pearl digests.doc

8/20/2019 pearl digests.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pearl-digestsdoc 1/109

People’s Broadcasting v. Sec. of DOLEG.R. no. 1796!. "a# $% !&&9

'acts(Jandeleon Juezan (respondent) filed a complaint against People’s Broadcasting

Service, Inc. (Bombo Rado P!ils., Inc) (petitioner) for illegal deduction, non"pamentof service incentive leave, #$ t! mont! pa, premium pa for !olida and rest da andillegal diminution of benefits, delaed pament of %ages and non"coverage of SSS,P&'"IBI' and P!il!ealt! before t!e epartment of abor and *mploment (+*)Regional +ffice o. -II,ebu it.

+n t!e basis of t!e complaint, t!e +* conducted a plant level inspection on /$September /00$. In t!e Inspection Report Form, t!e abor Inspector %rote under t!e!eading 12indings3Recommendations4 1non"diminution of benefits4 and 1ote5Respondent den emploer"emploee relations!ip %it! t!e complainant" see otice of Inspection results.4

Petitioner %as re6uired to rectif3restitute t!e violations %it!in five (7) das fromreceipt. o rectification %as effected b petitioner8 t!us, summar investigations %ereconducted, %it! t!e parties eventuall ordered to submit t!eir respective positionpapers.

In !is +rder dated /9 2ebruar /00:, +* Regional irector &tt. Rodolfo ;.Sabulao (Regional irector) ruled t!at respondent is an emploee of petitioner, and t!att!e former is entitled to !is mone claims amounting to P/0$, 9/<.$0. Petitioner soug!treconsideration of t!e +rder, claiming t!at t!e Regional irector gave credence to t!edocuments offered b respondent %it!out e=amining t!e originals, but at t!e same time!e missed or failed to consider petitioner’s evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration %as denied.> +n appeal to t!e +* Secretar, petitioner denied oncemore t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip. In its +rder dated /9 Januar/007, t!e &cting +* Secretar dismissed t!e appeal on t!e ground t!at petitioner didnot post a cas! or suret bond and instead submitted a eed of &ssignment of Ban?eposit. Petitioner maintained t!at t!ere is no emploer"emploee relations!ip !adever e=isted bet%een it and respondent because it %as t!e drama directors andproducers %!o paid, supervised and disciplined respondent. It also added t!at t!e case%as beond t!e @urisdiction of t!e +* and s!ould !ave been considered b t!e labor arbiter because respondent’s claim e=ceeded P7,000.00.

)ss*e(oes t!e Secretar of abor !ave t!e po%er to determine t!e e=istence of an

emploer"emploee relations!ipA

+eld(o.

learl t!e la% accords a prerogative to t!e R over t!e claim %!en t!eemploer"emploee relations!ip !as terminated or suc! relations!ip !as not arisen atall. !e reason is obvious. In t!e second situation especiall, t!e e=istence of anemploer"emploee relations!ip is a matter %!ic! is not easil determinable from an



ordinar inspection, necessaril so, because t!e elements of suc! a relations!ip are notverifiable from a mere ocular e=amination. !e intricacies and implications of anemploer"emploee relations!ip demand t!at t!e level of scrutin s!ould be far abovet!e cursor and t!emec!anical. C!ile documents, particularl documents found in t!e emploer’s

office are t!e primar source materials, %!at ma prove decisive are factors related tot!e !istor of t!e emploer’s business operations, its current state as %ell as acceptedcontemporar practices in t!e industr. ;ore often t!an not, t!e 6uestion of emploer"emploee relations!ip becomes a battle of evidence, t!e determination of %!ic! s!ouldbe compre!ensive and intensive and t!erefore best left to t!e specialized 6uasi"

@udicial bod t!at is t!e R.

)t can ,e ass*-ed tat te DOLE in te e/ercise of its visitorial andenforce-ent po0er so-eo0 as to -ae a deter-ination of te e/istence of ane-plo#er2e-plo#ee relationsip. S*c prerogatival deter-ination% o0ever%cannot ,e coe/tensive 0it te visitorial and enforce-ent po0er itself. )ndeed%s*c deter-ination is -erel# preli-inar#% incidental and collateral to te DOLE’spri-ar# f*nction of enforcing la,or standards provisions. 3e deter-ination of te e/istence of e-plo#er2e-plo#ee relationsip is still pri-aril# lodged 0it te4LR5. 3is is te -eaning of te cla*se in cases 0ere te relationsip of e-plo#er2e-plo#ee still e/ists in 8rt. 1!$ ,:.

!us, before t!e +* ma e=ercise its po%ers under &rticle #/D, t%o important6uestions must be resolved5 (#) oes t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip still e=ist, or alternativel, %as t!ere ever an emploer"emploee relations!ip to spea? of8 and (/) &ret!ere violations of t!e abor ode or of an labor la%A

!e e=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip is a statutor prere6uisite toand a limitation on t!e po%er of t!e Secretar of abor, one %!ic! t!e legislativebranc! is entitled to impose. !e rationale underling t!is limitation is to eliminate t!eprospect of competing conclusions of t!e Secretar of abor and t!e R, on amatter fraug!t %it! 6uestions of fact and la%, %!ic! is best resolved b t!e 6uasi"

@udicial bod, %!ic! is t!e R, rat!er t!an an administrative official of t!e e=ecutivebranc! of t!e government. If t!e Secretar of abor proceeds to e=ercise !is visitorialand enforcement po%ers absent t!e first re6uisite, as t!e dissent proposes, !is officeconfers @urisdiction on itself %!ic! it cannot ot!er%ise ac6uire.

Reading of &rt. #/D of t!e abor ode reveals t!at t!e Secretar of abor or !isaut!orized representatives %as granted visitorial and enforcement po%ers for t!e

purpose of determining violations of, and enforcing, t!e abor ode and an labor la%, %age order, or rules and regulations issued pursuant t!ereto. ecessaril, t!eactual e=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip affects t!e comple=ion of t!eputative findings t!at t!e Secretar of abor ma determine, since emploees areentitled to a different set of rig!ts under t!e abor ode from t!e emploer as opposedto non"emploees. &mong t!ese differentiated rig!ts are t!ose accorded b t!e 1labor standards4 provisions of t!e abor ode, %!ic! t!e Secretar of abor is mandated toenforce. If t!ere is no emploer"emploee relations!ip in t!e first place, t!e dut of t!e



emploer to ad!ere to t!ose labor standards %it! respect to t!e non"emploees is6uestionable.

&t least a prima facie s!o%ing of suc! absence of relations!ip, as in t!is case, isneeded to preclude t!e +* from t!e e=ercise of its po%er. !e Secretar of abor

%ould not !ave been precluded from e=ercising t!e po%ers under &rticle #/D (b) over petitioner if anot!er person %it! better"grounded claim of emploment t!an t!at %!ic!respondent !ad. Respondent, especiall if !e %ere an emploee, could !ave ver %ellen@oined ot!er emploees to complain %it! t!e +*, and, at t!e same time, petitioner could ill"afford to disclaim an emploment relations!ip %it! all of t!e people under itsaegis.

3e -ost i-portant consideration for te allo0ance of te instant petitionis te opport*nit# for te 5o*rt not onl# to set te de-arcation ,et0een te4LR5’s ;*risdiction and te DOLE’s prerogative ,*t also te proced*re 0en tecase involves te f*nda-ental callenge on te DOLE’s prerogative ,ased onlac of e-plo#er2e-plo#ee relationsip. 8s e/a*stivel# disc*ssed ere% teDOLE’s prerogative inges on te e/istence of e-plo#er2e-plo#ee relationsip%te iss*e is 0ic is at te ver# eart of tis case. 8nd te evidence clearl#indicates private respondent as never ,een petitioner’s e-plo#ee. B*t teDOLE did not address% 0ile te 5o*rt of 8ppeals glossed over% te iss*e. 3epere-ptor# dis-issal of te instant petition on a tecnicalit# 0o*ld deprive te5o*rt of te opport*nit# to resolve te novel controvers#.

<+ERE'ORE, t!e petition is GR843ED.



Republic of t!e P!ilippines

S=PRE"E 5O=R3;anila

S*+ I-ISI+

G.R. 4o. 1796! "a# $% !&&9

PEOPLE>S BRO8D58S3)4G BO"BO R8D?O P+)LS.% )45.:% Petitioner,vs.3+E SE5RE38R? O' 3+E DEP8R3"E43 O' L8BOR 84D E"PLO?"E43% 3+EREG)O48L D)RE53OR% DOLE REG)O4 @))% and A84DELEO4 A=E84% Respondents.

* I S I +

3)4G8% J.:

!e present controvers concerns a matter of first impression, re6uiring as it does t!edetermination of t!e demarcation line bet%een t!e prerogative of t!e epartment of



abor and *mploment (+*) Secretar and !is dul aut!orized representatives, ont!e one !and, and t!e @urisdiction of t!e ational abor Relations ommission, on t!eot!er, under &rticle #/D (b) of t!e abor ode in an instance %!ere t!e emploer !asc!allenged t!e @urisdiction of t!e +* at t!e ver first level on t!e ground t!at noemploer"emploee relations!ip ever e=isted bet%een t!e parties.

I.

!e instant petition for certiorari under Rule <7 assails t!e decision and t!e resolution of t!e ourt of &ppeals dated /< +ctober /00< and /< June /009, respectivel, in .&.'.R. *B"SP o. 00D77.#

!e petition traces its origins to a complaint filed b Jandeleon Juezan (respondent)against People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo Rado P!ils., Inc) (petitioner) for illegal deduction, non"pament of service incentive leave, #$t! mont! pa, premium pafor !olida and rest da and illegal diminution of benefits, delaed pament of %ages

and non"coverage of SSS, P&'"IBI' and P!il!ealt! before t!e epartment of abor and *mploment (+*) Regional +ffice o. -II, ebu it./ +n t!e basis of t!ecomplaint, t!e +* conducted a plant level inspection on /$ September /00$. In t!eInspection Report 2orm,$ t!e abor Inspector %rote under t!e !eadingE2indings3RecommendationsE Enon"diminution of benefitsE and Eote5 Respondent denemploer"emploee relations!ip %it! t!e complainant" see otice of Inspection results.EIn t!e otice of Inspection Results: also bearing t!e date /$ September /00$, t!e abor Inspector made t!e follo%ing notations5

;anagement representative informed t!at complainant is a drama talent !ired on a per drama E participation basisE !ence no emploer"emploees!ip >sicF e=isted bet%een

t!em. &s proof of t!is, management presented p!otocopies of cas! vouc!ers, billingstatement, emploments of specific underta?ing (a contract bet%een t!e talent director G t!e complainant), summar of billing of drama production etc. !e (mgt.) !as >sicFnot control of t!e talent if !e ventures into anot!er contract %3 ot!er broadcastingindustries.

+n t!e ot!er !and, complainant Juezan’s alleged violation of non"diminution of benefitsis computed as follo%s5

H P /,0003#7 das #.7 mos P <,000

(&ugust #30$ to Sept #730$)

ote5 Recommend for summar investigation or %!atever action deem proper.7

Petitioner %as re6uired to rectif3restitute t!e violations %it!in five (7) das from receipt.o rectification %as effected b petitioner8 t!us, summar investigations %ereconducted, %it! t!e parties eventuall ordered to submit t!eir respective positionpapers.<

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_179652_2009.html#fnt1














In !is +rder dated /9 2ebruar /00:,9 +* Regional irector &tt. Rodolfo ;. Sabulao(Regional irector) ruled t!at respondent is an emploee of petitioner, and t!at t!eformer is entitled to !is mone claims amounting to P/0$,9/<.$0. Petitioner soug!treconsideration of t!e +rder, claiming t!at t!e Regional irector gave credence to t!edocuments offered b respondent %it!out e=amining t!e originals, but at t!e same time

!e missed or failed to consider petitioner’s evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration %as denied.D +n appeal to t!e +* Secretar, petitioner denied oncemore t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip. In its +rder dated /9 Januar/007, t!e &cting +* Secretar dismissed t!e appeal on t!e ground t!at petitioner didnot post a cas! or suret bond and instead submitted a eed of &ssignment of Ban?eposit.K

Petitioner elevated t!e case to t!e ourt of &ppeals, claiming t!at it %as denied dueprocess %!en t!e +* Secretar disregarded t!e evidence it presented and failed togive it t!e opportunit to refute t!e claims of respondent. Petitioner maintained t!att!ere is no emploer"emploee relations!ip !ad ever e=isted bet%een it and respondent

because it %as t!e drama directors and producers %!o paid, supervised and disciplinedrespondent. It also added t!at t!e case %as beond t!e @urisdiction of t!e +* ands!ould !ave been considered b t!e labor arbiter because respondent’s claim e=ceededP7,000.00.

!e ourt of &ppeals !eld t!at petitioner %as not deprived of due process as t!eessence t!ereof is onl an opportunit to be !eard, %!ic! petitioner !ad %!en it filed amotion for reconsideration %it! t!e +* Secretar. It furt!er ruled t!at t!e latter !adt!e po%er to order and enforce compliance %it! labor standard la%s irrespective of t!eamount of individual claims because t!e limitation imposed b &rticle /K of t!e abor ode !ad been repealed b Republic &ct o. 99$0.#0 Petitioner soug!t reconsideration

of t!e decision but its motion %as denied.

##

Before t!is ourt, petitioner argues t!at t!e ational abor Relations ommission(R), and not t!e +* Secretar, !as @urisdiction over respondent’s claim, in vie%of &rticles /#9 and #/D of t!e abor ode. #/ It adds t!at t!e ourt of &ppeals committedgrave abuse of discretion %!en it dismissed petitioner’s appeal %it!out delving on t!eissues raised t!erein, particularl t!e claim t!at no emploer"emploee relations!ip !adever e=isted bet%een petitioner and respondent. 2inall, petitioner avers t!at t!ere is noappeal, or an plain, speed and ade6uate remed in t!e ordinar course of la%available to it.

+n t!e ot!er !and, respondent posits t!at t!e ourt of &ppeals did not abuse itsdiscretion. Le invo?es Republic &ct o. 99$0, %!ic! Eremoves t!e @urisdiction of t!eSecretar of abor and *mploment or !is dul aut!orized representatives, from t!eeffects of t!e restrictive provisions of &rticle #/K and /#9 of t!e abor ode, regardingt!e confinement of @urisdiction based on t!e amount of claims.E #$ Respondent alsoclaims t!at petitioner %as not denied due process since even %!en t!e case %as %it!t!e Regional irector, a !earing %as conducted and pieces of evidence %ere presented.Respondent stands b t!e propriet of t!e ourt of &ppeals’ ruling t!at t!ere e=ists an

















emploer"emploee relations!ip bet%een !im and petitioner. 2inall, respondent arguest!at t!e instant petition for certiorari is a %rong mode of appeal considering t!atpetitioner !ad earlier filed a Petition for ertiorari, ;andamus and Pro!ibition %it! t!eourt of &ppeals8 petitioner, instead, s!ould !ave filed a Petition for Revie%.#:

II.

!e significance of t!is case ma be reduced to one simple 6uestionMdoes t!eSecretar of abor !ave t!e po%er to determine t!e e=istence of an emploer"emploeerelations!ipA

o resolve t!is pivotal issue, one must loo? into t!e e=tent of t!e visitorial andenforcement po%er of t!e +* found in &rticle #/D (b) of t!e abor ode, as amendedb Republic &ct 99$0. It reads5

&rticle #/D (b) ot%it!standing t!e provisions of &rticles #/K and /#9 of t!is ode to t!e

contrar, and in cases %!ere t!e relations!ip of emploer"emploee still e=ists, t!eSecretar of abor and *mploment or !is dul aut!orized representatives s!all !avet!e po%er to issue compliance orders to give effect to t!e labor standards provisions of t!is ode and ot!er labor legislation based on t!e findings of labor emploment andenforcement officers or industrial safet engineers made in t!e course of inspection.!e Secretar or !is dul aut!orized representative s!all issue %rits of e=ecution to t!eappropriate aut!orit for t!e enforcement of t!eir orders, e=cept in cases %!ere t!eemploer contests t!e findings of t!e labor emploment and enforcement officer andraises issues supported b documentar proofs %!ic! %ere not considered in t!ecourse of inspection. (emp!asis supplied)

= = =

!e provision is 6uite e=plicit t!at t!e visitorial and enforcement po%er of t!e +*comes into pla onl Ein cases %!en t!e relations!ip of emploer"emploee still e=ists.EIt also underscores t!e avo%ed ob@ective underling t!e grant of po%er to t!e +*%!ic! is Eto give effect to t!e labor standard provision of t!is ode and ot!er labor legislation.E +f course, a person’s entitlement to labor standard benefits under t!e labor la%s presupposes t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip in t!e first place.

!e clause Ein cases %!ere t!e relations!ip of emploer"emploee still e=istsE signifiest!at t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip must !ave e=isted even before t!e emergence

of t!e controvers. ecessaril, t!e +*’s po%er does not appl in t%o instances,namel5 (a) %!ere t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip !as ceased8 and (b) %!ere nosuc! relations!ip !as ever e=isted.

!e first situation is categoricall covered b Sec. $, Rule ## of t!e Rules on t!eisposition of abor Standards ases#7 issued b t!e +* Secretar. It reads5

Rule II ;+*N &I;S &RISI' 2R+; +;P&I3R+OI* ISP*I+








Sec. $. omplaints %!ere no emploer"emploee relations!ip actuall e=ists. C!ereemploer"emploee relations!ip no longer e=ists b reason of t!e fact t!at it !as alreadbeen severed, claims for pament of monetar benefits fall %it!in t!e e=clusive andoriginal @urisdiction of t!e labor arbiters. &ccordingl, if on t!e face of t!e complaint, itcan be ascertained t!at emploer"emploee relations!ip no longer e=ists, t!e case,

%!et!er accompanied b an allegation of illegal dismissal, s!all immediatel beendorsed b t!e Regional irector to t!e appropriate branc! of t!e ational abor Relations ommission (R).

In t!e recent case of Ba Laven, Inc. v. &buan,#< t!is ourt recognized t!e first situationand accordingl ruled t!at a complainant’s allegation of !is illegal dismissal !addeprived t!e +* of @urisdiction as per &rticle /#9 of t!e abor ode.#9

In t!e first situation, t!e claim !as to be referred to t!e R because it is t!e R%!ic! !as @urisdiction in vie% of t!e termination of t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip.!e same procedure !as to be follo%ed in t!e second situation since it is t!e R t!at

!as @urisdiction in vie% of t!e absence of emploer"emploee relations!ip bet%een t!eevidentiar parties from t!e start.

learl t!e la% accords a prerogative to t!e R over t!e claim %!en t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip !as terminated or suc! relations!ip !as not arisen at all. !ereason is obvious. In t!e second situation especiall, t!e e=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip is a matter %!ic! is not easil determinable from an ordinarinspection, necessaril so, because t!e elements of suc! a relations!ip are notverifiable from a mere ocular e=amination. !e intricacies and implications of anemploer"emploee relations!ip demand t!at t!e level of scrutin s!ould be far abovet!e cursor and t!e mec!anical. C!ile documents, particularl documents found in t!e

emploer’s

office are t!e primar source materials, %!at ma prove decisive are factors related tot!e !istor of t!e emploer’s business operations, its current state as %ell as acceptedcontemporar practices in t!e industr. ;ore often t!an not, t!e 6uestion of emploer"emploee relations!ip becomes a battle of evidence, t!e determination of %!ic! s!ouldbe compre!ensive and intensive and t!erefore best left to t!e specialized 6uasi"@udicialbod t!at is t!e R.

It can be assumed t!at t!e +* in t!e e=ercise of its visitorial and enforcement po%er some!o% !as to ma?e a determination of t!e e=istence of an emploer"emploeerelations!ip. Suc! prerogatival determination, !o%ever, cannot be coe=tensive %it! t!evisitorial and enforcement po%er itself. Indeed, suc! determination is merelpreliminar, incidental and collateral to t!e +*’s primar function of enforcing labor standards provisions. !e determination of t!e e=istence of emploer"emploeerelations!ip is still primaril lodged %it! t!e R. !is is t!e meaning of t!e clause Eincases %!ere t!e relations!ip of emploer"emploee still e=istsE in &rt. #/D (b).







!us, before t!e +* ma e=ercise its po%ers under &rticle #/D, t%o important6uestions must be resolved5 (#) oes t!e emploer"emploee relations!ip still e=ist, or alternativel, %as t!ere ever an emploer"emploee relations!ip to spea? of8 and (/) &ret!ere violations of t!e abor ode or of an labor la%A

!e e=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip is a statutor prere6uisite to and alimitation on t!e po%er of t!e Secretar of abor, one %!ic! t!e legislative branc! isentitled to impose. !e rationale underling t!is limitation is to eliminate t!e prospect of competing conclusions of t!e Secretar of abor and t!e R, on a matter fraug!t%it! 6uestions of fact and la%, %!ic! is best resolved b t!e 6uasi"@udicial bod, %!ic! ist!e R, rat!er t!an an administrative official of t!e e=ecutive branc! of t!egovernment. If t!e Secretar of abor proceeds to e=ercise !is visitorial andenforcement po%ers absent t!e first re6uisite, as t!e dissent proposes, !is officeconfers @urisdiction on itself %!ic! it cannot ot!er%ise ac6uire.

!e approac! suggested b t!e dissent is fro%ned upon b common la%. o %it5

>IFt is a general rule, t!at no court of limited @urisdiction can give itself @urisdiction b a%rong decision on a point collateral to t!e merits of t!e case upon %!ic! t!e limit to its

@urisdiction depends8 and !o%ever its decision ma be final on all particulars, ma?ing uptoget!er t!at sub@ect matter %!ic!, if true, is %it!in its @urisdiction, and !o%ever necessar in man cases it ma be for it to ma?e a preliminar in6uir, %!et!er somecollateral matter be or be not %it!in t!e limits, et, upon t!is preliminar 6uestion, itsdecision must al%as be open to in6uir in t!e superior court. #D

& more liberal interpretative mode, Epragmatic or functional analsis,E !as also emergedin ascertaining t!e @urisdictional boundaries of administrative agencies %!ose

@urisdiction is establis!ed b statute. Onder t!is approac!, t!e ourt e=amines t!eintended function of t!e tribunal and decides %!et!er a particular provision falls %it!inor outside t!at function, rat!er t!an ma?ing t!e provision itself t!e determiningcenterpiece of t!e analsis.#K Net even under t!is more e=pansive approac!, t!e dissentfails.

& reading of &rt. #/D of t!e abor ode reveals t!at t!e Secretar of abor or !isaut!orized representatives %as granted visitorial and enforcement po%ers for t!epurpose of determining violations of, and enforcing, t!e abor ode and an labor la%,%age order, or rules and regulations issued pursuant t!ereto. ecessaril, t!e actuale=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip affects t!e comple=ion of t!e putativefindings t!at t!e Secretar of abor ma determine, since emploees are entitled to adifferent set of rig!ts under t!e abor ode from t!e emploer as opposed to non"emploees. &mong t!ese differentiated rig!ts are t!ose accorded b t!e Elabor standardsE provisions of t!e abor ode, %!ic! t!e Secretar of abor is mandated toenforce. If t!ere is no emploer"emploee relations!ip in t!e first place, t!e dut of t!eemploer to ad!ere to t!ose labor standards %it! respect to t!e non"emploees is6uestionable.







!is decision s!ould not be considered as placing an undue burden on t!e Secretar of abor in t!e e=ercise of visitorial and enforcement po%ers, nor seen as anunprecedented diminution of t!e same, but rat!er a recognition of t!e statutorlimitations t!ereon. & mere assertion of absence of emploer"emploee relations!ipdoes not deprive t!e +* of @urisdiction over t!e claim under &rticle #/D of t!e abor

ode. &t least a prima facie s!o%ing of suc! absence of relations!ip, as in t!is case, isneeded to preclude t!e +* from t!e e=ercise of its po%er. !e Secretar of abor %ould not !ave been precluded from e=ercising t!e po%ers under &rticle #/D (b) over petitioner if anot!er person %it! better"grounded claim of emploment t!an t!at %!ic!respondent !ad. Respondent, especiall if !e %ere an emploee, could !ave ver %ellen@oined ot!er emploees to complain %it! t!e +*, and, at t!e same time, petitioner could ill"afford to disclaim an emploment relations!ip %it! all of t!e people under itsaegis.

Cit!out a doubt, petitioner, since t!e inception of t!is case !ad been consistent inmaintaining t!at respondent is not its emploee. ertainl, a preliminar determination,

based on t!e evidence offered, and noted b t!e abor Inspector during t!e inspectionas %ell as submitted during t!e proceedings before t!e Regional irector puts ingenuine doubt t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip. 2rom t!at point on, t!eprudent recourse on t!e part of t!e +* s!ould !ave been to refer respondent to t!eR for t!e proper dispensation of !is claims. 2urt!ermore, as discussed earlier, event!e evidence relied on b t!e Regional irector in !is order are mere self"servingdeclarations of respondent, and !ence cannot be relied upon as proof of emploer"emploee relations!ip.

III.

&side from lac? of @urisdiction, t!ere is anot!er cogent reason to to set aside t!eRegional irector’s /9 2ebruar /00: +rder. & careful stud of t!e case reveals t!at t!esaid +rder, %!ic! found respondent as an emploee of petitioner and directed t!epament of respondent’s mone claims, is not supported b substantial evidence, and%as even made in disregard of t!e evidence on record.

It is not enoug! t!at t!e evidence be simpl considered. !e standard is substantialevidence as in all ot!er 6uasi"@udicial agencies. !e standard emploed in t!e lastsentence of &rticle #/D(b) of t!e abor ode t!at t!e documentar proofs beEconsidered in t!e course of inspectionE does not appl. It applies onl to issues ot!er t!an t!e fundamental issue of e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip. & contrarrule %ould lead to controversies on t!e part of labor officials in resolving t!e issue of emploer"emploee relations!ip. !e onset of arbitrariness is t!e advent of denial of substantive due process.

&s a general rule, t!e Supreme ourt is not a trier of facts. !is applies %it! greater force in cases before 6uasi"@udicial agencies %!ose findings of fact are accorded greatrespect and even finalit. o be sure, t!e same findings s!ould be supported bsubstantial evidence from %!ic! t!e said tribunals can ma?e its o%n independent



evaluation of t!e facts. i?e%ise, it must not be rendered %it! grave abuse of discretion8ot!er%ise, t!is ourt %ill not up!old t!e tribunals’ conclusion. /0 In t!e same manner, t!isourt %ill not !esitate to set aside t!e labor tribunal’s findings of fact %!en it is clearls!o%n t!at t!e %ere arrived at arbitraril or in disregard of t!e evidence on record or %!en t!ere is s!o%ing of fraud or error of la%./#

&t t!e onset, it is t!e ourt’s considered vie% t!at t!e e=istence of emploer" emploeerelations!ip could !ave been easil resolved, or at least prima facie determined b t!elabor inspector, during t!e inspection b loo?ing at t!e records of petitioner %!ic! canbe found in t!e %or? premises. evert!eless, even if t!e labor inspector !ad notedpetitioner’s manifestation and documents in t!e otice of Inspection Results, it is clear t!at !e did not give muc! credence to said evidence, as !e did not find t!e need toinvestigate t!e matter furt!er. onsidering t!at t!e documents s!o%n b petitioner,namel5 cas! vouc!ers, c!ec?s and statements of account, summar billings evidencingpament to t!e alleged real emploer of respondent, letter"contracts denominated asE*mploment for a Specific Onderta?ing,E prima facie negate t!e e=istence of emploer"

emploee relations!ip, t!e labor inspector could !ave e=erted a bit more effort andloo?ed into petitioner’s paroll, for e=ample, or its roll of emploees, or intervie%ed ot!er emploees in t!e premises. &fter all, t!e labor inspector, as a labor regulation officer isgiven Eaccess to emploer’s records and premises at an time of da or nig!t %!enever %or? is being underta?en t!erein, and t!e rig!t to cop t!erefrom, to 6uestion anemploee and investigate an fact, condition or matter %!ic! ma be necessar todetermine violations or %!ic! ma aid in t!e enforcement of t!is ode and of an labor la%, %age order or rules and regulations pursuant t!ereto.E// espite t!ese far"reac!ingpo%ers of labor regulation officers, records reveal t!at no additional efforts %ere e=ertedin t!e course of t!e inspection.

!e ourt furt!er e=amined t!e records and discovered to its disma t!at even t!eRegional irector turned a blind ee to t!e evidence presented b petitioner and reliedinstead on t!e self"serving claims of respondent.

In !is position paper, respondent claimed t!at !e %as !ired b petitioner in September #KK< as a radio talent3spinner, %or?ing from D500 am until 7 p.m., si= das a %ee?, on agross rate of P<0.00 per script, earning an average of P#7,0000.00 per mont!, paableon a semi"mont!l basis. Le added t!at t!e pament of %ages %as delaed8 t!at !e%as not given an service incentive leave or its monetar commutation, or !is #$t!mont! pa8 and t!at !e %as not made a member of t!e Social Securit Sstem (SSS),Pag"Ibig and P!ilLealt!. B Januar /00#, t!e number of radio programs of %!ic!respondent %as a talent3spinner %as reduced, resulting in t!e reduction of !is mont!lincome from P#7,000.00 to onl P:,000.00, an amount !e could barel live on. &nentt!e claim of petitioner t!at no emploer"emploee relations!ip ever e=isted, respondentargued t!at t!at !e %as !ired b petitioner, !is %ages %ere paid under t!e paroll of t!elatter, !e %as under t!e control of petitioner and its agents, and it %as petitioner %!o!ad t!e po%er to dismiss !im from !is emploment. /$ In support of !is position paper,respondent attac!ed a p!otocop of an identification card purportedl issued bpetitioner, bearing respondent’s picture and name %it! t!e designation ESpinnerE8 at t!e











bac? of t!e I.., t!e follo%ing is %ritten5 E !is certifies t!at t!e card !older is a dul &ut!orized ;*I& Representative of B+;B+ R&N+ PLIIPPI*S L* +.#Radio et%or? in t!e ountr QQQB&S& R&N+ B+;B+QQQE /: Respondent li?e%iseincluded a ertification %!ic! reads5

!is is to certif t!at ;R. J&**+ JO*& is a program emploee of P*+P*’SBR+&&SI' S*R-I*S, I. (N;2" Bombo Rado ebu) since #KK0 up to t!epresent.

2urt!erl certifies t!at ;r. Juezan is receiving a mont!l salar of 2I2**L+OS& (P#7,000.00) P*S+S.

!is certification is issued upon t!e re6uest of t!e above stated name to substantiateloan re6uirement.

'iven t!is #Dt! da of &pril /000, ebu it , P!ilippines.

(signed)'R*;& B. S+&*Station ;anager

+n t!e ot!er !and, petitioner maintained in its position paper t!at respondent !ad never been its emploee. &ttac!ed as anne=es to its position paper are p!otocopies of cas!vouc!ers it issued to drama producers, as %ell as letters of emploment captionedE*mploment for a Specific Onderta?ingE, %!erein respondent %as appointed bdifferent drama directors as spinner3narrator for specific radio programs. /7

In !is +rder, t!e Regional irector merel made a passing remar? on petitioner’s claimof lac? of emploer"emploee relations!ipMa to?en paragrap!Mand proceeded to adetailed recitation of respondent’s allegations. !e documents introduced b petitioner in its position paper and even t!ose presented during t!e inspection %ere not given aniota of credibilit. Instead, full recognition and acceptance %as accorded to t!e claims of respondentMfrom t!e !ours of %or? to !is mont!l salar, to !is alleged actual duties,as %ell as to !is alleged Eevidence.E In fact, t!e findings are anc!ored almost verbatimon t!e self"serving allegations of respondent.

2urt!ermore, respondent’s pieces of evidenceMt!e identification card and t!ecertification issued b petitioner’s 'reman SolanteM are not even determinative of an

emploer"emploee relations!ip. !e certification, issued upon t!e re6uest of respondent, specificall stated t!at E;R. J&**+ JO*& is a program emploeeof P*+P*’S BR+&&SI' S*R-I*S, I. (N;2" Bombo Rado ebu),E it isnot t!erefore Ecrstal clear t!at complainant is a station emploee rat!er t!an a programemploee !ence entitled to all t!e benefits appurtenant t!ereto,E/< as found b t!e+* Regional irector. Respondent s!ould be bound b !is o%n evidence. ;oreover,t!e classification as to %!et!er one is a Estation emploeeE and Eprogram emploee,E aslifted from Polic Instruction o. :0,/9 dividing t!e %or?ers in t!e broadcast industr into











onl t%o groups is not binding on t!is ourt, especiall %!en t!e classification !as nobasis eit!er in la% or in fact./D

*ven t!e identification card purportedl issued b petitioner is not proof of emploer"emploee relations!ip since it onl identified respondent as an E&ut!orized

Representative of Bombo Rado,E and not as an emploee. !e p!rase gainssignificance %!en compared vis a vis t!e follo%ing notation in t!e sample identificationcards presented b petitioner in its motion for reconsideration5

#. !is is to certif t!at t!e person %!ose picture and signature appear !ereon isan emploee of Bombo Radio P!ilippines.

/. !is I must be %orn at all times %it!in Bombo Rado P!ilippines premises for proper identification and securit. 2urt!ermore, t!is is t!e propert of BomboRado P!ilippines and must be surrendered upon separation from t!e compan.

LO;& R*S+OR* *P&R;*

(Signed)J*&I . P&*RLR L*&

Respondent tried to address t!e discrepanc bet%een !is identification card and t!estandard identification cards issued b petitioner to its emploees b arguing t!at %!at!e anne=ed to !is position paper %as t!e old identification card issued to !im bpetitioner. Le t!en presented a p!otocop of anot!er EoldE identification card, t!is timepurportedl issued to one of t!e emploees %!o %as issued t!e ne% identification card

presented b petitioner.

