Bacungan.update on Labor Law ...Tain 2009 August 26, 2010_new

7/23/2019 Bacungan.update on Labor Law ...Tain 2009 August 26, 2010_new

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bacunganupdate-on-labor-law-tain-2009-august-26-2010new 1/8

5/12/2011

1

UPDATE ON LABOR LAWRULINGS IN CERTAIN 2009

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

BY: DEAN FROILAN M. BACUNGAN

1

LBC EXPRESS – METRO MANILA,

INC. VS. MATEO

G.R. NO. 168215. JUNE 9, 2009

2

JUST CAUSE

1.The services of a regular employee may be terminated only for just or authorized causes, including gross and habitualnegligence under Article 282, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code.Gross negligence is characterized by want of even slight care,acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act,not inadvertently but willfully and int entionally with a consciousindifference to consequences insofar as other persons may beaffected.

3

JUST CAUSE

2. What happened was not a simple case of oversight and

could not be attributed to a simple lapse of judgment. No amountof good intent, or previous conscientious performance of duty,

can assuage the damage Mateo caused LBC when he failed toexercise the requisite degree of diligence required of him under

the circumstances.

4

REQUIREMENT of DUE PROCESS

The memorandum directing Mateo to bepresent for investigation clearly providedthe reasons or grounds for Mateo’sinvestigation. As stated there, the groundswere the “alleged carnapping of motorcycleand the alleged pilferage of a package”.Nothing could be clearer. What the lawmerely requires is that the employee beinformed of the particular acts or omissionsfor which his dismissal is sought. Thememorandum did just that. Mateo wasthereafter given the opportunity to explainhis side and was handed the requisitesecond notice (of termination). Proceduraldue process was therefore complied with.

5

Sycip, Gorres,

Velayo & Company

vs. De Raedt

G.R. No. 161366.

June 16, 2009

6

1st ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

o b l

h a n

a

b l

C h

a n R

C

n R

b

s B a



5/12/2011

2

EXISTENCE of EMPLOYER – EMPLOYEERELATIONSHIP

CONTROL TEST

1.To determine the existence of an employer –employee relationship, case law hasconsistently applied the four-fold test, to wit;

(a) the selection and engagement of the

employee;

(b) the payment of wages;

(c) the power of dismissal;

(d) the employer’s power to control the

employee on the means andmethods by which the work isaccomplished.

7

EXISTENCE of EMPLOYER – EMPLOYEERELATIONSHIP

The so – called “control test” is the mostimportant indicator of the presence or absenceof an employer – employee relationship.

2. There existed no employer – employeerelationship between the parties. De Raedt isan independent contractor, who was engagedby SGV to render services to SGV’s client TMI,and ultimately to DA on the CECAP project,regarding matters in the field of her specialknowledge and training for a specific period oftime.

8

Balladares vs.Peak Ventures

Corporation

G.R. No. 161794.

June 16, 2009

9

It should be noted that pet itioners’ complaint involved

underpayment of wages and other benefits. In order to verify the

allegations in the complaint, DOLE conducted an inspect ion,

which yielded proof of violations of labor standards. By the nature

of the complaint and from the result of the inspection, theauthority of the DOLE, under Article 128, came into play

regardless of the monetary value of the claims involved.

1 0

This Court has held in a plethora ofcases that reliance on the Servando rulingis no longer tenable in view of theenactment of R.A. No. 7730, amendingArticle 128 (b) of the Labor Code. TheSecretary of Labor or his duly authorizedrepresentatives is now empowered to hearand decide, in a summary proceeding, anymatter involving the recovery of any amountof wages and other monetary claims arisingout of employer – employee relations at thetime of the inspection, even if the amount ofthe monetary claim exceeds P5, 000.00.

1 1

Triumph International (Phils.),

Inc. vs. Apostol

G.R. No. 164423.

June 16, 2009

1 2



o b l

r

e

a

b l

C

,

C

n R

b

s

C h

B a



5/12/2011

3

As a general rule, petitions for

review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil

Procedure filed before this Court may

only raise questions of law. However, jurisprudence has recognized several

exceptions to this rule.

1 3

PROCEDURE

1.The power of the Court of Apeals to review NLRC decisions via a

Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 has been settled as early as

our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC (295 SCRA 494

[1998]). In said case, we held that the proper vehicle for such

review is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of theRules of Court, and that the case should be filed in the Court of

Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of

courts.

