Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad
for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed. All eight private complainants consistently declared that Ochoa promised
them employment overseas after they submit their bio-data, birth certificates,
passports and payment for placement and medical fees. - People of the
Philippines vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT
The subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with her
foreign employer which reduced his salary below the amount approved by the
POEA is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. The
said side agreement cannot supersede the terms of the standard employment
contract approved by the POEA. Consequently, the solidary liability of respondent
with petitioners foreign employer for the money claims continues although she was
forced to sign another contract. It is the terms of the original POEA-approved
employment contract that shall govern the relationship of petitioner with the
respondent recruitment agency and the foreign employer. - Santosa B. Datuman
vs. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., G.R. No.
156029, November 14, 2008
LABOR STANDARDS
WAGES (Non-Diminution of Benefits)
It is a jurisprudential rule that where there is an established employer practice of
regularly, knowingly and voluntarily granting benefits to employees over a
significant period of time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation on the
part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits ripens into a vested right of
the employees and can no longer be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the
employer. - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, Felipe E. Patag and Bienvenido C. Flora, G.R. No.
152928, June 18, 2009
DISABILITY BENEFITS
Respondents disability can only be assessed by the company-designated
physician. If the company-designated physician declares him fit to work, then the
seaman is bound by such declaration. In order to claim disability benefits under the
Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-designated physician who must
proclaim that the seaman suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial,
Page 1 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latters employment. Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and/or Conrado N. Dela Cruz and ODF Jell Asa
vs. Jaime M. Velasquez and the Honorable Court Of Appeals, G.R. No.
179802, November 14, 2008
The petitioners are mistaken in their notion that only the POEA SEC should be
considered in resolving the issue involving a seafarer. The applicability of the Labor
Code provisions on permanent disability, particularly Article 192(c)(1), to seafarers,
is already a settled matter. Section 29 of the 1996 POEA Standard Employment
Contract itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the Contract,
including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines
is a signatory." Even without this provision, a contract of labor is so impressed with
public interest that the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to the "special laws on
labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages,
working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects." - Philasia Shipping
Agency Corporation and/or Intermodal Shipping, Inc.
vs. Andres G.
Tomacruz, G.R. No. 181180, August 15, 2012

The statement of Dr. Ong was not a categorical attestation as to the actual fitness
of Medel to resume his occupation as a seafarer. Plainly, after Medel underwent
cranioplasty to repair the fracture in his skull, it is not farfetched to assume that he
still needed additional time for his wound to heal and to recuperate in order to
restore himself to his former state of health. To our mind, the medical certificate of
Dr. Lim and not of Dr. Ong is the definitive declaration on the physical condition of
Medel. Unfortunately for petitioners, however, this declaration was issued beyond
the 240-day period pursuant to Section 2 in Rule X of the Implementing Rules of
Book IV of the Labor Code (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation ). Hence,
Medel has right to the disability benefits. - Fair Shipping Corp., and/or Kohyu
Marine Co., Ltd. vs. Joselito T. Medel, G.R. No. 177907, August 29, 2012

The initial treatment period of 120 days where the seaman is on temporary total
disability as he is totally unable to work making him entitled to basic wage during
this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is
acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days under the conditions prescribed by law,
subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent
partial or total disability already exists.

Page 2 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

The provisions of the POEA SEC, the Labor Code, and its implementing rules and
regulations, are to be read hand in hand when determining the disability benefits
due a seafarer. - Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. and Celtic Pacific Ship
Management Co., Ltd., vs. Benjamin D. Penales, G.R. No. 162809,
September 5, 2012
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
A perusal of Article XIV of the CBA readily shows that retirement benefits shall be
gran-ted only to those employees who, after rendering at least ten (10) years of
continuous services, would retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age, or
would avail of optional voluntary retirement. Nowhere can it be deduced from the
CBA that those employees whose employment was terminated through one of the
authorized causes are entitled to retirement benefits. In fact, Section 3 of the said
article specifically provides that retrenched employees shall be given two (2)
months pay for every year of service. Section 3 shows the intention of the parties to
exclude retrenched employees, like herein petitioners, from receiving retirement
benefits under the existing retirement plan as set forth in Section. - Flavio S.
Suarez, Jr., Renato A. De Asis, Francisco G. Adorable, et al. vs. National
Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 150180, October 17, 2008
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the labor-only
contractor as if the principal itself directly hired or employed the employees. Iligan Cement Corporation vs. Iliascor Employees And Workers UnionSouthern Philippines Federation Of Labor (IEWU-SPFL), and its Officers
And Members, G.R. No. 158956, April 24, 2009
In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word
project to prevent employees from attaining the status of regular employees,
employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove
that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were
engaged, but also that there was indeed a project. The project could either be (1) a
particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the
employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such,
from the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking
that is not within the regular business of the corporation. As it was with regard to
the distinction between a regular and casual employee, the purpose of this
requirement is to delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need of the
services of the specified employee. If the particular job or undertaking is within the
regular or usual business of the employer company and it is not identifiably distinct
or separate from the other undertakings of the company, there is clearly a constant
necessity for the performance of the task in question, and therefore said job or
undertaking should not be considered a project. - GMA Network, Inc. vs. Carlos

