2. • LABOR STANDARDS:
• MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET BY LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND OTHER
ISSUANCES RELATING TO: WAGES, HOURS OF WORK, COST OF LIVING
ALLOWANCES, AND OTHER MONETARY AND WELFARE BENEFITS, INCLUDING
THOSE SET BY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
LABOR RELATIONS
• RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES
• MECHANISMS BY WHICH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE
NEGOTIATED, ADJUSTED AND ENFORCED
• INTERACTIONS AND PROCESSES ON HOW THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARE
EXERCISED, HOW AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED, AND HOW WORKPLACE
RELATIONSHIP IS ENHANCED
4. TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT
1. Regular employment
2. Casual employment
3. Seasonal employment
4. Probationary employment
5. Project employment
6. Fixed-term employment
INDEFINITE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
DEFINITE PERIOD
OF EMPLOYMENT
5. REGULAR EMPLOYEE
WHERE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE TO THE CONTRARY:
1) THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED TO
PERFORM ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE USUALLY
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE USUAL
BUSINESS OR TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER; OR
2) THE EMPLOYEE HAS RENDERED AT LEAST
ONE YEAR OF SERVICE, WHETHER SUCH SERVICE
IS CONTINUOUS OR BROKEN, WITH RESPECT TO
THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED AND HIS
EMPLOYMENT SHALL CONTINUE WHILE SUCH
ACTIVITY EXISTS; OR
3) THE EMPLOYEE IS ALLOWED TO WORK
6. CASUAL EMPLOYEE
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO
PERFORM A JOB, WORK OR SERVICE WHICH IS
MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE
EMPLOYER, AND SUCH JOB, WORK OR SERVICE IS
FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD MADE KNOWN TO THE
EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT;
PROVIDED, THAT ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS
RENDERED AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF SERVICE,
WHETHER SUCH SERVICE IS CONTINUOUS OR NOT,
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.
7. SEASONAL EMPLOYEE
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED TO WORK
DURING A PARTICULAR SEASON ON AN
ACTIVITY WHICH IS USUALLY NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE IN THE USUAL BUSINESS OR
TRADE OF THE EMPLOYER.
Where the employee is on trial by an employer
during which the employer determines the
qualification of the employee for regular
employment.
8. PROJECT EMPLOYEE
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.
9. I. RIGHT TO LABOR STANDARDS.
II. RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE
AND DUE PROCESS.
III. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
12. FARM WORKERS GENERALLY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION
OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY
HELD THAT SEASONAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE CONSIDERED
AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES. REGULAR SEASONAL
EMPLOYEES ARE THOSE CALLED TO WORK FROM TIME TO
TIME. THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
EMPLOYER IS SUCH THAT DURING THE OFF SEASON, THEY
ARE TEMPORARILY LAID OFF; BUT REEMPLOYED DURING
THE SUMMER SEASON OR WHEN THEIR SERVICES MAY BE
NEEDED. THEY ARE IN REGULAR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE
OF THE NATURE OF THEIR JOB, AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE
LENGTH OF TIME THEY HAVE WORKED.
JAIME N. GAPAYAO, vs.
ROSARIO FULO, JUNE 13, 2013
13.
14. CONSIDERING THAT MCBURNIE, AN AUSTRALIAN, ALLEGED
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND SOUGHT TO CLAIM UNDER OUR
LABOR LAWS, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO ESTABLISH,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED AND DULY
AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT WITHIN OUR
JURISDICTION. A REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGNERS WHO
INTEND TO WORK WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS AN
EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 40,
TITLE II OF THE LABOR CODE.
Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-Managers, Inc. and E.
Ganzon, Inc., . October 17, 2013.
15. IN WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. GALERA, WE
HELD THAT A FOREIGN NATIONAL’S FAILURE TO SEEK AN
EMPLOYMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT POSES A
SERIOUS PROBLEM IN SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE COURT.
CLEARLY, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE FAILURE OF
MCBURNIE TO OBTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT, BY ITSELF,
NECESSITATES THE DISMISSAL OF HIS LABOR COMPLAINT.
