7/27/2019 LaborLawrecentjurisprudence.docx

1/3

May 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureJune 21, 2011Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected May 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042; unconstitutional. Petitioner Yap was employed as an electrician for respondents vessel under a 12-month contract. He was found to be illegally terminated with nine months

remaining on his contract term. The Court of Appeals (CA) awarded petitioner salaries for three months as provided under Sec tion 10 of Republic Act No. 8042. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the CAand declared that petitioner was entitled to his salaries for the full unexpired portion of his contract. The Court has previously declared in Serranov. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. (2009) that the clause or forthree months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less provided in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers(OFWs) to equal protection of the laws. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired 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 outone classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. Moreover, the subject clause does not state or imply any definitive governmental purpose; hence, the same violates not just petitioners rightto equal protection, but also h is right to substantive due process under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G .R . No .179532, May 30, 2011

Doctrine of Operative Fact; applied as a matter of equity and fair play. Petitioner Yap was employed on respondents vessel under a 12-month contract. Upon finding that he was illegally terminated, the Court ofAppeals (CA) awarded petitioner salaries for three months as provided under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042). While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, Section 10 of RA 8042 was declaredunconstitutional. In deciding to award petitioner his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his contract, the Supreme Court rejected the application of the operative fact doctrine. As an exception to the generalrule, the doctrine applies only as a matter of equity and fair play. It recognizes that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences whichcannot always be ignored. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. This case should not be included in theaforementioned exception. After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. To rule otherwise would be iniquitous to petitioner and otherOFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profitfrom such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law. Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G .R . No . 179532, May 30, 2011.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Constitutional Law, Labor LawTags:appeal, equal protection, illegal dismissal, due process, resignation

April 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureMay 19, 2011Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected April 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court o f the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Dismissal; breach of trust and confidence. Petitioner was employed as Assistant Vice-President of the Jewelry Department in respondent bank. His employment was terminated on the ground of willful breach of

trust and confidence. Jurisprudence provides for two requisites for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence; (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and (2)there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly establishedfacts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary. Furthermore, the burden of establishing facts as bases for an employers loss ofconfidence is on the employer. The court held that the termination of petitioner was without just cause and therefore illegal. Although the first requisite was present, the respondent failed to satisfy the secondrequisite. Respondent bank was not able to show any concrete proof that petitioner had participated in the approval of the questioned accounts. The invocation by respondent of the loss of trust and confidence asground for petitioners termination has therefore no basis at all.James Ben L. Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank, et al., G .R . No . 169564. April6, 2011.Breach of Trust and Confidence; duties of employee. Petitioner was employed as Assistant Vice-President in respondent bank. His employment was terminated on the ground of willful breach of trust and confidencefor endorsing VISA card applicants who later turned out to be impostors resulting in financial losses to respondent bank. The court held that petitioner was illegally dismissed. As provided in Article 282 of the LaborCode, an employer may terminate an employees employment for fraud or willful breach of trust reposed in him. However, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer. The act of betrayal of trust, if any, must have been committed by the employee in connection with theperformance of his function or position. The court found that the element of work-connection was not present in this case since petitioner was assigned under the Jewelry department, and therefore had nothing todo with the approval of VISA Cards, which was under a different department altogether.James Ben L. Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank, et al., G .R . No . 169564. April6, 2011.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor LawTags:certiorari, illegal dismissal, loss of trus t and confidence

February 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureMarch 18, 2011Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected February 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor l aw and procedure:

Abandonment; elements. Respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against the petitioner-corporation. For its defense, petitioner-corporation alleged that the respondents abandoned their work and were not

dismissed, and that it sent letters advising respondents to report for work, but they refused. The Court held that for abandonment to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed to report for workor must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. The employer has theburden of proof to show the employees deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on thepart of the employee to discontinue h is employment. Based on the evidence presented, the reason why respondents fail ed to report for work was because petitioner-corporation barred them from entering itsconstruction sites. It is a settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment. The intent to discontinue the employment must beshown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. Petitioner-corporation failed to show overt acts committed by respondents f rom which it may be deduced that they had no more intention to work.

