Ada4 Up Mcle Labor Updates July2016

2016 Updated Handouts for UP MCLE (July 2016)
Legal Trends and Updates on Labor Law and Social Legislation

Atty. Ada D. Abad
LEGAL TRENDS AND UPDATES ON

LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
.ATTY. ADA D. ABAD
Managing Partner, Abad Abad & Associates Law Offices
Dean, Adamson University College of Law
Legal Counsel, Phil. Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU )
Former Vice-Dean, Lyceum College of Law
OVERVIEW OF LECTURE FOR TODAY:
A. ISSUES IN THE LABOR COMPONENT OF THE K-12 SHIFT

AND ASEAN INTEGRATION 2015
 TWO-YEARS WITHOUT FIRST YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS

IN AY 2016-2017 AND EFFECT UNTIL 2021
 INTEGRATION OF LABOR MARKET WITH ASEAN BY

DECEMBER 2015
B. NEW LAWS AND DEPARTMENT ORDERS
1. MINIMUM WAGE LAW: WAGE ORDER No. NCR-20 (eff 02

June 2016)
2. DUTERTE’S CAMPAIGN PROMISE: THE END OF “ENDOC”
3. MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN VIS-À-VIS NEW SUPREME

COURT CASES ON IMMORALITY AND LIVE-IN
ARRANGEMENTS
C. SUPREME COURT CASES RELATING TO LABOR RELATIONS
1. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION
2. JURISDICTION AND REASONABLE CAUSAL
CONNECTION
3. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
4. TERMINATION
1
Atty. Ada D. Abad
A. ISSUES IN THE LABOR COMPONENT OF THE K-12 SHIFT

AND ASEAN INTEGRATION 2015
When ASEAN turned 30 years old in 1997, the ASEAN leaders adopted the ASEAN
Vision 2020,1 and largely agreed to create a deeper partnership amongst member
nations. By 2003, the idea of an ASEAN Community (probably patterned after the
European Union model) was established.
The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely:

 Political-Security Community;
 Economic Community; and
 ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.
Each pillar has its own Blueprint, and, together with the Initiative for ASEAN
Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan Phase II (2009-2015), they
form the Roadmap for and ASEAN Community 2009-2020.2
At the 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007 held in Cebu City, the ASEAN leaders
agreed to accelerate the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community from
2020 to 2015 and to transform ASEAN into a region with free movement of goods,
services, investment, skilled labor and freer flow of capital.3
The areas of cooperation in the economic aspect include human resources

development and capacity building; recognition of professional qualifications; closer
consultation on macroeconomic and financial policies; trade financing measures;
enhanced infrastructure and communications connectivity; development of electronic
transactions through e-ASEAN; integrating industries across the region to promote
regional sourcing; and enhancing private sector involvement for the building of the
AEC. 4
Legal Framework for K-12 Shift and ASEAN 2015 Integration
THE LAW ON K-12:
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533 promulgated 15 May 2013

 IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS promulgated 04 September 2013
 GUIDELINES ON IMPLEMENTATION OF LABOR COMPONENT OF K-12
(promulgated 30 May 2014)
ASEAN INTEGRATION
 ASEAN SUMMIT – BALI CONCORD II in 2003 (ASEAN 30th anniversary), calling

for a vision of ASEAN 2020 Integration and forming the 3 pillars
 ASEAN BALI CONCORD III of 2011 reaffirming the Integration
 ASEAN Blueprints, Asean Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work
Plan Phase II (2009-2015)
1 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Overview. http://www.asean.org/asean/about-asean

2 ASEAN overview, ibid. http://www.asean.org/asean/about-asean
3 Pornavalai Cynthia. “ASEAN Economic Community 2015 and Thailand.” Mondaq: Connecting
Knowledge and People. http://www.mondaq.com/x/166614/International+Trade/ASEAN+

Economic+Community+2015+and+Thailand; See also: ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint,
Introduction, Paragraph 4.
4 Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), http://www.asean.org/news/item/declaration-
of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-ii
2
Atty. Ada D. Abad
Labor issues in the K-12 Shift
It is anticipated that there will be no new college freshmen students for AY 2016-
2017 and AY 2017-2018, and hence, 50% decline in University/College enrolment
(and income!) for years 2017-2018 all the way to AY 2020-2021. Effect: University
faculty without teaching loads for two years in the transition period. Options: early
retirement; retrenchment and not redundancy; floating status or no-work, no-pay for
two years; or other creative solutions.
Some college G.E. subjects are to be pushed down to 11th and 12th grades 
Conflicting positions of Schools and Unions regarding college professors who will be
forced to transfer to basic education level with lower teaching rates and hence,
allegedly forcing a diminution of salary and benefits
Labor issues in the ASEAN 2015 Integration
As had been intimated earlier, there is supposed to be an OPEN LABOR MARKET

allowing the free flow of services (including education services) and skilled labor
amongst all member-countries. Under this scenario, multinational corporations
operating within the ASEAN region may now transfer its manpower component
across regional borders freely and without much restrictions.
From the human capital perspective, a successful ASEAN integration will require
systems of the region to provide individuals with requisite skills for a changing labour
market. Dynamic production processes across the region have resulted in changing
demands for skills in industries and services.
In response to these dynamics, domestic labor forces need to be well prepared.
Our local middle management personnel must re-trained, re-tooled and equipped
with skills for the handling of transnational commercial transactions, among others. It
is altogether possible that our Filipino middle-management employees may be eased
out in favour of more globally-equipped and competent foreigners.
The government must also ensure safeguards to avoid the unnecessary flooding of
foreign labor into the local market, and the easing out of our Filipino workers. In fact,
in January 2014, DOLE released a Skilled Occupation Shortage List (SOSL) of
fifteen different “hard-to-fill” occupations that would allow the entry of foreign
workers to the Philippines, on account of an alleged skills shortage. Included in the
occupational shortage list alleged derived from a series of survey and consultation
with concerned stakeholders are the following: architect, chemical engineer,
chemist, environmental planner, fisheries technologist, geologist, guidance
counselor, licensed librarian, medical technologist, sanitary engineer, computer
numerical control machinist, assembly technician, test technician, pilot and aircraft
mechanic.5 The Department of Labor later on clarified that the media had
misquoted them, inasmuch as the occupational shortage list pertains to relaxing
rules as to allow for educators in the listed fields. No such official clarification was
however released to the media.
Be that as it may, there are constitutional provisions which ought to protect and
prioritize our Filipino citizens for local employment opportunities. Thus:
5Mayen Jamaylin, Phl opens up hard-to-fill jobs to foreign workers. Philippine Star, 13 January
2014. http://m.philstar.co.314191/show/ae7e29c0c79329028c935caf413f2339/. According to
DOLE however, they were misquoted inasmuch as said list was intended merely to open the
market for “academic positions” in the listed fields.
3
Atty. Ada D. Abad
Article VII – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of

Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced
goods, and adopt measures that help make them
competitive.
- in conjunction with –
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that

serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and
arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity.
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of

national talents consisting of Filipino scientists,
entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level
technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in
all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall
encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer
for the national benefit. The practice of all professions in
the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in
cases prescribed by law.
This should be juxtaposed with the Labor Code provision on the employment of
foreigners, to wit:
Article 40. Employment permit for non-resident aliens. Any

alien seeking admission to the Philippines for employment
purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who
desires to engage an alien for employment in the
Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the
Department of Labor and Employment.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident

alien or to the applicant employer after a determination of
the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time of application to
perform the services for which the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of

investment, said employment permit may be issued upon
recommendation of the government agency charged with
the supervision of said registered enterprise.
Similarly, there are also specific provisions and procedures in the Immigration
laws, as well as the Foreign Investments Act relating to the nationalized industries
of which only a percentage can be owned by foreigners.
While the existing legal framework on the practice of profession and restrictive
guidelines on alien employment protects our Filipino workers, it is unfortunate that
these constitutional and statutory guarantees may, in the light of the ASEAN 2015
integration, be subverted by a simple administrative concession of creating an
occupational shortage list.
The Philippine roadmap toward Asean 2015 integration envisions the attainment of
inclusive growth and sustainable national development driven by the formation of
high-level technically competent and knowledgeable human resource under a
4
Atty. Ada D. Abad
liberalized trade economy. It is a pragmatic approach to the realities of the 21st

century, where people are now more closely connected by modern technological
advances in communication and transportation, thereby virtually dissolving
previous barriers of time and space.
The benefits of the ASEAN 2015 integration and homogeneity in reference to the
global platform are obvious; the goals of reducing inequalities and income
disparities between member-countries are noble indeed.
The above notwithstanding, it is believed that these mechanisms can only be

short-term solutions, and may even be our downfall. Our dream of achieving the
status of a tiger economy will never be attained, and we shall remain impoverished
as a people, unless we firmly address the deeply rooted causes for our economic
malaise – the issues of graft and corruption, failure to level the playing field, and
lack of a concrete economic and political vision arising from a general leadership
birthed from patronage politics.
We cannot escape ASEAN 2015. The world is growing smaller day by day – the
wonders of technology and the efficiency of internet transactions have made it so.
Global integration will come, whether we like it or not. So by all means, let us
embrace it and use it to our advantage. But in embracing integration, let us not
forget to “fix our own house,” protect ourselves, and preserve our rights as
individuals, and our identity as a people and a nation.
B. NEW LAWS AND DEPARTMENT ORDERS AFFECTING

SOCIAL LEGISLATION:
1. NEW MINIMUM WAGE ORDER NO. NCR-19, effective 02 June 2016
W.O. issued on 17 May 2016, published at Philippine Star on same date.
SECTOR/INDUSTRY BASIC COLA NEW NEW NEW

WAGE INTEGRA BASIC COLA MINIMUM
TION WAGE WAGE
RATES
Non-agricultural (Incl
hospitals with 100 bed P466.00 P15.00 P481.00 P10.00 P491.00
capacity or less)
Agriculture (plantation 429.00 15.00 444.00 10.00 454.00
and non-plantation
Retail/Service
establishmts employing 429.00 15.00 444.00 10.00 454.00
15 persons or less
Manufacturing
establishments regularly 429.00 15.00 444.00 10.00 454.00
employing less than 10
workers
1.1 Exclusions:
• Kasambahay
• Persons in the personal service of another, including family drivers
• Workers registered in barangay micro-business enterprises with certificates
of authority per Rep. Act No. 9178
5
Atty. Ada D. Abad
1.2 Service contracts between Company (principal) and Agency (Section 4)
• In cases of contracting out of projects, and for security, janitorial or similar

services, the employer of the security guards or janitors so assigned to the
company, the prescribed wage increases shall be borne mainly by the principal.
• Any contracts executed by and between the principal and the agency shall be
deemed amended accordingly. (See integrated discussion of independent
contracting arrangements in “Endoc”)
2. DUTERTE’S CAMPAIGN PROMISE: ERADICATION OF “ENDOC”
2.1 “END OF CONTRACT” signifies the cessation of employment of a person with

the company. The termination or cessation of employment by reason of the
expiration of the period indicated in the contract, does not necessarily lead to a
conclusion that the employment was illegally terminated.
Factors to take into consideration: (a) nature of employment classification, viz.

term contract or project contract; or (b) under a job contacting arrangement.
2.2 Term employment – the arrival of the “day certain” indicated in the contact,
terminates the employment relationship.
Synthesis of salient points in Brent School doctrine and related

cases --
2.2.1 A contract of employment for a definite period terminates by its own

terms at the end of such period. (Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702
[1990], En Banc, (reiterated in AMA Computer – Paranaque vs. Austria, 538
SCRA 438 [November 2007]).
.
2.2.2 Fixed-period employment contracts continue to be legitimate under the
Labor Code. The fact that the service rendered by the employees is
usually necessary or desirable in the business operations of the
employer, will not impair the validity of the term employment contract.
(Philippine Village Hotel vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 423 [1994]).
2.2.3 The decisive determinant in term employment should not be the

activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and the
termination of their employment relation. (Brent School, ibid.)
2.2.4 Criteria for fixed term employment contracts so that the same will
not circumvent security of tenure: (Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. NLRC,
239 SCRA 272 [1994]. See also: .PNOC vs. NLRC [G.R. No. 97747, 31 March 1993]
and Brent School vs. NRLC, 181 SCRA 702]).
A. The fixed period of employment was KNOWINGLY