Andrew James McBurnie Vs. Eulalio Ganzon, EGI-
Managers, Inc. and E. Ganzon, Inc., . October 17,
2013.
16. 1. THE UNION WILL RECEIVE 100% OF THE SEPARATION
PAY BASED ON THE EMPLOYEES’ BASIC SALARY AND
THE REMAINING 50% SHALL BE RELEASED BY
MANAGEMENT AFTER THE NECESSARY DEDUCTIONS
ARE MADE FROM THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES;
2. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESE
BENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF THE
CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION;
3. THE UNION UNDERTAKES TO SIGN THE QUITCLAIM BUT
PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013
17. THE COURT IS UNCONVINCED.
AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE CA, THE SEPTEMBER
1999 QUITCLAIMS MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 AGREEMENT, TO WIT:
2. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE RELEASE OF THESE
BENEFITS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF THE
CASE BY THE UNION WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION;
3. THE UNION UNDERTAKES TO SIGN THE QUITCLAIM BUT
SUBJECT TO THE 2ND PARAGRAPH OF THIS AGREEMENT.
PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013
18. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1999
AGREEMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE USE OF THE
TERM "SUBJECT" IN THE 3RD CLAUSE OF THE SAID
AGREEMENT CLEARLY MEANS THAT THE SIGNING OF
THE QUITCLAIM DOCUMENTS WAS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A CASE WITH THE
NLRC. HENCE, WHEN RESPONDENTS SIGNED THE
SEPTEMBER 1999 QUITCLAIMS, THEY DID SO WITH
THE REASONABLE IMPRESSION THAT THAT THEY
WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM INSTITUTING A
SUBSEQUENT ACTION WITH THE NLRC.
PEPSI VS. MOLON, February 18, 2013
19.
20. ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION,
Petitioner,
vs.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC.
-CEBU PLANT,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013
21.
22. Violation of the Labor Code
Violation of the Occupational
Safety and Health Standards
Violation of the CBA
Violation of Justice and Fair Play
Violation of Article 100, Labor
Code
23. The rights of the Union under any labor
law were not violated. There is no law
that requires employers to provide
chairs for bottling operators. The CA
correctly ruled that the Labor Code,
specifically Article 132 thereof, only
requires employers to provide seats for
women. No similar requirement is
mandated for men or male workers. It
must be stressed that all concerned
bottling operators in this case are men.
LABOR CODE
24. There was no violation either of the
Health, Safety and Social Welfare
Benefit provisions under Book IV of the
Labor Code of the Philippines. As
shown in the foregoing, the removal of
the chairs was compensated by the
reduction of the working hours and
increase in the rest period. The
directive did not expose the bottling
operators to safety and health hazards.
OSHS
25. The CBA between the Union and
CCBPI contains no provision
whatsoever requiring the
management to provide chairs for
the operators in the
production/manufacturing line
while performing their duties and
responsibilities.
CBA
26. Since the matter of the chairs is
not expressly stated in the CBA, it
is understood that it was a purely
voluntary act on the part of CCBPI
and the long practice did not
convert it into an obligation or a
vested right in favor of the Union.
CBA
27. The Court completely agrees with the CA ruling
that the removal of the chairs did not violate the
general principles of justice and fair play because
the bottling operators’ working time was
considerably reduced from two and a half (2 ½)
hours to just one and a half (1 ½) hours and the
break period, when they could sit down, was
increased to 30 minutes between rotations. The
bottling operators’ new work schedule is certainly
advantageous to them because it greatly
increases their rest period and significantly
decreases their working time. A break time of
thirty (30) minutes after working for only one and
a half (1 ½) hours is a just and fair work schedule.
JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY
28. The operators’ chairs cannot be
considered as one of the employee
benefits covered in Article 100 of the
Labor Code. In the Court’s view, the
term "benefits" mentioned in the non-
diminution rule refers to monetary
benefits or privileges given to the
employee with monetary equivalents.