Page 3 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

P. Pabriga, Geoffrey F. Arias, Kirby N. Campo, Arnold L. Lagahit, and
Armando A. Catubig, G.R. No. 176419, November 27, 2013
DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee on account of loss of trust and
confidence must not be exercised whimsically and the employer must clearly and
convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon which loss
of confidence in the employee may be fairly made to rest; otherwise, the latters
dismissal will be rendered illegal. - San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor
Relations Commission and Wiliam L. Friend Jr., G.R. No. 153983, May 26,
2009
Where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and
the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Supreme Court is constrained to examine the
evidence, to determine which findings and conclusion are more conformable with
the evidentiary facts.
Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective
bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.
Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements
of the enterprise. - Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Angel U. Del Villar,
G.R. No. 163091, October 6, 2010
Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised from
the fact that an employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence, but in
order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be workrelated such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue
working for the employer.
As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in
terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while not of
similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the employers full
trust and confidence.
Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the
judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and
despotism. - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission and Aida M. Quijano, G.R. No. 123294, October 20, 2010
The only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is that the
policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must
always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed,
commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. - The
Page 4 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Clarita P. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433,
December 15, 2010
The determination of whether or not an employees services are still needed or
sustainable properly belongs to the employer. Provided there is no violation of law
or a showing that the employer was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act, the
soundness or wisdom of this exercise of business judgment is not subject to the
discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. - Nelson A. Culili vs.
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., Salvador Hizon (President
and Chief Executive Officer), Emiliano Jurado (Chairman of the Board),
VIRGILIO GARCIA (Vice President) and Stella Garcia (Assistant Vice
President), G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011
She, ironically a Senior Financial Accountant tasked with ensuring financial
reportorial/regulatory compliance from others, repeatedly submitted tampered or
altered receipts to support her claim for meal reimbursements, in gross violation of
the rules and regulations of petitioner company, such acts warrants dismissal. - The
Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Clarita P. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, June
22, 2011
Although the Supreme Court has, more often than not, been inclined towards the
workers and has upheld their cause in their conflicts with the employers, such
inclination has not blinded it to the rule that justice is in every case for the
deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and applicable law
and doctrine. An employee who resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the
employer is generally stopped from filing any further money claims against the
employer arising from the employment. - Ma. Joy Teresa O. Bilbao vs. Saudi
Arabian Airlines, G.R. No. 183915, December 14, 2011
The NLRC and the Court of Appeals found that the union members/employees were
not given work starting April 14, 1997 and that more than six months have elapsed
after the union members were laid off when the next vessel was serviced at the
Minterbro pier on December 22 to 28, 1997. In Sebuguero, the Court ruled on a case
regarding lay-off or temporary retrenchment, which subsequently resulted to the
separation from employment of the concerned employee as it lasted for more than
six months. Article 283 of the Labor Code covers retrenchment. This provision,
however, speaks of a permanent retrenchment as opposed to a temporary layoff as
is the case here. There is no specific provision of law which treats of a temporary
retrenchment or layoff and provides for the requisites in effecting it or a period or
duration therefor. These employees cannot forever be temporarily laid- off. To
remedy this situation or fill the hiatus, Article 286 may be applied but only by
analogy to set a specific period that employees may remain temporarily laid-off or
in floating status Six months is the period set by law that the operation of a
business or undertaking may he suspended thereby suspending the employment of
the employees concerned. The temporary lay-off wherein the employees likewise
cease to work should also not last longer than six months. After six months, the
employees should either be recalled to work or permanently retrenched following
the requirements of the law, and that failing to comply with this would be
Page 5 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

