Labor Relations Law 2017 Syllabus

LABOR RELATIONS LAW
COURSE OUTLINE
(Updated 16 November 2016)
For LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES UNIVERSITY, ADAMSON

UNIVERSITY AND FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY
Atty. Ada D. Abad

0917-526-9732
Course description:
[Cases, recitations and lectures, 3 hours a week 3 units]
Study of the General Principles of the Labor Code, Book V of the Labor Code on Labor
Relations, governing areas on government machinery, labor organizations, unfair labor
practices, representation issue; collective bargaining and administration agreements,
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, lockouts, strikes and other concerted
activities; Book VI on Post-Employment, covering areas such as classes of employees,
termination of employment and retirement; Book VII on penal provisions of the Labor
Code and prescription of actions and claims. Additional for Bar exams: Jurisdiction,
remedies, actions and procedures in labor cases.
Methodology:
A combination of the Socratic method of recitation, case studies and a highly

participatory and interactive approach to practical situations and problems confronting
labor-management relationships within the company. The study of law, while inherently
a serious matter, can also be fun!
Course requirements:
Recitation (incl quizzes) and attendance: 15%
Three (3) Group projects for following topics: (25%)
First group project 5%

For management team and Indep contractor company structure and
employees contracts
For Majority and Minority unions Union Constitution and By-laws, Minutes etc.
Second group project: 10% Collective Bargaining Negotiations
Third group project: 10% Personnel Discipline
Midterm examinations (30%)
Final Examinations (30%)
1 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

Reference Materials:
Azucena, Cesario A., Jr. The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II,
National Book Store, Inc., Manila, 1993 rev. ed.
Fernandez, Perfecto V. Labor Relations Law. Tala Publishing Corp., Quezon City
1980.
Abad, Antonio H. Jr. and Abad, Anna Maria D. Compendium on Labor Law. Rex
Book Store, 84 P. Florentino St., Quezon City. Fifth edition, 2015.
Foz, Vicente, editor. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations,
with Appendices and Abstracts, 2012 edition. Philippine Law Gazette, 28
Consult st., Fairview Park, Quezon City. (may be purchased at National Book
Store).
A. INTRODUCTION
(Azucena Volume I, pp. 7-19; Fernandez, pp. 1 - 38)
1. Constitutional and statutory basis
1.1 Consti., art. 2, secs. 9-14, 18 and 20.

1.2 Consti., art. 3, secs. 10 and 18
1.2 Consti., art. 13, sec. 3
1.3 Labor Code, art. 112
1.4 Civil Code, Article 1700
2. General principles of labor law
2.1 Existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary

for the application of labor laws (See Section B for cases)
a) Employment not merely a contractual relationship:

Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]
b) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee

relationship?
Danilo P. Javier (Bitoy Javier) vs. FlyAce Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, 15
February 2012
Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca v. R. Villegas
Taxi Transport, G.R. No. 192998, 02 April 2014
2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity of the

exercise of its prerogatives
2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative

proceedings
Alilem Credit Cooperative vs. Bandiola, G.R. No. 173489, 25 February
2013, J. Peralta.

2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity, liberal interpretation of law in favor
of workers
Price vs. Innodata Phils., 567 SCRA 122 [2008]
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August
2012
Philippine Journalist Inc. vs.Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26
June 2013
National Union Of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries
(NUWHRAIN) - Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No.
177524, 23 July 2014.
En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs.
Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013
2.5 But management rights likewise protected

Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No 191281, 05 December 2012.
2.6 Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - Consti, Art XIII, Sec. 3
Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171
2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing of interests

in case workers and managements rights collide.
Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service [PET INC.], G.R. No. 169712, 20
January 2009
Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber Industries, G.R. No. 184011, 18
September 2013
B. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
(Azucena Volume I, pp. 16-27; Fernandez, pp. 61-97)
1. Employer defined: Art. 212 (e), LC;

DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (s)
2. Employee defined: Art. 212 (f), LC

DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r)
3. Employer relationship as matrix
3.1 Concept of employer-employee relationship
3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship
(Memory aid: South West Disaster Control)
a. Selection and hiring

b. Payment of Wages
c. Power of Dismissal
d. Control test
Cases:
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Social Security
Commission and Social Security Services vs. Asiapro Cooperative, G.R.
No. 172101, 23 November 2007
Legend Hotel [Manila], owned by Titanium Corporation, et al. vs. Hernani
S. Realuyo, also known as Joey Roa. G.R. No. 153511, 18 July 2012.

Hacienda Leddy, et al. vs. Paquito Villegas, G.R. No. 179654, 22
September 2014
3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of

Labor or the National Labor Relations Commission?
Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R.

No. 179652, 08 May 2009 See also: Meteoro et al vs. Creative
Creatures, GR 171275, 13 July 2009
3.4 Reasonable causal connection:

Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2014
Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute?

Smart Communications vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA 434, 27 Jan 2008
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393,
28 July 2009.
Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company car falls

within ambit of the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction. Domondon vs. NLRC,
471 SCRA 559 [2005]
3.5 Corporate officer or employee?
Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316

Arsenio Z. Locsin vs. Nissan Lease Phils. Inc. and Luis Banson, G.R. No.
185567, 20 October 2010.
Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. G.R. No.168757, 19 January
2011
Raul C. Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo, G.R. No.
201298, 05 February 2014
3.6 Effect when NO employer-employee relationship exists, or when the

main issue does not involve Er-Ee relationship
- jurisdiction devolves with the regular courts
Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427

Georg Grotjahn GMBH vs. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216
Eviota vs. Court of Appeals, 407 SCRA 394 [2003]
4. WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST

Re: VALID JOB CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS
DOLE Department Order No. 18 series of 2002; Dept. Order No. 18-A, 14
November 2011 and Dept. Order No. 1, series of 2012.
4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services

Asian Alcohol Corp vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 [1999]
Meralco vs. Quisumbing, 22 February 2000
Alviado et. al. vs. Procter & Gamble, and Promm Gemm, G.R. No.
160506, 09 March 2010
Goya Inc. vs. Goya Inc. Employees Union-FFW, G.R. No. 170054, 21
January 2013.

4.2 Independent contractor/ Job-contracting vs. Labor-only
contracting (Art. 106, LC; Dept. Order No. 18-02 [21 February 2002];
Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011)
Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. vs. Leonardo Largado, et al., G.R. No.
205300, 18 March 2015
Alilin vs. Petron, G.R. No. 177592, 09 June 2014.
HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS
LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING. -- Garden of Memories Park and Life Plan vs.
nd
NLRC 2 Division, G.R. No. 160278, 08 Feb 2012, 665 SCRA 293, J.
Mendoza, citing 7K Corporation vs. NLRC, GR 148490, 22 Nov 2006, 507
SCRA 509, 523
THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE

PERSON CONCERNED IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER
THAN A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. -- Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs.
Arlene S. Espiritu G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014 -
4.3 Examples
Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees.