/K

Respondent’s argument does not convince. If it %ere true t!at!e is an emploee of petitioner, !e %ould !ave been issued a ne% identification cardsimilar to t!e ones presented b petitioner, and !e s!ould !ave presented a cop of suc! ne% identification card. Lis failure to s!o% a ne% identification card mereldemonstrates t!at %!at !e !as is onl !is E;ediaE I, %!ic! does not constitute proof of !is emploment %it! petitioner.

It !as long been establis!ed t!at in administrative and 6uasi"@udicial proceedings,substantial evidence is sufficient as a basis for @udgment on t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip. Substantial evidence, %!ic! is t!e 6uantum of proof re6uired inlabor cases, is Et!at amount of relevant evidence %!ic! a reasonable mind mig!t accept

as ade6uate to @ustif a conclusion.E

$0

o particular form of evidence is re6uired toprove t!e e=istence of suc! emploer"emploee relations!ip. &n competent andrelevant evidence to prove t!e relations!ip ma be admitted.$# Lence, %!ile noparticular form of evidence is re6uired, a finding t!at suc! relations!ip e=ists must stillrest on some substantial evidence. ;oreover, t!e substantialit of t!e evidencedepends on its 6uantitative as %ell as its qualitative aspects.$/













In t!e instant case, save for respondent’s self"serving allegations and self"defeatingevidence, t!ere is no substantial basis to %arrant t!e Regional irector’s finding t!atrespondent is an emploee of petitioner. Interestingl, t!e +rder of t!e Secretar of abor dening petitioner’s appeal dated /9 Januar /007, as %ell as t!e decision of t!eourt of &ppeals dismissing t!e petition for certiorari, are silent on t!e issue of t!e

e=istence of an emploer"emploee relations!ip, %!ic! furt!er suggests t!at no real andproper determination t!e e=istence of suc! relations!ip %as ever made b t!esetribunals. *ven t!e dissent s?irted a%a from t!e issue of t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip and convenientl ignored t!e deart! of evidence presented brespondent.

&lt!oug! substantial evidence is not a function of 6uantit but rat!er of 6ualit, t!epeculiar environmental circumstances of t!e instant case demand t!at somet!ing mores!ould !ave been proffered.$$ Lad t!ere been ot!er proofs of emploment, suc! asrespondent’s inclusion in petitioner’s paroll, or a clear e=ercise of control, t!e ourt%ould !ave affirmed t!e finding of emploer"emploee relations!ip. !e Regional

irector, t!erefore, committed grievous error in ordering petitioner to ans%er for respondent’s claims. ;oreover, %it! t!e conclusion t!at no emploer"emploeerelations!ip !as ever e=isted bet%een petitioner and respondent, it is crstal"clear t!att!e +* Regional irector !ad no @urisdiction over respondent’s complaint. !us, t!eimprovident e=ercise of po%er b t!e Secretar of abor and t!e Regional irector be!ooves t!e court to sub@ect t!eir actions for revie% and to invalidate all t!esubse6uent orders t!e issued.

I-.

!e records s!o% t!at petitioner’s appeal %as denied because it !ad allegedl failed to

post a cas! or suret bond. C!at it attac!ed instead to its appeal %as t!e etter &greement$: e=ecuted b petitioner and its ban?, t!e cas! vouc!er, $7 and t!e eed of &ssignment of Ban? eposits.$< &ccording to t!e +*, t!ese documents do notconstitute t!e cas! or suret bond contemplated b la%8 t!us, it is as if no cas! or suretbond %as posted %!en it filed its appeal.

!e ourt does not agree.

!e provision on appeals from t!e +* Regional +ffices to t!e +* Secretar is int!e last paragrap! of &rt. #/D (b) of t!e abor ode, %!ic! reads5

&n order issued b t!e dul aut!orized representative of t!e Secretar of abor and*mploment under t!is article ma be appealed to t!e latter. In case said order involvesa monetar a%ard, an appeal b t!e emploer ma be perfected onl upon t!e postingof a cas! or suret bond issued b a reputable bonding compan dul accredited b t!eSecretar of abor and *mploment in t!e amount e6uivalent to t!e monetar a%ard int!e order appealed from. (emp!asis supplied)











C!ile t!e re6uirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictl follo%ed as t!e areconsidered indispensable interdictions against needless delas and for orderldisc!arge of @udicial business, t!e la% does admit e=ceptions %!en %arranted b t!ecircumstances. ec!nicalit s!ould not be allo%ed to stand in t!e %a of e6uitabl andcompletel resolving t!e rig!ts and obligations of t!e parties.$9 !us, in some cases, t!e

bond re6uirement on appeals involving monetar a%ards !ad been rela=ed, suc! as%!en (i) t!ere %as substantial compliance %it! t!e Rules8 (ii) t!e surrounding facts andcircumstances constitute meritorious ground to reduce t!e bond8 (iii) a liberalinterpretation of t!e re6uirement of an appeal bond %ould serve t!e desired ob@ective of resolving controversies on t!e merits8 or (iv) t!e appellants, at t!e ver least e=!ibitedt!eir %illingness and3or good fait! b posting a partial bond during t!e reglementarperiod.$D

& revie% of t!e documents submitted b petitioner is called for to determine %!et!er t!e s!ould !ave been admitted as or in lieu of t!e suret or cas! bond to sustain t!eappeal and serve t!e ends of substantial @ustice.

!e eed of &ssignment reads5

** +2 &SSI';* +2 B& *P+SICIL SP*I& P+C*R +2 &+R*N

+C & ;* BN L*S* PR*S*S5

!at I, 'R*;& B. S+&* in m capacit as Station ;anager of N;2 ebu it,P*+P*’S BR+&&SI' S*R-I*S, I., a corporation dul aut!orized ande=isting under and b virtue of t!e la%s of t!e P!ilippines, for and in consideration of t!e

sum of P*S+S5 C+ LOR* LR** L+OS& S*-* LOR* C*NSIT P*S+S G $03#00 +N (P/0$,9/<.$0) P!il. urrenc, as &SL B+'O&R&** for t!e monetar a%ard in favor to t!e Plaintiff in t!e abor asedoc?eted as S* ase o. R0900"/00$"0K"I"0K, no% pending appeal.

!at Respondent"&ppellant do !ereb underta?e to guarantee available and sufficientfunds covered b Platinum Savings eposit (PS) o. 0#0"D"000$D": of P*+P*’SBR+&&SI' S*R-I*S, I. in t!e amount of P*S+S5 C+ LOR* LR**L+OS& S*-* LOR* C*N SIT P*S+S G $03#00 +N (P/0$,9/<.$0)paable to Plaintiff"&ppellee3epartment of abor and *mploment Regional +ffice -IIat Uueen it evelopment Ban?, ebu Branc!, Sanciang?o St. ebu it.

It is understood t!at t!e said ban? !as t!e full control of Platinum Savings eposit(PS) o. 0#0"D"000$D": from and after t!is date and t!at said sum cannot be%it!dra%n b t!e Plaintiff"&ppellee3 epartment of abor and *mploment Regional+ffice -II until suc! time t!at a Crit of *=ecution s!all be ordered b t!e &ppellate+ffice.







2ORL*R, t!is eed of &ssignment is limited to t!e principal amount of P*S+S5 C+LOR* LR** L+OS& S*-* LOR* C*N SIT P*S+S G $03#00+N (P/0$,9/<.$0) P!il. urrenc, t!erefore, an interest to be earned from t!e saideposit %ill be for t!e account !older.

I CI*SS CL*R*+2, I !ave !ereunto affi=ed m signature t!is #Dt! da if June,/00:, in t!e it of ebu, P!ilippines.

P*+P*’S BR+&&SI' S*R-I*S, I.

B5

(Signed)'R*;& B. S+&*Station ;anager

&s priorl mentioned, t!e eed of &ssignment %as accompanied b a etter &greementbet%een Uueen it evelopment Ban? and petitioner concerning Platinum Savingseposit (PS) o. 0#0"D"000$D":,$K and a as! -ouc!er issued b petitioner s!o%ingt!e amount of P/0$,9/<.$0 deposited at t!e said ban?.

asting aside t!e tec!nical imprecision and inaptness of %ords t!at mar? t!e t!reedocuments, a liberal reading reveals t!e documents petitioner did assign, as cas! bondfor t!e monetar a%ard in favor of respondent in S* ase +. R+900"/00$"I"0K,t!e amount of P/0$,9/<.$0 covered b petitioner’s PS &ccount o. 0#0"D"000$D":%it! t!e Uueen it evelopment Ban? at Sanciang?o St. ebu it, %it! t!edepositar ban? aut!orized to remit t!e amount to, and upon %it!dra%al b respondent

and or t!e epartment of abor and *mploment Regional +ffice -II, on t!e basis of t!e proper %rit of e=ecution. !e ourt finds t!at t!e eed of &ssignment constitutessubstantial compliance %it! t!e bond re6uirement.

!e purpose of an appeal bond is to ensure, during t!e period of appeal, against anoccurrence t!at %ould defeat or diminis! recover b t!e aggrieved emploees under t!e @udgment if subse6uentl affirmed.:0 !e eed of &ssignment in t!e instant case,li?e a cas! or suret bond, serves t!e same purpose. 2irst, t!e eed of &ssignmentconstitutes not @ust a partial amount, but rat!er t!e entire a%ard in t!e appealed +rder.Second, it is clear from t!e eed of &ssignment t!at t!e entire amount is under t!e fullcontrol of t!e ban?, and not of petitioner, and is in fact paable to t!e +* Regional

+ffice, to be %it!dra%n b t!e same office after it !ad issued a %rit of e=ecution. 2or allintents and purposes, t!e eed of &ssignment in tandem %it! t!e etter &greement andas! -ouc!er is as good as cas!. !ird, t!e ourt finds t!at t!e e=ecution of t!e eedof &ssignment, t!e etter &greement and t!e as! -ouc!er %ere made in good fait!,and constituted clear manifestation of petitioner’s %illingness to pa t!e @udgmentamount.







!e eed of &ssignment must be distinguis!ed from t!e tpe of ban? certificationsubmitted b appellants in ordova v. esa’s Bouti6ue,:# %!erein t!is ourt found t!atsuc! ban? certification did not come close to t!e cas! or suret bond re6uired b la%.!e ban? certification in ordova merel stated t!at t!e emploer maintains adepositor account %it! a balance of P/$,00D.#K, and t!at t!e certification %as issued

upon t!e depositor’s re6uest for %!atever legal purposes it ma serve. !ere %as noindication t!at t!e said deposit %as made specificall for t!e pending appeal, as in t!einstant case. !us, t!e ourt ruled t!at t!e ban? certification !ad not in an %aensured t!at t!e a%ard %ould be paid s!ould t!e appeal fail. eit!er %as t!e appelleein t!e case prevented from ma?ing %it!dra%als from t!e savings account. 2inall, t!eamount deposited %as measl compared to t!e total monetar a%ard in t!e @udgment. :/

-.

&not!er 6uestion of tec!nicalit %as posed against t!e instant petition in t!e !ope t!at it%ould not be given due course. Respondent asserts t!at petitioner pursued t!e %rong

mode of appeal and t!us t!e instant petition must be dismissed. 1avvphi1.zw+ +ncemore, t!e ourt is not convinced.

& petition for certiorari is t!e proper remed %!en an tribunal, board or officer e=ercising @udicial or 6uasi"@udicial functions !as acted %it!out or in e=cess of its

@urisdiction, or %it! grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac? or e=cess of @urisdictionand t!ere is no appeal, nor an plain speed, and ade6uate remed at la%. !ere isEgrave abuse of discretionE %!en respondent acts in a capricious or %!imsical manner in t!e e=ercise of its @udgment as to be e6uivalent to lac? of @urisdiction.:$

Respondent ma !ave a point in asserting t!at in t!is case a Rule <7 petition is a %rong

mode of appeal, as indeed t!e %rit of certiorari is an e=traordinar remed, andcertiorari @urisdiction is not to be e6uated %it! appellate @urisdiction. evert!eless, it issettled, as a general proposition, t!at t!e availabilit of an appeal does not forecloserecourse to t!e e=traordinar remedies, suc! as certiorari and pro!ibition, %!ere appealis not ade6uate or e6uall beneficial, speed and sufficient, as %!ere t!e orders of t!etrial court %ere issued in e=cess of or %it!out @urisdiction, or t!ere is need to promptlrelieve t!e aggrieved part from t!e in@urious effects of t!e acts of an inferior court or tribunal, e.g ., t!e court !as aut!orized e=ecution of t!e @udgment.:: !is ourt !as evenrecognized t!at a recourse to certiorari is proper not onl %!ere t!ere is a clear deprivation of petitioner’s fundamental rig!t to due process, but so also %!ere ot!er special circumstances %arrant immediate and more direct action.:7

In one case, it %as !eld t!at t!e e=traordinar %rit of certiorari %ill lie if it is satisfactorilestablis!ed t!at t!e tribunal acted capriciousl and %!imsicall in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of t!e controvers, :< and if it is s!o%n t!at t!erefusal to allo% a Rule <7 petition %ould result in t!e infliction of an in@ustice on a partb a @udgment t!at evidentl %as rendered %!imsicall and capriciousl, ignoring anddisregarding uncontroverted facts and familiar legal principles %it!out an valid cause%!atsoever.:9

















It must be remembered t!at a %ide breadt! of discretion is granted a court of @ustice incertiorari proceedings.:D !e ourt !as not too infre6uentl given due course to apetition for certiorari, even %!en t!e proper remed %ould !ave been an appeal, %!erevalid and compelling considerations %ould %arrant suc! a recourse.:K ;oreover, t!eourt allo%ed a Rule <7 petition, despite t!e availabilit of plain, speed or ade6uate

remed, in vie% of t!e importance of t!e issues raised

t!erein.70 !e rules %ere also rela=ed b t!e ourt after considering t!e public interestinvolved in t!e case87# %!en public %elfare and t!e advancement of public policdictates8 %!en t!e broader interest of @ustice so re6uires8 %!en t!e %rits issued are nulland void8 or %!en t!e 6uestioned order amounts to an oppressive e=ercise of @udicialaut!orit.7/

E!e peculiar circumstances of t!is case %arrant, as %e !eld in Republic v. ourt of &ppeals, #09 SR& 70:, 7/:, t!e Ve=ercise once more of our e=clusive prerogative tosuspend our o%n rules or to e=empt a particular case from its operation as in = =

Republic of t!e P!ilippines v. ourt of &ppeals, et al., (D$ SR& :7$, :9D":D0 >#K9DF),t!us5 V = = !e Rules !ave been drafted %it! t!e primar ob@ective of en!ancing fair trials and e=pediting @ustice. &s a corollar, if t!eir applications and operation tend tosubvert and defeat instead of promote and en!ance it, t!eir suspension is @ustified.E 7$

!e Regional irector full relied on t!e self"serving allegations of respondent andmisinterpreted t!e documents presented as evidence b respondent. o ma?e matters%orse, +* denied petitioner’s appeal based solel on petitioner’s alleged failure tofile a cas! or suret bond, %it!out an discussion on t!e merits of t!e case. Since t!epetition for certiorari before t!e ourt of &ppeals soug!t t!e reversal of t!e t%oaforesaid orders, t!e appellate court necessaril !ad to e=amine t!e evidence ane% to

determine %!et!er t!e conclusions of t!e +* %ere supported b t!e evidencepresented. It appears, !o%ever, t!at t!e ourt of &ppeals did not even revie% t!eassailed orders and focused instead on a general discussion of due process and t!e

@urisdiction of t!e Regional irector. Lad t!e appellate court trul revie%ed t!e recordsof t!e case, it %ould !ave seen t!at t!ere e=isted valid and sufficient grounds for findinggrave abuse of discretion on t!e part of t!e +* Secretar as %ell t!e Regionalirector. In ruling and acting as it did, t!e ourt finds t!at t!e ourt of &ppeals ma beproperl sub@ected to its certiorari @urisdiction. &fter all, t!is ourt !as previousl ruledt!at t!e e=traordinar %rit of certiorari %ill lie if it is satisfactoril1avvphi1

establis!ed t!at t!e tribunal !ad acted capriciousl and %!imsicall in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of t!e controvers.7:

!e most important consideration for t!e allo%ance of t!e instant petition is t!eopportunit for t!e ourt not onl to set t!e demarcation bet%een t!e R’s

@urisdiction and t!e +*’s prerogative but also t!e procedure %!en t!e case involvest!e fundamental c!allenge on t!e +*’s prerogative based on lac? of emploer"emploee relations!ip. &s e=!austivel discussed !ere, t!e +*’s prerogative !ingeson t!e e=istence of emploer"emploee relations!ip, t!e issue is %!ic! is at t!e ver


















!eart of t!is case. &nd t!e evidence clearl indicates private respondent !as never beenpetitioner’s emploee. But t!e +* did not address, %!ile t!e ourt of &ppealsglossed over, t!e issue. !e peremptor dismissal of t!e instant petition on atec!nicalit %ould deprive t!e ourt of t!e opportunit to resolve t!e novelcontrovers.1avvphi1

CL*R*2+R*, t!e petition is 'R&*. !e ecision dated /< +ctober /00< and t!eResolution dated /< June /009 of t!e ourt of &ppeals in .&. '.R. *B"SP o. 00D77are R*-*RS* and S* &SI*. !e +rder of t!e t!en &cting Secretar of t!eepartment of abor and *mploment dated /9 Januar /007 dening petitioner’sappeal, and t!e +rders of t!e irector, +* Regional +ffice o. -II, dated /: ;a/00: and /9 2ebruar /00:, respectivel, are &O*. !e complaint againstpetitioner is IS;ISS*.

S+ +R*R*.

D843E O. 3)4G8 &ssociate Justice

Republic of t!e P!ilippinesS=PRE"E 5O=R3

;anilaS*+ I-ISI+

G.R. 4o. 17711C Aan*ar# !1% !&1&

"84OLO 8. PE8'LOR% Petitioner,

vs.O=3DOOR 5LO3+)4G "84='853=R)4G 5ORPOR83)O4, &L&I* . SN2O,President, ;*N** ;. *;+'*&, 2inance ;anager, and P&O O. **,!airman, Respondents.

BR)O4% J.;

Petitioner ;anolo &. PeWaflor (PeWaflor) see?s t!e reversal of t!e ourt of &ppeals (&)decision# dated ecember /K, /00< and its resolution/ dated ;arc! #:, /009, t!roug!t!e present petition for revie% on certiorari filed under Rule :7 of t!e Rules of ourt.!e assailed & decision affirmed t!e September /:, /00/ decision $ of t!e ational

abor Relations ommission (R) t!at in turn reversed t!e &ugust #7, /00#decision: of t!e abor &rbiter.7

L* 2&O& &***S

PeWaflor %as !ired on September /, #KKK as probationar Luman Resourceepartment (LR) ;anager of respondent +utdoor lot!ing ;anufacturing orporation(+utdoor lot!ing or t!e compan). &s LR !ead, PeWaflor %as e=pected to (#) secure

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_177114_2010.html#fnt1












and maintain t!e rig!t 6ualit and 6uantit of people needed b t!e compan8 (/)maintain t!e !armonious relations!ip bet%een t!e emploees and management in arole t!at supports organizational goals and individual aspirations8 and ($) represent t!ecompan in labor cases or proceedings. %o staff members %ere assigned to %or? %it!!im to assist !im in underta?ing t!ese functions.

PeWaflor claimed t!at !is relations!ip %it! +utdoor lot!ing %ent %ell during t!e firstfe% mont!s of !is emploment8 !e designed and created t!e compan’s Polic ;anual,Personnel Landboo?, Job *=pectations, and +rganizational Set"Op during t!is period.Lis %oes began %!en t!e compan’s -ice President for +perations, *dgar ee (ee),left t!e compan after a big fig!t bet%een ee and !ief orporate +fficer at!anielSfu (Sfu). Because of !is close association %it! ee, PeWaflor claimed t!at !e %asamong t!ose %!o bore Sfu’s ire.

C!en +utdoor lot!ing began underta?ing its alleged do%nsizing program due tonegative business returns, PeWaflor alleged t!at !is department !ad been singled out.

+n t!e prete=t of retrenc!ment, PeWaflor’s t%o staff members %ere dismissed, leaving!im as t!e onl member of +utdoor lot!ing’s LR and compelling !im to perform allpersonnel"related %or?. Le %or?ed as a one"man department, carring out all clerical,administrative and liaison %or?8 !e personall %ent to various government offices toprocess t!e compan’s papers.

C!en an +utdoor lot!ing emploee, nn Padilla (Padilla), suffered in@uries in abombing incident, t!e compan re6uired PeWaflor to attend to !er !ospitalization needs8!e !ad to %or? outside office premises to underta?e t!is tas?. &s !e %as acting on t!ecompan’s orders, PeWaflor considered !imself to be on official business, but %assurprised %!en t!e compan deducted si= das’ salar corresponding to t!e time !e

assisted Padilla. &ccording to 2inance ;anager ;edlene emogena (emogena), !efailed to submit !is trip tic?et, but PeWaflor belied t!is claim as a trip tic?et %as re6uiredonl %!en a compan ve!icle %as used and !e did not use an compan ve!icle %!en!e attended to !is off"premises %or?.<

&fter PeWaflor returned from !is field %or? on ;arc! #$, /000, !is officemates informed!im t!at %!ile !e %as a%a, Sfu !ad appointed at!aniel Buenaobra (Buenaobra) ast!e ne% LR ;anager. !is information %as confirmed b Sfu’s memorandum of ;arc! #0, /000 to t!e entire office stating t!at Buenaobra %as t!e concurrent LR and

&ccounting ;anager.9 PeWaflor %as surprised b t!e ne%s8 !e also felt betraed anddiscouraged. Le tried to tal? to Sfu to clarif t!e matter, but %as unable to do so.PeWaflor claimed t!at under t!ese circumstances, !e !ad no option but to resign. Lesubmitted a letter to Sfu declaring !is irrevocable resignation from !is emploment %it!+utdoor lot!ing effective at t!e close of office !ours on ;arc! #7, /000.D

PeWaflor t!en filed a complaint for illegal dismissal %it! t!e labor arbiter, claiming t!at !e!ad been constructivel dismissed. Le included in !is complaint a praer for reinstatement and pament of bac?%ages, illegall deducted salaries, damages,attorne’s fees, and ot!er monetar claims.









+utdoor lot!ing denied PeWaflor’s allegation of constructive dismissal. It positedinstead t!at PeWaflor !ad voluntaril resigned from !is %or?. ontrar to PeWaflor’sstatement t!at !e !ad been dismissed from emploment upon Sfu’s appointment of Buenaobra as t!e ne% LR ;anager on ;arc! #0, /000, PeWaflor !ad in factcontinued %or?ing for t!e compan until !is resignation on ;arc! #7, /000. !e

compan cited as evidence t!e securit report t!at PeWaflor !imself prepared andsigned on ;arc! #$, /000.K

+utdoor lot!ing disclaimed liabilit for an of PeWaflor’s monetar claims. SincePeWaflor !ad voluntaril resigned, +utdoor lot!ing alleged t!at !e %as not entitled toan bac?%ages and damages. !e compan li?e%ise denied ma?ing an illegaldeduction from PeWaflor’s salar8 %!ile deductions %ere made, t!e %ere due toPeWaflor’s failure to report for %or? during t!e dates t!e compan 6uestioned. &s aprobationar emploee, !e %as not et entitled to an leave credit t!at %ould offset !isabsences.

In !is &ugust #7, /00# decision, t!e labor arbiter found t!at PeWaflor !ad been illegalldismissed.#0 +utdoor lot!ing %as conse6uentl ordered to reinstate PeWaflor to !isformer or to an e6uivalent position, and to pa !im !is illegall deducted salar for si=das, proportionate #$t! mont! pa, attorne’s fees, moral and e=emplar damages.

+utdoor lot!ing appealed t!e labor arbiter’s decision %it! t!e R. It insisted t!atPeWaflor !ad not been constructivel dismissed, claiming t!at PeWaflor tendered !isresignation on ;arc! #, /000 because !e sa% no future %it! t!e corporation due to itsdire financial standing. Sfu alleged t!at !e %as compelled to appoint Buenaobra asconcurrent LR ;anager t!roug! a memorandum dated ;arc! #, /000 to cover t!eposition t!at PeWaflor %ould soon vacate.## !e appointment %as also made to address

t!e personnel matters t!at !ad to be ta?en cared of %!ile PeWaflor %as on unaut!orizedleave. Incidentall, +utdoor lot!ing alleged t!at PeWaflor !ad alread been given t%onotices, on ;arc! < and ##, /000 (absence %it!out official leave memoranda or t!e

&C+ memoranda), for !is unaut!orized absences. In a memorandum dated ;arc! $,/000 addressed to Sfu, Buenaobra accepted t!e appointment.#/

PeWaflor contested Sfu’s ;arc! #, /000 memorandum, Buenaobra’s ;arc! $, /000memorandum, and t!e &C+ memoranda, claiming t!ese pieces of evidence %erefabricated and %ere never presented before t!e labor arbiter. Le pointed out t!atnot!ing in t!is resignation letter indicated t!at it %as submitted to and received b Sfuon ;arc! #, /000. Le claimed t!at it %as submitted on ;arc! #7, /000, t!e same date!e made !is resignation effective. !e &C+ memoranda could not be relied on, as !e%as never furnis!ed copies of t!ese. ;oreover, !e could not be on prolonged absence%it!out official leave, as !is residence %as @ust a fe% meters a%a from t!e office.

!e R apparentl found +utdoor lot!ing’s submitted memoranda sufficient tooverturn t!e labor arbiter’s decision.#$ It c!aracterized PeWaflor’s resignation as aresponse, not to t!e allegedl degrading and !ostile treatment t!at !e %as sub@ected tob Sfu, but to +utdoor lot!ing’s do%n%ard financial spiral. Buenaobra’s appointment













%as made onl after PeWaflor !ad submitted !is resignation letter, and t!is %as made tocover t!e vacanc PeWaflor’s resignation %ould create. !us, PeWaflor %as not easedout from !is position as LR manager. o malice li?e%ise %as present in t!ecompan’s decision to dismiss PeWaflor’s t%o staff members8 t!e compan simple=ercised its management prerogative to address t!e financial problems it faced.

PeWaflor, in fact, drafted t!e dismissal letters of !is staff members. In t!e absence of an illegal dismissal, no basis e=isted for t!e monetar a%ards t!e labor arbiter granted.

PeWaflor anc!ored !is certiorari petition %it! t!e & on t!e claim t!at t!e R decision%as tainted %it! grave abuse of discretion, alt!oug! !e essentiall adopted t!e samearguments !e presented before t!e labor arbiter and t!e R.

In a decision dated ecember /K, /00<,#: t!e & affirmed t!e R’s decision, statingt!at PeWaflor failed to present sufficient evidence supporting !is claim t!at !e !ad beenconstructivel dismissed. !e & ruled t!at PeWaflor’s resignation %as ?no%ingl andvoluntaril made. &ccordingl, it dismissed PeWaflor’s certiorari petition. It li?e%ise

denied t!e motion for reconsideration t!at PeWaflor subse6uentl filed.

#7

2aced %it!t!ese & actions, PeWaflor filed %it! us t!e present petition for revie% on certiorari.

L* P&RI*S’ &R'O;*S

PeWaflor insists t!at, contrar to t!e findings of t!e R and t!e &, !e !ad beenconstructivel dismissed from !is emploment %it! +utdoor lot!ing. Le alleges t!att!e dismissal of !is t%o staff members, t!e demeaning liaison %or? !e !ad to performas LR ;anager, t!e salar deduction for !is alleged unaut!orized absences, and t!eappointment of Buenaobra as t!e ne% LR manager even before !e tendered !isresignation, %ere clear acts of discrimination t!at made !is continued emploment %it!

t!e +utdoor lot!ing unbearable. Le %as t!us forced to resign.

+utdoor lot!ing claims t!at PeWaflor voluntaril resigned from !is %or? and !iscontrar allegations %ere all unsubstantiated. !e LR %as not singled out for retrenc!ment, but %as simpl t!e first to lose its staff members because t!e compan!ad to do%nsize. !us, all LR %or? !ad to be performed b PeWaflor. Instead of beinggrateful t!at !e %as not among t!ose immediatel dismissed due to t!e compan’sretrenc!ment program, PeWaflor unreasonabl felt !umiliated in performing %or? t!atlogicall fell under !is department8 insisted on !aving a full staff complement8 absented!imself from %or? %it!out official leave8 and demanded pament for !is unaut!orizedabsences.

L* ISSO* and L* +OR’S ROI'

!e ourt finds t!e petition meritorious.

& preliminar contentious issue is +utdoor lot!ing’s argument t!at %e s!ould dismisst!e petition outrig!t because it raises 6uestions of facts, not t!e legal 6uestions t!ats!ould be raised in a Rule :7 petition.#<









Ce see no merit in t!is argument as t!e rule t!at a Rule :7 petition deals onl %it! legalissues is not an absolute rule8 it admits of e=ceptions. In t!e labor la% setting, %e %adeinto factual issues %!en conflict of factual findings e=ists among t!e labor arbiter, t!eR, and t!e &. !is is t!e e=act situation t!at obtains in t!e present case since t!elabor arbiter found facts supporting t!e conclusion t!at t!ere !ad been constructive

dismissal, %!ile t!e R’s and t!e &’s factual findings contradicted t!e labor arbiter’sfindings.#9 Onder t!is situation, t!e conflicting factual findings belo% are not binding onus, and %e retain t!e aut!orit to pass on t!e evidence presented and dra% conclusionst!erefrom.#D

!e petition turns on t!e 6uestion of %!et!er PeWaflor’s undisputed resignation %as avoluntar or a forced one, in t!e latter case ma?ing it a constructive dismissal e6uivalentto an illegal dismissal. & critical fact necessar in resolving t!is issue is %!et!er PeWaflor filed !is letter of resignation before or after t!e appointment of Buenaobra ast!e ne%3concurrent LR manager. !is 6uestion also gives rise to t!e side issue of %!en Buenaobra’s appointment %as made. If t!e resignation letter %as submitted

before Sfu’s appointment of Buenaobra as ne% LR manager, little support e=ists for PeWaflor’s allegation t!at !e !ad been forced to resign due to t!e prevailing abusive and!ostile %or?ing environment. Buenaobra’s appointment %ould t!en be simpl intendedto cover t!e vacanc created b PeWaflor’s resignation. +n t!e ot!er !and, if t!eresignation letter %as submitted after t!e appointment of Buenaobra, t!en factual basise=ists indicating t!at PeWaflor !ad been constructivel dismissed as !is resignation %asa response to t!e unacceptable appointment of anot!er person to a position !e stilloccupied.

!e 6uestion of %!en PeWaflor submitted !is resignation letter arises because t!is letter X undisputabl made X %as undated. espite PeWaflor’s claim of !aving impressive

intellectual and academic credentials,

#K

!is resignation letter, for some reason, %asundated. !us, t!e parties !ave directl opposing claims on t!e matter. PeWaflor claimst!at !e %rote and filed t!e letter on t!e same date !e made !is resignation effective X;arc! #7, /000. +utdoor lot!ing, on t!e ot!er !and, contends t!at t!e letter %assubmitted on ;arc! #, /000, for %!ic! reason Sfu issued a memorandum of t!e samedate appointing Buenaobra as t!e concurrent LR manager8 Sfu’s memorandum citedPeWaflor’s intention to resign so !e could devote !is time to teac!ing. !e companfurt!er cites in support of its case Buenaobra’s ;arc! $, /000 memorandum accepting!is appointment. &not!er piece of evidence is t!e Sfu memorandum of ;arc! #0,/000, %!ic! informed t!e office of t!e appointment of Buenaobra as t!e concurrentLead of LR X t!e position t!at PeWaflor occupied. %o ot!er memoranda are allegedto e=ist, namel, t!e &C+ memoranda of ;arc! < and ##, /000, allegedl sent toPenaflor.

Several reasons arising directl from t!ese pieces of evidence lead us to conclude t!atPeWaflor did indeed submit !is resignation letter on ;arc!, #7, /000, i.e., on t!e sameda t!at it %as submitted.









2irst, %e regard t!e Sfu memorandum of ;arc! #, /000 and t!e memorandum of Buenaobra of ;arc! $, /000 accepting t!e position of LR Lead to be !ig!l suspect.In our vie%, t!ese memoranda, %!ile dated, do not constitute conclusive evidence of t!eir dates of preparation and communication. Surprisingl, PeWaflor %as never informed about t!ese memoranda %!en t!e directl concerned !im, particularl t!e

turnover of responsibilities to Buenaobra if indeed PeWaflor !ad resigned on ;arc! #,/000 and a smoot! turnover to Buenaobra %as intended. *ven t!e recipients of t!esecommunications do not appear to !ave signed for and dated t!eir receipt. !e &C+memoranda, to be sure, s!ould !ave been presented %it! proof of service if t!e %ereto !ave an binding effect on PeWaflor.

Second,%e find it surprising t!at t!ese pieces of evidence pointing to a ;arc! #, /000resignation X specificall, Sfu’s ;arc! #, /000 memorandum to Buenaobra aboutPenaflor’s resignation and Buenaobra’s o%n ac?no%ledgment and acceptance X %ereonl presented to t!e R on appeal, not before t!e labor arbiter. !e matter %as noteven mentioned in t!e compan’s position paper filed %it! t!e labor arbiter./0 C!ile t!e

presentation of evidence at t!e R level on appeal is not un!eard of in labor cases,

/#

still sufficient e=planation must be adduced to e=plain %! t!is irregular practice s!ouldbe allo%ed. In t!e present case, +utdoor lot!ing totall failed to e=plain t!e reason for its omission. !is failure, to us, is significant, as t!ese %ere t!e clinc!ing pieces of evidence t!at allo%ed t!e R to @ustif t!e reversal of t!e labor arbiter’s decision.

!ird, t!e circumstances and ot!er evidence surrounding PeWaflor’s resignation support!is claim t!at !e %as practicall compelled to resign from t!e compan.

