WENPHIL
CORPORATION,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR COMMISSION AND MALLARE
RELATIONS ONS ROBERTO
(G.R. No. 80587, February 8, 1989)
FACTS: Respo espond nden entt wa was s hir hired by etit etitio ione nerr !rst !rst,, as a "rew "rew #e #e#be #ber, r, then as $ssistant %ead o& the 'a"roo# in its ubao bran"h. *n +ay 9, 1985, the Respondent -ot into an ate aterr"ati "ation on with with his his "owo "owor rer er,, /ob /ob 'arra#eda whi"h resuted in 'arra#edas suspension whie respondent was dis#issed &ro# wor. %is dis#issa pro#pted the Respo espond nden entt to !e !e a "o#p "o#pa ain intt &or &or ie ie-a -a susp suspens ensio ion, n, ie ie-a -a dis# dis#is issa sa and un&air abor pra"ti"es be&ore the abo aborr $rbi $rbite terr. 2he abo aborr $rbi $rbite ter, r, however, dis#issed the "o#paint. 'ut upon upon appe appea a to the the NR NR, the the said said tribuna reversed the de"ision o& the abor $rbiter. etit e tition ioner er "ried "ried &ou &ou i#puti i#putinn- to the NR R "o##itted -ra -rave abus buse o& dis"retion, "ontendinthat the de" de"isio ision n o& eti etitione ionerr to dis# dis#iiss Respondent was 3usti!ed. 4n support o& his his "ont "onten enti tion on,, etit etitio ione nerr "ite "ited d a provis provision ion in the ers ersonn onne e +anua +anua6 6 whi whi"h sta states tes tha that i& an e# e#p poy oyee ee "o##it "o##its s an oe oense nse punisha punishabe be with with suspension o& #ore than 15 days, an investi-ation #ay be "ondu"ted at the reuest o& the "on"erned e#poyee. 4n this "ase, said etitioner, Respondent did not reues reuestt &or an invest investi-a i-atio tion, n, there&ore, Respondents Respondents ri-ht to invoe sai said prov provis isiion sho shoud ud be dee# dee#ed ed waived.
ISSUE: hether or not Respondents ri-ht to due pro"ess was vioated.
HELD: 2he 2he in"i in"ide dent nt happ happene ened d on +ay 0, 1985 and ri-ht then and there as a&ore repeated on the &oowin- day private respondent was suspended in the #ornin- and was dis#issed &ro# the servi"e in the a&ternoon. %e re"e e"eived an o:"ia noti"e o& his ter#ination &our (;) days ater.
$thou-h in the ersonne +anua o& the petitioner, it states that an errine#poyee #ust reuest &or an investi-ation it does not thereby #ean that that petiti petitione onerr is thereby thereby reie reieved ved o& the duty duty to "ondu" "ondu"tt an invest investi-a i-atio tion n be&ore dis#issin- private respondent. 4ndeed said provision o& the ersonne +anua nua o& petitioner whi" hi"h #ay ee"ti ee "tive vey y deprive deprive its e#poy e#poyees ees o& the the ri-h ri-htt to due due pro" pro"es ess s is "ea "ear ry y a-ai a-ains nstt the the aw aw and and hen"e hen"e nu nu and and void void.. 2he 2he se" se"urit urity y o& tenu tenurre o& a abor aborer er or e#poy e#poyee ee is enshrin enshrined ed in the onstitution, the abor ode and other reated aws.
4? >4? o& the the 4#pe#entin- Re-uations o& the abor ode, ode, it is provid provided ed that that @No worer worer sha be dis#issed eA"ept &or 3ust or authoriBed authoriBed "ause provided by aw and a&ter a&ter due pro"e pro"ess. ss.@@ =e"tio =e"tions ns , 5, C, and 7 o& the sa#e rues reuire that be&or be&ore e an e#poy e#poyer er #ay dis#is dis#iss s an e#poyee the atter #ust be -iven a writte written n noti"e noti"e statin statin- the parti" parti"ua uarr a"t or o#ission "onst nstituti utin- the -rounds -rounds there thereo&D o&D that that the e#poy e#poyee ee #ay answer answer the ae-a ae-atio tions ns within within a
reasonabe periodD that the e#poyer sha aord hi# a#pe opportunity to be heard and to de&end hi#se& with the assistan"e o& his representative, i& he so desiresD and that it is ony then that that the the e# e#po poye yerr #a #ay y dis# dis#is iss s the the e#p e# po oyee yee by noti noti&&yinin- hi# hi# o& the the de"ision in writin- statin- "eary the reasons there&or.
2he 2he &ai &aiur ure o& petit etitiioner oner to -iv -ive priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nt the the bene bene!t !t o& a hear hearin in- be&o be&orre he wa was s dis# dis#is isse sed d "ons "onsti titu tute tes s an in&r in&rin in-e -e#e #ent nt o& his his "onstitutiona ri-ht to due pro"ess o& aw and eua prote"tion o& the aws.
2he rue is eApi"it as above dis"ussed. 2he dis#issa o& an e#poyee #ust be for just or authorized cause and after due process. etitioner "o##itted an in&ra"tion o& the se"ond reuire#ent. 2hus, it #ust be i#posed a san"tion &or its &aiure to -ive a &or#a noti"e and "ondu" ndu"tt an inves nvestti-a i-ation tion as reui euirred by aw aw be&o be&orre dis# dis#is issi sinnpetitioner &ro# e#poy#ent. onsiderin- the "ir"u#stan"es o& this "ase "ase peti petiti tion oner er #ust #ust inde# inde#ni ni&y &y the the priv privat ate e respo espond nden entt the the a# a#ou ount nt o& 1,000.00. 2he #easure o& this award depends on the &a"ts o& ea"h "ase and the -ravity o& the o#ission "o##itted by the e#poyer.
RUBEN SERRANO, $%&'&'on%! () NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO ION NS COMMISSION an* ISETANN DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT STORE, !%)$on*%n&) Fa+&): =o# =o#eti#e in19 n1991, 4setann tann Eepart#ent =tore (4setann) instituted a retren"h#ent pro-ra# whi"h abo boished its =e"urit rity he"ers =e"tion. =e"tion. 4setann 4setann en-a-ed en-a-ed the servi"es servi"es o& an independent se"urity a-en"y. *n *"tober 11, 1991, Ruben =errano, the head head o& 4setan 4setanns ns =e"uri =e"urity ty he" he"ers ers =e"t =e"tio ion n re"ei e"eive ved d a ett etter er &ro# &ro# the the %u#a %u#an n Reso esour" ur"es Eepa epart#e rt#ent nt o& 4set 4seta ann ter ter#ina inatintin- his his serv servi" i"es es ee"tive the sa#e day. 'e"ause o& oss o& e#poy#ent, Ruben =erran =errano o !ed !ed a "o#pa "o#paint int &or ie-a dis#issa and #onetary "ai#s. abor $rbiter rendered 3ud-e#ent !ndin- the dis#issa o& Ruben =errano ie-a and that 4setann &ai &aied ed to a""o a""ord rd due due pro" pro"es ess s to the the petitioner. 4setann was ordered to pay Ruben =erran =errano o &u &u ba"wa ba"wa-es -es &ro# &ro# the ti#e o& his dis#issa unti reinstate#ent. 4set 4setan ann n appe appea aed ed to Nati Nation ona a abor abor Rea eatio tions ns o# o##is #issio sion n (NR (NR) whi"h whi"h,, reve revers rsed ed the de"i de"isi sion ono& o& the the abo aborr $rbi rbiter ter and order dered Ruben uben =err =erran ano o to be -ive -iven n sepa separa rati tion on pay pay euivaent to one #onth pay &or every year year o& serv servi" i"e. e. NR NR hed hed that that the the aboition o& the =e"urity he"ers and hiri hirinn- o& an inde indepe pend nden entt se"u se"uri rity ty a-en a-en"y "y "onst "onstit itut uted ed an eAer eAer"i "ise se by 4set 4setan ann n o& its its e-i e-iti ti#a #ate te busi busine ness ss de"ision. etitioner ner appea peaed to the =upre#e ourt.