Respondents filing of the case for illegal dismissal barely four (4) days from their alleged abandonment is totally inconsistent with the known concept of what constitutes abandonment. E.G. & I. ConstructionCorporation and Edsel Galeos v. Ananias P. Sato, et al., G.R. No. 182070, February 16, 2011.Certification election; petition for cancellation of union registration. Respondent union filed a petition for certification election. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for certification election alleging the pendency

of a petition for cancellation of the unions registration. The DOLE Secretary ruled in favor of the legitimacy of the respondent as a labor organization and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election.Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, the petition for cancellation was granted and became final and executory. Petitioner argued that the cancellation of the unions certificate of registration should retroact tothe time of its issuance. Thus, it claimed that the unions petition for certification election and its demand to enter into collective bargaining agreement with the petitioner should be dismissed due to respondentslack of legal personality. The Court ruled that the pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective bargaining, and that an order to hold a certification election is properdespite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the unions registration because at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an ordercancelling its registration. Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, G.R. No. 169754, February 23, 2011.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - LawTags:abandonment, burden ofproof, certiotari, const ructive dismissal, due process, execution, illegal dismissal,jurisdiction, projectemployee, quitclaim, redundancy, retrenchment, unfair, union

January 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureFebruary 18, 2011Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected January 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Apprenticeship agreement; validity. The apprenticeship agreements did no t indicate the trade or occupation in which the apprentice would be trained; neither was the apprenticeship program approved by the

Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). These were defective as they were executed in violation of the law and the rules. Moreover, with the expiration of the first agreement and theretention of the employees, the employer, to all intents and purposes, recognized the completion of their training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon them the second apprenticeshipagreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in the agreement itself, is a violation of the Labor Codes implementing rules and is an act manifestly unfair to the employees.Atlanta Industries, Inc.and/or Robert Chan vs. Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al., G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011.Complaint; reinstatement. Petitioners question the order to reinstate respondents to their former positions, cons idering that the issue of reinstatement was never brought up before the Court of Appeals andrespondents never questioned the award of separation pay to them. Section 2 (c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the relief sought, but may add a general prayer for such furtheror other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable. Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the evidence even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusionof a general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or in addition to the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The prayer in thecomplaint for other reliefs equitable and jus t in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for. Therefore, the court may grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof evenif no such relief is prayed for. In the instant case, aside from their specific prayer for reinstatement, respondents, in their separate complaints, prayed for such reliefs which are deemed just and equitable. PrinceTransport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011.Read more

Share this post: ShareCategories:Labor LawTags:backwages, compensable illness, complaint, const ructive dismissal, due process, employee benefi ts, employer -employee relationship, illegal dismissal, illegalrecruitment,jurisdiction, N

LRC

December 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureJanuary 24, 2011Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected December 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Dismissal; due process; trial-type hearing is not essential. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side. Records show

that Aboc was duly notified through a letter asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated. In fact, he replied to the same by submitting a written explanation. He was likewise duly affordedample opportunity to defend himself during a conference conducted. Abocs contention that the conference he attended cannot substitute the hearing mandated by the Labor Code is bereft of merit. A formal trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and topresent supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.Antonio A. Aboc vs. Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company / Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Antonio A. Aboc, G .R . Nos . 170542-43and G .R . No . 176460, December 13, 2010.Dismissal; d

ue process; trial-type hearing is not essential . In dismissal cases, the essence of due process is a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an

opportunity to explain ones side. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in al l instances essential. Neither is it necessary that the witnesses be cross-examined. In the instant case, there was aproceeding where the respondent was apprised of the charges against him as well as of his rights. Thereafter, he was notified of the formal charges against him and was required to explain in writing why he shouldnot be dismissed for serious misconduct. A formal hearing was conducted and subsequently, respondent received a Notice of Termination informing him that after a careful evaluation, he was found liable ascharged and dismissed from the service due to gross misconduct. Clearly, respondent was afforded ample opportunity to air his side and defend himself. Hence, there was due process. Philippine Long DistanceTelephone Company, vs. Eusebio M. Honrado, G .R . No . 189366, December 8, 2010.Dismissal; due process. Respondent harps on the fact

that his dismissal was preconceived because there was already a decision to terminate him even before he was given the show cause memorandum. Contraryto respondents allegations, he was given more than enough opportunity to defend himself. The audit committees conclusion to dismiss respondent from the service was merely recommendatory. It was notconclusive upon the petitioner company. This is precisely the reason why the petitioner still conducted further investigations. To reiterate, respondent was properly informed of the charges and had everyopportunity to rebut the accusations and present his version. Respondent was not denied due process of law for he was adequately heard as the very essence of due process is the opportunity to beheard. Equitable PCI Bank (Now Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc.), vs. Castor A. Dompor, G .R . Nos . 163293 & 163297, December 8, 2010.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - LawTags:certiorari, due process, evidence, illegal dismissal,jurisdiction, labor -only contracting, loss of trust and confidence, reinstatement