AND VOLUNTARILY AGREED UPON by the
parties, without any force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee
and absent any other circumstances vitiating his
consent; AND
B. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and

employee DEALT WITH EACH OTHER ON MORE
OR LESS EQUAL TERMS with no moral
dominance whatever being exercised by the former
on the latter
6
Atty. Ada D. Abad
2.3 Employment for a specific project - the completion of the project results in
the termination of the employment.
The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly
characterized as “project employees” as distinguished from “regular employees,”
is whether or not the “project employees” were assigned to carry out a “specific
project or undertaking,” the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the
time the employees were engaged for that project. (ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234
SCRA 678 [1994].)
2.3.1 Moreover, there must be proof that employees were duly informed of
their status as such project employee. –
Absent any other proof that the project employees were informed of their
status as such, it will be presumed that they are regular employees in
accordance with Clause 3.3(a) of Department Order No. 19, Series of
1993. Moreover, an undertaking by the employer to pay a completion
bonus shall be an indicator that an employee is a project employee.
Where there is no such undertaking, then the employee may be
considered a non-project employee. [Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez,
555 SCRA 537 (2008)].
2.3.2 Difference between “project employees” and “regular employees.”
The services of project employees are coterminous with the project and
may be terminated upon the end or completion of the project for which
they were hired.
Regular employees, in contrast, are legally entitled to remain in the

service of their employer until that service is terminated by one or another
of the recognized modes of termination of service under the Labor Code.
2.3.3 Meaning and scope of the term “project” within the context of the
law. (ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, ibid.)
In the realm of business and industry, the Supreme Court noted that
“project” could refer to one or the other of at least two (2) distinguishable
types of activities:
a. Firstly, a project could refer to 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. Such job or undertaking begins and
ends at determined or determinable times.
The typical example of this first type of project is a particular

construction job or project of a construction company. A construction
company ordinarily carries out two or more distinct identifiable
construction projects: e.g., a twenty-five-storey hotel in Makati; a
residential condominium building in Baguio City; and a domestic air
terminal in Iloilo City. Employees who are hired for the carrying out of
one of these separate projects, the scope and duration of which has
been determined and made known to the employees at the time of
employment, are properly treated as “project employees,” and their
services may be lawfully terminated at completion of the project.
b. Secondly, a project could also refer to a particular job or

undertaking that is not within the regular business of the
corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably
7
Atty. Ada D. Abad
separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business

operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins
and ends at determined or determinable times.
Example: It is unusual (but still conceivable) for a company to

undertake a project which has absolutely no relationship to the usual
business of the company. For instance, it would be unusual for a
steel-making company to undertake the breeding and production of
fish or the cultivation of vegetables. From the viewpoint, however, of
the legal characterization of the problem here presented, there should
be no difficulty in designating the employees who are retained or hired
for the purpose of undertaking fish culture or the production of
vegetables as “project employees,” as distinguished from ordinary or
“regular employees,” so long as the duration and scope of the project
were determined or specified at the time of engagement of the
“project employees.”
2.3.4 Indicators of Project Employment are found in Section 2.2(e) and (f)
of DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, entitled
Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the
Construction Industry, to wit:
“2.2 Indicators of project employment. - Either one or more of the

following circumstances, among others, may be considered as
indicators that an employee is a project employee.
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker
is engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed,

is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the
employee at the time of hiring.
(Note: Absent any other proof that the project employees were
informed of their status as such, it will be presumed that they are
regular employees. Thus, Clause 3.3(a) of Department Order No.
19, Series of 1993, states that: “Project employees whose
aggregate period of continuous employment in a construction
company is at least one year shall be considered regular
employees, in the absence of a “day certain” agreed upon by the
parties for the termination of their relationship.”)
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the

particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free
to offer his services to any other employer.
(e) The termination of his employment in the particular

project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the
workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from
work, using the prescribed form on employees'
terminations/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay

completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most
construction companies. (Cited in Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez
et., al., G.R. 170181, 26 June 2008.)
8
Atty. Ada D. Abad
2.4 Employees of an independent contactor are not employees of the

principal. --
Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Arlene S. Espiritu G.R. No. 204944-45, 03
December 2014 citing DOLE D.O. 18-A [2011], sec. 5 (b); Sonza vs. ABS-CBN,
supra, see page __ hereof. -- There are different kinds of independent
contractors: those engaged in legitimate job contracting, and those who have
unique skills and talents that set them apart from ordinary employees. Since no
employer-employee exist between independent contractors and their
principals, their contracts are governed by the Civil Code provisions on
contracts and other applicable laws.
ADA’S NOTE: In the above 2014 case of Fuji Television Network vs. Arlene
Espiritu, the Supreme Court made an exhaustive distinction between
Independent Contractor vs. Fixed-term employment and/or regular employment.
The main factor that distinguishes independent contracting from fixed-term or
regular employment is that of CONTROL. Where the alleged “employer” has no
actual control over the conduct of the work of the complainant, then there is no
employer-employee relationship. However, if control over the conduct of work
can be established, then this is one of fixed-term or regular employment
depending on the circumstances of the case..
2.4.1 Contracting out is valid as an exercise of management prerogative

for as long as it complies with the limits and standards provided by
the Labor Code.
The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that an employer's

good faith in implementing a redundancy program is NOT necessarily
destroyed by the availment of the services of an independent contractor,
to replace the services of the terminated employees. The reduction of
employees in a company made necessary by the introduction of the
services of an independent contractor is justified when the latter is
undertaken in order to effectuate more economic and efficient methods of
production.
Burden of proof is thus on the complaining employees to show that the

management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner in engaging the
services of an independent contractor to do a specific activity. Absent
such proof, the Supreme Court has no basis to interfere with the bona
fide decision of management to effect a more economic and efficient
methods of production. (Asian Alcohol Corporation vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA
416, at 435-436 [1999], cf. Serrano vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040 [27 Jan
2000]; Emphasis supplied.).
2.4.2 VALID JOB CONTRACTING VS. LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING
General Rule: Employees of an independent contractor are not your

employees.
Elements: Article 106, Labor Code; Impl Rules and Reg, S8R8B3.
 There is a job-contracting permissible by law where the

contractor/agency carries on an INDEPENDENT business and
undertakes the contract work on his ACCOUNT, under his own
RESPONSIBILITY, using his own MANNER AND METHODS, FREE
from the control of the principal in all matters connected with the
performance of work excepting the results thereof.
9
Atty. Ada D. Abad
 He has his own CAPITAL in the form of TOOLS, EQUIPMENT,

MACHINERY, WORK PREMISES, and that the agreement between
the contractor and principal assures the former’s employees of ALL
RIGHTS AND BENEFITS under the law.
Effect:
 If labor only contracting: illegal. The employer is deemed the

DIRECT employer and is made liable to the employees of the
contractor for a more comprehensive purpose. The labor-only
contractor is deemed merely an agent.
 If job-contracting: legal. The employer is considered an INDIRECT
EMPLOYER, and is made liable to the employees of the contractor for
a more limited purposes, viz.: payment of unpaid wages and other
monetary claims.
2.5 CASES:
2016 CASE ON TERM EMPLOYMENT: JAMAIAS VS NLRC, G.R. NO. 159350, 09