2oremost among t!ese is t!e memorandum of ;arc! #0, /000 signed b Sfu informingt!e %!ole office (Eo5 &ll concernedE) about t!e designation of Buenaobra as concurrent

&ccounting and LR ;anager. In contrast %it! t!e suspect memoranda %e discussedabove, t!is memorandum properl bore signatures ac?no%ledging receipt and dates of receipt b at least five compan officials, among t!em t!e readable signature of emogene and one &gbaani8 t!ree of t!em ac?no%ledged receipt on ;arc! #$, /000,s!o%ing t!at indeed it %as onl on t!at da t!at t!e appointment of Buenaobra to t!eLR position %as disclosed. !is evidence is full consistent %it! PeWaflor’s positiont!at it %as onl in t!e afternoon of ;arc! #$, /000 t!at !e %as told, informall at t!at,t!at Buenaobra !ad ta?en over !is position. It e=plains as %ell %! as late as ;arc! #$,/000, PeWaflor still prepared and signed a securit report,// and is full consistent %it!!is position t!at on t!at da !e %as still %or?ing on t!e e=cuse letter of certain salespersonnel of t!e compan./$

Ce note t!at t!e compan onl belatedl 6uestioned t!e motivation t!at PeWaflor citedfor !is discriminator treatment, i.e., t!at !e %as caug!t in t!e bitter fig!t bet%een Sfuand ee, t!en -ice President for +perations, t!at led t!e latter to leave t!e compan. /:

&fter ee left, PeWaflor alleged t!at t!ose identified %it! ee %ere singled out for adverse treatment, citing in t!is regard t!e do%nsizing of LR t!at occurred on or aboutt!is time and %!ic! resulted in !is one"man LR operation. Ce sa t!is do%nsizing%as onl EallegedE as t!e compan totall failed X despite Penaflor’s claim of















discriminator practice X to adduce evidence s!o%ing t!at t!ere !ad indeed been alegitimate do%nsizing. +t!er t!an its bare claim t!at it %as facing severe financialproblems, +utdoor lot!ing never presented an evidence to prove bot! t!e reasons for its alleged do%nsizing and t!e fact of suc! do%nsizing. o evidence %as ever offered torebut PeWaflor’s claim t!at !is staff members %ere dismissed to ma?e !is life as LR

Lead difficult. o be sure, PeWaflor’s participation in t!e termination of !is staff members’ emploment cannot be used against !im, as t!e termination of emploment%as a management decision t!at PeWaflor, at !is level, could not !ave effectivelcontested %it!out putting !is o%n @ob on t!e line.

PeWaflor’s o%n service %it! t!e compan deserves close scrutin. Le started %or?ingfor t!e compan on September /, #KKK so t!at b ;arc! #, /000, !is probationarperiod %ould !ave ended and !e %ould !ave become a regular emploee. Ce find it!ig!l unli?el t!at PeWaflor %ould resign on ;arc! #, /000 and %ould t!en simpl leavegiven !is undisputed record of !aving successfull %or?ed %it!in !is probationarperiod on t!e compan’s Polic ;anual, Personnel Landboo?, Job *=pectations, and

+rganizational Set"up. It does not appear sound and logical to us t!at an emploee%ould tender !is resignation on t!e ver same da !e %as entitled b la% to beconsidered a regular emploee, especiall %!en a do%nsizing %as ta?ing place and !ecould !ave availed of its benefits if !e %ould be separated from t!e service as a regular emploee. It %as strange, too, t!at !e %ould submit !is resignation on ;arc! #, /000and ?eep completel 6uiet about t!is development until its effective date on ;arc! #7,/000. In t!e usual course, t!e turnover alone of responsibilities and %or? loads to t!esuccessor in a small compan %ould !ave prevented t!e matter from being completelunder %raps for #0 das before an announcement %as ever made. !at PeWaflor %ascaug!t b surprise b t!e turnover of !is post to Buenaobra is in fact indicated b t!ecompan’s o%n evidence t!at PeWaflor still submitted a securit report on ;arc! #$,

/000. +n t!e %!ole, PeWaflor’s record %it! t!e compan is not t!at of a compan official%!o %ould simpl and voluntaril tender a precipitate resignation on t!e e=cuse t!at !e%ould devote !is time to teac!ing X a lame e=cuse at best considering t!at ;arc! is t!emont! t!e semester usuall ends and is t%o or t!ree mont!s a%a from t!e start of anot!er sc!ool ear.

In our vie%, it is more consistent %it! !uman e=perience t!at PeWaflor indeed learned of t!e appointment of Buenaobra onl on ;arc! #$, /000 and reacted to t!is developmentt!roug! !is resignation letter after realizing t!at !e %ould onl face !ostilit andfrustration in !is %or?ing environment. !ree ver basic labor la% principles support t!isconclusion and militate against t!e compan’s case.

!e first is t!e settled rule t!at in emploee termination disputes, t!e emploer bearst!e burden of proving t!at t!e emploee’s dismissal %as for @ust and valid cause. /7 !atPeWaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not !elp t!e compan’s case as,ot!er t!an t!e fact of resignation, t!e compan must still prove t!at t!e emploeevoluntaril resigned./< !ere can be no valid resignation %!ere t!e act %as made under compulsion or under circumstances appro=imating compulsion, suc! as %!en anemploee’s act of !anding in !is resignation %as a reaction to circumstances leaving







!im no alternative but to resign./9 In sum, t!e evidence does not support t!e e=istenceof voluntariness in PeWaflor’s resignation.1 a vv p h i 1

&not!er basic principle is t!at e=pressed in &rticle : of t!e abor ode X t!at all doubtsin t!e interpretation and implementation of t!e abor ode s!ould be interpreted in

favor of t!e %or?ingman. !is principle !as been e=tended b @urisprudence to cover doubts in t!e evidence presented b t!e emploer and t!e emploee. /D &s s!o%nabove, PeWaflor !as, at ver least, s!o%n serious doubts about t!e merits of t!ecompan’s case, particularl in t!e appreciation of t!e clinc!ing evidence on %!ic! t!eR and & decisions %ere based. In suc! contest of evidence, t!e cited &rticle :compels us to rule in PeWaflor’s favor. !us, %e find t!at PeWaflor %as constructiveldismissed given t!e !ostile and discriminator %or?ing environment !e found !imself in,particularl evidenced b t!e escalating acts of unfairness against !im t!at culminatedin t!e appointment of anot!er LR manager %it!out an prior notice to !im. C!ere noless t!an t!e compan’s c!ief corporate officer %as against !im, PeWaflor !ad noalternative but to resign from !is emploment./K

ast but not t!e least, %e !ave repeatedl given significance in abandonment andconstructive dismissal cases to t!e emploee’s reaction to t!e termination of !isemploment and !ave as?ed t!e 6uestion5 is t!e complaint against t!e emploer merela convenient aftert!oug!t subse6uent to an abandonment or a voluntar resignationACe find from t!e records t!at PeWaflor soug!t almost immediate official recourse tocontest !is separation from service t!roug! a complaint for illegal dismissal. $0 !is is nott!e act of one %!o voluntaril resigned8 !is immediate complaints c!aracterize !im asone %!o deepl felt t!at !e !ad been %ronged.

<+ERE'ORE, %e 'R& t!e petitioner’s petition for revie% on certiorari, and

R*-*RS* t!e decision and resolution of t!e ourt of &ppeals in &"'.R. SP o.D9D<7 promulgated on ecember /K, /00< and ;arc! #:, /009, respectivel. CeR*IS&* t!e decision of t!e labor arbiter dated &ugust #7, /00#, %it! t!e;+I2I&I+ t!at, due to t!e strained relations bet%een t!e parties, respondents areadditionall ordered to pa separation pa e6uivalent to t!e petitioner’s one mont!’ssalar.

osts against t!e respondents.

S+ +R*R*.

8R3=RO D. BR)O4 &ssociate Justice













Penaflor vs. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturers Corp. etc. G.R. 177114, January!1% !&1&

!e 6uestion of %!et!er oli’s resignation %as voluntar or forced !inges on t!eissue of %!et!er !e filed !is resignation letter on ;arc! #, /000 as claimed b +; or on ;arc! #7, /000 as claimed b oli, in ot!er %ords, before or after t!e appointment of ann as t!e ne% concurrent LR manager to replace !im. !is 6uestion arisesbecause !is resignation letter is undated.

It is more consistent %it! !uman e=perience t!at oli indeed learned of t!eappointment of ann on ;arc! #$, /000 and reacted to t!is development t!roug! !isresignation letter submitted on ;arc! #7, /000 after realizing t!at !e %ould onl face!ostilit and frustration in !is %or?ing environment. !ree ver basic labor la% principlessupport t!is conclusion and militate against +;’s case.

!e first is t!at t!e emploer bears t!e burden of proving t!at t!e emploee’sdismissal %as for a @ust and valid cause. !at oli filed a letter of resignation does not!elp t!e compan’s case as ot!er t!an t!e fact of resignation, t!e compan must stillprove t!at !e voluntaril resigned. !ere can be no valid resignation %!ere it %as madeunder compulsion or under circumstances appro=imating compulsion as %!en t!eemploee’s act of !anding !is resignation %as in reaction to circumstances leaving !imno alternative but to resign. In t!is case t!e evidence does not support t!e voluntarinessof oli’s resignation.

&not!er basic principle is t!at doubts about t!e evidence presented b t!e

emploer and t!e emploee must be resolved in favor of t!e emploee. !us in t!iscase given t!e !ostile and discriminator %or?ing environment in %!ic! oli found!imself particularl t!e escalating acts of unfairness against !im t!at culminated in t!eappointment of anot!er LR manager, !e must !ave been indeed constructiveldismissed. C!ere no less t!an t!e c!ief corporate officer %as against !im !e !ad noalternative but to resign.

ast but not least, t!e emploee’s reaction to t!e termination of !is emplomentis also significant. In t!is case, oli soug!t almost immediate official recourse to contest!is separation from t!e service t!roug! a complaint for illegal dismissal. !is is not t!eact of one %!o voluntaril resigned8 !is immediate complaint s!o%s t!at !e deepl felt

!e !ad been %ronged.

C!en it comes to emploee termination cases, t!e emploer bears t!e burden of proving t!at t!e dismissal is for a @ust and valid cause8 and in case of doubts in t!eevidence presented b t!e emploer and t!e emploee, t!e doubts are resolved in favor of t!e emploee. !e immediate subse6uent action of t!e emploee after !e stopped%or?ing also determines %!et!er !e abandoned t!e post, voluntaril resigned or %asdismissed.



)S8E v *isi-,ing G.R. 4o. 1!$$C. A*ne 1% !&&&

J. apunan

2acts5!e IS;, under Presidential ecree 9$/, is a domestic educational institution

establis!ed primaril for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and ot!er temporar residents.!e local"!ires union of t!e IS; %ere cring foul over t!e disparit in %ages t!at t!egot compared to t!at of t!eir foreign teac!ing counterparts.!ese 6uestions are as?ed to 6ualif a teac!er into a local or foreign !ire.a.....C!at is oneYs domicileAb.....C!ere is oneYs !ome economAc.....o %!ic! countr does one o%e economic allegianceAd.....Cas t!e individual !ired abroad specificall to %or? in t!e Sc!ool and %as t!eSc!ool responsible for bringing t!at individual to t!e P!ilippinesAS!ould an ans%er point to P!ilippines, t!e person is a local !ire. !e Sc!ool grants

foreign"!ires certain benefits to t!e foreign !ires suc! as !ousing, transportation, and/7Z more pa t!an locals under t!e t!eor of (a) t!e Edislocation factorE and (b) limitedtenure. !e first %as grounded on leaving !is !ome countr, t!e second %as on t!e lac?of tenure %!en !e returns !ome.!e negotiations bet%een t!e sc!ool and t!e union caused a deadloc? bet%een t!eparties.!e +* resolved in favor of t!e sc!ool, %!ile ole Secretar Uuisimbing denied t!eunion’s mfr.Le said, 1!e Onion cannot also invo?e t!e e6ual protection clause to @ustif its claim of parit. It is an establis!ed principle of constitutional la% t!at t!e guarantee of e6ualprotection of t!e la%s is not violated b legislation or private covenants based on

reasonable classification. & classification is reasonable if it is based on substantialdistinctions and appl to all members of t!e same class. -eril, t!ere is a substantialdistinction bet%een foreign !ires and local !ires, t!e former en@oing onl a limitedtenure, !aving no amenities of t!eir o%n in t!e P!ilippines and !ave to be given a goodcompensation pac?age in order to attract t!em to @oin t!e teac!ing facult of t!eSc!ool.4!e union appealed to t!e Supreme ourt.!e petitioner called t!e !iring sstem discriminator and racist.



!e sc!ool alleged t!at some local !ires %ere in fact of foreign origin. !e %ere paidlocal salaries.

Issue5C!et!er or not t!e !iring sstem is violative of t!e e6ual protection clause

Leld5 Nes, Petition granted

Ratio5Public polic ab!ors discrimination. !e &rticle on Social Justice and Luman Rig!tse=!orts ongress to Egive !ig!est priorit to t!e enactment of measures t!at protect anden!ance t!e rig!t of all people to !uman dignit4!e ver broad &rticle #K of t!e ivil ode re6uires ever person, Ein t!e e=ercise of !isrig!ts and in t!e performance of !is duties, >toF act %it! @ustice, give everone !is due,and observe !onest and good fait!.EInternational la% pro!ibits discrimination, suc! as t!e Oniversal eclaration of Luman

Rig!ts and t!e International ovenant on *conomic, Social, and ultural Rig!ts. !elatter promises 12air %ages and e6ual remuneration for %or? of e6ual value %it!outdistinction of an ?ind.4In t!e %or?place, %!ere t!e relations bet%een capital and labor are often s?e%ed infavor of capital, ine6ualit and discrimination b t!e emploer are all t!e morerepre!ensible.!e onstitution also directs t!e State to promote Ee6ualit of emploment opportunitiesfor all.E Similarl, t!e abor ode provides t!at t!e State s!all Eensure e6ual %or?opportunities regardless of se=, race or creed. &rticle /:D declares it an unfair labor practice for an emploer to discriminate in regard to %ages in order to encourage or discourage members!ip in an labor organization.In t!is @urisdiction, t!ere is t!e term 1e6ual pa for e6ual %or?4, pertaining to personsbeing paid %it! e6ual salaries and !ave similar s?ills and similar conditions. !ere %asno evidence !ere t!at foreign"!ires perform /7Z more efficientl or effectivel t!an t!elocal"!ires.!e State, t!erefore, !as t!e rig!t and dut to regulate t!e relations bet%een labor andcapital. !ese relations are not merel contractual but are so impressed %it! publicinterest t!at labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must ield tot!e common good.>2or t!e same reason, t!e Edislocation factorE and t!e foreign"!iresY limited tenure alsocannot serve as valid bases for t!e distinction in salar rates. !e dislocation factor andlimited tenure affecting foreign"!ires are ade6uatel compensated b certain benefitsaccorded t!em %!ic! are not en@oed b local"!ires, suc! as !ousing, transportation,s!ipping costs, ta=es and !ome leave travel allo%ances.In t!is case, %e find t!e point"of"!ire classification emploed b respondent Sc!ool to

@ustif t!e distinction in t!e salar rates of foreign"!ires and local !ires to be an invalidclassification. !ere is no reasonable distinction bet%een t!e services rendered bforeign"!ires and local"!ires.+biter5



Lo%ever, foreign"!ires do not belong to t!e same bargaining unit as t!e local"!ires. Itdoes not appear t!at foreign"!ires !ave indicated t!eir intention to be grouped toget!er %it! local"!ires for purposes of collective bargaining. !e collective bargaining !istor int!e Sc!ool also s!o%s t!at t!ese groups %ere al%as treated separatel. !e !ousingand ot!er benefits accorded foreign !ires %ere not given to local !ires, t!ereb suc!

admi=ture %ill nbot assure an group t!e po%er to e=ercise bargaining rig!ts.!e factors in determining t!e appropriate collective bargaining unit are (#) t!e %ill of t!e emploees ('lobe octrine)8 (/) affinit and unit of t!e emploeesY interest, suc!as substantial similarit of %or? and duties, or similarit of compensation and %or?ingconditions (Substantial ;utual Interests Rule)8 ($) prior collective bargaining !istor8 and(:) similarit of emploment status

B=)LD)4G 58RE 5ORP. @. "858R8EG%G.R. 4O. 19$F7% DE5E"BER 1&% !&1!

2&S5

Petitioners are in t!e business of providing securit services to t!eir clients. !e !iredrespondent as a securit guard beginning &ugust /7, #KK<, assigning !er at 'enato

Building in aloocan it. Lo%ever, on ;arc! K, /00D, respondent %as relieved of !er

post. S!e %as re"assigned to Bavie% Par? Lotel from ;arc! K"#$, /00D, but after said

period, s!e %as allegedl no longer given an assignment. !us, on September K,

/00D, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal,

underpament of salaries, non"pament of separation pa and refund of cas! bond.



onciliation and mediation proceedings failed, so t!e parties %ere ordered to submit

t!eir respective position papers.

Respondent claimed t!at petitioners failed to give !er an assignment for more t!an nine

mont!s, amounting to constructive dismissal, and t!is compelled !er to file t!e

complaint for illegal dismissal.

+n t!e ot!er !and, petitioners t!at respondent %as relieved from !er post as re6uested

b t!e client because of !er !abitual tardiness, persistent borro%ing of mone from

emploees and tenants of t!e client, and sleeping on t!e @ob.

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal %it! t!e abor &rbiter.

!e abor &rbiter (&) in favor of petitioners, !olding t!at t!e dismissal of ;acaraeg

%as valid, but ordered t!e former to pa a certain sum as financial assistance.

!e &ppeal %!ic! respondent filed %it! t!e R %as for !aving been filed out of time.Lence, R declared t!at t!e &Ys ecision !ad become final and e=ecutor on June

#<, /00K.

Respondent elevated t!e case to t!e & via a petition for certiorari. !e & reversed

and set aside t!e decision of R and declared ;acaraeg to !ave been illegall

dismissed. Petitioners %ere ordered to reinstate petitioner %it!out loss of seniorit

rig!ts, benefits and privileges8 and to pa !er bac?%ages and ot!er monetar benefits

during t!e period of !er illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. PetitionersY motion

for reconsideration %as denied. Lence, t!e present petition.

ISSO*5

C!et!er t!e & erred in liberall appling t!e rules of procedure and ruling t!at

respondentYs appeal s!ould be allo%ed and resolved on t!e merits despite !aving been

filed out of time.

ROI'5

!e ourt cannot sustain t!e &Ys ecision.

It s!ould be emp!asized t!at t!e resort to a liberal application, or suspension of t!e

application of procedural rules, must remain as t!e e=ception to t!e %ell"settled

principle t!at rules must be complied %it! for t!e orderl administration of @ustice.



In ;aro!omsalic v. ole, t!e ourt stated5

C!ile procedural rules ma be rela=ed in t!e interest of @ustice, it is %ell"settled t!at

t!ese are tools designed to facilitate t!e ad@udication of cases. !e rela=ation of

procedural rules in t!e interest of @ustice %as never intended to be a license for erring

litigants to violate t!e rules %it! impunit. iberalit in t!e interpretation and applicationof t!e rules can be invo?ed onl in proper cases and under @ustifiable causes and

circumstances.

C!ile litigation is not a game of tec!nicalities, ever case must be prosecuted in

accordance %it! t!e prescribed procedure to ensure an orderl and speed

administration of @ustice.

!e later case of ai?o?u *lectronics P!ils., Inc. v. Raza, furt!er e=plained t!at5

o be sure, t!e rela=ation of procedural rules cannot be made %it!out an valid reasons

proffered for or underpinning it. o merit liberalit, petitioner must s!o% reasonablecause @ustifing its non"compliance %it! t!e rules and must convince t!e ourt t!at t!e

outrig!t dismissal of t!e petition %ould defeat t!e administration of substantial @ustice. =

= = !e desired lenienc cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for

suc! a procedural lapse. = = =

In t!is case, t!e @ustifications given b t!e & for its liberalit b c!oosing to overloo?

t!e belated filing of t!e appeal are, t!e importance of t!e issue raised, i.e., %!et!er

respondent %as illegall dismissed8 and t!e belief t!at respondent s!ould be Eafforded

t!e amplest opportunit for t!e proper and @ust determination of !is cause, free from t!e

constraints of tec!nicalities,E considering t!at t!e belated filing of respondentYs appealbefore t!e R %as t!e fault of respondentYs former counsel. ote, !o%ever, t!at

neit!er respondent nor !er former counsel gave an e=planation or reason citing

e=traordinar circumstances for !er la%erYs failure to abide b t!e rules for filing an

appeal. Respondent merel insisted t!at s!e !ad not been remiss in follo%ing up !er

case %it! said la%er.

It is, !o%ever, an oft"repeated ruling t!at t!e negligence and mista?es of counsel bind

t!e client. & departure from t!is rule %ould bring about never"ending suits, so long as

la%ers could allege t!eir o%n fault or negligence to support t!e client’s case and obtain

remedies and reliefs alread lost b t!e operation of la%.

It s!ould also be borne in mind t!at t!e rig!t of t!e %inning part to en@o t!e finalit of

t!e resolution of t!e case is also an essential part of public polic and t!e orderl

administration of @ustice. Lence, suc! rig!t is @ust as %eig!t or e6uall important as t!e

rig!t of t!e losing part to appeal or see? reconsideration %it!in t!e prescribed period.



C!en t!e abor &rbiterYs ecision became final, petitioners attained a vested rig!t to

said @udgment.


;anilaLIR I-ISI+

B=)LD)4G 58RE 5ORPOR83)O4 LEOP8RD SE5=R)3? H )4@ES3)G83)O48GE45? andor R=PER3O PRO385)O% Petitioners, vs. "?R48 "858R8EG%

Respondent, G.R. 4o. 19$F7% Dece-,er 1&% !&1!

* I S I +

PER8L38% J.:

!is resolves t!e Petition for Revie% on ertiorari under Rule :7 of t!e Rules of ourt,praing t!at t!e ecision# of t!e ourt of &ppeals (&) promulgated on ;arc! /:, /0##,and its Resolution/ dated &ugust #K, /0##, dening petitionerYs ;otion for Reconsideration be reversed and set aside.

Petitioners are in t!e business of providing securit services to t!eir clients. !e !ired

respondent as a securit guard beginning &ugust /7, #KK<, assigning !er at 'enatoBuilding in aloocan it. Lo%ever, on ;arc! K, /00D, respondent %as relieved of !er post. S!e %as re"assigned to Bavie% Par? Lotel from ;arc! K"#$, /00D, but after saidperiod, s!e %as allegedl no longer given an assignment. !us, on September K,/00D, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal,underpament of salaries, non"pament of separation pa and refund of cas! bond.onciliation and mediation proceedings failed, so t!e parties %ere ordered to submitt!eir respective position papers.$

Respondent claimed t!at petitioners failed to give !er an assignment for more t!an ninemont!s, amounting to constructive dismissal, and t!is compelled !er to file t!e

complaint for illegal dismissal.

:

+n t!e ot!er !and, petitioners alleged in t!eir position paper t!at respondent %asrelieved from !er post as re6uested b t!e client because of !er !abitual tardiness,persistent borro%ing of mone from emploees and tenants of t!e client, and sleepingon t!e @ob. Petitioners allegedl directed respondent to e=plain %! s!e committed suc!infractions, but respondent failed to !eed suc! order. Respondent %as nevert!eless

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_198357_2012.html#fnt1











temporaril assigned to Bavie% Par? Lotel from ;arc! K"#$, /00D, but s!e also failedto meet said clientYs standards and !er posting t!ereat %as not e=tended. 7

Respondent t!en filed an administrative complaint for illegal dismissal %it! t!e PP"Securit &gencies and 'uard Supervision ivision on June #D, /00D, but s!e did not

attend t!e conference !earings for said case. Petitioners broug!t to t!e conference!earings a ne% assignment order detailing respondent at t!e &teneo de ;anilaOniversit but, due to !er absence, petitioners failed to personall serve respondentsaid assignment order. Petitioners t!en sent respondent a letter ordering !er to report to!ead6uarters for %or? assignment, but respondent did not compl %it! said order.Instead, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal %it! t!e abor &rbiter.<

+n ;a #$, /00K, t!e abor &rbiter rendered a ecision, t!e dispositive portion of %!ic! reads as follo%s5

CL*R*2+R*, @udgment is !ereb made dismissing t!e c!arge of illegal dismissal as

%anting in merit but, as e=plained above, ordering t!e Respondents eopard Securitand Investigation &genc and Rupert Protacio to pa complainant a financial assistancein t!e amount of P7,000.00.

+t!er claims are IS;ISS* for lac? of merit.

S+ +R*R*.9

Respondent t!en filed a otice of &ppeal %it! t!e ational abor Relations ommission(R), but in a ecision dated +ctober /$, /00K, t!e R dismissed t!e appeal for !aving been filed out of time, t!ereb declaring t!at t!e abor &rbiterYs ecision !ad

become final and e=ecutor on June #<, /00K.

D

Respondent elevated t!e case to t!e & via a petition for certiorari, and on ;arc! /:,/0##, t!e & promulgated its ecision, t!e dispositive portion of %!ic! reads as follo%s5

CL*R*2+R*, t!e petition for certiorari is 'R&*. !e ecision dated +ctober /$,/00K and Resolution dated ;arc! /, /0#0 rendered b public respondent in R &o. 09"00#DK/"0K (R ase o. R"0K"#/</D"0D) are R*-*RS* and S*

&SI*, and in lieu t!ereof, a ne% @udgment is **R* declaring petitioner to !avebeen illegall dismissed and IR*I' private respondents to reinstate petitioner %it!out loss of seniorit rig!ts, benefits and privileges8 and to pa !er bac?%ages and

ot!er monetar benefits during t!e period of !er illegal dismissal up to actualreinstatement.

Public respondent R is IR** to conduct furt!er proceedings, for t!e solepurpose of determining t!e amount of private respondentYs monetar liabilities inaccordance %it! t!is decision.

S+ +R*R*.K













PetitionersY motion for reconsideration of t!e afore6uoted ecision %as denied per Resolution dated &ugust #K, /0##. Lence, t!e present petition, %!ere t!e main issue for resolution is %!et!er t!e & erred in liberall appling t!e rules of procedure and rulingt!at respondentYs appeal s!ould be allo%ed and resolved on t!e merits despite !avingbeen filed out of time.

!e ourt cannot sustain t!e &Ys ecision.

It s!ould be emp!asized t!at t!e resort to a liberal application, or suspension of t!eapplication of procedural rules, must remain as t!e e=ception to t!e %ell"settledprinciple t!at rules must be complied %it! for t!e orderl administration of @ustice. In;aro!omsalic v. ole,#0 t!e ourt stated5

C!ile procedural rules ma be rela=ed in t!e interest of @ustice, it is %ell"settled t!att!ese are tools designed to facilitate t!e ad@udication of cases. !e rela=ation of procedural rules in t!e interest of @ustice %as never intended to be a license for erring

litigants to violate t!e rules %it! impunit. iberalit in t!e interpretation and applicationof t!e rules can be invo?ed onl in proper cases and under @ustifiable causes andcircumstances. C!ile litigation is not a game of tec!nicalities, ever case must beprosecuted in accordance %it! t!e prescribed procedure to ensure an orderl andspeed administration of @ustice.##

!e later case of ai?o?u *lectronics P!ils., Inc. v. Raza,#/ furt!er e=plained t!at5

o be sure, t!e rela=ation of procedural rules cannot be made %it!out an valid reasonsproffered for or underpinning it. o merit liberalit, petitioner must s!o% reasonablecause @ustifing its non"compliance %it! t!e rules and must convince t!e ourt t!at t!e

outrig!t dismissal of t!e petition %ould defeat t!e administration of substantial @ustice. == = !e desired lenienc cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for suc! a procedural lapse. = = =

Ce must stress t!at t!e bare invocation of Et!e interest of substantial @usticeE line is notsome magic %ant t!at %ill automaticall compel t!is ourt to suspend procedural rules.Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simpl because t!eir non"observance ma !ave resulted in pre@udice to a partYs substantial rig!ts. Otter disregard of t!e rules cannot be @ustl rationalized b !arping on t!e polic of liberalconstruction.#$

In t!is case, t!e @ustifications given b t!e & for its liberalit b c!oosing to overloo?t!e belated filing of t!e appeal are, t!e importance of t!e issue raised, i.e., %!et!er respondent %as illegall dismissed8 and t!e belief t!at respondent s!ould be Eaffordedt!e amplest opportunit for t!e proper and @ust determination of !is cause, free from t!econstraints of tec!nicalities,E#: considering t!at t!e belated filing of respondentYs appealbefore t!e R %as t!e fault of respondentYs former counsel. ote, !o%ever, t!atneit!er respondent nor !er former counsel gave an e=planation or reason citinge=traordinar circumstances for !er la%erYs failure to abide b t!e rules for filing an













appeal. Respondent merel insisted t!at s!e !ad not been remiss in follo%ing up !er case %it! said la%er.

It is, !o%ever, an oft"repeated ruling t!at t!e negligence and mista?es of counsel bindt!e client. & departure from t!is rule %ould bring about never"ending suits, so long as

la%ers could allege t!eir o%n fault or negligence to support t!e client’s case and obtainremedies and reliefs alread lost b t!e operation of la%.#7 !e onl e=ception %ould be,%!ere t!e la%erYs gross negligence %ould result in t!e grave in@ustice of depriving !isclient of t!e due process of la%.#< In t!is case, t!ere %as no suc! deprivation of dueprocess. Respondent %as able to full present and argue !er case before t!e abor

&rbiter. S!e %as accorded t!e opportunit to be !eard. Ler failure to appeal t!e abor &rbiterYs ecision cannot, t!erefore, be deemed as a deprivation of !er rig!t to dueprocess. In Leirs of eofilo 'audiano v. Benemerito,#9 t!e ourt ruled, t!us5

!e perfection of an appeal %it!in t!e period and in t!e manner prescribed b la% is @urisdictional and non"compliance %it! suc! legal re6uirements is fatal and !as t!e

effect of rendering t!e @udgment final and e=ecutor. !e limitation on t!e period of appeal is not %it!out reason. !e must be strictl follo%ed as t!e are consideredindispensable to forestall or avoid unreasonable delas in t!e administration of @ustice,to ensure an orderl disc!arge of @udicial business, and to put an end to controversies. =

T== !e rig!t to appeal is not a natural rig!t or part of due process8 it is merel astatutor privilege and ma be e=ercised onl in t!e manner and in accordance %it! t!eprovisions of la%. !us, one %!o see?s to avail of t!e rig!t to appeal must strictlcompl %it! t!e re6uirements of t!e rules, and failure to do so leads to t!e loss of t!erig!t to appeal.E#D

In +campo v. ourt of &ppeals (2ormer Second ivision),

#K

t!e ourt declared t!at5

= = = %e cannot condone t!e practice of parties %!o, eit!er b t!eir o%n or t!eir counselYs inadvertence, !ave allo%ed a @udgment to become final and e=ecutor and,after t!e same !as become immutable, see? ini6uitous %as to assail it. !e finalit of adecision is a @urisdictional event %!ic! cannot be made to depend on t!e convenienceof t!e parties./0

learl, allo%ing an appeal, even if belatedl filed, s!ould never be ta?enlig!tl.1âwphi1 !e @udgment attains finalit b t!e lapse of t!e period for ta?ing anappeal %it!out suc! appeal or motion for reconsideration being filed./# In +campo v.

ourt of &ppeals (2ormer Second ivision),

//

t!e ourt reiterated t!e basic rule t!atE%!en a part to an original action fails to 6uestion an adverse @udgment or decision bnot filing t!e proper remed %it!in t!e period prescribed b la%, !e loses t!e rig!t to doso, and t!e @udgment or decision, as to !im, becomes final and binding.E /$ !e ecisionof t!e abor &rbiter, t!erefore, became final and e=ecutor as to respondent %!en s!efailed to file a timel appeal t!erefrom. !e importance of t!e concept of finalit of

@udgment cannot be gainsaid. &s elucidated in Pasiona, Jr. v. ourt of &ppeals,/: to %it5

























!e ourt re"emp!asizes t!e doctrine of finalit of @udgment. In &lcantara v. Ponce, t!eourt, citing its muc! earlier ruling in &rnedo v. lorente, stressed t!e importance of saiddoctrine, to %it5

= = = controlling and irresistible reasons of public polic and of sound practice in t!e

courts demand t!at at t!e ris? of occasional error, @udgments of courts determiningcontroversies submitted to t!em s!ould become final at some definite time fi=ed b la%,or b a rule of practice recognized b la%, so as to be t!ereafter beond t!e controleven of t!e court %!ic! rendered t!em for t!e purpose of correcting errors of fact or of la%, into %!ic!, in t!e opinion of t!e court it ma !ave fallen. !e ver purpose for %!ic!t!e courts are organized is to put an end to controvers, to decide t!e 6uestionssubmitted to t!e litigants, and to determine t!e respective rig!ts of t!e parties. Cit! t!efull ?no%ledge t!at courts are not infallible, t!e litigants submit t!eir respective claimsfor @udgment, and t!e !ave a rig!t at some time or ot!er to !ave final @udgment on%!ic! t!e can rel as a final disposition of t!e issue submitted, and to ?no% t!at t!ereis an end to t!e litigation.

= = = =

It s!ould also be borne in mind t!at t!e rig!t of t!e %inning part to en@o t!e finalit of t!e resolution of t!e case is also an essential part of public polic and t!e orderladministration of @ustice. Lence, suc! rig!t is @ust as %eig!t or e6uall important as t!erig!t of t!e losing part to appeal or see? reconsideration %it!in t!e prescribed period. /7

C!en t!e abor &rbiterYs ecision became final, petitioners attained a vested rig!t tosaid @udgment. !e !ad t!e rig!t to full rel on t!e immutabilit of said ecision. InSofio v. -alenzuela,/< it %as ampl stressed t!at5

!e ourt %ill not override t!e finalit and immutabilit of a @udgment based onl on t!enegligence of a part’s counsel in timel ta?ing all t!e proper recourses from t!e

@udgment. o @ustif an override, t!e counsel’s negligence must not onl be gross butmust also be s!o%n to !ave deprived t!e part t!e rig!t to due process.

