Management Prerogatives and Employees' Rights (A General ......Management prerogatives and employees' rights appear to be two contradictory and even at first impression, irreconcilable

Management Prerogatives and Employees' Rights

(A General Overview)

Atty. Emmanuel 0. Sales Legal Management Department, De La Salle University-Manila

INTRODUCTION

Management prerogatives and employees' rights appear to be two contradictory and even at first impression, irreconcilable concepts. There is a tug-and-pull between the assertion of a management prerogative and the exercise of an employee's right. In any instance when there is a tug-of-war between prerogative and right, the limits are drawn such that so much would be removed from authority, or that the exercise of a right becomes qualified. This paper will examine the boundaries of management prerogatives in relation to employees' rights. The delineation is determined from jurisprudence, or how the Supreme Court views the dispute between management and labor.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT: SOCIAL JUSTICE

Management prerogatives and employees' rights are legal concepts. Prior to any specific discussion, the relevant provisions

DLSU Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001-2002

2 MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES AND EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS

of the Constitution should first be presented and more importantly, considered as the basic legal situation that provides the context of any discussion. In the resolution of disputes, the Supreme Court abides or is called upon to follow the dictates of the Constitution. In the passage of laws, Congress should likewise observe the Constitution.

The Constitution is described as primarily a "document of social justice" and has "not embraced fully the concept of laissezfaire" .' Perhaps, the most familiar definition of social justice is that of the late Pres. Ramon Magsaysay. The elder Magsaysay said, "those who have less in life should have more in law."2 A legal and lengthier definition is provided by the Supreme Court. Thus:

Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.3

To paraphrase the definition, laws should be humanized and that social and economic forces equalized. The efforts by the State would necessarily disregard-as those efforts did-laissezfaire in the economy because of permissible interventions by the State in the economy. Thus, while economic activities are in the hands of private individuals, the State can engage in economic enterprises considered vital for the common good.4 Moreover, while private individuals or groups have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, there is a duty on the part of the State to promote "distributive justice" and to intervene when the common good so demands. 5

Specifically, the State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth. 6

STATE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT LABOR

As a matter of ideological statement,' the State affirms labor as a primary social economic force and shall protect the rights of


Emmanuel 0. Sales 3

workers and promote their welfare. There is a state obligation to protect labor. As mandated in the Constitution, the State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and" unorganized. The 1935 and 1973 Constitution also had the same provision that the "State shall afford protection to labor". The 1987 Constitution, however, added "full" protection to labor and described labor as "local and overseas" and "organized and unorganized".

In Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 701 (1992), the Supreme Court said:

To be sure, both Charters [1935 and 1973] recognize "security of tenure" as one of the rights of labor which the State is mandated to protect. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the intent of the framers of the present Constitution was to give primacy to the rights of labor and afford the sector "full protection", at least greater protection than heretofore accorded them, regardless of the geographical location of the workers and whether they are organized or not. (ld, pp. 707-708)

SOCIAL JUSTICE AS APPLIED IN CASES

A review of decided cases on social justice may bring about an understanding ofthis concept. Thus, on one hand, there should be a liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights;• on the other hand, any slight doubts must be resolved in favor of workers. 9 The doubt can arise because of a provision of the Labor Code. In the implementation and interpretation of that provision, including its implementing rules and regulations, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of labor.'" The doubt can also arise in the appreciation of evidence. In this case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the worker." However, when the law is clear, it must be applied. Thus, the 13"' month pay (Pres. Decree No. 851) is not applicable to a company already giving the equivalent bonus.

Secondly, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor in labor disputes involving national interest must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor .12

Schools are considered as falling in an industry indispensable to national interest.' 3 Thus, when there is a labor dispute in a school,



the Secretary of Labor can assume jurisdiction that automatically enjoins the intended or impending strike. All striking employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations.•• However, the assumption of jurisdiction does not result in the resolution of the labor dispute in favor of the employer.'5

Thirdly, for work contracted out, there is solidary liability imposed on the employer for the wages of the employees of the independent contractor.•• This solidary liability under Arts. 106, 1 07, and 109 of the Labor Code facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of wages and benefits giving workers ample protection as mandated by the Constitution."