November 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureDecember 13, 2010Leslie C . DyComments off

Here are selected November 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Appeal; determination of date of filing. Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, where the filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal is

made by registered mail, the date of mailing, as shown by the post offi ce stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing. Thus, the date of filing is determinable from twosources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. If the date stamped on one is earlier than theother, the former may be accepted as the date of filing. In this case, to prove that it mailed the notice of appeal and appeal memorandum on October 27, 1997, instead of October 28, 1997, as shown by thestamped date on the envelope, petitioner presented Registry Receipt No. 34581 bearing the earlier date. Government Service Insurance System vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Dionisio Banlasan,et al., G .R . No . 180045, November 17, 2010.Appeal; filed ou

t of time; exceptional cases. An appeal must be perfected within the statutory or reglementary period. This is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal on time

renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less entertain the appeal. However, in exceptional cases, a belatedappeal may be given due course if greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the appeal be deni ed. This is to serve the greater principle s of substantial justice and equity. Technical rules are not bindingin labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man. In the instant case, even if the appeal was filed one day late, the same should have been entertained by theNLRC. Government Service Insurance System vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Dionisio Banlasan, et al., G .R . No . 180045, November 17, 2010.Compensable illness; work-relatedness. Granting arguendo that petitioners illness was not pre-existing, he still had to show that his illness not only occurred during the term of his contract but also that it resulted

from a work-related injury or illness, or at the very least aggravated by the conditions of the work for which he was contracted for. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden, however. That the exact and definitecause of petitioners illness is unknown cannot be used to justify grant of disability benefits, absent proof that there is any reasonable connection between work actually performed by petitioner and his illness.Jerry M. Francisco, vs. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. and/or Cynthia C. Mendoza, and Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, Ltd., G .R . No . 190545, November 22, 2010.Dismissal; illegal strike; distinction between union officers and mere members. The liabilities of individuals who participate in an illegal

strike must be determined under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code whichmakes a distinction between union officers and mere members. The law grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who knowingly participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.However, a worker merely participating in an i llegal strike may not be terminated from employment if he does not commit illegal acts during a strike. Hence, with respect to respondents who are union officers,their termination by petitioners is valid. Being fully aware that the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor were still pending as in fact they filed a motion for reconsideration, they cannot invoke good faith as adefense. For the rest of the individual respondents who are union members, they cannot be terminated for mere participation in the ill egal strike. Solid Bank Corp. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al. and Solid Bank Corp.,et al. vs. Solid Bank Union and its Dismissed Officers and Members, et al. G .R . No . 159460 and G .R . No . 159461, November 15, 2010.Read more

Here are selected October 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippine on labor law and procedure:

Compensable illness. Respondent is entitled to sickness wages because the shooting pain in his right foot is an injury which he suffered during the course of his employment. This is in consonance with the

Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the Department of Labor and Employment. Applying the said provisions of this standard contract,respondent is entitled to receive sickness wages covering the maximum period of 120 days. Moreover, petitioners violated the contract when it failed to provide continuous treatment for respondent in accordancewith the recommendation of their company physician. Because of this failure, respondent was forced to seek immediate medical attention at his own expense. Thus, he is also entitled to reimbursement of hismedical expenses. Varorient Shipping Co., Inc., et al. vs. Gil Flores, G .R . No . 161934, October 6, 2010Compensable illness. For an injury or illness to be duly compensated under the terms of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), there must be a showing

that the injury or illness and the ensuing disability occurred during the effectivity of the employment contract. Moreover, all o f these conditions must be satisfied 1.) The seafarers work must involve the risksdescribed in the POEA-SEC; 2.) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarers exposure to the described risks; 3.) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factorsnecessary to contract it; and 4.) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. Specifically, with respect to mental diseases, the POEA-SEC requires that it must be due to traumatic injury to thehead which did not occur in this case. In fact, respondent claimed that he became depressed due to the frequent verbal abuse he received from his German superiors. However, he failed to show concrete proofthat, if indeed he was subjected to abuse, it directly resulted in his depression. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Global Navigation, Ltd. vs.. Silvino A. Nazam, G .R . No . 190804. October 11, 2010.Constructive dismissal; transfer. It is management prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to anothe r. However, the employer must show that the tran

