Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Parties and Case
Number
IV. Strikes
Business of
the
Company
Electronics
Manufacturin
g
Work of
the
Employee
Head of
the
Material
Managem
ent
Control
Departme
nt
Hotel
Management
Overseas
Contract
Worker as
Printer
3. Food Traders
House, Inc. vs.
NLRC and
Barbara A.
Food
business
Marketing
Manager
1. Dai-Chi
Electronics
Manufacturing
Corporation vs.
Hon. Martin S.
Villarama, Jr.,
presiding Judge
RTC Br. 156,
Pasig, Metro
Manila and
Adonis C.
Limjuco
(G.R. No.
112940,
November 21,
199)
What happened to
the case?
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Camacho-Espino
4. Purificacion Y.
Manliguez,
Antonina Y. Luis
and Benjamin C.
Ybanez vs Court
of Appeals, et al
(G.R. No. 92598,
May 20, 1994)
5. Pacific
Consultants
International
Asia, Inc. and
Jens Peter
Providing
specialty and
technical
services both
in and out of
Sector
Manager Water and
Sanitation
as per
Camacho-Espino is
awarded full back
wages, including 13th
month pay and other
benefits, computed
from 31 January 1992,
the date when her
compensation was
withheld, until 4 July
1994, the date of her
actual reinstatement.
Meanwhile, the
garnishment of private
respondent Barbara A.
Camacho-Espinos
salary and allowing the
set-off against her
supposed personal loan
with Alinas is nullified
and disregarded.
The petition for review
is granted. The
Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 18017, dated
November 16, 1989, is
reversed and set aside.
The Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City, Branch 8
is ordered to try Civil
Case Ceb-6917 on its
merit. No costs.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Henrichsen vs.
Klaus K.
Schonfeld
(G.R. No.
166920.
February 19,
2007)
6. Deltaventures
Resources, Inc.
vs Hon. Fernando
P. Cabato,
Presiding Judge
RTC La Trinidad
Benguet Br. 62,
Hon. Gelacio L.
Rivera, Jr,
Executive Labor
Arbiter, NLRCCAR, Baguio City,
Adam P. VenturaDeputy Sheriff,
NLRC-CAR
Baguio City,
Alejandro
Bernardino,
Augusto
Granados,
Pilando Tangay,
Nestor Rabang,
Ray Dayap, Myra
Letter of
Employme
nt dated
January
1998
solely, exclusively in
this court, in no other
court save -,
particularly, nowhere
else but/except-, or
words of equal import
were stated in the
contract. It cannot be
said that the court of
arbitration in London is
an exclusive venue to
bring forth any
complaint arising out of
the employment
contract. Philippine
Court may assume
jurisdiction over the
case if it chooses to do
so; provided, that the
following requisites are
met: (1) that the
Philippine Court is one
to which the parties
may conveniently resort
to; (2) that the
Philippine Court is in a
position to make an
intelligent decision as
to the law and the
facts; and, (3) that the
Philippine Court has or
is likely to have power
to enforce its decision.
Admittedly, all the
foregoing requisites are
present in this case
Yes. The court ruled
that by filing the
petitioner third-party
claim with the deputy
sheriff, it submitted
itself to the jurisdiction
of the Commission
acting through the
Labor Arbiter. It failed
to perceive the fact that
what it is really
controverting is the
decision of the Labor
Arbiter and not the act
of the deputy sheriff in
executing said order
issued as a
consequence of said
decision rendered.
The broad powers
granted to the Labor
Arbiter and to the
National Labor
Relations Commission
by Articles 217, 218
and 224 of the Labor
The petition
for certiorari and
prohibition is denied.
The assailed Orders of
respondent Judge
Fernando P. Cabato
dated November 7,
1994 and December
14, 1994, respectively
are affirmed. The
records of this case are
hereby remanded to
the National Labor
Relations Commission
for further proceedings.
Cost against the
petitioner.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Bayaona, Violy
LIbao, Aida
Libao, Jesus
Gatcho and
Gregorio Dulay
(G.R. No.
118216, March 9,
2000)
7. Republic of the
Philippines,
represented by
the Social
Security
Commission and
Social Security
System vs.
Asiapro
Cooperative
(G.R. No.
172101,
November 23,
2007)
Cooperative
8. Philippines
National Bank vs.
Florence O.
Cabansag
(G.R. No.
157010, June 21,
2005)
Bank
Branch
Credit
Officer
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
9. Calamba Medical
Center, Inc. vs.
NLRC, Ronald
Lanzanas and
Merceditha
Lanzanas
(G.R. No.