Fourthly, the Supreme Court has awarded separation pay even when dismissal is for cause on ground of social justice. The separation pay is given only where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.••

Fifthly, immediate reinstatement pending appeal of an illegal dismissal case "manifests the compassionate policy towards labor as desired by the Constitution itself in its social justice provisions". In fact, the immediate reinstatement is "self-executory" .19

Nevertheless, there are rulings that put limits on protection to labor. Social justice does not justify "breaking the law"; or that "every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor"'0 ; or "oppression or self-destruction of the employer"21 or "injustice and unfairness to the employer."22

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES

There is no legal definition of management prerogative. The concept had been developed by jurisprudence. Management prerogative is defined as:

Except as limited by special laws, the employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. 23


Emmanuel 0. Sales 5

There is a judicial recognition of the employer's control of the business arising from ownership or managerial authority. Discretion, decision, and action by management over all aspects· of the business flow out of such control. Moreover, labor law does not authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its business.

However, management prerogative became more qualified with passage of labor legislations imbued with social justice. In 1993, the Supreme Court held that

The exercise of management prerogatives is not unlimited. It is circumscribed by limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or the general principles of fair play and justice. Moreover, it must be duly established that the prerogative being invoked is clearly a managerial one. 24

In addition, the "growth of industrial democracy by the institution of collective bargaining with the workers entitled to be represented by a union of their choice has no doubt contracted the sphere of management prerogative. "25 The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

How Management Prerogative Should Be Exercised To avoid liability, management prerogative should be

exercised: 1. in good faith for the advancement of the employer's

interest; 26

2. not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or under valid agreements; 27 and

3. not exercised in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive or wanton manner, or out of malice or spite.>•

~Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001-2002


SPECIFIC PREROGATIVES:

1. Prerogative to hire. One of the four tests to determine an employer-employee relationship is the power to hire.29 The selection and hiring of employees is a management prerogative. The employer has the "sole and exclusive right and prerogative to determine the nature and kind of work of its employees and manage its own operations."30 But this management prerogative is limited by law.

Thus, an employer cannot, by means of a written or oral agreement, determine the status of its employee or prevent an employee from attaining regular employment. What determines whether a certain employment is regular or casual is not the will and word of the employer to which the desperate worker often accedes. It is the nature of the activities performed in relation to the particular business or the length of time of its performance and its continued existence. The primary standard of determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the activity performed is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection may be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. 31

There are two kinds of regular employees. The first kind is those employees who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The second kind is those employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken with respect to the activity in which they are employed .32

In the second kind, an employee originally hired as casual is deemed a regular employee because the repeated and continuing need for his service sufficiently evidenced the necessity of that activity to the business."

Before an employee is considered for regularization or permanency, he is usually placed on probation. Under the law, a probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer during which the employer determines whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary employment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a


Emmanuel 0. Sales 7

probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient employee. The word probationary as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purposes of the term or period, but not its length. 34

Even while on trial, a probationary employee still enjoys the constitutional protection of security of tenure. During his tenure of employment therefore, or before his contract expires, the probationary employee cannot be removed except for causes as provided by law. 35

On the other hand, a project employee has no security of tenure. He has been defined to be one whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee, or share the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.""

2. Prerogative to discipline employees. In the case of De Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission 37 , the Supreme Court explained that the employer's prerogative to discipline its employees:

xxxx must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. While an employer has the inherent right to discipline its employees, we have always held that this right must always be exercised humanely, and the penalty it must impose should be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of infraction. The employer should bear in mind that, in the exercise of such right, what is at stake is not the employee's position but her livelihood as well. The law regards the workers with compassion."•

The Constitution gives the employees, whether regular or probationary, the right to security of tenure. This means that dismissal can be effected only if there is cause and the employee concerned was given due process.

pu Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001-2002


• Management Prerogrative and Code of Discipline

One issue that had been raised is whether or not management may be compelled to share with the union or its employees its prerogative of formulating a code of discipline. In the case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 225 SCRA 301 (1993), the Supreme Court drew the line between management prerogative regarding business operations per se and those which affect their employees' rights. According to the Court in this decision, the management prerogative "to make and enforce Company rules and regulations to carry out the functions of management" may not be interpreted to mean as cession of employees' right to participate in the deliberation of matters which may affect their rights and the formulation of policies relative thereto. The formulation of a code of discipline is one such matter. The Court pointed to Art. 211 (g) of the Labor Code where the State shall ensure the "participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare."