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DIMINUTION
29. Employment
Contract
Service Contract
CONTRACTING AND SUBCONTRACTING
COMPANY
WORKER
(CONTRACTOR &
SUBCONTRACTOR)
REGULAR EMPLOYEE
PROJECT EMPLOYEE
CASUAL EMPLOYEE
SEASONAL EMPLOYEE
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE
FIXED-TERM EMPLOYEE
P
R
I
N
C
I
P
A
L
31. The presumption is that a contractor
is a labor-only contractor unless he
overcomes the burden of proving
that it has substantial capital,
investment, tools, and the like.
While ALPS Transportation is not
the contractor itself, since it is
invoking Contact Tours status as a
legitimate job contractor in order to
avoid liability, it bears the burden of
proving that Contact Tours is an
independent contractor.
ALPS TRANSPORTATION vs. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ
JUNE 13, 2013
32. It is thus incumbent upon ALPS
Transportation to present sufficient
proof that Contact Tours has
substantial capital, investment and
tools in order to successfully impute
liability to the latter. However, aside
from making bare assertions and
offering the Kasunduan between
Rodriguez and Contact Tours in
evidence, ALPS Transportation has
failed to present any proof to
substantiate the former's status as a
legitimate job contractor. Hence, the
legal presumption that Contact Tours is
a labor-only contractor has not been
overcome.
ALPS TRANSPORTATION vs. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ
JUNE 13, 2013
33. BENIGNO M. VIGILLA, ALFONSO M. BONGOT,
ROBERTO CALLESA, LINDA C. CALLO, NILO B.
CAMARA, ADELIA T. CAMARA, ADOLFO G. PINON,
JOHN A. FERNANDEZ, FEDERICO A. CALLO, MAXIMA
P. ARELLANO, JULITO B. COST ALES, SAMSON F.
BACHAR, EDWIN P. DAMO, RENA TO E. FERNANDEZ,
GENARO F.CALLO, JIMMY C. ALETA, and EUGENIO
SALINAS, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC. and/or
GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200094 June 10, 2013
35. FACTS
SOMETIME IN 2008, PCCR DISCOVERED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION OF MBMSI HAD BEEN REVOKED AS OF JULY 2, 2003.
ON MARCH 16, 2009, PCCR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT
GREGORY ALAN F. BAUTISTA (BAUTISTA), CITING THE REVOCATION,
TERMINATED THE SCHOOL’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MBMSI, RESULTING IN THE
DISMISSAL OF THE EMPLOYEES OR MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL UNDER
MBMSI, EXCEPT ALFONSO BONGOT (BONGOT) WHO WAS RETIRED.
IN SEPTEMBER 2009, THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEES, LED BY THEIR
SUPERVISOR, BENIGNO VIGILLA (VIGILLA), FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE
COMPLAINTS FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, BACK WAGES,
SEPARATION PAY (FOR BONGOT), UNDERPAYMENT OF SALARIES, OVERTIME
PAY, HOLIDAY PAY, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE, AND 13TH MONTH PAY AGAINST
MBMSI, ATTY. SERIL, PCCR, AND BAUTISTA.
36. FACTS
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
______________, AS AND BY WAY OF SEPARATION PAY DUE TO THE
CLOSURE OF THE COMPANY BROUGHT ABOUT BY SERIOUS FINANCIAL
LOSSES, RECEIPT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGED, I _______________, X X X FOREVER RELEASE AND
DISCHARGE X X X METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES,
INC., OF AND FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, CAUSES OF
ACTIONS, DAMAGES, COSTS, EXPENSES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, AND
OBLIGATIONS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN,
IN LAW OR IN EQUITY, WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED HAS, OR MAY
HEREAFTER HAVE AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION
TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE ABOVE COMPANY OR THIRD PERSONS.
37. QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE
THE NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THAT
THE RELEASES, WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS
EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS IN FAVOR OF MBMSI
REDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF PCCR PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 1217 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.