1 4

PROCEDURE

2. Equally settled is the rule that factualfindings of labor officials, who are deemed tohave acquired expertise in matters within their

jurisdiction, are generally accorded not onlyrespect but even finality by the courts whensupported by substantial evidence, i.e., the

amount of relevant evidence which areasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. But these findings are notinfallible. When there is a showing that theywere arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of theevidence on record, they may be examined bythe courts.

1 5

Dismissals of employees have two facets:

1.The legality of the act of dismissal, which

constitutes substantive due process;

2.The legality in the manner of dismissal,

which constitutes procedural due process.

1 6

As previously mentioned, fraud or willful breach of the

employer’s trust is a just cause for termination of employment

under Article 282 ( c ) of the Labor Code. This provision ispremised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a

position of trust and confidence, a situation which exists where

such employee is entrusted by the employer with confidence on

delicate matters, such as care and protection, handling or custody

of the employer’s property.

1 7

Treatment of managerial employees distinguished from

that of the rank – and – file personnel insofar as the application of

the doctrine of loss of trust and confidence is concerned. – With

respect to rank – and – file personnel, loss of trust andconfidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of

involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mereuncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will

not be sufficient.

1 8



o b l

e

, e

c

a

b l

C h

a n R

C

n R

b l e s

B a

s

C h a

s

t

r s

B a



5/12/2011

4

Metropolitan Bank and

Trust Company vs.National Labor

Relations Commission

G.R. No. 152928. June

18, 2009

1 9

RETIREMENT BENEFIT

1.Retirement; To be considered a company practice, the giving of

the benefits should have been done over a long period of time,

and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.

2.This Court held that the grant of these benefits has ripened into

company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily

withdrawn.

2 0

It is a jurisprudential rule that where there is an

established employer practice of regularly, knowingly and

voluntarily granting benefits to employees over a significantperiod of time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation

on the part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits

ripens into a vested right of the employees and can no longer be

unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the employer.

2 1

“J” Marketing

Corporation vs.Taran

G.R. No. 163924.

June 18, 2009 2 2

SEPARATION PAY

1.It is well to note that there is no provision in the Labor Code that

grants separation pay to voluntarily resigning employees.

2.However, an employer who agrees to expend such benef it as an

incident of the resignation should not be allowed to renege on the

fulfillment of such commitment.

2 3

Ritualo vs. People

G.R. No. 178337.

June 25, 2009

2 4



o b l

e

t

r

a

b l

C h

a n R

C

n R

b l e s

B a

s B a



5/12/2011

5

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitmentand placement as:

Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,

transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, andincludes referrals, contract services, promising oradvertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether forprofit or not; Provided, that any person or entity which, inany manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to twoor more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitmentand placement.

To be engaged in illegal recruitment, it is plain thatthere must at least be a promise or an offer of employmentfrom the person posing as a recruiter whether locally orabroad.

2 5

ESTAFA

Art. 315, par. 2 (a) of the revised PenalCode, enumerates one of the modes ofcommitting estafa, thus: xxxx2. By means ofany of the following false pretenses orfraudulent acts executed prior to orsimultaneously with the commission of thefraud: (a) By using fictitious name, orfalsely pretending to possess power,influence, qualifications, property, credit,agency, business or imaginary transactions,or by means of other similar deceits.

2 6

Technological Institute of

the Philippines Teachers

and Employees

Organization (TIPTEO)

VS. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 158703.

June 26, 2009 2 7

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

The present violation involves elements of falsification and

dishonesty. Knowing fully what Manalo deserved, Salon gave hima grade of 6.0 instead of a failing grade. In the process, she

changed – in short, falsified – her own records by changing the

submitted record and the supporting documents. Viewed in any

light, this is Serious Misconduct under Article 282 (a) of the Labor

Code, and a just cause for termination of employment.

2 8

DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT

Salon notified in writing about the charges

against her, she was given a reasonable

opportunity to explain her side; she was also

called to an investigation where, again, she

had the opportunity to explain why she should

not be dismissed. She was only dismissed

after the conclusion of the investigation and

after she had been given a second notice in

writing that she was being terminated as a

faculty member of the school. In short, she has

nothing to complain about in terms of the

process she underwent that led to herdismissal. 2 9

Pentagon Steel

Corporation vs.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 174141.