sfer is notunreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee, or that it does not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the employer fail to overcome thisburden, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal. In the i nstant case, Del Villars demotion is readily apparent in his new desi gnation as a mere Staff Assistant to the CorporatePurchasing and Materials Control Manager from being Transportation Services Manager. The two posts are not of the same weight in terms of duties and responsibilities. Moreover, while Del Villars transfer did notresult in the reduction of his salary, there was a diminution in his benefits because as a mere Staff Assistant, he could no longer enjoy the use of a company car, gasoline allowance, and annual foreign travel,which he previously enjoyed as Transportation Services Manager. Thus, Del Villar was clearly constructively dismissed. Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar, G .R . No . 163091, October 6, 2010.Dismissal; closure of business. Petitioner terminated the employment of respondents on the ground of closure or cessation of operation of the establishment which is an authorized cause

for termination underArticle 283 of the Labor Code. While it is true that a change of ownership in a business concern is not proscribed by law, the sale or disposition must be motivated by good faith as a condition for exemption fromliability. In the instant case, however, there was, in fact, no change of ownership. Petitioner did not present any documentary evidence to support its claim that it sold the same to ALPS Transportation. On thecontrary, it continuously operates under the same name, franchises and routes and under the same circumstances as before the alleged sale. Thus, no actual sale transpired and, as such, there is no closure orcessation of business that can serve as an authorized cause for the dismissal of respondents. Peafrancia Tours and Travel Transport, Inc. vs. Joselito P. Sarmiento and Ricardo S. Catimbang, G.R. No. 178397,October 20, 2010.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor LawTags:appeal, backwages, damages, employer -employee relationship, evidence, illegal dismissal,jurisdiction, labor -only cont racting, loss of confidence, negligence, probationaryemployment,redundancy, reinstate

ment, retirement, separa, serious misconduct

September 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureOctober 13, 2010Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected September 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:Labor LawCompensable illness. The CBA provision states: If a seafarer/officer, due to no fault of his own, suffers permanent disability as a result of an accidentwhile serving on board or while traveling to or from the vessel

on Companys business or due to marine peril, and as a result, his ability to work is permanently reduced, totally or partially, the Company shall pay him a disability compensation. Accident has been defined as:A fortuitous circumstan

ce, event, or happening, an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual andunexpected by the person to whom it happens. The Court holds that the snap on the back of respondent was not an accident, but an injury sustained by respondent from carrying the heavy basketful of firehydrant caps. The injury cannot be said to be the result of an accident or fortuitous event. It resulted from the performance of a duty. Although the disability of respondent was not caused by an accident, hisdisability is still compensable under the CBA provision: A seafarer/officer who is disabled as a result of any injury, and who is assessed as less than 50% permanently disabled, but permanently unfit for furtherservice at sea in any capacity, shall also be entitled to a 100% compensation.NFD International Manning Agents, Inc./Barber Ship Management Ltd. vs. Esmeraldo C. Illescas, G.R. No. 183054, September 29,2010.Dismissal; due process. SPO2 Roaquin is entitled to reinstatement since he was dismissed from the service without administrative due process. No one ever filed an administrative action against him in connectionwith the crime of which he was charged in court. At any rate, assuming that someone filed an administrative charge against Roaquin, still the law required the PNP to give him notice of such charge and the right toanswer the same. The PNP gave him no chance to show why he should not be discharged nor does the record show that the PNP investigated him or conducted a summary proceeding to determine his liability inconnection with the murder of which he was charged in court. While the PNP may have validly suspended Roaquin from the service pending the adjudication of the criminal case against him, he is entitled, after hisacquittal, to reinstatement and payment of the salaries, allowances, and other benefits withheld from him by reason of his discharge from the service.P/Chief Superintendent Roberto L. Calinisan, etc., et al. vs.SPO2 Reynaldo L. Roaquin, G.R. No. 159588, September 15, 2010.Read more