38. NATURE OF LIABILITY
AS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT BY THE
RESPONDENTS, THE BASIS OF THE SOLIDARY
LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL WITH THOSE
ENGAGED IN LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING IS THE
LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 106 OF THE LABOR
CODE, WHICH IN PART PROVIDES: “IN SUCH
CASES LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING, THE
PERSON OR INTERMEDIARY SHALL BE
CONSIDERED MERELY AS AN AGENT OF THE
EMPLOYER WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE
WORKERS IN THE SAME MANNER AND EXTENT AS
IF THE LATTER WERE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY
39. NATURE OF LIABILITY
SECTION 19 OF DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 18-02
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), WHICH WAS STILL IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION OF
THE SUBJECT DECISION AND RESOLUTION,
INTERPRETS ARTICLE 106 OF THE LABOR CODE.
40. NATURE OF LIABILITY
THE DOLE RECOGNIZED ANEW THIS SOLIDARY
LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER AND THE
LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTOR WHEN IT ISSUED
DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 18-A, SERIES OF 2011,
WHICH IS THE LATEST SET OF RULES
IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 106-109 OF THE LABOR
CODE.
41. CONSIDERING THAT MBMSI, AS THE LABOR-ONLY
CONTRACTOR, IS SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE
RESPONDENTS, AS THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER, THEN THE
NLRC AND THE CA CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE
RESPONDENTS’ SOLIDARY LIABILITY WAS ALREADY
EXPUNGED BY VIRTUE OF THE RELEASES, WAIVERS AND
QUITCLAIMS EXECUTED BY EACH OF THE PETITIONERS IN
FAVOR OF MBMSI PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1217 OF THE
CIVIL CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT "PAYMENT MADE BY
ONE OF THE SOLIDARY DEBTORS EXTINGUISHES THE
OBLIGATION."
QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE
42. BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
Whether or not the act of BPI to outsource the
cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping functions
to BOMC is in conformity with the law and the
existing CBA.
44. BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
It is to be emphasized that contracting out of services is not illegal perse. It is an
exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent proof that the
management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere
with the exercise of judgment by an employer. In this case, bad faith cannot be
attributed to BPI because its actions were authorized by CBP Circular No. 1388,
Series of 1993 issued by the Monetary Board of the then Central Bank of the
Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas). The circular covered amendments
in Book I of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Other Financial
Intermediaries, particularly on the matter of bank service contracts. A finding of
ULP necessarily requires the alleging party to prove it with substantial evidence.
Unfortunately, the Union failed to discharge this burden.
45. BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
BPI stresses that not a single employee or union member
was or would be dislocated or terminated from their
employment as a result of the Service Agreement. Neither
had it resulted in any diminution of salaries and benefits
nor led to any reduction of union membership.
As far as the twelve (12) former FEBTC employees are
concerned, the Union failed to substantially prove that
their transfer, made to complete BOMC’s service
complement, was motivated by ill will, anti-unionism or
bad faith so as to affect or interfere with the employees’
right to self-organization.
46. BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
The Court agrees with BPI that D.O. No. 10 is but a guide to
determine what functions may be contracted out, subject to
the rules and established jurisprudence on legitimate job
contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting. Even if the
Court considers D.O. No. 10 only, BPI would still be within
the bounds of D.O. No. 10 when it contracted out the
subject functions. This is because the subject functions
were not related or not integral to the main business or
operation of the principal which is the lending of funds
obtained in the form of deposits. From the very definition of
"banks" as provided under the General Banking Law, it can
easily be discerned that banks perform only two (2) main or
basic functions – deposit and loan functions.
47. BPI CASE,
G.R. NO. 174912, JULY 24, 2013
Thus, cashiering, distribution and bookkeeping are but
ancillary functions whose outsourcing is sanctioned under
CBP Circular No. 1388 as well as D.O. No. 10. Even BPI
itself recognizes that deposit and loan functions cannot be
legally contracted out as they are directly related or
integral to the main business or operation of banks. The
CBP's Manual of Regulations has even categorically
stated and emphasized on the prohibition against
outsourcing inherent banking functions, which refer to any
contract between the bank and a service provider for the
latter to supply, or any act whereby the latter supplies, the
manpower to service the deposit transactions of the
former.
48. BERNARDO WAS EMPLOYED FOR ALMOST TWENTY-
NINE (29) YEARS5 BY THE METRO MANILA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA) IN MAKATI CITY.
HE WORKED AT THE MMDA AS LABORER, METRO
AIDE AND METRO AIDE I.
SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY 2004, BERNARDO WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS
(PTB) AND COMMUNITY ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA
(CAP). ON MAY 13, 2004, HE WAS CONFINED AT THE
OSPITAL NG MAKATI. HE WAS DISCHARGED ON MAY
19, 2004 WITH THE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSIS: ACUTE
DIFFUSE ANTEROLATERAL WALL MYOCARDIAL
INFARCTION, KILLIPS IV-1, CAP HIGH RISK, PTB III
AND DIABETES MELLITUS TYPE 2.6
ON JANUARY 15, 2005, BERNARDO WAS FOUND
DEAD AT THE BASEMENT OF THE MMDA BUILDING.
GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
49. GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
1. Myocardial infarction which
caused Bernardo’s death cannot be
said to have been aggravated by the
nature of his duties.
2. There was no evidence showing
that it was the performance of his
duties that caused the development
of myocardial infarction as it was a
mere complication of diabetes
mellitus, a non-occupational
disease.
3. His heart ailment, therefore,
cannot be considered an
occupational disease.
50. GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
To be sure, a reasonable
mind analyzing these facts
cannot but arrive at the
conclusion that the risks
present in his work
environment for the entire
duration of his employment
precipitated the acute
myocardial infarction that
led to his death.
51. GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
Based on the evidence on record, we find as the CA did, that the
nature of Bernardo’s duties and the conditions under which he worked
were such as to eventually cause the onset of his myocardial
infarction. The stresses, the strain, and the exposure to street pollution
and to the elements that Bernardo had to bear for almost 29 years are
all too real to be ignored. They cannot but lead to a deterioration of
health particularly with the contributing factors of diabetes and
pulmonary disease.
Bernardo had in fact been a walking time bomb ready to explode
towards the end of his employment days. Records show that the
debilitating effect of Bernardo’s working conditions on his health
manifested itself several months before his death. As early as May 3,
2004, Bernardo was already complaining of shortness of breath and
dizziness. From May 13 to 19, 2004, he had to be confined at the
Ospital ng Makati and was diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction
which caused his death on January 15, 2005 while he was at work.
52. GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
With the resolution, it should be obvious that by itself, a heart disease,
such as myocardial infarction, can be considered work-related, with or
without the complicating factors of other non-occupational illnesses.
Thus, the Court so ruled in Rañises v. ECC,20 where it emphasized
that the incidence of acute myocardial infarction, whether or not
associated with a non-listed ailment, is enough basis for
compensation.
Resolution No. 432 provides (as one of the conditions) that a heart
disease is compensable if it was known to have been present during
employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was
clearly precipitated by the unusual strain by reason of the nature of his
work.
53. GSIS vs. ALCARAZ, FEBRUARY 6, 2013
As a final point, we take this occasion
to reiterate that as an agency charged
by law with the implementation of
social justice guaranteed and secured
by the Constitution – the ECC (as well
as the GSIS and the SSS) – should
adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the
employees in deciding claims for
compensability, especially where there
is some basis in the facts for inferring a
work-connection to the accident or to
the illness. This is what the
Constitution dictates.
54. TERMINATION BY
EMPLOYER
• JUST CAUSE – REFERS TO A WRONGDOING
COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEE ON THE
BASIS OF WHICH THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY
TERMINATE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP.
• AUTHORIZED CAUSE - REFERS TO A CAUSE
BROUGHT ABOUT BY CHANGING ECONOMIC
OR BUSINESS CONDITIONS OF THE
EMPLOYER.
54
55. JUST CAUSES OF
TERMINATION
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE
LAWFUL ORDERS OF HIS EMPLOYER OR
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS
WORK;
• GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT BY THE
EMPLOYEE OF HIS DUTIES;
55
56. • FRAUD OR WILLFUL BREACH BY THE EMPLOYEE
OF THE TRUST REPOSED IN HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER
OR DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE;
• COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE BY THE
EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE PERSON OF HIS
EMPLOYER OR ANY IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF HIS
FAMILY OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES; AND
• OTHER CAUSES ANALOGOUS TO THE FOREGOING.
