Dura Legis Optimus Unus

Definition of Labor Dispute

Citibank v. CA, November 27, 1998 G.R. No. 108961

- The question arises whether a labor dispute exists between Citibank and the security guards of respondent CIGLA, regardless of their employment status. The Labor Code’s definition of a labor dispute includes controversies over employment terms, even if the disputing parties are not direct employer and employee.

PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998 G.R. No. 120567

- The term “labor dispute” is defined as “any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation or persons in negotiating, fixing, maintain, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees.” There is no labor dispute when there is no complaint yet for illegal dismissal filed with the labor arbiter. The term “controversy” is likewise defined as “a litigated question; adversary proceeding in a court of law; a civil action or suit, either at law or in equity; a justiciable dispute.” A “justiciable controversy” is one involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue.”

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union v. Bersamira, June 13, 1990

- “labor dispute” under Article 212 (1) of the Labor Code includes “any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”

Article 224 (formerly Article 217)

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter

Pondoc v. NLRC, October 3, 1996

- The element of control is absent where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, we should not find that the relationship of employer and employee exist.

Villamaria v. CA, April 19, 2006

- The Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over Bustamante’s complaint. Under the Kasunduan, the relationship between him and Villamaria was dual: that of vendor-vendee and employer-employee. An employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional requisite.

Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water Employee’s Union, January 25, 2016 (ULP) G.R. No. 201595

- In essence, unfair labor practice relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers’ right to organize. All the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers’ right to self-organization. The term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization.

Atlas Farms v. NLRC, November 18, 2002 (Termination Dispute)

- Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. A possible exception is provided in Article 261 of the Labor Code, which provides that – The Voluntary Arbiter or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or implementation of the company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

Negros Metal v. Lamayo, August 25, 2010 (Termination Dispute) G.R. No. 186557

- As a general rule, termination disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, except when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.

Vivero v. CA, October 24, 2000 (Termination Dispute) G.R. No. 87098

- A dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter may be submitted to voluntary arbitration provided that the parties state in equivocal language that they conform to the submission of said dispute to voluntary arbitration. There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that illegal termination disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by express provision of law.

University of Immaculate Concepcion v. NLRC, January 26, 2011 (Termination

Dispute) G.R. No. 181146

- Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor practices and termination disputes fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Article 262 of the same Code provides the exception that the Voluntary Arbiter, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining dead locks. For the exception to apply, there must agreement between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement. However, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that it is enough that there is evidence on record showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.

Austria v. NLRC, August 16, 1999 (Termination Dispute) (priest)

- Relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee is purely secular in nature because it has no relation with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church, such affairs are governed by labor laws. The Labor Code applies to all establishments, whether religious or not.

Reyes v. RTC Makati Branch 42, August 11, 2008 (Termination Dispute)

- To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to be heard and decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try and decide such cases, two elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.

Locsin v. Nissan Lease Philippines October 20, 2010 (Intracorporate dispute)

- A corporate officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation so that RTC should exercise jurisdiction based on Section 5(c) of PD 902-A.

Weslayan University v. Maglaya, January 23, 2017 (Termination Dispute)

- The creation of the position is under the corporation’s charter or bylaws, and that the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders must concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate officer, as against an ordinary employee or officer. It is only when the officer claiming to have been illegally dismissed is classified as such corporate officer that the issue is deemed an intra-corporate dispute which falls within the jurisdiction of the trial courts.

Cacho v. Balagtas, February 7, 2018 (Termination Dispute) G.R. No. 202974

- A two-tier test must be employed to determine whether an intra-corporate controversy exists in the present case, viz.: (a) the relationship test, and (b) the nature of the controversy test. A dispute is considered an intra-corporate controversy under the relationship test when the relationship between or among the disagreeing parties is any one of the following: (a) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the public; (b) between the corporation, partnership, or association and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers; (c) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the State as far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners, or associates themselves.

Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, September 9, 2015 (damages) G.R. No. 184397

- The money claims within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters are those which have some reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship. This claim is distinguished from cases of actions for damages where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation.

Lunzaga v. Albar Shipping, April 18, 2012 (damages)

- LA has jurisdiction over a case involving a claim arising from employer-employee relationship. While LA has no jurisdiction to determine who among the heirs are entitled to receive the death benefits it has jurisdiction to decide whether Albar is liable for the claim.

Santos v. Servier Philippines Inc. November 28, 2008 (Tax deduction) (damages) G.R. No. 166377

- Any money claim (i.e deductions for tax purposes) arising from the employer-employee relationship clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Any money claim (i.e deductions for tax purposes) arising from the employer-employee relationship clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

World’s Best Gas v. Vital, September 9, 2015 (damages) G.R. No. 211588

- The RTC's ruling on Vital's claim of P845,000.00 and P250,000.00 in unpaid salaries and separation pay is, thus, null and void, and therefore, cannot perpetuate even if affirmed on appeal.

Halaguena v. PAL October 2, 2009 (damages) G.R. No. 172013

- The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreement.

Pepsi Cola v. Gal-lang, September 24, 1991 (damages)

- It must be stressed that not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved only by the labor arbiters. This will be so only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted and employee-employer relations to put the case under the provisions of Article 217. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal jurisdiction. A complaint for damages for malicious prosecution filed by employees has its jurisdiction belonging with the regular courts.

Milan v. NLRC, February 4, 2015 (damages) G.R. No. 202961

- As a rule, withholding of final wages and benefits of separated employees is prohibited. The exception applies where the employees refuse to return the company property to settle their debts and accountabilities. In relation to damages: Claims arising from an employer-employee relationship are not limited to claims by an employee. Employers may also have claims against the employee, which arise from the same relationship.

Amecos Innovations v. Lopez, July 2, 2014 (damages) G.R. No. 178055

- The Court holds that the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code is applicable between the parties. This provision gives Labor Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction over damages claims arising from employer-employee relations. This view is supported by the connection between the SSS contribution issue and the employer-employee relationship. While the Labor Arbiter can award damages governed by the Civil Code, the dispute, in this case, should be referred to labor tribunals.

PAL v. ALPAP, February 26, 2018 (damages) G.R. No. 200088

- Reasonable connection rule: the claim for damages must have reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article 217 of the Labor Code.

Dai-chi Electronics v. Villarama, November 21, 1994 (damages)

- Jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages under paragraph 4 of Article 217, to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, must have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in that article. Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can the claim for damages be considered as arising from employer-employee relations.