Semblante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, 15 August 2011.
Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent

Temic Automotive Phils. vs. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union
FFW, G.R. No. 18695, 23 December 2009
Television Company vs. Talent

Jose Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004
Compare with: ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, GR 164156, 26 Sept 2006
and Farley Fulache et al vs. ABS-CBN, GR 183810, 21 Jan 2010
Nelson Begino vs. ABS-CBN, GR No. 199166, 20 April 2015
Insurance company vs. commission agents

Insular Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459
Contra: Tongko vs. Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company (Phils.)
Inc., G.R. No. 167622, 29 June 2010, En Banc
4.4 Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job

Contracting Arrangements: capitalization, other requirements and
negative list
Mandatory registration of independent contractors (DO18, s11)

Requirements for registration
Declaration of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (DO18A, s3[g])
Capitalization of at least P3Million (DO18A, s13[l])
THE NEGATIVE LIST - What cannot be subcontracted out (DO18, as
amended by DO18A , s7)
4.5 Liability of principal for unpaid wages of the employees of job

contractor Solidary liability as to wages and monetary claims
Compare with: Liability of principal to labor-only contracting

employees solidary liability as to ALL claims

4.5 Effect of DOLE Certification as legitimate job contractor
Ramy Gallego vs. Bayer Phils. G.R. No. 179807, 31 July 2009
Compare with: Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Ricky dela Cruz, supra.
and Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Agito, G.R.No. 179546, 13 Feb 09
5. COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6:

(Azucena Volume I, pp. 23-27; Fernandez, pp. 76-87)
5.1 Covered employment
a. Industrial and agricultural employees

b. Employees of labor organization
c. Employees of independent contractor
d. Employees of non-stock, non-profit organizations
5.2 Excluded employment
a. Government employees
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 428

Manila Public School Teachers Assn. Vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323
Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 283
Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA

Abanilla vs. Comm on Audit, 468 SCRA 87 [2005]
Compare with: Employees of GOCCs

Lumanta vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 79
b. Exempted employers
c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize
C. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
(Azucena Vol. I, pp. 19-22; Fernandez, pp. 99-104)
MEMORIZE ELEMENTS: Valid exercise of management prerogatives
The free will of the management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied, PROVIDED THAT THE SAME IS EXERCISED:
IN GOOD FAITH (BONA-FIDE IN CHARACTER),

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYERS INTEREST;
AND
NOT TO CIRCUMVENT THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES.
(Capitol Medical Center vs. Meriz; San Miguel Brewery and Union
Carbide cases).

1. Generally:
San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25
2. Examples of the exercise of management prerogatives
2.1 Hiring of personnel and size of workforce

Wiltshire File Co. vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 665
2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line

Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., G.R. 198783,
15 April 2013
2.3 Prohibition against Elective Office

Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 184885, 07 March 2012
2.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct

Briccio Ricky Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, G.R.
181881, 18 October 2012
2.5 Transfer of employees

Pharmacia and UPJOHN, Inc. (now Pfizer Philippines, Inc.) vs. Albayda,
Jr., G.R. No. 172724, 23 August 2010
Prince Transport vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011.
May employee refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a

grievance?
Manila Pavillion vs. Henry Delada, G.R. No. 189947, 25 January 2012
2.6 Terms and conditions upon hiring; qualification and change in law
St. Lukes Medical Center Employees Union AFW vs. NLRC, 517
SCRA 677 [2007]
2.7 Terms and conditions upon hiring; ban on spouses in same

company:
Star Paper vs. Simbol, 487 SCRA 228 [2006]
Compare with: Stipulations against marriage

Duncan Association of Detailman PGTWO and Tecson vs. Glaxo
Wellcome Phils., G.R. No. 164774, 12 April 2006; 438 SCRA 343 [2004]
2.8 Terms and conditions upon hiring; non-compete clauses

Ollendorf vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 585 [1918]
Red Line Transportation Co. vs. Bachrach Motor Co, 67 Phil. 77
Dator vs. UST, Rev. Frs. Tamerlane Lana and Rodel Aligan, 31 Aug.
2006
Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila, 550 SCRA 415
[28 March 2008]
Avon Cosmetics Vs. Leticia Luna, Gr No. 153674, 20 Dec 2006
2.9 Imposition of weight requirement:

Armando G. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, 17
October 2008.

2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours
Philippine Graphic Arts vs.NLRC, 166 SCRA 188 [1988]
Linton Comml. Co. vs. Herrera, 535 SCRA 434 [2007]
2.11 Reorganization as an exercise of management prerogatives

Jonathan V. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No.
174208, 25 January 2011.
3. Policies as to employee classification/status

- pertains to coverage purposes (Azucena, pp. 500-536)
Natl. Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 311
Pier 8 Arrastre vs. Roldan-Confesor, 241 SCRA 294 [1995]
Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work

Philex Gold Phils. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union, 468 SCRA 111
[2005]
3.1 Regular vs. casual employees, Art. 280 LC

Policy Instructions No.12; Dept. Order No. 10, Art. IV amending
Sec. 5, Rule 1, Bk. IV of Implementing Rules)
3.2 Probationary employees, Art. 282 LC, Policy Insts No. 11;
Dept. Order No. 10, Article V amending Sec. 6, Rule 1,
Book VI of Implementing Rules
Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250

Mariwasa vs. Leogario, 169 SCRA 465
Intl. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606
Extended probationary period; when allowed.

Ver Buiser vs. GTE Directories, 131 SCRA 151
University of the East, Dean Eleanor Javier et. al vs. Analiza Pepanio and
Mariti D. Bueno, G.R. No. 193891, 23 January 2013
Training plus probationary period equals double probation:

Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 417 [1993]
No need to inform probationary employee that he has to comply with

all company rules and regulations
Phil. Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay, GR 164532, 24 July 2007
ON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT WITH A TERM:

Pines City Educational Ctr. vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 [1993]
Lacuesta vs. Ateneo de Manila, 477 SCRA 217 [2005]
Woodbridge vs. Pe Benito, 570 SCRA 164 [2008]
But probationary nature to prevail over term:

Yolanda Mercado vs. AMA Computer College Paranaque, 13 Apr 2010
Colegio del Santissimo Rosario vs. Rojo, G.R. No. 170388, 03 September
2013.

3.3 Term employment
Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702

Pakistan Air Lines vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 90
Cielo vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 410
Phil. Village Hotel vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 423
Anderson vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 116 [1996]
AMA Computer College Paranaque vs. Austria, 538 SCRA 438 [2007]
Jamaias VS NLRC, G.R. NO. 159350, 09 March 2016
CONTRA:
Viernes, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commissions, et al., 400
SCRA 557 [04 Apr 2003]
3.4 Project employees, Art. 280 LC, Policy Instructions No. 20

DOLE Dept Order No. 19, series of 1993, Section 2.2 [e] and [f]
Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Visca, 567 SCRA 269 [2008]
Indicators of project employment, enumerated:

Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez, GR 170181, 26 June 2008
Absence of definite duration for projects lead to conclusion of regular

employment. PNOC-Energy Devlpt Bd vs. NLRC, 521 SCRA 222 [2007]
3.5 Seasonal Employees

Mercado vs. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332
Hacienda Fatima vs. Natl Federation of Sugarcane Workers, 396 SCRA
518 [28 Jan 2003]
EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS.

Gapayao vs. Fulo and SSS, G.R. No. 193493, 13 June 2013 (Sereno, C.J.)
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No.
186439. 15 January 2014. J Brion.
3.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees

Art. 212 (m), LC; Policy Instructions No. 8
Rural Bank of Cantilan vs. Julve, 517 SCRA 17 [2007]
Echevarria vs. Venutek Medika, 516 SCRA 72 [2007]
D. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule II
Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)
1. Principles of distributive and social justice found in the constitution;

rights of workers
ART II (State Policies), Sec. 9

ART. III, Secs. 1 and 8;

ART. XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Secs. 1, 6 and 12.
ART XIII (Social Justice & Human Rights; Labor), Secs. 1 & 3
Article 3, Labor Code: Declaration of Policy
2. Who cannot unionize for purposes of collective bargaining

(Azucena, pp. 140-149)
2.1 Government employees [ supra., Part B, sec. 5.2 (a) ]
2.2 Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations

with original charters
2.3 Members of a cooperative

Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Caleja, 180 SCRA 740
BUT: Republic of the Philippines represented by SSS vs. AsiaPro Cooperative,
G.R. No. 172101, 23 Nov 2007
2.4 Managerial employees, Art. 245 cf. Art. 212 [m], Labor Code
Dept. Order No. 9, Rule II, Sec. 2; Dept Order 40, R1 S1(hh)
Higher standards required of managers:
Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]
2.5 Confidential employees: Doctrine of necessary implication
Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339

Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA 517
Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000]
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia
Brewery, G.R. No. 162025, 03 August 2010.
Contra:
De la Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn., 330 SCRA 363 [2000]
San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees Union vs.
Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 [1997]
2.6 Employees of International Organizations or Specialized Agencies

which are registered with the United Nations and enjoys diplomatic
immunity
Contra:
German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) vs. CA, GR No. 152318,
16 April 2009
3. Who can unionize for purposes of collective bargaining

(Azucena, pp. 140-149; Art. 245 LC cf. B5 R2 S1, IRR)
3.1 Supervisory employees (cannot join with rank and file)

Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (xx)
But note: Can they belong to the same Federation?