Share this post: Share

http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3664http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3599http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3407http://en.wordpress.com/tag/project-employee/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/quitclaim/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/quitclaim/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retrenchment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retrenchment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retrenchment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/unfair/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/union/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/union/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3324http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-recruitment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-recruitment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/nlrc/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/nlrc/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3281http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3281http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3148http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3052http://en.wordpress.com/tag/probationary-employment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/probationary-employment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retirement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retirement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retirement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/separa/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/separa/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/separa/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/serious-misconduct/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-2902http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3664http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3664http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3664http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://law/http://law/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/appeal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/equal-protection/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/equal-protection/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/resignation/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3599http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3599http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/april-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3599http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/certiorari/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3407http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3407http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/february-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3407http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://law/http://law/http://cases/http://cases/http://cases/http://law/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/abandonment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/burden-of-proof/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/burden-of-proof/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/burden-of-proof/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/certiotari/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/execution/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/project-employee/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/project-employee/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/quitclaim/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retrenchment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/unfair/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/union/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3324http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3324http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/january-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3324http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/backwages/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/compensable-illness/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/complaint/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/constructive-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employee-benefits/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employee-benefits/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-recruitment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-recruitment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/nlrc/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/170542-43.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189366.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/163293.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3281http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3281http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/december-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3281http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://law/http://law/http://cases/http://cases/http://cases/http://law/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/certiorari/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/due-process/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/evidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-trust-and-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F180045.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH_zKfBZltcMbYLUbXqgCy0iGmqUQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F190545.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG6UJ4tSK7V_xXuf1G6WP0_7k2sOwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsc.judiciary.gov.ph%2Fjurisprudence%2F2010%2Fnovember2010%2F159460.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH91tAIq2gbcYZSD_HfgtjMOsC-Mghttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3148http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3148http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/november-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3148http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161934.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/190804.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/163091.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3052http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3052http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-3052http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/page/2/http://law/http://law/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/appeal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/backwages/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/damages/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/employer-employee-relationship/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/evidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jurisdiction/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/labor-only-contracting/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/loss-of-confidence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/negligence/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/probationary-employment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/probationary-employment/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/redundancy/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/reinstatement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/retirement/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/separa/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/serious-misconduct/http://en.wordpress.com/tag/serious-misconduct/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://dy/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-2902http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-2902http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/september-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/#more-2902http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-dismissal/page/2/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/may-2011-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/

7/27/2019 LaborLawrecentjurisprudence.docx

2/3

Categories:Labor LawTags:appeal, backwages, certiorari, compensable illness, diminu tion ofbenefits, due process, illegal dismissal, illegal strike,jurisdiction, prescription, reinstatement, retrenchment, security oftenure

August 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureSeptember 16, 2010Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected August 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on l abor law and procedure:

Labor LawDismissal; abandonment. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so if the same is accompanied by

a prayer for reinstatement. In the present case, however, petitioner filed his complaint more than one year after his alleged termination from employment. Moreover, petitioner did not ask for reinstatement in thecomplaint form, which he personally filled up and filed with the NLRC. The prayer for reinstatement is made only in the Position Paper that was later prepared by his counsel. This is an indication that petitionernever had the intention or desire to return to his job. Elpidio Calipay vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 166411, August 3, 2010.Dismissal; burden of proof. In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to discharge the burden of proof, thedismissal is deemed illegal. In the present case, BCPI failed to discharge its burden when it failed to present any evidence of the alleged fistfight, aside from a single statement, which was refuted by statementsmade by other witnesses and was found to be incredible by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.Alex Gurango vs. Best Chemicals and Plastic, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 174593, August 25, 2010.Dismissal; burden of proof. The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily meanthat the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, illegal. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for dismissing employees. In case of doubt,such cases should be resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution. Century Canning Corporation, Ricardo T. Po, Jr., et al. vs. Vicente Randy R. Ramil, G.R. No.171630, August 8, 2010.Dismissal; due process. In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices

before the termination of employment can be e ffected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of theemployers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. Pharmacia andUpjohn, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010.Read more

Share this post: ShareCategories:Labor LawTags:abandonment, backwages, breach of trust, burden ofproof, damages, employee benefits, illegal dismissal, illegal strike, labor -only contracting, loss of trust andconfidence, merger, negligence,NLRC, pro

bationary employment, project employee, rehabilitation, reinstatement, retirement, security oftenure, serious misconduct, union

July 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureAugust 27, 2010Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected July 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor LawAssumption of jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor; authority to decide on legality of dismissals arising from strike. The assumption of jurisdiction powers granted to the Labor Secretary under Article 263(g) is notli

mited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. Asthe term assume jurisdiction connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout,including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.In the present case, what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the dismissal from employment of employees who violated the return to work order and participated in illegal acts during a strike. This wasan issue that arose from the s trike and was, in fact, submitted to the Labor Secretary, through the unions motion for the issuance of an order for immediate reinstatement of the dismissed officers and thecompanys opposition to the motion. The dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and he was mistaken in ruling that the matter is legally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the laborarbiter to decide.Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al. vs. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment, et al./Triumph International (phils.), Inc. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa ngManggagawa ng Triumph International, et al., G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010.Bargaining deadlock; award; findings of Secretary of Labor. Unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the Court cannot, and will not, interfere with the expertise of the Secretary of Labor. The