March 2016
Question: Whether a fixed period in a contract of employment gives rise to a

presumption of an intention to circumvent the law?
Facts: Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in

the business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired several
individuals on various dates. After their respective contracts expired, the aforenamed
individuals filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming that respondent had made it
appear that they had been hired as project employees in order to from becoming
regular employees. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC
affirmed the decision of the LA. CA upheld the decision of the NLRC
Complainant’s position: Similar case of Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-

Lopez, serves as stare decisis (law of the case). Innodata had made it appear that
they had been hired as project employees in order to prevent them from becoming
regular employees.
Company’s position: Complainants are project employees. Quejada case is not

applicable because contract stipulations are different; stare decisis cannot apply.
Quejada case pertains to employees were probationary employment contracts and
made project employees later. The fact that there is a term indicated in the project
contract does not detract from its validity, where employees agreed to the one-year
duration knowingly and voluntarily.
Supreme Court Decision: For company Innodata. The employment of the

petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a fixed term legally ended
upon the expiration of their contract.
The contracts of the petitioners indicated the one-year duration of their engagement
as well as their respective project assignments (i.e., Jamias being assigned to the
CD-ROM project; Cruz and Matuguinas to the TSET project). There is no indication
that the petitioners were made to sign the contracts against their will. Neither did they
refute Innodata’s assertion that it did not employ force, intimidate or fraudulently
manipulate the petitioners into signing their contracts, and that the terms thereof had
been explained and made known to them. Hence, the petitioners knowingly agreed
to the terms of and voluntarily signed their respective contracts.
10
Atty. Ada D. Abad
That Innodata drafted the contracts with its business interest as the overriding
consideration did not necessarily warrant the holding that the contracts were
prejudicial against the petitioners. The fixing by Innodata of the period specified in
the contracts of employment did not also indicate its ill-motive to circumvent the
petitioners’ security of tenure. Indeed, the petitioners could not presume that the
fixing of the one-year term was intended to evade or avoid the protection to tenure
under Article 280 of the Labor Code in the absence of other evidence establishing
such intention. This presumption must ordinarily be based on some aspect of the
agreement other than the mere specification of the fixed term of the employment
agreement, or on evidence aliunde of the intent to evade.
2015 CASE: FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS. VS. LARGADO AND ESTRELLADO,

G.R. No. 205300, 18 March 2015
Issue: Whether or not fixed-term employees who were repeatedly hired by a

contractor, but had resigned and transferred to another contractor to work with the
same principal, may claim regular employment status and illegal dismissal?
Supreme Court decision: NO. Not regular employees.
As correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the termination of respondents’
employment with Zytron was brought about by the cessation of their contracts with
the latter. We give credence to the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that respondents were
the ones who refused to renew their contracts with Zytron, and the NLRC’s finding
that they themselves acquiesced to their transfer to A.C. Sicat.
By refusing to renew their contracts with Zytron, respondents effectively resigned

from the latter. Resignation is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled by
personal reasons to dissociate themselves from their employment, done with the
intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment.
Here, it is obvious that respondents were no longer interested in continuing their

employment with Zytron. Their voluntary refusal to renew their contracts was brought
about by their desire to continue their assignment in Fonterra which could not
happen in view of the conclusion of Zytron’s contract with Fonterra.
Hence, to be able to continue with their assignment, they applied for work with A.C.
Sicat with the hope that they will be able to continue rendering services as TMRs at
Fonterra since A.C. Sicat is Fonterra’s new manpower supplier
2015 CASE: NELSON BEGINO ET AL VS. ABS-CBN, G.R. NO. 199166, 20 APRIL 2015
Issue: Are the complainants, who were hired as Manager, Cameramen/Editors and
Reporters, respectively, on project basis through Talent Contracts with terms ranging
from three (3) months to one (1) year with correlative Project Assignment Forms,
REGULAR EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS?
SUPREME COURT DECISION: Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent

Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms, the terms and conditions of the
engagement reveal one of employer-employee relationship rather than as
independent contracting arrangement.
Respondents cannot be considered "talents" because they are not actors nor
actresses or radio specialists BUT mere clerks or utility employees. They are regular
employees who perform several different duties under the control and direction of
ABS-CBN executives and supervisors.
11
Atty. Ada D. Abad
Neither could they be considered as project or program employees because no

evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were
determined or specified at the time of their engagement. Under existing
jurisprudence, project could refer to two distinguishable types of activities.
3. REPUBLIC ACT 9710 ENTITLED “THE MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN”

AND EFFECT ON FACULTY OR STUDENT PREGNANCY WITHOUT
MARRIAGE
Magna Carta of Women, Section 16 (c). Expulsion and non-readmission of women

faculty, due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No school shall turn
out or refuse admission to a female student,solely on the account of her having
contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school.
- versus –
ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF CONGREGATIONAL SCHOOLS

to impose a higher standard of morality in strict consonance with
the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Both the Solo Parents Welfare Act and Magna Carta of Women were enactments
made by Congress in pursuance of the Constitutional policy to “promote the family as
the foundation of the nation, strengthen its solidarity and ensure its total
development”6 and “to recognize the role of women in nation-building, and ensure
the fundamental equality before the law of women and men,”7 respectively.
Of particular note however is the provision which prohibits the termination and/or
exclusion of female faculty/student, as the case may be, in cases of alleged
immorality – particularly pregnancy outside of wedlock which is circumscribed by the
Catholic Church.
Thus, Section 13 of the Magna Carta of Women provides that:
Equal Access and Elimination of Discrimination in Education,

Scholarships, and Training. - (a) The State shall ensure that gender
stereotypes and images in educational materials and curricula are
adequately and appropriately revised. Gender-sensitive language shall be
used at all times. Capacity-building on gender and development (GAD),
peace and human rights, education for teachers, and all those involved in
the education sector shall be pursued toward this end. Partnerships
between and among players of the education sector, including the private
sector, churches, and faith groups shall be encouraged.
(b) Enrollment of women in nontraditional skills training in vocational and

tertiary levels shall be encouraged.
(c) Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty due to

pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No school shall
turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on the
account of her having contracted pregnancy outside of marriage
during her term in school.
6 CONSTI., Article XV, Section 1; See also: Republic Act No. Sec. 8972, (Solo Parents Welfare
Act) Section 2.
7 CONSTI., Article II, Section 14; See also: Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women)
Section 2.
12
Atty. Ada D. Abad
To bolster the said provision, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna
Carta of Women reiterated the same view, to wit:
Section 16 (c): Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty

due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No school
shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on account
of her being pregnant outside of marriage during her term in school.
Moreover, the earlier Solo Parents’ Welfare Act provides that:
Section 7: No employer shall discriminate against any solo parent

employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account
of his/her status.
A reading of the Congressional debates reveal that the prohibition on expulsion