Atlas Lithographic vs. Usec Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9481, Section 8, amending Article 245 of the

Labor Code.

3.2 Rank and file employees (But cannot join supervisory union)
Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (nn)
3.3 Security guards

Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (supra.) 210 SCRA 339
3.4 Alien employees with valid working permits

Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule II, Sec. 2
E. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Azucena, pp. 95-105; Fernandez, 213-278
DOLE Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule III
1. Definitions
1.1 Labor organization - Art. 212 (g); Dept. Order No. 9, RI, S(h)
DO 40, R1, S1 (cc)
1.2 Legitimate labor organization - 212 (h); DO 9, RI, S(i);
DO 40, R1, S1 (ee)
Effect: Art. 242, LC Book 5, Rule 2, Sec. 10, IRR
1.3 Company union - Art. 212 (i)
1.4 Others: Legitimate Workers Association, DO40, R1 S1 (ff)
2. Rationale for unionization
3. Union registration and procedure (Department Order No. 9. [21 June

1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule 3,
Sections 1-11; Article 234 LC as amended by Rep. Act No. 9481)
3.1 Independent union, requirements for organization

Art. 234, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(i); DO40 R3 S2
Republic Act No. 9481, Section 1, amending Art. 234, LC
3.2 Affiliation with federation or national union, requirements for orgn.

Art. 234 & 237, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(II); DO40 R3 S2, S6-9
Art. 234-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481
Chartered Local, defined under DO No. 40, RI S1(i)

San Miguel Corp [Mandaue PPP] vs. Mandaue Packing Products Plants
San Miguel Corporation Monthlies and Rank-and-File Union FFW,
467 SCRA 107 [2005]
3.3 Attestation requirements - verified by Secretary/Treasurer, and

attested by President thereof - DO 9, RV, S2(i)
Whether charter certificate issued by Federation needs to be

certified and attested to by the local union officers, as part of the
registration requirements of a charter

Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Cehmical Soidarily of Unions in the
Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER) vs. Charter
Chemical and Coating Corp., GR 169717, 16 March 2011.
3.4 Action by the Bureau of Labor Relations

Arts. 235-236, LC; B5 R2 S5-6, IRR; DO 9, RV, S3-4
3.5 Reportorial requirements

Article 242-A, LC, as inserted by Rep. Act No. 9481, Sec. 7
3.6 Cancellation
Arts. 238-239; B5 R2 S7-11, IRR; DO 9, RVII
Republic Act No. 9481, secs. 5-9, amending Art. 239, LC; effect of
amendment
Takata (Philippines) Corporation vs Bureau of Labor Relations and

Samahang Lakas Manggagawa Ng Takata (Salamat), Respondents.
G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014
Discrepancies in number of members stated in application,

whether a ground for cancellation on account of fraud
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor, GR 183317, 21
December 2009
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle
Ridge Employees Union [EREU], G.R. No. 178989, 18 March 2010
Failure to submit annual financial report; no longer a ground for

cancellation of union registration
The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers in the
Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), G.R. No. 178296, 12
January 2011
Filing of petition for cancellation of Unions registration

is not per se an act of ULP
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669
(1999)
Registration of union not subject to collateral attack

San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO vs. San Miguel Packaging
Products Employees Union Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang
Pilipino (PDMP), 533 SCRA 125 [2007]
Inclusion of supervisory employees in the R&F union is NOT a

ground to impugn the legitimacy of the union.
SAMMA-LIKHA vs. SAMA Corp., G.R. No. 167141, 13 Mar 2009
Compare with requirements under new law, Republic Act No.

9481, Secs. 4-5, amending Articles 238 and 239 of Labor Code; also
Article 238-A, LC

Pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration will
not preclude collective bargaining
Legend International Resorts vs. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda,
GR 169754, 23 February 2011.
Voluntary cancellation Article 239-A, LC as inserted by Republic

Act No. 9481, Sec. 6
4. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 241, LC)
4.1 Direct election and tenure of officers (Art. 241 [c, f and k])
Cruz vs. Calleja, 188 SCRA 520
4.2 Payment of membership dues and other assessments

(Art. 241 [g-j, n])
Palacol vs. Calleja, 182 SCRA 710
4.3 Attorneys fees

Gabriel vs. Secretary of Labor, 328 SCRA 247 [2000]
5. Right to Disaffiliate from Mother Union
Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR, 137 SCRA 42

Philippine Skylanders Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. 127374, 31 Jan. 2002
Cirtek Employees Labor Union FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190516, 06
June 2011.
F. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003]
Republic Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007]
1. Bargaining unit defined - Art. 255, LC

DO 40, R1 S1 (d)
2. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit
2.1 Generally -- community of interest

exception: Globe Doctrine -- desire of employees
2.2 Ineligibility of Managerial Employees to Join any Labor

Organization; Right of Supervisory Employees Rep. Act No. 9481
sec 8, amending Art. 245, LC
2.3 Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the

Bargaining Unit - Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, inserting Art. 245-A, LC

G. CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], RVIII
1. Role of Employer during certification elections

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 12, inserting Art. 258-A, LC
2. Other kinds of recognition of employee representatives

excluding certification elections
2.1 Direct certification - not allowed
2.2 Voluntary recognition, Dept. Order No. 9, Rule X
2.3 Consent election, DO 9, RI, S (ee); DO40 R8 S10

Effect of consent election: DO40 R8 S23
3. Certification election and procedure

Art. 256-257, LC; B5 R5 S1-9, IRR,
Dept. Order No. 40 [2003], Rule8 and 9
Rep. Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007], secs. 10 and 11
3.1 Definition and nature of CE -- B5 R1 S1[x], IRR; DO 9, RI, S(dd)

DO 40, R1 S1 (d)
Excl. bargaining represntve: DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r)

NUHRWRAIN Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR,
Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union and Acesite Phils. Hotel
Corp., GR No. 181531, 31 July 2009
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Sec of Labor et al, GR 183317, 21
December 2009
3.2 Who may, and where to, file petition for CE

B5 R5 S1-2, IRR; DO 9, Rule XI, S1-2; DO40 R8 S1-2
Republic Act No. 9481, sec. 10, amending Art 256, LC
3.2.1 Challenging the petition for CE
Toyota Motors vs. Toyota MPC Labor Union, 268 SCRA 571
[1997]
Tagaytay Highlands Intl Golf Club, Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union PGTWO, 395 SCRA 699 [22 Jan 2003]
3.2.2 Filing of petition for cancellation of Unions

registration is not per se an act of ULP,
3.2.3 Form and content of petition: DO40 R8 S4

3.3 When to file petition for CE - DO40 R8 S3
3.3.1 If unorganized establishment

- at any time (B5 R5 S3-6, IRR)
- Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 257, LC
3.3.2 If organized establishment

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 256, LC
a) No duly registered CBA - at any time
b) With duly registered CBA
1) Contract bar rule - only during freedom period

(Art. 232, LC; B5 R5 S4, IRR)
FVC Labor Union-PGTWO vs. Sama Samang
Nagkakaisang Mangggagawa sa FVC-SIGLO, GR 176249,
27 November 2009
2) One year bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
3) Deadlock bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
4. Denial of Petition for Certification Election;
4.1 Grounds for denial: Dept Order No. 40, R8 S14-15
4.2 Appellate procedure in case of denial

Dept Order No. 40, R8 S17-22
5. Procedure in the Conduct of the Certification Elections

Dept Order No. 40, R9 Sections 1 to 20
5.1 Raffle and pre-election conference

5.2 Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings
May probationary employees vote in the certification elections, if the CBA

provision explicitly excludes them in the vote?
NUHRWRAIN Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR, Holiday
Inn Mnaila Pavilion Hotel Labor Unino and Acesite Phils. Hotel Corp., GR No.
181531, 31 July 2009
5.3 Voting proper

5.4 Challenging the votes; on-the-spot questions
5.5 Canvass of votes
5.6 Certification of Collective Bargaining Agent
6. Run-off Elections - DO 9, Rule XIII; Dept Order No. 40, R10
7. Failure of elections - Dept Order No. 40, R17 and 18
MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS HERE

H. INTER-UNION AND INTRA-UNION DISPUTES
DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003
1. What are inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s1&2].