People’s Broadcasting Service v. Sec of Labor, March 6, 2012 (DOLE can determine

existence of EE Rel and summary on Articles 128, 129 and 224)

- Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by the NLRC.

Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency v. Sec.Laguesma, November 20, 2007 (in

relation to Articles 128 and 129)

- Under Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code, notwithstanding provisions of articles 129 and 217 of the Code, the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to labor legislation based on findings of DOLE officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.

Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, July 13, 2009 (in relations to Articles 128 and 129) G.R. No. 171275

- In order to divest the Regional Director of its power to hear and decide monetary claims of employees, the requisites of the exception clause under article 128(b) must be all present; these are a.) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon; b.) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and c.) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

Okol v. Slimmers World December 11, 2009 G.R. No. 160146

- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.20 The determination of the rights of a director and corporate officer dismissed from his employment as well as the corresponding liability of a corporation, if any, is an intra-corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management , July 10, 2007 (OFW) G.R. No. 162419

- The jurisdiction of labor arbiters is not limited to claims arising from employer-employee relationships.

Industrial Personnel and Management Services v. De Vera, March 7, 2016 (OFW)

- Based on the foregoing, the general rule is that Philippine laws apply even to overseas employment contracts. The parties may agree that a foreign law shall govern the employment contract. But this exception is subject to the following requisites:

1.That it is expressly stipulated in the overseas employment contract that a specific foreign law shall govern;

2.That the foreign law invoked must be proven before the courts pursuant to the Philippine rules on evidence;

3.That the foreign law stipulated in the overseas employment contract must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy of the Philippines; and

4.That the overseas employment contract must be processed through the POEA.

Ace Navigation v. Fernandez, October 10, 2012 (OFW) G.R. No. 197309

- According to Art. 261 of the Labor Code, The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

Estate of Nelson Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime (OFW)

LRTA v. Alvarez, November 18, 2016 (related to GOCC)

- The only issue, therefore, as in Mendoza, is whether LRTA can be made liable by the labor tribunals for private respondents' money claim despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship, and though LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation. Court upheld the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals over LRTA. Court further ruled that LRTA must submit itself to the provisions governing private corporations, including the Labor Code, for having conducted business through a private corporation, in this case, METRO. In this case, the NLRC accordingly declared, LRTA’s contractual commitments with METRO and its employees arose out of its business relations with METRO which is private in nature. Such private relation was not changed notwithstanding the subsequent acquisition by LRTA of full ownership of METRO and take-over of its business operations at LRT.

GSIS v. NLRC, November 17, 2010 (related to GOCC) G.R. No. 180045

- SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR An employer of an independent contractor can be held solidarily liable for the monetary claims made by the employees of the latter because he is an indirect employer. The joint and several liability of the employer or principal was enacted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Code, principally those on statutory minimum wage. The contractor or subcontractor is made liable by virtue of his or her status as a direct employer, and the principal as the indirect employer of the contractor’s employees. This liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers’ compensation, thus, giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This is not unduly burdensome to the employer. Should the indirect employer be constrained to pay the workers, it can recover whatever amount it had paid in accordance with the terms of the service contract between itself and the contractor. The liability however cannot extend to the payment of separation pay. An order to pay separation pay is invested with a punitive character such that an indirect employer should not be made liable without finding that it had conspired in the illegal dismissal of the employees.

Duty Free Phils. V. Mojica, September 30, 2005 (related to GOCC)

- The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government- owned and controlled corporations are governed by provisions of the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

WPP Marketing Comunications v. Galera, March 25, 2010 (with foreign element)

- Galera was an employee and not a corporate officer by subjecting WPP and Galera’s relationship to the four-fold test: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople, September 28, 1990 (with foreign element) G.R. No. 61594

- The jurisdiction of the Regional Director in this case pertains to their authority to handle termination or dismissal cases involving employees with at least one year of service, as specified in the labor laws and regulations existing at that time. The court referred to Article 278 of the Labor Code, which was in effect at the time of the case. This article prohibited employers from terminating the services of employees with at least one year of service without prior clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Rule XIV of Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code provided further details regarding cases of termination without the necessary clearance. According to Section 2 of this rule, any shutdown or dismissal without prior clearance would be conclusively presumed to be a termination of employment without just cause. In such cases, the Regional Director was empowered to order the immediate reinstatement of the employee and the payment of their wages from the time of the shutdown or dismissal until the time of reinstatement.

PNB v. Cabansag, June 21, 2005 (with foreign element) G.R. No. 157010

- The basic policy is that all Filipino workers, whether employed locally or overseas, enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislations. Our labor statutes may not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or stipulations agreed upon, in a foreign country.

Kawachi v. Del Quero, March 27, 2007 (reasonable causal connection rule)

- If there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of our labor courts. In the absence of such nexus, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.

Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative Inc. v. Faburada, October 8, 2001(in relation to

cooperatives) G.R. No. 121948

- SEC. 8 Mediation and Conciliation. — Upon request of either or both parties, the Authority shall mediate and conciliate disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives: Provided, That if no mediation or conciliation succeeds within three (3) months from request thereof, a certificate of non-resolution shall be issued by the Commission prior to the filing of appropriate action before the proper courts. The above provisions apply to members, officers and directors of the cooperative involved in disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives. There is no evidence that private respondents are members of petitioner PHCCI and even if they are, the dispute is about payment of wages, overtime pay, rest day and termination of employment. Under Art. 217 of the Labor Code, these disputes are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

San Miguel v. Semillano, July 5, 2010 (in relation to cooperatives) G.R. No. 164257

- Although respondent Semillano is a member of AMPCO, he had joined the others in filing the complaint because it is his position that petitioner SMC is his true employer and therefore is liable for all his claims under the Labor Code.

Ellao v. BATELEC, July 9, 2010 (in relation to cooperatives) G.R. No. 209166

- Complaints for illegal dismissal filed by a cooperative officer constitute an inter-cooperative controversy, jurisdiction over which belongs to the regional trial courts not the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC.

Comscentre v. Ricio, January 22, 2020 (refund of employment bond) G.R. No. 222212

Pasay City Alliance Church v. Benito, November 28, 2019

- The termination of a religious minister's engagement at a local church due to administrative lapses, when it relates to the perceived effectivity of a minister as a charismatic leader of a congregation, is a prerogative best left to the church affected by such choice. If a religious association enacts guidelines that reserve the right to transfer or reassign its licensed ministers according to what it deems be it for a particular congregation, ministry or undertaking in pursuit of its mission, then the State cannot validly interfere.