I))%: G.R. No. 117040 #000
Jana!" #7,
het hethe herr or not not the the hiri hirinn- o& inde indepe pend nden entt se" se"urit urity y a-en" -en"y y by 4setann to repa"e the =e" =e"urity
he"ers =e"tion a vaid -round &or the ter#ination o& Ruben =errano hether or not the non "o#pian"e o& 4setann o& the 0day written noti"e reuire#ent in $rt 8 (od) o& the abor ode "onstituted a denia o& due pro"ess
R'n-: $rti"e 8 o& the abor ode provides that the e#poyer #ay aso ter#inate the e#poy#ent o& any e#poyee due to the instaation o& aborsavindevi"es, redundan"y, retren"h#ent to prevent osses or the "osin- or "essation o& operations o& the estabish#ent or undertainuness the "osin- is &or the purpose o& "ir"u#ventin- the provisions o& this 2ite, by servin- a written noti"e on the worers and the Eepart#ent o& abor and H#poy#ent at east one #onth be&ore the intended date thereo&. 4n "ase o& ter#ination due to the instaation o& aborsavin- devi"es or redundan"y, the worer ae"ted thereby sha be entited to a separation pay euivaent to at east one #onth pay or to at east one #onth pay &or every year o& servi"e, whi"hever is hi-her. 4n "ase o& retren"h#ent to prevent osses and in "ases o& "osure or "essation o& operations o& estabish#ent or undertain- not due to serious business osses or !nan"ia reverses, the separation pay sha be euivaent to at east one #onth pay or at east oneha& #onth pay &or every year o& servi"e, whi"hever is hi-her. $ &ra"tion o& at east siA #onths sha be "onsidered as one whoe year. =upre#e ourt hed that +ana-e#ent "annot be denied the &a"uty o& pro#otin- e:"ien"y and attainin- e"ono#y by a study o& what units are essentia &or its preparation. 2o it beon-s the uti#ate deter#ination o& whether servi"es shoud be per&or#ed by its personne
or "ontra"ted to outside a-en"ies. hie there shoud be #utua "onsutation, eventuay de&eren"e is to be paid to what #ana-e#ent de"ides. onseuenty, absent proo& that #ana-e#ent a"ted in a #ai"ious or arbitrary #anner, the ourt wi not inter&ere with the eAer"ise o& 3ud-e#ent by an e#poyer. 2he ter#ination o& petitioners servi"es was &or an authoriBed "ause. =upre#e ourt aso hed that not a noti"e reuire#ents are reuire#ents o& due pro"ess. =o#e are si#py part o& a pro"edure to be &oowed be&ore a ri-ht -ranted to a party "an be eAer"ised. ith respe"t to $rt 8 o& the abor ode, the e#poyers &aiure to "o#py with the noti"e o& reuire#ent does not "onstitute a denia o& due pro"ess but a #ere &aiure to observe a pro"edure &or the ter#ination o& e#poy#ent whi"h #aes the ter#ination #erey inee"tua. 4n su#, i& in pro"eedin-s &or reinstate#ent under $rt. 8, it is shown that the ter#ination o& e#poy#ent was due to an authoriBed "ause, then the e#poyee shoud not be ordered reinstated even thou-h there is &aiure to "o#py with the 0 day noti"e reuire#ent. 4nstead, he #ust be -ranted separation pay in a""ordan"e with $rt. 8. 4& e#poyees separation is without "ause, instead o& bein- -iven separation pay, he shoud be reinstated. 4n either "ase, whether he is reinstated or ony -ranted separation pay, he shoud be paid &u ba"wa-es i& he has been aid o without written noti"e at east 0 days in advan"e. etition -ranted and the resoution the NR is #odi!es by orderin- 4setann to pay petitioner separation pay euivaent to one #onth pay &or every year o& servi"e and &u ba"wa-es &ro# the ti#e his
e#poy#ent was ter#inated up to the ti#e de"ision be"o#es !na.
TONGO (). MANULIFE FACTS: 2on-o started worin- at +anui&e by virtue o& a areer $-ents $-ree#ent. %e was !rst na#ed as
ISSUES: 1. as there an e#poyer e#poyee reationship between +anui&e and 2on-oI . 4& y es, was +anui&e - uity o& ie-a dis#issaI
RULING: 1. 2hus, with the "o#pany re-uations and reuire#ents aone, the &a"t that 2on-o was an e#poyee o& +anui&e #ay aready be estabished. ertainy, these reuire#ents "ontroed the #eans and #ethods by whi"h 2on-o was to a"hieve the "o#panyJs -oas.6 $dditionay, it #ust be pointed out that the &a"t that 2on-o was tased
with re"ruitin- a "ertain nu#ber o& a-ents, in addition to his other ad#inistrative &un"tions, eads to no other "on"usion that he was an e#poyee o& +anui&e.6 . +anui&e did not even point out whi"h order or rue that 2on-o disobeyed. +ore i#portanty, +anui&e did not point out the spe"i!" a"ts that 2on-o was -uity o& that woud "onstitute -ross and habitua ne-e"t o& duty or disobedien"e. +anui&e #erey "ited 2on-oJs ae-ed Ka--ard per&or#an"e, without substantiatinsu"h "ai#, and euated the sa#e to disobedien"e and ne-e"t o& duty.6 %ere, +anui&e &aied to over"o#e su"h burden o& proo&. 4t #ust be reiterated that +anui&e even &aied to identi&y the spe"i!" a"ts by whi"h 2on-oJs e#poy#ent was ter#inated #u"h ess support the sa#e with substantia eviden"e. 2o repeat, #ere "on3e"tures "annot wor to deprive e#poyees o& their #eans o& iveihood. 2hus, it #ust be "on"uded that 2on-o was ie-ay dis#issed.6 +oreover, as to +anui&eJs &aiure to "o#py with the twin noti"e rue, it reasons that 2on-o not bein- its e#poyee is not entited to su"h noti"es. =in"e we have rued that 2on-o is its e#poyee, however, +anui&e "eary &aied to aord 2on-o said noti"es. 2hus, on this -round too, +anui&e is -uity o& ie-a dis#issa.6
ARMANDO ALILING, $%&'&'on%!, (). JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. LARIOSA AND WIDE WIDE WORLD E/PRESS CORPORATION, !%)$on*%n&). Fa+&): $iin- was an e#poyee o& ide ide ord HApress orporation (H) who was tased to hande the "o#panys Ground HApress (G>) invovin- do#esti" "ar-o &orwardinservi"es. 'arey a #onth a&ter, the "o#pany sent an e#ai to the petitioner to eApress dissatis&a"tion with the atters per&or#an"e. *n =epte#ber 0, 00; respondent throu-h its #e#o ased $iin- to eApain why he shoud not be ter#inated &or &aiure to #eet eApe"ted 3ob per&or#an"e (2his etter was ater denied to have been re"eived by the petitioner, thus he was not abe to eApain). 2herea&ter, on a etter dated *"tober 1, 00;, respondent in&or#ed petitioner that his "ase was sti in the pro"ess o& bein- evauated. *n *"tober C, 00;, respondent a-ain wrote, this ti#e to advise $iin- o& the ter#ination o& his servi"es ee"tive as o& that date owinto his nonsatis&a"tory per&or#an"e6.
I))%): hether or not $iin- was ie-ay ter#inated by reason o& vioation o& due pro"ess reuire#ent.