award granted by the Labor Secretary in resolving the bargaining deadlock, drawn as they were from a close examination of the submissions of the parties, do not indicate any legal error, much less any graveabuse of discretion, and should not be disturbed. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al. vs. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment, et al./Triumph International (phils.),Inc. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al., G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010.Dismissal of employees; just cause. Theft committed by an employee is a valid reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees

continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property, petitioners income in this case, are a different matter. Maribago BluewaterBeach Resort, Inc. vs. Nito Dual, G.R. No. 180660, July 20, 2010.Dismissal of employees; requirements. The validity of an employees dismissal from service hinges on the satisfaction of the two substantive requirements for a lawful termination. These are, first, whether theemployee was accorded due process the basic components of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. This is the procedural aspect. And second, whether the dismissal is for any of thecauses provided in the Labor Code of the Philippines. This constitutes the substantive aspect. Erector Advertising Sign Group, Inc. and Arch Jimy C. Amoroto vs. Expedito Cloma, G.R. No. 167218, July 2, 2010.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor LawTags:due process, employee benefi ts, employer -employee relationship , illegal dismissal, intra -uni on dispute,jurisdiction, labor -onlycontracting, NLRC, redundancy, retirement, retrenchment,suspension

June 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureJuly 16, 2010Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected June 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor LawAcceptance of Benefits, render moot claim under other policies. As in the case ofCapili v. National Labor Relations Commission [273 SCRA 576], a claim for benefit under the companys retirement plan becomes

moot when the employee accepts retirement benefits on the basis of Article 287 of the Labor Code. By Yusons acceptance of her retirement benefits through a compromise agreement entered into with heremployer, she is deemed to have opted to retire under Article 287. Korean Air Co., Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim v. Adelina A.S. Yuson, G .R . No . 170369, June 16, 2010.Approval for companys early retirement program; management prerogative. Approval of applications for the early retirement program

(ERP) is within the employers management prerogatives. The exercise ofmanagement prerogative is valid as long as it is not done in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner. In the present case, the Court sees no bad faith on the part of the employer. The 21August 2001 memorandum clearly states that petitioner, on its discretion, was offering ERP to its employees. The memorandum also states that the reason for the ERP was to prevent further losses. Petitioner didnot abuse its discretion when it excluded respondent in the ERP because the latter is already about to retire. To allow respondent to avail of the ERP would have been contrary to the purpose of theprogram. Korean Air Co., Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim v. Adelina A.S. Yuson, G .R . No . 170369, June 16, 2010.Constructive dismissal; definition; transfer as management prerogative . Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or when

there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. It exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but toforego with his continued employment.Here, there was no diminution of petitioners salary and other benefits. There was no evidence that she was harassed or discriminated upon, or that respondents made it difficult for her to continue with her otherduties. Absent any evidence of bad faith, it is within the exercise of respondents management prerogative to transfer some of petitioners duties, if, in their judgment, this would be more beneficial to thecorporation. Estrella Velasco vs. Transit Automotive Supply, Inc. and Antonio de Dios, G.R. No. 171327, June 18, 2010.Constructive dismissal; off-detailing; resignation; notice requirement . The company evidently placed petitioner on floating status after being relieved of her position. But, as the Court has repeatedly ruled, such

act of off-detailing does not amount to a dismissal so long as the floating status does not continue beyond a reasonable time. In this case, the employees floating status ran up to more than six months as ofAugust 16, 2002. For this reason, the company may be considered to have constructively dismissed the employee from work as of that date. Hence, petitioners purported resignation on October 15, 2002 could nothave been legally possible.The company claims that it gave petitioner notices on August 23, 2002 and September 2, 2002, asking her to explain her failure to report for work and informing her that the company would treat such failure aslack of interest in her continued employment. But these notices cannot possibly take the place of the notices required by law as they came more than six months after the company placed her on floating status, atwhich time, the employee is already deemed to have been constructively dismissed her from work. Elsa S. Mali-on v. Equitable General Services Inc., G .R . No . 185269, June 29, 2010.Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor LawTags:burden ofproof, constructive dismissal, employee benefi ts, employer -employee relationship,evidence, forum shopping, illegal dismissal,judgment,jurisdiction, loss of trust andconfidence,

pleading, prescription, res

judicata, waiver

May 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and ProcedureJune 22, 2010Les lie C . DyComments off