Tumaodos v. San Miguel, February 15, 2020

- If there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts, and in the absence thereof, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.

Peak Ventures Corp. v. Sec of Labor, July 20, 2022

- Secretary of Labor or his duly-authorized representatives has jurisdiction over matters involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relations at the time of inspection, even if the money claim exceeds P5,000.00. It is only when the labor standards case falls within the exclusion clause of Article 128 (b) will the RD be mandated to endorse or refer the complaint to the appropriate labor arbitration branch of the NLRC.

Esico v. Alphaland, November 17, 2021

- Where the claim to the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

Article 225 (formerly Article 218)

PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998 G.R. No. 120567

- The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute" upon application by a party thereof, which application if not granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party." A labor dispute must first exist.

Landbank of the Phils. v. Listana, August 5, 2008 G.R. No. 152611

- Except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefor and shall be disposed of in accordance with the second paragraph of this section.

Robosa v. NLRC, February 8, 2012. G.R. No. 176085

- Under Article 218 [now 225] of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may hold any offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in accordance with the law.

Jolo’s Kiddie v. Cabilla, November 29, 2017

- As a rule, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for certiorari. The rationale for this requirement is that "the law intends to afford the tribunal, board or office an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had." Notably, however, there are several recognized exceptions to the rule, one of which is when the order is a patent nullity. In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Article 227 (formerly Article 221)

Meralco v. Gala, March 7, 2012 G.R. No. 191288

- A probationary employee's overall job performance and behavior are closely monitored and measured according to the standards set out in their probationary employment agreement. The case emphasizes that even if a probationary employee is not directly involved in a particular misconduct, if there is substantial evidence showing that the employee had knowledge of or participated in the misconduct by his or her inaction or failure to report the incident to company authorities, it could render the employee unfit to become a regular employee. In such cases, the employer's decision to terminate the probationary employee's employment would be upheld, as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the decision. The case underscores the importance of maintaining a high degree of transparency, selflessness, and integrity in the performance of duties by probationary employees, in line with the terms and conditions of their probationary employment agreements.

Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, March 12, 2014

- In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

Sara Lee v. Macatlang, January 14, 2015 G.R. No. 180147

Article 229 (formerly Article 223)

GBMLT Manpower v. Malinao, July 6, 2015

- Appeal bond requirement for judgments involving monetary awards may be relaxed in meritorious cases, as in instances when a liberal interpretation would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.

Orozco v. CA, April 29, 2005 G.R. No. 155207

- private respondents cannot be expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award when the amount thereof was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter. The computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been clearly stated in the decision of the labor arbiter, private respondents had no basis for determining the amount of the bond to be posted

Lepanto Consolidated Mining v. Icao, January 15, 2014

- In appeals from any decision or order of the labor arbiter, the posting of an appeal bond is required under Article 223 of the Labor Code. However, when the law does not clearly provide a rule or norm for the tribunal to follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal the discretion to determine the case in one way or another, the judge must decide the question in conformity with justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the case.

Forever Security v. Flores, September 7, 2007 G.R. No. 147961

- The requirement of a cash or surety bond for the perfection of an appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s monetary award is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and non-compliance therewith is fatal and has the effect of rendering the award final and executory. In instances where a more compassionate interpretation of the rules may be allowed, there must be the existence of meritorious grounds and substantial compliance or at the very least, a willingness to pay by posting a partial bond.

UERM- Memorial Medical Center v. NLRC, March 3, 1997

- In case of a judgement involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award.

Banahaw Broadcasting v. Pacana, May 30, 2011 G.R. No. 171673

- As a general rule, the government and all the attached agencies with no legal personality distinct from the former are exempt from posting appeal bonds whereas government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) are not similarly exempted. This distinction is brought about by the very reason of the appeal bond itself: to protect the presumptive judgment creditor against the insolvency of the presumptive judgment debtor. When the State litigates, it is not required to put up an appeal bond because it is presumed to be always solvent. This exemption, however, does not, as a general rule, apply to GOCCs for the reason that the latter has a personality distinct from its shareholders. Thus, while a GOCC's majority stockholder, the State, will always be presumed solvent, the presumption does not necessarily extend to the GOCC itself.

Mc Burnie v. Ganzon, October 17, 2013 G.R. No. 178034 & 178117 and G.R. No 186984-85

- The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The lawmakers clearly intended to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer as inferred from the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the essential and exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be perfected.

AFP General Insurance v. Molina, June 30, 2008 G.R. No. 151133

- The Court highlights that the core of the matter is not a typical property or life insurance contract, but rather an appeal bond mandated by both substantive and procedural labor laws. Specifically, Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, and Rule VI, Section 6 of the Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure, dictate that an appeal in labor cases involving a monetary award can only be perfected by posting a cash or surety bond from a reputable bonding company accredited by the NLRC. This underscores the lawmakers' intention to make such bonding the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal can be perfected. Additionally, the Court notes that the filing of a cash or surety bond is a jurisdictional requirement in appeals concerning money judgments to the NLRC. Rule VI, Section 6 of the Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure reinforces this requirement by stipulating that the bond remains effective until the case's final disposition. This interpretation is further supported by Section 177 of the Insurance Code, which governs suretyship and establishes that a surety bond, once accepted by the obligee, becomes enforceable regardless of whether the premium has been paid.

Islriz Trading v. Capade et. al. January 31, 2011 (payment of accrued salaries

pending appeal before the NLRC)

- Employees are entitled to their accrued salaries during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) overturning that of the Labor Arbiter.

Loon v. Power Master , December 11, 2013. G.R. No. 189404

- The subsequent revocation of a bonding company’s authority should not prejudice the respondents who relied on its then subsisting accreditation in good faith. The respondents perfected their appeal with the NLRC because the revocation of the bonding company’s authority has a prospective application.

Waterfront Cebu City Casino v. Ledesma, March 25, 2015. (Rule 65) G.R. No. 197556

- Section 4. When and where the petition was filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)

Turks Shawarama v. Pajaron, January 16, 2017

- "It is clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention."

Reinstatement Aspect of LA’s Decision

Air Phil Corp. v. Zamora, August 7, 2004 G.R. No. 148247

- Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period.

Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009

- The doctrines in Roquero vs. PAL and Article 223 of LC do not apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case. Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or separated employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in Roquero.