H%*:
ES,
$iin- was ie-ay ter#inated. $s a rue to ee"t a e-a dis#issa the e#poyer #ust show not ony a vaid -round there&or but aso pro"edura due pro"ess shoud propery be observed. hen the abor
ode speas o& pro"edura due pro"ess, the re&eren"e is usuay to the two () noti"e rue, envisa-ed in =e"tion (444), Rue >>444, 'oo ? o& the *#nibus Rues o& 4#pe#entin- the abor ode whi"h providesL =e"tion . =tandard o& due pro"essL reuire#ents o& noti"e 4. For ter#ination o& H#poy#ent base on 3ust "auses as de!ned in $rti"e 8 o& the oodeL (a) $ 2!'&&%n no&'+% )%!(%*
on &3% %$o"%% )$%+'5"'n- &3% -!on* o! -!on*) o5 &%!'na&'on, an* -'('n- &3% )a'* %$o"%% !%a)ona6% o$$o!&n'&" &o %$a'n 3') )'*%8 (b) $ hearin- or "on&eren"e durin- whi"h the e#poyee "on"erned, with the assistan"e o& "ounse i& the e#poyee so desires, is -iven the opportunity to respond to the "har-e, present his eviden"e or rebut the eviden"e presented a-ainst hi#D and (") $ 2!'&&%n no&'+% 9o5
&%!'na&'on )%!(%* on &3% %$o"%% 'n*'+a&'n- &3a& $on *% +on)'*%!a&'on o5 a &3% +'!+)&an+%, -!on*) 3a(% 6%%n %)&a6')3%* &o ;)&'5" 3') &%!'na&'on. $s to the !rst written noti"e, H did not addu"e proo& to show that a "opy o& the etter was duy served upon $iin-. eary enou-h, H did not "o#py with the !rst noti"e reuire#ent. asty, the ter#ination etter did not spe"i!"ay state $iin-s nonsatis&a"tory per&or#an"e,6 or that $iin-s ter#ination was by reason o& his &aiure to a"hieve his set uota. 4n other words, the written
noti"e o& ter#ination itse& did not indi"ate a the "ir"u#stan"es invovinthe "har-e to 3usti&y severan"e o& e#poy#ent. %ere, the !rst and se"ond noti"e reuire#ents have not been propery observed, thus taintin- petitioners dis#issa with ie-aity.
EANGELINE MARTINE? G.R. No. 1C5950 ($u-ust 11, 010)
FACTSL Respondentspouses *s"ar and Hvan-eine +artineB obtained oans &ro# petitioner Huitabe 4 'an, 4n". in the a--re-ate a#ount o& ;,0;8,800.00. $s se"urity &or the said a#ount, a Rea Hstate +ort-a-e (RH+) was eAe"uted over a "ondo#iniu# unit in =an +i-ue ourt, ?ae ?erde 5, asi- ity, +etro +ania where the spouses are residin-. Respondentspouses de&auted in the pay#ent o& their outstandin- oan obi-ation, they oered to sette their indebtedness with the assi-n#ent to the 'an o& a "o##er"ia ot o& "orrespondinvaue and aso reuested &or re"o#putation at a ower interest rate and "ondonation o& penaties. 2he respondents &aied to sub#it the reuired do"u#ents su"h as "erti!"ates o& tite and taA de"arations so that the ban "an evauate his proposa to pay the
#ort-a-e debt via da"ion en pa-o. 2he petitioner initiated the eAtra3udi"ia &ore"osure o& the rea estate #ort-a-e. Respondents then !ed ivi ase No. C99; &or 2e#porary Restrainin*rder (2R*), 4n3un"tion and $nnu#ent o& HAtra3udi"ia Fore"osure =ae. 2hey i#puted bad &aith on the part o& petitioner who did not o:"iay in&or# the# o& the denia or disapprova o& their proposa to sette the oan obi-ation by da"ion via assi-n#ent o& a "o##er"ia property. 2he tria "ourt -ranted a 2R* ee"tive &or twenty (0) days. etitioner uestioned the issuan"e o& prei#inary in3un"tion be&ore the $ ar-uin- that the respondents are not entited to in3un"tive reie& a&ter havinad#itted that they were unabe to sette their oan obi-ations. 'y Ee"ision dated *"tober 9, 00;, the appeate "ourt sustained the assaied orders.
ISSUEL hether or not the respondents have shown a "ear e-a ri-ht to en3oin the &ore"osure and pubi" au"tion o& the thirdparty #ort-a-ors property whie the "ase &or annu#ent o& RH+ on said property is bein- tried.
HELDL NO. 2he =upre#e ourt hed that the respondent spouses have not shown a "ear e-a ri-ht to en3oin the &ore"osure. $""ordin- to the =L 1. 4t is not su:"ient &or the respondents to si#py harp on
the serious da#a-e they stand to suer i& the &ore"osure sae is not stayed. 2hey #ust estabish su"h "ear and un#istaabe ri-ht to the in3un"tion. Injunction is not a re#edy to prote"t or en&or"e "ontin-ent, abstra"t, or &uture ri-htsD it wi not issue to prote"t a ri-ht not in esse and whi"h #ay never arise, or to restrain an a"tion whi"h did not -ive rise to a "ause o& a"tion. 2here #ust be an eAisten"e o& an a"tua ri-ht. . Respondents &aied to show that they have a ri-ht to be prote"ted and that the a"ts a-ainst whi"h the writ is to be dire"ted are vioative o& the said ri-ht. *n the &a"e o& their "ear ad#ission that they were unabe to sette their obi-ations whi"h were se"ured by the #ort-a-e, petitioner has a "ear ri-ht to &ore"ose the #ort-a-e. Foreclosure is but a ne"essary "onseuen"e o& nonpay#ent o& a #ort-a-e indebtedness.
WHEREFORE, &3% $%&'&'on ') GRANTED. T3% D%+')'on *a&%* O+&o6%! #@, #004 o5 &3% Co!& o5 A$$%a) 'n CA= G.R. SP No. 7770 ') 3%!%6" RE>ERSED an* SET ASIDE. R%)$on*%n&) a$$'+a&'on 5o! a 2!'& o5 $!%''na!" 'n;n+&'on ') DENIED.
EMER MILAN, RAND MASANGA, WILFREDO JA>IER, RONALDO DA>ID, BONIFACIO MATUNDAN, NORA MENDO?A, ET AL., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SOLID MILLS, INC., ANDOR PHILIP ANG , Respondents.
FACTS:
etitioners are e#poyees o& =oid +is, 4n". etitioners were aowed by =oid +is, 4n". to o""upy a property owned by the atter nown as the =+4 ?ia-e. 2his was -ranted by the respondents to the petitioners out o& iberaity and &or "onvenien"e o& the atter. =oid +is eAperien"e a serious !nan"ia osses to whi"h had &or"e its operation to "eased. 2he petitioners then were reuired to si-n a #e#orandu# o& a-ree#ent with reease and uit"ai# be&ore their va"ation and si" eave bene!ts, 1th #onth pay, and separation pay woud be reeased. H#poyees who si-ned the #e#orandu# o& a-ree#ent were "onsidered to have a-reed to va"ate =+4 ?ia-e, and to the de#oition o& the "onstru"ted houses inside as "ondition &or the reease o& their ter#ination bene!ts and separation pay. etitioners re&used to si-n the do"u#ents and de#anded to be paid their bene!ts and separation pay. abor $rbiter rued in &avour o& etitioner. NR a:r#ed. $ rued in &avour o& =oid +is.
ISSUE: *N =oid +is 4n", "an withhod the pay#ent o& va"ation and si" eave bene!ts, 1 #onth pay and separation pay.
HELD: *ur aw supports the e#poyers institution o& "earan"e pro"edures be&ore the reease o& wa-es. $s an eA"eption to the -enera rue that wa-es #ay not be withhed and bene!ts #ay not be di#inished, the abor ode providesL
A!&. 11. Wa-% *%*+&'on. No e#poyer, in his own beha& or in beha& o& any person, sha #ae any dedu"tion &ro# the wa-es o& his e#poyees, eA"ept.
1. 4n "ases where the worer is insured with his "onsent by the e#poyer, and the dedu"tion is to re"o#pense the e#poyer &or the a#ount paid by hi# as pre#iu# on the insuran"e . For union dues, in "ases where the ri-ht o& the worer or his union to "he"o has been re"o-niBed by the e#poyer or authoriBed in writin- by the individua worer "on"ernedD and 3. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and mployment. (H#phasis suppied) 2he ivi ode provides that the e#poyer is authoriBed to withhod wa-es &or debts dueL $rti"e 170C. ithhodin- o& the wa-es, eA"ept &or a debt due, sha not be #ade by the e#poyer.d Eebt6 in this "ase re&ers to any obi-ation due &ro# the e#poyee to the e#poyer. 4t in"udes any a""ountabiity that the e#poyee #ay have to the e#poyer. 2here is no reason to i#it its s"ope to uni&or#s and euip#ent, as petitioners woud ar-ue. etitioners do not "ate-ori"ay deny respondent =oid +is ownership o& the property, and they do not "ai# superior ri-ht to it. hat "an be -athered &ro# the !ndin-s o& the abor $rbiter, Nationa abor Reations o##ission, and the ourt o& $ppeas is that respondent =oid +is aowed the use o& its property &or the bene!t o& petitioners as its e#poyees. etitioners were #erey aowed to possess and use it out o& respondent =oid +is iberaity. 2he e#poyer #ay, there&ore, de#and the property at wi.