In sum, t!e ourt cannot countenance rela=ation of t!e rules absent t!e s!o%ing of e=traordinar circumstances to @ustif t!e same. In t!is case, no compelling reasons canbe found to convince t!is ourt t!at t!e & acted correctl b according respondentsuc! liberalit.

I -I*C +2 L* 2+R*'+I', t!e Petition is 'R&*. !e ecision of t!e ourt of

&ppeals dated ;arc! /:, /0##, and its Resolution dated &ugust #K, /0## in &"'.R. SPo. ##:D// are !ereb S* &SI*, and t!e ecision of t!e ational abor Relationsommission in R"& o. 09"00#DK/"0K (R ase o. R"0K"#/</D"0D),ruling t!at t!e ecision of t!e abor &rbiter !as become final and e=ecutor, isR*IS&*.

S+ +R*R*.







D)OSD8DO ". PER8L38 &ssociate Justice

@)@)84 R8")RE% et al. vs. "8R ')S+)4G 5O.% )45.% ")R8"8R ')S+)4G 5O.% )45.%

ROBER3 B=E+S 84D AERO"E SP)3% G.R. 4O. 16$!&$% A*ne 1F% !&1!483=RE( Petition for Revie% on ertiorari under Rule :7

'853S(

• June /D, /00#5 ;ar 2is!ing o., Inc. (;ar 2is!ing), engaged in t!e business of fis!ing and canning of tuna, sold its principal assets to co"respondent ;iramar 2is!ing o., Inc. (;iramar) t!roug! public bidding. Proceeds of t!e sale %ere paid tot!e rade and Investment orporation of t!e P!ilippines (I+RP) to cover ;ar 2is!ing’s outstanding obligation in t!e amount of DK9,7<0,0:#./<₱

•

In vie% of t!at transfer, ;ar 2is!ing issued a ;emorandum dated /$ +ctober /00#informing all its %or?ers t!at t!e compan %ould cease to operate b t!e end oft!e mont!

• +ctober /K, /00#5 It notified t!e +* of t!e closure of its business operations

• !en, ;ar 2is!ing’s labor union, ;ar 2is!ing Cor?ers Onion X 2 X and ;iramarentered into a ;emorandum of &greement for t!e ac6uiring compan, ;iramar, toabsorb ;ar 2is!ing’s regular ran? and file emploees %!ose performance %assatisfactor, %it!out loss of seniorit rig!ts and privileges previousl en@oed

• Onfortunatel, petitioners, %!o %or?ed as ran? and file emploees, %ere not !ired or

given separation pa b ;iramar so t!e filed omplaints for illegal dismissal %it!mone claims before t!e &rbitration Branc! of t!e ational abor Relationsommission (R).

• La,or 8r,iter L8:( 'ranted separation pa but not claims for illegal dismissal

o +rdering ;ar 2is!ing to pa t!e complainants t!eir respective separation pa,totaling <,$$<,7D9.998₱

o ismissing t!e case as against ;iramar 2is!ing ompan, Inc., as %ell asagainst Robert Bue!s and Jerome Spitz, for lac? of cause of action8

o

ismissing all ot!er c!arges and claims of t!e complainants, for lac? of merit.o Reasons5

;ar 2is!ing !ad necessaril closed its operations, considering t!at;iramar !ad alread boug!t t!e tuna canning plant. B reason of t!eclosure, petitioners %ere legall dismissed for aut!orized cause.



*ven if ;ar 2is!ing reneged on notifing t!e +* %it!in $0 das prior to its closure, t!at failure did not ma?e t!e dismissals void.

Lo%ever, ;ar 2is!ing to give separation pa to its %or?ers

• Petitioners pursued t!e action before t!e R.

• 4LR5( ;odified t!e &’s ecision. Ruled for petitioners.

o ;ar 2is!ing notified t!e +* onl / das before t!e business closed, t!elabor court considered petitioners’ dismissal as ineffectual

o &%arded, apart from separation pa, full bac? %ages to petitioners from t!etime t!e %ere terminated on $# +ctober /00# until t!e date %!en t!e &up!eld t!e validit of t!eir dismissal on $0 Jul /00/

o R pierced t!e veil of corporate fiction and ruled t!at ;ar 2is!ing and;iramar %ere one and t!e same entit, since t!eir officers %ere t!e same.

Lence, bot! companies %ere ordered to solidaril pa t!e monetar claims.

• Respondents filed a ;+R

• 4LR5( Imposing liabilit onl on ;ar 2is!ing %!ic! %as ordered to pacomplainants t!eir separation pa, and full bac?%ages from t!e date t!e %ereterminated from emploment until $0 Jul /00/, sub@ect to computation duringe=ecution stage of proceedings at t!e appropriate Regional &rbitration Branc!.

o Petitioners !ad no cause of action against ;iramar, since labor contractscannot be enforced against t!e transferee of an enterprise in t!e absence of a stipulation in t!e contract t!at t!e transferee assumes t!e obligation of t!etransferor

• espite t!e a%ard of separation pa and bac? %ages, petitioners filed a Rule <7Petition before t!e &. !e argued t!at bot! ;ar 2is!ing and ;iramar s!ould bemade liable for t!eir separation pa, and t!at t!eir bac? %ages s!ould be up to t!etime of t!eir actual reinstatement.

• 58( ismissed t!e action for certiorari against t!e //7 ot!er petitioners %it!outruling on t!e substantive aspects of t!e case in finding t!at onl# F of te !!$petitioners signed te @erification and 5ertification against for*- sopping

•

B means of a ;anifestation %it! +mnibus ;otion, petitioners submitted a-erification and ertification against forum s!opping e=ecuted b #<# signatories.

o Petitioners as?ed t!e & to reconsider b invoing te r*le tat tecnicalr*les do not strictl# appl# to la,or cases.

• 58( Still *I* petitioners’ contentions



o &nent t!e liberalit in application of t!e rules, as alleged b petitioners, t!esame deserves scant consideration. <ile litigation is not a Ga-e of tecnicalities% and tat te r*les of proced*re so*ld not ,e enforcedstrictl# at te cost of s*,stantial ;*stice% still it does not follo0 tat teR*les of 5o*rt -a# ,e ignored at 0ill and at rando- to te pre;*dice of

te orderl# presentation% assess-ent and ;*st resol*tion of te iss*es.• Petitioner’s &rguments5

o Invo?es t!e substantial compliance %it! procedural rules %!en t!eir ;anifestation alread contains a -erification and ertification against forums!opping e=ecuted b #<# signatories.

o Jaro v. Court of ppeals, citing !iglas"#amao v. $ational %a&or Relations

Commission and Cusi"'ernan(ez v. )iaz 5 !e subse6uent submission of t!emissing documentar attac!ments %it! t!e ;otion for Reconsiderationamounted to substantial compliance.

o Petitioners also assert t!at ;iramar simpl too? over t!e operations of ;ar 2is!ing and t!at t!ese companies are one and t!e same entit, given t!ecommonalit of t!eir directors and t!e similarit of t!eir business venture intuna canning plant operations.

PRO5ED=R8L )SS=E 1( C!et!er t!e & gravel erred in dismissing t!eir Petition for Revie% on t!e ground t!at t!eir pleading lac?ed a -erification and ertification againstforum s!oppingA (+)

R83)O 1( • !e Rules of ourt provide t!at a petition for certiorari must be verified and

accompanied b a s0orn certification of non2for*- sopping. 2ailure to compl%it! t!ese mandator re6uirements s!all be sufficient ground for t!e dismissal of t!epetition. onsidering t!at onl $ of t!e //D named petitioners signed t!ere6uirement, t!e & dismissed t!e case against t!em, as t!e did not e=ecute a-erification and ertification against forum s!opping.

• !is ver case does not involve a failure to attac! t!e &nne=es. Rat!er, t!eprocedural infirmit consists of o-ission I te fail*re to sign a @erification and5ertification against for*- sopping.

• Because of noncompliance %it! t!e re6uirements governing t!e certification of non"forum s!opping, no error could be validl attributed to t!e & %!en it ordered t!edismissal of t!e special civil action for certiorari.

• !e lac? of certification against forum s!opping is not curable b mere amendmentof a complaint, but s!all be a cause for t!e dismissal of t!e case %it!out pre@udice.)ndeed% te general r*le is tat s*,seJ*ent co-pliance 0it te reJ*ire-ents



0ill not e/c*se a part#>s fail*re to co-pl# in te first instance. !us, onprocedural aspects, t!e appellate court correctl dismissed t!e case.

• Lo%ever, te -erit of a case is a special circ*-stance or co-pelling reasontat ;*stifies te rela/ation of te r*le reJ*iring verification and certification of non2for*- sopping. It is t!us necessar to determine %!et!er tec!nical rules%ere brus!ed aside at t!e e=pense of substantial @ustice.

)SS=E !( C!et!er, in t!is case, tec!nical rules can be brus!ed aside at t!e e=pense of substantial @usticeA +.

a.C!et!er dismissal based on t!e closure of business is validA N*S.

o $ re6uirements

#) t!e cessation of or %it!dra%al from business operations must be&ona fi(e in c!aracter.

/) t!ere must be pament to t!e emploees of termination paamounting to at least one"!alf (#3/) mont! pa for eac! ear of service,or one (#) mont! pa, %!ic!ever is !ig!er.

$) t!e compan must serve a %ritten notice on t!e emploees and ont!e +* at least one (#) mont! before t!e intended termination.

o Petitioners did not dispute t!e conclusion of t!e & and t!e R t!at ;ar 2is!ing !ad an aut!orized cause to dismiss its %or?ers. eit!er didpetitioners c!allenge t!e computation of t!eir separation pa. Petitioners onl6uestioned t!e !olding t!at onl ;ar 2is!ing %as liable for t!eir monetar

claims.b. C!et!er t!ere is solidar liabilit of ;ar 2is!ing and ;iramar to pa

petitioners’ monetar claimsA (+, ;ar 2is!ing X and not ;iramar X is re6uired tocompensate petitioners. Indeed, t!e bac? %ages and retirement pa earned from t!eformer emploer cannot be filed against t!e ne% o%ners or operators of an enterprise)

o C!et!er one corporation is merel an alter ego of anot!er is purel one of fact generall beond t!e @urisdiction of t!is ourt. !e ourt sustains t!eruling of t!e & as affirmed b t!e R t!at ;iramar and ;ar 2is!ing areseparate and distinct entities, based on t!e mar?ed differences in t!eir stoc?o%ners!ip.

o &lso, t!e fact t!at ;ar 2is!ing’s officers remained as suc! in ;iramar doesnot b itself %arrant a conclusion t!at t!e t%o companies are one and t!esame. *es&reo v. Court of ppeals5 !e mere s!o%ing t!at t!e corporations!ad a common director sitting in all t!e boards %it!out more does notaut!orize disregarding t!eir separate @uridical personalities.



o eit!er can t!e veil of corporate fiction bet%een t!e t%o companies bepierced b t!e rest of petitioners’ submissions, namel, t!e alleged ta?e"over b ;iramar of ;ar 2is!ing’s operations and t!e evident similarit of t!eir businesses. Since piercing t!e veil of corporate fiction is fro%ned upon, t!ose%!o see? to pierce t!e veil must clearl establis! t!at t!e separate and

distinct personalities of t!e corporations are set up to @ustif a %rong, protecta fraud, or perpetrate a deception. !is, unfortunatel, petitioners !ave failedto do.

o In(ophil e-tile ill /or0ers nion vs. Calica 5 !e fact t!at t!e businesses of private respondent and &crlic are related, t!at some of t!e emploees of t!eprivate respondent are t!e same persons manning and providing for au=iliarservices to t!e units of &crlic, and t!at t!e p!sical plants, offices andfacilities are situated in t!e same compound, it is our considered opinion t!att!ese facts are not sufficient to @ustif t!e piercing of t!e corporate veil of

&crlic.

c. C!en is t!e rec?oning period for t!e a%ard of bac? %agesA

o ourt no longer d%elt on t!e e=act computation of petitioners’ claims for bac?%ages, %!ic! !ave been sufficientl t!res!ed out b t!e & and t!e R.Judicial revie% of labor cases does not go beond an evaluation of t!esufficienc of t!e evidence upon %!ic! labor officialsY findings rest.

R83)O !( !e assertions of petitioners fail on bot! procedural and substantive aspects.!erefore, no special reasons e=ist to reverse t!e &’s dismissal of t!e case due tot!eir failure to abide b t!e mandator procedure for filing a petition for revie% oncertiorari.

• C!ile %e smpat!ize %it! t!e situation of t!e %or?ers in t!is case, %e cannotdisregard, absent compelling reasons, t!e factual determinations and t!e legaldoctrines t!at support t!e findings of t!e courts a quo.

• !e ourt re-inds te parties seeing te *lti-ate relief of certiorari too,serve te r*les% since nono,servance tereof cannot ,e ,r*sed aside as a-ere tecnicalit#. Proced*ral r*les are not to ,e ,elittled or si-pl#disregarded% for tese prescri,ed proced*res ens*re an orderl# and speed#ad-inistration of ;*stice.

+ELD(

& &22IR;*. Petition denied for lac? of merit.

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION



VIVIAN T. RAMIREZ, ALBERTO B.DIGNO, DANILO M. CASQUITE,

JUMADIYA A. KADIL, AUJIA

SALI!, ANTONIO ABIAN,ROMEL DANAG, GINA"ANTASAN, ART!UR MATUGAS,VIRGILIA OSARIO, ORLANDOEBRADA, ROSANA CABATO,#ILREDO LUNA, LILIABARREDO, ISABEL ALBERTO,NORA BONIAO, "ILAR OSARIO,LYDIA ESLIT, AMMAN SALI,AKMAD AKIL, ROGELIO LAZARO,

ISABEL CONCILLADO, MARLONABIAL, !ERMOCILLONA"ALCRUZ, #ALTER BU!IAN,ELISEO AMATORIO, JOSECASTRO, JAMIL LAGBAY, MA.EVELYN SANTOS, LEDENIA T.BARON, ELSA AMATORIO,SARA! . BUCOY, E$"EDITO L.RELUYA, ARNULO ALARO,

EDGARDO . BORGONIA,DANILO R. MANINGO,ABDUSAID !. DAMBONG,LORINDA M. MUTIA,DOMINADOR DEL ROSARIO,

JOEL E. TRONO, !USSIN A. JA#AJI, JUL%ASNAM JAKARIA,LUZVIMINDA A. NOLASCO,VILMA G. GASCO, MORITA S.MARMETO, "ROCESA JUANICO,ANTONIO A. MONDRAGON, JR.,

G.R. No. &'()*(

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,BRION,PEREZ,SERENO, anRE!ES, JJ.

Pro"ul#ate:

$une %&, '(%'



JESSICA . QUIAC!ON, "ACITA G.MEDINA, ARNEL S. SANTOS,ANECITA T. TARAS, TOMINDAOT. TARAS, NULCA C. SABDANI,

AKMAD A. SABDANI, RO#ENA J.GARCIA, LINA ". CASAS,MARLYN G. RANCISCO,MERCEDITA MAQUINANO,NICOLAS T. RIO, TERESITA A.CASINAS, VIRGILIO . IB%IB,"ANTALEON S. ROJAS, JR.,EVELYN V. BEATINGO, MATILDEG. !USSIN, ES"ERANZA I.LLEDO, ADOLINA DELA

MERCED, LAURA E. SANTOS,ROGACIANA MAQUILING, ALELIED. SAMSON, S!IRLEY L.ALVAREZ, MAGDALENA A.MARCOS, VIRGINIA S.ES"INOSA, ANTONIO C.GUEVARA, AUGUSTA S. DE

JESUS, SERVILLA A. BANCALE,"ROSERINA GATINAO, RASMA

A. ABRIGA, ROLANDO D.GATINAO, ANALISA G. MEA,SARA! A. SALCEDO, ALICIA M.

JAYAG, ERNANDO G. CABEROY,ROMEO R. "ONCE, EDNA S."ONCE, TEODORA T. LUY,



#ALDERICO . ARIO, MELC!ORS. BUCOY, EDITA !. CINCO,RUDY I. LIMBAROC, "ETERMONTOJO, MARLYN S. ATILANO,

REGIDOR MEDALLO, ED#IN O.DEMASUAY, DENNIS M.SUICANO, ROSALINA Q.ATILANO, ESTRELLA ELICIANO,IMELDA T. DAGALEA, MARILYNRUINO, JOSE AGUSTIN, ERENRIVERA, CRISALDO VALERO,SAIA !ANDANG, LUCENA R.MEDINA, DANNY BOY B."ANGASIAN, ABDURASA !ASIL,

ROEL ALTA, JOBERT BELTRAN,EDNA AUSTO, TAJMA!AR!ADJULA, ELENA MAG!ANOY,ERIC B. QUITIOL, JESSE D.LORES, GEMMA CANILLAS,ERNITO CANILLAS, MARILOU

JAVIER, MARGANI MADDIN,



RIC!ARD SENA, E D. CANOY,GEORGE SALUD, EDGARDOBORGONIA, JR., ANTONIOATILANO, JOSE CASTRO, +-

LIBERATO BAGALANON,Petitioners,

) *ersus )

MAR IS!ING CO., INC.,MIRAMAR IS!ING CO., INC.,ROBERT BUE!S AND JEROMES"ITZ.



Responents.

+) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) )+

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J. Before t!is ourt is a Petition for Revie% on ertiorari under Rule :7 of t!e

Revised Rules of ourt, see?ing a revie% of t!e ourt of &ppeals (&) #K ;arc! /00:and #/ ;a /007 Resolutions in &"'.R. SP +. D/<7#. !e appellate court !addismissed t!e Petition for Revie% on t!e ground t!at it lac?ed a -erification andertification against forum s!opping.

!e pertinent facts are as follo%s5

+n /D June /00#, respondent ;ar 2is!ing o., Inc. (;ar 2is!ing), engaged int!e business of fis!ing and canning of tuna, sold its principal assets to co"respondent;iramar 2is!ing o., Inc. (;iramar) t!roug! public bidding.#>#F !e proceeds of t!e sale%ere paid to t!e rade and Investment orporation of t!e P!ilippines (I+RP) tocover ;ar 2is!ings outstanding obligation in t!e amount of DK9,7<0,0:#./<.₱

/>/F In vie%of t!at transfer, ;ar 2is!ing issued a ;emorandum dated /$ +ctober /00# informing allits %or?ers t!at t!e compan %ould cease to operate b t!e end of t!e mont!. $>$F +n /K+ctober /00# or merel t%o das prior to t!e mont!s end, it notified t!e epartment of abor and *mploment (+*) of t!e closure of its business operations. :>:F

!ereafter, ;ar 2is!ings labor union, ;ar 2is!ing Cor?ers Onion 2 and;iramar entered into a ;emorandum of &greement.7>7F !e &greement provided t!at

t!e ac6uiring compan, ;iramar, s!all absorb ;ar 2is!ings regular ran? and file

1>#F *=ecutive abor &rbiters ecision, rollo, pp. //<"//98 Rs Resolution dated #9 ecember /00$,rollo, pp. 9#$"9#:.

2>/F Id.

3>$F Rollo, p. <D.

4>:F Id. at KD.

5>7F Id. at D0"D/



emploees %!ose performance %as satisfactor, %it!out loss of seniorit rig!ts andprivileges previousl en@oed.<><F

Onfortunatel, petitioners, %!o %or?ed as ran? and file emploees, %ere not!ired or given separation pa b ;iramar.9>9F !us, petitioners filed omplaints for

illegal dismissal %it! mone claims before t!e &rbitration Branc! of t!e ational abor Relations ommission (R).

In its $0 Jul /00/ ecision, t!e abor &rbiter (&) found t!at ;ar 2is!ing !adnecessaril closed its operations, considering t!at ;iramar !ad alread boug!t t!e tunacanning plant.D>DF B reason of t!e closure, petitioners %ere legall dismissed for aut!orized cause.K>KF In addition, even if ;ar 2is!ing reneged on notifing t!e +*%it!in $0 das prior to its closure, t!at failure did not ma?e t!e dismissals void.onse6uentl, t!e & ordered ;ar 2is!ing to give separation pa to its %or?ers.#0>#0F

!e & !eld t!us5##>##F

<+ERE'ORE, in vie% of t!e foregoing considerations, @udgment is !erebrendered in t!ese cases5

#. +rdering ;ar 2is!ing ompan, Inc., t!roug! its president,treasurer, manager or ot!er proper officer or representative, to pa t!ecomplainants t!eir respective separation pa, as computed in page #/ to$$ !ereof, all totaling S)K ")LL)O4 3+REE +=4DRED 3+)R3? S)K3+O=S84D ')@E +=4DRED E)G+3? SE@E4 H 771&& P*S+S( <,$$<,7D9.99)8₱

/. ismissing t!ese case >sicF as against ;iramar 2is!ingompan, Inc., as %ell as against Robert Bue!s and Jerome Spitz, for lac? of cause of action8

$. ismissing all ot!er c!arges and claims of t!e complainants, for lac? of merit.

SO ORDERED.

&ggrieved, petitioners pursued t!e action before t!e R, %!ic! modified t!e

&s ecision. oting t!at ;ar 2is!ing notified t!e +* onl t%o das before t!e

6><F Id. at D#.

7>9F Petitioners Petition for Revie%, rollo, p. /:.

8>DF *=ecutive abor &rbiters ecision, rollo, p. /$0.

9>KF Id. at //K.

10>#0F Id. at /$0.

11>##F Id. at /7:.



business closed, t!e labor court considered petitioners dismissal as ineffectual. #/>#/FLence, it a%arded, apart from separation pa, full bac? %ages to petitioners from t!etime t!e %ere terminated on $# +ctober /00# until t!e date %!en t!e & up!eld t!evalidit of t!eir dismissal on $0 Jul /00/.#$>#$F

&dditionall, t!e R pierced t!e veil of corporate fiction and ruled t!at ;ar 2is!ing and ;iramar %ere one and t!e same entit, since t!eir officers %ere t!e same.#:

>#:F Lence, bot! companies %ere ordered to solidaril pa t!e monetar claims. #7>#7F

+n reconsideration, t!e R modified its ruling b imposing liabilit onl on ;ar 2is!ing. !e labor court !eld t!at petitioners !ad no cause of action against ;iramar,since labor contracts cannot be enforced against t!e transferee of an enterprise in t!eabsence of a stipulation in t!e contract t!at t!e transferee assumes t!e obligation of t!etransferor.#<>#<F Lence, t!e dispositive portion reads5#9>#9F

CL*R*2+R*, foregoing premises considered, t!e assailed resolution is;+I2I* in t!at onl ;ar 2is!ing ompan, Inc. t!roug! its responsible officers, is

ordered to pa complainants t!eir separation pa, and full bac?%ages from t!e date t!e%ere terminated from emploment until $0 Jul /00/, sub@ect to computation duringe=ecution stage of proceedings at t!e appropriate Regional &rbitration Branc!.

S+ +R*R*.

espite t!e a%ard of separation pa and bac? %ages, petitioners filed a Rule <7Petition before t!e &. !is time, t!e argued t!at bot! ;ar 2is!ing and ;iramar s!ould be made liable for t!eir separation pa, and t!at t!eir bac? %ages s!ould be upto t!e time of t!eir actual reinstatement. Lo%ever, finding t!at onl $ of t!e //Dpetitioners#D>#DF signed t!e -erification and ertification against forum s!opping, t!e &instantl dismissed t!e action for certiorari against t!e //7 ot!er petitioners %it!out

ruling on t!e substantive aspects of t!e case.#K

>#KF

B means of a ;anifestation %it! +mnibus ;otion,/0>/0F petitioners submitted a-erification and ertification against forum s!opping e=ecuted b #<# signatories. In t!esaid pleading, petitioners as?ed t!e & to reconsider b invo?ing t!e rule t!at tec!nicalrules do not strictl appl to labor cases./#>/#F Still, t!e & denied petitionerscontentions and !eld t!us5//>//F

12>#/F Rs Resolution dated /K &ugust /00$, rollo, p. $$$.

13>#$F Id.

14>#:F Id. at $$:.

15>#7F Id.

16>#<F Rs Resolution dated #9 ecember /00$, rollo, p. 9#:.

17>#9F Id. at 9#7.

18>#DF Jose . Robocca, eresita &. Sosmea, and at!an B. *go"Ogan.

19>#KF &s Resolution dated #K ;arc! /00:, rollo, pp. 9:/"9:$.

20>/0F Rollo, p. 9::.

21>/#F Id. at 9:<.

22>//F &s Resolution dated #/ ;a /007, rollo, p. 9<K.



&nent t!e liberalit in application of t!e rules, as alleged b petitioners, t!e samedeserves scant consideration. = = =.

===. C!ile litigation is not a game of tec!nicalities, and t!at t!e rules of procedure s!ouldnot be enforced strictl at t!e cost of substantial @ustice, still it does not follo% t!at t!e Rules of ourt ma be ignored at %ill and at random to t!e pre@udice of t!e orderl presentation,assessment and @ust resolution of t!e issues. ===.

Before t!is ourt, #/: petitioners raise t!e issue of %!et!er t!e & gravel erredin dismissing t!eir Petition for Revie% on t!e ground t!at t!eir pleading lac?ed a-erification and ertification against forum s!opping./$>/$F

!e Rules of ourt provide t!at a petition for certiorari must be verified andaccompanied b a s%orn certification of non"forum s!opping./:>/:F 2ailure to compl%it! t!ese mandator re6uirements s!all be sufficient ground for t!e dismissal of t!epetition./7>/7F onsidering t!at onl $ of t!e //D named petitioners signed t!ere6uirement, t!e & dismissed t!e case against t!em, as t!e did not e=ecute a-erification and ertification against forum s!opping.

Petitioners invo?e substantial compliance %it! procedural rules %!en t!eir ;anifestation alread contains a -erification and ertification against forum s!oppinge=ecuted b #<# signatories. !e !eavil rel on Jaro v. Court of ppeals,23 [26] citing!iglas"#amao v. $ational %a&or Relations Commission and Cusi"'ernan(ez v. )iaz, in%!ic! %e discussed t!at t!e subse6uent submission of t!e missing documentarattac!ments %it! t!e ;otion for Reconsideration amounted to substantial compliance.

Lo%ever, t!is ver case does not involve a failure to attac! t!e &nne=es. Rat!er,t!e procedural infirmit consists of omission t!e failure to sign a -erification andertification against forum s!opping. &ddressing t!is defect s6uarel, %e !ave alreadresolved t!at because of noncompliance %it! t!e re6uirements governing t!ecertification of non"forum s!opping, no error could be validl attributed to t!e & %!en itordered t!e dismissal of t!e special civil action for certiorari./9>/9F !e lac? of certification against forum s!opping is not curable b mere amendment of a complaint,but s!all be a cause for t!e dismissal of t!e case %it!out pre@udice. /D>/DF )ndeed% tegeneral r*le is tat s*,seJ*ent co-pliance 0it te reJ*ire-ents 0ill not e/c*sea part#>s fail*re to co-pl# in te first instance./K>/KF !us, on procedural aspects,t!e appellate court correctl dismissed t!e case.

23>/$F Petitioners Petition for Revie%, rollo, p. /K.

24>/:F RO*S +2 +OR, Rule <7, Sec. #.25>/7F RO*S +2 +OR, Rule :<, Sec. $8 Chinese 4oung en5s Christian ssociation of the !hilippine

Islan(s v. Remington *teel Corporation, '.R. o. #7K://, /D ;arc! /00D, 770 SR& #D0.

26>/<F :/9 P!il. 7$/ (/00/).

27>/9Fariveles *hip6ar( Corporation v. Court of ppeals, :<# P!il. /:K (/00$).

28>/DF Repu&lic v. Coal&rine International !hilippines, Inc., '.R. o. #<#D$D, 9 &pril /0#0, <#9 SR&:K#.

29>/KF !hilippine !u&lic *chool eachers ssociation v. he 'eirs of Carolina !. Iligan , 7/D P!il. ##K9(/00<).



Lo%ever, t!is ourt !as recognized t!at t!e merit of a case is a specialcircumstance or compelling reason t!at @ustifies t!e rela=ation of t!e rule re6uiringverification and certification of non"forum s!opping.$0>$0F In order to full resolve t!eissue, it is t!us necessar to determine %!et!er tec!nical rules %ere brus!ed aside att!e e=pense of substantial @ustice.$#>$#F !is ourt %ill t!en delve into t!e issue on (#)

t!e solidar liabilit of ;ar 2is!ing and ;iramar to pa petitioners monetar claims and(/) t!e rec?oning period for t!e a%ard of bac? %ages.

2or a dismissal based on t!e closure of business to be valid, t!ree ($)re6uirements must be establis!ed. 2irstl, t!e cessation of or %it!dra%al from businessoperations must be &ona fi(e in c!aracter. Secondl, t!ere must be pament to t!eemploees of termination pa amounting to at least one"!alf (#3/) mont! pa for eac!ear of service, or one (#) mont! pa, %!ic!ever is !ig!er. !irdl, t!e compan mustserve a %ritten notice on t!e emploees and on t!e +* at least one (#) mont! beforet!e intended termination.$/>$/F

In t!eir Petition for Revie% on ertiorari, petitioners did not dispute t!econclusion of t!e & and t!e R t!at ;ar 2is!ing !ad an aut!orized cause to dismissits %or?ers. eit!er did petitioners c!allenge t!e computation of t!eir separation pa.

Rat!er, t!e 6uestioned t!e !olding t!at onl ;ar 2is!ing %as liable for t!eir monetar claims.$$>$$F

Basing t!eir conclusion on t!e ;emorandum of &greement and Supplemental &greement bet%een ;iramar and ;ar 2is!ings labor union, as %ell as t!e 'eneralInformation S!eets and ompan Profiles of t!e t%o companies, petitioners assert t!at;iramar simpl too? over t!e operations of ;ar 2is!ing. In addition, t!e assert t!att!ese companies are one and t!e same entit, given t!e commonalit of t!eir directors

and t!e similarit of t!eir business venture in tuna canning plant operations. $:>$:F

&t t!e fore, t!e 6uestion of %!et!er one corporation is merel an alter ego of anot!er is purel one of fact generall beond t!e @urisdiction of t!is ourt. $7>$7F In ancase, given onl t!ese bare reiterations, t!is ourt sustains t!e ruling of t!e & asaffirmed b t!e R t!at ;iramar and ;ar 2is!ing are separate and distinct entities,based on t!e mar?ed differences in t!eir stoc? o%ners!ip.$<>$<F &lso, t!e fact t!at ;ar 2is!ings officers remained as suc! in ;iramar does not b itself %arrant a conclusiont!at t!e t%o companies are one and t!e same. &s t!is ourt !eld in *es&reo v. Court of

ppeals, t!e mere s!o%ing t!at t!e corporations !ad a common director sitting in all t!e

30>$0F *hipsi(e v. Court of ppeals, :0: P!il. KD# (/00#).

31>$#F illennium 7rectors Corporation v. agallanes, '.R. o. #D:$</, #7 ovember /0#0, <$: SR&90D.

32>$/F o&il 7mplo6ees ssociation v. $%RC, /</ P!il. D0$ (#KK0).

33>$$F Petitioners Petition for Revie% on ertiorari, rollo, p. 9$#.

34>$:F Id. at 9$:"9$<.

35>$7F *arona v. $ational %a&or Relations Commission, '.R. o. #D7/D0, #D Januar /0#/.

36>$<F Supra note D, at /7/"/7$.



boards %it!out more does not aut!orize disregarding t!eir separate @uridicalpersonalities.$9>$9F

eit!er can t!e veil of corporate fiction bet%een t!e t%o companies be piercedb t!e rest of petitioners submissions, namel, t!e alleged ta?e"over b ;iramar of ;ar

2is!ings operations and t!e evident similarit of t!eir businesses. &t t!is point, it bearsemp!asizing t!at since piercing t!e veil of corporate fiction is fro%ned upon, t!ose %!o

see? to pierce t!e veil must clearl establis! t!at t!e separate and distinct personalitiesof t!e corporations are set up to @ustif a %rong, protect a fraud, or perpetrate adeception.$D>$DF !is, unfortunatel, petitioners !ave failed to do. In In(ophil e-tile ill /or0ers nion vs. Calica, %e ruled t!us5$K>$KF

In t!e case at bar, petitioner see?s to pierce t!e veil of corporate entit of &crlic, allegingt!at t!e creation of t!e corporation is a devi>cFe to evade t!e application of t!e B& bet%eenpetitioner Onion and private respondent compan. C!ile %e do not discount t!e possibilit of t!esimilarities of t!e businesses of private respondent and &crlic, neit!er are %e inclined to applt!e doctrine invo?ed b petitioner in granting t!e relief soug!t. 3e fact tat te ,*sinesses of private respondent and 8cr#lic are related% tat so-e of te e-plo#ees of te private

respondent are te sa-e persons -anning and providing for a*/iliar# services to te *nitsof 8cr#lic% and tat te p#sical plants% offices and facilities are sit*ated in te sa-eco-po*nd% it is o*r considered opinion tat tese facts are not s*fficient to ;*stif# tepiercing of te corporate veil of 8cr#lic. (*mp!asis supplied.)

