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation pretense and sustained the theory of
Law. the Guild.

5. LVN Pictures, inc., and Sampaguita

Pictures, Inc., (Premiere has not
Implying ratification of the employment, that
appealed) filed petitions for review for
the acting manager (Atty. Mercado) of the
certiorari.
corporation directed the payment by the
corporation of Carbajosa’s hospitalization
expenses. Mercado’s explanation that he did
Issue:
it out of pity, was not, and could not be
accepted since the Asian Steel Corporation
was not a charitable institution.
WON the musicians are employees of the film
companies. (YES)
In view of the foregoing, and the petitioner
not having questioned the amount of
compensation, the order of the Commission, Ruling:
should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with costs.

(8) LVN Pictures, Inc. v. Philippine To determine whether a person who performs
Musicians Guild (FFW) and Court of work for another is the latter's employee or
Industrial Relations an independent contractor, the National Labor
G.R. No. L-12582 Relations relies on 'the right to control' test.
Under this test an employer-employee
January 28, 1961 relationship exist where the person for whom
the services are performed reserves the right
to control not only the end to be achieved, but
Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. v. Philippine also the manner and means to be used in
Musicians Guild (FFW) and Court of reaching the end.
Industrial Relations

G.R. No. L-12598

The right of control of the film company over
January 28, 1961 the musicians is shown (1) by calling the
musicians through 'call slips' in 'the name of
the company; (2) by arranging schedules in
Facts: its studio for recording sessions; (3) by

8
furnishing transportation and meals to 3. In April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to
musicians; and (4) by supervising and the President of ABS-CBN, Eugenio
directing in detail, through the motion picture Lopez III, about a recent event
director, the performance of the musicians concerning his career and that the
before the camera, in order to suit the music company had breached the agreement.
they are playing to the picture which is being Hence, the notice of rescission of the
flashed on the screen. agreement was sent.

4. In the same month, Sonza filed a

complaint in the Department of Labor
It is well settled that "an employer-employee
and Employment concerning ABS-CBN
relationship exists . . .where the person for
not paying his salaries, separation pay,
whom the services are performed reserves a
service incentive leave pay, 13th
right to control not only the end to be
month pay, signing bonus, travel
achieved but also the means to be used in
allowance, and amounts due under the
reaching such end . . . ." The decisive nature
Employees Stock Option Plan.
of said control over the "means to be used",
is illustrated in the case of Gilchrist Timber 5. ABS-CBN filed a motion to dismiss on
Co., et al., in which, by reason of said control, the ground that no employer-employee
the employer-employee relationship was held relationship was established between
to exist between the management and the them.
workers, notwithstanding the intervention of
an alleged independent contractor, who had,
and exercise, the power to hire and fire said Issue:
workers. The aforementioned control over the
means to be used" in reading the desired end
is possessed and exercised by the film WON there was an employer-employee
companies over the musicians in the cases relationship that existed between the parties
before us. (NO)

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is Ruling:

hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioners herein. It is so ordered.
The Court ruled that there was no employer-
employee relationship. Case law held that the
elements of an employer-employee
9. Jose Y. Sonza vs ABS-CBN relationship are selection, engagement of the
Broadcasting Corporation, employee, payment of wages, the power of
dismissal and the employer’s power to control
G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004 the employee on the means and methods by
which the work is accomplished.
Assigned to: Darlene Masamong

Applying the control test, Sonza is not an

Facts:
employee. First, Sonza claims that ABS-CBN
exercised control over the means and
methods of his work. The Court disagrees.
1. ABS-CBN, represented by its corporate
ABS-CBN engaged the services of Sonza,
officers, signed an agreement with
specifically, to co-host the “Mel and Jay”
MJMDC, represented by Sonza and
programs. The former did not assign any
Tiangco.
other work to the latter. How Sonza appears
2. Referred as agent in the “agreement”, in the television, or how he delivers his lines,
MJMDC agreed to provide Sonza’s is out of ABS-CBN’s control. Moreover, Sonza
services exclusively for ABS-CBN as didn’t have to render 8 hours of work per day
talent for both radio and television. because the agreement only required Sonza
to attend rehearsals and tapings of the show,
as well as the pre- and post- production staff
9
meetings. ABS-CBN cannot even dictate the 49190 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
contents of his script, although, prohibited petitioner.
him from criticizing ABS-CBN in his works.
10. Angelina Francisco v. National Labor
Hence, clearly, Sonza haf a free hand on what
Relations Commission, Kasei
to say and discuss in his shows, provided that
Corporation, Seiichiro Takahashi,
he does not attack the company.
Timoteo Acedo, Delfin Liza, Irene
Ballesteros, Trinidad Liza and Ramon
Escueta
Sonza also contended against the Labor
Arbiter when in its finding that Sonza is a G.R. No. 170087
talent of MJMDC, who contracted out his
August 31, 2006
services to ABS-CBN. The Labor Arbiter ruled
that as a talent of MJMDC, SONZA is not an Digested by: Dalisay A. Delvo
employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA insists that
MJMDC is a “labor-only” contractor and ABS-
CBN is his employer. Facts:

• In 1995, petitioner Angelina Francisco

In a labor-only contract, there are three was hired by Kasei Corporation during
parties involved: (1) the “labor-only” its incorporation stage. She was
contractor; (2) the employee who is designated as Accountant and
ostensibly under the employ of the “labor- Corporate Secretary and was assigned
only” contractor; and (3) the principal who is to handle all the accounting needs of
deemed the real employer. Under this the company. Designated as Liaison
scheme, the “labor-only” contractor is the Officer to the City of Makati to secure
agent of the principal. The law makes the business permits, construction permits
principal responsible to the employees of the and other licenses for the initial
“labor-only contractor” as if the principal itself operation of the company.
directly hired or employed the employees. • Although she was designated as
These circumstances are not present in this Corporate Secretary, she was not
case. entrusted with the corporate
documents; neither did she attend any
board meeting nor required to do so.
There are essentially only two parties involved She never prepared any legal
under the Agreement, namely, SONZA and document and never represented the
ABS-CBN. MJMDC merely acted as SONZA’s company as its Corporate Secretary.
agent. The Agreement expressly states that 1996, petitioner was designated Acting
MJMDC acted as the “AGENT” of SONZA. The Manager and assigned to handle
records do not show that MJMDC acted as recruitment of all employees and
ABS-CBN’s agent. MJMDC, which stands for perform management agencies,
Mel and Jay Management and Development especially with BIR, SSS and in City
Corporation, is a corporation organized and Government of Makati; and to
owned by SONZA and TIANGCO. The administer all other matters pertaining
President and General Manager of MJMDC is to the operation of Kasei Restaurant
SONZA himself. It is absurd to hold that which is owned and operated by Kasei
MJMDC, which is owned, controlled, headed Corporation.
and managed by SONZA, acted as agent of
ABS-CBN in entering into the Agreement with • January 2001, petitioner was replaced
SONZA, who himself is represented by by Liza R. Fuentes as Manager. Kasei
MJMDC. That would make MJMDC the agent Corporation reduced her salary, mid-
of both ABS-CBN and SONZA. year bonus was not availed allegedly
because the company was not earning
well. By October 2001, petitioner did
not receive her salary, made repeated
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The
follow-ups with the company cashier
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
and advised that the company was not
dated 26 March 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No.
earning well. Eventually she was