Mt. Carmel College v. REsuena October 10, 2007

- As contemplated by Article 224 (now 230) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, or med-arbiter or voluntary arbitrator may, motu proprio or on motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory.

Smart Communications v. Solidum, April 15, 2015 G.R. No. 204646

- Employees are entitled to their accrued salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses until the NLRC’s reversal of the labor arbiter’s order of reinstatement becomes final and executory, as shown on the entry of judgment.

Manila Doctors College v. Oloroes, October 3, 2016

- Notwithstanding the reversal of the finding of illegal dismissal, an employer, who, despite the LA's order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the employee during the pendency of the appeal up to the reversal by a higher tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the employee, i.e., the unpaid salary accruing up to the time of the reversal.

Article 230 (formerly Article 224)

Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA, January 16, 2002 G.R. No. 126322

- A third-party claimant, who asserts ownership or a right over the levied properties and is not a party to the labor case, has the option to pursue an "accion reinvindicatoria" (recovery of ownership) in a separate civil court. This action allows the third-party claimant to recover ownership or possession of the property wrongfully seized, even when such property is not subject to the execution due to its being owned by a stranger to the labor dispute. In this context, the court underscores the principle that the remedies available to third-party claimants, as stipulated in Article 230 (formerly Article 224) of the Labor Code, are cumulative and can be pursued independently. A third-party claimant's right to file a separate action to vindicate its claim of ownership is reserved and distinct from the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. This doctrine reinforces the notion that third-party claimants should not be barred from availing themselves of the legal remedies provided by law to protect their ownership interests when their property is wrongfully subjected to levy due to a labor dispute judgment.

PAL v. Bischara, September 2, 2015

- Where the writ of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the writ has pro tanto no validity. A companion to this rule is the principle of immutability of final judgments, which states that a final judgment may no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court renders it.

Guillermo v. Uson, March 7, 2016

Genuino Agro v. Romano, September 18, 2019 (Piercing the veil of corporate

fiction) G.R. No. 204782

- The basis for computing separation pay is usually the length of the employee's past service, while that for backwages is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. Separation pay, on the other hand, is that amount which an employee receives at the time of his severance from employment, designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment, and is a proper substitute for reinstatement.

Carag v. NLRC, April 2, 2007

- For a wrongdoing to make a director personally liable for the debts of the corporation, the wrongdoing approved or assented to by the director must be a patently unlawful act. Mere failure to comply with the notice requirement of labor laws on company closure or dismissal of employees does not amount to a patently unlawful act. Patently unlawful acts are those declared unlawful by law which imposes penalties for commission of such unlawful acts. There must be a law declaring the act unlawful and penalizing the act.

Roca v. Dabuyan, March 5, 2018 G.R. No. 215281

- “In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.” In short, substantive law outweighs procedural technicalities as in this case.

Amoroso v. Vintage Drilling, August 8, 2022 (Doctrine of Piercing the

Corporate Veil)

- In Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, the Court explained that he principle of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, and the resulting treatment of two related corporations as one and the same juridical person with respect to a given transaction, is basically applied only to determine established liability; it is not available to confer on the court a jurisdiction it has not acquired, in the first place, over a party not impleaded in a case.

Reliefs against judgments/ decisions rendered by the Commission

Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, September 16, 1998

- The petitioners rightfully filed a motion for reconsideration, but the appeal or certiorari should have been filed initially to the Court of Appeals – as consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. As such, the SC remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.

Veloso v. China Airlines, July 14, 1999

- It should be stressed that without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, an order, decision or resolution of the NLRC, becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. Hence, the resolution of the NLRC had become final and executory on January 17, 1992, insofar as petitioner is concerned, because she admits under oath having received notice thereof on January 7, 1992. The merits of her case may no longer be reviewed to determine if the public respondent might be faulted for grave abuse of discretion, as alleged in her petition dated March 14, 1992. Thus, the Court has no recourse but to sustain the respondent's position on jurisdictional and other grounds, that the petition ought not to be given due course and the case should be dismissed for lack of merit.

Appeal of the CA decision to the SC

Stanfilco v. Tequillo, July 17, 2019 G.R. No. 209735

- The remedy from an adverse decision or final order of the NLRC is to file a petition for certiorari before the CA on the ground that the former tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its determination of the case. Rule 45 petitions in labor cases ultimately concern whether the NLRC's decision is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, and not whether said decision is correct on the merits.

Hanjin Engineering v. CA, April 10, 2006 G.R. No. 165910

- The repeated re-hiring and the continuing need for their services over a long span of time have undeniably made them regular employees. Thus, we held that where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed “appointments” has been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and considered regular employees.

Article 232 (formerly Article 226)

Montaño v. Verceles, July 26, 2010 G.R. No. 168583

- The Labor Code's Section 226 clearly establishes that both the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over disputes within unions and among unions. This includes matters like elections of officers within unions and workers' associations. As such, the BLR has jurisdiction over this dispute, which involves member-unions of a federation and pertains to differences arising from the federation's constitution and by-laws.

Article 233 (formerly Article 227)

Magbuana v. Uy, May 6, 2005 G.R. No. 161003

- Rights may be waived through a compromise agreement, notwithstanding a final judgment that has already settled the rights of the contracting parties.

Philippine Transmarine Carrier v. Pelagio, August 12, 2015 G.R. No. 211302

- In the instant case, it is undisputed that the parties had entered into a Satisfaction of Judgment signifying that petitioners had already given Pelagio the amount of P3,313,772.00 as full and complete satisfaction of the NLRC ruling. While this document may be properly deemed as a compromise agreement, it is conditional in nature, considering that it is without prejudice to the certiorari proceedings pending before the CA, i.e., it obliges Pelagio to return the aforesaid proceeds to petitioners should the CA ultimately rule in the latter's favor. In Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater 48 (Leonis Navigation), the Court held that such an agreement will not render a pending case moot and academic as it does not preclude the employer from recovering from the employee should the courts ultimately decide in favor of the former.

Solomon et . al. v. Powertech Corp., January 22, 2008

- Posting of surety bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to post surety bond rendered the Labor Arbiter decision final and executory.

Periquet v. NLRC, June 22, 1990 G.R. No. 91298

- Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.