Laving been found b t!e trial courts to be a separate entit, ;ar 2is!ing and not;iramar is re6uired to compensate petitioners. Indeed, t!e bac? %ages and retirementpa earned from t!e former emploer cannot be filed against t!e ne% o%ners or operators of an enterprise.:0>:0F

*videntl, t!e assertions of petitioners fail on bot! procedural and substantiveaspects. !erefore, no special reasons e=ist to reverse t!e &s dismissal of t!e casedue to t!eir failure to abide b t!e mandator procedure for filing a petition for revie% oncertiorari. 'iven t!e correctness of t!e appellate courts ruling and t!e lac? of appropriate remedies, t!is ourt %ill no longer d%ell on t!e e=act computation of petitioners claims for bac? %ages, %!ic! !ave been sufficientl t!res!ed out b t!e &and t!e R. Judicial revie% of labor cases does not go beond an evaluation of t!esufficienc of t!e evidence upon %!ic! labor officialsY findings rest.:#>:#F

C!ile %e smpat!ize %it! t!e situation of t!e %or?ers in t!is case, %e cannotdisregard, absent compelling reasons, t!e factual determinations and t!e legal doctrinest!at support t!e findings of t!e courts a quo. 'enerall, t!e findings of fact and t!econclusion of t!e labor courts are not onl accorded great %eig!t and respect, but areeven clot!ed %it! finalit and deemed binding on t!is ourt, as long as t!e are

supported b substantial evidence.:/>:/F

37>$9F '.R. o. DK/7/, /: ;a #KK$, /// SR& :<<.

38>$DF #u0an International Corporation v. Re6es, '.R. o. #D/9/K, /K September /0#0, <$# SR& 7K<.

39>$KF '.R. o. K<:K0, $ 2ebruar #KK/, /07 SR& <K9, 90:.

40>:0F artinez v. $ational %a&or Relations Commission, $$K P!il. #9< (#KK9).

41>:#F 8 9 :!hil.;, Inc. v. <enas Rivera, '.R. o. #:#D0/, /K Januar /009, 7#$ SR& #D0.

42[42] Id.



+n a final note, t!is ourt reminds t!e parties see?ing t!e ultimate relief of certiorari to observe t!e rules, since nonobservance t!ereof cannot be brus!ed aside asa mere tec!nicalit.:$>:$F Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simpl disregarded,for t!ese prescribed procedures ensure an orderl and speed administration of

@ustice.::>::F

)4 @)E< 3+EREO', t!e assailed #K ;arc! /00: and #/ ;a /007 Resolutionsof t!e ourt of &ppeals in &"'R SP +. D/<7# are 8'')R"ED. Lence, t!e 0: Jul/007 Petition for Revie% filed b petitioners is !ereb DE4)ED for lac? of merit.

SO ORDERED.

"8R)8 LO=RDES P. 8. SERE4O &ssociate Justice

)43>L. S5+OOL 8LL)845E @S. =)S="B)4GFFF S5R8 1FM G.R. 4O. 1!$$CM 1 A=4 !&&&N

43[43] Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security and General Services, 452 Phil. 621 (2003).

44[44] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando, G.R. No. 177456, 4 Septe!e" 2009, 598 S#R$ 378.

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/intl-school-alliance-vs-quisumbing-333.html






'acts( Receiving salaries less t!an t!eir counterparts !ired abroad, t!e local"!ires of private respondent Sc!ool, mostl 2ilipinos, cr discrimination. Ce agree. !at t!elocal"!ires are paid more t!an t!eir colleagues in ot!er sc!ools is, of course, beside t!epoint. !e point is t!at emploees s!ould be given e6ual pa for %or? of e6ual value.

Private respondent International Sc!ool, Inc. (t!e Sc!ool, for s!ort), pursuant toPresidential ecree 9$/, is a domestic educational institution establis!ed primaril for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and ot!er temporar residents. o enablet!e Sc!ool to continue carring out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction, Section /(c) of t!e same decree aut!orizes t!e Sc!ool to emplo its o%nteac!ing and management personnel selected b it eit!er locall or abroad, fromP!ilippine or ot!er nationalities, suc! personnel being e=empt from ot!er%ise applicablela%s and regulations attending t!eir emploment, e=cept la%s t!at !ave been or %ill beenacted for t!e protection of emploees.

&ccordingl, t!e Sc!ool !ires bot! foreign and local teac!ers as members of its facult,

classifing t!e same into t%o5 (#) foreign"!ires and (/) local"!ires.

!e Sc!ool grants foreign"!ires certain benefits not accorded local"!ires. !ese include!ousing, transportation, s!ipping costs, ta=es, and !ome leave travel allo%ance.2oreign"!ires are also paid a salar rate t%ent"five percent (/7Z) more t!an local"!ires. !e Sc!ool @ustifies t!e difference on t%o Esignificant economic disadvantagesEforeign"!ires !ave to endure, namel5 (a) t!e Edislocation factorE and (b) limited tenure.

)ss*e( C!et!er or ot t!e grants provided b t!e sc!ool to foreign !ires and not to local!ires discriminative of t!eir constitutional rig!t to t!e e6ual protection clause.

+eld( !e foregoing provisions impregnabl institutionalize in t!is @urisdiction t!e long!onored legal truism of Ee6ual pa for e6ual %or?.E Persons %!o %or? %it! substantialle6ual 6ualifications, s?ill, effort and responsibilit, under similar conditions, s!ould bepaid similar salaries. !is rule applies to t!e Sc!ool, its Einternational c!aracterEnot%it!standing.

!e Sc!ool contends t!at petitioner !as not adduced evidence t!at local"!ires perform%or? e6ual to t!at of foreign"!ires. !e ourt finds t!is argument a little cavalier. If anemploer accords emploees t!e same position and ran?, t!e presumption is t!at t!eseemploees perform e6ual %or?. !is presumption is borne b logic and !umane=perience. If t!e emploer pas one emploee less t!an t!e rest, it is not for t!atemploee to e=plain %! !e receives less or %! t!e ot!ers receive more. !at %ouldbe adding insult to in@ur. !e emploer !as discriminated against t!at emploee8 it is for t!e emploer to e=plain %! t!e emploee is treated unfairl.

C!ile %e recognize t!e need of t!e Sc!ool to attract foreign"!ires, salaries s!ould notbe used as an enticement to t!e pre@udice of local"!ires. !e local"!ires perform t!e



same services as foreign"!ires and t!e oug!t to be paid t!e same salaries as t!e latter.2or t!e same reason, t!e Edislocation factorE and t!e foreign"!iresY limited tenure alsocannot serve as valid bases for t!e distinction in salar rates.

!e onstitution en@oins t!e State to Eprotect t!e rig!ts of %or?ers and promote t!eir

%elfare,E Eto afford labor full protection.E !e State, t!erefore, !as t!e rig!t and dut toregulate t!e relations bet%een labor and capital. !ese relations are not merelcontractual but are so impressed %it! public interest t!at labor contracts, collectivebargaining agreements included, must ield to t!e common good. S!ould suc!contracts contain stipulations t!at are contrar to public polic, courts %ill not !esitate tostri?e do%n t!ese stipulations.

In t!is case, %e find t!e point"of"!ire classification emploed b respondent Sc!ool to @ustif t!e distinction in t!e salar rates of foreign"!ires and local !ires to be an invalidclassification. !ere is no reasonable distinction bet%een t!e services rendered bforeign"!ires and local"!ires.

C!erefore, t!e petition is given due course. !e petition is !ereb granted in part. !eorders of t!e secretar of labor and emploment dated June #0, #KK< and marc! #K,#KK9, are !ereb reversed and set aside insofar as t!e up!old t!e practice of respondent sc!ool of according foreign"!ires !ig!er salaries t!an local"!ires.




;anila

2IRS I-ISI+

G.R. 4o. 1!$$C A*ne 1% !&&&

)43ER483)O48L S5+OOL 8LL)845E O' ED=583ORS )S8E:% petitioner,

vs.+O4. LEO48RDO 8. =)S="B)4G in is capacit# as te Secretar# of La,or andE-plo#-entM +O4. 5RESE45)84O B. 3R8A84O in is capacit# as te 8ctingSecretar# of La,or and E-plo#-entM DR. BR)84 "8558=LE? in is capacit# aste S*perintendent of )nternational Scool2"anilaM and )43ER483)O48LS5+OOL% )45.% respondents.

8P=484% J.:

Receiving salaries less t!an t!eir counterparts !ired abroad, t!e local"!ires of privaterespondent Sc!ool, mostl 2ilipinos, cr discrimination. Ce agree. !at t!e local"!ires

are paid more t!an t!eir colleagues in ot!er sc!ools is, of course, beside t!e point. !epoint is t!at emploees s!ould be given e6ual pa for %or? of e6ual value. !at is aprinciple long !onored in t!is @urisdiction. !at is a principle t!at rests on fundamentalnotions of @ustice. !at is t!e principle %e up!old toda.1âwphi1.n=t

Private respondent International Sc!ool, Inc. (t!e Sc!ool, for s!ort), pursuant toPresidential ecree 9$/, is a domestic educational institution establis!ed primaril for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and ot!er temporar residents.# o enable

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_128845_2000.html#fnt1




t!e Sc!ool to continue carring out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction, Section /(c) of t!e same decree aut!orizes t!e Sc!ool to emplo its o%nteac!ing and management personnel selected b it eit!er locall or abroad, fromP!ilippine or ot!er nationalities, suc! personnel being e=empt from ot!er%ise applicablela%s and regulations attending t!eir emploment, e=cept la%s t!at !ave been or %ill be

enacted for t!e protection of emploees.

&ccordingl, t!e Sc!ool !ires bot! foreign and local teac!ers as members of its facult,classifing t!e same into t%o5 (#) foreign"!ires and (/) local"!ires. !e Sc!ool emplosfour tests to determine %!et!er a facult member s!ould be classified as a foreign"!ireor a local !ire5

a. C!at is oneYs domicileA

b. C!ere is oneYs !ome economA

c. o %!ic! countr does one o%e economic allegianceA

d. Cas t!e individual !ired abroad specificall to %or? in t!e Sc!ool and %as t!eSc!ool responsible for bringing t!at individual to t!e P!ilippinesA/

S!ould t!e ans%er to an of t!ese 6ueries point to t!e P!ilippines, t!e facult member is classified as a local !ire8 ot!er%ise, !e or s!e is deemed a foreign"!ire.

!e Sc!ool grants foreign"!ires certain benefits not accorded local"!ires.1avvphi1!ese include !ousing, transportation, s!ipping costs, ta=es, and !ome leave travelallo%ance. 2oreign"!ires are also paid a salar rate t%ent"five percent (/7Z) more

t!an local"!ires. !e Sc!ool @ustifies t!e difference on t%o Esignificant economicdisadvantagesE foreign"!ires !ave to endure, namel5 (a) t!e Edislocation factorE and (b)limited tenure. !e Sc!ool e=plains5

& foreign"!ire %ould necessaril !ave to uproot !imself from !is !ome countr,leave !is famil and friends, and ta?e t!e ris? of deviating from a promisingcareer pat! M all for t!e purpose of pursuing !is profession as an educator, butt!is time in a foreign land. !e ne% foreign !ire is faced %it! economic realities5decent abode for oneself and3or for oneYs famil, effective means of transportation, allo%ance for t!e education of oneYs c!ildren, ade6uate insuranceagainst illness and deat!, and of course t!e primar benefit of a basic

salar3retirement compensation.

Because of a limited tenure, t!e foreign !ire is confronted again %it! t!e sameeconomic realit after !is term5 t!at !e %ill eventuall and inevitabl return to !is!ome countr %!ere !e %ill !ave to confront t!e uncertaint of obtaining suitableemploment after along period in a foreign land.





!e compensation sc!eme is simpl t!e Sc!oolYs adaptive measure to remaincompetitive on an international level in terms of attracting competentprofessionals in t!e field of international education.$

C!en negotiations for a ne% collective bargaining agreement %ere !eld on June #KK7,

petitioner International Sc!ool &lliance of *ducators, Ea legitimate labor union and t!ecollective bargaining representative of all facult membersE : of t!e Sc!ool, contestedt!e difference in salar rates bet%een foreign and local"!ires. !is issue, as %ell as t!e6uestion of %!et!er foreign"!ires s!ould be included in t!e appropriate bargaining unit,eventuall caused a deadloc? bet%een t!e parties.

+n September 9, #KK7, petitioner filed a notice of stri?e. !e failure of t!e ationalonciliation and ;ediation Board to bring t!e parties to a compromise prompted t!eepartment of abor and *mploment (+*) to assume @urisdiction over t!e dispute.+n June #0, #KK<, t!e +* &cting Secretar, rescenciano B. ra@ano, issued an+rder resolving t!e parit and representation issues in favor of t!e Sc!ool. !en +*

Secretar eonardo &. Uuisumbing subse6uentl denied petitionerYs motion for reconsideration in an +rder dated ;arc! #K, #KK9. Petitioner no% see?s relief in t!isourt.

Petitioner claims t!at t!e point"of"!ire classification emploed b t!e Sc!ool isdiscriminator to 2ilipinos and t!at t!e grant of !ig!er salaries to foreign"!iresconstitutes racial discrimination.

!e Sc!ool disputes t!ese claims and gives a brea?do%n of its facult members,numbering $D in all, %it! nationalities ot!er t!an 2ilipino, %!o !ave been !ired localland classified as local !ires.7 !e &cting Secretar of abor found t!at t!ese non"

2ilipino local"!ires received t!e same benefits as t!e 2ilipino local"!ires.

!e compensation pac?age given to local"!ires !as been s!o%n to appl to all,regardless of race. rut! to tell, t!ere are foreigners %!o !ave been !ired localland %!o are paid e6uall as 2ilipino local !ires.<

!e &cting secretar up!eld t!e point"of"!ire classification for t!e distinction in salarrates5

!e Principle Ee6ual pa for e6ual %or?E does not find applications in t!e presentcase. !e international c!aracter of t!e Sc!ool re6uires t!e !iring of foreign

personnel to deal %it! different nationalities and different cultures, among t!estudent population.

Ce also ta?e cognizance of t!e e=istence of a sstem of salaries and benefitsaccorded to foreign !ired personnel %!ic! sstem is universall recognized. Ceagree t!at certain amenities !ave to be provided to t!ese people in order toentice t!em to render t!eir services in t!e P!ilippines and in t!e process remaincompetitive in t!e international mar?et.











2urt!ermore, %e too? note of t!e fact t!at foreign !ires !ave limited contract of emploment unli?e t!e local !ires %!o en@o securit of tenure. o appl paritt!erefore, in %ages and ot!er benefits %ould also re6uire parit in ot!er termsand conditions of emploment %!ic! include t!e emploment %!ic! include t!eemploment contract.

& perusal of t!e partiesY #KK/"#KK7 B& points us to t!e conditions andprovisions for salar and professional compensation %!erein t!e parties agree asfollo%s5

&ll members of t!e bargaining unit s!all be compensated onl inaccordance %it! &ppendi= !ereof provided t!at t!e Superintendent of t!e Sc!ool !as t!e discretion to recruit and !ire e=patriate teac!ers fromabroad, under terms and conditions t!at are consistent %it! acceptedinternational practice.

&ppendi= of said B& furt!er provides5

!e ne% salar sc!edule is deemed at e6uit %it! t!e +verseas RecruitedStaff (+SRS) salar sc!edule. !e /7Z differential is reflective of t!eagreed value of sstem displacement and contracted status of t!e +SRSas differentiated from t!e tenured status of ocall Recruited Staff (RS).

o our mind, t!ese provisions demonstrate t!e partiesY recognition of t!edifference in t!e status of t%o tpes of emploees, !ence, t!e difference in t!eir salaries.

!e Onion cannot also invo?e t!e e6ual protection clause to @ustif its claim of parit. It is an establis!ed principle of constitutional la% t!at t!e guarantee of e6ual protection of t!e la%s is not violated b legislation or private covenantsbased on reasonable classification. & classification is reasonable if it is based onsubstantial distinctions and appl to all members of t!e same class. -eril, t!ereis a substantial distinction bet%een foreign !ires and local !ires, t!e former en@oing onl a limited tenure, !aving no amenities of t!eir o%n in t!e P!ilippinesand !ave to be given a good compensation pac?age in order to attract t!em to

@oin t!e teac!ing facult of t!e Sc!ool.9

Ce cannot agree.

!at public polic ab!ors ine6ualit and discrimination is beond contention. +ur onstitution and la%s reflect t!e polic against t!ese evils. !e onstitution D in t!e

&rticle on Social Justice and Luman Rig!ts e=!orts ongress to Egive !ig!est priorit tot!e enactment of measures t!at protect and en!ance t!e rig!t of all people to !umandignit, reduce social, economic, and political ine6ualities.E !e ver broad &rticle #K of t!e ivil ode re6uires ever person, Ein t!e e=ercise of !is rig!ts and in t!e







performance of !is duties, >toF act %it! @ustice, give everone !is due, and observe!onest and good fait!.

International la%, %!ic! springs from general principles of la%, K li?e%ise proscribesdiscrimination. 'eneral principles of la% include principles of e6uit, #0 i .e., t!e general

principles of fairness and @ustice, based on t!e test of %!at is reasonable.##

!eOniversal eclaration of Luman Rig!ts, #/ t!e International ovenant on *conomic,Social, and ultural Rig!ts, #$ t!e International onvention on t!e *limination of &ll2orms of Racial iscrimination, #: t!e onvention against iscrimination in *ducation, #7

t!e onvention (o. ###) oncerning iscrimination in Respect of *mploment and+ccupation #< M all embod t!e general principle against discrimination, t!e verantit!esis of fairness and @ustice. !e P!ilippines, t!roug! its onstitution, !asincorporated t!is principle as part of its national la%s.

In t!e %or?place, %!ere t!e relations bet%een capital and labor are often s?e%ed infavor of capital, ine6ualit and discrimination b t!e emploer are all t!e more

repre!ensible.

!e onstitution #9 specificall provides t!at labor is entitled to E!umane conditions of %or?.E !ese conditions are not restricted to t!e p!sical %or?place M t!e factor, t!eoffice or t!e field M but include as %ell t!e manner b %!ic! emploers treat t!eir emploees.

!e onstitution #D also directs t!e State to promote Ee6ualit of emplomentopportunities for all.E Similarl, t!e abor ode #K provides t!at t!e State s!all Eensuree6ual %or? opportunities regardless of se=, race or creed.E It %ould be an affront to bot!t!e spirit and letter of t!ese provisions if t!e State, in spite of its primordial obligation to

promote and ensure e6ual emploment opportunities, closes its ees to une6ual anddiscriminator terms and conditions of emploment. /0

iscrimination, particularl in terms of %ages, is fro%ned upon b t!e abor ode. &rticle #$7, for e=ample, pro!ibits and penalizes /# t!e pament of lesser compensationto a female emploee as against a male emploee for %or? of e6ual value. &rticle /:Ddeclares it an unfair labor practice for an emploer to discriminate in regard to %ages inorder to encourage or discourage members!ip in an labor organization.

otabl, t!e International ovenant on *conomic, Social, and ultural Rig!ts, supra, in &rticle 9 t!ereof, provides5

!e States Parties to t!e present ovenant recognize t!e rig!t of everone to t!een@oment of @ust and favourable conditions of %or?, %!ic! ensure, in particular5

a. Remuneration %!ic! provides all %or?ers, as a minimum, %it!5

(i) 2air %ages and e6ual remuneration for %or? of e6ual value%it!out distinction of an ?ind, in particular %omen being





























guaranteed conditions of %or? not inferior to t!ose en@oed b men,%it! e6ual pa for e6ual %or?8

= = = = = = = = =

!e foregoing provisions impregnabl institutionalize in t!is @urisdiction t!e long !onoredlegal truism of Ee6ual pa for e6ual %or?.E Persons %!o %or? %it! substantiall e6ual6ualifications, s?ill, effort and responsibilit, under similar conditions, s!ould be paidsimilar salaries. // !is rule applies to t!e Sc!ool, its Einternational c!aracterEnot%it!standing.

!e Sc!ool contends t!at petitioner !as not adduced evidence t!at local"!ires perform%or? e6ual to t!at of foreign"!ires. /$ !e ourt finds t!is argument a little cavalier. If anemploer accords emploees t!e same position and ran?, t!e presumption is t!at t!eseemploees perform e6ual %or?. !is presumption is borne b logic and !umane=perience. If t!e emploer pas one emploee less t!an t!e rest, it is not for t!at

emploee to e=plain %! !e receives less or %! t!e ot!ers receive more. !at %ouldbe adding insult to in@ur. !e emploer !as discriminated against t!at emploee8 it is for t!e emploer to e=plain %! t!e emploee is treated unfairl.

!e emploer in t!is case !as failed to disc!arge t!is burden. !ere is no evidence!ere t!at foreign"!ires perform /7Z more efficientl or effectivel t!an t!e local"!ires.Bot! groups !ave similar functions and responsibilities, %!ic! t!e perform under similar %or?ing conditions.

!e Sc!ool cannot invo?e t!e need to entice foreign"!ires to leave t!eir domicile torationalize t!e distinction in salar rates %it!out violating t!e principle of e6ual %or? for

e6ual pa.

ESalarE is defined in Blac?Ys a% ictionar (7t! ed.) as Ea re%ard or recompense for services performed.E Similarl, t!e P!ilippine egal *ncclopedia states t!at EsalarE ist!e E>cFonsideration paid at regular intervals for t!e rendering of services.E In *ongco v .$ational %a&or Relations Commission, /: %e said t!at5

EsalarE means a recompense or consideration made to a person for !is pains or industr in anot!er manYs business. C!et!er it be derived from Esalarium,E or more fancifull from Esal,E t!e pa of t!e Roman soldier, it carries %it! it t!efundamental idea of compensation for services rendered. (*mp!asis supplied.)

C!ile %e recognize t!e need of t!e Sc!ool to attract foreign"!ires, salaries s!ould notbe used as an enticement to t!e pre@udice of local"!ires. !e local"!ires perform t!esame services as foreign"!ires and t!e oug!t to be paid t!e same salaries as t!e latter.2or t!e same reason, t!e Edislocation factorE and t!e foreign"!iresY limited tenure alsocannot serve as valid bases for t!e distinction in salar rates. !e dislocation factor andlimited tenure affecting foreign"!ires are ade6uatel compensated b certain benefits









accorded t!em %!ic! are not en@oed b local"!ires, suc! as !ousing, transportation,s!ipping costs, ta=es and !ome leave travel allo%ances.

!e onstitution en@oins t!e State to Eprotect t!e rig!ts of %or?ers and promote t!eir %elfare,E /7 Eto afford labor full protection.E /< !e State, t!erefore, !as t!e rig!t and dut

to regulate t!e relations bet%een labor and capital./9

!ese relations are not merelcontractual but are so impressed %it! public interest t!at labor contracts, collectivebargaining agreements included, must ield to t!e common good. /D S!ould suc!contracts contain stipulations t!at are contrar to public polic, courts %ill not !esitate tostri?e do%n t!ese stipulations.

In t!is case, %e find t!e point"of"!ire classification emploed b respondent Sc!ool to @ustif t!e distinction in t!e salar rates of foreign"!ires and local !ires to be an invalidclassification. !ere is no reasonable distinction bet%een t!e services rendered bforeign"!ires and local"!ires. !e practice of t!e Sc!ool of according !ig!er salaries toforeign"!ires contravenes public polic and, certainl, does not deserve t!e smpat! of

t!is ourt.1avvphi1

Ce agree, !o%ever, t!at foreign"!ires do not belong to t!e same bargaining unit as t!elocal"!ires.

& bargaining unit is Ea group of emploees of a given emploer, comprised of all or lesst!an all of t!e entire bod of emploees, consistent %it! e6uit to t!e emploer, indicateto be t!e best suited to serve t!e reciprocal rig!ts and duties of t!e parties under t!ecollective bargaining provisions of t!e la%.E /K !e factors in determining t!e appropriatecollective bargaining unit are (#) t!e %ill of t!e emploees ('lobe octrine)8 (/) affinitand unit of t!e emploeesY interest, suc! as substantial similarit of %or? and duties, or

similarit of compensation and %or?ing conditions (Substantial ;utual Interests Rule)8($) prior collective bargaining !istor8 and (:) similarit of emploment status. $0 !ebasic test of an asserted bargaining unitYs acceptabilit is %!et!er or not it isfundamentall t!e combination %!ic! %ill best assure to all emploees t!e e=ercise of t!eir collective bargaining rig!ts. $#

It does not appear t!at foreign"!ires !ave indicated t!eir intention to be groupedtoget!er %it! local"!ires for purposes of collective bargaining. !e collective bargaining!istor in t!e Sc!ool also s!o%s t!at t!ese groups %ere al%as treated separatel.2oreign"!ires !ave limited tenure8 local"!ires en@o securit of tenure. &lt!oug! foreign"!ires perform similar functions under t!e same %or?ing conditions as t!e local"!ires,foreign"!ires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local"!ires. !ese benefits,suc! as !ousing, transportation, s!ipping costs, ta=es, and !ome leave travelallo%ance, are reasonabl related to t!eir status as foreign"!ires, and @ustif t!ee=clusion of t!e former from t!e latter. o include foreign"!ires in a bargaining unit %it!local"!ires %ould not assure eit!er group t!e e=ercise of t!eir respective collectivebargaining rig!ts.

















CL*R*2+R*, t!e petition is 'I-* O* +ORS*. !e petition is !ereb 'R&*I P&R. !e +rders of t!e Secretar of abor and *mploment dated June #0, #KK<and ;arc! #K, #KK9, are !ereb R*-*RS* and S* &SI* insofar as t!e up!oldt!e practice of respondent Sc!ool of according foreign"!ires !ig!er salaries t!an local"!ires.

S+ +R*R*.

!uno an( !ar(o, JJ., concur.)avi(e, Jr., C.J., on official leave.4nares"*antiago, J., is on leave.

'ootnotes# Issued on June #K, #K97 (&ut!orizing International Sc!ool, Inc. to onate Its Real Properties tot!e 'overnment of t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines and 'ranting It ertain Rig!ts.)/ Rollo, p. $/D.$

I( ., at $/:.: I( ., at D.7 I( ., at $/7. !e brea?do%n is as follo%s5

&mericans M #9

&ustralian M /

Belgian M #

Britis! M /

Burmese M #

anadian M /

!inese M /2renc! M #

'erman M #

Indian M 7

Japanese M #

;alasian M #

e% ealander M #

Spanis! M #< I( ., at $K.9 I( ., at $D"$K.D In Section #, &rticle TII t!ereof.K Statute of t!e International ourt of Justice, art. $D.#0 ;. *2*S+R"S&I&'+, International a% 97 (#KKK), citing Judge Ludson in River ;eusease, (#K$9) Ser. &3B o. 90.## I&i( ., citing Rann of utc! &rbitration (India vs. Pa?istan), 70 IR / (#K<D).#/ &dopted b t!e 'eneral &ssembl of t!e Onited ations on ecember #0, #K:D. &rticle #t!ereof states5 E&ll !uman beings are born free and e6ual in dignit and rig!ts. &rticle / provides,E#. *verone is entitled to all t!e rig!ts and freedoms set fort! in t!is eclaration, %it!out

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jun2000/gr_128845_2000.html#rnt1





































distinction of an ?ind, suc! as race, colour, se=, language, religion, political or ot!er opinion,national or social origin, propert, birt! or ot!er status.E#$ &dopted b t!e 'eneral of t!e Onited ations in Resolution //00 (TTI) of #< ecember #K<<.

&rticle / provides5 E/. !e States Parties to t!e present ovenant underta?e to guarantee t!at t!erig!ts enunciated in t!e present ovenant %ill be e=ercised %it!out discrimination of an ?ind asto race, colour, se=, language, religion, political or ot!er opinion, national or social origin, propert,birt! or ot!er status.E#: &dopted b t!e 'eneral assembl of t!e Onited ations in Resolution /#0< (TT) /# ecember #K<7. &rticle / of t!e onvention states5 EStates Parties condemn racial discrimination andunderta?e to pursue b all appropriate means and %it!out dela a polic of eliminating racialdiscrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races . . . .E#7 &dopted at Paris, ecember #:, #K<0. Onder &rticle $, t!e States Parties underta?e, amongot!ers, Eto abrogate an statutor provisions and an administrative instructions and todiscontinue an administrative practices %!ic! involve discrimination in education.E Onder &rticle:, E!e States Parties to t!is onvention underta?e furt!er more to formulate, develop and appla national polic %!ic!, b met!ods appropriate to t!e circumstances and to national usage, %illtend to promote e6ualit of opportunit and of treatment in t!e matter of education . . . .E#< &dopted b t!e 'eneral onference of t!e International abor +rganization at 'eneva, June/7, #K7D. &rticle / provides t!at, E*ac! ;ember for %!ic! t!is onvention is in force underta?esto declare and pursue a national polic designed to promote, b met!ods appropriate to national

condition and practice, e6ualit of opportunit and treatment in respect of emploment andoccupation, %it! a vie% to eliminating an discrimination in respect t!ereof.#9 In &rticle TIII, Section $ t!ereof.#D I( .#K In &rticle $ t!ereof./0 7.g ., &rticle #$7 of t!e abor ode declares it unla%ful for t!e emploer to re6uire, not onl asa condition of emploment, but also as a condition for t!e continuation of emploment, t!at a%oman s!all not get married./# In relation to &rticles /DD and /DK of t!e same ode.// Indeed, t!e government emplos t!is rule in fi=ing t!e compensation of government emploees.!us, Republic &ct o. <97D (&n &ct Prescribing a Revised ompensation and Positionlassification Sstem in t!e 'overnment and for +t!er Purposes) declares it Et!e polic of t!eState to provide e6ual pa for substantiall e6ual %or? and to base differences in pa upon

substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and 6ualification re6uirements of t!epositions. *ee also t!e Preamble of Presidential ecree o. KD7 (& ecree Revising t!e Positionlassification and ompensation Sstems in t!e ational 'overnment, and Integrating t!esame).1âwphi1.n=t /$ Rollo, p. :K#./: #D$ SR& <#0 (#KK0).

/7 In Section #D, &rticle II t!ereof.

/< In Section $, &rticle TIII t!ereof. *ee also &rticle $ of t!e abor ode.

/9 *ee Sec. $, &rticle TIII, onstitution. &rticle $ of t!e abor ode.

/D &rt. #900, ivil ode.

/K oota ;otor P!ilippines orporation vs. oota ;otor P!ilippines 2ederation abor Onion and t!eSecretar of abor and *mploment, /<D SR& 79$ (#KK9)8 San ;iguel orporation vs. aguesma, /$<SR& 7K7 (#KK:).

$0 San ;iguel orporation vs. aguesma, supra.

$# Belca orporation vs. 2errer"alle@a, #DD SR& #D: (#KDD).





















































;anila

* B&

G.R. 4o. 7$9&9 A*ne F&% 19$9

"83ER4)3? 5+)LDRE4>S +OSP)38L% represented ,# 843ER8 L. DOR8DO%President% petitioner,vs.3+E +O4OR8BLE SE5RE38R? O' L8BOR 84D 3+E REG)O48L DlRE53OR O'L8BOR% REG)O4 K% respondents.

"ED)8LDE8% J.:

!is is a petition for certiorari see?ing t!e annulment of t!e ecision of t!e respondentSecretar of abor dated September /:, #KD<, affirming %it! modification t!e +rder of respondent Regional irector of abor, Region T, dated &ugust :, #KD<, a%ardingsalar differentials and emergenc cost of living allo%ances (*+&S) to emploees of petitioner, and t!e +rder dening petitionerYs motion for reconsideration dated ;a #$,#KD9, on t!e ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner is a semi"government !ospital, managed b t!e Board of irectors of t!eagaan de +ro ComenYs lub and Puericulture enter, !eaded b ;rs. &ntera

orado, as !oldover President. !e !ospital derives its finances from t!e club itself as%ell as from paing patients, averaging #$0 per mont!. It is also partl subsidized b t!eP!ilippine !arit S%eepsta?es +ffice and t!e agaan e +ro it government.

Petitioner !as fort"one (:#) emploees. &side from salar and living allo%ances, t!eemploees are given food, but t!e amount spent t!erefor is deducted from t!eir respective salaries (pp. 99"9D, Rollo).

+n ;a /$, #KD<, ten (#0) emploees of t!e petitioner emploed in differentcapacities3positions filed a complaint %it! t!e +ffice of t!e Regional irector of abor and *mploment, Region T, for underpament of t!eir salaries and *+&S, %!ic!

%as doc?eted as R+T ase o. C"9#"D<.

+n June #<, #KD<, t!e Regional irector directed t%o of !is abor Standard andCelfare +fficers to inspect t!e records of t!e petitioner to ascertain t!e trut! of t!eallegations in t!e complaints (p. KD, Rollo). Parolls covering t!e periods of ;a, #K9:,Januar, #KD7, ovember, #KD7 and ;a, #KD<, %ere dul submitted for inspection.



+n Jul #9, #KD<, t!e abor Standard and Celfare +fficers submitted t!eir reportconfirming t!at t!ere %as underpament of %ages and *+&s of all t!e emploees bt!e petitioner, t!e dispositive portion of %!ic! reads5

I -I*C +2 L* 2+R*'+I', deficienc on %age and ecola as verified and

confirmed per revie% of t!e respondent parolls and intervie%s %it! t!ecomplainant %or?ers and all ot!er information gat!ered b t!e team, it isrespectfull recommended to t!e Lonorable Regional irector, t!is office, t!at

&ntera orado, President be +R*R* to pa t!e amount of SIT LOR*2I2N 2+OR L+OS& S*-* LOR* 2I2N SIT G 0#3#00(P<7:,97<.0#), representing underpament of %ages and ecola to t!e LIRNSIT ($<) emploees of t!e said !ospital as appearing in t!e attac!ed &nne= E2E%or?s!eets and3or %!atever action e6uitable under t!e premises. (p. KK, Rollo)

Based on t!is inspection report and recommendation, t!e Regional irector issued an+rder dated &ugust :, #KD<, directing t!e pament of P9/$,DDD.7D, representing

underpament of %ages and *+&s to all t!e petitionerYs emploees, t!e dispositiveportion of %!ic! reads5

CL*R*2+R*, premises considered, respondent ;aternit and !ildrenLospital is !ereb ordered to pa t!e above"listed complainants t!e total amountindicated opposite eac! name, t!ru t!is +ffice %it!in ten (#0) das from receiptt!ereof. !encefort!, t!e respondent !ospital is also ordered to pa itsemploees3%or?ers t!e prevailing statutor minimum %age and allo%ance.