G.R. No. #000, Ma!+3 1, #01 FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS., INC., Petitioner , v. LEONARDO1 LARG
ADO AND TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents . Fa+&): etitioner Fonterra 'rands his., 4n". (Fonterra) "ontra"ted the servi"es o& Mytron +aretin- and ro#otions orp. (Mytron) &or the #aretin- and pro#otion o& its #i and dairy produ"ts. ursuant to the "ontra"t, Mytron provided Fonterra with trade #er"handisin- representatives (2+Rs), in"udinrespondents eonardo ar-ado (ar-ado) and 2eoti#oHstreado (Hstreado). Fonterra sent Mytron a etter ter#inatin- its pro#otions "ontra"t. Fonterra then entered into an a-ree#ent &or #anpower suppy with $.. =i"at +aretin- and ro#otiona =ervi"es ($.. =i"at). Eesirous o& "ontinuin- their wor as 2+Rs, respondents sub#itted their 3ob appi"ations with $.. =i"at, whi"h hired the# &or a ter# o& !ve (5) #onths. hen respondents 5#onth "ontra"ts with $.. =i"at were about to eApire, they ae-edy sou-ht renewa thereo&, but were ae-edy re&used. 2his pro#pted respondents to !e "o#paints &or ie-a dis#issa a-ainst petitioner, Mytron, and $.. =i"at. 2he abor $rbiter dis#issed the "o#paint and rued that respondents were not ie-ay dis#issed. 2he NR a:r#ed the abor $rbiter, !ndin- that respondents separation &ro# Mytron was brou-ht about by the eAe"ution o& the "ontra"t between Fonterra and $.. =i"at where the parties a-reed to absorb Mytrons personne, in"udin- respondents. 2he NR de"ision was assaied in a
petition under Rue C5 be&ore the $. $ hed that respondents were ie-ay dis#issed sin"e Fonterra itse& &aied to prove that their dis#issa is aw&u. %owever, the ie-a dis#issa shoud be re"oned &ro# the ter#ination o& their supposed e#poy#ent with Mytron on /une C, 00C. Further#ore, respondents trans&er to $.. =i"at is tanta#ount to a "o#petey new en-a-e#ent by another e#poyer. asty, the ter#ination o& their "ontra"t with $.. =i"at arose &ro# the eApiration o& their respe"tive "ontra"ts with the atter. 2he $, thus, rued that Fonterra is iabe to respondents and ordered the reinstate#ent o& respondents without oss o& seniority ri-hts, with &u ba"wa-es, and other bene!ts &ro# the ti#e o& their ie-a dis#issa up to the ti#e o& their a"tua reinstate#ent. Mytron and Fonterra #oved &or re"onsideration, but to no avai. %en"e, this petition.
I))%:whether or not respondents were ie-ay dis#issed. ('y Bytron and $.. =i"at)
H%*: No. e do not a-ree with the $ that respondents e#poy#ent with Mytron was ie-ay ter#inated. $s "orre"ty hed by the abor $rbiter and the NR, the ter#ination o& respondents e#poy#ent with Mytron was brou-ht about by the "essation o& their "ontra"ts with the atter. e -ive "reden"e to the abor $rbiters "on"usion that respondents were the ones who re&used to renew their "ontra"ts with Mytron, and the NRs !ndinthat they the#seves
a"uies"ed to their trans&er to $.. =i"at. 'y re&usin- to renew their "ontra"ts with Mytron, respondents ee"tivey resi-ned &ro# the atter. Resi-nation is the vountary a"t o& e#poyees who are "o#peed by persona reasons to disso"iate the#seves &ro# their e#poy#ent, done with the intention o& reinuishinan o:"e, a""o#panied by the a"t o& abandon#ent. %ere, it is obvious that respondents were no on-er interested in "ontinuin- their e#poy#ent with Mytron. 2heir vountary re&usa to renew their "ontra"ts was brou-ht about by their desire to "ontinue their assi-n#ent in Fonterra whi"h "oud not happen in view o& the "on"usion o& Mytrons "ontra"t with Fonterra. %en"e, to be abe to "ontinue with their assi-n#ent, they appied &or wor with $.. =i"at with the hope that they wi be abe to "ontinue renderinservi"es as 2+Rs at Fonterra sin"e $.. =i"at is Fonterras new #anpower suppier. 2his &a"t is even a"nowed-ed by the $ in the assaied Ee"ision where it re"o-niBed the reason why respondents appied &or wor at $.. =i"at. 2he $ stated that tOo "ontinuousy wor as #er"handisers o& Fonterra produ"ts, respondentsO sub#itted their 3ob appi"ations to $.. =i"at AAA.6 2his is &urther bostered by the &a"t that respondents vountariy "o#pied with the reuire#ents &or the# to "ai# their "orrespondin- #onetary bene!ts in reation to the "essation o& their e#poy#ent "ontra"t with Mytron.
4n short, respondents vountariy ter#inated their e#poy#ent with Mytron by re&usin- to renew their e#poy#ent "ontra"ts with the atter, appyin- with $.. =i"at, and worinas the atters e#poyees, thereby abandonintheir previous e#poy#ent with Mytron. 2oo, it is we to #ention that &or obvious reasons, resi-nation is in"onsistent with ie-a dis#issa. 2his bein- the "ase, Mytron "annot be said to have ie-ay dis#issed respondents, "ontrary to the !ndin-s o& the $.
23%&3%! &3% &%!'na&'on o5 !%)$on*%n&) %$o"%n& 2'&3 A.C. S'+a& ') (a'* e a-ree with the !ndin-s o& the $ that the ter#ination o& respondents e#poy#ent with the atter was si#py brou-ht about by the eApiration o& their e#poy#ent "ontra"ts. Fore#ost, respondents were !Aed ter# e#poyees. $s previousy hed by this ourt, !Aedter# e#poy#ent "ontra"ts are not i#ited, as they are under the present abor ode, to those by nature seasona or &or spe"i!" pro3e"ts with predetermined dates of completion D they aso in"ude those to whi"h the parties by &ree "hoi"e have assi-ned a spe"i!" date o& ter#ination.11 2he deter#inin&a"tor o& su"h "ontra"ts is not the duty o& the e#poyee but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship . 4n the "ase at bar, it is "ear that
respondents were e#poyed by $.. =i"at as pro3e"t e#poyees. 4n their e#poy#ent "ontra"t with the atter, it is "eary stated that $.. =i"at isO te#porariy e#poyin- respondentsO as 2+RsO ee"tive /une C, 00CO under the &oowin- ter#s and "onditionsL 2he need &or your servi"e bein- ony &or a spe"i!" pro3e"t, your te#porary e#poy#ent wi be &or the duration ony o& said pro3e"t o& our "ient, na#ey to pro#ote F*N2HRR$ 'R$NE= produ"ts AAA whi"h is eApe"ted to be !nished on or be&ore Nov. 0C, 00C.6 Respondents, by a""eptinthe "onditions o& the "ontra"t with $.. =i"at, were we aware o& and even a""eded to the "ondition that their e#poy#ent thereat wi end on said predeter#ined date o& ter#ination. 2hey "annot now ar-ue that they were ie-ay dis#issed by the atter when it re&used to renew their "ontra"ts a&ter its eApiration. 2his is so sin"e the nonrenewa o& their "ontra"ts by $.. =i"at is a #ana-e#ent prero-ative, and &aiure o& respondents to prove that su"h was done in bad &aith #iitates a-ainst their "ontention that they were ie-ay dis#issed. 2he eApiration o& their "ontra"t with $.. =i"at si#py "aused the natura "essation o& their !Aedter# e#poy#ent there at.
PHIL. JAPAN ACTI>E CARBON CORP. an* SATOFUA v . NLRC an* ISION G!'o=A'no, J.)