3. Prerogative to retrench. Retrenchment is resorted to primarily to avoid or minimize business losses. It is one of the economic grounds, or authorized causes, for dismissing employees. The decision to retrench or not to retrench is management prerogative. However, the decision, iftaken, should comply with legal requirements for the retrenchment to be valid. The requirements, to be duly proved, are

1. the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses which, if already incurred, are not merely de minimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real, or if only expected, are reasonably imminent as perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;

2. the employer serves written notice both to the employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;

3. the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least V2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher;

4. the employer exercises its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith for the advancement of its interest


Emmanuel 0. Sales 9

and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and

5. the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees such as status o.e., whether they are temporary, casual, regular or managerial employees), efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age and financial hardship for certain workers."•

4. Prerogative to declare a position as redundant. The characterization of employees' positions as redundant is an exercise of business judgment. It will be upheld as it passes the test of arbitrariness. For the redundancy program to be valid, the following are the requisites:

1. written notice served on both the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment;

2. payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay or at least one month pay for every year of service whichever is higher;

3. good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and 4. fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions

are to be declared redundant and accordingly abolished.40

There should exists the factual reality of redundancy, i.e., the service capability of the work force is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the enterprise. The position is rendered superfluous because of any number of factors such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, dropping of a particular product line previously manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity previously undertaken by the business.

5. Prerogative to contract-out work. Contracting out of work is a proprietary right of the employer in the exercise of an inherent management prerogative. 41

In the case of Meralco v. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999), the Supreme Court recognized:

DLSU Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No. I 2001-2002

1 0 MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES AND EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS

That contracting out is not unlimited; rather it is a prerogative that management enjoys subject to well-defined legal limitations. As we have previously held42 the company can determine in its business judgment whether it should contract out the performance of some of its work for as long as the employer is motivated by good faith and the contracting out must not have been resorted to circumvent the law or must not have been the result of malicious or arbitrary action. (ld, pp. 211-212)

6. Prerogative to transfer employees. Management has the prerogative to transfer an employee from one office to another within the business establishment provided there is no demotion in rank or a diminution of salary, benefits or other privileges. Management has the right to move the employee around in the various areas of the business operations in order to ascertain where the employee will function with utmost efficiency and maximum productivity or benefitto the company. 43

7. Prerogative to adopt grounds for termination. Employer has the right to adopt valid and equitable grounds as bases for terminating or transferring employees.

8. Prerogative to grant bonus. Bonus is basically a management prerogative. According to the Supreme Court in Metro Transit v. National Labor Relations Commission44 :

The general principle is that a bonus is a gratuity or an act of liberality which the recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right. A bonus, however, is a demandable or enforceable obligation when it is made part of the wage or compensation of the employee. Whether or not a bonus forms part of wages depends upon the circumstances and conditions for its payment. If it is additional compensation which the employer promised and agreed to give without any conditions imposed for its payment. such as success of business or greater production or output, then it is

DLSU Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001·2002

Emmanuel 0. Sales 11

part of the wage. But if it is paid only if profits are realized or if a certain level of productivity is achieved, it cannot be considered part of the wage. Where it is not payable to all but only to some employees and only when their labor becomes more efficient or more productive, it is only an inducement for efficiency, a prize therefore, not a part of the wage. 45

9. Prerogative to re-assign pending Investigation. Reassignment made by the management pending investigation of irregularities allegedly committed by an employee is a management prerogative. The purpose of re-assignment is no different from that of preventive suspension.••

10. Prerogative to set work standards. Management has the right to require work standards. Failure to meet the standards, or inefficiency, is a just cause for terminationY

11. Prerogative to close business or instal/labor saving devices. Management has the prerogative to close down the business or to install labor-saving devices.48

Management Prerogative and Labor Standards

Management has no authority to provide for terms and conditions lower than what the law provides. These terms and conditions are collectively known as labor standards. Expressed in terms of rights of employees, an enumeration of these labor standards found in the Labor Code and other social legislations follows. There is no attempt to evaluate the existing labor standards on whether they collectively meet the constitutional expectation of humane conditions of work and a living wage.•• The issue of sufficiency of the labor standards is addressed principally to the employees. The response of employees is invariably to improve these standards through collective bargaining. Thus, unionization may become more attractive when the employer is perceived as being unresponsive or uncaring to the economic needs of employees.