S+ +R*R*. (p. $:, Rollo)

Petitioner appealed from t!is +rder to t!e ;inister of abor and *mploment, Lon. &ugusto S. Sanc!ez, %!o rendered a ecision on September /:, #KD<, modifing t!esaid +rder in t!at deficienc %ages and *+&s s!ould be computed onl from ;a/$, #KD$ to ;a /$, #KD<, t!e dispositive portion of %!ic! reads5

CL*R*2+R*, t!e &ugust /K, #KD< order is !ereb ;+I2I* in t!at t!edeficienc %ages and *+&s s!ould onl be computed from ;a /$, #KD$ to;a /$, #KD<. !e case is remanded to t!e Regional irector, Region T, for recomputation specifing t!e amounts due eac! t!e complainants under eac! of t!e applicable Presidential ecrees. (p. :0, Rollo)

+n +ctober /:, #KD<, t!e petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration %!ic! %as deniedb t!e Secretar of abor in !is +rder dated ;a #$, #KD9, for lac? of merit (p. :$Rollo).

!e instant petition 6uestions t!e all"embracing applicabilit of t!e a%ard involvingsalar differentials and *+&S, in t!at it covers not onl t!e !ospital emploees %!osigned t!e complaints, but also t!ose (a) %!o are not signatories to t!e complaint, and



(b) t!ose %!o %ere no longer in t!e service of t!e !ospital at t!e time t!e complaints%ere filed.

Petitioner li?e%ise maintains t!at t!e +rder of t!e respondent Regional irector of abor, as affirmed %it! modifications b respondent Secretar of abor, does not clearl

and distinctl state t!e facts and t!e la% on %!ic! t!e a%ard %as based. In itsERe@oinder to ommentE, petitioner furt!er 6uestions t!e aut!orit of t!e Regionalirector to a%ard salar differentials and *+&s to private respondents, (reling ont!e case of *ncarnacion vs. Baltazar, '.R. o. "#<DD$, ;arc! /9, #K<#, # SR& D<0,as aut!orit for raising t!e additional issue of lac? of @urisdiction at an stage of t!eproceedings, p. 7/, Rollo), alleging t!at t!e original and e=clusive @urisdiction over mone claims is properl lodged in t!e abor &rbiter, based on &rticle /#9, paragrap! $of t!e abor ode.

!e primar issue !ere is %!et!er or not t!e Regional irector !ad @urisdiction over t!ecase and if so, t!e e=tent of coverage of an a%ard t!at s!ould be fort!coming, arising

from !is visitorial and enforcement po%ers under &rticle #/D of t!e abor ode. !ematter of %!et!er or not t!e decision states clearl and distinctl statement of facts as%ell as t!e la% upon %!ic! it is based, becomes relevant after t!e issue on @urisdiction!as been resolved.

!is is a labor standards case, and is governed b &rt. #/D"b of t!e abor ode, asamended b *.+. o. ###. abor standards refer to t!e minimum re6uirementsprescribed b e=isting la%s, rules, and regulations relating to %ages, !ours of %or?, costof living allo%ance and ot!er monetar and %elfare benefits, including occupational,safet, and !ealt! standards (Section 9, Rule I, Rules on t!e isposition of abor Standards ases in t!e Regional +ffice, dated September #<, #KD9). 1 Onder t!e

present rules, a Regional irector e=ercises &oth visitorial and enforcement po%er over labor standards cases, and is t!erefore empo%ered to ad@udicate mone claims, provi(e( t!ere still e-ists an emploer"emploee relations!ip, and t!e findings of t!eregional office is not conteste( b t!e emploer concerned.

Prior to t!e promulgation of *.+. o. ### on ecember /:, #KD<, t!e RegionalirectorYs aut!orit over mone claims %as unclear. !e complaint in t!e present case%as filed on ;a /$, #KD< %!en *.+. o. ### %as not et in effect, and t!e prevailingvie% %as t!at stated in t!e case of ntonio >ng, *r. vs. 'enr6 . !arel, et al., '.R. o.9<9#0, dated ecember /#, #KD9, t!us5

. . . t!e Regional irector, in t!e e=ercise of !is visitorial and enforcement po%ersunder &rticle #/D of t!e abor ode, !as no aut!orit to a%ard mone claims,properl falling %it!in t!e @urisdiction of t!e labor arbiter. . . .

. . . If t!e inspection results in a finding t!at t!e emploer !as violated certainlabor standard la%s, t!en t!e regional director must order t!e necessarrectifications. Lo%ever, t!is does not include ad@udication of mone claims,



clearl %it!in t!e ambit of t!e labor arbiterYs aut!orit under &rticle /#9 of t!eode.

!e +ng case relied on t!e ruling laid do%n in <am&ales ?ase etals Inc. vs. heinister of %a&or, et al., ('.R. os. 9$#D:"DD, ovember /<, #KD<, #:< SR& 70) t!at

t!e ERegional irector %as not empo%ered to s!are in t!e original and e=clusive @urisdiction conferred on abor &rbiters b &rticle /#9.E

Ce believe, !o%ever, t!at even in t!e absence of *. +. o. ###, Regional irectorsalread !ad enforcement po%ers over mone claims, effective under P.. o. D70,issued on ecember #<, #K97, %!ic! transferred labor standards cases from t!earbitration sstem to t!e enforcement sstem.

o clarif matters, it is necessar to enumerate a series of rules and provisions of la% ont!e disposition of labor standards cases.

!rior to t!e promulgation of P D70, labor standards cases %ere an e=clusive functionof labor arbiters, under &rticle /#< of t!e then abor ode (P o. ::/, as amended bP 790"a), %!ic! read in part5

&rt. /#<. Juris(iction of the Commission. M !e ommission s!all !avee=clusive appellate @urisdiction over all cases decided b t!e abor &rbiters andcompulsor arbitrators.

!e abor &rbiters s!all !ave e-clusive @uris(iction to !ear and decide t!efollo%ing cases involving all %or?ers %!et!er agricultural or non"agricultural.

=== === ===

(c) &ll mone claims of %or?ers, involving non"pament or underpamentof %ages, overtime compensation, separation pa, maternit leave andot!er mone claims arising from emploee"emploer relations, e=ceptclaims for %or?menYs compensation, social securit and medicarebenefits8

(d) Aiolations of la&or stan(ar( laws8

=== === ===

(*mp!asis supplied)

!e Regional irector e=ercised visitorial rig!ts onl under t!en &rticle #/9 of t!e odeas follo%s5

&R. #/9. Aisitorial !owers. M !e Secretar of abor or !is dul aut!orizedrepresentatives, including, but not restricted, to t!e labor inspectorate, s!all !ave



access to emploersY records and premises at an time of t!e da or nig!t%!enever %or? is being underta?en t!erein, and t!e rig!t to cop t!erefrom, to6uestion an emploee and investigate an fact, condition or matter %!ic! mabe necessar to determine violations or in aid in t!e enforcement of t!is itle andof an Cage +rder or regulation issued pursuant to t!is ode.

Cit! t!e promulgation of P D70, Regional irectors %ere given enforcement po%ers,in a((ition to visitorial po%ers. &rticle #/9, as amended, provided in part5

S*. #0. &rticle #/9 of t!e ode is !ereb amended to read as follo%s5

&rt. #/9. Aisitorial an( enforcement powers. M

=== === ===

(b) !e Secretar of abor or !is dul aut!orized representatives

shall have the power to or(er an( a(minister , after due notice and!earing, compliance with the la&or stan(ar(s provisions of t!isode based on t!e findings of labor regulation officers or industrialsafet engineers made in t!e course of inspection, and to issue%rits of e=ecution to t!e appropriate aut!orit for t!e enforcementof t!eir order.

=== === ===

abor &rbiters, on t!e ot!er !and, lost @urisdiction over labor standards cases. &rticle/#<, as t!en amended b P D70, provided in part5

S*. //. &rticle /#< of t!e ode is !ereb amended to read as follo%s5

&rt. /#<. Juris(iction of %a&or r&iters an( the Commission . M (a) !eabor &rbiters s!all !ave e-clusive @uris(iction to hear an( (eci(e t!efollo%ing cases involving all %or?ers, %!et!er agricultural or non"agricultural5

=== === ===

($) &ll mone claims of %or?ers involving non"pament or

underpament of %ages, overtime or premium compensation,maternit or service incentive leave, separation pa and ot!er mone claims arising from emploer"emploee relations, e=ceptclaims for emploeeYs compensation, social securit and medicarebenefits an( as otherwise provi(e( in rticle 12B of this Co(e.

=== === ===



(*mp!asis supplied)

Onder t!e t!en abor ode t!erefore (P ::/ as amended b P 790"a, as furt!er amended b P D70), t!ere %ere t!ree ad@udicator units5 !e Regional irector, t!eBureau of abor Relations and t!e abor &rbiter. It became necessar to clarif and

consolidate all governing provisions on @urisdiction into one document.!

+n &pril /$,#K9<, ;+* Polic Instructions o. < %as issued, and provides in part (on labor standards cases) as follo%s5

P+IN ISROI+S +. <

+5 &ll oncerned

SOBJ*5 ISRIBOI+ +2 JORISII+ +-*R &B+R &S*S

=== === ===

#. !e follo%ing cases are under t!e e-clusive original @uris(iction of theRegional )irector.

a) abor standards cases arising from violations of labor standardla%s (iscovere( in the course of inspection or complaints whereemplo6er"emplo6ee relations still e-ist 8

=== === ===

/. !e follo%ing cases are under t!e e-clusive original @uris(iction of t!e

Conciliation *ection of t!e Regional +ffice5

a) abor standards cases %!ere emploer"emploee relations nolonger e-ist

=== === ===

<. !e follo%ing cases are certifia&le to t!e abor &rbiters5

a) ases not settled b t!e onciliation Section of t!e Regional+ffice, namel5

#) labor standard cases %!ere emploer"emploee relations nolonger e-ist 8

=== === ===

(*mp!asis supplied)



;+* Polic Instructions o. 9 (undated) %as li?e%ise subse6uentl issued,enunciating t!e rationale for, and t!e scope of, t!e enforcement po%er of t!e Regionalirector, t!e first and second paragrap!s of %!ic! provide as follo%s5

P+IN ISROI+S +. 9

+5 &ll Regional irectors

SOBJ*5 &B+R S&&RS &S*S

n(er !) DE, la&or stan(ar(s cases have &een ta?en from t!e arbitrationsstem and place( un(er the enforcement s6stem, e=cept %!ere a) 6uestions of la% are involved as determined b t!e Regional irector, b) t!e amount involvede=ceeds P#00,000.00 or over :0Z of t!e e6uit of t!e emploer, %!ic!ever islo%er, c) t!e case re6uires evidentiar matters not disclosed or verified in t!enormal course of inspection, or d) there is no more emplo6er"emplo6ee

relationship.

!e purpose is clear5 to assure t!e %or?er t!e rig!ts and benefits due to !imunder labor standards la%s without having to go through ar&itration. he wor0er nee( not litigate to get what legall6 &elongs to him . !e %!ole enforcementmac!iner of t!e epartment of abor e=ists to insure its e=peditious deliver to!im free of c!arge. (*mp!asis supplied)

Onder t!e foregoing, a complaining emploee %!o %as denied !is rig!ts and benefitsdue !im under labor standards la% need not litigate. !e Regional irector, b virtue of !is enforcement po%er, assured Ee=peditious deliver to !im of !is rig!ts and benefits

free of c!argeE, provi(e( of course, he was still in the emplo6 of the firm.

&fter P D70, &rticle /#< under%ent a series of amendments (aside from being re"numbered as &rticle /#9) and %it! it a corresponding c!ange in t!e @urisdiction of, andsupervision over, t!e abor &rbiters5

#. P #$<9 (7"#"9D) M gave abor &rbiters e=clusive @urisdiction over unresolve( issues in collective bargaining,etc., and t!ose cases arising from emploer"emploeerelations (ul6 in(orse( b t!e Regional irectors. (It alsoremoved !is @urisdiction over moral or ot!er damages) In

ot!er %ords, t!e abor &rbiter entertained cases certifie( to!im. (&rticle //D, #K9D abor ode.)

/. P #$K# (7"/K"9D) M all regional units of t!e ational abor Relationsommission (R) %ere integrated into t!e Regional +ffices Proper of t!e ;inistr of abor8 effectivel transferring direct administrative controland supervision over t!e &rbitration Branc! to t!e irector of t!e Regional+ffice of t!e ;inistr of abor. Eonciliable casesE %!ic! %ere t!us



previousl under t!e @urisdiction of t!e defunct onciliation Section of t!eRegional +ffice for purposes of conciliation or amicable settlement,became immediatel assignable to t!e &rbitration Branc! for @ointconciliation an( compulsor6 ar&itration. In addition, t!e abor &rbiter !ad

@urisdiction even over termination and labor"standards cases t!at ma6 &e

assigne( to t!em for compulsor arbitration b t!e irector of t!e Regional+ffice. P #$K# merged conciliation and compulsor arbitration functionsin t!e person of t!e abor &rbiter. !e procedure governing t!e dispositionof cases at t!e &rbitration Branc! paralleled t!ose in t!e Special as?2orce and 2ield Services ivision, %it! one ma@or e=ception5 t!e abor

&rbiter e=ercised full and untrammelled aut!orit in t!e disposition of t!ecase, particularl in t!e substantive aspect, !is decisions and orderssub@ect to revie% onl on appeal to t!e R. F

$. ;+* Polic Instructions o. $9 M Because of t!e seemingloverlapping functions as a result of P #$K#, ;+* Polic Instructions

o. $9 %as issued on +ctober 9, #K9D, and provided in part5

P+IN ISROI+S +. $9

+5 &ll oncerned

SOBJ*5 &SSI';* +2 &S*S + &B+R &RBI*RS

Pursuant to t!e provisions of Presidential ecree o. #$K# and to insurespeed disposition of labor cases, t!e follo%ing guidelines are !erebestablis!ed for t!e information and guidance of all concerned.

#. onciliable ases.

ases %!ic! are conciliable per se i.e., (a) labor standards cases %!ereemploer"emploee relations!ip no longer e-ists8 (b) cases involvingdeadloc? in collective bargaining, e=cept t!ose falling under P.. D/$, asamended8 (c) unfair labor practice cases8 and (d) overseas emplomentcases, e=cept t!ose involving overseas seamen, s!all be assigned b t!eRegional irector to t!e abor &rbiter for conciliation an( ar&itrationwithout coursing them through the conciliation section of the Regional >ffice.

/. abor Standards ases.

ases involving violation of labor standards la%s %!ere emploer"emploee relations!ip still e-ists s!all be assigned to t!e abor &rbiters%!ere5

a) intricate 6uestions of la% are involved8 or



b) evidentiar matters not disclosed or verified in t!e normal courseof inspection b labor regulations officers are re6uired for t!eir proper disposition.

$. isposition of ases.

C!en a case is assigned to a abor &rbiter, all issues raised t!erein s!all beresolved b !im including t!ose %!ic! are originall cognizable b t!e Regionalirector to avoid multiplicit of proceedings. In ot!er %ords, t!e %!ole case, andnot merel issues involved t!erein, s!all be assigned to and resolved b !im.

=== === ===

(*mp!asis supplied)

:. P #<K#(7"#"D0) M original and e=clusive @urisdiction over unresolve(

issues in collective bargaining and mone claims, %!ic! inclu(es moral or ot!er damages.

espite t!e original and e=clusive @urisdiction of labor arbiters over mone claims,!o%ever, t!e Regional irector nonet!eless retaine( !is enforcement po%er, andremained empo%ered to ad@udicate unconteste( mone claims.

7. BP #$0 (D"/#"Dl) M strengt!ened voluntar arbitration. !e decree alsoreturned t!e abor &rbiters as part of t!e R, operating as &rbitrationBranc! t!ereof.

<. BP //9(<"#" D/) M original and e=clusive @urisdiction over 6uestionsinvolving legalit of stri?es and loc?"outs.

!e present petition 6uestions t!e aut!orit of t!e Regional irector to issue t!e +rder,dated &ugust :, #KD<, on t!e basis of !is visitorial and enforcement po%ers under

&rticle #/D (formerl &rticle #/9) of t!e present abor ode. It is contended t!at basedon t!e rulings in t!e >ng vs. !arel :supra; and t!e <am&ales ?ase etals, Inc. vs. heinister of %a&or :supra; cases, a Regional irector is precluded from ad@udicatingmone claims on t!e ground t!at t!is is an e=clusive function of t!e abor &rbiter under

&rticle /#9 of t!e present ode.

+n &ugust :, #KD<, %!en t!e order %as issued, &rticle #/D(b)

C

read as follo%s5

(b) !e ;inister of abor or !is dul aut!orized representatives s!all !ave t!epo%er to order and administer, after due notice and !earing, compliance %it! t!elabor standards provisions of t!is ode based on t!e findings of labor regulationofficers or industrial safet engineers made in t!e course of inspection, and toissue %rits of e=ecution to t!e appropriate aut!orit for t!e enforcement of t!eir or(er, e-cept in cases where the emplo6er contests the fin(ings of t!e labor



regulations officer and raises issues %!ic! cannot be resolved %it!outconsidering evidentiar matters t!at are not verifiable in t!e normal course of inspection. (*mp!asis supplied)

+n t!e ot!er !and, &rticle /#9 of t!e abor ode as amended b P.. #<K#, effective

;a #, #KD08 Batas Pambansa Blg. #$0, effective &ugust /#, #KD#8 and BatasPambansa Blg. //9, effective June #, #KD/, inter alia, provides5

&R. /#9. Juris(iction of %a&or r&iters an( the Commission. M (a) !e abor &rbiters s!all !ave t!e original an( e-clusive @urisdiction to !ear and decide%it!in t!irt ($0) %or?ing das after submission of t!e case b t!e parties for decision, t!e follo%ing cases involving all %or?ers, %!et!er agricultural or non"agricultural5

#. Onfair labor practice cases8

/. !ose t!at %or?ers ma file involving %ages, !ours of %or? and ot!er terms and conditions of emploment8

$. &ll mone claims of %or?ers, including t!ose based on non"pament or underpament of %ages, overtime compensation, separation pa andot!er benefits provided b la% or appropriate agreement, e=cept claims for emploeesY compensation, social securit, medicare and maternitbenefits8

:. ases involving !ouse!old services8 and

7. ases arising from an violation of &rticle /<7 of t!is ode, including6uestions involving t!e legalit of stri?es and loc?"outs. (*mp!asissupplied)

!e +ng and ambales cases involved %or?ers who were still connecte( with thecompan6 . Lo%ever, in t!e +ng case, t!e emploer disputed t!e ade6uac of t!eevidentiar foundation (emploeesY affidavits) of t!e findings of t!e labor standardsinspectors %!ile in t!e ambales case, t!e mone claims %!ic! arose from allegedviolations of labor standards provisions %ere not discovered in t!e course of normalinspection. !us, t!e provisions of ;+* Polic Instructions os. <, (istribution of Jurisdiction +ver abor ases) and $9 (&ssignment of ases to abor &rbiters) giving

Regional irectors ad@udicator po%ers over uncontested mone claims discovered int!e course of normal inspection, provided an emploer"emploee relations!ip still e=ists,are inapplicable.

In t!e present case, petitioner admitted t!e c!arge of underpament of %ages to%or?ers still in its emplo6 8 in fact, it pleaded for time to raise funds to satisf itsobligation. !ere was thus no contest against the fin(ings of t!e labor inspectors.



Barel less t!an a mont! after t!e promulgation on ovember /<, #KD< of t!e ambalesBase ;etals case, *=ecutive +rder o. ### %as issued on ecember /:, #KD<,

amending &rticle #/D(b) of t!e abor ode, to read as follo%s5

(b) L* PR+-ISI+S +2 &RI* /#9 +2 LIS +* + L* +R&RN

+CILS&I' & I &S*S CL*R* L* R*&I+SLIP +2*;P+N*R"*;P+N** SI *TISS, t!e ;inister of abor and *mplomentor !is dul aut!orized representatives s!all !ave t!e po%er to order andadminister, after due notice and !earing, compliance %it! t!e labor standardsprovisions of t!is ode & +L*R &B+R *'IS&I+ based on t!efindings of labor regulation officers or industrial safet engineers made in t!ecourse of inspection, and to issue %rits of e=ecution to t!e appropriate aut!oritfor t!e enforcement of t!eir orders, e=cept in cases %!ere t!e emploer contestst!e findings of t!e labor regulation officer and raises issues %!ic! cannot beresolved %it!out considering evidentiar matters t!at are not verifiable in t!enormal course of inspection. (*mp!asis supplied)

&s seen from t!e foregoing, *+ ### aut!orizes a Regional irector to order complianceb an emploer %it! labor standards provisions of t!e abor ode and ot!er legislation.It is +ur considered opinion !o%ever, t!at t!e inclusion of t!e p!rase, E !e provisionsof &rticle /#9 of t!is ode to t!e contrar not%it!standing and in cases %!ere t!erelations!ip of emploer"emploee still e=istsE ... in &rticle #/D(b), as amended, above"cited, merel confirms3reiterates t!e enforcement ad@udication aut!orit of t!e Regionalirector over unconteste( mone claims in cases where an emplo6er"emplo6eerelationship still e-ists. 6

-ie%ed in t!e lig!t of P D70 and read in coordination %it! ;+* Polic Instructions

os. <, 9 and $9, it is clear t!at it !as al%as been t!e intention of our labor aut!oritiesto provide our %or?ers immediate access (%!en still feasible, as %!ere an emploer"emploee relations!ip still e=ists) to t!eir rig!ts and benefits, %it!out beinginconvenienced b arbitration3litigation processes t!at prove to be not onl nerve"%rac?ing, but financiall burdensome in t!e long run.

ote furt!er t!e second paragrap! of Polic Instructions o. 9 indicating t!at t!etransfer of labor standards cases from t!e arbitration sstem to t!e enforcement sstemis

. . to assure t!e %or?ers t!e rig!ts and benefits due to !im under labor standard la%s, %it!out !aving to go t!roug! arbitration. . .

so t!at

. . t!e %or?ers %ould not litigate to get %!at legall belongs to !im. ..ensuring deliver . . free of c!arge.



Social @ustice legislation, to be trul meaningful and re%arding to our %or?ers, must notbe !ampered in its application b long"%inded arbitration and litigation. Rig!ts must beasserted and benefits received %it! t!e least inconvenience. abor la%s are meant topromote, not defeat, social @ustice.

!is vie% is in consonance %it! t!e present ERules on t!e isposition of abor Standardases in t!e Regional +ffices E 7 issued b t!e Secretar of abor, 2ran?lin ;. rilon onSeptember #<, #KD9.

!us, Sections / and $ of Rule II on E;one laims &rising from omplaint RoutineInspectionE, provide as follo%s5

Section /. Complaint inspection. M &ll suc! complaints s!all immediatelbe for%arded to t!e Regional irector %!o s!all refer t!e case to t!eappropriate unit in t!e Regional +ffice for assignment to a abor Standards and Celfare +fficer (SC+) for field inspection. C!en t!e field

inspection does not produce t!e desired results, t!e Regional irector s!all summon t!e parties for summar investigation to e=pedite t!edisposition of t!e case. . . .

Section $. Complaints where no emplo6er"emplo6ee relationship actuall6 e-ists. M C!ere emploer"emploee relations!ip no longer e=ists breason of t!e fact t!at it !as alread been severed, claims for pament of monetar benefits fall within the e-clusive an( original @uris(iction of thela&or ar&iters. . . . (*mp!asis supplied)

i?e%ise, it is also clear t!at t!e limitation embodied in ;+* Polic Instructions o. 9

to amounts not e=ceeding P#00,000.00 !as been dispensed %it!, in vie% of t!efollo%ing provisions of pars. (b) and (c), Section 9 on ERestitutionE, t!e same Rules,t!us5

=== === ===

(b) Plant"level restitutions ma be effected for mone claimsnot e=ceeding 2ift !ousand (P70,000.00). . . .

(c) Restitutions in e=cess of t!e aforementioned amounts!all be effected at t!e Regional +ffice or at t!e %or?site

sub@ect to t!e prior approval of t!e Regional irector.

%!ic! indicate t!e intention to empo%er t!e Regional irector to a%ard mone claims ine-cess of P#00,000.008 provi(e( of course t!e emploer does not contest t!e findingsmade, based on t!e provisions of Section D t!ereof5

Section D. Compromise agreement . M S!ould t!e parties arrive at anagreement as to t!e %!ole or part of t!e dispute, said agreement s!all be



reduced in %riting and signed b t!e parties in t!e presence of t!eRegional irector or !is dul aut!orized representative.

*.+. o. ### %as issued on ecember /:, #KD< or t!ree ($) mont!s after t!epromulgation of t!e Secretar of aborYs decision up!olding private respondentsY salar

differentials and *+&s on September /:, #KD<. !e amendment of t!e visitorial andenforcement po%ers of t!e Regional irector (&rticle #/D"b) b said *.+. ### reflectst!e intention enunciated in Polic Instructions os. < and $9 to empo%er t!e Regionalirectors to resolve unconteste( mone6 claims in cases where an emplo6er"emplo6eerelationship still e-ists. !is intention must be given %eig!t and entitled to great respect.

&s !eld in !rogressive /or0ers5 nion, et. al. vs. F.!. guas, et. al . '.R. o. 7K9##"#/,;a /K, #KD7, #70 SR& :/K5

. . !e interpretation b officers of la%s %!ic! are entrusted to t!eir administration is entitled to great respect. Ce see no reason to detractfrom t!is rudimentar rule in administrative la%, particularl %!en later

events !ave proved said interpretation to be in accord %it! t!e legislativeintent. ..

!e proceedings before t!e Regional irector must, perforce, be up!eld on t!e basis of &rticle #/D(b) as amended b *.+. o. ###, dated ecember /:, #KD<, t!is e=ecutiveorder Eto be considered in t!e nature of a curative statute %it! retrospective application.E(Progressive Cor?ersY Onion, et al. vs. Lon. 2.P. &guas, et al. (*upra)8 ;. 'arcia vs.Judge &. ;artinez, et al., '.R. o. " :9</K, ;a /D, #K9K, K0 SR& $$#).

Ce no% come to t!e 6uestion of %!et!er or not t!e Regional irector erred in e=tendingt!e a%ard to all !ospital emploees. Ce ans%er in t!e affirmative.

!e Regional irector correctl applied t!e a%ard %it! respect to t!ose emploees %!osigne( t!e complaint, as %ell as t!ose %!o (i( not sign t!e complaint, &ut were still connecte( with the hospital at the time the complaint was file( (See +rder, p. $$ dated

&ugust :, #KD< of t!e Regional irector, Pedrito de Susi, p. $$, Rollo).

!e @ustification for t!e a%ard to t!is group of emploees %!o %ere not signatories tot!e complaint is t!at t!e visitorial and enforcement po%ers given to t!e Secretar of abor is relevant to, and e=ercisable over establis!ments, not over t!e individualmembers3emploees, because %!at is soug!t to be ac!ieved b its e=ercise is t!eobservance of, and3or compliance b, suc! firm3establis!ment %it! t!e labor standards

regulations. ecessaril, in case of an a%ard resulting from a violation of labor legislation b suc! establis!ment, t!e entire members3emploees s!ould benefitt!erefrom. &s aptl stated b t!en ;inister of abor &ugusto S. Sanc!ez5

. . It %ould be !ig!l derogator to t!e rig!ts of t!e %or?ers, if after categoricall finding t!e respondent !ospital guilt of underpament of %ages and *+&s, %e limit t!e a%ard to onl t!ose %!o signed t!ecomplaint to t!e e=clusion of t!e ma@orit of t!e %or?ers %!o are similarl



situated. Indeed, t!is %ould be not onl render t!e enforcement po%er of t!e ;inister of abor and *mploment nugator, but %ould be t!e pinnacleof in@ustice considering t!at it %ould not onl discriminate but also deprivet!em of legislated benefits.

. . . (pp. $D"$K, Rollo).

!is vie% is furt!er bolstered b t!e provisions of Sec. <, Rule II of t!e ERules on t!eisposition of abor Standards cases in t!e Regional +fficesE (supra) presentlenforced, viz5

S*I+ <. overage of complaint inspection. M & complaint inspections!all not be limited to t!e specific allegations or violations raised b t!ecomplainants3%or?ers but s!all be a t!oroug! in6uir into and verificationof t!e compliance b emploer %it! e=isting labor standards an( shall cover all wor0ers similarl6 situate( . (*mp!asis supplied)

Lo%ever, t!ere is no legal @ustification for t!e a%ard in favor of t!ose emploees %!owere no longer connecte( %it! t!e !ospital at t!e time t!e complaint %as filed, !avingresigned t!erefrom in #KD:, viz5

#. Jean (Joan) -enzon (See +rder, p. $$, Rollo)/. Rosario Pacli@an

$. &dela Peralta

:. ;auricio agales

7. onsesa Bautista

<. eresita &gcopra

9. 2eli= ;onleon

D. eresita Salvador

K. *dgar ataluna8 and

#0. Ramond ;ani@a ( p.9, Rollo)

!e enforcement po%er of t!e Regional irector cannot legall be up!eld in cases of separated emploees. &rticle #/K of t!e abor ode, cited b petitioner (p. 7:, Rollo) isnot applicable as said article is in ai( of the enforcement power of t!e Regional irector8!ence, not applicable %!ere t!e emploee see?ing to be paid underpament of %agesis alread separated from t!e service. Lis claim is purel a mone claim t!at !as to bet!e sub@ect of arbitration proceedings and t!erefore %it!in t!e original and e=clusive

@urisdiction of t!e abor &rbiter.



Petitioner !as li?e%ise 6uestioned t!e order dated &ugust :, #KD< of t!e Regionalirector in t!at it does not clearl and distinctl state t!e facts and t!e la% on %!ic! t!ea%ard is based.

Ce invite attention to t!e ;inister of aborYs ruling t!ereon, as follo%s5

2inall, t!e respondent !ospital assails t!e order under appeal as null andvoid because it does not clearl and distinctl state t!e facts and t!e la%on %!ic! t!e a%ards %ere based. ontrar to t!e pretensions of t!erespondent !ospital, %e !ave carefull revie%ed t!e order on appeal and%e found t!at t!e same contains a brief statement of t!e (a) facts of t!ecase8 (b) issues involved8 (c) applicable la%s8 (d) conclusions and t!ereasons t!erefor8 (e) specific remed granted (amount a%arded). (p. :0,Rollo)

&+RI'N, t!is petition s!ould be dismissed, as it is !ereb IS;ISS*, as

regards all persons still emploed in t!e Lospital at t!e time of t!e filing of t!ecomplaint, but 'R&* as regards t!ose emploees no longer emploed at t!at time.

S+ +R*R*.

Fernan, C.J., $arvasa, 8utierrez, Jr., Cruz, !aras, Feliciano, 8anca6co, !a(illa, ?i(in,Cortes, 8rio"quino an( Regala(o, JJ., concur .



')RS3 D)@)S)O4

G.R. 4o. C7$&&. Dece-,er !% 19C&.N

"8K)"O 58L8L84G% Petitioner % v. 8. D. <)LL)8"S% E3 8L.% Respondents.

"a/i-o 5alalang in is o0n ,ealf.

Solicitor General Oaeta and 8ssistant Solicitor General 8-paro for respondents<illia-s% 'ragante and Ba#an

5it# 'iscal "a,anag for te oter respondents.

S?LL8B=S

#. +SIOI+& &C8 +SIOI+&IN +2 +;;+C*&L & o.<:D8 **'&I+ +2 *'IS&I-* P+C*R8 &OL+RIN +2 IR*+R +2POBI C+RS & S*R*&RN +2 POBI C+RS & +;;OI&I+S+ PR+;O'&* RO*S & R*'O&I+S. M !e provisions of section # of ommon%ealt! &ct o. <:D do not confer legislative po%er upon t!e irector of PublicCor?s and t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications. !e aut!orit t!ereinconferred upon t!em and under %!ic! t!e promulgated t!e rules and regulations no%

complained of is not to determine %!at public polic demands but merel to carr outt!e legislative polic laid do%n b t!e ational &ssembl in said &ct, to %it, Eto promotesafe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as nationalroads b acts of t!e ational &ssembl or b e=ecutive orders of t!e President of t!eP!ilippinesE and to close t!em temporaril to an or all classes of traffic E%!enever t!econdition of t!e road or t!e traffic t!ereon ma?es suc! action necessar or advisable int!e public convenience and interest.E !e delegated po%er, if at all, t!erefore, is not t!edetermination of %!at t!e la% s!all be, but merel t!e ascertainment of t!e facts andcircumstances upon %!ic! t!e application of said la% is to be predicated. o promulgaterules and regulations on t!e use of national roads and to determine %!en and !o% longa national road s!ould be closed to traffic, in vie% of t!e condition of t!e road or t!e

traffic t!ereon and t!e re6uirements of public convenience and interest, is anadministrative function %!ic! cannot be directl disc!arged b t!e ational &ssembl. Itmust depend on t!e discretion of some ot!er government official to %!om is confidedt!e dut of determining %!et!er t!e proper occasion e=ists for e=ecuting t!e la%. But itcannot be said t!at t!e e=ercise of suc! discretion is t!e ma?ing of t!e la%.