FACTS *-a =. PuiQanoa e#poyed as $ssistant =e"retaryHAport oordinator, was pro#oted to the position o& HAe"utive =e"retary to the HAe"utive ?i"e resident and Genera +ana-er. For no apparent reason at a and without prior noti"e to her, she was trans&erred to the rodu"tion Eepart#ent as rodu"tion =e"retary. $thou-h the trans&er did not a#ount to a de#otion be"ause her saary and woroad re#ained the sa#e, she beieved otherwise so she re3e"ted the assi-n#ent and !ed a "o#paint &or ie-a dis#issa. 2he abor $rbiter &ound that the trans&er woud a#ount to "onstru"tive dis#issa (@she was dis#issed &or un3usti!ed "auses@) hen"e, her re&usa to obey the trans&er order was 3usti!ed. 2he $ !nds PuiQanoa was ie-ay dis#issed and orders hiippine /apan $"tive arbon orporation andor 2oui"hi =ato&ua to reinstate her with ba"wa-es and da#a-es.
ISSUE as there a "onstru"tive dis#issaI
HELD
2he =upre#e ourt rues that there was NO "onstru"tive dis#issa. $ +on)&!+&'(% *')+3a!-% is de!ned asL @$ uittin- be"ause "ontinued e#poy#ent is rendered i#possibe, unreasonabe or unieyD as, an oer invovin- a de#otion in ran and a di#inution in pay.@ ( !lia vs. Salani "na #ransportation $o ., /anuary 9, 1971) 4n this "ase, PuiQanoaJs assi-n#ent as rodu"tion =e"retary o& the rodu"tion Eepart#ent was not unreasonabe as it did not invove a de#otion in ran (her ran was sti that o& a depart#ent se"retary) nor a "han-e in her pa"e o& wor (the o:"e is in the sa#e buidin-), nor a di#inution in pay, bene!ts, and privie-es. I& *'* no& +on)&'&&% a +on)&!+&'(% *')'))a. 4t is the e#poyerJs prero-ative, based on its assess#ent and per"eption o& its e#poyeesJ uai!"ations, aptitudes, and "o#peten"e, to #ove the# around in the various areas o& its business operations in order to @as"ertain where they wi &un"tion with #aAi#u# bene!t to the "o#pany.@ hen an e#poyeeJs trans&er is not unreasonabe, nor in"onvenient, nor pre3udi"ia to hi#, and it does not invove a de#otion in ran or a di#inution o& his saaries, bene!ts, and other privie-es, the e#poyee #ay not "o#pain that it a#ounts to a "onstru"tive dis#issa. NRJs de"ision is a:r#ed inso&ar as it orders herein petitioners
to reinstate PuiQanoa, but she sha be reinstated to her position as rodu"tion =e"retary o& the rodu"tion Eepart#ent without oss o& seniority ri-hts and other privie-es.
MINTERBRO, INC. an*o! DE CASTRO NAGAHIUSANG v . MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR an*o! ABELLANA, et al. G.R. No. 17400, 0 D%+%6%! #01#, FIRST DI>ISION L%ona!*o= D% Ca)&!o, J.) FACTS +indanao 2er#ina and 'roera-e =ervi"e, 4n". (+interbro) is a do#esti" "orporation #ana-ed by Ee astro and en-a-ed in the business o& providin- arrastre and stevedorinservi"es to its "ientee at ort $rea, =asa, Eavao ity. Ee +onte is their eA"usive "ient. Eavao iotsJ $sso"iation, 4n". (E$4) in&or#ed +interbro o& its intention to re&rain &ro# do"invesses at +interbros pier &or se"urity and sa&ety reasons unti its do"s are repaired or rehabiitated. +interbro de"ided to rehabiitate the pier and on the sa#e day, sent a etter to the Eepart#ent o& abor and H#poy#ent (E*H) to in&or# E*H o& +interbros intention to te#porariy suspend arrastre and stevedorin- operations. 2he
"o#paint &or pay#ent o& separation pay a-ainst +interbro and Ee astro.
ISSUE hether or not the union #e#berse#poyees were deprived o& -ain&u e#poy#ent #ain- +interbro iabe &or separation pay
HELD 2he =upre#e ourt !nds +interbro iabe to its e#poyees. +interbroJs ina"tion on what they ae-e to be the uneApained abandon#ent by Ee +onte o& its obi-ations under the ontra"t &or the
a"=oK , @$ used inter"han-eaby with @!%&!%n+3%n&,@ is a re"o-niBed prero-ative o& #ana-e#ent. 4t is an a"t o& the e#poyer o& dis#issine#poyees be"ause o& osses in operation o& a business, a" o& wor, and "onsiderabe redu"tion on the vou#e o& his business, a ri-ht "onsistenty re"o-niBed and a:r#ed by this ourt. 2he reuisites o& a vaid
retren"h#ent are "overed by $rti"e 8 o& the abor ode.@ hen a ayo is te#porary, the e#poy#ent status o& the e#poyee is not dee#ed ter#inated, but #erey suspended. $rti"e 8C o& the abor ode provides, in part, that the bona %de suspension o& the operation o& the business or undertain- &or a period not eA"eedin- siA #onths does not ter#inate e#poy#ent. hen +interbro &aied to #ae wor avaiabe to the union #e#bers &or a period o& #ore than siA #onths by &aiin- to "a the attention o& Ee +onte on the atters obi-ations under the ontra"t o&
+on)&!+&'(%" *')'))%* n'on %6%!).
&3%
B%-'no %&. a. >) ABS=CBN Co!$o!a&'on an* Aaa >'a5%!&% FACTS: Respondent $'='N orporation ($'='N) e#poyed respondent ?ia&uerte as +ana-er. 2hru ?ia&uerte, $'='N en-a-ed the servi"es o& petitioners 'e-ino and Ee ?ae as a#era#enHditors &or 2? 'road"astin-, etitioners =u#ayao and orin were iewise si#iary en-a-ed as reporters. etitioners were tased with "overa-e o& news ite#s &or subseuent daiy airin-s in respondents 2? atro 'i"o ro-ra#.
ai#in- that they were re-uar e#poyees o& $'='N, petitioners !ed a "o#paint a-ainst be&ore the NR. 4n support o& their "ai#s &or re-uariBation, underpay#ent o& overti#e pay, hoiday pay, 1th #onth pay, servi"e in"entive eave pay, da#a-es and attorneyJs &ees, petitioners ae-ed that they per&or#ed &un"tions ne"essary and desirabe in $'='NJs business. 2hey averred that they were repeatedy hired by respondents &or ostensibe !Aed periods and this situation had hone on &or years sin"e 2? atro 'i"o has "ontinuousy aired &ro# 199C onwards. Respondents ar-ued that, athou-h it o""asionay en-a-es in produ"tion and -enerates pro-ra#s thru various #eans, the "o#pany had ae-edy resorted to en-a-inindependent "ontra"tors who oered their servi"es in reation to a parti"uar pro-ra#, su"h independent "ontra"tors were reuired to a""o#pish 2aent 4n&or#ation For#s to &a"iitate their en-a-e#ent &or and appearan"e on desi-nated pro3e"t days. Respondents ar-ued that the "o#pany "annot aord to provide re-uar wor &or taents -iven the unpredi"tabiity o& viewer. Respondents insisted that, petitioners were hired as taents, to a"t as reporters andor "a#era#en &or desi-nated periods and rates. $thou-h petitioners were inevitaby sub3e"ted to so#e de-ree o& "ontro, the sa#e was ae-edy i#ited to the i#position o& -enera -uideines on "ondu"t and per&or#an"e, si#py &or
the purpose o& uphodinthe standards o& the "o#pany and the stri"tures o& the industry.
ISSUE: hether or not there eAist an e#poyere#poyee reationship.