tantamount to dismissing the employees and the employer would thus he liable for
such dismissal. As the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Sebuguero applies
to this case, the consequences arrived at in Sebuguero also apply. Layoff is
essentially retrenchment and under Article 283 of the Labor Code a retrenched
employee is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary or onehalf (12) month salary per year of service, whichever is higher. - Minadanao
Terminal And Brokerage Service, Inc. and/ or Fortunato De Castro vs.
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Minterbo Southern Philippines Federation of
Labor, et al., G.R. No. 174300, December 5, 2012
In all cases involving termination of employment, the burden of proving the
existence of the just causes rests upon the employer. What can be gathered from a
thorough review of the records of this case is that the inadequacies of the
respondent as a teacher did not stem from a reckless disregard of the welfare of her
students or of the issues raised by the School regarding her teaching. Far from
being tainted with bad faith, respondents failings appeared to have resulted from
her lack of necessary skills, in-depth knowledge, and expertise to teach the Filipino
language at the standards required of her by the School. The Court finds that the
petitioners had sufficiently proved the charge of gross inefficiency, which warranted
the dismissal of Santos from the School. - International School Manila and/or
Brian Mccauley vs. International School Alliance Of Educators (ISAE) and
Members represented by Raquel David Ching, President, Evangeline
Santos, Joselyn Rucio and Methelyn Filler, G.R. No. 167286, February 5,
2014

DUE PROCESS
Twin-notice Requirement
The essential elements of procedural due process are the twin requirements of
notice and hearing. Otherwise, the dismissal of an employee will be tainted with
illegality. Those requirements cannot be dispensed with even when the dismissal is
pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. Thus, the rights of an employee to
be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his
side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away
by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining
agreement. - General Milling Corporation vs. Ernesto Casio, et al., G.R. No.
149552, March 10, 2010
REINSTATEMENT
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to reinstatement "shall
either
be
admitted
back
to
work under
the
same
terms
and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the
employer, merely reinstated in the payroll." - Pfizer, Inc. and/or Rey Gerardo
Page 6 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

Bacarro, and/or Ferdinand Cortes, and/or Alfred Magallon, and/or Aristotle
Arce vs. Geraldine Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011
CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility
or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee.
For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two elements must then be
satisfied: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable
reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Virginia Sugue et. al. vs. Triumph International (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No.
164804/G.R. No. 164784, January 30, 2009
SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION
SSS LAW
The degree of proof required under P.D. 626 is merely substantial evidence, which
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Accordingly, the claimant must show, at least by substantial
evidence, that the development of the disease was brought about largely by the
conditions present in the nature of the job. What the law requires is a reasonable
work connection, not a direct causal relation. However, for humanitarian reasons, as
the petitioner pursued his claim all the way to the Court as an indigent litigant, and
due to his advancing age, what had already been given him should no longer be
taken away from him. - Alexander B. Gatus vs. Social Security System, G.R.
No. 174725, January 26, 2011
GSIS LAW
Services in the MMSU, PHIVIDEC and as OIC ViceGovernor of Ilocos Norte cannot be
credited because, aside from having been rendered parttime in said agencies, the
said positions were without compensation as defined in Section 2(i) of RA No. 8291.
- Simeon M. Valdez vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.
146175. June 30, 2008
The GSIS et al.s contention that under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8291, which
provides that all laws or any law or parts of law specifically inconsistent with it are
deemed repealed or modified, thus, all provisions of the Teves Retirement Law that
are inconsistent with Republic Act No. 8291 are deemed repealed or modified
cannot stand. This is because, unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest,
the abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be assumed. The repealing clause
contained in Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it
fails to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. Page 7 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) et al. vs. Commission on
Audit (COA), Amorsonia B. Escarda, Ma. Cristina D. Dimagiba, and
Reynaldo P. Ventura, G. R. No. 162372, October 19, 2011
LABOR RELATIONS
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
No substantial distinction Under the CBA Between Regular Employees Hired After
Probationary Status and Regular Employees Hired After the Merger. They belong to
the same bargaining unit being represented by the Union. They both enjoy benefits
that the Union was able to secure for them under the CBA. When they both entered
the employ of BPI, the CBA and the Union Shop Clause therein were already in effect
and neither of them had the opportunity to express their preference for unionism or
not. - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao
Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10,
2010
RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Standard Chartered argues that maternity benefits, under this provision, can only be
given to its own employees and not to spouses of male employees. However, a
reading of Section 1 shows that at the time the CBA was signed there was already
an existing group hospitalization insurance plan and Standard Chartered was
committing under the CBA to continue the same.
In determining the coverage of the benefits under the said plan, it is the provision of
the plan itself that govern. In the said plan, the term dependent includes a
members spouse who is not more than 65 years of age. The plan further provides
that unless dependents are excluded in any particular Insurance Schedule the term
insured person shall be deemed to include any dependent insured under the Policy.
In other words, dependents enjoy the same benefits as the insured person unless
they are expressly excluded in the Insurance Schedule of benefits. The Court notes
that there is nothing in the Insurance Schedules or the plan itself which excludes
dependents from availing of the maternity benefits granted under the plan. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union
(SCBEU), G.R. No. 165550, October 08, 2008
Right of an Employee not to join a Union is not Absolute and Must Give Way to the
Collective Good of All Members of the Bargaining Unit. Time and again, this Court
has ruled that the individual employees right not to join a union may be validly
restricted by a union security clause in a CBA and such union security clause is not
a violation of the employees constitutional right to freedom of association. - Bank
of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao ChapterFederation of Unions in BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Page 8 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