Article 240 (formerly Article 234)

Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. Sec of Labor, December 21, 2009 G.R. No. 183317

- In relation to Article 240 (formerly Article 234) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, compliance with the 20% membership requirement for labor organization registration is necessary only at the time of application for registration. Continuous compliance with this requirement throughout the organization's existence is not mandated. The court emphasizes that the provision does not demand ongoing maintenance of the 20% membership threshold after registration. While the minimum membership percentage is vital during registration, fluctuations in membership levels post-registration do not necessarily jeopardize the legitimacy of the labor organization.

Electromat Manufacturing and Recording Corporation v. Lagunzad et. al., July 27, 2011

(only related to Article 234) G.R. No. 172699

- ARTICLE 240. The intent of the law in imposing lesser requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local union’s bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.

Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010 (old law)

- Before their amendment by Republic Act No. 9481 on June 15, 2007, the then governing Art. 234 (on the requirements of registration of a labor union) and Art. 239 (on the grounds for cancellation of union registration) of the Labor Code.

Articles 245-248 (formerly Articles238-239)

Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, January 12, 2011 G.R. No. 178296

- Jurisdiction to review the decision of the Regional Director lies with the BLR.

- Failure to comply with the requirements under Art. 239 shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

Republic of the Phils. v. Kawashima Textile Manufacturing, July 23, 2008 G.R. No. 160352

- Section 8. Article 245 of the Labor Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Art. 245. Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees. – Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective

bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union an the supervisors’ union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.”

Section 9. A new provision, Article 245-A is inserted into the Labor Code to read as follows: “Art. 245-A. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. – The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said union.

AIM Faculty Association v. AIM, August 31, 2022 G.R. No. 1973089

- Faculty members are not managerial employees who are disqualified from forming or joining a labor organization. Moreover, the legitimacy of labor organizations cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election. Meanwhile, the grounds to cancel the registration of a labor organization are exclusive. If none of these grounds are proven to exist, its registration shall be sustained, owing to the State policy according primacy to the right to self-organization.

Article 250 (formerly Article 241)

Del Pilar Academy et. al. v. Del Pilar Academy’s Employee’s Union , April 30, 2008

- When so stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement or authorized in writing by the employees concerned, the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules recognize it to be the duty of the employer to deduct the sum equivalent to the amount of union dues, as agency fees, from the employees' wages for direct remittance to the union. The system is referred to as check off. No requirement of written authorization from the non-union employees is necessary if the non-union employees accept the benefits resulting from the CBA.

Edgardo Marino Jr. et. al. v. Gamilia, July 7, 2009

- Article 222 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, prohibits the payment of attorney's fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from the employees from their own funds as distinguished from union funds. Hence, the general rule is that attorney's fees, negotiation fees, and other similar charges may only be collected from union funds, not from the amounts that pertain to individual union members. As an exception to the general rule, special assessments or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon or checked off from any amount due an employee for as long as there is proper authorization by the employee. A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the Union, recognized as the proper bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from the employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits them directly to the Union.

Ergonomic Systems Phil Inc. v. Enase, December 13, 2017 G.R. No. 195163

- AFFILIATION AND DISAFFILIATION: A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.

Article 251 (formerly Article 242)

Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011

- Not being a legitimate labor organization, NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights granted to a legitimate labor organization under Art. 242, specifically: (a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;

Peninsula Employees Union v. Esquivel, December 1, 2016 G.R. No. 218454

- Jurisprudence states that the express consent of the employee to any deduction in his compensation is required to be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by the law, which must be followed to the letter.

Ergonomic Systems v. Enaje, December 13, 2017 (affiliation and disaffiliation)

- A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.

Nature of CBA

Weslayan University Phils. v. Weslayan University Philippines Faculty and Staff

Association, March 12, 2014

- When the provision of the CBA is clear, leaving no doubt on the intention of the

parties, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall govern. However, if there is doubt in its

interpretation, it should be resolved in favor of labor, as this is mandated by no less than the

Constitution.

Article 253 (formerly Article 243)

Samahan ng Mangagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, October 14, 2015

- The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purpose. Also, inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective bargaining or a workers’ association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.

Metrolab Industries v. Confesor, February 28, 1996

- Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.

San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011

VI. Article 255 (formerly Article 245) G.R. No. 146206

- Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage.

SMCC v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011 G.R. No. 169717

- The right to file a petition for certification election is accorded to a labor organization provided that it complies with the requirements of law for proper registration. The inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization.

Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. V. CA, August 30, 2003 G.R. No 164561

- Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.

AIM v. AIM Faculty Association, January 23, 2017

- In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code, as amended.

Articles 258-260 (formerly Articles 247-249)

T&H Shopfitters Corporation v. T&H Shopfitters Union, February 26, 2014

- In essence, ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers' right to organize. As specified in Articles 248 [now Article 257] and 249 [now Article 258] of the Labor Code, the prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers' right to self-organization.

Ren Transport v. NLRC, June 27, 2016 G.R. No. 188020

- An employer's refusal to bargain collectively with a certified bargaining agent during the freedom period, as provided for in Article 263 in relation to Article 267 of the Labor Code, constitutes an act of unfair labor practice. This doctrine emphasizes that the duty to bargain collectively remains even if disaffiliation or the formation of another union occurs, as long as no petition for certification election is filed within the freedom period. The case underscores that an employer's interference with the right to self-organize, such as refusing to remit union dues and prematurely recognizing another union, also constitutes unfair labor practice.

Digital Telecommunications Phils. v. Digitel Employees Union, October 10, 2012 G.R. No. 184903

- Under Article 248(c) of the Labor Code the dismissal constitutes an unfair labor practice. Art. 248 (c) refers to contracting out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization.

General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union Tupas v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils. Inc.,

February 13, 2009

- Unfair labor practice refers to “acts that violate the workers’ right to organize.” The prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices.

UST Faculty Union v. UST April 7, 2009

- Article 259. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right of self-

organization

X X X X X X X X X X X X

(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration

of any labor organization, including the given of financial or other support to it or its

organizers or supporters

X X X X X X X X X X X X

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this code

Phil. Skylanders Inc. v. NLRC Jan 31, 2002 G.R. No. 127374

- The mere act of disaffiliation did not divest PSEA of its own personality; neither did it give PAFLU the license to act independently of the local union. Recreant to its mission, PAFLU cannot simply ignore the demands of the local chapter and decide for its welfare. PAFLU might have forgotten that as an agent it could only act in representation of and in accordance with the interests of the local union. The complaint then for unfair labor practice lodged by PAFLU against PSI, PSEA and their respective officers, having been filed by a party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint, should have been dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action.