RULING: Ses, there eAist an e#poyere#poyee reationship. $R2. 80. Re-uar and asua H#poy#ent.T 2he provisions o& written a-ree#ent to the "ontrary notwithstandin- and re-ardess o& the ora a-ree#ent o& the parties, an e#poy#ent sha be dee#ed to be re-uar where the e#poyee has been en-a-ed to per&or# a"tivities whi"h are usuay ne"essary or desirabe in the usua business or trade o& the e#poyer, eA"ept where the e#poy#ent has been !Aed &or a spe"i!" pro3e"t or undertain- the "o#petion or ter#ination o& whi"h has been deter#ined at the ti#e o& the en-a-e#ent o& the e#poyee or where the wor or servi"e to be per&or#ed is seasona in nature and the e#poy#ent is &or the duration o& the season.6 $n e#poy#ent sha be dee#ed to be "asua i& it is not "overed by the pre"edin- para-raphL rovided, 2hat, any e#poyee who has rendered at east one year o& servi"e, whether su"h servi"e is "ontinuous or broen, sha be "onsidered a re-uar e#poyee with respe"t to the a"tivity in whi"h he is e#poyed and his e#poy#ent sha "ontinue whie su"h a"tuay eAists.
2he ourt !nds that, notwithstandin- the no#en"ature o& their 2aent ontra"ts, petitioners are re-uar e#poyees o& $'='N. 2i#e and a-ain, it has been rued that the test to deter#ine whether e#poy#ent is re-uar or not is the reasonabe "onne"tion between the a"tivity per&or#ed by the e#poyee in reation to the business or trade o& the e#poyer. $s "a#era#eneditors and reporters, petitioners were undoubtedy per&or#in&un"tions ne"essary and essentia to $'='Ns business o& broad"astin- teevision and radio "ontent. $side &ro# the &a"t that said pro-ra# is a re-uar weeday &are o& the $'='N the re"ord shows that, petitioners were "ontinuousy rehired by respondents over the years. 4t is evident &ro# the &ore-oindisuisition that petitioners are re-uar e#poyees o& $'='N. 2his "on"usion is borne out by the ineu"tabe showin- that petitioners per&or# &un"tions ne"essary and essentia to the business o& $'='N whi"h repeatedy e#poyed the# &or a on-runnin- news pro-ra#. N*2H=L U ; inds o& e#poyees "onte#pated in $rt. 80 o& the abor odeL 1. Re-uar e#poyees or those who have been en-a-ed to per&or# a"tivities whi"h are usuay ne"essary or desirabe in the usua business or trade o& the e#poyerD
. ro3e"t e#poyees or those whose e#poy#ent has been !Aed &or a spe"i!" pro3e"t or undertain-, the "o#petion or ter#ination o& whi"h has been deter#ined at the ti#e o& the en-a-e#ent o& the e#poyeeD . =easona e#poyees or those who wor or per&or# servi"es whi"h are seasona in nature, and the e#poy#ent is &or the duration o& the seasonD and ;. asua e#poyees or those who are not re-uar, pro3e"t, or seasona e#poyees. U 2o deter#ine the eAisten"e o& said reation, "ase aw has "onsistenty appied the &our&od test, to witL (a) the see"tion and en-a-e#ent o& the e#poyeeD
Fa+&): etitioner orporation has a "o#pany poi"y pro#u-ated in 1995, viB. 1. New appi"ants wi not be aowed to be hired i& in "ase heshe has aO reative, up to theO rd de-ree o& reationship, aready e#poyed by the "o#pany. . 4n "ase o& two o& our e#poyees (both sin-es si"O, one #ae and another &e#ae) deveoped a &riendy reationship durin- the "ourse o& their e#poy#ent and then de"ided to -et #arried, one o& the# shoud resi-n to preserve the poi"y stated above. Respondents herein were a re-uar e#poyees o& the "o#pany. =i#bo was e#poyed by the "o#pany. %e #et $#a Eayrit, aso an e#poyee o& the "o#pany, who# he #arried. *n the other hand, o#ia aso #arried a "oe#poyee, whie Hstrea had an aair with her "o e#poyee.
(b) the pay#ent o& wa-esD
Respondents were a dis#issed.
(") the power o& dis#issaD and
I))%: hether the poi"y o& the
(d) the e#poyerJs power to "ontro the e#poyee on the #eans and #ethods by whi"h the wor is a""o#pished.
e#poyer bannin- spouses &ro# worin- in the sa#e "o#pany vioates the ri-hts o& the e#poyee under the onstitution and the abor ode or is a vaid eAer"ise o& #ana-e#ent prero-ative.
*& these "riteria, the so"aed @"ontro test@ is -eneray re-arded as the #ost "ru"ia and deter#inative indi"ator o& the presen"e or absen"e o& an e#poyere#poyee reationship.
S&a! Pa$%! Co!$o!a&'on, Jo)%$3'n% On-)'&+o S%6a)&'an C3a, P%&'&'on%!) (). Rona*o D. S'6o, W'5!%*a N. Co'a Lo!na A. E)&!%a, R%)$on*%n&)
R'n-: 2he poi"y vioates the ri-hts o& the e#poyee. 2o 3usti&y a bona !de o""upationa uai!"ation, the e#poyer #ust prove two &a"torsL (1) that the e#poy#ent uai!"ation is reasonaby reated to the essentia operation o& the 3ob invovedD and, () that there is a &a"tua basis &or beievin- that a or substantiay a persons #eetin- the uai!"ation woud be unabe to propery per&or# the duties o& the 3ob. 2he "on"ept o& a bona !de o""upationa uai!"ation is not &orei-n in our 3urisdi"tion. e
e#poy
the
standard o& !%a)ona6%n%)) o& the "o#pany poi"y whi"h is parae to the bona !de o""upationa uai!"ation reuire#ent. 2he "ases o& Eun"an and 2V2 instru"t us that the reuire#ent o& reasonabeness #ust be +%a!" estabished to uphod the uestioned e#poy#ent poi"y. 2he e#poyer has the burden to prove the eAisten"e o& a reasonabe business ne"essity. e do not !nd a reasonabe business ne"essity in the "ase at bar. etitioners soe "ontention that @the "o#pany did not 3ust want to have two () or #ore o& its e#poyees reated between the third de-ree by a:nity andor "onsan-uinity@ is a#e. 2hat the se"ond para-raph was #eant to -ive teeth to the !rst para-raph o& the uestioned rue is evidenty not the vaid reasonabe business ne"essity reuired by the aw. 4t is si-ni!"ant to note that in the "ase at bar, respondents were hired a&ter they were &ound !t &or the 3ob, but were ased to resi-n when they #arried a "oe#poyee. 2he uestioned poi"y #ay not &a"iay vioate $rti"e 1C o& the abor ode but it "reates a disproportionate ee"t and under the *')$a!a&% '$a+& &3%o!", the ony way it "oud pass 3udi"ia s"rutiny is a showin- that it is reasonabe despite the dis"ri#inatory, abeit disproportionate, ee"t. 2hus, &or &aiure o& petitioners to present undisputed proo& o& a reasonabe business ne"essity, we rue that the uestioned poi"y is an invaid eAer"ise o& #ana-e#ent prero-ative.
G.R. No. 1#4#0 Jana!" #, #00 GO>ERNMENT SER>ICE INSURANCE SSTEM GSIS,
$%&'&'on%!,().COURT OF APPEALS an* HEIRS OF ABRAHAM CATE, !%$!%)%n&%* 6" DOROTH CATE, !%)$on*%n&). /============================================= == /G.R. No. 1#4#7 Jana!" #, #00EMPLOEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION an* PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, $%&'&'on%!,(). THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS an* HEIRS OF ABRAHAM CATE, !%$!%)%n&%* 6" DOROTH CATE, !%)$on*%n&). Fa+&): $braha# ate($braha#) was a RiWe#an o& hiippine Navy be&ore 3oininthe hiippine Nationa oi"e(N). Eurin- his servi"e with the N, he noti"ed a #ass on his e&t "hee whi"h a&ter a series o& tests turned out to be an *steobasti" *steosar"o#a, whi"h is one o& the #ost a--ressive pri#ary bone "an"er. %e underwent a series o& sur-eries and radiotherapy, however, he died and was survived by his wi&e and "hidren. %is wi&e !ed a "ai# &or in"o#e bene!ts with the Govern#ent =ervi"e 4nsuran"e =yste# (G=4=) under E No. CC, as a#ended. 2he G=4= denied the "ai# on the -round that osteosar"o#a is not "onsidered an o""upationa disease under E No. CC there&ore there #ust be su:"ient proo& that $braha# had an in"reased ris o& "ontra"tin- said ai#ent. 2he de"ision o& G=4= was a:r#ed by the H#poyees o#pensation o##ission(H), however, the ourt
o& $ppeas reversed the de"ision and de"ared that $braha#s disease is "o#pensabe on the -round that the H#poyees o#pensation $"t is basi"ay a so"ia e-isation desi-ned to aord reie& to our worin- #en, and shoud, there&ore, be iberay "onstrued in &avor o& the appi"ant. %en"e, this petition &or review.