10
 informed that she is no longer 2. The corporation constructively
connected with the company. dismissed the petitioner when it reduced her.
This amounts to an illegal termination of
• Since she was no longer paid, the
employment, where the petitioner is entitled
petitioner did not report for work and
to full back wages.
filed an action for constructive
dismissal before the labor arbiter. A diminution of pay is prejudicial to the
Private respondents averred that employee and amounts to constructive
petitioner is not an employee of Kasei dismissal. Constructive dismissal is an
Corporation. They alleged that the involuntary resignation resulting in cessation
petitioner was hired in 1995 as one of of work resorted to when continued
its technical consultants, and employment becomes impossible,
performed her work at her own unreasonable or unlikely, when there is
discretion without control and demotion in rank or s diminution of pay, or
supervision of Kasei Corporation. That when a clear discrimination, insensibility or
petitioner had no daily time record and insensibility or disdain by an employer
she came to the office any time she becomes unbearable to an employee. Petition
wanted, her services were only is GRANTED
temporary and dependent on the needs
(11) JENNY F. PECKSON VS ROBINSONS
of the corporation.
SUPERMARKET CORP., ET AL.,
Issue:
G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013
1. Whether or not there was an employer-
Digested by: Deberto
employee relationship between
petitioner and private respondent. Topic: Constructive Dismissal
(Yes)

2. If it was in affirmative, whether or not

the petitioner was illegally dismissed. FACTS:
(Yes) • Jenny F. Peckson (petitioner) was
Ruling: holding the position of Category Buyer
at Robinsons Supermarket Corporation
1. Generally, courts have relied on the so- (RSC) when respondent Roena Sarte
called right of control test where the (respondent), the RSC’s Assistant Vice-
person for whom the services are President for Merchandising,
performed reserves a right to control reassigned her to the position of
not only the end to be achieved but also Provincial Coordinator.
the means used in reaching such an
end. In addition to the standard of • Claiming that her assignment was a
right-of-control, the existing economic demotion because it was non-
conditions prevailing between the supervisory and clerical in nature, the
parties, like the inclusion of the petitioner refused to turn over her
employee in the payrolls, can help in tasks to the new Category Buyer, as
determining the existence of an well as to accept her new
employer-employee relationship. responsibilities as Provincial
Coordinator.
Applying the control test, it can be said that
petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation • In a memorandum, issued by RSC to
because she was under the direct control and the petitioner, they demanded an
supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation's explanation within 48 hours for her
Technical Consultant. Under economic reality refusal to accept her new assignment
test, petitioner can also be said to be an despite written and verbal demands.
employee of respondent corporation because • The respondent cited company rules in
she had served the company for 6 years the memo pursuant to Offenses
before her dismissal, receiving check Subject to Disciplinary Action, which
vouchers indicating salaries/wages, benefits, provided that “disobedience, refusal or
13th month pay, bonuses and allowances, as failure to do assigned task or to obey
well as deductions and Social Security superior’s/official’s orders/instructions,
contributions from.
11
 or to follow established procedures or and other privileges, the employee may not
practices without valid reason” would complain that it amounts to a constructive
be meted the penalty of suspension. dismissal.

• In the petitioner’s reply, she stated

that she could not accept the position
Under the doctrine of management
of Provincial Coordinator since she saw
prerogative, every employer has the
it was a demotion. As it turns out,
inherent right to regulate, according to
however, she already filed a complaint
his own discretion and judgment, all
for constructive dismissal against RSC,
aspects of employment, including hiring,
Sarte, et al.
work assignments, working methods,
• She cited in her complaint that her the time, place and manner of work,
lateral transfer from Category Buyer to work supervision, transfer of employees,
Provincial Coordinator was a demotion lay-off of workers, and discipline,
amounting to constructive dismissal dismissal, and recall of employees.
because her reassignment was not a
valid exercise of management
prerogative, but was done in bad faith As a privilege inherent in the employer’s right
and without due process, that the to control and manage its enterprise
company deliberately embarrassed her effectively, its freedom to conduct its business
when it cut off her email access. operations to achieve its purpose cannot be
denied.
• In the petitioner’s position paper, it
was stated that the transfer was not a
demotion since both the positions were
a “Level 5” position, with the same
working conditions, salary and
benefits.
12. PNB vs Jumelito Dalmacio
• In the affidavit of Sarte, she denied
that the reassignment of the petitioner G.R. No. 202308, G.R. No. 202357
was motivated by a desire to defame July 05 2017
the name of the latter. She asserted
that it was made in the exercise of Digested by Ma Jane Cyres C. Caing
management prerogative and sound
discretion.

• The case stemmed from a complaint for

ISSUE: illegal dismissal, underpayment of
separation pay and retirement
Whether or not the petitioner's reassignment benefits, illegal deduction, nonpayment
was a valid exercise of management of provident fund with prayer for
prerogative so as to constitute a demotion damages and attorney's fees filed by
amounting to constructive dismissal of Jumelito T. Dalmacio as a result of their
petitioner. separation from PNB due to PNB's
implementation of its redundancy
program.
HELD:

The Court held that the findings of fact and

conclusion of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by
the NLRC, are supported by substantial • Dalmacio·was hired as a utility worker,
evidence, as found by the CA. by the National Service Corporation, a
subsidiary of PNB. Years later,
Dalmacio became an Information
If the transfer of an employee is not Technology (IT) officer of PNB.
unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial
to him, and it does not involve a demotion in
rank or a diminution of his salaries, benefits
12
 • Dalmacio claims that PNB’s redundancy the redundant positions; and (4) fair and
program was not valid since it did not reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
apply fair and reasonable criteria in positions are to be declared redundant and
concluding that his position had accordingly abolished, taking into
become redundant. consideration such factors as (a) preferred
status; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority,
among others.

Likewise, records show that PNB complied

• Also, he argued that failing to rule that
with the procedural requirements. PNB served
PNB's computation of his separation
Dalmacio Notices of Termination dated
pay is erroneous [check additional note
August 15, 2005, informing them that their
1]; and, and the ruling that the Deed of
termination due to redundancy shall be
Quitclaim and Release which he signed
effective September 15, 2005. PNB also filed
militates against his reinstatement.
an Establishment Termination Report dated
[check additional note 2]
August 16, 2005 with the Regional Office of
the DOLE, in order to report complainants'
termination.
ISSUE: WON PNB validly implemented its
redundancy program. (YES) ADDITIONAL NOTE 1

Dalmacio is entitled to his GSIS ·Gratuity Pay.