56
57. AUTHORIZED CAUSES
• INTRODUCTION OF LABOR SAVING
DEVICE;
• REDUNDANCY
• RETRENCHMENT
• CLOSURE OR CESSATION NOT DUE
TO SERIOUS BUSINESS LOSSES;
• DISEASE 57
58. INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA
August 28, 2013
The essential issue for the Court’s
resolution is whether or not its
Resolution dated January 14, 2013
should be reconsidered. Among others,
IMI contends that to award Pionilla
reinstatement and full backwages would
not only be excessive and unfair, but
would be contrary to existing principles
of law and jurisprudence.
The motion for reconsideration is partly
granted.
59. INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA
August 28, 2013
The essential issue for the Court’s
resolution is whether or not its
Resolution dated January 14, 2013
should be reconsidered. Among others,
IMI contends that to award Pionilla
reinstatement and full backwages would
not only be excessive and unfair, but
would be contrary to existing principles
of law and jurisprudence.
The motion for reconsideration is partly
granted.
60. IN CERTAIN CASES, HOWEVER,
THE COURT HAS CARVED OUT
AN EXCEPTION TO THE
FOREGOING RULE AND THEREBY
ORDERED THE REINSTATEMENT
OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHOUT
BACKWAGES ON ACCOUNT OF
THE FOLLOWING: (A) THE FACT
THAT DISMISSAL OF THE
EMPLOYEE WOULD BE TOO
HARSH OF A PENALTY; AND (B)
THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS IN
GOOD FAITH IN TERMINATING
THE EMPLOYEE.
INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A. PIONILLA
August 28, 2013
61. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OBSERVES THAT: (A) THE
PENALTY OF DISMISSAL WAS TOO HARSH OF A PENALTY
TO BE IMPOSED AGAINST PIONILLA FOR HIS
INFRACTIONS; AND (B) IMI WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT
DISMISSED PIONILLA AS HIS DERELICTION OF ITS POLICY
ON ID USAGE WAS HONESTLY PERCEIVED TO BE A
THREAT TO THE COMPANY'S SECURITY. IN THIS RESPECT,
SINCE THESE CONCURRING CIRCUMSTANCES TRIGGER
THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON
BACKWAGES AS ENUNCIATED IN THE ABOVE-CITED
CASES, THE COURT FINDS IT PROPER TO ACCORD THE
SAME DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTS THE
INTEGRATED MICROELECTRONICS, INC., VS. ADONIS A.
PIONILLA
August 28, 2013
62. UNDER THE FOREGOING STANDARDS,
THE DISOBEDIENCE ATTRIBUTED TO
PETITIONER COULD NOT BE JUSTLY
CHARACTERIZED AS WILLFUL WITHIN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF ARTICLE 296
OF THE LABOR CODE. HE NEITHER
BENEFITTED FROM IT, NOR THEREBY
PREJUDICED THE BUSINESS INTEREST
OF RAPID MOVERS. HIS EXPLANATION
THAT HIS DEED HAD BEEN INTENDED
TO BENEFIT RAPID MOVERS WAS
CREDIBLE. THERE COULD BE NO
WRONG OR PERVERSITY ON HIS PART
THAT WARRANTED THE TERMINATION
OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BASED ON
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE.
NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.
RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28,
2013
63. FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO BE A GROUND, IT IS
REQUIRED THAT: (A) THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE MUST
BE WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL; AND (B) THE ORDER THE
EMPLOYEE VIOLATED MUST HAVE BEEN REASONABLE,
LAWFUL, MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE, AND MUST
PERTAIN TO THE DUTIES THAT HE HAD BEEN ENGAGED TO
DISCHARGE.
NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.
RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28, 2013
64. WILLFULNESS MUST BE ATTENDED BY A
WRONGFUL AND PERVERSE MENTAL ATTITUDE
RENDERING THE EMPLOYEE’S ACT
INCONSISTENT WITH PROPER SUBORDINATION.