The University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to an unfair labor practice

under Article 248 of the Labor Code. Indeed there was a requirement on both
parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly
and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. There
was nothing in the March 19, 2001 and July 6, 2001 orders of Director Maraan and
Cacdac which restrained or enjoined compliance by the parties with their obligations
under the CBA and under the law. The issue of union leadership is distinct and
separate from the duty to bargain. - De La Salle University vs. De La Salle
University Employees Association (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), G.R. No. 169254,
August 23, 2012

As there was no bad faith on the part of the company in its bargaining with the
union, deadlock was possible and did occur. Thus, because of the unresolved issue
on wage increase, there was actually a complete stoppage of the ongoing
negotiations between the parties and the union filed a Notice of Strike. A mutual
declaration would neither add to nor subtract from the reality of the deadlock then
existing between the parties. Thus, the absence of the parties mutual declaration
of deadlock does not mean that there was no deadlock. At most, it would have been
simply a recognition of the prevailing status quo between the parties. - Tabangao
Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION
PROCEDURAL RULES AND TECHNICALITIES
Failure to attach all pleadings and documents, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to
dismiss a petition. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be
overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest
mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse
party or deprived the court of its authority.
When there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of
petitioners case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time consuming
procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the
case.
The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that
an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held. Even assuming that an
employee was not fully heard during the employers investigation, it is his fault if
the same is due to his misguided insistence on having a trial type hearing despite
established jurisprudence stating that the mere opportunity to be heard would
Page 9 of 10

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015)

suffice as due process in administrative proceedings. - Leandro M. Alcantara vs.
The Philippine Commercial and International Bank, G.R. No. 151349,
October 20, 2010
APPEAL
While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been
relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial
compliance of the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the appellants, at the very
least, exhibited willingness to pay by posting a partial bond or where the failure to
comply with the requirements for perfection of appeal was justified.
Here, the negligence and/or ignorance of the rules of petitioners former counsel is
not sufficient justification for their failure to comply with the posting of the bond
within the reglementary period. Neither can petitioners subsequent but belated
posting of the bond be considered as substantial compliance warranting the
relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice. - Philux, Inc. And Max Kienle vs.
National Labor Relations Commission and Patricia Perjes, G.R. No. 151854,
September 03, 2008
The NLRC shall, in cases of perfected appeals, limit itself to reviewing those issues
which are raised on appeal. As a consequence thereof, any other issues which were
not included in the appeal shall become final and executory. - Rodolfo Luna vs.
Allado Construction Co., Inc., and/or Ramon Allado, G.R. No. 175251, May
30, 2011
An appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner
provided by law. Nevertheless, in certain cases, we had occasion to declare that
while the rule treats the filing of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to
the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, as a jurisdictional requirement
to perfect an appeal, the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards
is sometimes given a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of
resolving controversies on the merits. - Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation vs.
Cayetano Pacana Iii, Noe U. Dacer, Johnny B. Racaza, Leonardo S. Orevillo,
Araceli T. Libre, Genovevo E. Romitman, Porferia M. Valmores, Meneleo G.
Lactuan, Dionisio G. Bangga, Francisco D. Manga, Nestor A. Amplayo,
Leilani B. Gasataya, Loreta G. Lactuan, Ricardo B. Pido, Resigolo M. Nacua
and Anacleto C. Remedio, G.R. No. 171673, May 30, 2011

Page 10 of 10