/. I.8 I.8 P+I* P+C*R8 P*RS+& IB*RN8 '+-*R;*& &OL+RIN.M ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D %as passed b t!e ational &ssembl in t!e e=ercise of



t!e paramount police po%er of t!e state. Said &ct, b virtue of %!ic! t!e rules andregulations complained of %ere promulgated, aims to promote safe transit upon andavoid obstructions on national roads, in t!e interest and convenience of t!e public. Inenacting said la%, t!erefore, t!e ational &ssembl %as prompted b considerations of public convenience and %elfare. It %as inspired b a desire to relieve congestion of

traffic, %!ic! is, to sa t!e least, a menace to public safet. Public %elfare, t!en, lies att!e bottom of t!e enactment of said la%, and t!e state in order to promote t!e general%elfare ma interfere %it! personal libert, %it! propert, and %it! business andoccupations. Persons and propert ma be sub@ected to all ?inds of restraints andburdens, in order to secure t!e general comfort, !ealt!, and prosperit of t!e state (O.S.v. 'omer Jesus, $# P!il., /#D). o t!is fundamental aim of our 'overnment t!e rig!ts of t!e individual are subordinated. ibert is a blessing %it!out %!ic! life is a miser, butlibert s!ould not be made to prevail over aut!orit because t!en societ %ill fall intoanarc!. eit!er s!ould aut!orit be made to prevail over libert because t!en t!eindividual %ill fall into slaver. !e citizen s!ould ac!ieve t!e re6uired balance of libertand aut!orit in !is mind t!roug! education and, personal discipline, so t!at t!ere ma

be establis!ed t!e resultant e6uilibrium, %!ic! means peace and order and !appinessfor all. !e moment greater aut!orit is conferred upon t!e government, logicall somuc! is %it!dra%n from t!e residuum of libert %!ic! resides in t!e people. !eparado= lies in t!e fact t!at t!e apparent curtailment of libert is precisel t!e vermeans of insuring its preservation.

$. I.8 I.8 S+I& JOSI*. M Social @ustice is Eneit!er communism, nor despotism,nor atomism, nor anarc!,E but t!e !umanization of la%s and t!e e6ualization of socialand economic forces b t!e State so t!at @ustice in its rational and ob@ectivel secular conception ma at least be appro=imated. Social @ustice means t!e promotion of t!e%elfare of all t!e people, t!e adoption b t!e 'overnment of measures calculated toinsure economic stabilit of all t!e competent elements of societ, t!roug! t!emaintenance of a proper economic and social e6uilibrium in t!e interrelations of t!emembers of t!e communit, constitutionall, t!roug! t!e adoption of measures legall

@ustifiable, or e=tra"constitutionall, t!roug! t!e e=ercise of po%ers underling t!ee=istence of all governments on t!e time"!onored principle of salus populi est supremale=. Social @ustice, t!erefore, must be founded on t!e recognition of t!e necessit of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a societ and of t!e protection t!ats!ould be e6uall and evenl e=tended to all groups as a combined force in our socialand economic life, consistent %it! t!e fundamental and paramount ob@ective of t!e stateof promoting t!e !ealt!, comfort, and 6uiet of all persons, and of bringing about Et!egreatest good to t!e greatest number.E

D E 5 ) S ) O 4

L8=REL% J.(



;a=imo alalang, in !is capacit as a private citizen and as a ta=paer of ;anila,broug!t before t!is court t!is petition for a %rit of pro!ibition against t!e respondents, &.. Cilliams, as !airman of t!e ational raffic ommission8 -icente 2ragante, asirector of Public Cor?s8 Sergio Baan, as &cting Secretar of Public Cor?s andommunications8 *ulogio Rodriguez, as ;aor of t!e it of ;anila8 and Juan

ominguez, as &cting !ief of Police of ;anila.

It is alleged in t!e petition t!at t!e ational raffic ommission, in its resolution of Jul#9, #K:0, resolved to recommend to t!e irector of Public Cor?s and to t!e Secretarof Public Cor?s and ommunications t!at animal"dra%n ve!icles be pro!ibited frompassing along Rosario Street e=tending from Plaza alderon de la Barca to asmariWasStreet, from 95$0 a.m. to #/5$0 p.m. and from #5$0 p.m. to 75$0 p.m.8 and along Rizal

&venue e=tending from t!e railroad crossing at &ntipolo Street to *c!ague Street, from9 a.m. to ## p.m., from a period of one ear from t!e date of t!e opening of t!eolgante Bridge to traffic8 t!at t!e !airman of t!e ational raffic ommission, on Jul#D, #K:0 recommended to t!e irector of Public Cor?s t!e adoption of t!e measure

proposed in t!e resolution aforementioned, in pursuance of t!e provisions of ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D %!ic! aut!orizes said irector of Public Cor?s, %it! t!eapproval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications, to promulgate rulesand regulations to regulate and control t!e use of and traffic on national roads8 t!at on

&ugust /, #K:0, t!e irector of Public Cor?s, in !is first indorsement to t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications, recommended to t!e latter t!e approval of t!erecommendation made b t!e !airman of t!e ational raffic ommission asaforesaid, %it! t!e modification t!at t!e closing of Rizal &venue to traffic to animal"dra%n ve!icles be limited to t!e portion t!ereof e=tending from t!e railroad crossing at

&ntipolo Street to &zcarraga Street8 t!at on &ugust #0, #K:0, t!e Secretar of PublicCor?s and ommunications, in !is second indorsement addressed to t!e irector of Public Cor?s, approved t!e recommendation of t!e latter t!at Rosario Street and Rizal

&venue be closed to traffic of animal"dra%n ve!icles, bet%een t!e points and during t!e!ours as above indicated, for a period of one ear from t!e date of t!e opening of t!eolgante Bridge to traffic8 t!at t!e ;aor of ;anila and t!e &cting !ief of Police of ;anila !ave enforced and caused to be enforced t!e rules and regulations t!usadopted8 t!at as a conse6uence of suc! enforcement, all animal"dra%n ve!icles are notallo%ed to pass and pic? up passengers in t!e places above"mentioned to t!e detrimentnot onl of t!eir o%ners but of t!e riding public as %ell.

It is contended b t!e petitioner t!at ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D b %!ic! t!e irector of Public Cor?s, %it! t!e approval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s andommunications, is aut!orized to promulgate rules and regulations for t!e regulationand control of t!e use of and traffic on national roads and streets is unconstitutionalbecause it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative po%er. !is contention isuntenable. &s %as observed b t!is court in Rubi v. Provincial Board of ;indoro ($KP!il, <<0, 900), E!e rule !as no%!ere been better stated t!an in t!e earl +!io casedecided b Judge Ranne, and since follo%ed in a multitude of cases, namel5 ’!e truedistinction t!erefore is bet%een t!e delegation of po%er to ma?e t!e la%, %!ic!necessaril involves a discretion as to %!at it s!all be, and conferring an aut!orit or



discretion as to its e=ecution, to be e=ercised under and in pursuance of t!e la%. !efirst cannot be done8 to t!e latter no valid ob@ection can be made.’ (incinnati, C. G . R.o. v. omm’rs. linton ount, # +!io St., DD.) iscretion, as !eld b !ief Justice;ars!all in Caman v. Sout!ard (#0 C!eat., #) ma be committed b t!e egislature toan e=ecutive department or official. !e egislature ma ma?e decisions of e=ecutive

departments or subordinate officials t!ereof, to %!om it !as committed t!e e=ecution of certain acts, final on 6uestions of fact. (O.S. v. in?ead, /:D 2ed., #:#.) !e gro%ingtendenc in t!e decisions is to give prominence to t!e ’necessit’ of t!e case.E[

Section # of ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D reads as follo%s5

ES*I+ #. o promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads andstreets designated as national roads b acts of t!e ational &ssembl or b e=ecutiveorders of t!e President of t!e P!ilippines, t!e irector of Public Cor?s, %it! t!eapproval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications, s!all promulgate t!enecessar rules and regulations to regulate and control t!e use of and traffic on suc!

roads and streets. Suc! rules and regulations, %it! t!e approval of t!e President, macontain provisions controlling or regulating t!e construction of buildings or ot!er structures %it!in a reasonable distance from along t!e national roads. Suc! roads mabe temporaril closed to an or all classes of traffic b t!e irector of Public Cor?s and!is dul aut!orized representatives %!enever t!e condition of t!e road or t!e traffict!ereon ma?es suc! action necessar or advisable in t!e public convenience andinterest, or for a specified period, %it! t!e approval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s andommunications.Ertua#a% librar

!e above provisions of la% do not confer legislative po%er upon t!e irector of PublicCor?s and t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications. !e aut!orit t!ereinconferred upon t!em and under %!ic! t!e promulgated t!e rules and regulations no%complained of is not to determine %!at public polic demands but merel to carr outt!e legislative polic laid do%n b t!e ational &ssembl in said &ct, to %it, Eto promotesafe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as nationalroads b acts of t!e ational &ssembl or b e=ecutive orders of t!e President of t!eP!ilippinesE and to close t!em temporaril to an or all classes of traffic E%!enever t!econdition of t!e road or t!e traffic ma?es suc! action necessar or advisable in t!epublic convenience and interest.E !e delegated po%er, if at all, t!erefore, is not t!edetermination of %!at t!e la% s!all be, but merel t!e ascertainment of t!e facts andcircumstances upon %!ic! t!e application of said la% is to be predicated. o promulgaterules and regulations on t!e use of national roads and to determine %!en and !o% longa national road s!ould be closed to traffic, in vie% of t!e condition of t!e road or t!etraffic t!ereon and t!e re6uirements of public convenience and interest, is anadministrative function %!ic! cannot be directl disc!arged b t!e ational &ssembl. Itmust depend on t!e discretion of some ot!er government official to %!om is confidedt!e dut of determining %!et!er t!e proper occasion e=ists for e=ecuting t!e la%. But itcannot be said t!at t!e e=ercise of suc! discretion is t!e ma?ing of t!e la%. &s %as saidin oc?e’s &ppeal (9/ Pa. :K#)5 Eo assert t!at a la% is less t!an a la%, because it ismade to depend on a future event or act, is to rob t!e egislature of t!e po%er to act



%isel for t!e public %elfare %!enever a la% is passed relating to a state of affairs notet developed, or to t!ings future and impossible to full ?no%.E !e proper distinctiont!e court said %as t!is5 E!e egislature cannot delegate its po%er to ma?e t!e la%8 butit can ma?e a la% to delegate a po%er to determine some fact or state of t!ings upon%!ic! t!e la% ma?es, or intends to ma?e, its o%n action depend. o den t!is %ould be

to stop t!e %!eels of government. !ere are man t!ings upon %!ic! %ise and usefullegislation must depend %!ic! cannot be ?no%n to t!e la%"ma?ing po%er, and, must,t!erefore, be a sub@ect of in6uir and determination outside of t!e !alls of legislation.E(2ield v. lar?, #:$ O. S. <:K, <K:8 $< . *d. /K:.)

In t!e case of People v. Rosent!al and +smeWa, '.R. os. :<09< and :<099,promulgated June #/, #K$K, and in Pangasinan ransportation v. !e Public Serviceommission, '.R. o. :90<7, promulgated June /<, #K:0, t!is ourt !ad occasion toobserve t!at t!e principle of separation of po%ers !as been made to adapt itself to t!ecomple=ities of modern governments, giving rise to t!e adoption, %it!in certain limits, of t!e principle of Esubordinate legislation,E not onl in t!e Onited States and *ngland but

in practicall all modern governments. &ccordingl, %it! t!e gro%ing comple=it of modern life, t!e multiplication of t!e sub@ects of governmental regulations, and t!eincreased difficult of administering t!e la%s, t!e rigidit of t!e t!eor of separation of governmental po%ers !as, to a large e=tent, been rela=ed b permitting t!e delegationof greater po%ers b t!e legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion inadministrative and e=ecutive officials, not onl in t!e e=ecution of t!e la%s, but also int!e promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest.

!e petitioner furt!er contends t!at t!e rules and regulations promulgated b t!erespondents pursuant to t!e provisions of ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D constitute anunla%ful interference %it! legitimate business or trade and abridge t!e rig!t to personallibert and freedom of locomotion. ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D %as passed b t!eational &ssembl in t!e e=ercise of t!e paramount police po%er of t!e state.

Said &ct, b virtue of %!ic! t!e rules and regulations complained of %ere promulgated,aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in t!einterest and convenience of t!e public. In enacting said la%, t!erefore, t!e ational

&ssembl %as prompted b considerations of public convenience and %elfare. It %asinspired b a desire to relieve congestion of traffic. %!ic! is, to sa t!e least, a menaceto public safet. Public %elfare, t!en, lies at t!e bottom of t!e enactment of said la%, andt!e state in order to promote t!e general %elfare ma interfere %it! personal libert, %it!propert, and %it! business and occupations. Persons and propert ma be sub@ectedto all ?inds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure t!e general comfort, !ealt!, andprosperit of t!e state (O.S. v. 'omez Jesus, $# P!il., /#D). o t!is fundamental aim of our 'overnment t!e rig!ts of t!e individual are subordinated. ibert is a blessing%it!out %!ic! life is a miser, but libert s!ould not be made to prevail over aut!oritbecause t!en societ %ill fall into anarc!. eit!er s!ould aut!orit be made to prevailover libert because t!en t!e individual %ill fall into slaver. !e citizen s!ould ac!ievet!e re6uired balance of libert and aut!orit in !is mind t!roug! education and personaldiscipline, so t!at t!ere ma be establis!ed t!e resultant e6uilibrium, %!ic! means



peace and order and !appiness for all. !e moment greater aut!orit is conferred upont!e government, logicall so muc! is %it!dra%n from t!e residuum of libert %!ic!resides in t!e people. !e parado= lies in t!e fact t!at t!e apparent curtailment of libertis precisel t!e ver means of insuring its preservation.

!e scope of police po%er ?eeps e=panding as civilization advances. &s %as said in t!ecase of obbins v. os &ngeles (#K7 O.S. //$, /$D8 :K . ed. #<K), Et!e rig!t to e=erciset!e police po%er is a continuing one, and a business la%ful toda ma in t!e future,because of t!e c!anged situation, t!e gro%t! of population or ot!er causes, become amenace to t!e public !ealt! and %elfare, and be re6uired to ield to t!e public good.E

&nd in People v. Pomar (:< P!il., ::0), it %as observed t!at Eadvancing civilization isbringing %it!in t!e police po%er of t!e state toda t!ings %!ic! %ere not t!oug!t of asbeing %it!in suc! po%er esterda. !e development of civilization, t!e rapidlincreasing population, t!e gro%t! of public opinion, %it! an increasing desire on t!e partof t!e masses and of t!e government to loo? after and care for t!e interests of t!eindividuals of t!e state, !ave broug!t %it!in t!e police po%er man 6uestions for

regulation %!ic! formerl %ere not so considered.E

!e petitioner finall avers t!at t!e rules and regulations complained of infringe upont!e constitutional precept regarding t!e promotion of social @ustice to insure t!e %ell"being and economic securit of all t!e people. !e promotion of social @ustice, !o%ever,is to be ac!ieved not t!roug! a mista?en smpat! to%ards an given group. Social

@ustice is Eneit!er communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarc!,E but t!e!umanization of la%s and t!e e6ualization of social and economic forces b t!e State sot!at @ustice in its rational and ob@ectivel secular conception ma at least beappro=imated. Social @ustice means t!e promotion of t!e %elfare of all t!e people, t!eadoption b t!e 'overnment of measures calculated to insure economic stabilit of allt!e competent elements of societ, t!roug! t!e maintenance of a proper economic andsocial e6uilibrium in t!e interrelations of t!e members of t!e communit, constitutionall,t!roug! t!e adoption of measures legall @ustifiable, or e=tra"constitutionall, t!roug! t!ee=ercise of po%ers underling t!e e=istence of all governments on t!e time"!onoredprinciple of salus populi est suprema le=.

Social @ustice, t!erefore, must be founded on t!e recognition of t!e necessit of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a societ and of t!e protection t!ats!ould be e6uall and evenl e=tended to all groups as a combined force in our socialand economic life, consistent %it! t!e fundamental and paramount ob@ective of t!e stateof promoting t!e !ealt!, comfort, and 6uiet of all persons, and of bringing about Et!egreatest good to t!e greatest number.E

In vie% of t!e foregoing, t!e %rit of pro!ibition praed for is !ereb denied, %it! costsagainst t!e petitioner.

So ordered.



&vanceWa, C.J., Imperial, iaz. and Lorrilleno. JJ. concur.

Republic of t!e P!ilippinesS=PRE"E 5O=R3;anila

2IRS I-ISI+

G.R. 4o. 1F!6C Octo,er !&% 1999

S8"EER O@ERSE8S PL85E"E43 8GE45?% )45.% petitioner,

vs.483)O48L L8BOR REL83)O4S 5O"")SS)O4% 3ird Division% .5. and PR)S5)L8E4DOO% respondents.

P8RDO% J.:

!e case before t!e ourt is a special civil action for certiorari %it! application for atemporar restraining order see?ing to set aside t!e resolution of t!e ational abor Relations ommission affirming in toto t!e decision of abor &rbiter &ndres . aballafinding t!e termination of emploment of respondent Priscila *ndozo as domestic !elper in ai%an as un%arranted and ordering petitioner to pa !er salar for t!e une=pired

portion of !er contract of emploment of eleven (##) mont!s and (#K) nineteen dasamounting to \#7#,KK<.<0, plus ten percent (#0Z) t!ereof as attorneYsfees.1âwphi1.n=t

!e facts are as follo%s5

In June #KK$, respondent Priscila *ndozo applied to petitioner Sameer +verseas*mploment &genc, a local recruitment placement agenc, for overseas emploment in



ai%an as a domestic !elper. &s s!e %as initiall found to !ave a Eminimal spotE s!e%as advised to rest for at least t%o (/) mont!s.

+n &pril <, #KK:, petitioner told respondent *ndozo t!at s!e %ould be finall deploedto ai%an and re6uired !er to pa t!e amount of P$0,000.00, %!ic! s!e did, but

petitioner did not issue an receipt.

+n &pril D, #KK:, respondent *ndozo left for ai%an. S!e %as to be emploed as a!ousemaid of Sung ui ;ei %it! a mont!l salar of \#$,$D0.00 for a period of oneear.

Lo%ever, s!e staed in ai%an onl for eleven (##) das as !er emploer terminated!er services, and sent !er !ome on &pril #K, #KK: for alleged incompetence.

Immediatel upon !er return, s!e confronted petitioner agenc and Rose ;a!ina of said agenc told !er t!at s!e %as @ust unluc? and t!at s!e %ould be refunded t!e

amount of P70,000.00.

+n June /0, #KK7, private respondent filed %it! t!e P!ilippine +verseas *mploment &dministration a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal, pament of salarcorresponding to t!e une=pired portion of !er contract, illegal e=action, violation of t!eabor ode, falsification of contract of emploment, attorneYs fees and costs.

;eantime, on June 9, #KK7, ongress enacted Republic &ct o. D0:/, vesting @urisdiction over claims of overseas %or?ers %it! t!e ational abor Relationsommission (!ereafter R). onse6uentl, respondentYs claim %as transferred to t!eational abor Relations ommission, &rbitration Branc!, in San Pablo it.

&fter position papers %ere filed, on ;a /D, #KK9, abor &rbiter &ndres . avallarendered a decision finding t!at private respondent %as illegall dismissed and orderingpetitioner to pa !er salar corresponding to t!e une=pired portion of !er contract of emploment of eleven (##) mont!s and nineteen (#K) das e6uivalent to\#7#,KK<.D0, plus ten percent (#0Z) of t!e a%ard e6uivalent to \#7,#KK.<D asattorneYs fees. 1

In time, petitioner appealed t!e decision to t!e ational abor Relations ommission,!ird ivision, Uuezon it.

+n ovember /D, #KK9, t!e R rendered decision affirming in toto t!e decision of t!e abor &rbiter. !

+n ecember /$, #KK9, petitioner filed %it! t!e R a motion for reconsideration8 F

!o%ever, on Januar /D, #KKD, t!e R denied t!e motion. C

Lence, t!is recourse.



+n ;a #:, #KKD, %e re6uired respondents to comment on t!e petition %it!in ten (#0)das from notice. 6 +n Jul #$, #KKD, t!e Solicitor 'eneral filed !is comment, submittingt!e proposition t!at private respondent !ad been illegall dismissed b !er foreignemploer entitling !er to pament of !er salaries corresponding to t!e une=pired portionof !er contract. 7 Lo%ever, private respondent failed to submit !er comment, and on

2ebruar #, #KKK, %e re6uired !er counsel to s!o% cause %! s!e s!ould not bedisciplinaril dealt %it! or !eld in contempt for suc! failure. $

Ce no% resolve to give due course to t!e petition. Ce consider private respondent to!ave %aived t!e filing of !er comment and set aside t!e resolution of 2ebruar #, #KKK.

!e issue presented is %!et!er t!e emploer in ai%an could la%full terminate privaterespondentYs emploment as domestic !elper for incompetence during t!e probationarperiod of !er emploment.

Petitioner recruited private respondent for emploment in ai%an, and s!e e=ecuted a

contract of emploment %it! !er ai%anese emploer under %!ic! s!e %as to serve asdomestic !elper for a period of one ear, %it! si= mont!s probationar period. &fter onleleven das of %or?, t!e ai%anese emploer terminated private respondentYsemploment for alleged incompetence.

It is an elementar rule in t!e la% on labor relations t!at even a probationar emploeeis entitled to securit of tenure. 9 & probationar emploee can not be terminated, e=ceptfor cause. 1&

In t!is case, t!e emploment contract %as for a definite period of one (#) ear, %it! si=(<) mont!s probationar period. &fter onl eleven das of %or?, t!e emploer dismissed

private respondent %it!out @ust cause.

EOnder &rticle /D# of t!e abor ode, a probationar emploee ma be terminated ont%o grounds5 (a) for @ust cause or (b) %!en !e fails to 6ualif as a regular emploee inaccordance %it! reasonable standards made ?no%n b t!e emploer to t!e emploee att!e time of !is engagement.E 11 Onder t!e contract of emploment, t!e emploer materminate t!e services of private respondent during t!e probationar period for Ebeingfound losing abilit to %or?.E Lo%ever, Et!e po%er of t!e emploer to terminate aprobationar emploment contract is sub@ect to limitations. First , it must be e=ercised inaccordance %it! t!e specific re6uirements of t!e contract. *econ(l6 , t!e dissatisfactionof t!e emploer must be real and in good fait!, not feigned so as to circumvent t!e

contract or t!e la%8 and thir(l6 , t!ere must be no unla%ful discrimination in t!edismissal.E 1! In termination cases, t!e burden of proving @ust or valid cause for dismissing an emploee rests on t!e emploer. 1F In t!is case, petitioner %as not able topresent convincing proof establis!ing respondent *ndozoYs alleged incompetence. Eueprocess dictates t!at an emploee be apprised before!and of t!e conditions of !isemploment and of t!e terms of advancement t!erein.E 1C EPrecisel, implicit in &rticle/D# of t!e ode is t!e re6uirement t!at reasonable standards be previousl made?no%n b t!e emploer to t!e probationar emploee at t!e time of !is engagement.E 1



!us, t!e termination of respondent *ndozoYs emploment %as not @ustified 16 and!ence, illegal. 17 onse6uentl, private respondent is entitled to pament of !er salariescorresponding to t!e une=pired portion of !er contract of emploment for a period of one ear. 1$

CL*R*2+R*, t!e ourt !ereb IS;ISS*S t!e petition and &22IR;S t!e resolutionof t!e ational abor Relations ommission adopted on ovember /D, #KK9, in RR & o. 0#$##:"K9.

o costs.

S+ +R*R*.

)avi(e, Jr., C.J., an( !uno, J., concur.

#apunan an( 4nares"*antiago, JJ., are on official &usiness a&roa(.

'ootnotes# Rollo, pp. $K"::./ Rollo, pp. $$"$9.$ Rollo, pp. /9"$#.: Rollo, pp. /7"/<.7 Petition, Rollo, pp. ##"/$.< Rollo, p. <<.9 Rollo, pp. 9#"D/.D Rollo, p. D:.K P!ilippine ;anpo%er Services, Inc. vs. R, //: SR& <K# >#KK$F.#0 &go vs. R, /7/ SR& 7DD >#KK<F8 opez vs. R, /:7 SR& <:: >#KK7F8 Pinesit *ducational enter vs. R, //9 SR& <77 >#KK$F8 P!il. 2ederation of redit

ooperative, Inc. (P2I) vs. R (2irst ivision), '.R. o. #/#09#, ecember ##,#KKD.## P!ilippine ;anpo%er Services, Inc. vs. R, supra, on p. 9008 +rient *=pressPlacement P!ilippines vs. R, /9$ SR& /7<, /7K >#KK9F.#/ ;anila Lotel orporation vs. R, #:# SR& #<K, #9< >#KD<F.#$ opez vs. R, /K9 SR& 70D, 7#< >#KKDF, citing 'eneral Baptist Bible ollege vs.R, /#K SR& 7:K, 777 >#KK$F8 P!ilippine ;anpo%er Services, Inc. vs. R, supra,on pp. <KD"<KK.#: +rient *=press Placement P!ilippines vs. R, supra, on p. /79.#7 I&i( ., on p. /<0.#< opez vs. R, supra, citing 'eneral Baptist Bible ollege vs. R, supra.#9 opez vs. R, supra, on p. 7#<8 P!ilippine ;anpo%er Services, Inc. vs. R,supra, on p. <KK.#D &nderson vs. R, /7/ SR& ##<, #/< >#KK<F8 e?ni?a S?ills and rade Services,Inc. vs. R, /#/ SR& #$/ >#KK/F.



Republic of t!e P!ilippines

S=PRE"E 5O=R3;anila

* B&

G.R. 4o. $19$ A*ne F&% 19$$

P+)L)PP)4E 8SSO5)83)O4 O' SER@)5E EKPOR3ERS% )45.% petitioner,vs.+O4. 'R84L)4 ". DR)LO4 as Secretar# of La,or and E-plo#-ent% and 3O"8SD. 85+85OSO% as 8d-inistrator of te Pilippine Overseas E-plo#-ent

8d-inistration% respondents.

8utierrez 9 lo %aw >ffices for petitioner.

S8R")E43O% J.:

!e petitioner, P!ilippine &ssociation of Service *=porters, Inc. (P&S*I, for s!ort), a firmEengaged principall in t!e recruitment of 2ilipino %or?ers, male and female, for overseas placement,E 1 c!allenges t!e onstitutional validit of epartment +rder o. #,

Series of #KDD, of t!e epartment of abor and *mploment, in t!e c!aracter of E'OI*I*S '+-*RI' L* *;P+R&RN SOSP*SI+ +2 *P+N;* +22IIPI+ +;*SI & L+OS*L+ C+R*RS,E in t!is petition for certiorari andpro!ibition. Specificall, t!e measure is assailed for Ediscrimination against males or females8E ! t!at it Edoes not appl to all 2ilipino %or?ers but onl to domestic !elpers andfemales %it! similar s?ills8E F and t!at it is violative of t!e rig!t to travel. It is !eld li?e%iseto be an invalid e=ercise of t!e la%ma?ing po%er, police po%er being legislative, and note=ecutive, in c!aracter.

In its supplement to t!e petition, P&S*I invo?es Section $, of &rticle TIII, of t!eonstitution, providing for %or?er participation Ein polic and decision"ma?ing processes

affecting t!eir rig!ts and benefits as ma be provided b la%.E C epartment +rder o.#, it is contended, %as passed in t!e absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finall,to be in violation of t!e !arterYs non"impairment clause, in addition to t!e Egreat andirreparable in@urE t!at P&S*I members face s!ould t!e +rder be furt!er enforced.

+n ;a /7, #KDD, t!e Solicitor 'eneral, on be!alf of t!e respondents Secretar of abor and &dministrator of t!e P!ilippine +verseas *mploment &dministration, filed aomment informing t!e ourt t!at on ;arc! D, #KDD, t!e respondent abor Secretar



lifted t!e deploment ban in t!e states of Ira6, Jordan, Uatar, anada, Long?ong,Onited States, Ital, or%a, &ustria, and S%itzerland. Q In submitting t!e validit of t!ec!allenged Eguidelines,E t!e Solicitor 'eneral invo?es t!e police po%er of t!e P!ilippineState.

It is admitted t!at epartment +rder o. # is in t!e nature of a police po%er measure.!e onl 6uestion is %!et!er or not it is valid under t!e onstitution.

!e concept of police po%er is %ell"establis!ed in t!is @urisdiction. It !as been definedas t!e Estate aut!orit to enact legislation t!at ma interfere %it! personal libert or propert in order to promote t!e general %elfare.E &s defined, it consists of (#) animposition of restraint upon libert or propert, (/) in order to foster t!e common good. Itis not capable of an e=act definition but !as been, purposel, veiled in general terms tounderscore its all"compre!ensive embrace.

EIts scope, ever"e=panding to meet t!e e=igencies of t!e times, even to anticipate t!e

future %!ere it could be done, provides enoug! room for an efficient and fle=ibleresponse to conditions and circumstances t!us assuring t!e greatest benefits.E 6

It finds no specific onstitutional grant for t!e plain reason t!at it does not o%e its originto t!e !arter. &long %it! t!e ta=ing po%er and eminent domain, it is inborn in t!e verfact of state!ood and sovereignt. It is a fundamental attribute of government t!at !asenabled it to perform t!e most vital functions of governance. ;ars!all, to %!om t!ee=pression !as been credited, 7 refers to it succinctl as t!e plenar po%er of t!e StateEto govern its citizens.E $

E!e police po%er of t!e State ... is a po%er coe=tensive %it! self" protection, and it is

not inaptl termed t!e Ela% of over%!elming necessit.E It ma be said to be t!atin!erent and plenar po%er in t!e State %!ic! enables it to pro!ibit all t!ings !urtful tot!e comfort, safet, and %elfare of societ.E 9

It constitutes an implied limitation on t!e Bill of Rig!ts. &ccording to 2ernando, it isErooted in t!e conception t!at men in organizing t!e state and imposing upon itsgovernment limitations to safeguard constitutional rig!ts did not intend t!ereb to enablean individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonabl t!e enactment of suc! salutar measures calculated to ensure communal peace, safet, good order, and%elfare.E 1& Significantl, t!e Bill of Rig!ts itself does not purport to be an absoluteguarant of individual rig!ts and liberties E*ven libert itself, t!e greatest of all rig!ts, is

not unrestricted license to act according to oneYs %ill.E

11

It is sub@ect to t!e far moreoverriding demands and re6uirements of t!e greater number.

ot%it!standing its e=tensive s%eep, police po%er is not %it!out its o%n limitations. 2or all its a%esome conse6uences, it ma not be e=ercised arbitraril or unreasonabl.+t!er%ise, and in t!at event, it defeats t!e purpose for %!ic! it is e=ercised, t!at is, toadvance t!e public good. !us, %!en t!e po%er is used to furt!er private interests att!e e=pense of t!e citizenr, t!ere is a clear misuse of t!e po%er. 1!



In t!e lig!t of t!e foregoing, t!e petition must be dismissed.

&s a general rule, official acts en@o a presumed va!dit. 1F In t!e absence of clear andconvincing evidence to t!e contrar, t!e presumption logicall stands.

!e petitioner !as s!o%n no satisfactor reason %! t!e contested measure s!ould benullified. !ere is no 6uestion t!at epartment +rder o. # applies onl to Efemalecontract %or?ers,E 1C but it does not t!ereb ma?e an undue discrimination bet%een t!ese=es. It is %ell"settled t!at Ee6ualit before t!e la%E under t!e onstitution 1 does notimport a perfect Identit of rig!ts among all men and %omen. It admits of classifications,provided t!at (#) suc! classifications rest on substantial distinctions8 (/) t!e aregermane to t!e purposes of t!e la%8 ($) t!e are not confined to e=isting conditions8 and(:) t!e appl e6uall to all members of t!e same class. 16

!e ourt is satisfied t!at t!e classification made"t!e preference for female %or?ers Mrests on substantial distinctions.

&s a matter of @udicial notice, t!e ourt is %ell a%are of t!e un!app plig!t t!at !asbefallen our female labor force abroad, especiall domestic servants, amid e=ploitative%or?ing conditions mar?ed b, in not a fe% cases, p!sical and personal abuse. !esordid tales of maltreatment suffered b migrant 2ilipina %or?ers, even rape and variousforms of torture, confirmed b testimonies of returning %or?ers, are compelling motivesfor urgent 'overnment action. &s precisel t!e careta?er of onstitutional rig!ts, t!eourt is called upon to protect victims of e=ploitation. In fulfilling t!at dut, t!e ourtsustains t!e 'overnmentYs efforts.

!e same, !o%ever, cannot be said of our male %or?ers. In t!e first place, t!ere is no

evidence t!at, e=cept per!aps for isolated instances, our men abroad !ave beenafflicted %it! an Identical predicament. !e petitioner !as proffered no argument t!at t!e'overnment s!ould act similarl %it! respect to male %or?ers. !e ourt, of course, isnot impressing some male c!auvinistic notion t!at men are superior to %omen. C!att!e ourt is saing is t!at it %as largel a matter of evidence (t!at %omen domestic%or?ers are being ill"treated abroad in massive instances) and not upon some fancifulor arbitrar ardstic? t!at t!e 'overnment acted in t!is case. It is evidence capableindeed of un6uestionable demonstration and evidence t!is ourt accepts. !e ourtcannot, !o%ever, sa t!e same t!ing as far as men are concerned. !ere is simpl noevidence to @ustif suc! an inference. Suffice it to state, t!en, t!at insofar asclassifications are concerned, t!is ourt is content t!at distinctions are borne b t!eevidence. iscrimination in t!is case is @ustified.

&s %e !ave furt!ermore indicated, e=ecutive determinations are generall final on t!eourt. Onder a republican regime, it is t!e e=ecutive branc! t!at enforces polic. 2or t!eir part, t!e courts decide, in t!e proper cases, %!et!er t!at polic, or t!e manner b%!ic! it is implemented, agrees %it! t!e onstitution or t!e la%s, but it is not for t!em to6uestion its %isdom. &s a co"e6ual bod, t!e @udiciar !as great respect for determinations of t!e !ief *=ecutive or !is subalterns, especiall %!en t!e legislature



itself !as specificall given t!em enoug! room on !o% t!e la% s!ould be effectivelenforced. In t!e case at bar, t!ere is no gainsaing t!e fact, and t!e ourt %ill deal %it!t!is at greater lengt! s!ortl, t!at epartment +rder o. # implements t!e rule"ma?ingpo%ers granted b t!e abor ode. But %!at s!ould be noted is t!e fact t!at in spite of suc! a fiction of finalit, t!e ourt is on its o%n persuaded t!at prevailing conditions

indeed call for a deploment ban.