Tropical Hut Employee’s Union v. Tropical Hunt Foot Market Inc. January 20, 1990

- When a local Labor Union disaffiliates to its mother federation, it does not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the CBA. The Union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to the whole Labor Union, only to “employees”.

Purefoods Corp. v. Nagkakaisang Samahang Mangagawa ng Purefoods Rank and File,

August 28, 2008

- Badges of bad faith are evident from the following acts of the petitioner: it unjustifiably refused to recognize the STFWU's and the other unions' affiliation with PULO; it concluded a new CBA with another union in another farm during the agreed indefinite suspension of the collective bargaining negotiations; it surreptitiously transferred and continued its business in a less hostile environment; and it suddenly terminated the STFWU members, but retained and brought the non-members to the Malvar farm.

The sudden termination of the union members is tainted with ULP when it was done to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization.

De la Salle University v. DLSUEA-NAFTEU, April 7, 2009 G.R. No. 177283

- The union officers shall continue their functions and enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining to their respective positions in a hold-over capacity, until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.

Alabang Country Club v. Nlrc, February 14, 2008 G.R. No. 170287

- Under the Labor Code, an employee may be validly terminated on the following grounds: (1) just causes under Art. 282; (2) authorized causes under Art. 283; (3) termination due to disease under Art. 284; and (4) termination by the employee or resignation under Art. 285.

St. John Colleges Inc. v. John Academy Faculty and Employees union October 27, 2006 G.R. No. 167892

- The employer cannot unilaterally close its establishment on the pretext that the demands of its employees are excessive. As already discussed, neither party is obliged to give-in to the other’s excessive or unreasonable demands during collective bargaining, and the remedy in such case is to refer the dispute to the proper tribunal for resolution.

UFE-DFA-KMU v. Nestle Phils. Inc. March 3, 2008 G.R. No. 158930-31

- The duty to bargain collectively between employers and employees is mandated by law, and both parties are expected to approach negotiations with an open mind and make reasonable efforts to reach a common ground of agreement. In cases of alleged unfair labor practices, it's essential to provide substantial evidence showing that the employer's actions were motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, and were oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. A charge of unfair labor practice should be supported by evidence that demonstrates a clear violation of the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization and their right to bargain collectively. While the law obligates both parties to bargain, it doesn't compel them to agree to each other's proposals. The failure to reach an agreement after negotiations does not automatically establish a lack of good faith.

Malayang Mangagawa ng Stayfast v. NLRC, August 28, 2014. G.R. No. 155306

- In unfair labor practice cases, allegations must be proven with sufficient evidence.

SWOFLU v. Universal Robina Corp, July 5, 2017

- Generally, a wage increase not included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement is not demandable. However, if it was withheld by the employer as part of its unfair labor practice against the union members, this benefit should be granted.

PEU v. Esquivel et al, December 1, 2016

- Case law interpreting Article 250 (n) and (o) of the Labor Code mandates the submission of three (3) documentary requisites in order to justify a valid levy of increased union dues. These are: (a) an authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; (b) the secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting, which shall include the list of all members present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessment or fees; and (c) individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned.

Article 263 (formerly Article 252)

UFE-DFA-KMU v. Nestle Phils. Inc. March 3, 2008 G.R. No. 158930-31

UST Faculty Union v. UST April 7, 2009 G.R. No. 180892

- In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In other words, whether the employee or employer alleges that the other party committed ULP, it is the burden of the alleging party to prove such allegation with substantial evidence. Such principle finds justification in the fact that ULP is punishable with both civil and/or criminal sanctions.

General Milling Corporation v. CA, February 2004 G.R. No. 146728

- There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. The effect of an employer's or a union's actions individually is not the test of good-faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole. Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union's proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice.

Teng v. Pahagac, Nov. 17, 2010 G.R. No. 169704

- The Voluntary Arbitrator's decision may still be reconsidered on the basis of a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within 10 days from receipt thereof. The seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory requirement to forestall the finality of such decision.

Samahan ng mga Mangagawa sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. Magsalin, June 6,

2011 G.R. No. 172303

- A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 43.

Articles 278-279 (formerly Articles 263-264)

YSS Employees Union v. YSS Laboratories Inc., December 4, 2009 G.R. No. 155125

- When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.

NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA, November 11, 2008 G.R. No. 163942

- The Labor Code defines a strike as "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute."

Jackbilt Industries Inc., v. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU, March

20, 2009 G.R. No. 171618-19

- Declaration of illegality of strike is not a prerequisite to the dismissal of members who committed illegal acts during a strike.

NCMB primer on strikes and lockouts

APAP v. PAL, June 6, 2011 G.R. No. 168382

- There is no necessity to conduct a proceeding to determine the participants in the illegal strike or those who refused to heed the return-to-work order because the ambiguity can be cured by reference to the body of the decision and the pleadings filed. While the dispositive portion of the DOLE Resolution does not specifically enumerate the names of those who actually participated in the strike but only mentions that those strikers who failed to heed the return-to-work order are deemed to have lost their employment. This omission, however, cannot prevent an effective execution of the decision. Any ambiguity may be clarified by reference primarily to the body of the decision or supplementary to the pleadings previously filed in the case, as in this case. A review of the records reveals that the DOLE Secretary declared the ALPAP officers and members to have lost their employment status based on either of two grounds, viz: their participation in the illegal strike on June 5, 1998 or their defiance of the return- to-work order of the DOLE Secretary. The records of the case unveil the names of each of these returning pilots.

Olisa et. al. v. Escario Et. al. VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014

- Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor, employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not commit any illegal act during the strike.

Article 292 (b) [formerly Article 277 (b) ]

St. Lukes Medical Center Inc. v. Notario, October 20, 2010 G.R. No. 152166

- A single or isolated act of negligence, even if it results in possible legal action against the employer, does not constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties justifying an employee's dismissal. To justify dismissal under Article 282 (b), neglect of duty must be both gross and habitual.

Perez v. PT&T April 9, 2009 G.R. No. 152048

- An actual hearing or conference is not a condition sine qua non for compliance with the due process requirement. To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an employee, an employer must furnish the worker with two written notices: (1) a written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving to said employee a reasonable opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the employer's decision to dismiss the employee.

Article 294 (formerly Article 279)

Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management May 30, 2011(for OFW re RA 8042 as

amended by RA 10022) G.R. No. 179532

- The clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" provided in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) to equal protection of the laws. Applying so would send a wrong signal that employers and recruitment agencies may violate the OFWs security of tenure embodied in their employment contract and would actually profit from such violation based on the unconstitutional provision of law.