Minimum Terms and Conditions of Employment Hours of Work. An employee has the right to normal hours

of work not to exceed eight (8) hours a day with rest periods of short duration during working hours. 50

No Work Beyond Eight Hours. An employee has the right not to render overtime work against his will. 51 He may be required only when overtime work is needed as provided for by the Labor Code and when additional compensation (overtime rate) shall be paid.

Based on the Labor Code, an employee may be required by the employer to perform overtime work in any of the following cases:

1. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has been declared by the National Assembly [should be Congress) or the Chief Executive;

2. When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property, or in case of imminent danger to public safety due to an actual or impending emergency in the locality caused by serious accidents, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, epidemic, or other disaster or calamities;

3. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some other causes of similar nature;

4. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods;

5. Where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth hour is. necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of the employer; and

6. When overtime work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent thereon.52

Meal Period. An employee has the right to a noncompensable meal period of not less than sixty (60) minutes. 53

Weekly Rest Period. An employee has the right to a rest period of not less than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours after every six (6) consecutive normal work day.



No Work for Rest Day and Holidays. An employee h.as the right not to work on his scheduled rest day or any regular or special holidays. When the rest day or special holiday is networked, an employee does not receive any pay based on the principle of no work, no pay except when the rest day or special holiday is considered paid by agreement or practice of the employer. In the case of regular holidays, an employee has the right to receive his regular daily wage for the ten (1 0) regular holidays consisting of January 1, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, April 9, May 1, June 12, Last Sunday of August, November 30, December 25, and December 30. 5'

Legal Leaves. An employee has the right to avail of the following leaves as provided for by law.

1. An employee has the right to a service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay if the employee has rendered at least one year of service. This legal leave shall not apply to an employee enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five (5) days.55

2. A female employee covered and qualified by the Social Security System has the right to maternity leave of sixty (60) days for normal delivery and seventy-eight (78) days for caesarian section up to a limit of four deliveries.56

3. A married male employee who cohabits with his spouse has the right to paternity leave of seven (7) days with pay for the first four deliveries of his spouse with whom he is cohabiting. 57

4. A solo parent employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of service has the right to a solo parent leave of not more than seven (7) working days every year. 56

Minimum Wage. An employee has the right to receive a minimum wage as determined by Wage Order of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board per region.59

13th Month Pay. Irrespective of amount, an employee has the right to receive one-twelfth (1 /12) of the basic salary within a calendar year. At the option of the employer, the 13"' month pay is payable in two equal installments, one-half before the opening of the regular school year and the other half on or before December 2411 of every year. 60

DLSU Business & EcoMmics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001-2002


Payment of Wages. Wages shall be paid directly to the workers to whom they are due. 61 The employer shall not make any deduction from the wages of the worker unless the employer is authorized by law or regulation issued by the Secretary of Labor or when authorized in writing by the worker concerned.62

Forms. Wages can be paid by means of cash, bank check, postal check or money order in accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code; and through the ATMs of banks in accordance with the Labor Advisory of the Secretary of Labor, dated November 25, 1996.

Payment of wages by bank checks, postal checks or money orders is allowed where:

1. such manner of wage payment is customary on the date of the effectivity of the Code (May 1, 1 97 4); or

2. where it is stipulated in a collective agreement.

If there is no collective agreement authorizing the payment of wages by bank checks, such wage payment can still be implemented with the written consent of the employees concerned and provided all the following conditions are met:

1. there is a bank or other facility for encashment within a radius of one (1) kilometer from the workplace;

2. the employer, or any of his agents or representatives, does not receive any pecuniary benefit directly or indirectly from the arrangement; and

3. the employees are given reasonable time during banking hours to withdraw their wages from the bank which time shall be considered as compensable hours worked if done during working hours."'