Contrary to PNB's assertion, giving Dalmacio
RULING: what is due him under the law is not unjust
enrichment.

PNB's action is within the ambit of

"management prerogative" to upgrade and ADDITIONAL NOTE 2
enhance the computer system of the bank.
Petitioner, being an IT officer whose job is to Not having sufficiently proved that he was
maintain the computer system of PNB, his forced to sign said Deed of Quitclaim and
position has become patently redundant upon Release, Dalmacio cannot expediently argue
PNB's engagement of the contract service that quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor
with Technopaq. and considered ineffective to bar claims for
the full measure of a worker's legal rights.

A position is redundant when it is superfluous,

and superfluity of a position or positions could The requisites for a valid quitclaim are: (1)
be the result of a number of factors, such as that there was no fraud or deceit on the part
the overhiring of workers, a decrease in the of any of the parties; (2) that the
volume of business or the dropping of a consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
particular line or service previously reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not
manufactured or undertaken by the contrary to law, public order, public policy,
enterprise. Time and again, it has been ruled morals or good customs or prejudicial to a
that an employer has no legal obligation to third person with a right recognized by law
keep more employees than are necessary for
13. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS vs.
the operation of its business.
APOSTOL

G.R. No. 215314

For the implementation of a redundancy
March 14, 2018
program to be valid, however, the employer
must comply with the following requisites: (1) Digested by: kjapz
written notice served on both the employees
Topic: Proper exercise of management
and the Department of Labor and
prerogative
Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior
to the intended date of termination of
employment; (2) payment of separation pay
equivalent to at least one month pay for every FACTS:
year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing
13
1. Apostol was a Motor Pool Over-All Repairs rules carries with it an impact to the
Supervisor at Central Azucarera de Bais operations and management of a company,
(CAB), and as such, Apostol took custody of and a company’s decision to terminate an
all repair equipment and materials owned by employee for these purposes is a decision that
CAB. Also, Apostol was staying at a company should be respected.
house where he could live as long as he
Hence, CAB validly dismissed Apostol.
remains as a CAB employee.
14. ERNESTO GALANG and MA. OLGA
2. Later, it was found out that Apostol was
JASMIN CHAN vs BOIE TAKEDA
using the company house, as well as other
CHEMICALS, INC. (BTCI)
company equipment to repair privately-
owned vehicles without CAB’s permission. G.R. No. 183934
3. CAB suspended, and eventually July 20, 2016
terminated, Apostol for violating the former’s
Rules of Discipline. Digested by: Burce

4. Apostol then filed a Complaint against CAB

for constructive dismissal, illegal suspension, FACTS:
and unfair labor practices.
Petitioners Ernesto Galang and Ma. Olga
5. The Labor Arbiter ruled that CAB was well Jasmin Chan applied for the National Sales
within its rights to impose preventive Director position after it became vacant while
suspension upon Apostol. Simultaneously Edwin Villanueva (Villanueva)
6. However, the NLRC reversed the Labor and Mimi Escarte applied for the position of
Arbiter’s ruling, and held that while Apostol Marketing Director. All four employees
did indeed violate the company rules, the submitted themselves to interviews with the
ultimate penalty of dismissal should not have management. In the end, The General
been meted out to him. Manager hired an outsider as Marketing
Director and later BTCI management
promoted Villanueva as National Sales
Director.
ISSUE: WON CAB validly dismissed Apostol.
(YES)

After Villanueva's promotion, it caused ill-

feelings on petitioners' part and petitioners
RULING:
claimed that the General Manager threatened
YES. to dismiss them from office if they failed to
perform well under the newly appointed
Article 297 (c) of the Labor Code provides that
National Sales Director. This prompted
an employer may terminate the services of an
petitioners to inquire if they could avail of
employee for fraud or willful breach of the
early retirement package.
trust reposed in him. AN employer has a
distinct prerogative to dismiss an employee if
the former has an ample reason to distrust
A month after Villanueva's promotion,
the latter or if there is sufficient evidence to
petitioners intimated their intention to retire
show that the employee has been guilty of
in a joint written letter of resignation and
breach of trust. This situation holds where a
thereafter, petitioners received their
person is entrusted with confidence on
retirement package and other monetary pay
delicate matters, such as the custody,
from BTCI.
handling, or care and protection of the
employer’s property. Upon petitioners' retirement, the positions of
Regional Sales Manager were abolished, and
In this case, Apostol, as CAB’s repair
a new position of Operations Manager was
supervisor, was in a position of trust and
created.
confidence, as he was entrusted with the
custody of CAB’s equipment. Apostol clearly On October 20, 2004, petitioners filed the
broke the company's trust and confidence in complaint for constructive dismissal and
him by violating the company’s Rules of money claims before the NLRC Regional
Discipline. Apostol’s violation of the company Arbitration Branch. To which the Labor Arbiter
14
ruled that petitioners were constructively agreement or employment contract, or an
dismissed. It also found that petitioners were established employer policy. Based on both
discriminated as to their retirement package. parties' evidence, petitioners are not covered
by any agreement. There is also no dispute
that petitioners received more than what is
ISSUES: mandated by Article 287 of the Labor Code.

I. WON petitioners were constructively

dismissed from service; and (NO)
Petitioners failed to prove by substantial
II. WON petitioners are entitled to a higher evidence that the giving of the benefit is done
retirement package. (NO) over a long period of time, and that it has
been made consistently and deliberately. All
the employees they presented as evidence, all
RULING: retired in the same year of 2001, or only
within a one-year period. Definitely, a year
I. By the definition of Constructive dismissal cannot be considered long enough to
the petitioners in this case were not constitute the grant of retirement benefits to
constructively dismissed. Petitioners were these employees as company practice or
neither demoted nor did they receive a policy such that petitioners can demand it
diminution in pay and benefits. Petitioners over and above what has been specified in the
also failed to show that employment is collective bargaining agreement.
rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely.