solely on the ground of pregnancy is intended fundamentally to safeguard not just
the interest of the pregnant woman but also the child inside her womb. For the
pregnant student, the law prohibits her exclusion in order that she may continue to
have access to education opportunities needed to realize her dreams. For the
pregnant single woman, the law prohibits her termination in order that she will not be
rendered vulnerable by the economic disadvantage brought about by termination
from work.
On the other hand, it is also agreed that Catholic schools have the power to
discipline their employees and students as an exercise of its academic freedom and
management prerogatives. In the pursuit of its vision-mission-goals and within the
context of its academic freedom, the School may verily impose a higher standard of
morality which is in strict consonance with the Catholic doctrines.
The understanding is that the employees have accepted employment, and the
students have enrolled, in the Catholic School knowing fully well that their conduct
will be restricted in accordance with the School’s rules and regulations. By having
applied for employment and/or enrolment in the school, they are deemed to have
waived any questions on the School’s disciplinary powers over them especially as
regards infractions bordering on “immorality.”
It is in this context that the Faculty Manuals of most Catholic educational institutions
provide that school personnel, including faculty, may likewise be terminated on the
ground of disgraceful or immoral conduct. This is also true of the Student
Manuals, where students are excluded or dropped from the rolls for “pre-marital sex”,
“acts of immorality”, or “pregnancy outside marriage” and similar infractions.
As can be seen, the language of the law is couched in mandatory terms, thereby
forming a restriction on the right of the School to impose rules and regulations which
closely adhere to the doctrinal precepts of the Church. As intimated earlier, the crux
of the present controversy then is in reference to the application of these recently-
enacted laws vis-a-vis the common practice amongst Catholic institutions to
terminate a female employee, or drop a female student from the rolls, in cases of
pregnancy outside marriage, in accordance with their Faculty or Student Manuals
provisions on immorality and pre-marital sex.
It must be emphasized that although the Catholic schools promotes religious

instruction as an essential element of Catholic education, it also espouses
transformative education.
It is in this practical context that the Catholic schools must now review its rules and
regulations pertaining to pregnancies of single mothers. Considering that there are
also valid points raised in the said laws, and the new Supreme Court trending on the
definition of “immorality” as discussed below, it is hoped that a middle ground may be
13
Atty. Ada D. Abad
forged that is both responsive to the requirements of law and adhering to the
doctrines of the Catholic faith.
NEW SUPREME COURT CASES ON IMMORALITY PREGNANT SCHOOL

EMPLOYEE
2016 CASE: CADIZ V. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES,

G.R. No. 187417, 15 March 2016
Facts: Cadiz was a Human Resource Officer of Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.
(Brent). She was place on indefinite suspension in 2006 for unprofessionalism and
unethical behavior resulting to unwed pregnancy, with the condition that she marry
her boyfriend in accordance with law. Cadiz filed a complaint for ULP, constructive
dismissal, non-payment of wages and damages with prayer for reinstatement.
CHERYLL LEUS VS ST. SCHOLASTICA – WESTGROVE, G.R. No. 187226, 28

Jan 2015
Facts: Cheryll Santos Leus (petitioner) was hired by St. Scholastica's College
Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational institution, as a non-teaching personnel.
Cheryll engaged in pre-marital sexual relations, got pregnant out of wedlock, married
the father of her child, and was dismissed by SSCW, in that order.
Issue1: May the female employee be validly terminated on account of pregnancy

out of wedlock?
Supreme Court: NO! In resolving the foregoing question, the Court will assess the
matter from a strictly neutral and secular point of view – the relationship between
SSCW as employer and the petitioner as an employee, the causes provided for by
law in the termination of such relationship, and the evidence on record.
The ground cited for the petitioner’s dismissal, i.e., pre-marital sexual relations and,
consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, will be assessed as to whether the same
constitutes a valid ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS
[and the Labor Code].
As stated above, when the law refers to morality, it necessarily pertains to PUBLIC
AND SECULAR MORALITY, and not religious morality. Thus, the proscription
against “disgraceful or immoral conduct” under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS,
which is made as a cause for dismissal, must necessarily refer to public and
secular morality.
Accordingly, in order for a conduct to be considered as disgraceful or immoral, it

must be “‘detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the
existence and progress of human society’ and not because the conduct is proscribed
by the beliefs of one religion or the other.”
As the Court held in Radam, there is no law which penalizes an unmarried

mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual
activity between two unmarried persons; that neither does such situation
contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.
Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educational institution where the

teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual
relationns, is strictly upheld and taught to the students. That her indiscretion, which
resulted in her pregnancy out of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the
Catholic Church.
14
Atty. Ada D. Abad
However, viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct, the petitioner’s

conduct cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not
denounced by public and secular morality. It may be an unusual arrangement,
but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the
law.
To stress, pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults

who have no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently,
conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and
secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral
conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS."
Issue 2: (Brent School): May the School validly impose the marriage of the woman
as a condition precedent to the lifting of her indefinite suspension?
Supreme Court: NO! It is apparent that Brent’s condition (marriage as a condition

for reinstatement) is coercive, oppressive and discriminatory.
It forces Cadiz to marry for economic reasons and deprives her of the freedom to
choose her status, while is a privilege that inheres in her as an intangible and
inalienable right.
While a marriage or no-marriage qualification may be justified as a “bona fide

occupational qualification,” Brent must prove two (2) factors:
a. That the employment qualification is reasonably related to the

essential operation of the job involved; and
b. That there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly
perform the duties of the job
Brent has not shown the presence of neither of these factors. Thus, Court
cannot uphold the validity of the condition.
C. UPDATES ON SUPREME COURT CASES

1. General principles in balancing interest of management vs. labor
1.1 Burden of proof is always upon employer to show validity of its exercise
of management prerogatives, especially as regards termination of
employment.
1.2 There must exist substantial evidence to prove valid exercise of

management prerogatives, viz., just or authorized cause of termination.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt not required in administrative cases.
Note1:
Note2: Failure of employer to submit documents which are

presumed to be in its possession, inspite of an Order to do so,
implies that the presentation of said documents is prejudicial to its
case. (De Guzman vs. NLRC, 540 SCRA 210 [Dec. 2007]).
1.3 Interpretation in favor of labor. – Article 1702 of the New Civil Code
provides that, in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts
shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer. Any
15
Atty. Ada D. Abad
doubt or ambiguity in the contract between management and the union