Here are selected May 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor lawIllegal dismissal; backwages. The basis for the payment of backwages is different from that for the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of

strained relations between the employee and the employer. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. The basis for computingbackwages is usually the length of the employees service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working.As to how both awards should be computed, Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines [G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009] instructs that the award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding thatthere was no illegal dismissal, for under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases, an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages andreinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate anddistinct. Golden Ace Builders and ArnoldU. Azur vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200, May 5, 2010.Illegal dismissal; doctrine of strained relations. Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reins tatement when the latter option is no longer

desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatableobligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust.Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact, however, to be adequately supported by evidence substantial evidence to show that the relationship between the employer and the employee isindeed strainedas a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy.Read more

October 2009 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor LawNovember 20, 2009Hector M . de Leon Jr

Here are selected October 2009 Supreme Court decisions on l abor law:

Dismissal; abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a clear and del iberate intent to discontinue ones employment without any intention of returning. Two elements must concur: (1) failure to

report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifestedby some overt acts. It is the employer who has the burden of proof to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.In the instant case, petitioners failed to prove that it was Bolanos who refused to report for work despite being asked to return to work. Petitioners merely presented the affidavits of the officers of Henlin Panaynarrating their version of the facts. These affidavits, however, are not only insufficient but also undeserving of credit as they are self-serving. Petitioners failed to present memoranda or show-cause letters servedon Bolanos at her last known address requiring her to report for work or to explain her absence, with a warning that her failure to report would be construed as abandonment of work. Also, if indeed Bolanosabandoned her work, petitioners should have served her a notice of termination as required by law. Petitioners failure to comply with said requirement bolsters Bolanoss claim that she did not abandon her workbut was dismissed.

Moreover, if Bolanos had indeed forsaken her job, she would not have bothered to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. It is well settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof ofher desire to return to work, thus negating the employers charge of abandonment. Henlin Panay Company and/or Edwin Franci sco/Angel Lazaro III vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Nory A.Bolanos, G .R . No . 180718, October 23, 2009.Dismissal; attorneys fees. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith or where an employee was forced to litigate and incu r expenses to protect his

rights and interests by reason of the unjustified acts of his employer, he is entitled to an award of attorneys fees. This award is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of itsImplementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 2208 of the Civil Code.Moreover, in cases for recovery of wages, the award of attorneys fees is proper and there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need onlybe a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly. Baron Republic Theatrical Major Cinema, et al. vs. Normita P. Peralta and Edilberto H. Aguilar, G .R . No . 170525, October 2, 2009.Dismissal; burden of proof. It is a basic principle that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is

for a just cause and failure to do so wouldnecessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified. In addition, in claims of abandonment by an employee, the settled rule is that the employer bears the burden of showing a deliberate and unjustified refusal bythe employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Moreover, in evaluating a charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential rule is that abandonment is a matter of intention that cannot belightly presumed from equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intent, manifestedthrough overt acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship.In the present case, petitioner Pascual consistently denies that Aguilar was terminated from his employment and that, instead, he abandoned his work and never returned after his request for salary increase wasrejected. However, denial, in this case, does not suffice; it should be coupled with evidence to support it. In the instant case, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that petitioners failed to adduceevidence to prove abandonment and rebut Aguilars claim of dismissal.

Contrary to petitioners asseveration that Aguilar is guilty of abandoning his job, the Court finds no error in the finding of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the CA, that there was no clear intention on Aguilars partto sever the employer-employee relationship. Considering that intention is a mental state, petitioners must show that respondent Aguilars overt acts point unerringly to his intent not to work anymore. In thisregard, petitioners failed. Baron Republic Theatrical Major Cinema, et al. vs. Normita P. Peralta and Edilberto H. Aguilar, G .R . No . 170525, October 2, 2009.Dismissal; burden of proof. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissalwas illegal.Following this principle, it is incumbent upon the respondents to prove by substantial evidence that petitioner abandoned her job. For abandonment to exist, it must be shown that (1) the employee has failed toreport for work or must have been absen t without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as manif ested by some overt acts.

Respondents failed to discharge this burden. Mere absence of petitioner is not sufficient to establish the allegation of abandonment. The prolonged absence of petitioner was not without justifiable reason because itwas established that her failure to report for work was due to the injury she suffered in the course of her employment and with sufficient notice to respondents. Petitioner also presented herself for work on thedate stated in the medical certificate which stated that she is fit to resume work.