Petitioners’ admission that they have NOTES:

previously intended to avail of the early Definition of Constructive dismissal:
retirement package as well as their ill-feelings
towards Villanueva’s promotion further Constructive dismissal has often been defined
affirms the NLRC and CA's finding that as a "dismissal in disguise" or "an act
petitioners' resignation was voluntary and amounting to dismissal but made to appear as
was prompted by their general disagreement if it were not." It exists where there is
with the appointment of Villanueva, and not cessation of work because continued
by the acts of discrimination by the employment is rendered impossible,
management. unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving
a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.
In some cases, while no demotion in rank or
Petitioners also failed to prove the acts of diminution in pay may be attendant,
discrimination they complained of and some constructive dismissal may still exist when
of which transpired only after they voluntary continued employment has become so
availed of the early retirement. The court unbearable because of acts of clear
stressed that the circumstances contemplated discrimination, insensibility or disdain by the
in constructive dismissal cases are clear acts employer, that the employee has no choice
of discrimination, insensibility or disdain but to resign. Under these two definitions,
which necessarily precedes the apparent what is essentially lacking is the voluntariness
"voluntary" separation from work. If they in the employee's separation from
happened after the fact of separation, it could employment.
not be said to have contributed to the
employee's decision to involuntarily resign, or
in this case, retire.

II. Petitioners were not discriminated against

in terms of their retirement package.
(15) Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping
Corp. (Pascor) vs. NLRC and Rances

The entitlement of employees to retirement GR No. 76595, May 6, 1988

benefits must specifically be granted under
Topic: Jurisdiction of POEA
existing laws, a collective bargaining
15
Digested by: Bonifacio foreign judgment. Such a claim must be
brought before the regular courts. The POEA
is not a court; it is an administrative agency
FACTS: exercising, inter alia, adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial functions. Neither the rules of
1. Petitioner PASCOR employed private procedure nor the rules of evidence which are
respondent Rances as a Radio Operator mandatorily applicable in proceedings before
of a vessel belonging to Pascor’s courts, are observed in proceedings before
foreign principal. However, Rances was the POEA.
terminated by the foreign principal
because of poor and incorrigible work
attitude and incitement of others to
We conclude that the POEA acted without or
insubordination.
in excess of jurisdiction in rendering its
2. Petitioner PASCOR filed with the POEA Decision, and that public respondent NLRC
a complaint against Rances for acts similarly acted without or in excess of
unbecoming of a marine officer. Rances jurisdiction in rendering its Orders denying
denied the charges and by way of petitioner's appeal and Motion for
counterclaim demanded an amount of Reconsideration.
$1.5K w/c he claims a court in Dubai
awarded in his favor.

3. Rances filed a complaint against

PASCOR with the POEA to carry out and
enforce the same award obtained by
him in a Dubai Court.

4. Petitioner argued that POEA had no

jurisdiction over cases for the
enforcement of foreign judgements,
however, POEA held petitioner PASCOR
liable to pay Rances.

5. Petitioner filed a motion on

appeal/reconsideration but was denied
by POEA for being filed out of time. The 16. INVALID SIDE AGREEMENT, CHAVEZ
case was elevated to the NLRC which vs. BONTO-PEREZ
also denied petitioner’s motion.
G.R. # 109808, March 1, 1995

Topic: Jurisdiction of POEA

ISSUE related to topic: WON POEA had
jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for Digested by: Blancs
enforcement of a foreign judgement? (NO)

FACTS:
RULING: Under Section 1, Rule 1, Book VI of
• Uncounselled entertainment dancer
the POEA Rules and Regulations, it will be
signed a contract with her Japanese
seen that the POEA has jurisdiction to decide
employer calling for a monthly salary of
all cases "involving employer-employee
One Thousand Five Hundred U.S.
relations arising out of or by virtue of any law
Dollars (US$1,500) but later had to
or contract involving Filipino workers for
sign an immoral side agreement
overseas employment, including seamen."
reducing her salary below the minimum
Respondent Rances, however, relied not upon
standard set by the POEA ($750).
the employer-employee relationship between
himself and petitioner corporation and the • Petitioner invoked the law to collect her
latter's foreign principal, but rather upon the salary differentials, but incredibly
judgment obtained by him from the Dubai found public respondents straining the
Court. The POEA has no jurisdiction to hear seams of our law to disfavor her.
and decide a claim for enforcement of a

16
 • Petitioner instituted the case at the Topic: Solidary Liabilty (From the
bench for underpayment of wages with Reading Guide)
the POEA on February 21, 1991. She
prayed for the payment of Six
Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$6,000.00), Facts:
representing the unpaid portion of her
basic salary for six months. • Petitioner, a duly licensed private
employment agency, recruited and
• The POEA favored the respondents; deployed private respondent for
however, the NLRC upheld the POEA employment with ZAMEL as an
decisions. architectural draftsman in Saudi
Arabia.

• However, ZAMEL terminated the

ISSUE:
employment of private respondent on
• WON respondent is entitled to the the ground that his performance was
differential pay below par.

• So, private respondent then filed a

complaint for illegal termination
RULINGS:
against petitioner and ZAMEL with the
• YES POEA.

• The Court held that the managerial • The POEA ruled in favor of the private
commission agreement executed by respondent Virgilio Nacionales for
petitioner to authorize her Japanese failure of the petitioner to establish that
employer to deduct Two Hundred Fifty private respondent was terminated for
U.S. Dollars (US$250.00) from her just and valid cause.
monthly basic salary IS VOID because
• The NLRC affirmed the POEA decision,
it is against our existing laws, morals
and held that as a duly licensed private
and public policy.
employment agency, petitioner is
• It cannot supersede the standard jointly and severally liable with its
employment contract of December foreign principal ZAMEL for all claims
1, 1988 approved by the POEA. and liabilities which may arise in
Indeed, this side agreement is a connection with the implementation of
scheme all too frequently resorted the employment contract or service
to by unscrupulous employers agreement
against our helpless overseas
• Petitioner contends that there is no
workers who are compelled to
provision in the Labor Code, or the
agree to satisfy their basic economic
omnibus rules implementing the same,
needs.
which either provides for the "third-
• In the case at bench, petitioner filed party liability" of an employment
her claim well within the three-year agency or recruiting entity for
prescriptive period for the filling of violations of an employment
money claims set forth in Article 291 of agreement performed abroad, or
the Labor Code. 12 For this reason, we designates it as the agent of the
hold the doctrine of laches inapplicable foreign-based employer for purposes of
to petitioners. enforcing against the latter claims
arising out of an employment
agreement.
Laches is a doctrine in equity while
prescription is based on law. Our courts are
basically courts of law not courts of equity. ISSUE:
Thus laches cannot be invoked to resist the
W/N petitioner as a private employment
enforcement of an existing legal right.
agency may be held jointly and severally
(17. )Royal Crown Internationals vs NLRC liable with the foreign-based employer
for any claim which may arise in
G.R. No. 78085
17
connection with the implementation of Facts: 1. Petitioner Antonio Serrano, a Filipino
the employment contracts of the seafarer claims that the last clause in the 5th
employees recruited and deployed paragraph of Section 10, of R.A 8042 violates
abroad. the OFW’s constitutional rights, which states:

Ruling: Yes. They may still be held liable. Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case
of termination of overseas employment
The SC ruled that the Petitioner conveniently
without just, valid or authorized cause as
overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily
defined by law or contract, the workers shall
assumed solidary liability under the various
be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
contractual undertakings it submitted to the
placement fee with interest of twelve percent
Bureau of Employment Services. In applying
(12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
for its license to operate a private
unexpired portion of his employment contract
employment agency for overseas recruitment
or for three (3) months for every year of the
and placement, petitioner was required to
unexpired term, whichever is less.
submit, among others, a document or verified
undertaking whereby it assumed all
responsibilities for the proper use of its license
2. In March 1998, petitioner was
and the implementation of the contracts of
constrained to accept a downgraded
employment with the workers it recruited and
employment contract for the position of a
deployed for overseas employment It was
Second Officer upon the assurance of the
also required to file with the Bureau a formal
respondents that by the end of April 1998, he
appointment or agency contract executed by
would be made Chief Officer.
the foreign-based employer in its favor to
recruit and hire personnel for the former, 3. Respondents did not deliver their
which contained a provision empowering it to promise to make the petitioner a Chief
sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the Officer.
foreign principal for any of the violations of
the recruitment agreement and the contracts 4. Petitioner then refused to stay as a
of employment Petitioner was required as well Second Officer and was repatriated to the
to post such cash and surety bonds as Philippines on May 26, 1998.
determined by the Secretary of Labor to 5. Petitioner’s employment contract
guarantee compliance with prescribed was from March 19, 1998 to March 19, 1999
recruitment procedures, rules and for a period of 12 months but at the time of
regulations, and terms and conditions of his repatriation, he had served only 2 months
employment as appropriate and 7 days of his contract, leaving an
unexpired portion of 9 months and 23 days.

Note: The other issue is Whether or not 6. Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter
sufficient evidence was presented by (LA) a complaint against respondents for
petitioner to establish the termination of the constructive dismissal and for payment of his
private respondent’s employment for just and money claims amounting to $26,442.73. LA
valid cause (just read the ruling as regards to decided that the dismissal of petitioner is
this issue, mheheh) illegal and ordered respondents to pay the
amount of $8,770.00 representing the
complainant’s salary for 3 months of the
unexpired portion of the contract.
(18.) Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services
7. The petitioner appealed to the National
G.R. No. 167614
Labor Relations Commission and said that in
March 23, 2009 case of illegal dismissal, OFWs are entitled to
their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
ANDRADE
contracts.
TOPIC: Section 10, R.A No. 8042
8. Applying the subject clause, the NLRC
and CA computed the lump-sum salary of
petitioner at a monthly rate of $1,400.00,
covering the period of 3 months out of the
18
unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days
of his employment contract or a total of
2. No. The word salaries in Section
$4,200.00.
10(5) does not include overtime and leave
9. Impugning the constitutionality of the pay. For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE
subject clause, petitioner contends that in Department Order No. 33, series 1996,
addition to the $4,200.00, awarded by the provides a Standard Employment Contract of
NLRC and CA, he is entitled to $21,182.23 Seafarers, in which salary is understood as
more or a total of $25,382.23, equivalent to the basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave
his salaries for the entire 9 months and 23 pay and other bonuses; whereas overtime
days left of his employment contract, pay is compensation for all work “performed”
computed at the monthly rate of $2,590.00. in excess of the regular eight hours, and
holiday pay is compensation for any work
“performed” on designated rest days and
ISSUE: 1. WON petitioner is entitled to his holidays.
monetary claim which is the lump-sum salary
By the foregoing definition alone, there
for the entire unexpired portion of his 12-
is no basis for the automatic inclusion of
month employment contract. (YES)
overtime and holiday pay in the computation
2. WON petitioner’s overtime and leave of petitioner's monetary award; unless there
pay form part of the salary in basis for is evidence that he performed work during
computing the monetary award. (NO) those periods.

RULING: 1. Yes. Petitioner is awarded his 19. SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT

salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C. CABILES
employment contract consisting of nine
G.R. No. 170139
months and 23 days computed at the rate of
US$1,400.00 per month. The subject clause August 5, 2014
“or for three months for every year of the
Digested by: Veth
unexpired term, whichever is less” in the 5th
paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. TOPIC: Recruitment and Placement
8042 is declared unconstitutional. Activities
The Court concludes that the subject
clause contains a suspect classification in
that, in the computation of the monetary Facts:
benefits of fixed-term employees who are 1. Petitioner, Sameer Overseas
illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap Placement Agency, Inc., is a
on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired recruitment and placement agency.
portion of one year or more in their contracts,
but none on the claims of other OFWs or local
workers with fixed-term employment. The
subject clause singles out one classification of 2. Respondent Joy was hired and signed a
OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar one year employment contract. She alleged
disadvantage. that Sameer Overseas Agency required her to
pay a placement fee when she signed the
employment contract.
The Court further holds that the subject
clause violates petitioner's right to
substantive due process, for it deprives him
of property, consisting of monetary benefits, 3. She was deployed to work for
without any existing valid governmental TaiwanWacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) and alleged
purpose. The subject clause being that in her employment contract, she agreed
unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled to his to work as quality control for one year but in
salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine Taiwan, she worked as a cutter.
months and 23 days of his employment
contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence
prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042.
19
4. Sameer claims that on July 14, 1997, a or authorized cause and after compliance with
certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed procedural due process requirements as
Joy, without prior notice, that she was provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
terminated and that "she should immediately
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An
report to their office to get her salary and
employer may terminate an employment for
passport” and was asked to "prepare for
any of the following causes:
immediate repatriation."
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience
by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with
5. Joy claims that she was told that from his work;
June 26 to July 14, 1997, she only earned a
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the
total of NT$9,000 and Wacoal deducted
employee of his duties;
NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila.
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of
the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative;
6. On October 15, 1997, Joy filed a
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
complaint with the National Labor Relations
employee against the person of his employer
Commission against the petitioner and
or any immediate member of his family or his
Wacoal claiming that she was illegally
duly authorized representatives;and
dismissed and asked for the return of her
placement fee, the withheld amount for (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
repatriation costs, payment of her salary for
23 months as well as moral and exemplary Petitioner’s allegation that respondent was
damages. inefficient in her work and negligent in her
duties may constitute a just cause for
Issue: termination under Article 282(b), but only if
petitioner was able to prove it. The burden of
WON respondent Joy is illegally
proving for termination is on the employer.
dismissed and is entitled to her salary for the
"The employer must affirmatively show
unexpired portion of the employment
rationally adequate evidence that the
contract.
dismissal was for a justifiable cause." Failure
Ruling: to show that there was valid or just cause for
termination would necessarily mean that the
Yes, respondent Joy is illegally
dismissal was illegal.
dismissed and is entitled to her salary for
the unexpired portion of the employment In this case, petitioner merely alleged
contract. Sameer Overseas Placement that respondent failed to comply with her
Agency failed to show that there was just foreign employer’s work requirements and
cause for causing Joy’s dismissal. The was inefficient in her work without evidence
employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her to support it. Petitioner did not even bother to
due process of law. specify what requirements were not met,
what efficiency standards were violated, or
Workers are entitled to substantive and
what particular acts of respondent constituted
procedural due process before termination.
inefficiency. There was also no showing that
They may not be removed from employment
respondent was sufficiently informed of the
without a valid or just cause as determined by
standards against which her work efficiency
law and without going through the proper
and performance were judged. The parties’
procedure. Security of tenure for labor is
conflict as to the position held by respondent
guaranteed by our Constitution.
showed that even the matter as basic as the
Employees are not stripped of their security job title was not clear. There is no proof
of tenure when they move to work in a that the respondent was legally
different jurisdiction. With respect to the terminated.
rights of overseas Filipino workers, we follow
Respondent’s dismissal less than one year
the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of
from hiring and her repatriation on the same
the place where the contract is made). By our
day shows failure on the part of petitioner to
laws, OFWs may only be terminated for a just
comply with the requirement of the existence
20
of just cause for termination and did not 1. Respondent applied to petitioner for a job
comply with the due process requirement. as teacher for deployment abroad. She was
She is entitled to her salary for the accepted by an Ethiopian university president.
unexpired portion of the employment The respondent was able to complete the
contract that was violated together with required fees and papers including a signed
attorney’s fees and reimbursement of POEA-approved Contract of Employment for
amounts withheld from her salary. Foreign Academic Personnel covering a period
of two academic years.
Section 10 of Republic Act No.
8042,otherwise known as the Migrant 2. Upon arrival in Ethiopia, she was given a
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of1995, new contract which has the same stipulations
states that overseas workers who were from the first contract she signed for there
terminated without just, valid, or authorized was re-evaluation of her credentials for she
cause "shall be entitled to the full did not have a master’s degree.
reimbursement of his placement fee with
3. The respondent decided to discontinue
interest of twelve (12%) per annum, plus his
teaching the cooperative accounting course
salaries for the unexpired portion of his
assigned to her at the Alemaya University
employment contract or for three (3) months
saying that it was not her specialization.
for every year of the unexpired term,
Hence, she was replaced. She spent the rest
whichever is less."
of the semester without a teaching load.
The liability of the principal/employer and the
4. Filipino staff were re-evaluated and re-
recruitment/placement agency for any and all
ranked which the respondent and other
claims under this section shall be joint and
Filipino staff did not accept which then
several. These provisions shall be
resulted in a protest. Later on, the respondent
incorporated in the contract for overseas
requested to be terminated.
employment and shall be a condition
precedent for its approval. The performance 5. The respondent was again replaced by
bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement another instructor in Auditing II and left idle
agency, as provided by law, shall be due to a students' petition.
answerable for all money claims or damages
that may be awarded to the workers. If the 6. VP Alamirew issued the notice of
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical termination to the respondent due to
being, the corporate officers and directors and incompetency and the conflict between the
partners as the case may be, shall themselves respondent and the students. Such notice was
be jointly and solidarily liable with the given three months before the termination.
corporation or partnership for the aforesaid While waiting for the three-month period to
claims and damages. Such liabilities shall expire, the respondent was offered a post at
continue during the entire period or duration the Internal Audit Department by the
of the employment contract and shall not be University President which she accepted
affected by any substitution, amendment or through a letter. However, she changed her
modification made locally or in a foreign mind and rejected the offer, therefore,
country of the said contract. terminating the contract.

8. Respondent was repatriated and filed a

complaint before the LA against the petitioner
20. GBMLT MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., as local agency and the university as
Petitioner, v. MA. VICTORIA H. MALINAO, principal.
Respondent.

GR NO: 189262
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter: In favor of the
DATE OF CASE: JULY 06, 2015 respondent.
DIGESTED BY: Margaret Ablen Ruling of the NLRC: The respondent was
validly released.
TOPIC: Employment-at-will (EAW) in Local
and Overseas Employment Ruling of the CA: Reinstated the LA’s
Decision.
FACTS:

21
Petitioner filed an instant petition for grave to give the other prior written notice as
abuse of discretion by the CA. provided in the contract. Despite the grounds
cited in the notice of termination, Alemaya
University opted to take the "no cause" route
ISSUE related to the topic: Whether in terminating the Contract of Employment. In
respondent was illegally dismissed this case, the contract provided that the other
party be given a three-month advance notice,
a requirement that Alemaya University
RULING: NO. The respondent was not complied with.
illegally dismissed.

As stipulated under Article X – TERMINATION It is well to note that the right to terminate
of the POEA-approved Contract of the Contract of Employment at will was also
Employment, as well as the second contract available to respondent, who exercised that
given to respondent for signing upon her right when she signified her change of mind
arrival in Ethiopia, it provides: and rejected the job at the Internal Audit
Department.

“This contract may be terminated by either DISPOSITION:

party, at any time and for no cause by giving WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision
three months notice to the other party. In dated 29 May 2009 and Resolution dated 24
such an event[,] the Employee shall be August 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 107378 are
entitled to his/her salary and allowances only REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision
up to the date of termination specified in the dated 30 July 2008 issued by the National
said notice of termination. However, the Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA No.
employee shall be fully engaged in his/her 052466-07 (5), dismissing respondent's
duty in the period notified and up to the last complaint, is REINSTATED.
date of termination.”
NOTES:

Employment-at-will is a contract of
The Contract of Employment signed by employment that may be terminated with or
respondent is first and foremost a contract, without cause. The contract binds the
which has the force of law between the parties employee (OFW) and the foreign employer if
as long as its stipulations are not contrary to it is freely and expressly stipulated in writing,
law, morals, public order, or public policy. We and the termination is made in good faith.
had occasion to rule that stipulations
providing that either party may terminate a 21. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing vs.
contract even without cause are legitimate Avestruz
and binding if exercised in good faith. Thus, G.R. No. 207010
while either party has the right to terminate February 28, 2015
the contract at will, it cannot not act Topic: Illegal Dismissal (Note: The topic in the
purposely to injure the other syllabus was not found in this case, i.e.
Disability Benefits for injury or illness)
Digested By: Papa Rex
The misunderstanding on respondent’s
master’s degree was not the result of bad
faith on the part of either party. The demotion FACTS:
did not materialize, and respondent
• Respondent Avestruz was dismissed
maintained her salary and benefits until she
from service as a Chief Cook on board
was repatriated. The Court did not impute bad
a vessel for insubordination after an
faith on the part of Alemaya University in the
incident between him and Captain
exercise of its right to terminate the Contract
Woodward who required the former to
of Employment at will.
clean the garbage bin in the kitchen.