members should be resolved in favor or the latter. Therefore, there is no
doubt, in this case, that the welfare of the laborers stand supreme. (BPI vs.
BPI Employees Union – Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678 [22 August 2012].
2. FOUR NEW CASES ON CONTRACT INTERPRETATION –
CASE1 ISSUE: In a CBA which provides for multipurpose loans which may
be availed of by the employees, is the imposition of a “NO NEGATIVE
DATA BANK (No NDB)” policy violative of the CBA obligation?
Position of the Union and Voluntary Arbitrator: The imposition of “No NDB”
is a new condition for the implementation and availment of loans and in
contravention of CBA provision.
Position of BPI: “No NDB” is not violative of the CBA, but is a valid and
reasonable requirement consistent with sound banking practice and meant to
inculcate among both officers and employees the need for responsibility and
discipline, especially in an industry where trust is paramount.
SUPREME COURT DECISION: YES, it is violative of CBA. For the Union.
A CBA refers to the negotiated contract between the Union and the Employer
regarding terms and conditions of work. As in all other contracts,, there must be
clear indications that the parties reached a meeting of the minds, as the CBA is
considered the law between the parties. The CBA in this case contains no
provision on the “No Negative Data Bank” policy as a prerequisite for the
entitlement of the benefits it set forth for the employees. IN fact, a close reading
of the CBA would show that the terms and conditions contained therein relative
to the availment of the loans are plain and clear, thus all they need is the proper
implementation in order to reach their objective.
The CA was therefore correct when it ruled that, although the Bank is authorized
to issue rules and regulations pertinent to the availment and administration of
loans under the CBA, the additional rules and regulations must NOT impose new
conditions which are not contemplated in the CBA and should be within the realm
of reasonableness. The “No NDB policy” is a new condition which is NEVER
contemplated in the CBA and at some points, unreasonable to the employees
because it provides that before an employee or his/her spouse can avail of the
loan benefits under the CBA, the said employee or his/her spouse must not be
listed in the Negative Data Bank, or if previously listed therein, must obtain
clearance of at least one (1) year or six months, s the case may be, prior to a
loan application. If the Bank intended to include the No NDB policy in the CBA, it
should have presented such proposal to the union during negotiations. To
include such policy after the effectivity of the CBA is deceptive and goes beyond
the original agreement between the parties. (BPI vs. BPI Employees Union –
Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678 [22 August 2012].
CASE2 ON FUNERAL AND BEREAVEMENT AID FOR DEATH OF LEGAL

DEPENDENTS: (Philippine Journalist Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union,
G.R. No. 192601, 26 June 2013)
Married employee sought payment of funeral/bereavement aid under CBA when

one of his parents died. Company denied the claim, based on its interpretation
that a married employee’s “legal dependent” is limited only to “legitimate spouse
and minor children”; while the legal dependents of a single employee are the
parents and siblings 18 yrs old and below, in accordance with SSS definitions.
16
Atty. Ada D. Abad
CBA provision states:
SECTION 4. Funeral/ Bereavement Aid. The COMPANY agrees to grant a

funeral/bereavement aid in the following instances:
a. Death of a regular employee in line of duty – P50,000
b. Death of a regular employee not in line of duty – P40,000
c. Death of legal dependent of a regular employee – P15,000.
ISSUE: In the availment of funeral and bereavement aid under the CBA, may the
Company interpret “legal dependent” in accordance with the SSS definition of
“beneficiary” and hence, refuse payment of the benefit?
SUPREME COURT DECISION: NO, the Company cannot do so.
Citing statutory definitions, the Supreme Court concluded that the civil status of
the employee as either married or single is not the controlling consideration in
order that a person may qualify as the employee’s legal dependent. What is
rather decidedly controlling is the fact that the spouse, child, or parent is actually
dependent for support upon the employee. The Court defined a dependent as
"one who derives his or her main support from another. Meaning, relying on, or
subject to, someone else for support; not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to
perform anything without the will, power, or aid of someone else."
The coverage of the term legal dependent as used in a stipulation in a collective

bargaining agreement (CBA) granting funeral or bereavement benefit to a regular
employee for the death of a legal dependent, if the CBA is silent about it, is to be
construed as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous social legislations
have set. This is because the terms of such social legislations are deemed
incorporated in or adopted by the CBA.
Considering that existing laws always form part of any contract, and are deemed
incorporated in each and every contract, the definition of legal dependents under
the aforecited social legislations applies herein in the absence of a contrary or
different definition mutually intended and adopted by the parties in the CBA.
Accordingly, the concurrence of a legitimate spouse does not disqualify a child or
a parent of the employee from being a legal dependent, provided substantial
evidence is adduced to prove the actual dependency of the child or parent on the
support of the employee.”
CASE3 EN CONTRA: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union

(MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013.
ISSUE: In a CBA which provides for reimbursement of hospitalization benefits to

dependents, is the employer company under obligation to reimburse employee if
the dependent’s hospital expenses had already been covered by another Health
Maintenance Organization (HMO) provider?
Position of Voluntary Arbitrator: CBA has no express provision barring claims

for hospitalization expenses already paid by other insurers. Hence, the covered
employees can recover from both.
Position of Court of Appeals: The CA did not agree with Voluntary Arbitrator,
saying that the conditions set forth in the CBA implied an intention of the parties
to limit MMPC’s liability only to the extent of the expenses actually incurred by
their dependents which excludes the amounts shouldered by other health
insurance companies.
17
Atty. Ada D. Abad
SUPREME COURT DECISION: NO, Mitsubishi Company is under NO

OBLIGATION to reimburse employee for hospital expenses of dependents which
had already been covered by another HMO.
We agree with the CA. The condition that payment should be direct to the
hospital and doctor implies that MMPC is only liable to pay medical expenses
actually shouldered by the employees’ dependents. It follows that MMPC’s
liability is limited, that is, it does not include the amounts paid by other health
insurance providers. This condition is obviously intended to thwart not only
fraudulent claims but also double claims for the same loss of the
dependents of covered employees.
It is well to note at this point that the CBA constitutes a contract between the
parties and as such, it should be strictly construed for the purpose of limiting the
amount of the employer’s liability. The terms of the subject provision are clear
and provide no room for any other interpretation. As there is no ambiguity, the
terms must be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.
Consequently, MMPSEU cannot rely on the rule that a contract of insurance is to
be liberally construed in favor of the insured. Neither can it rely on the theory
that any doubt must be resolved in favor of labor.
CASE4: 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.
Issue: Whether or not “free benefits from credit cards” and “hotel freebies” are to
be included in computation of “service charges”?
Section 68 of the Phil Plaza CBA states that: “the sale of food, beverage,
transportation, laundry and rooms are subject to service charge at the rate of ten
percent (10%); except ‘negotiated contracts’ and ‘special rates’.”
Supreme Court decision: NO.