The Department of Labor and Employment allows payment of salaries through ATM payroll account provided all the following conditions are met:

1. The ATM system of payment is with written consent of the employees concerned;

2. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from the bank facility which time, if done during working hours, shall be considered compensable hours worked;



3. The system shall allow workers to receive their wages within the period or frequency and in the amount prescribed under the Labor Code as amended;

4. There is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of one kilometer to the place of work;

5. Upon request of the concerned employee/s, the employer shall issue a record of payment of wages, benefit and deductions for the particular period;

6. There shall be no additional expenses and no diminution of benefits and privileges as a result of the ATM system of payment; and

7. The employer shall assume responsibility in case the wage protection provisions of law and regulations are not complied with under the arrangement. 64

Time of Payment. Wages shall be paid at least once every two (2) weeks or twice a month at intervals not exceeding sixteen (16) days65

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Books Bernas, Joaquin G. 1987 Philippine Constitution A Reviewer

Primer. 2nd Edition. Manila: Rex Book Store, 1992. 433p.

Republic of the Philippines, The Constitutional Commission of 1986.

Journal of the Constitutional Commission. Quezon City: Bureau Of Printing, 1986. 3 v.

Cases

A Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, 127 SCRA 218. Alga Moher International Placement Servicesv. Hon. Atienza, 166

SCRA 174 (1988).


16' MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES AND EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS

B Baguio Country Club Corp. v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 643 (1992). Batangas Laguna Tayabas Company v. NLRC, 209 SCRA 430

(1992). Buiserv. Leogardo, 131 SCRA 151 (1984).

c Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 138 SCRA 273

(1985). Consolidated Food Corp. v. NLRC, 315 SCRA 129 (1999).

D De Guzman v. NLRC, 312 SCRA 266 (1999). De Ocampo v. NLRC, 213 SCRA 652 (1992). Del Rosario v. De Los Santos, 22 SCRA 1196 (1968).

E Eagle Security v. NLRC, 173 SCRA 479 (1989). Employer's Confederation v. National Wages and Productivity

Commission, 201 SCRA 759 (1991).

F Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA 352. Free Telephone Workers Union v. Min. of Labor and Employment,

108 SCRA 757 (1981).

G Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 701

(1992).

International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606 (1989).

L LMG Chemicals Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 127422,

17 April2001.

DLSU-Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No.1 2001-2002


M Magnolia Dairy Products v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 483 (1996). Meralcov. NLRC, 263 SCRA531 (1996). Meralco v. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999). Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA332 (1991). Metro Transit v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 767 (1995).

N National Labor Union v. lnsularYebana Corp., 2 SCRA924 (1961).

p Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. NLRC, 225 SCRA 301 (1993). Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines Employees

Association, 57 SCRA489 (1974). Philippine Geothermal Inc. v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 211 (1990). Philippine Long Distance Telephone v. NLRC, 164 SCRA 671

(1988). Phil. Refining Co. Inc. v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 107 (1966). Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 806 (1997).

R Republic Savings Bank v. CIA, 21 SCRA 226 (1967).

s San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople, 170

SCRA 25 (1990). San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira, 186 SCRA

496 (1990). Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Comp. of the Phil., 39 SCRA

285 (1971 ). Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corp., 156 SCRA 392 (1987). St. Scholastica's College v. Torres, 210 56 (1992).

u University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 758 (1990). Ushio Marketing v. NLRC, 294 SCRA 673 (1998).

w Westin Phil. Plaza Hotel v. NLRC, 306 SCRA 631 (1999).



Statutes Constitution of the Philippines Executive Order No. 203 Series of 1987 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code Labor Advisory on Payment of Salaries Thru Automated Teller

Machine (ATM), dated 25 November 1996. Labor Code of the Philippines as amended Pres. Decree No. 851 Pres. Decree No. 891 as modified by Memorandum Order,

dated 13 August 1986. Rep. Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act) Rep. Act No. 8187 (Paternity Leave Act of 1996) Rep. Act No. 8972 (Solo Parents' Welfare Act of 2000) Social Security Law of 1997

NOTES 1 See, Employer's Confederation v. National Wages and Productivity

Comm., 201 SCRA 759 (1991). 2 See, Del Rosario v. De Los Santos, 22 SCRA 1196 (1968) where the

social justice provision in the Constitution had been equated with this statement.