St. Mary’s Academy v. Palacio et. al. September 8, 2010 (Eg./ Limited backwages)

- "Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law."

Dreamland Hotel Resort v. Johnson, March 12, 2014 (separation pay and strained

relations)

- An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.

Manila Water v. Del Rosario, January 29, 2014 (separation pay)

- Separation pay may be allowed if the employee is legally dismissed and granting it is an act of social justice or on equitable grounds. In both instances, it is required that the dismissal

1. Was not for serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty,

fraud or willful breach of trust, commission of a crime against the employer or his family; and

2. Did not reflect on the moral character of the employee

Bani Rural Bank Inc. v. De Guzman et. al., November 13, 2013 ( computation) G.R. No. 170904

Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. v. Avestruz, February 18, 2015 (OFW) G.R. No. 207010

Article 295 (formerly Article 280)

Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola, February 1, 2012 G.R. No. 181974

- The employees' various positions and the cyclical rehiring for more than ten years indicate an attempt to bypass the security of tenure. The court held that the employees were, in fact, regular employees, as per Article 295 (formerly Article 280) of the Labor Code.

Consolidated Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. Oberio June 8, 2007 G.R. No. 168424

- The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business.

DM Consunji Inc. v. Jamin April 18, 2012 G.R. No. 192514

- Once a project or work pool employee has been:

(1) Continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and

(2) These tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.

Aro et. al. v. NLRC March 7, 2012 G.R. No. 174792

- Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. Acibo et. al, January 15, 2014 (R. Seasonal

Employees) G.R. No. 186439

- The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the employer’s business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time of the performance and its continued existence.

GMA Network Inc. v. Pabriga, November 27, 2013 G.R. No. 176419

- The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.

Pasas v. PNCC, July 3, 2013. G.R. No. 192394

- Failure of an employer to file termination reports after every project completion proves that an employee is not a project employee.

Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013 G.R. No. 193493

Millennium Erectors Corp. v. Magallanes, November 15, 2010

- The repeated and continuing need for respondent’s services is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of his services to petitioner’s business and, as a regular employee, he could only be dismissed from employment for a just or authorized cause.

Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC, March 30, 2011 (project) G.R. No. 170351

- Project employees are those "whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee"

Salazar v. NLRC (1996 CASE) G.R. No. 109210

- Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company.

Basan v. Coca Cola Bottles, February 4, 2015. G.R. No. 174365-66

- In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Although the work to be performed is only for a specific projector seasonal, where a person thus engaged has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or is merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer. The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.

Convoy Marketing Corp. v. Albia, October 7, 2015.

- The existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in a contract and providing therein that the employee is an independent contractor when the facts clearly show otherwise. This is because the employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.

Jamias v. NLRC, March 9, 2016 G.R. No. 159350

- A fixed period in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to circumvent Article 295 (formerly Article 280) of the Labor Code. The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a project or regular employee is whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the time of his engagement. There must be a determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged. Otherwise put, the fixed period of employment must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatsoever being exercised by the former on the latter.

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, January 28, 2015 (project) G.R. No. 209499

- For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show compliance with two (2) requisites, namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project.

Innodata Knowledge Services v. Inting, December 6, 2017

- The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are never at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply entering into contracts with each other.

Pacific Metal Case, December 5, 2019 (Project/ Regular Employee)

- For while the appropriate evidence showing that a person is a project employee pertains to the employment contract specifying the project and its duration; the existence of such contract is not always conclusive of the nature of one's employment.

Claret School of QC v. Sinday, October 9, 2019 (fixed term contract) G.R. No. 226358

- Brent ruling recognized that the Civil Code and the Labor Code allow the execution of fixed-term employment contracts. However, in cases where periods are imposed to prevent an employee from acquiring security of tenure, such contracts must be disregarded for being contrary to public policy and morals. Brent's application is limited to cases where the employer and the employee are more or less on an equal footing when they enter into the contract.

Gapayao v. Fulo, June 13, 2013 (Seasonal)

- Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees.

Paz v. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co. (Seasonal) G.R. No. 199554

- 1. Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence identified three types of employees, namely: "(1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees." Jurisprudence also recognizes the status of regular seasonal employees

2. The nature of one’s employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the employer. Nor on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the employee, but on the nature of the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the employer's nature of business and the duration and scope of work to be done.

Kimberly Independent Labor Union v. Drilon, May 9, 1990 (casual) G.R. No. 77629

- The status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of his first year of service. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their regularization dependent on the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a burden on the employee which is not sanctioned by law.

Samonte v. La Salle Greenhills, February 10, 2016 (fixed) G.R. No. 199683

- A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly entered into by the parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms not one exercising moral dominance over the other.

Management Prerogative

Philippine Span Asia Carriers v. Pelayo, February 28, 2018 (discipline) G.R. No. 212003

- Supreme Court concluded that the employee's involvement in a legitimate company investigation, even if it resulted in inconvenience or stress, did not constitute constructive dismissal. The decision upheld the employer's right to investigate acts of wrongdoing by employees without automatically implying harassment or constructive dismissal.

Zuellig Freight and Cargo System v. NLRC, July 22, 2013. G.R. No. 157900

- The changing of the name of a corporation is no more the creation of a corporation than the changing of the name of a natural person is begetting of a natural person. The act, in both cases, would seem to be what the language which we use to designate it imports – a change of name, and not a change of being.

Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp. , July 3, 2013. (transfer) G.R. No. 198534

- Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice.

Puncia v. Toyota Shaw, June 28, 2016, (right to impose productivity standard)

- An employer is entitled to impose productivity standards for its employees, and the latter's non-compliance therewith can lead to his termination from work.

SME Bank v. Peregrin, October 8, 2013 G.R. No. 184517

- Security of tenure is a constitutionally guaranteed right. (1) Employees may not be terminated from their regular employment except for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code (2) and other pertinent laws. A mere change in the equity composition of a corporation is neither a just nor an authorized cause that would legally permit the dismissal of the corporation's employees en masse.

Article 296 (formerly Article 281)

Universidad De Sta. Isabel v. Sambajon, April 2, 2014 G.R. Nos. 196280 & 196286

- The probationary employment of teachers in private schools is not governed purely by the Labor Code. The Labor Code is supplemented with respect to the period of probation by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. It is the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, and not the Labor Code, that determines whether or not a faculty member in an educational institution has attained regular or permanent status.