Above all, the intention to sever the employer-employee relationship was not duly established by respondents. The prior submission of a medical certificate that petitioner is fit to resume work negates the claim ofrespondents that the former demanded for separation pay on account of her failing health. Certainly, petitioner cannot demand for separation benefits on the ground of illness while at the same time presenting acertification that she is fit to work. Respondents could have denied petitioners demand at that instance and ordered her to return to work had it not been their intention to sever petitioner from their employ.Hence, we find the allegation that petitioner presented herself for work but was refused by respondents more credible. Concepcion Faeldonia vs. Tong Yak Groceries, et al., G .R . No . 182499, October 2, 2009.Dismissal; burden of proof. In an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. The employer must affirmatively show rationally

adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Apart from i ts self-serving allegations, Metro failed to prove that it sustained serious business losses. To justify retrenchment, the employer mustprove serious business losses, and not just any kind or amount of loss. Metro should have produced its books of accounts, profit and loss statements, and even its accountant to competently amplify its financialposition. Metro Construction, Inc. and Dr. John Lai vs. Rogelio Aman, G .R . No . 168324, October 12, 2009.Dismissal; loss of confidence. Espaderos position as a cashier is one that requires a

high degree of trust and confidence, and that her infraction reasonably taints such trust and confidence reposed upon her by heremployer.A position of trust and confidence has been defined as one where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers property and/orfunds. One such position is that of a cashier. A cashier is a highly sensitive position which requires absolute trust and honesty on the part of the employee. It is for this reason that the Court has sustained thedismissal of cashiers who have been found to have breached the trust and confidence of their employers. In one case, the Court upheld the validity of the dismissal of a school cashier despite her 19 years ofservice after evidence showed that there was a discrepancy in the amount she was entrusted to deposit with a bank.

The rule, therefore, is that if there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee occupying a position of trust and confidence is guilty of a breach of trust, or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him,the labor tribunal cannot justly deny the employer the authority to dismiss such employee.

In the instant case, petitioners cannot be faulted for losing their trust in Espadero. As an employee occupying a job which requires utmost fidelity to her employers, she failed to report to her immediate supervisorthe tampering of her time card. Whether her failure was deliberate or due to sheer negligence, and whether Espadero was or was not in cahoots with a co-worker, the fact remains that the tampering was notpromptly reported and could, very likely, not have been known by petitioners, or, at least, could have been discovered at a much later period, if it had not been reported by Espaderos supervisor to the personnelmanager. Petitioners, therefore, cannot be blamed for losing their trust in Espadero. Eats-Cetera Food Services Outlet and/or Serafin Remirez vs. Myrna B. Letran, et al., G .R . No . 179507, October 2, 2009.Dismisssal; nominal damages . Where an employee was terminated for cause, but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the employee is entitled to the payment of nominal damages pursuantto our ruling i

n Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot.In Agabon, we found the dismissal of the employees therein to be valid and for a just cause, since abandonment was duly established. However, we held the employer liable, because procedural due process wasnot observed. We ordered the employer to pay, in lieu of backwages, indemnity in the form of nominal damage. The Agabon ruling was qualified in Jaka which declared the dismissal of the employees valid as itwas due to an authorized cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, i.e., retrenchment, as it was proven that Jaka was suffering from serious business losses at the time it terminated respondents employment.However, Jaka failed to comply with the notice requirement under the same rule.Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff that has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff forany loss suffered by him. Considering the circumstances in this case, we find no error committed by the CA in fixing the award of nominal damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each respondent as indemnityfor the violation of the latters statutory rights.

Petitioners reliance on Viernes v. National Labor Relations Commission to support its claim for the reduction of the award of nominal damages is misplaced. The factual circumstances are different. Viernes is anillegal dismissal case, since there was no authorized cause for the dismissal of the employees; and the employer was ordered to pay backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the timethe compensation was withheld up to the actual reinstatement. In addition, since the dismissal was done without due process, the nominal damages awarded was only P2,590.00 equivalent to one-month salary ofthe employee. In this case, the dismissal was valid, as it was due to an authorized cause, but without the observance of procedural due process, and the only award given was nominal damages. Celebes JapanFoods Corp. (etc.) vs. Susan Yermo, et al., G .R . No . 175855, October 2, 2009.Dismissal; serious misconduct. An employee who fails

to account for and deliver the funds entrusted to him is liable for misappropriating the same and is consequently guilty of serious misconduct. Petitionertherefore validly dismissed respondent. Superlines Transportatio