June 26, 2009 3 0



.

a

b l

C

C

n R

s B a



5/12/2011

6

CONCILIATION and MEDIATION

Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings

shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not beused as evidence in the Commission; Conciliators and similar

officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding anymatters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

3 1

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Offers for compromise are irrelevant because

they are not intended as admissions by the

parties making them. A true offer of compromise

does not, in legal contemplation, involve an

admission on the part of a defendant that he or

she is legally liable, or on the part of a plaintiff,

that his or her claim is groundless or even

doubtful, since it is made with a view to avoid

controversy and save the expense of litigation. It

is the distinguishing mark of an offer of

compromise that it is made tentatively,

hypothetically, and in contemplation of mutual

concessions. 3 2

ABANDONMENT

In evaluating a charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential

rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot be

lightly presumes from equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment,

two elements must concur:

1.The failure to report for work or absence without valid or

justifiable reason,

2.A clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the

employer – employee relationship.

3 3

Alcatel Philippines,

Inc. vs. Relos

G.R. No. 164315.

July 3, 2009

3 4

PROJECT EMPLOYEE

1.The employment of a project employee ends on thedate specified in the employment contract. Therefore,respondent was not illegally dismissed but hisemployment terminated upon the expiration of hisemployment contract. Here, Alcatel employedrespondent as a Site Inspector until 31 December 1995.

2.A project employee or a member of a work pool mayacquire the status of a regular employee when thefollowing concur:

a)There is a continuous rehiring of project employeeseven after the cessation of a project;

b)The tasks performed by the alleged “projectemployee” are vital, necessary and indispensable tothe usual business or trade of the employer.

3 5

TEODOR S. MIRANDA, JR.

vs

ASIAN TERMINALS, INC.

G.R. No. 174316

July 23, 2009

3 6



r

,

a

b l

,

C

n R

b

o

ir

s

o

B a



5/12/2011

7

INTRA UNION DISPUTE INVOLVING

SHOP STEWARD

1.A shop steward is appointed by

the union in a shop, department,

or plant and serves as

representative of the union,

charged with negotiating and

adjustment of grievances of

employees with the supervisor of

the employer.

3 7

2. A shop steward may bean elective official withinthe union or keyadministrative personnel,and it is considered to bewithin the same class asunion officers, agents andrepresentatives.

3 8

Since the Shop Steward is a union position, the

controversy surrounding his recall from his position as Shop

Steward becomes a dispute within the union. An “Internal Union

Dispute” or intra – union conflict refers to a conflict within orinside a labor union. It includes all disputes or grievances arising

from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of theconstitution and by – laws of a union.

3 9

TMI, and not on groundsunder labor laws. Though the

end of the contract between theDA and TMI was not the groundfor the withdrawal of De Raedtfrom the CECAP, De Raedt wasdisengaged from the projectupon the instruction of SGV’sclient.

4 0

DISMISSALS to be LEGAL

When there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for

the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a

case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to

prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, An

employee’s dismissal due to serious misconduct must be

supported by substantial evidence.

4 1

DUE PROCESS

Under the Labor Code, there are twin requirements to

justify a valid dismissal from employment:

a)The dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article

282 of the Labor Code (substantive aspect)

b)The employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to

defend himself (procedural aspect)

4 2



o b l

a

b l

C

R

C

n R

b l e s

B a

C h

lt

s B a



5/12/2011

8

DUE PROCESS

The essence of the due processrequirement being a mere opportunity to be

heard, we agree with the Court of Appealsthat although respondent was given alimited time to explain his side and presentevidence, he, however, was able to refutethe findings of petitioner. Hence, the chanceafforded to respondent, although limited, isa clear opportunity to be heard on the issueat hand. What the law abhors and prohibitsis the absolute absence of the opportunityto be heard.

4 3

It is necessary for this Court to clarify and explicitlydeclare that no liability for respondent’s illegal dismissal should

attach to petitioners Aguiluz and Cruz, and respondent’s

complaint as against them should be dismissed. Unless they have

exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule,

not personally liable for their official acts, because a corporation,

by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its

officers, stockholders and members.

4 4



o b l

u

t

t ,

b l e s

C h

a n R

a

C h a n R o

b l e s

B a

C h a

n R o

b l e s

B a

Documents

Bacungan.update on Labor Law ...Tain 2009 August 26, 2010_new