176484,
November 25,
2008)
Hospital
Doctors
10.Ma. Isabel T.
Santos,
represented by
Antonio P. Santos
French
Pharmaceuti
cal Company
Human
Resource
Manager
and secured an
Overseas Employment
Certificate from the
POEA through the
Philippine Embassy in
Singapore. The
Certificate, declared her
a bona fide contract
worker for Singapore.
Under Philippine law,
this document
authorized her working
status in a foreign
country and entitled her
to all benefits and
processes under our
statutes. At the time
her employment was
illegally terminated, she
already possessed the
POEA employment
Certificate.
Moreover, petitioner
admits that it is a
Philippine corporation
doing business through
a branch office in
Singapore and
respondents
employment by the
Singapore branch office
had to be approved by
Benjamin P. Palma
Gil, the president of the
bank whose principal
offices were in Manila.
With more reason does
this fact reinforce the
presumption that
respondent falls under
the legal definition
of migrant worker, in
this case one deployed
in Singapore.
Yes. The court ruled
that the NLRC has
jurisdiction at the case
at bar because the
respondents were not
undergoing any
specialization training.
They were considered
as non-training general
practitioners assigned
at the emergency
rooms and ward
sections.
Yes. The court held that
the petitioners claim for
illegal deductions falls
within tribunals
jurisdiction. It is
[respondents]
employment and are
therefore liable for
exemplary damages.
This should served [sic]
as protection to other
employees of
[petitioner] company,
and by way of example
or correction for the
public good so that
persons similarly
minded as [petitioners]
would be deterred from
committing the same
acts.
The Court also affirms
the award of attorneys
fees. It is settled that
when an action is
instituted for the
recovery of wages, or
when employees are
forced to litigate and
consequently incur
expenses to protect
their rights and
interests, the grant of
attorneys fees is
legally justifiable.37
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
vs. Servier
Philippnes, Inc
and NLRC
(G.R. No.
166377,
November 28,
2008)
noteworthy that
petitioner demanded
the completion of her
retirement benefits,
including the amount
withheld by respondent
for taxation purposes.
The issue of deduction
for tax purposes is a
money claim arising
from the employeremployee relationship
which clearly falls
within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC.
Business
of the
Company
Hotel
Manageme
nt
IV. Strikes
Work of
Is there a valid strike?
the
Employee
Hotel
No. The court holds that
service
the Unions concerted
attendants violation of the Hotels
, staffs
Grooming Standards
which resulted in the
temporary cessation and
resolution dated
December 17, 2004 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 75705
are affirmed.
What happened to
the case?
The CA's May 6, 2004
Decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 70778 is
hereby affirmed.
The CA's January 19,
2004 Decision in CAG.R. SP No. 76568 is
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
The petition is
dismissed for lack of
merit.
NUWHRAIN-Dusit
Hotel Nikko
Chapter vs.
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Philippine
Hotelier, Inc.
(G.R. No.
166295,
November 11,
2008)
2. National
Federation of
Sugar Workers
(NF SW) vs.
Ethelwoldo R.
Ovejera, Central
Azucarera de la
Carlota (CAC),
Col. Rogelio
Deinla, as
Provincial
Commander,
3311st P.C.
Command,
Negros
Occidental
(G.R. No. l59743, May 31,
1982)
Sugar
Plantation
Sugar
Planters
and Sugar
Workers
3. Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees Union
FFW vs.
Semicondu
ctors
Factory
workers
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment and
Temic Telefunken
Micro-Electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs
Temic Telefunken
Micro-electronics
(Phils.), Inc. vs.
Hon. Leonardo A.
Quisumbing in
his capacity as
Secretary of
Labor and
Employment,
and Telefunken
Semiconductors
Employees
Union-FFW
(G.R. No. 122743
& 127215,
December 12,
1997)
4. Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus
Company (BLTB
Co.) vs. NLRC,
Tinig at Lakas ng
Manggagawa sa
BLTBCO-NAFLU
and its reinstated
one hundred
ninety (190)
members
(G.R. No.
101858, August
21, 1992)
Bus
Company
Was not
mentioned
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
5. Zamboanga
Wood Products,
Inc. vs NLRC,
National
Federation of
Labor, Dionisio
Estioca and the
Strikers
(G.R. No. L82088, October
13, 1989)
Wood
Products
First hired
in May
1977 as a
clerk in its
personnel
departmen
t. In 1980,
he rose to
become a
personnel
aide. On
July 1,
1981, he
became
the
Personnel
Supervisor
,a
supervisor
y and/or
manageria
l position,
next in
rank to the
Personnel
Manager.