I))%: hether or not the $ erred in ruinthat the ai#ent o& the ate $braha# is "o#pensabe under the present aw on e#poyees "o#pensationI
H%*: 4n this "ase, *steosar"o#a is not isted as an o""upationa disease in the $#ended Rues on H#poyees o#pensation. %en"e, it is supposed to be upon the "ai#ant or private respondents to prove by substantia eviden"e that the ris o& "ontra"tin*steosar"o#a was in"reased by the worin"onditions o& the ate $braha#. =ubstantia eviden"e #eans su"h reevant eviden"e as a reasonabe #ind #i-ht a""ept as adeuate to support a "on"usion. 2he rue is that awards o& "o#pensation "annot rest on spe"uations and presu#ptions as the "ai#ant #ust prove a positive thin-. 2he appi"ation o& the rues woud #ean that absent any proo& that the ris o& "ontra"tin- the ai#ent was in"reased by the worin- "onditions o&
the ate $braha#, private respondents woud not be entited to "o#pensation. 4t is pra"ti"ay undisputed that under the present state o& s"ien"e, the proo& re&erred by the aw to be presented by the de"eased private respondent "ai#ant was unavaiabe and i#possibe to "o#py with, the "ondition #ust be dee#ed as not i#posed. 4n the spe"i!" "ase o& respondent, the reuire#ent is i#possibe to "o#py with, -iven the present state o& s"ienti!" nowed-e. 2he obi-ation to present su"h as an i#possibe eviden"e #ust, there&ore, be dee#ed void. Respondent, there&ore, is entited to "o#pensation, "onsistent with the so"ia e-isations intended bene!"ia purpose.
WHEREFORE, DENIED.6
the
petitions
are
ONE SHIPPING CORP., AND OR ONE SHIPPING ABUSHII AISHAJAPAN, etitioner, vs. IMELDA C. PAAFIEL Respondent, GR No. 19;0C, /anuary 1, 0015
FACTS: 4de&onso aQa!e, the husband o& the respondent 4#eda aQa!e, was hired by *ne =hippin- orp. &or and in beha& o& the prin"ipa *ne =hippinXabushii Xaisha/apan as se"ond
en-ineer on board vesse +?$> +a-noia. Respondent ae-ed that whie on board the vesse, her husband eAperien"ed "hest pain and di:"uty in breathin- whi"h he reported to his superior, but was i-nored. %e returned to the hiippines on +ay 1, 005 and sou-ht &or post #edi"a eAa#ination &ro# the petitioners but was not heeded. 4de&onso suddeny "oapsed and died on /uy , 005. Eue to this in"ident, respondent !ed &or #onetary "ai#s a-ainst the petitioners.
etitioners, on the other hand, denied the #onetary "ai#s ar-uinthat 4de&onso was no on-er their e#poyee when the in"ident o""urred.
abor $rbiter dis#issed the "o#paint &or a" o& #erit whi"h the NR a:r#ed on appea. 2he issue was raised to $ throu-h petition &or "ertiorari under Rue C5 o& Revised Rues o& ourt. $ -ranted the petition and reversed the resoution o& NR.
ISSUES: 1. N $ has 3urisdi"tion over present "ase a&ter the Resoutions o& abor $rbiter and NR be"a#e !na and eAe"utory . N Respondent is entited to avai death bene!ts
HELD:
1. $ has no 3urisdi"tion on the "ase a&ter the resoutions o& NR be"a#e !na and eAe"utory. 4t is a hornboo rue that on"e a 3ud-#ent has be"o#e !na and eAe"utory, it #ay no on-er be #odi!ed in any respe"t, even i& the #odi!"ation is #eant to "orre"t an erroneous "on"usion o& &a"t or aw, and re-ardess o& whether the #odi!"ation is atte#pted to be #ade by the "ourt renderin- it or by the hi-hest "ourt o& the and, as what re#ains to be done is the purey #inisteria en&or"e#ent or eAe"ution o& the 3ud-#ent.
2he ony eA"eptions to the rue on the i##utabiity o& !na 3ud-#ents are (1) the "orre"tion o& "eri"a errors, () the so"aed nun" pro tun" entries whi"h "ause no pre3udi"e to any party, and () void 3ud-#ents. Nun" pro tun" 3ud-#ent does not pertain to renderin- new 3ud-#entD rather, it is one that pa"es the previous 3ud-#ent in proper &or# on the re"ord to #ae it spea o& the truth as to #ae it show what the 3udi"ia a"tion reay was.
. Respondent is not entited to avai death bene!ts. 4n order to avai o& death bene!ts, the death o& the e#poyee shoud o""ur durin- the ae"tivity o& the e#poy#ent "ontra"t. 2he death o& a sea#an durin- the ter# o& e#poy#ent #aes the e#poyer iabe to his heirs &or death "o#pensation bene!ts. *n"e it is estabished that the sea#an died durinthe ee"tivity o& his e#poy#ent "ontra"t, the e#poyer is
iabe. 4n the present "ase, 4de&onso died a&ter he preter#inated the "ontra"t o& e#poy#ent. 2hat aone woud have su:"ed &or his heirs not to be entited &or death "o#pensation bene!ts. Further#ore, there is no eviden"e to show that 4de&onsoJs iness was a"uired durin- the ter# o& his e#poy#ent with petitioners. etition is GR$N2HE.
Ma%!)=F''$'na) C!%2'n-, In+. (. A(%)&! GR #07010 F%6. 1, #01 Fa+&)L 2oribio $vestruB was hired by +aersFiipinas as hie& oo on )edlloyd board the vesse &'( *ra+e &or a period o& siA #onths. 4n the "ourse o& $vestruBs wor, he had an ar-u#ent with the ships "aptain, hares . oodward. 2his ar-u#ent resuted in aptain oodward su##onin- and reuirin- $vestruB to write a state#ent re-ardin- the in"ident. aptain oodward iewise ased +ess#an /o#iyn . Xon- to sub#it his own written state#ent re-ardin- the in"ident. *n the very sa#e day o& the in"ident, aptain oodward in&or#ed $vestruB that he woud be dis#issed &ro# servi"e. $&ter $vestruB return to the hiippines, he !ed a "o#paint &or ie-a dis#issa, pay#ent &or the uneApired portion o& his "ontra"t, da#a-es, and attorneys &ees a-ainst +aers. +aers ae-ed that $vestruB has been aw&uy dis#issed due to insubordination.
I))%L hether or not $vestruB is ie-ay dis#issed by his e#poyee +aers due to insubordination.