• The dismissal was only done verbally

In the exercise of the right to terminate a by Captain Woodward.
contract without cause, one party need only

22
 • When the respondent filed a complaint, Here, the emails or evidence submitted did
the Labor Arbiter ruled against him, not establish that conduct had been willful, or
finding that the dismissal was justified characterized by wrongful and perverse
since it was tantamount to attitude.
insubordination.

• NLRC on the other hand, sustained the

Supreme Court also affirms the finding that
dismissal, but found the petitioners
Avestruz was not accorded Procedural Due
failed to observe the procedures laid
Process since the petitioner did not comply
down in Section 17 of POEA-SEC on
with the “2-Notice Rule” as required in Section
furnishing written notice of the grounds
17 of POEA-SEC.
of the charges against Avestruz and to
the Philippine agent.

• The CA however reversed and set aside As explained in Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira,
the rulings of NLRC, and instead found 392 SCRA 371 (2002): An erring seaman is
Avestruz to have been illegally given a written notice of the charge against
dismissed. The CA ruled that the him and is afforded an opportunity to explain
petitioners were unable to discharge or defend himself. Should sanctions be
the burden to prove that the dismissal imposed, then a written notice of penalty and
was justified, and that the respondent the reasons for it shall be furnished to the
was afforded due process. erring seafarer. It is only in the exceptional
case of clear and existing danger to the safety
of the crew or vessel that the required notices
ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred when it are dispensed with; but just the same, a
reversed and set aside the ruling of NLRC complete report should be sent to the
finding that Avestruz was legally dismissed? manning agency, supported by substantial
NO evidence of the findings.

RULING: Wherefore, SC denied the appeal and affirmed

the CA’s decision.

The Supreme Court held that the burden of

proving that the termination of an employee 22. Maunlad Trans. Inc/Carnival Cruise
was for a just or authorized cause lies with the Lines & Castro vs. Camoral
employer. If the employer fails to meet this
G.R. No. 211454 (Feb. 11 2015)
burden, the conclusion would be that the
dismissal was unjustified and, therefore URMENETA (Book 2 – Recruitment and
illegal. Placement Activities)

FACTS:
The SC found that the evidence submitted by • Camoral, an 18-year employee of
Captain Woodward was not corroborated nor Carnival Cruise Lines through its local
sufficient to discharge the required burden of agent Maunlad Tans. Inc. was
proof as required by law. Insubordination employed as an ice carver in the ship
requires the concurrence of two requisites: M/S Carnival Sensation for a period of
eight months starting April 2009,
(1) the employee’s assailed conduct must
where his duties included carrying
have been willful, that is, characterized by a
blocks of ice, and working with heavy
wrongful and perverse attitude; and
equipment at sub-zero temperatures
(2) the order violated must have been inside the freezer.
reasonable, lawful, made known to the
• One day in September 2009, he felt
employee, and must pertain to the duties
intense pain in his neck and upper
which he had been engaged to discharge.
extremities which caused him to fall to
the floor. He was later diagnosed with
Cervical Disc Herniation and

23
 Radiculopathy and was declared unfit that he recovered, for what is important is
for duty by a company doctor in the US. that he was unable to perform his
He then underwent surgery and customary work for more than 120 days,
therapy for 5 months, wherein his and this constitutes permanent total
condition barely improved. His disability x x x
personal doctor then further confirmed
Significantly, the NLRC noted that the medical
that Camoral was unfit for work in sea
report and disability assessment submitted by
duty in any capacity (total and
the petitioners after more than 120 days of
permanent disability).
treatment and rehabilitation did not show how
• Camoral then sued the petitioners the partial permanent disability assessment of
Maunlad/Carnival Cruise Lines before Camoral was arrived at. It simply stated that
the Labor Arbiter (LA) due to failure by he was suffering from impediment Grade 10
the latter to give Camoral the proper disability, but without any evidence that in
financial assistance and total disability fact only one-third limitation of motion of the
benefits, citing POEA Standard Terms neck or moderate stiffness had affected
and Conditions Governing the Camoral. But even without this
Employment of Filipino Seafarers on observation, it is not disputed that
board Ocean-going Vessels (POEA SEC) Camoral has been declared unfit by both
the petitioners’ and Camoral’s doctors to
• However, petitioners argued that
return to his previous occupation. This,
Camoral was not entitled to total and
to the Court, is akin to a declaration of
permanent disability benefits as he was
permanent and total disability.”
not suffering from “Grade 1” disability
(total and permanent disability), only 23. People vs Erlinda Sison a.k.a Margarita
“Grade 10” under the POEA SEC, based S. Aguilar
on the report of the petitioner’s other
G.R. No. 187160
company doctors. The LA then
rendered a decision siding with August 9. 2017
Camoral. The petitioners appealed to
the NLRC, however it affirmed the Digested by: Ponfi :> ** [u may
decision of the LA. The petitioners then opt to read the highlights lang]
appealed to the CA, who also ruled in Topic: RA 8042 illegal recruitment involving
favor of of Camoral, citing Article economic sabotage
192(c)(1) of the Labor Code expressly
granting to Camoral total permanent
disability. FACTS:
ISSUE: 1. Col. Sison introduced his wife, Erlinda,
WON Petitioners erred in not granting to Darvy M. Castuera. Castuera’s Aunt,
Camoral further financial assistance and Edna Magalona, was one of the
total disability benfits due to Camoral’s colonel’s teachers in the camp.
work-related injury (YES) 2. Col. Sison mentioned that his wife can
RULING: facilitate papers for workers in
Australia. Castuera and Magalona then
“x x x according to Kestrel Shipping vs. proceeded to their home in Las Piñas
Munar, while the seafarer is partially injured where they met Sison and she briefed
or disabled, he must not be precluded from Castuera on the requirements for
earning doing the same work he had before working as a fruit picker in Australia.
his injury or disability or that he is
accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise, if 3. Sison asked Castuera P160,000 for the
his illness or injury prevents him from processing of papers. Castuera was
engaging in gainful employment for told to pay half before he leaves the
more than 120 days or 240 days, as is the Philippines and the other half will be
case here, then he shall be deemed taken from his salary in Australia.
totally and permanently disabled. In 4. On 16 June 2000, Castuera met Sison
Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, the Court to give the down payment. Sison issued
specifically ruled that it is of no consequence a signed document as proof of payment
24
 then promised Castuera that she would 9. The agency verified that Sison,
personally process his visa application. Dedales, and Bacomo did not have any
license or permit to hire and recruit for
5. Sison, however, failed to secure an
overseas employment.
Australian visa for Castuera. She told
him that it was difficult to get it in the 10. During the trial, Sison denied that she
Philippines so they had to go to recruited Castuera for employment.
Malaysia. She said that Castuera's She maintained she was also a victim
Australian visa was already in Malaysia of illegal recruitment by Dedales. RTC
and his personal appearance was found Sison guilty of illegal recruitment
required there. constituting economic sabotage and
estafa.
6. On 28 June 2008, Sison and Castuera
left Manila for Zamboanga City by
plane and from there, rode a boat to
ISSUE: WON the crime committed was illegal
Sandakan, Malaysia. Sison told
recruitment?
Castuera that he only needed to stay in
Malaysia for a week then he would
proceed to Australia. Twice, they nearly
overstayed so each time, they would RULING: YES. The Court of Appeals held that
leave for Brunei, stay there for three all the elements of illegal recruitment were
days, and then go back to Malaysia. sufficiently proven in the case. First, Sison
The second time they returned, they herself did not dispute that she is not
met several of Sison's other recruits — licensed or authorized to engage in
other Filipinos who had come in recruitment or placement activities. This
through Thailand. fact was unknown to Castuera at the time of
their transaction. Second, the Court of
7. Castuera was told that the group would Appeals held that even if Sison did not
be proceeding to Indonesia to process directly recruit Castuera, her actions led
their visas there. The group then left him to believe that she was engaged in
for Indonesia. However, the day after the recruitment business. Castuera was
arriving in Indonesia, Sison went back able to prove that it was Sison who promised
to the Philippines, leaving Castuera and him a job as fruit picker in Australia and even
the other recruits with certain Dedales accompanied him to Malaysia, Brunei, and
and Bacomo. Subsequently, Castuera's Indonesia in the guise of processing his visa
application for an Australian visa in application. The Court of Appeals noted that
Indonesia was denied. Dedales asked this process was actually part of
Castuera for $1,000 for the processing "defrauding [Castuera] and inveigling
of a U.S. visa instead, which he paid. him with false or fraudulent promises of
However, when his U.S. visa came, employment in a foreign land." Further,
Castuera saw that it was in an they found that Sison made
Indonesian passport bearing an representations about her purported
Indonesian name. Because of this, power and authority to recruit for
Castuera decided to just return to the employment in Australia and, in the
Philippines. He asked for his US$1,000 process, collected various amounts of
back but Dedales would not return it. money from Castuera as placement and
His Philippine passport was also not processing fees. The Court stated that it
returned immediately causing him to was "enough that these recruiters give the
overstay in Indonesia. He found out impression that they have the ability to enlist
then that the extension papers workers for job placement abroad in order to
procured for him were fake. induce the latter to tender payment of fees."
It underscored that "active participation of
8. Castuera sought the help of the
each accused in the various phases of the
Philippine Embassy in Indonesia and
recruitment scam formed part of a series of
was able to return to the Philippines
machinations which lured Castuera to part
using his own funds. Upon returning to
with his hard earned money in exchange for
the Philippines, Castuera filed a
guaranteed employment in Australia. The
complaint at the Philippine Overseas
Court noted that Castuera would not have
Employment Administration (POEA).
gone along with traveling to Malaysia, Brunei,
25
and Indonesia and complying with Sison's 2. The order pertains to petitioner’s request
further demands without the repeated for authority to “hire 12 more laborers from
assurances of the latter. time to time and on a temporary basis". The
CIR added the proviso that "the majority of
the laborers to be employed should be
NOTES: native."