3 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). 4 Journal of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, p. 762 5 ld, p. 745. 'Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3. 7 See, Bernas Joaquin. 1987 Philippine Constitution A Reviewer-Primer

(2nd Ed.) 1992 where the author described Art. II provisions of the Constitution as "ideological statements".

• Adamson &Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, 127 SCRA 218 (1984). • Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 138 SCRA 273 (1985). "Labor Code, Art. 4. "Batangas Laguna Tayabas Companyv. NLRC, 209 SCRA430 (1992). 12 Free Telephone Workers Union v. Min. of Labor and Employment, 108

SCRA 757 (1981). 13 St. Scholastica's College v. Torres, 210 56 (1992). 14 Labor Code, Art. 263 (g). 15 See, LMG Chemicals Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 127422, 17 April2001.

"Labor Code, Art. 109. 17 Eagle Security v. NLRC, 173 SCRA 479 (1989). 18 Philippine Long Distance Telephone v. NLRC, 164 SCRA 671 (1988).



19 Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC, 280 SCRA 806 (1997). 20 Sosito v. Aguinaldo Development Corp., 156 SCRA 392 (1987). 21 Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association, 57 SCRA 489 (1974).

22 Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, 107 SCRA352 (1981). "San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople, 170 SCRA

27-28 (1989) citing NLU v. lnsularYebana Corp., 2 SCRA 924 (1961). and Republic Savings Bankv. CIR, 21 SCRA226, 235 (1967).

"Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. NLRC, 225 SCRA301 (1993). 25 Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Comp. of the Phil. 39 SCRA 285

(1971). "See, San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) v. Ople, supra. Also Meralcov. NLRC, 263 SCRA531 (1996).

27 ld. 28 Phil. Refining Co. Inc. v. Garcia, 18 SCRA 107 (1966). 29 Ushio Marketing v. NLRC, 294 SCRA 673 (1998). 30 University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 758 (1990). "Baguio Country Club Corp. v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 643 (1992). 32 Philippine Geothermal Inc. v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 211 (1990). "See, fn 31. 34 lnternational Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606

(1989). 35 Alga Moher International Placement Services v. Han. Atienza, 166

SCRA 174 (1988). 36 Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, 201 SCRA332 (1991). "312 SCRA 266 (1999). 38 ld, pp. 277-278. "Asian Alcohol Corp. v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 (1999). "Ibid. 41 San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira, 186 SCRA 496

(1990). 42 De Ocampo v. NLRC, 213 SCRA 652 (1992). 43 Westin Phil. Plaza Hotel v. NLRC, 306 SCRA 631 (1999). 44 245 SCRA 767 (1995). 45 1d. at pp. 774-775. ••consolidated Food Corp. v. NLRC, 315 SCRA 129 (1999). "Buiserv. Leogardo,131 SCRA 151 (1984). 48 Magnolia Dairy Products v. NLRC, 252 SCRA483 (1996). 49 Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution provides that employees "shall be

entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage".

50 Labor Code, Arts. 83-84. 51 Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, Book Ill, Sec. 10. 52 ld.



5> Labor Code, Art. 85. 54 ld., Art. 94 and Executive Order No. 203 Series of 1987. 55 ld., Art. 95. 56 Social Security Law of 1997, Sec. 14-A. 57 Rep. Act No. 8187 (Paternity Leave Act of 1996). sa Rep. Act No. 8972 (Solo Parents' Welfare Act of 2000). 59 Labor Code, Art. 99 as amended by Rep. Act No. 6727 (Wage

Rationalization Act). •• Pres. Decree No. 891 as modified by Memorandum Order, dated 13 August 1986.

" Labor Code, Art. 105. ' 2 ld., Art. 113. 83 lmplementing Rules of the Labor Code, Book Ill, Rule VIII, Sec. 2. 84 Labor Advisory on Payment of Salaries Thru Automated Teller Machine

(ATM), dated 25 November 1996. 65 Labor Code, Art. 103.

DLSU Business & Economics Review Volume 13 No. I 2001-2002

Documents

Management Prerogatives and Employees' Rights (A General ......Management prerogatives and employees' rights appear to be two contradictory and even at first impression, irreconcilable