6. Union of Filipro
Emploees (UFE)
vs. Nestle
Philippines, Inc.,
NLRC, Hon.
Eduardo G.
Magno, Hon.
Zosimo T. Vasallo
and Hon.
Evangeline S.
Lubaton
(G.R. No. 8871013, December
19, 1990)
Dairy
Products
Wood
processing
plants
workers,
administra
tive and
technical
services
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
7. Henry Bacus,
Maximo Dangga,
Salvador Flores,
Victor Fuentes,
Santiago
Lacquiao, Luz
Fuentes,
Eleodoro Gajo,
Juanito Genilla,
Godofredo GacAng, and Calixto
Coyno vs. Hon.
Blas F. Ople,
Minister of Labor
of Employment
and Findlay Millar
Timber Company
(G.R. No. L58856, October
23, 1984)
Logging
and
Manufactu
re of
plywood,
veneer
and other
lumber
products.
8. Sukhothai
Cuisine and
Restaurant vs.
CA, NLRC,
Philippine Labor
Alliance Council
(PLAC), Local 460
Sukhothai
Restaurant
Chapter
(G.R. No.
150437, July 17,
2006)
Restaurant
Cook
The petition is
granted. The Decision
and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals
together with the
Decision dated
November 29, 2000 of
the National Labor
Relations Commission
are reserved and set
aside. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter
dated October 12,
1999 is reinstated. The
Court finds the strike
illegal and, as a
consequence thereto,
the union officers who
participated in the
illegal strike and in the
commission of illegal
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
9. Far Eastern
University-Dr.
Nicanor Reyes
Medical
Foundation (FEUNRMF) and Lilia
P. Luna, M.D. vs.
FEU-NRMF
Employees
AssociationAlliance of
Filipino Workers
(FEU-NRMFEAAFW), Union
Officers, the
Alliance of
Filipino Workers
(AFW), federation
officers Gregorio
C. Del Prado and
Jose Umali
(G.R. No.
168362,
Medical
Institution
(Hospital)
Hospital
staffs
acts, namely,
Emmanuel Cayno, Billy
Bacus, Analiza Cablay,
Jose Neil Arcilla, Roel
Esancha, and Claudio
Panaligan, as well as
the union members
who participated in the
commission of illegal
acts during the strike,
namely, Rey Arsenal,
Alex Martinez, Hermie
Raz, Jose Lanorias, Lito
Arce, Cesar Sangreo,
Rolando Fabregas,
Jimmy Balan, Joven
Lualhati, Antonio
Enebrad, Edgar
Eugenio, Albert
Agbuya, Arnel
Salvador, Ricky Del
Prado, Bernie Del
Mundo, Roberto Eco,
Joven Talidong, Leny
Lucente, Rigoberto
Tubaon, Merly Naz,
Lino Salubre, Rolando
Pugong, and John
Bathan, all private
respondents, are
hereby declared to
have lost their
employment status.
Marian C. Rapadas
Labor Law Review
10.Hotel Enterprises
of the
Philippines, Inc.
(HEPI), owner of
Hyatt Regency
vs. Samahan ng
mga
Manggagawa sa
Hyatt-National
Union of Workers
in the Hotel and
Restaurants and
Allied Industries
(SAMASAHNUWRAIN)
(G.R. No.
165756, June 5,
2009)
Hotel
Manageme
nt
irregular. Respondent
union could not therefore
be adjudged to have
defied the said Order
since it was not properly
apprised thereof.
Housekeep Yes. The court ruled that
ing
the strike staged by
attendant- officers and member of
line, tailor, respondent is, perforce
room
illegal though the
attendant, respondent fully satisfied
messenger the procedural
/mail clerk, requirements prescribed
and
by law, however, a valid
telephone
and legal strike must be
technician based on strikeable
grounds, because if it is
based on a non-strikeable
ground, it is generally
deemed an illegal strike.
Respondent Union went
on strike in the honest
belief that petitioner was
committing ULP after the
latter decided to downsize
its workforce contrary to
the staffing/manning
standards adopted by
both parties under a CBA
forged only four (4)
months earlier. The belief
was bolstered when the
management hired 100
contractual workers to
replace the 48 terminated
regular rank-and-file
employees who were all
Union members. Indeed,
those circumstances
showed prima facie that
the hotel committed ULP.
Thus, even if technically
there was no legal ground
to stage a strike based on
ULP, since the attendant
circumstances support
the belief in good faith
that petitioners
retrenchment scheme was
structured to weaken the
bargaining power of
the Union, the strike, by
exception, may be
considered legal.