Phil. Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay, July 24, 2007 G.R. No. 164532

- The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

Alcira v. NLRC, June 9, 2004 G.R. No. 149859

- The computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following. An employer is deemed to substantially comply with the rule on notification of standards if he apprises the employee that he will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a particular date after his hiring. The limited security of tenure accorded to probationary employees ends on the date of the expiration of the probationary period.

Serious Misconduct

Northwest Airlines v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 157633, 10 September 2014 (Definition of

fight; fighting as serious misconduct)

- The term fight was considered to be different from the term argument. the Court characterized fight as not just a merely verbal tussle but a physical combat between two opposing parties.

Citibank v. NLRC, G.R. No. 159302, 6 February 2008 (Attitude problem as serious

misconduct)

- While findings of fact in administrative decisions such as those rendered by the NLRC are to be accorded not only great weight and respect, but even finality, the rule only applies for as long as these findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines, G.R. No. 172589, 9 August 2010 (required proof for

dismissal for use of drugs, drug use as serious misconduct)

- To constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Sec 36 R.A. No. 9165 provides that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing centers, and that drug testing shall consist of both the screening test and the confirmatory test.

Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 187226, 28 January 2015 (immorality)

- To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws. Otherwise stated, it is not the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per se that determines whether the same is disgraceful or immoral, but the conduct that is generally accepted by society as respectable or moral.

Cadiz v. Brent Hosptial, February 24, 2016 G.R. No. 187417

- The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves a two-step process: first, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an assessment of the said circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable. Premarital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct.

Sterling Paper Products v. KMM-Katipunan, August 2, 2017 (invectives)

- For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent. In a number of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that the utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior is not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct.

Maribago Resort v. Dual, July 20, 2010

- Respondent's acts constitute serious misconduct which is a just cause for termination under the law. Theft committed by an employee is a valid reason for his dismissal by mthe employer. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property, petitioner's income in this case, are a different matter.

The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, December 15, 2010

- doctrine of loss of confidence -

(a) Loss of confidence should not be simulated; (b) It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; (c) It may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; and (d) It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.

Holcim Phil. v. Obna, August 8, 2016 G.R. No. 220998

- Infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee.

2. To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, the employee's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.

Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel v. Ledesma, March 25, 2015 (misconduct)

- This being a labor case, the evidence required is only substantial evidence which was adequately established here by the positive and credible testimonies of the complainants.

Adamson University Faculty & Employees Union v. Adamson University, March 9,

2020 (use of expletives as a casual expression of surprise) G.R. No. 227070

Gross insubordination/Willful disobedience

Lores Realty Enterprises v. Pacia, G.R. No. 171189, 9 March 2011 (good faith refusal

to obey a lawful order)

- An employee's good faith refusal to obey a lawful order does not constitute willful disobedience and may not justify termination.

Tongko v. The Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. Inc., November 7, 2008 (willful

disobedience) G.R. No. 167622

- Control over the performance of the task of one providing service – both with respect to the means and manner, and the results of the service - is the primary element in determining whether an employment relationship exists.

School of Holy Spirit of Quezon City v. Taguiam, July 14, 2008 (gross and habitual

neglect) G.R. No. 165565

- Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, gross and habitual neglect of duties is a valid ground for an employer to terminate an employee. Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.

Loss of confidence/Breach of trust

Hormillosa v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No. 198699, 9 October 2013 (Nonmanagerial

employees)

- There are two (2) classes of positions of trust. The first class consists of managerial employees. They are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. The second class consists of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc. They are defined as those who in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. There is a high degree of trust and confidence reposed on route salesmen, and when confidence is breached, the employer may take proper disciplinary action on them.

Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation, January 24, 2012 (loss of trust and

confidence, criminal prosecution not a requisite for validlity of dismissal)

- The employer may validly dismiss for loss of trust and confidence an employee who commits an act of fraud prejudicial to the interest of the employer. Neither a criminal prosecution nor a conviction beyond reasonable doubt for the crime is a requisite for the validity of the dismissal. Nonetheless, the dismissal for a just or lawful cause must still be made upon compliance with the requirements of due process under the Labor Code; otherwise, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages as indemnity to the dismissed employee.

Manila Jockey Club v. Trajano, June 26, 2013. G.R. No. 160982

- The loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid ground for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and confidence founded on clearly established facts. Moreover, the loss of trust and confidence must be related to the employee's performance of duties.

Yrasuegui v. PAL, October 17, 2008

- The obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it, "voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable to the employee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element runs through all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d)."

Son et al. v. UST, April 18, 2018 (other causes) G.R. No. 211273

- A void contract is equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation.

Abandonment

Manarpiis v. Texas Phils, January 28, 2015 G.R. No. 197011

- The court laid down the two elements which must concur for a valid abandonment:

(1) the failure to report to work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and

(2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor being manifested by some overt acts.

Abandonment as a just ground for dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to perform his employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment. It is well-settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus, negating the employer’s charge of abandonment. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned his work.

People’s Broadcasting Service v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment

- Under Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered to make a determination as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by the NLRC.

Urbanes v. Secretary of Labor, February 19, 2003 G.R. No. 122791

- Where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.

Hanson v. Secretary of Labor, February 11, 2008 G.R. No. 159026

- Art. 128 (b) of the Labor Code clearly provides that the appeal bond must be “in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from.” The reduction of bond in the NLRC is expressly authorized under the Rules implementing Article 223 and no similar authority is given the DOLE Secretary.

Balladares v. Peak Ventures Corporation, June 16, 2009 G.R. No. 161794

- The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the money claim exceeds P5,000.

Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, April 12, 2006

- When the employer can prove that the reasonable demands of the business require a distinction based on marital status, and there is no better available or acceptable policy which would better accomplish the business purpose, an ER may discriminate against and EE based on the identity of the EE’s spouse.

- To justify a bona fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove 2 factors:

1. That the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and,

2. That there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

However, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners. The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the legislature’s silence that married persons are not protected under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a prejudice or stereotype.

Phil. Aeolus Automotive United Corp., v. NLRC, April 28, 2000

- The Supreme Court, in a litany of decisions on serious misconduct warranting dismissal of an employee, has ruled that for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal

(a) It must be serious;

(b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and,

Apex Mining Co. v. NLRC, April 22, 1991 G.R. No. 94951

- The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section I(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended.

LABOR CASE DOCTRINES