IN ANY CASE, THE CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE
THAT IS A VALID GROUND FOR DISMISSAL
UNDER THE LABOR CODE CONSTITUTES
HARMFUL BEHAVIOR AGAINST THE BUSINESS
INTEREST OR PERSON OF HIS EMPLOYER. IT IS
IMPLIED THAT IN EVERY ACT OF WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE, THE ERRING EMPLOYEE
OBTAINS UNDUE ADVANTAGE DETRIMENTAL TO
NATHANIEL N. DONGON, vs.
RAPID MOVERS AND FORWARDERS CO., INC., August 28, 2013
65. THE COURT HAS RULED, TIME
AND AGAIN, THAT FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE, OR WHATEVER
NAME IT IS CALLED, AS A
MEASURE OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE IS ALLOWED ONLY IN
INSTANCES WHERE THE
EMPLOYEE IS VALIDLY
DISMISSED FOR CAUSES
OTHER THAN SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT OR THOSE
REFLECTING ON HIS MORAL
CHARACTER.
JEROME M. DAABAY, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC
August 19, 2013
66. UNDER THE NEW POLICY, ONE
OF THE GROUNDS IS THE
"COMMISSION OF ACTS THAT
BRINGS DISCREDIT TO THE
COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION,
ESPECIALLY, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, CONVICTION OF ANY CRIME,
ILLICIT MARITAL AFFAIRS,
SCANDALOUS ACTS INIMICAL TO
ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED
SOCIAL MORES.
ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,
now known as ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013
67. TO BE SURE, AN EMPLOYER IS FREE TO REGULATE ALL
ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT. IT MAY MAKE REASONABLE
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ITS EMPLOYEES WHICH BECOME PART OF THE
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED THEY ARE
MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE. IN THE EVENT OF A
VIOLATION, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE VALIDLY
TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT ON THE GROUND
THAT AN EMPLOYER CANNOT RATIONALLY BE
EXPECTED TO RETAIN THE EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON
WHOSE LACK OF MORALS, RESPECT AND LOYALTY TO
HIS EMPLOYER, REGARD FOR HIS EMPLOYER’S RULES
AND APPLICATION OF THE DIGNITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY, HAS SO PLAINLY AND COMPLETELY
ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,
now known as ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013
68. WHILE RESPONDENT’S ACT OF ENGAGING IN EXTRA--
MARITAL AFFAIRS MAY BE CONSIDERED PERSONAL TO
HIM AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASK AS
BOOKKEEPER, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE ACT
WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY PETITIONER’S
PERSONNEL POLICY AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, SAID ACT RAISED
CONCERNS TO PETITIONER AS THE BOARD RECEIVED
NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS FROM THE
COOPERATIVE MEMBERS THEMSELVES ASKING FOR
THE REMOVAL OF RESPONDENT BECAUSE OF HIS
ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC.,
now known as ALILEM MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., vs.
SALVADOR M. BANDIOLA, JR., February 25, 2013
69. BASED ON WHAT WE SEE IN THE
RECORDS, THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE
A CASE OF GROSS AND HABITUAL
NEGLECT OF DUTY AGAINST
MICHELLE. EVEN ASSUMING THAT SHE
FAILED TO PRESENT A MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE FOR HER SICK LEAVE ON
MAY 8, 2000, THE RECORDS ARE
BEREFT OF ANY INDICATION THAT
APART FROM THE FOUR OCCASIONS
WHEN SHE DID NOT REPORT FOR
WORK, MICHELLE HAD BEEN CITED
FOR ANY INFRACTION SINCE SHE
STARTED HER EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE COMPANY IN 1994. FOUR
ABSENCES IN HER SIX YEARS OF
SERVICE, TO OUR MIND, CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED GROSS AND HABITUAL
NEGLECT OF DUTY, ESPECIALLY SO
CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ
February 06, 2013
70. MICHELLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
GUILTY OF VIOLATING COMPANY
RULES ON LEAVES OF ABSENCE
AND EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE, STILL
WE FIND THE PENALTY OF
DISMISSAL IMPOSED ON HER
UNJUSTIFIED UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
CAVITE APPAREL, INCORPORATED, vs. MICHELLE MARQUEZ
February 06, 2013
71. THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!
GOD BLESS US
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for
the Lord , not for men.
Colossians 3:23