.
QUESTION: In cases where there are two contending factions of officers
in an inter-union dispute (of the majority union), may the employer
unilaterally refuse to remit union dues to on the pretext that there is an
on-going intra-union dispute between the two factions? Is the non-
remittance of union dues constitutive of ULP as an interference in internal
affairs of the Union? De la Salle University vs. De la Salle University
Employees Association. G.R. No. 169254, 23 August 2012
2. What are effects of pendency of inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s3].
3. Who may file an inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s4].
4. Where to file inter- or intra-union disputes.
I. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Azucena, 199-233)
1. Duty to bargain collectively
1.1 a. Defined
b. Two kinds of Bargaining:
Single enterprise bargaining - One where any voluntarily recognized or

certified labor union may demand negotiations with its employer for terms
and conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining unit
concerned.
Multiple Employer bargaining One where a legitimate labor union(s)

and employers may agree in writing to come together for the purpose of
collective bargaining, provided:
(1) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent exclusive

bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in multi-
employer bargaining;

(2) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions who are
incumbent bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in
multi-employer bargaining; and
(3) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer units
who consent to multi-employer bargaining may participate in
multi-employer bargaining.
1.2 When duty to bargain exists/begins -

1.2.1 In the absence of a CBA - Art. 251, LC
1.2.2 Existence of a CBA - only during freedom period, Art. 253, LC
1.3 Effect of refusal to bargain - constitutes ULP under Art. 258 (g)
Divine Word Univ. vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 759
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of
Letran, 340 SCRA 587 [2000]
1.4 When duty to bargain ceases
1.5 Standard of conduct required
Surface bargaining
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs. Secretary Nieves
Confesor and Standard Chartered Bank, GR No. 11497, 16 June 2004
Individual bargaining
Insular Life Assurance Employees-NATO vs. Insular Life Assurance Ltd.,
76 SCRA 50 citing Melo Photo Supply Corp. vs. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332
2. What are bargainable issues - Art. 252, LC
3. Bargaining Deadlock
3.1 When is there a deadlock in collective bargaining

Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees
vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 503 (1997)
3.2 Difference between economic and non-economic provisions

San Miguel Food vs. SMC Employees Unino PTGWO, 535 SCRA 133
[2007].
3.3 Remedies - Notice of strike or notice of lock-out

30-day cooling-period and 7-day strike ban
J. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

1. Definition - B5 R1 S1 (jj), IRR

Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring vs. Abarquez, 220 SCRA 197
PT&T vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 193 [1995
2. Contents - supra., IRR
2.1 Mandatory subjects
a) Compliance with minimum labor standards; what is effect of sub-

standard contract
RFM Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU, GR No. 162324, 04
February 2009.
b) Grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration

San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 204 SCRA 1 (1999)
c) No strike/no lockout clause

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield
vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
2.2 Union dues vs. Agency fees/special assessments; check-off

Art. 241 (r); Art. 222 (b)
Palacol vs. Calleja, 26 Feb. 1990
Effect if ER fails to implement check-off

Holy Cross of Davao vs. Joaquin, 263 SCRA 358 [18 Oct 1996]
2.3 Union security clauses: nature and kinds
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union - Davao Chapter -
Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, 10 August 2010;
En Banc.
Termination due to union security clause

Olvido vs. CA, 536 SCRA 81 [2007]
Inguillo vs. First Philippines Scales, Inc., 588 SCRA 471 [2009]
PICOP Resources, Inc. (PRI) vs. Anacleto Taneca et. al, G.R. No. 160828,
09 August 2010
2.4 Signing bonus

Caltex Refinery, supra. 279 SCRA 218
2.5 Interpretation in favor of labor in cases of doubt or ambiguity (see

also: General Principles in Part A Section 2.4):
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August
2012
Philippine Journalist Inc. vs.Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26
June 2013

En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU)
vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013
National Union Of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries
(NUWHRAIN) - Philippine Plaza Chapter Vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R.
No. 177524, 23 July 2014
3. Signing and ratification

ALU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178
4. Effect:
4.1 With respect to successor-employer

E. Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1
Metrobank Union vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 268
4.2 With respect to a change in exclusive bargaining agent -

Substitutionary Doctrine
Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI Ees Union, 23 SCRA 465
5. Procedure in registration of CBA

Art. 231, LC; B5 R9 S1, IRR; DO 9, Rule XVI, Secs. 1-5
6. Scope of the agreement; who may avail of benefits -

Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs. San Miguel Brewery
New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 404 [2000]
7. Duration of the CBA (Art. 253-A)
7.1 Economic provisions of the CBA: 3 years
DUTY OF PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PENDING

RENEGOTIATION. -- General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union
[GMC-ILU] vs. General Milling Corporation/General Milling Corporation vs.General
Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union [GMC-ILU], et al., G.R. Nos.
183122/183889, 15 June 2011.
7.2 Representation question: 5 years

- contract bar rule, DO 9 Rule XVI, Sec. 4
May parties negotiate and agree to extend term of exclusive

bargaining status of majority union?
FVC Labor Union Phil Transport and General Workers Org. (FVCLU-
PTGWO) vs Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity
of Independent and General Labor Organization (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO),
GR 176249, 27 Nov 2009.
7.3 Retroactivity
Union of Filipro Employees vs. NLRC, 23 SCRA 465

Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999)
Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172 [2000]
K. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Concept: Article 247, Labor Code.
2. Test to determine ULP

Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA 244 [1971]
De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 [2001]
2. Unfair Labor Practices of employers, Art. 248 LC
2.1 Interference in the right to self-organization

Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food
and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, 28 January 2003
Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. 167291, 12 January
2011
2014 ULP CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS ORCHESTRATED

ACTIVITIES TO SUBVERT CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS.
T & H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation et. al. vs. T & H
Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union, et. al., G.R. No.
191714, 26 February 2014, J. Mendoza.
2.2 Refusal to bargain collectively

Divine World vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]
2.3 Gross violation of the CBA; need not be limited to economic

provisions if GROSS PER SE.
Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs. Bayer Philippines, GR No. 162943,
06 Dec 2010.
2.4 Question: Is a lump-sum amount in lieu of wage increases during

CBA negotiations tantamount to bargaining in bad faith?
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, 07 April 2014.
3. Unfair Labor Practices of labor organizations, Art. 249 LC
3.1 Interference in the employees right to self-organization, or to

discriminate against him
Salunga vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 21 SCRA 216 (1967)
Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368 (1987)

4. When not ULP:
General Santos Coca-cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. Coca Cola
Botters et al., GR 178647, 13 February 2009
Suspension of CBA due to financial losses not ULP:

Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association, et al. vs.. Manila Mining corp, et
al., G.R. Nos. 178222-23, 29 September 2010
L. STRIKES, PICKETING AND LOCK-OUTS

Azucena, pp. 292 - 385
Art. 263 - 266, Labor Code
Rule 8, Secs. 1-14, Impl. Rules and Reglns.
Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule XXII, Secs. 1-14
1. Constitutional basis and definition

DO 40, S1, R1 (uu to ww)
Gold City Integrated Port Services vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 627 [1995]
Lapanday Workers Union vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 95 [1995]
Great Pacific Life Employees Union vs. Grepalife, 303 SCRA 113 [1999]
Association of Independent Unions in the Phils. Vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 219
(1999)
1.1 Mass leave is not equivalent to a strike. --

Alex Q. Naranjo, et al. vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc., et al. G.R.
No. 193789, 19 September 2012
2. Who may declare a strike or lock-out; when it may be declared

B5 R8 S2 IRR; Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1-2
3. Requisites for valid strike or lock-out:

Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII, Sec. 1
First City Interlink vs. Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 [1997]

Pilipino Telephone Corp vs. Pilipino Telephone Ees Assn. (PILTEA), 525 SCRA
361 [2007]
Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Association.(TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171
[2007]
SIX CATEGORIES OF ILLEGAL STRIKE :Toyota Motor Phils Workers Assn.

(TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 (2007).
3.1 Lawful purpose
3.1.1 Economic strike/lock-out; Deadlock defined

Capitol Medical Center Alliance vs. Laguesma, supra.,

267 SCRA 503 [1997]
3.1.2 ULP strike/lock-out

cf. Arts. 248-249, LC
Filing of petition for cancellation of Unions registration is not

per se an act of ULP
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 669
(1999)
Welga ng Bayan not a valid purpose -

Biflex Phils. Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Filflex Indl and Mfg., 511
SCRA 247 [2007]
No lawful purpose when conducted by a union which is not a

legitimate labor organization
Manila Diamond Hotel vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union,
G.R. No. 158075, 30 June 2006
Abaria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 154113. 07 December 2011.
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 155306,
28 August 2013, Leonardo-De Castro, J
QUESTION: May employees who have gone on mass leaves

without prior authorization be presumed to have conducted an
illegal strike? Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al. G.R. No.
171118. 10 September 2012, J. Peralta. -
3.2 Lawful means
3.2.1 Art. 264 (b) and (e), LC
3.2.2 Guidelines on Removal of Illegal Blockades at Factory Gates,

DOLE Memorandum dated 22 October 1987
3.2.3 Guidelines for the Conduct of INP/AFP Personnel

during Strikes, Lock-outs and Labor Disputes in General,
effective 22 October 1987
3.2.4 Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Secs. 10-13

Phil. Marine Officers Guild vs. Compania Maritima, 22 SCRA 113
United Seamens Union of the Philippines vs. Davao Shipowners
Asso., 20 SCRA 1226
Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich, 58 SCRA 1290
Ilaw at Buklod Manggagawa vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 586
Note: Violence committed on both sides during the strike

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfield vs.
Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
3.2.5 Liability of Union officers and members in illegal strikes

Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, 258 SCRA 724 [1996]
C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals / Nagkahiusang
Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara

& Sons, Inc., et al. / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL
(NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
155109/G.R. No. 155135/G.R. No. 179220, 29 September 2010.
Club Filipino, Inc., et al. vs. Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406,
14 January 2015
3.3
Compliance with procedural requirements
3.3.1 Strike vote/Lock-out vote (Dept. Order No. 9, R22, S7-8)
3.3.2 Notice of strike/lock-out (Dept. Order 9, R22, S3-5)

San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1 [1999]
Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. NLRC, 318 SCRA 68 [1999]
3.3.3 Cooling-off period

a. Economic strike: 30 days
b. ULP strike: 15 days
c. Exceptions - Art. 263 (b); B5 R8 S3, IRR
3.3.4 Seven-day strike ban

National Fedn. of Sugar Workers vs. Ovejera, 114 SCRA 354
First City Interlink vs. Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 [1997]
3.3.5 Conciliation proceedings (Dept. Order 9, R22, S6)

GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452
San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418 [10 June 2003]
3.3.6 Improved offer balloting (Dept. Order 9, R22, S9)
3.4 Good faith strike
Peoples Indl. & Comml. (FFW) vs. PICC, 15 March 1982

Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR, 90 SCRA 135
CONTRA: Not a good defense in cases of procedural infirmity

Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organizations of Workers in Hotel
Restaurant and Allied Industries, G.R. No. 1534664, 18 July 2003
3.5 Liability of company who fails to immediately reinstate the union

member for participating in an illegal strike; extent of backwages.
C. Alcantara and Sons vs Court of Appeals and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo
Sa Alsons-SPFL, G.R. No. 155109, 14 March 2012. J Peralta.
4. Effect of a no strike/no lock-out clause in CBA

Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR, supra., 90 SCRA 135
Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 17 Feb. 1993
5. Assumption of Jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor or Certification of the

labor dispute to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration, Art. 264 (g), LC

Saulog Transit vs. Lazaro, 128 SCRA 591
Telefunken Semi-conductors Ees Union-FFW vs. CA, 348 SCRA 565 [2000]
5.1 Discretion of the Secretary

FEATI University vs. Bautista, 18 SCRA 1191
Extent of discretion:
May order the suspension of the termination aspect of a labor

dispute - University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. vs. Secretary of
Labor, et al., G.R. No. 151379, 14 Jan. 2009
May give an award higher than what was agreed upon by the
management and union - Cirtek Employees Labor Union FFW vs.
Cirtek Electronics, GR 190515, 15 November 2010.
May not use unaudited financial statements as basis for decision

regarding wage increases Asia Brewery vs. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng
Manggagawa sa Asia, G.R. 171594-96, 18 September 2013
5.2 Nature and Effect of Assumption and Certification Orders

Intl. Pharma. vs. Sec. of Labor, 205 SCRA 59
Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement during strike

proceedings
Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. No. 140518, 12/16/2004
5.3 Effect of Defiance of Return-to-Work Orders
a) Hearing not necessary; akin to contempt of court

St. Scholasticas College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, 210 SCRA 565
Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, supra. 258 SCRA 724 [1996]
Telefunken Semi-conductors, supra.
b) CONTRA: New twist on defiance of return to work order

Solidbank vs. Gamier et al, GR 159460, 15 Nov 2010; Solidbank vs.
Solidbank Union et al., GR 159461, 15 Nov 2010
6. Picketing and other forms of concerted activities

Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Sec. 12
6.1 Nature of picketing

- includes stationing persons at the site of the labor dispute,
or even at run-away shop
MSF Tire and Rubber vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 784 [1999]
Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant EEs Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512
SCRA 437 [2007]
6.2 Limitations:
6.2.1. Moving picket
6.2.2 Must not affect neutral parties

Liwayway Publications vs. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, 23 Oct.
1981
6.2.3 Private homes not allowed
6.2.4 Without violence and intimidation
6.3 Other forms of concerted activities
M. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Articles 282 286, Labor Code; IRR, Book VI, R1 S1-14.
Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXIII, Secs. 1-9
1. GENERALLY:
1.1 No termination without just cause and due process;

rationale behind principle (Dept. Order No. 9, R23, S1)
Employee not required to prove innocence of the charges leveled against

him. - Phil. Transmarine vs. Carilla, 525 SCRA 586 [2007]
1.2 Management prerogative; Company rules and regulations
San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Ople,

170 SCRA 25 [1989]
2. SOME GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION, Art. 282-285, LC
JUST CAUSES FOR TERMINATION
Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Assn vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 [2007]
BUT EMPLOYEE MUST PROVE FACT OF DISMISSAL FIRST:

Lilia Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy et. al., G.R. No. 172295, 23 Dec 2008
Bitoy Javier (Danilo P. Javier) vs. Fly Ace Corporation/Flordelyn Castillo,G.R. No.
192558, 15 Feb 2012.
2.1 Serious misconduct

Torreda vs. Toshiba Information Equip., 523 SCRA 133 [2007]
Fighting within company premises:

Supreme Steel Pipe Corp vs. Berdaje, 522 SCRA 155 [2007]
Alex Gurango vs. Best Chemicals and Plastics Inc. and Moon Pyo Hong,
G.R. No. G.R. No. 174593, 25 August 2010
Northwest Airlines vs. Concepcion Del Rosario, GR. 157633, 10 Sept 2014.
Cesar Naguit vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188839, 22 June 2015
Attitude problem e.g., negative attitude:

Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992]
Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA [2008]

Serious misconduct by manager
Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]
Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service (PET INC.), G.R. No. 169712, 20
January 2009
Moonlighting:
Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Balagot, 513 SCRA 672 [2007].
Theft by employee:
Caltex (Phils.), Inc vs. Agad, G.R. No. 162017, 23 April 2010;
Villamor Golf Club vs. Pehid, G.R. No. 166152, 04 October 2005.
Cosmos Bottling Vs. Wilson Fermin, G.R. 193676 and Wilson Fermin Vs.
Cosmos Bottling, GR 194303, 20 June 2012
Drug abuse as serious misconduct:

See also: REQUIREMTS FOR VALID DRUG TEST under RA 9156.
AER vs. Progresibong Union sa AER, 15 July 2011 citing Nacague vs.
Suplicio Case, Aug 2010
Bughaw Jr. Vs. Treasure Island, 550 SCRA 307 [2008]
Plantation Bay Resort and Spa vs. Dubrico, 04 Dec 2009
Mirant Philippines vs. Joselito A. Caro, G.R. No. 181490, 23 April 2014.
Conspiracy in commission of theft:

White Diamond Trading Corporation vs. NBLRC, G.R. No. 186019, 29
March 2010
Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
164118, 09 February 2010
Committing offenses penalized with three suspensions within a

twelve-month period:
Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-NUHWRAIN Vs. Magsalin, GR No.
164939, 06 June 2011
Contra: When not serious misconduct
RCPI vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114777, 05 July 1996 stapler case
VH Manufacturing vs. NLRC, 322 SCRA 417 [2000] sleeping on the job;
dismissal too harsh a penalty
Collegio de San Juan de Letran Calamba vs. Villas, 399 SCRA 550 [26
March 2003]
Uttering of invectives:
Samson vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 460 [2000]
Punzal vs. ESTI Technologies, 518 SCRA 66 [2007]
Roque B. Benitez, et al., vs. Santa Fe Moving and Relocation Services, et
al., G.R. No. 208163, 20 April 2015.
Libel:
Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et al. vs. Visayan
Electric Company, Inc., (VECO), G.R. No. 205575, 22 July 2015.
2.2 Gross insubordination

The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf Philippines, Inc. vs. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R.
No. 208908, March 11, 2015
Employees refusal to comply with rules and regulations by simple

expedient of challenging reasonableness, not allowable:
GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452 [1991]
What if the act were within discretionary powers of manager?

ePacific Global Contact Center vs. Cabansay, 538 SCRA 498 [2007]
Prudential Bank vs. Antonio Mauricio et al., GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012.
Contra: Refusal to comply due to valid reason

Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc., Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III v. Virginia E.
Pacia, G.R. No. 171189, 09 March 2011
Contra: Violation of company rules and regulations, tolerance thereof.

Permex, Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [24 Jan 2000]; citing Tide Water
Association Oil Co. vs. Victory Employees and Laborers Association, 85
Phil. 166.
2.3 Gross negligence/habitual neglect of duty

Dr. Phylis C. Rio, et al, vs. Colegio De Sta. Rosa Makati et. al., G.R. No.
189629, 06 Aug 2014.
Habitual absences/tardiness as form of neglect

San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union v San Juan De
Dios and NLRC, 28 May 2005
May gross and habitual neglect likewise be considered as serious

misconduct?
Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 171023, 18
December 2009.
Single isolated act of negligence insufficient ground for termination

St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan vs. Estrelito Nazario, G.R.
No. 152166, 20 October 2010
Totality of Infractions ruling:

Mansion Printing Center and Clement Cheng vs Diosdado Bitara, Jr. , G.R.
No. 168120, 15 January 2012.
2.4 Abandonment
Hilton Heavy Equipment vs. Ananias Dy, G.R. No. 164860, 02 February
2010.
Essencia Q. Manarpiis vs. Texan Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 197011,
28 January 2015
2.5 Fraud
Felix vs. Enertech Systems, 355 SCRA 680 [2001]
Pfizer vs. Lleander vs. Galan, G.R. No. 158460, 24 Aug. 2007
Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, 03 June 2013
N.B.: Concealment of pregnancy; dismissal too harsh

Lakpue Drug vs. Balga, G.R. 166379, 20 Oct 2005]

2.6 Loss of Confidence/Breach of Trust
Philippine Plaza Holdings vs. Episcope, G.R. No. 192826, 27 Feb 2013.
Hormillosa vs. Coca Cola, G.R. No. 198699, 09 September 2013
St. Lukes Medical Center Vs. Ma. Theresa Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, 11
March 2015
Managerial employee
Prudential Bank vs.Antonio Mauricio, GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012
Cecilia Manese vs. Jollibee Foods, G.R. No. 17-454, 11 October 2012
De Leon Cruz vs. BPI, G.R. No. 173357, 13 February 2013
Two kinds of positions of trust identified:

Abelardo Abel vs. Philex Mining, GR 178976, 31 July 2009
Carlos Valenzuela vs. Caltex, GR 169965-66, 15 Dec 2010
Bus conductor is a confidential employee:

Mapili vs. Phil. Rabbit Bus Line, G.R. No. 172506, 27 July 2011.
Rank and file NOT entrusted with custody of property, cannot be

terminated for loss of trust and confidence
Century Iron Works vs. Banas, G.R. 184116, 19 June 2013
Difference in termination of confidential employees vs rank-and-file

Phil. Transmarine Carriers vs. Carilla, 535 SCRA 893 [2007]
Tirazona vs. CA, 548 SCRA 560 (2008)
Tampering of company records sufficient for loss of trust

Eats Cetera Food Services vs. Letran, GR 179507, 02 Oct 2009
May an employee be terminated even if he did not benefit from the

fraud committed?
Eric Dela Cruz V. Coca-Cola Bottlers, G.R. 180465, 31 July 2009
2.7 Incompetence
EDI Staffbuilders Intl. vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 409 [2007]
Contra: Inefficiency of employee; condonation by employer --

Bebina G. Salvaloza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gulf Pacific
Security Agency, Inc., and Angel Quizon, G.R. No. 182086, 24 November
2010
2.8 Commission of a crime

Torreda vs. Toshiba Info Equip., 515 SCRA 133 [2007]
AUTHORIZED CAUSES OF TERMINATION

2.9 Redundancy
Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 [1995]
Nelson Culili vs. Eastern Telecom, GR 165381, 09 Feb 2011
Alleged redundancy contradictory to voluntary retirement.

General Milling Corporation vs. Violeta L. Viajar. G.R. No. 181738, 30
January 2013.
2.10 Retrenchment or business reverses

Businessday vs. NLRC, 221 SCRA 9
San Miguel Jeepney vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 [1996]
Navotas Shipyard Corporation and Jesus Villaflor vs. Innocencio
Montallana et. al., G.R. No. 190053, 24 March 2014
Contra: separation pay not necessary in case of bankruptcy

North Davao Mining vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 721 [1996]
Audited financial statements as proof of serious business losses

Virgilio Anabe vs. AsiaKonstruct, GR 183233, 23 Dec 2009
Notice to DOLE/employee plus payment of separation pay to all

affected employees
Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 533 [1995].
2.11 Closure
Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]
Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP et. al. vs. Benson
Industries, Inc. G.R. No. 200746, 06 August 2014.
When done in bad faith: Penafrancia Tours and Travel Transport vs.
Sarmiento, GR 178397, 20 Oct 2010.
2.12 Disease - continued employment must be prejudicial

to own health and co-workers
Sevillana vs. International Corp., 356 SCRA 451 [16 April 2001]
Romeo Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan, doing business under the name and
style Yuhans Enterprises, G.R. No. 169191, 01 June 2011.
Wuerth Philippines, Inc. vs. Rodante Ynson, G.R. No. 175932, 15
February 2012.
Eleazar S. Padillo vs. Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc., et al. G.R. No.
199338, 21 January 2013.
2.13 Merger or consolidation with another company