R'n-L Ses. 4nsubordination, as a 3ust "ause &or the dis#issa o& an e#poyee, ne"essitates the "on"urren"e o& at east two reuisitesL (1) the e#poyees assaied "ondu"t #ust have been wi&u, that is, "hara"teriBed by a wron-&u and perverse attitudeD and () the order vioated #ust have been reasonabe, aw&u, #ade nown to the e#poyee, and #ust pertain to the duties whi"h he had been en-a-ed to dis"har-e. 4n this "ase, the "ontents o& aptain oodwards e#ais do not estabish that $vestruBs "ondu"t had been wi&u, or "hara"teriBed by a wron-&u and perverse attitude. 2he ourt "on"urs with the $s observation that $vestruBs state#ent re-ardin- the in"ident in the -aey deserves #ore "reden"e, bein"orroborated by Xon-, a #ess#an who witnessed the sa#e. $part &ro# aptain oodwards e #ais, no other eviden"e was presented by the petitioners to support their "ai#s. hie rues o& eviden"e are not stri"ty observed in pro"eedin-s be&ore ad#inistrative bodies, petitioners shoud have oered additiona proo& to "orroborate the state#ents des"ribed therein. 4t was in"u#bent upon the petitioners to present other substantia eviden"e to boster their "ai# that $vestruB "o##itted a"ts that "onstitute insubordination as woud warrant his dis#issa. $t the east, they "oud have oered in eviden"e entries in the ships o:"ia
o-boo showin- the in&ra"tions or a"ts o& insubordination purportedy "o##itted by $vestruB, the ships o-boo bein- the o:"ia repository o& the daytoday transa"tions and o""urren"es on board the vesse. %avin- &aied to do so, their position that $vestruB was aw&uy dis#issed "annot be sustained. 2he =upre#e ourt aso a:r#ed the !ndin- o& the $ that $vestruB was not a""orded pro"edura due pro"ess, there beinno "o#pian"e with the provisions o& =e"tion 17 o& the *H$=H whi"h reuires the twonoti"e rue.6
G.R. No. 1@7 A$!' #0, #01 T3% H%'!) o5 &3% a&% D%Qn D%a C! (). P3''$$'n% T!an)a!'n% Ca!!'%!) FACTS: 2he ate Ee!n Eea ruB was "ontra"ted by hiippine 2rans#arine "arriers &or the position o& *ier. %e e&t the hiippines and e#bared on $u-ust 17, 000. hie per&or#inre-uar duties,, he was hit by a #eta on his ba". %e reuested #edi"a attention and was advised to be -iven i-ht duties. Ray and +R4 o& the =pine. %e !ed his
"ai# &or si"ness aowan"e but was not -ranted. %is "ondition deteriorated and therea&ter, he was ad#itted at =t. ues +edi"a enter where he was dia-nosed o& +N=2, a #ai-nant periphera nerve sheath tu#or. *n Ee"e#ber ;, 00, he !ed a "o#paint be&ore the NR, "ai#in- a pay#ent &or si"ness aowan"e and disabiity "o#pensation in whi"h it was #oved to dis#iss by the hiippine 2rans#arine "arriers on the -round o& pres"ription, the "ai# havin- !ed beyond one year &ro# the date o& the ter#ination o& the "ontra"t. *n +ay C, 005 Ee!n passed away.
ISSUES: hether the heirs o& the ate Ee!n Eea ruB are entited to per#anent disabiity bene!ts and si"ness aowan"e.
HELD: 2he 199C *H$ =H "on"ernindisabiity "ai#s and si"ness aowan"e appies to the "ase where it states on =e"tion 0 () that upon si-n o &or the purpose &or #edi"a treat#ent, the sea&arer sha sub#it hi#se& to a poste#poy#ent #edi"a eAa#ination within three worin- days upon his return eA"ept when he is physi"ay in"apa"itated to do so, in whi"h "ase, a written noti"e to the a-en"y within the sa#e period is dee#ed as "o#pian"e. Further#ore, &aiure to do su"h #andatory reportinreuire#ents sha resut in his &or&eiture o& the ri-ht to "ai# the bene!ts.
petitioners part ony de#onstrates that Ee!n did not "o#py with what was in"u#bent upon hi#. 2he reasonabe "on"usion is that at the ti#e o& his repatriation, Ee!n was not suerin- &ro# any physi"a disabiity reuirini##ediate #edi"a attendan"e. here&ore, the etition is hereby EHN4HE.
Ma!+o$$%! M'n'n- Co!$o!a&'on () Na&'ona La6o! R%a&'on) +o'))'on an* Na&'ona M'n%) an* A'%* Wo!%!) Un'on G.R. No. 1055 +ar"h 9, 199C
Fa+&): +ar"opper #inin- "orporation entered into a oe"tive 'ar-ainin$-ree#ent with the Nationa +ines and $ied orers
I))%: hether or not H.*. No. 178 shoud tae ee"t be&ore "o#putinthe '$ in"reaseI
R'n-: 2he =upre#e ourt rued, e rue &or the respondents.. 2he prin"ipe that the '$ is the aw between the "ontra"tin- parties stands stron- and true. %owever, the present "ontroversy invoves not #erey an interpretation o& '$ provisions. +ore i#portanty, it reuires a deter#ination o& the ee"t o& an eAe"utive order on the ter#s and the "onditions o& the '$. 2his is, and shoud be, the &o"us o& the instant "ase. 4t is unne"essary to deve too #u"h on the intention o& the parties as to what they ae-edy #eant by the ter# @basi" wa-e@ at the ti#e the '$ and +*$ were eAe"uted be"ause there is no uestion that as o& 1 +ay 1987, as #andated by H.*. No. 178, the basi" wa-e o& worers, or the statutory #ini#u# wa-e, was in"reased with the inte-ration o& the *$. $s o& said date, then, the ter# @basi" wa-e@ in"udes the *$. 2his is what the aw ordains and to whi"h the "oe"tive bar-ainin- a-ree#ent o& the parties #ust "on&or#. etitionerJs ar-u#ents eventuay ose stea# in the i-ht o& the &a"t that "o#pian"e with the aw is #andatory and beyond "ontra"tua stipuation by and between the partiesD "onseuenty, whether or not petitioner intended the basi" wa-e to in"ude the *$ be"o#es i##ateria. 2here is evidenty nothin- to "onstrue and interpret be"ause the aw is "ear and una#bi-uous.
"annot be any doubt that the "o#putation o& the '$ in"rease on the basis o& the @inte-rated@ wa-e does not "onstitute a vioation o& the '$. Finay, petitioner #isinterprets the de"aration o& the abor $rbiter in the assaied de"ision that @when the penduu# o& 3ud-#ent swin-s to and &ro and the &or"es are eua on both sides, the sa#e #ust be stied in &avor o& abor.@ hie petitioner a"nowed-es that a doubts in the interpretation o& the abor ode sha be resoved in &avor o& abor, it insists that what is invoved here is the a#ended '$ whi"h is essentiay a "ontra"t between private persons. hat petitioner has ost si-ht o& is the avowed poi"y o& the =tate, enshrined in our onstitution, to a""ord ut#ost prote"tion and 3usti"e to abor, a poi"y, we are, iewise, sworn to uphod.6
P3''$$'n% A'!'n%), In+. PAL (). Na&'ona La6o! R%a&'on) Co')'on, La6o! A!6'&%! I)a6% P. O!&'-%!!a, an* P3''$$'n% A'!'n%) E$o"%%) A))o+'a&'on PALEA, G.R. No. @ A-)& 1, 1@@ Fa"tsL 4n 1985, hiippine $irines, 4n". ($) "o#petey revised its 19CC ode o& Eis"ipine whi"h was "ir"uated a#on- the e#poyees and was i##ediatey i#pe#ented. 4n ee"t, so#e e#poyees were sub3e"ted to the dis"ipinary #easures e#bodied therein. *n $u-ust, the sa#e year, the hiippine $irines H#poyees $sso"iation ($H$) !ed a "o#paint be&ore the Nationa abor Reations o##ission (NR) &or un&air abor
pra"ti"e, ae-in- that $ vioated para-raphs H and G o& $rti"e ;9 and $rti"e 5 o& the abor ode, be"ause the i#pe#entation o& the ode o& Eis"ipine was uniateray i#pe#ented without noti"e and prior dis"ussion with the
4ssuesL hether the &or#uation o& a ode o& Eis"ipine a#on- e#poyees is a shared responsibiity o& the e#poyer and the e#poyees. Ruin-L2he petition is E4=+4==HE and the uestioned de"ision $FF4R+HE. 2he eAer"ise by #ana-e#ent o& its prero-ative sha be done in a 3ust, reasonabe, hu#ane andor aw&u #anner.
etitionerJs assertion that it needed the i#pe#entation o& a new ode o& Eis"ipine "onsiderin- the nature o& its business "annot be overe#phasiBed. Nonetheess, whatever dis"ipinary #easures are adopted "annot be propery i#pe#ented in the absen"e o& &u "ooperation o& the e#poyees. =u"h "ooperation "annot be attained i& the e#poyees are restive on a""ount o& their bein- e&t out in the deter#ination o& "ardina and &unda#enta #atters ae"tin- their e#poy#ent.