• Illegal Recruitment by a Syndicate 3. The petition was filed while there was a
— Economic Sabotage Under Article pending labor dispute between the Chuan &
13 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, Sons and Kaisahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa
as amended, also known as the Labor Kahoy sa Pilipinas.
Code of the Philippines, recruitment
4. Petitioner contend that the CIR cannot
and placement refers to "any act of
intervene in selection of employees so as to
canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
impose unconstitutional restrictions. It added
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
that “the restrictions… is a denial of the equal
procuring workers, and includes
protection of the laws."
referrals, contact services,
promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad,
ISSUE related to the topic: WON the CIR
whether for profit or not: Provided,
order is valid and constitutional.
That any person or entity which, in
any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged RULING: Yes, the SC upheld validity of the
in recruitment and placement." CIR order.

• Simply put, illegal recruitment is

"committed by persons who, without First, the court held that an alien may
authority from the government, give question the constitutionality of a statute (or
the impression that they have the court order) only when and so far as it is
power to send workers abroad for being, or is about to be, applied to his
employment purposes." Illegal disadvantage. The prospective employees
recruitment may be undertaken by have not come forward to seek redress; their
either non-license or license holders. identity has not even been revealed. Clearly
Non-license holders are liable by the the petitioner has no case in so far as it strives
simple act of engaging in recruitment to protect the rights of others, much less
and placement activities, while license others who are unknown and undetermined.
holders may also be held liable for
committing the acts prohibited under
Section 6 of RA 8042. Second, the court is of the opinion that the
order meets the test of reasonableness and
public interest. Commonwealth Act 103 has
precisely vested the CIR with authority to
(24) Chuan & Sons v CIR intervene in all disputes between employees
or strikes arising from the difference as
G.R. No. L-2216 January 31, 1950 regards wages, compensation, and other
labor conditions. Thus, it has jurisdiction to
Topic: Legality of Limiting Employment of
determine the number of men to be laid off
Aliens
during off-seasons. By the same token, the
Digested by: Daciano Palami court may specify that a certain proportion of
the additional laborers to be employed should
be Filipinos, if such condition, in the court's
FACTS: opinion, "is necessary or expedient for the
purpose of settling disputes or doing justice
1. Petitioner Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. to the parties” and its “desire to avoid
assails the validity of an order of the Court of probable and possible further
Industrial Relations. misunderstanding between the parties”.

26
The CIR’s action is within the legitimate scope
of its jurisdiction. The order does not
formulate a policy and is not political in
character. It is not a permanent, all-
embracing regulation. It is a compromise and
emergency measure applicable only in this
case and calculated to bridge a temporary gap
and to adjust existing conflicting interests.

Third, Chua & Sons’ objection to the condition

appears to be academic and trifle. In its
application to employ 12 temporary workers,
petitioner expressly said that these could be
Filipinos or Chinese. The SC then took this to
mean that the nationality of the laborers is
immaterial. The requirement that the
majority should be Filipino is then not
arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust.

Lastly, it was conceded by petitioner during

the pendency of the dispute that they need
permission from the CIR. If the court could
turn it down entirely, its authority to qualify
the permission should be undeniable,
provided that the qualification is not arbitrary,
against law, morals, or established public
policy, which it is not.

The order appealed from is affirmed with

costs to this appeal against the petitioner-
appellant.

27