First Gen. Marketing vs. NLRC, 223 SCRA 337 [1993]
Manlimos vs. NLRC, 242 SCRA 145 [1995]
3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
3.1 Preventive suspension

JRS Business vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 445 [1995]
Cadiz vs. Court of Appeals, 474 SCRA 232 [2005]
3.2 Suspension where allowed for more than one month

Deles vs. NLRC, supra. Gross negligence, 327 SCRA 541 [2000]
3.3 Constructive dismissal -

McMer Corporation, Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al. G.R. No. 193421; June 04,
2014
3.4 Floating status not to exceed 6 months -

Bebiana Salvaloza vs. NLRC Gulf Pacific Agency et al., GR 182086, 24 Nov
2010
Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., et. al., vs. Maia Angela Reyes, G.R. No. 177816,
03 August 2011.
Suspension of operations on account of business losses

Nasipit Lumber Company, et al. vs. National Organization of
Workingmen (NOWM), et al., G.R. No. 146225, 11/25/2004
G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop et al. vs. Ricardo Ambos et. al., G.R.
No. 174184, 28 January 2015.
3.5 Last-In First-Out (LIFO) rule -

Maya Farms Employees Org. vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 508
3.6 Totality of infractions rule

Mendoza vs. NLRC, 195 SCRA 606 [1991]
Villeno vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 108153 [26 Dec. 1995]
Meralco vs. NLRC, ibid.
Contra: Acebedo Optical vs. NLRC, 527 SCRA 655 [2007]
3.7 Length of service

Citibank NA vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212 [1995]
Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September
2013
3.8 Demotion
Leonardo vs. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589 [2000]
3.9 Employees abrasive character and failure to get along with other co-
employees
Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992]
Heavylift Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 473 SCRA 541 [2005]
Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA (2008).
3.10 Resignation instead of termination

Mendoza vs. HMS Credit Corp., et. al., G.R. No. 187232, 17 April 2013;
citing San Miguel Properties vs. Gucaban, 654 SCRA 18 [2011]
General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar, G.R. No. 181783, 30 January 2013;
citing Quevedo vs. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., 599 SCRA 438
[2009]
N.B.: Signing of Release Waivers and Quitclaims

Becton Dickinson Phils. vs. NLRC, 475 SCRA 125 [2005]
Goodrich Manfuacturing vs. Ativo et al., GR 188002, 01 Feb 2010
Telex is not equivalent to tender of resignation.

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. and Skippers Maritime Services, Inc. Ltd.
vs. Nathaniel Doza, et al., G.R. No. 175558. 08 February 2012
3.11 Immorality/Sexual Harassment

Republic Act No. 7877
Chua-Qua vs. Clave, 189 SCRA 117 [1990]
Dr. Rico Jacutin vs. PP, G.R. No. 140604, 06 March 2002.
Lourdes Domingo vs. Rogelio Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008.
Cheryll Santos Leus vs. St. Scholasticas College Westgrave, et al.,
G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015
Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital and Colleges, G.R. No. 187417, 15 March 2016
Contra; when not sexual harassment

Atty. Susan Aquino vs. Hon. Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court
of Tax Appeals, A.M. No. CTA 01-1, 02 April 2002.
Contra: when not immorality, re: live-in relationships

Toledo vs. Toledo 544 SCRA 27
3.12 Termination instigated by Union on account

of Union Security Clause
Malayang Samahan sa M Greenfield, supra., 326 SCRA 428 [2000]
Alabang Country Vs. NLRC, 545 SCRA 351 [2008].
Inguillio vs. First Phil. Scales, GR No. 165407, 05 June 2009
3.13 Effect when employer choses to extend suspension period

Pido vs. NLRC, 516 SCRA 68 [2007]
4. PROCEDURE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT

Art. 282, Lc; B5 R14 S1-11, IRR; Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 23, Sec. 2-9)
4.1 General Rule: Twin requirements of notice and hearing must be

complied with for valid termination
Reasonable period to answer, interpreted as FIVE days:

King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac, 526 SCRA 116 [2007]
Requirements of Charge Sheet/Notice of Appraisal:

Magro Placement vs. Hernandez, 526 SCRA 408 [2007]
Genuino vs. NLRC, 539 SCRA 342 [2007]
Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201701, 03 June 2013
Is the employer required to inform the employee in the

appraisal/charge sheet that he may be terminated for the infraction?
Dolores T. Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club et. al., G.R. No. 173012,
13 June 2012

4.2 Exception: WENPHIL doctrine, as affirmed by the
AGABON vs NLRC case [17 Nov. 2004];
SERRANO ruling overturned
Wenphil vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69 [1989]

Serrano vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 [2000]
Agabon vs. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573 [17 Nov. 2004]
See: Section 5.2 on Illegality of the Manner of Dismissal
4.3 Administrative Hearing/investigation not required:
Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, 584 SCRA 110
[2009], En Banc
When employee has voluntarily admitted guilt

Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]
4.4 Right to counsel on the part of the employee is this mandatory and
indispensable as part of due process?
Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011,
5. Burden of proof rests upon employer to show just cause

and due process
Segismundo vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 167 [1994]

Domasig vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 779 [1996]
Medenilla vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, 328 SCRA 1 [2000]
De Guzman vs. NLRC, 540 SCRA 21 [2007]
Testimonies, how treated:

Philippine Airlines vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 273 [2000]
6. NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISMISSAL

Art. 279, LC; cf. Art. 223, LC effect of appeal
6.1 Where there is just cause and due process, employee NOT entitled to
separation pay
Unilever vs. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201710, 03 June 2013
6.2 Where there is illegality of the act of dismissal - Dismissal without just
cause
a) Reinstatement plus full backwages, or separation pay,

in lieu of reinstatement
Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458 [1997]
Recomputation of backwages is automatically integrated into

decision where party has appealed the case:
Dario Nacar vs. Gallery Frames et al., G.R. 189871, 13 Aug 2013
When reinstatement is not done in good faith; demotion

Banares vs. Tabaco Women Transport Services, G.R. No. 197353, 01
April 2013
b) Moral and exemplary damges -

Garcia vs. NLRC, 236 SCRA 632
Zamboanga City Electric Coop. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47 [1995]
Ford Phils. Vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA 320 [1997]
Nueva Ecija Electric Coop. Vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 86 [2000]
Permex Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [2000]
c) Attorneys fees
Taganas vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 133 [1995]
Tangga-an vs. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et. al., G.R. No.
180636, 13 March 2013.
Czarina Malvar vs. Kraft Food Phils; Intervenor: Justice Bellosillo.,
G.R.183952, 09 Sept 2013
d) Liability of corporate officers

Carmen Dy-Dumalasa vs. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et. al.,
G.R. No. 178760 [23 July 2009].
Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. vs. Andres G. Ariola, et al., G.R. No.
181974, 01 February 2012.
Park Hotel, et al. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 171118, 10
September 2012.
6.3 Illegality in manner of dismissal - Dismissal without due process
a) SERRANO RULING (323 SCRA 445 [2000]) now overturned by

AGABON VS. NLRC CASE (17 NOV. 2004); see above
b) Wenphil doctrine to apply per AGABON case; employee to be awarded
indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00
c) To be governed exclusively by civil code principles
Aurora Land Projects vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 48 [1997]
d) Mere failure to comply with notice requirement on closure or dismissal
does not amount to a patently illegal act. Carag vs. NLRC, 520 SCRA
28 [2007]
e) If dismissal is for authorized cause BUT without due process, then
P50,000.00; if dismissal is for just cause BUT without due process, the
P30,000.00. -- Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28
March 2005
g) Factors to consider in determining nominal damages for failure to
comply with due process requirements. -- Industrial Timber Corp. v.
Agabon, G.R. No. 164518, 30 March 2006
7. RELIEFS UNDER THE LABOR CODE
7.1 On reinstatement and strained relations