!ere is li?e%ise no doubt t!at suc! a classification is germane to t!e purpose be!indt!e measure. On6uestionabl, it is t!e avo%ed ob@ective of epartment +rder o. # toEen!ance t!e protection for 2ilipino female overseas %or?ersE 17 t!is ourt !as no6uarrel t!at in t!e midst of t!e terrible mistreatment 2ilipina %or?ers !ave sufferedabroad, a ban on deploment %ill be for t!eir o%n good and %elfare.

!e +rder does not narro%l appl to e=isting conditions. Rat!er, it is intended to applindefinitel so long as t!ose conditions e=ist. !is is clear from t!e +rder itself (EPending revie% of t!e administrative and legal measures, in t!e P!ilippines and in t!e

!ost countries . . .E

1$

), meaning to sa t!at s!ould t!e aut!orities arrive at a meansimpressed %it! a greater degree of permanenc, t!e ban s!all be lifted. &s a stop"gapmeasure, it is possessed of a necessar malleabilit, depending on t!e circumstancesof eac! case. &ccordingl, it provides5

K. I2I' +2 SOSP*SI+. M !e Secretar of abor and*mploment (+*) ma, upon recommendation of t!e P!ilippine+verseas *mploment &dministration (P+*&), lift t!e suspension incountries %!ere t!ere are5

#. Bilateral agreements or understanding %it! t!e P!ilippines, and3or,

/. *=isting mec!anisms providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure t!e%elfare and protection of 2ilipino %or?ers. 19

!e ourt finds, finall, t!e impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domesticoverseas %or?ers. !at it does not appl to Eall 2ilipina %or?ersE !& is not an argumentfor unconstitutionalit. Lad t!e ban been given universal applicabilit, t!en it %ould !avebeen unreasonable and arbitrar. 2or obvious reasons, not all of t!em are similarlcircumstanced. C!at t!e onstitution pro!ibits is t!e singling out of a select person or group of persons %it!in an e=isting class, to t!e pre@udice of suc! a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to anot!er person or group of persons. o appl t!e

ban, sa e=clusivel to %or?ers deploed b &, but not to t!ose recruited b B, %ouldobviousl clas! %it! t!e e6ual protection clause of t!e !arter. It %ould be a classiccase of %!at !ase refers to as a la% t!at Eta?es propert from & and gives it to B.E !1 It%ould be an unla%ful invasion of propert rig!ts and freedom of contract and needlessto state, an invalid act. !! (2ernando sas5 EC!ere t!e classification is based on suc!distinctions t!at ma?e a real difference as infanc, se=, and stage of civilization of minorit groups, t!e better rule, it %ould seem, is to recognize its validit onl if t!eoung, t!e %omen, and t!e cultural minorities are singled out for favorable treatment.



!ere %ould be an element of unreasonableness if on t!e contrar t!eir status t!at callsfor t!e la% ministering to t!eir needs is made t!e basis of discriminator legislationagainst t!em. If suc! be t!e case, it %ould be difficult to refute t!e assertion of denial of e6ual protection.E !F In t!e case at bar, t!e assailed +rder clearl accords protection tocertain %omen %or?ers, and not t!e contrar.)

It is incorrect to sa t!at epartment +rder o. # prescribes a total ban on overseasdeploment. 2rom scattered provisions of t!e +rder, it is evident t!at suc! a total ban!as !ot been contemplated. Ce 6uote5

7. &OL+RI* *P+N;*"!e deploment of domestic !elpersand %or?ers of similar s?ills defined !erein to t!e follo%ing >sicF areaut!orized under t!ese guidelines and are e=empted from t!e suspension.

7.# Lirings b immediate members of t!e famil of Leads of State and 'overnment8

7./ Lirings b ;inister, eput ;inister and t!e ot!er senior government officials8 and

7.$ Lirings b senior officials of t!e diplomatic corps anddul accredited international organizations.

7.: Lirings b emploers in countries %it! %!om t!eP!ilippines !ave >sicF bilateral labor agreements or understanding.

=== === ===

9. -&&I+I' +;*SI L*P*RS & C+R*RS +2 SI;I&RSIS""-acationing domestic !elpers and3or %or?ers of similar s?ills s!allbe allo%ed to process %it! t!e P+*& and leave for %or?site onl if t!eare returning to t!e same emploer to finis! an e=isting or partiall servedemploment contract. !ose %or?ers returning to %or?site to serve a ne%emploer s!all be covered b t!e suspension and t!e provision of t!eseguidelines.

=== === ===

K. I2I' +2 SOSP*SI+"!e Secretar of abor and *mploment(+*) ma, upon recommendation of t!e P!ilippine +verseas*mploment &dministration (P+*&), lift t!e suspension in countries %!eret!ere are5

#. Bilateral agreements or understanding %it! t!eP!ilippines, and3or,



/. *=isting mec!anisms providing for sufficient safeguards toensure t!e %elfare and protection of 2ilipino %or?ers. !C

=== === ===

!e conse6uence t!e deploment ban !as on t!e rig!t to travel does not impair t!erig!t. !e rig!t to travel is sub@ect, among ot!er t!ings, to t!e re6uirements of Epublicsafet,E Eas ma be provided b la%.E ! epartment +rder o. # is a validimplementation of t!e abor ode, in particular, its basic polic to Eafford protection tolabor,E !6 pursuant to t!e respondent epartment of aborYs rule"ma?ing aut!orit vestedin it b t!e abor ode. !7 !e petitioner assumes t!at it is unreasonable simplbecause of its impact on t!e rig!t to travel, but as %e !ave stated, t!e rig!t itself is notabsolute. !e disputed +rder is a valid 6ualification t!ereto.

eit!er is t!ere merit in t!e contention t!at epartment +rder o. # constitutes aninvalid e=ercise of legislative po%er. It is true t!at police po%er is t!e domain of t!e

legislature, but it does not mean t!at suc! an aut!orit ma not be la%full delegated. &s %e !ave mentioned, t!e abor ode itself vests t!e epartment of abor and*mploment %it! rulema?ing po%ers in t!e enforcement %!ereof. !$

!e petitionersYs reliance on t!e onstitutional guarant of %or?er participation Ein policand decision"ma?ing processes affecting t!eir rig!ts and benefitsE !9 is not %ell"ta?en.!e rig!t granted b t!is provision, again, must submit to t!e demands and necessitiesof t!e StateYs po%er of regulation.

!e onstitution declares t!at5

Sec. $. !e State s!all afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,organized and unorganized, and promote full emploment and e6ualit of emploment opportunities for all. F&

EProtection to laborE does not signif t!e promotion of emploment alone. C!atconcerns t!e onstitution more paramountl is t!at suc! an emploment be above all,decent, @ust, and !umane. It is bad enoug! t!at t!e countr !as to send its sons anddaug!ters to strange lands because it cannot satisf t!eir emploment needs at !ome.Onder t!ese circumstances, t!e 'overnment is dut"bound to insure t!at our toilinge=patriates !ave ade6uate protection, personall and economicall, %!ile a%a from!ome. In t!is case, t!e 'overnment !as evidence, an evidence t!e petitioner cannot

seriousl dispute, of t!e lac? or inade6uac of suc! protection, and as part of its dut, it!as precisel ordered an indefinite ban on deploment.

!e ourt finds furt!ermore t!at t!e 'overnment !as not indiscriminatel made use of its aut!orit. It is not contested t!at it !as in fact removed t!e pro!ibition %it! respect tocertain countries as manifested b t!e Solicitor 'eneral.



!e non"impairment clause of t!e onstitution, invo?ed b t!e petitioner, must ield tot!e loftier purposes targetted b t!e 'overnment. F1 2reedom of contract and enterprise,li?e all ot!er freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in t!is @urisdiction, %!erelaissez faire !as never been full accepted as a controlling economic %a of life.

!is ourt understands t!e grave implications t!e 6uestioned +rder !as on t!ebusiness of recruitment. !e concern of t!e 'overnment, !o%ever, is not necessaril tomaintain profits of business firms. In t!e ordinar se6uence of events, it is profits t!atsuffer as a result of 'overnment regulation. !e interest of t!e State is to provide adecent living to its citizens. !e 'overnment !as convinced t!e ourt in t!is case t!att!is is its intent. Ce do not find t!e impugned +rder to be tainted %it! a grave abuse of discretion to %arrant t!e e=traordinar relief praed for.

CL*R*2+R*, t!e petition is IS;ISS*. o costs.

S+ +R*R*.

4ap, C.J., Fernan, $arvasa, elencio"'errera, Cruz, !aras, Feliciano, 8anca6co,!a(illa, ?i(in, Cortes an( 8rio"quino, JJ., concur.

8utierrez, Jr. an( e(ial(ea, JJ., are on leave.

'ootnotes

# Rollo, $./ I( ., #/.

$ I( ., #$.: +S., &rt TIII, Sec. $.Q Per reports, on June #:, #KDD, t!e 'overnment is said to !ave lifted t!e ban on fivemore countries5 e% ealand &ustralia, S%eden, Spain, and Cest 'erman. (E;aide=port ban lifted in 7 states,E he anila Chronicle, June #:, #KDD, p. #9, col. /.)7 *du v. *ricta, o. "$/0K<, +ctober /:, #K90, $7 SR& :D#, :D9.< *upra, :DD.9 RIB*, &;*RI& +SIOI+& &C, $/$ (#K9D).D I( .K Rubi v. Provincial Board of ;indoro, $K P!il. <<0, 90D (#K#K).#0 *du v. *ricta, supra.## Rubi v. Provincial Board of ;indoro, supra, 90:.#/ It is generall presumed, not%it!standing t!e plenar c!aracter of t!e la%ma?ing

po%er, t!at t!e legislature must act for public purposes. In !ascual v. *ecretar6 of !u&lic/or0s >##0 P!il. $$# (#K<0)F, t!e ourt nullified an act of ongress appropriating fundsfor a private purpose. !e pro!ibition %as not embodied in t!e onstitution t!en in force,!o%ever, it %as presumed t!at ongress could not do it.#$ *rmita";alate Lotel and ;otel +perators &ssociation, Inc. v. it ;aor of ;anila, o."/:<K$, Jul $#, #K<9, /0 SR& D:K.#: ept. +rder o. # (+*), 2ebruar #0, #KDD.#7 +S., supra, &rt. III, Sec. #.#< People v. aat, <D P!il. #/ (#K$K).#9 ept. +rder o. #, supra.



#D *upra.#K *upra./0 Rollo, Id., #$./# See RIB*, Id., citing alder v. Bull, $ O.S. $D< (#9KD).// I( ./$ 2*R&+, L* +SIOI+ +2 L* PLIIPPI*S 7:K"770 (#K99)./: ept. +rder o. #, supra./7 +S., supra, &rt. Ill, Sec. <./< Pres. ecree o. ::/, &rt. $./9 *upra, &rt. 7./D *upra./K +S., supra, &rt. TIII, Sec. $.$0 *upra.$# Leirs of Juanc!o &rdona v. Rees, os. "<07:K, <077$"<0777, +ctober /<, #KD$,#/7 SR& //0.

P8SE) v. DrilonG.R. 4o. $19$ A*ne F&% 19$$% Sar-iento% A.

La,or Standards% Police Po0er defined:

'853S(

P!il association of Service *=porters, Inc., is engaged principall in t!e recruitment of 2ilipino %or?ers, male and female of overseas emploment. It c!allenges t!econstitutional validit of ept. +rder o. # (#KKD) of +* entitled 1'uidelines'overning t!e emporar Suspension of eploment of 2ilipino omestic andLouse!old Cor?ers.4 It claims t!at suc! order is a discrimination against males andfemales. !e +rder does not appl to all 2ilipino %or?ers but onl to domestic !elpers

and females %it! similar s?ills, and t!at it is in violation of t!e rig!t to travel, it also beingan invalid e=ercise of t!e la%ma?ing po%er. 2urt!er, P&S*I invo?es Sec $ of &rt #$ of t!e onstitution, providing for %or?er participation in polic and decision"ma?ingprocesses affecting t!eir rig!ts and benefits as ma be provided b la%. !ereafter t!eSolicitor 'eneral on be!alf of +* submitting to t!e validit of t!e c!allengedguidelines involving t!e police po%er of t!e State and informed t!e court t!at t!erespondent !ave lifted t!e deploment ban in some states %!ere t!ere e=ists bilateralagreement %it! t!e P!ilippines and e=isting mec!anism providing for sufficientsafeguards to ensure t!e %elfare and protection of t!e 2ilipino %or?ers.

)SS=E(

C!et!er or not .+. o. # of +* is constitutional as it is an e=ercise of police po%er.

R=L)4G(

1>Police po%erF !as been defined as t!e Estate aut!orit to enact legislation t!at mainterfere %it! personal libert or propert in order to promote t!e general %elfare.E &sdefined, it consists of (#) an imposition of restraint upon libert or propert, (/) in order



to foster t!e common good. It is not capable of an e=act definition but !as been,purposel, veiled in general terms to underscore its all"compre!ensive embrace.

1!e petitioner !as s!o%n no satisfactor reason %! t!e contested measure s!ould benullified. !ere is no 6uestion t!at epartment +rder o. # applies onl to Efemale

contract %or?ers,E but it does not t!ereb ma?e an undue discrimination bet%een t!ese=es. It is %ell"settled t!at Ee6ualit before t!e la%E under t!e onstitution does notimport a perfect Identit of rig!ts among all men and %omen. It admits of classifications,provided t!at (#) suc! classifications rest on substantial distinctions8 (/) t!e aregermane to t!e purposes of t!e la%8 ($) t!e are not confined to e=isting conditions8 and(:) t!e appl e6uall to all members of t!e same class.!e ourt is satisfied t!at t!e classification made"t!e preference for female %or?ers Mrests on substantial distinctions.

;&*RIN LIR*’S L+SPI& -S S*R*&RN +2 &B+R(abor a% defined)

'.R. o.9DK0K, June $0, #KD:

Ponente5 ;edialdea, J.

2&S5

Petitioner is a semi"governmental !ospital in agaan e +ro and *mploing fort"one

(:#) emploees. &side from salar and living allo%ances, t!e emploees are given food,

but t!e amount of %!ic! is deducted from t!eir respective salaries. +n ;a $, #KD<, ten

(#0) emploees filed a complaint %it! t!e Regional irector of abor and *mploment,

Region #0, for underpament of t!eir salaries and *+&S. onse6uentl, t!e

Regional irector directed t%o of !is labor standard and %elfare officers to investigate

and ascertain t!e trut! of t!e allegations in t!e complaint. Based on t!e report and

recommendation, t!e Regional irector issued an order dated &ugust :, #KD<, directing

pament of 9/$, DDD.7D, to all t!e petitioner’s emploees. !e Secretar of abor ₱

li?e%ise affirmed t!e ecision and dismissed t!e ;otion for Reconsideration of t!e

petitioner. In a petition for certiorari, petitioner 6uestioned t!e @urisdiction of t!e Regional

irector and t!e all"embracing applicabilit of t!e a%ard involving salar differentials

and *+&S, in t!at it covers not onl t!e !ospitals emploees %!o signed t!e

complaints, but also t!ose %!o are not signatories to t!e complaint, and t!ose %!o

%ere no longer in t!e service of t!e !ospital at t!e time t!e complaint %as filed.

ISSO*S5

#. C!et!er or not t!e Regional irector !ad @urisdiction over t!e case8 and

/. C!et!er or not t!e Regional irector erred in e=tending t!e a%ard to all !ospital

emploeesA

L*5



#. !e ans%er is in t!e affirmative t!e Regional irectors !as a @urisdiction in t!is

labor standard case. !is is abor Standard case, and is governed b &rticle #/D (b) of

t!e abor ode , as amended b *.+. o. ###.

1 abor standards refer to t!e minimum re6uirements prescribed b e=isting la%s, rules,

and regulations relating to %ages, !ours of %or?, cost of living allo%ance and ot!er monetar and %elfare benefits, including occupational, safet, and !ealt!

standards (Section 9, Rule I, Rules on t!e isposition of abor Standards ases in t!e

Regional +ffice, dated September #<, #KD9)4.

Onder t!e present rules, a Regional irector e=ercises bot! visitorial and enforcement

po%er over labor standards cases, and is t!erefore empo%ered to ad@udicate mone

claims, provided t!ere still e=ists an emploer"emploee relations!ip, and t!e findings of

t!e regional office is not contested b t!e emploer concerned. Ce believedt!at even

in t!e absence of *. +. o. ###, Regional irectors alread !ad enforcement po%ers

over mone claims, effective under P.. o. D70, issued on ecember #<, #K97, %!ic!transferred labor standards cases from t!e arbitration sstem to t!e enforcement

sstem.

/. !e Regional irector correctl applied t!e a%ard %it! respect to t!ose emploees

%!o signed t!e complaint, as %ell as t!ose %!o did not sign t!e complaint, but %ere still

connected %it! t!e !ospital at t!e time t!e complaint %as filed. !e @ustification for t!e

a%ard to t!is group of emploees %!o %ere not signatories to t!e complaint is t!at t!e

visitorial and enforcement po%ers given to t!e Secretar of abor, labor is relevant to,

and e=ercisable over establis!ments, not over individual members3emploees, because

%!at is soug!t to be ac!ieved b its e=ercise is t!e observance of, and3 or complianceb suc! firm3establis!ment %it! t!e labor standards regulations. Lo%ever, t!ere is no

legal @ustification for t!e a%ard in favor of t!ose emploees %!o %ere no longer

connected %it! t!e !ospital t t!e time t!e complaint %as filed. &rticle #/K of t!e abor

ode in aid of t!e enforcement po%er of t!e Regional irector is not applicable %!ere

t!e emploee see?ing to be paid is separated from service. Lis claim is purel mone

claim t!at !as to be sub@ect of arbitration proceedings and t!erefore %it!in t!e original

and e=clusive @urisdiction of t!e abor &rbiter



"aternit# 5ildren’s +ospital vs. Secretar# of La,or G.R. 4o. 7$9&9A*ne F& 19$C

La,or La0 Defined

'acts(

Petitioner is a semi"government !ospital, managed b t!e Board of irectors of t!e

agaan de +ro ComenYs lub and Puericulture enter, !eaded b ;rs. &ntera

orado, as !oldover President. !e !ospital derives its finances from t!e club itself as

%ell as from paing patients, averaging #$0 per mont!. It is also partl subsidized b t!e

P!ilippine !arit S%eepsta?es +ffice and t!e agaan e +ro it government.

Petitioner !as fort"one (:#) emploees. &side from salar and living allo%ances, t!e

emploees are given food, but t!e amount spent t!erefor is deducted from t!eir

respective salaries (pp. 99"9D, Rollo).

+n ;a /$, #KD<, ten (#0) emploees of t!e petitioner emploed in different

capacities3positions filed a complaint %it! t!e +ffice of t!e Regional irector of abor

and *mploment, Region T, for underpament of t!eir salaries and *+&S, %!ic!

%as doc?eted as R+T ase o. C"9#"D<.

!e Regional irector issued and order based on t!e reports of t!e abor Standard and

Celfare +fficers, directing pament of P9/$, DDD.7D representing underpament of

%ages and *+&s to all t!e petitioner’s emploees. Petitioner appealed to t!e

;inister of abor and *mploment %!ic! modified t!e decision as to t!e period for t!e

pament *+&s onl. & motion for reconsideration %as filed b petitioner and %as

denied b t!e Secretar of abor.



+eld(

abor standards refer to t!e minimum re6uirements prescribed b e=isting la%s, rules,

and regulations relating to %ages, !ours of %or?, cost of living allo%ance and ot!er

monetar and %elfare benefits, including occupational, safet, and !ealt! standards

(Section 9, Rule I, Rules on t!e isposition of abor Standards ases in t!e Regional

+ffice, dated September #<, #KD9).

58L8L84G vs. <)LL)8"S90 P!il 9/<

'acts(

Pursuant to t!e po%er delegated to it b t!e egislature, t!e irector of Public Cor?s

promulgated rules and regulations pertaining to t!e closure of Rosario Street and Rizal

&venue to traffic of animal"dra%n ve!icles for a ear in pro!ibition against respondent"

public officers. &mong ot!ers, t!e petitioners aver t!at t!e rules and regulations

complained of infringe upon constitutional precept on t!e promotion of social @ustice to

insure t!e %ell being and economic securit of all people.

)ss*e(

C!et!er or not t!e rules and regulation promote social @ustice.

+eld(

Nes. !e promotion of Social Justice is to be ad!ered not t!roug! a mista?en smpat!

to%ards an given group.

Social @ustice is Eneit!er communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarc!,E but t!e

!umanization of la%s and t!e e6ualization of social and economic force b t!e State so

t!at @ustice in its rational and ob@ectivel secular conception ma at least be

appro=imated. Social @ustice means t!e promotion of t!e %elfare of all t!e people, t!e

adoption b t!e 'overnment of measures calculated to insure economic stabilit of allt!e competent elements of societ, t!roug! t!e maintenance of a proper economic and

social e6uilibrium in t!e interrelations of t!e members of t!e communit, constitutionall,

t!roug! t!e adoption of measures legall @ustifiable, or e=tra"constitutionall, t!roug! t!e

e=ercise of po%ers underling t!e e=istence of all governments on t!e time"!onored

principle of salus populi est suprema le=. Social @ustice, t!erefore, must be founded on

t!e recognition of t!e necessit of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a



societ and of t!e protection t!at s!ould be e6uall and evenl e=tended to all groups

as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent %it! t!e fundamental

and paramount ob@ective of t!e state of promoting t!e !ealt!, comfort and 6uiet of all

persons, and of bringing about Et!e greatest good to t!e greatest number.E

58L8L84G vs. <)LL)8"S90 P!il 9/<

'acts(

In pursuance of ommon%ealt! &ct 7:D %!ic! mandates t!e irector of Public Cor?s,

%it! t!e approval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s and ommunications, s!allpromulgate t!e necessar rules and regulations to regulate and control t!e use of andtraffic on suc! roads and streets to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructionson, roads and streets designated as national roads, t!e irector of Public Cor?sadopted t!e resolution of t!e ational raffic ommission, pro!ibiting t!e passing of animal dra%n ve!icles in certainstreets in ;anila.Petitioner 6uestioned t!is as it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative po%er.

)ss*es(

C!et!er or not t!ere is a undue delegation of legislative po%erA

R*ling(

!ere is no undue delegation of legislative po%er. ommon%ealt! &ct 7:D does notconfer legislative po%ers to t!e irector of Public Cor?s. !e aut!orit conferred upont!em and under %!ic! t!e promulgated t!e rules and regulations no% complained of isnot to determine %!at public polic demands but merel to carr out t!e legislativepolic laid do%n b t!e ational &ssembl in said &ct, to %it, 1to promote safe transit

upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads b actsof t!e ational &ssembl or b e=ecutive orders of t!e President of t!e P!ilippines4 andto close t!em temporaril to an or all classes of traffic 1%!enever t!e condition of t!eroad or t!e traffic ma?es suc! action necessar or advisable in t!e public convenienceand interest.4

!e delegated po%er, if at all, t!erefore, is not t!e determination of %!at t!e la% s!all



be, but merel t!e ascertainment of t!e facts and circumstances upon %!ic! t!eapplication of said la% is to be predicated.

o promulgate rules and regulations on t!e use of national roads and to determine %!enand !o% long a national road s!ould be closed to traffic, in vie% of t!e condition of t!eroad or t!e traffic t!ereon and t!e re6uirements of public convenience and interest, isan administrative function %!ic! cannot be directl disc!arged b t!e ational

&ssembl.

It must depend on t!e discretion of some ot!er government official to %!om is confidedt!e dut of determining %!et!er t!e proper occasion e=ists for e=ecuting t!e la%. But itcannot be said t!at t!e e=ercise of suc! discretion is t!e ma?ing of t!e la%.

5alalang vs. <illia-sG.R. 4o. C7$&& Dece-,er !% 19C&

Ponente5 aurel,J5

'acts(

;a=imo alalang in !is capacit as a private citizen and a ta=paer of ;anila filed apetition for a %rit of pro!ibition against t!e respondents. It is alleged in t!e petition t!at

t!e ational raffic ommission, in its resolution of Jul #9, #K:0, resolved torecommend to t!e irector of t!e Public Cor?s and to t!e Secretar of Public Cor?sand ommunications t!at animal"dra%n ve!icles be pro!ibited from passing alongRosario Street e=tending from Plaza alderon de la Barca to asmariWas Street from95$0&m to #/5$0 pm and from #5$0 pm to 7$0 pm8 and along Rizal &venue e=tendingfrom t!e railroad crossing at &ntipolo Street to *c!ague Street from 9 am to ##pm for aperiod of one ear from t!e date of t!e opening of t!e olgante Bridge to traffic. !e!airman of t!e ational raffic ommission on Jul #D, #K:0 recommended to t!eirector of Public Cor?s %it! t!e approval of t!e Secretar of Public Cor?s t!e adoptionof t!e measure proposed in t!e resolution aforementioned in pursuance of t!eprovisions of t!e ommon%ealt! &ct o. 7:D %!ic! aut!orizes said irector %it! t!e

approval from t!e Secretar of t!e Public Cor?s and ommunication to promulgaterules and regulations to regulate and control t!e use of and traffic on national roads. +n

&ugust /, #K:0, t!e irector recommended to t!e Secretar t!e approval of t!erecommendations made b t!e !airman of t!e ational raffic ommission %it!modifications. !e Secretar of Public Cor?s approved t!e recommendations on &ugust#0,#K:0.!e ;aor of ;anila and t!e &cting !ief of Police of ;anila !ave enforcedand caused to be enforced t!e rules and regulation. &s a conse6uence, all animal"



dra%n ve!icles are not allo%ed to pass and pic? up passengers in t!e places abovementioned to t!e detriment not onl of t!eir o%ners but of t!e riding public as %ell.

)ss*e(

#. C!et!er t!e rules and regulations promulgated b t!e respondents pursuant to t!e

provisions of ommon%ealt! &ct +. 7:D constitute an unla%ful inference %it!legitimate business or trade and abridged t!e rig!t to personal libert and freedom of locomotionA

/. C!et!er t!e rules and regulations complained of infringe upon t!e constitutionalprecept regarding t!e promotion of social @ustice to insure t!e %ell"being andeconomic securit of all t!e peopleA

+eld(

#. o. !e promulgation of t!e &ct aims to promote safe transit upon and avoidobstructions on national roads in t!e interest and convenience of t!e public. In

enacting said la%, t!e ational &ssembl %as prompted b considerations of publicconvenience and %elfare. It %as inspired b t!e desire to relieve congestion of traffic, %!ic! is a menace to t!e public safet.

Public %elfare lies at t!e bottom of t!e promulgation of t!e said la% and t!e state inorder to promote t!e general %elfare ma interfere %it! personal libert, %it! propert,and %it! business and occupations. Persons and propert ma be sub@ect to all ?inds of restraints and burdens in order to secure t!e general comfort, !ealt!, and prosperit of t!e State. o t!is fundamental aims of t!e government, t!e rig!ts of t!e individual aresubordinated.

ibert is a blessing %!ic! s!ould not be made to prevail over aut!orit because societ%ill fall into anarc!. eit!er s!ould aut!orit be made to prevail over libert becauset!en t!e individual %ill fall into slaver.

!e parado= lies in t!e fact t!at t!e apparent curtailment of libert is precisel t!e vermeans of insuring its preserving.

/. o. Social @ustice means t!e promotion of t!e %elfare of all t!e people, t!e adoptionb t!e 'overnment of measures calculated to insure economic stabilit of all t!ecompetent elements of societ, t!roug! t!e maintenance of a proper economic andsocial e6uilibrium in t!e interrelations of t!e members of t!e communit,constitutionall, t!roug! t!e adoption of measures legall @ustifiable, or e=tra"

constitutionall, t!roug! t!e e=ercise of po%ers underling t!e e=istence of allgovernments on t!e time"!onored principles of salus populi est suprema le=.

Social @ustice must be founded on t!e recognition of t!e necessit of interdependenceamong divers and diverse units of a societ and of t!e protection t!at s!ould be e6ualland evenl e=tended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,consistent %it! t!e fundamental and paramount ob@ective of t!e state of promoting



!ealt!, comfort and 6uiet of all persons, and of bringing about 1t!e greatest good to t!egreatest number.4

L* P*II+ IS *I* CIL +SS &'&IS L* P*II+*R

S8"EER O@ERSE8S PL85E"E43 8GE45?% )45. vs. 483)O48L L8BORREL83)O4S 5O"")SS)O4% 3ird Division% .5. and PR)S5)L8 E4DOO

G.R. 4o. 1F!6C Octo,er !&% 1999

'853S(



Private respondent *ndozo %as emploed as domestic !elper in ai%an. !eemploment contract %as for a definite period of one (#) ear, %it! si= (<) mont!sprobationar period. S!e staed in ai%an onl for eleven (##)das as !er emploer terminated !er services, and sent !er !ome for alleged incompetence. Lence, privaterespondent filed %it! t!e P!ilippine +verseas *mploment &dministration a complaint

against petitioner for illegal dismissal. onse6uentl, respondentYs claim %as transferredto t!e ational abor Relations ommission, &rbitration Branc!, in San Pablo it.

)SS=E(

C!et!er t!e emploer in ai%an could la%full terminate private respondentYsemploment as domestic !elper for incompetence during t!e probationar period of !er emploment.

+ELD(

It is an elementar rule in t!e la% on labor relations t!at even a probationar emploeeis entitled to securit of tenure. & probationar emploee cannot be terminated, e=ceptfor cause. In t!is case, t!e emploment contract %as for a definite period of one (#)ear, %it! si= (<) mont!s probationar period. &fter onl eleven das of %or?, t!eemploer dismissed private respondent %it!out @ust cause. & probationar emploeema be terminated on t%o grounds5 (a) for @ust cause or (b) %!en !e fails to 6ualif as aregular emploee in accordance %it! reasonable standards made ?no%n b t!eemploer to t!e emploee at t!e time of !is engagement. Onder t!e contract of emploment, t!e emploer ma terminate t!e services of private respondent during t!eprobationar period for Ebeing found losing abilit to %or?.E Lo%ever, Et!e po%er of t!eemploer to terminate a probationar emploment contract is sub@ect to limitations.

2irst, it must be e=ercised in accordance %it! t!e specific re6uirements of t!e contract.

Secondl, t!e dissatisfaction of t!e emploer must be real and in good fait!, not feignedso as to circumvent t!e contract or t!e la%8 and

!irdl, t!ere must be no unla%ful discrimination in t!e dismissal.E In termination cases,t!e burden of proving @ust or valid cause for dismissing an emploee rests on t!eemploer. In t!is case, petitioner %as not able to present convincing proof establis!ingrespondent *ndozoYs alleged incompetence.



P8SE) vs DR)LO416F S5R8 F$&

'acts(

Petitioner, P!il association of Service *=porters, Inc., is engaged principall in t!erecruitment of 2ilipino %or?ers, male and female of overseas emploment. It c!allengest!e constitutional validit of ept. +rder o. # (#KKD) of +* entitled 1'uidelines'overning t!e emporar Suspension of eploment of 2ilipino omestic andLouse!old Cor?ers.4 It claims t!at suc! order is a discrimination against males andfemales. !e +rder does not appl to all 2ilipino %or?ers but onl to domestic !elpersand females %it! similar s?ills, and t!at it is in violation of t!e rig!t to travel, it also beingan invalid e=ercise of t!e la%ma?ing po%er. 2urt!er, P&S*I invo?es Sec $ of &rt #$ of

t!e onstitution, providing for %or?er participation in polic and decision"ma?ingprocesses affecting t!eir rig!ts and benefits as ma be provided b la%. !ereafter t!eSolicitor 'eneral on be!alf of +* submitting to t!e validit of t!e c!allengedguidelines involving t!e police po%er of t!e State and informed t!e court t!at t!erespondent !ave lifted t!e deploment ban in some states %!ere t!ere e=ists bilateralagreement %it! t!e P!ilippines and e=isting mec!anism providing for sufficientsafeguards to ensure t!e %elfare and protection of t!e 2ilipino %or?ers.

)ss*e(

C!et!er or not t!ere !as been a valid classification in t!e c!allenged epartment +rder o. #.

Decision(

S in dismissing t!e petition ruled t!at t!ere !as been valid classification, t!e 2ilipinofemale domestics %or?ing abroad %ere in a class b t!emselves, because of t!e specialris? to %!ic! t!eir class %as e=posed. !ere is no 6uestion t!at +rder o.# applies onlto female contract %or?ers but it does not t!ereb ma?e an undue discriminationbet%een se=es. It is %ell settled !at e6ualit before t!e la% under t!e constitution doesnot import a perfect identit of rig!ts among all men and %omen. It admits of classification, provided t!at5

#. Suc! classification rests on substantial distinctions/. !at t!e are germane to t!e purpose of t!e la%$. !e are not confined to e=isting conditions



:. !e appl e6uall to al members of t!e same class

In t!e case at bar, t!e classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions.

ept. +rder o. # does not impair t!e rig!t to travel. !e conse6uence of t!e

deploment ban !as on t!e rig!t to travel does not impair t!e rig!t, as t!e rig!t to travelis sub@ects among ot!er t!ings, to t!e re6uirements of 1public safet4 as ma beprovided b la%. eploment ban of female domestic !elper is a valid e=ercise of policepo%er. Police po%er as been defined as t!e state aut!orit to enact legislation t!at mainterfere %it! personal libert or propert in order to promote general %elfare. eit!er ist!ere merit in t!e contention t!at epartment +rder o. # constitutes an invalid e=erciseof legislative po%er as t!e labor code vest t!e +* %it! rule ma?ing po%ers.

Documents

pearl digests.doc