Kunting vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 571
Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260 [1995]
Aguilar vs. Burger Machine Holdings, 516 SCRA 609

7.2 On actual reinstatement vs. payroll reinstatement; effect where the
original decision finding for illegal termination was reversed on appeal
Genuino vs. NLRC, GR 142732-33, 04 Dec 2007
Contra, now prevailing rule: Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines, GR 164856, 20

Jan 2009
7.3 Payment of separation pay not inconsistent with payment of

backwages;
Lim vs. NLRC, March 1989
7.4 ON BACKWAGES - Mercury drug rule overturned by RA 6715

Ferrer vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410
Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655
Golden Donuts vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 153
Balladares Jr. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 213 [1995]
Bliss Devlpt. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 800 [1995]
Cannot be reduced by earnings derived elsewhere:

Bustamante vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61 [1996]
7.5 General Rule: Employee who is lawfully dismissed is not

entitled to separation pay
Exception: DIREC (disease; installation of labor-saving devices;
redundancy; retrenchment; cessation of business)
N. JURISDICTION REMEDIES AND APPEAL
PROCEDURES --- graph
1. Labor Arbiter
Art. 217, Labor Code
1.1 Strikes and Lock-outs

1.2 Termination disputes
1.3 ULP cases
1.4 Damages
1.5 Small money claims with claim for reinstatement
1.6 Other claims
Cases:
San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719

Sanyo Philippines Workers Union PSSLU vs. Canizares, 211 SCRA 361

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira, 186 SCRA
496
Contra: Molave Sales, Inc. vs. Laron, 129 SCRA 485
Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597
2. National Labor Relations Commission

Art. 217 (b]; Art. 223, Labor Code
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by NLRC En Banc Resolution No.
11-12, series of 2012
Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et al. vs. Estanislao Surio, et al. G.R. No.
154213, 23 August 2012.
Requirements for appeal from Labor Arbiters Decision:

a) Ten days from receipt of Decision
b) Appeal fee
c) Surety bond in an amount equivalent to monetary award
Meaning of substantial compliance with requirement of appeal bod for

perfection of appeal to the NLRC.
Phil Touristers Inc Vs. Mas Transit Workers (MTI) KMU), G.R. No. 201237, 03
September 2014. J. Perlas-Bernabe
Mt Carmel Employees Union Vs. Mt Carmel School, G.R. No. 186271, 24 Sept
2014, J. Reyes
3. Secretary of Labor
Arts. 128 and 263 (g), Labor Code
Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union FFW vs. Court of Appeals, 348

SCRA 565
Phimco Industries, Inc. vs. Brillantes, 304 SCRA 747
National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 405
Jurisdiction of DOLE on its visitorial power

People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.), Vs. The Secretary Of
The Department Of Labor And Employment, G.R. No. 179652, 06 March 2012
4. Regional Director - Art. 129 & 217, LC
3.1 Small money claims without reinstatement

3.2 Visitorial powers
3.3 Petition for certification election
3.4 Decision of RD appealable to NLRC
Cases:
Maternity Childrens Hospital vs. Sec. of Labor, 174 SCRA 632
Odin Security Agency vs. Dela Serna, 182 SCRA 472
SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, 181 SCRA 675
Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 666
5. Bureau of Labor Relations - Art. 226, LC
4.1 Inter-union and intra-union conflicts

4.2 Disputes arising from or affecting labor-management
relations except grievances
4.3 Registration of CBA
Cases:
Pepsi Cola Sales & Advertising Union vs. Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843
Abbot Laboratories Phils, Inc. vs. Abbot Laboratories Employees Union, 323
SCRA 392
5. Voluntary Arbitrator
Art. 261, Labor Code
Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration
Proceedings, 15 October 2004, Rules IV and VI.
Cases:
Ludo & Luym Corp. vs. Saordino, 395 SCRA 451
Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268
Tabigue et al vs. Intl Copra Export Corp., GR 183335, 23 Dec 2009
Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013
Cf. Grievance Machinery (Art. 260, Labor Code.)
Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47

San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1
6. NCMB - B5 R13 S3, IRR

NCMB Manual of Regulations for Conciliation and Mediation, 31 Jan 1992
6.1 Strikes and Lock-outs; See previous chapter on Strikes
CONTRA: Labor Injunctions (Arts. 254; 218 and 263, Labor Code.)
Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Judge Cabato, 327 SCRA 521
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. vs. NLRC, 226
SCRA 499
San Miguel vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418
7. Court of Appeals
Rules 43 and 65, Rules of Civil Procedure
Cases:
St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494
Veloso vs. China Airlines, Ltd., 310 SCRA 274
Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, 323 SCRA 50
Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 273
MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183
8. Supreme Court
Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure
Tancinco vs. GSIS, 369 SCRA 221

Abalos vs. Philex Mining Corp., 393 SCRA 134
9. Liability of the Transferee of an Enterprise

Sundowner Dev. Corp. vs. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14
Filipinas Port Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 773
10. May employer offset costs of employees training from retirement benefits?
Bibiano C. Elegir vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 181995, 16 July 2012.
11. Workers preference of credit vs lien on unpaid wages, Art. 110 LC
DBP vs. NLRC, 229 SCRA 351

DBP s. NLRC, 242 SCRA 59 [1995]
Prudential Bank vs. NLRC, G.R. NO. 112592 [19 Dec. 1995]
Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., (in his capacity as the Liquidator of ARCAM & Co.,
Inc.) vs. Philippine National Bank. G.R. No. 171132, 15 August 2012.
12. Prescriptive period in Labor Code prevails over Civil Code

in termination cases
Laureano vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 414 [2000]
Victory Liner vs. Race, 519 SCRA 497 [2007]
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp vs. Panginiban, 514 SCRA 404 [2007]
FINALS HERE

Labor Relations Law 2017 Syllabus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Relations Law 2017 Syllabus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR RELATIONS LAW

For LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES UNIVERSITY, ADAMSON

Atty. Ada D. Abad

[Cases, recitations and lectures, 3 hours a week 3 units]

A combination of the Socratic method of recitation, case studies and a highly

Recitation (incl quizzes) and attendance: 15%

Three (3) Group projects for following topics: (25%)

First group project 5%

Second group project: 10% Collective Bargaining Negotiations

Third group project: 10% Personnel Discipline

Midterm examinations (30%)

Final Examinations (30%)

1 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

1. Constitutional and statutory basis

1.1 Consti., art. 2, secs. 9-14, 18 and 20.

2. General principles of labor law

2.1 Existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary

a) Employment not merely a contractual relationship:

b) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee

2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity of the

2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative

2 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

2.5 But management rights likewise protected

2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing of interests

1. Employer defined: Art. 212 (e), LC;

2. Employee defined: Art. 212 (f), LC

3. Employer relationship as matrix

3.1 Concept of employer-employee relationship

3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship

(Memory aid: South West Disaster Control)

a. Selection and hiring

3 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of

Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R.

3.4 Reasonable causal connection:

Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute?

Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company car falls

3.5 Corporate officer or employee?

Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316

3.6 Effect when NO employer-employee relationship exists, or when the

Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427

4. WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST

4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services

4 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE

Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees.

Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent

Television Company vs. Talent

Insurance company vs. commission agents

4.4 Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job

Mandatory registration of independent contractors (DO18, s11)

4.5 Liability of principal for unpaid wages of the employees of job

Compare with: Liability of principal to labor-only contracting

5 | 2017 LABOR RELATIONS SYLLABUS Dean Ada D. Abad

5. COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6:

5.1 Covered employment

a. Industrial and agricultural employees

5.2 Excluded employment

Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 428

Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA

Compare with: Employees of GOCCs

c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize

MEMORIZE ELEMENTS: Valid exercise of management prerogatives

IN GOOD FAITH (BONA-FIDE IN CHARACTER),