Hotel does not have any obligation to the Union, inasmuch as their claims arises
from “non-sale” transactions like “Westin Gold Cards Revenue” and “Maxi Media
Barter” to be negotiated contracts or contracts under special rates, and the
entries “Business Promotions” and “Gift Certificates” as contracts that did not
involve a sale of food, beverage, etc.Thus, if the terms of the CBA are plain, clear
and leave no doubt on the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning
of its stipulations, as they appear on the face of the contract, shall prevail.
3. ISSUES ON JURISDICTION AND REASONABLE CAUSAL

CONNECTION: IS THIS A CIVIL DISPUTE OR A LABOR DISPUTE?
If the character of the principal relief sought is to be resolved by reference to

Labor Code or social legislation AND NOT by civil or criminal law, then LABOR
courts will have jurisdiction.
3.1 AS TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR
2014 CASE: Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04
August 2014 – definition of reasonable causal connection
Facts: Adviento was hired as Civil Engineer (of Indophil, whose primary
business is the manufacture of textiles. Adviento developed a chronic
allergy on account of the textile dust. He was eventually terminated on
account thereof, for which reason he filed two cases against the company,
viz: NLRC for illegal termination; and Regional Trial Court for damages
18
Atty. Ada D. Abad
arising from gross negligence and failure of company to provide a safe,

workable and healthy environment.
Company sought to dismiss the RTC case on account of litis pendencia and
lack of jurisdiction, considering that the claim arises from an employer-
employee relationship.
Question: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction?
Answer: YES! No reasonable causal connection between claim and

employer-employee relationship. While the maintenance of a safe and
healthy workplace may be a subject of a labor case, note that the cause of
action is one for torts/quasi-delict and that relief prayed for is the payment
for damages arising from alleged gross negligence on the part of the
company to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its
employees.
3.2 Question: Is the termination of a higher management officer “Asst. Vice-

President”, “Executive Vice-President”, or simply “Vice-President” a labor
case or a corporate case?
2014 CASE: Raul C. Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante
Arevalo, G.R. No. 201298, 05 February 2014. –
Two circumstances which must concur for an a person to be considered a

corporate officer, as against an ordinary employee or officer, namely;
(1) the creation of the position is under the corporation’s charter or by-laws;
and
(2) the election of the officer by the Board.
It is only when the officer claiming to have been illegally dismissed is

classified as such corporate officer, that the issue is deemed an intra-
corporate dispute which falls within the jurisdiction of the trial courts.
4. SUPREME CASES ON LIMITATIONS TO MANAGEMENT

PREROGATIVES
4.1 Question: May a company who closed due to force majeure, refuse to
give separation pay on account of servious business losses? G.J.T.
Rebuilders Machine Shop et al. vs. Ricardo Ambos et. al., G.R. No. 174184, 28
January 2015.
Although the employer may close its business as an exercise of

management prerogative that courts cannot interfere with, it failed to
sufficiently prove its alleged serious business losses. Thus, it must pay
respondents their separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least
one-half-month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
4.2 Question: May company terminate an employee who refused to

undergo a random drug test? Mirant Philippines vs. Joselito A. Caro, G.R. No.
181490, 23 April 2014.
While the adoption and enforcement by petitioner corporation of its Anti-

Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management
prerogative as an employer, such exercise is not absolute and unbridled. In
the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore
ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of
19
Atty. Ada D. Abad
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.47 The Anti-Drugs Policy of Mirant fell short of
these requirements.
4.3 Question: Is the decision of Coca-Cola Bottlers to take out the chairs
of employees in an assembly line in exchange for additional periods
of rest/breaks, a valid exercise of management prerogatives, or is it a
diminution of benefit which cannot be withdrawn without employees’
consent? Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., G.R. 198783,
15 April 2013.
Union’s position: The use of chairs by the operators had been a company
practice for 34 years, and cannot be withdrawn without consent of affected
employees. Having chairs are favourable to the assembly line operators
who get tired and exhausted; the frequency of the break period is not
advantageous to the operators because it cannot compensate for the time
they are made to stand throughout their working time.
Management position: The directive to take out the chairs is in line with
the “I Operate, I Maintain, I Clean” program of petitioner for bottling
operators, wherein every bottling operator is given the responsibility to keep
the machinery and equipment assigned to him clean and safe, and
reinforces the task of bottling operators to constantly move about in the
performance of their duties and responsibilities. The removal of the chairs
was implemented so that the bottling operators will avoid sleeping, thus,
prevent injuries to their persons.
Answer: For Management. Valid exercise of management prerogatives.

The decision to remove the chairs was done with good intentions as CCBPI
wanted to avoid instances of operators sleeping on the job while in the
performance of their duties and responsibilities and because of the fact that
the chairs were not necessary considering that the operators constantly
move about while working. In short, the removal of the chairs was designed
to increase work efficiency. Hence, CCBPI’s exercise of its management
prerogative was made in good faith without doing any harm to the workers’
rights.
The rights of the Union under any labor law were not violated. There is no
law that requires employers to provide chairs for bottling operators. The CA
correctly ruled that the Labor Code, specifically Article 132 thereof, only
requires employers to provide seats for women. No similar requirement is
mandated for men or male workers. It must be stressed that all concerned
bottling operators in this case are men.
The Union should not complain too much about standing and moving about
for one and one-half (1 ½) hours because studies show that sitting in
workplaces for a long time is hazardous to one’s health. The report of
VicHealth, Australia,12 disclosed that “prolonged workplace sitting is an
emerging public health and occupational health issue with serious
implications for the health of our working population. Importantly, prolonged
sitting is a risk factor for poor health and early death, even among those
who meet, or exceed, national activity guidelines.”
Sedentary employees may also face a gradual deterioration in health if they

do not exercise or do not lead an otherwise physically active life. The most
common health problems that these employees experience are disorders in
blood circulation and injuries affecting their ability to move. Deep Vein
Thrombosis (DVT), where a clot forms in a large vein after prolonged sitting
20
Atty. Ada D. Abad
(eg after a long flight) has also been shown to be a risk. Workers who
spend most of their working time seated may also experience other, less
specific adverse health effects. Common effects include decreased fitness,
reduced heart and lung efficiency, and digestive problems. Recent research
has identified too much sitting as an important part of the physical activity
and health equation, and suggests we should focus on the harm caused by
daily inactivity such as prolonged sitting.
4.4 Question: May Management validly impose a prohibition against

Elective Office?
Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 184885, 07 March 2012, J. Villarama -- In the

instant case, ABS-CBN validly justified the implementation of Policy No.
HR-ER-016. It is well within its rights to ensure that it maintains its
objectivity and credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of
impartiality so that the confidence of the viewing and listening public in it will
not be in any way eroded. ABS-CBN strongly believes that it is to the best
interest of the company to continuously remain apolitical. While it
encourages and supports its employees to have greater political awareness
and for them to exercise their right to suffrage, the company, however,
prefers to remain politically independent and unattached to any political
individual or entity.
4.5 Management may search office computer to check on misconduct;

non-infringement of right to privacy.
Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, et

al., G.R. No. 181881. 18 October 2011, VILLARAMA. -- This case involves
a search of office computer assigned to a government employee who was
charged administratively and eventually dismissed from the service. The
employee’s personal files stored in the computer were used by the
government employer as evidence of misconduct.
Question: May the search conducted on employee’s office computer

and copying of personal files without his knowledge and consent, be
considered an infringement of the employee’s constitution right to
privacy?
Answer: No, it is not an infringement of the right to privacy..

Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of
privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained
his personal files. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed
office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always
locked and not open to other employees or visitors. Neither did he allege
that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other employees
from accessing his computer files. On the contrary, hes ubmits that being in
the public assistance office of the CSC, he normally would have visitors in
his office. Even assuming that petitioner had at least a subjective
expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, the same is negated by
the presence of policy regulating the use ofoffice computers. The CSC had
implemented a policy that puts its employees on notice that they have no
expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the
office computers. Under this policy, the CSC may monitor the use of the
computer resources usingboth automated or human means. This implies
that on-the-spot inspections may be done toensure that computer
resources were used only for legitimate business purposes.
Question: May the search on the employee’s computer be considered

as reasonable?
21
Atty. Ada D. Abad
Answer: Yes. The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted in

connection with an investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by
an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Commissioner David
regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan
Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly “lawyering” for individuals
with pending cases in the CSC. A search by a government employer of an
employee’s office is justified at inception when there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is
guilty of work-related misconduct. Under the facts obtaining, the search
conducted on petitioner’s computer was justified at its inception and
scope.
5. SUPREME CASES ON TERMINATION

5.1 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT:
5.1.1 ON FIGHTING WITHIN COMPANY PREMISES; two contrasting

cases –
a) NORTHWEST AIRLINES VS. CONCEPCION DEL ROSARIO, GR.

157633, 10 September 2014. J. Bersamin
Question: Whether or not a verbal altercation between two employees

falls within the purview of the infraction “fighting” as to merit
termination?
Facts: Petitioner Northwest Airlines, Inc. employed respondent

Ma.Concepcion M. Del Rosario on December 10, 1994 as one of its Manila-
based flight attendants.
On May 18, 1998, Del Rosario was assigned at the Business Class Section
of Northwest Flight NW 26 bound for Japan.
During the boarding preparations, Kathleen Gamboa, another flight

attendant assigned at the First Class Section of Flight NW 26, needed to
borrow a wine bottle opener from her fellow attendants because her wine
bottle opener was dull. On instructions of Gamboa, a co-employee went to
the Business Class Section to borrow a wine bottle opener from Del
Rosario, but the latter remarked that any flight attendant who could not
bring a wine bottle opener had no business working in the First Class
Section.
Apparently, Gamboa overheard Del Rosario’s remarks, and later on

verbally confronted her. Their confrontation escalated into a heated
argument. Escaño intervened but the two ignored her, prompting her to
rush outside the aircraft to get Maria Rosario D. Morales, the Assistant
Base Manager, to pacify them. The two were asked to patch things up, but
both refused and hence, were offloaded.
Labor Arbiter: For Northwestern.
It is a fight justifying the termination Northwest had been engaged in the

airline business in which a good public image had been demanded, and in
which flight attendants had been expected to maintain an image of
sweetness and amiability; that fighting among its employees even in the
form of heated arguments or discussions were very contradictory to that
expected image;4 and that it could validly dismiss its employees like the
22
Atty. Ada D. Abad
respondent because it had been entitled to protect its business interests by

putting up an impeccable image to the public..
NLRC and CA: For Complainant employee.
The incident between complainant and Gamboa could not be considered as

synonymous with fighting as the activity prohibited by Northwest’s Rules of
Conduct; that based on Black’s Law Dictionary, fight referred to a hostile
encounter, affray, or altercation; a physical or verbal struggle for victory,
pugilistic combat; that according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, fighting did
not necessarily imply that both parties should exchange blows, for it was
sufficient that they voluntarily put their bodies in position with that intent;5
and that the incident between Del Rosario and Gamboa could not be held
similar to the fight that Northwest penalized under its Rules of Conduct.
Issue: Whether or not a verbal altercation falls within the meaning of

”fighting”, as a ground for termination under serious misconduct?
Supreme Court: NO. Fighting to be interpreted strictly, and must be

more than more than just an exchange of words that usually
succeeded the provocation by either party, to merit termination.
Rationale: In several rulings where the meaning of fight was decisive, the
Court has observed that the term fight was considered to be different from
the term argument. In People v. Asto, for instance, the Court characterized
fight as not just a merely verbal tussle but a physical combat between two
opposing parties. Similarly, in Pilares, Sr. v. People,14 a fight was held to
be more than just an exchange of words that usually succeeded the
provocation by either party.
Based on the foregoing, the incident involving Del Rosario and Gamboa
could not be justly considered as akin to the fight contemplated by
Northwest. In the eyes of the NLRC, Del Rosario and Gamboa were
arguing but not fighting. The understanding of fight as one that required
physical combat was absent during the incident of May 18, 1998.
Moreover, the claim of Morales that Del Rosario challenged Gamboa
to a brawl (sabunutan) could not be given credence by virtue of its
being self-serving in favor of Northwest, and of its being an apparent
afterthought on the part of Morales during the investigation of the
incident, without Del Rosario having the opportunity to contest Morales'
statement. In that context, the investigation then served only as Northwest's
means to establish that the grounds of a valid dismissal based on serious
misconduct really existed.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the incident was the kind of
fight prohibited by Northwest's Rules of Conduct, the same could not
be considered as of such seriousness as to warrant Del Rosario's
dismissal from the service. The gravity of the fight, which was not more
than a verbal argument between them, was not enough to tarnish or
diminish Northwest's public image.
b) CESAR NAGUIT VS. SAN MIGUEL CORP., G.R. No. 188839, 22 June
2015
Facts: Naguit was employed as machine operator of SMC Metal Closure

and Lithography Plant. In Sept 2002, Naguit and co-employee Regalagot
involved in an altercation at SMC ‘s Canlubang Plant. Naguit claimed that
Regala went to the plant to distribute anti-union materials that are libelous
and defamatory. Naguit, as a union steward, confronted Regala, which
23
Atty. Ada D. Abad
developed to a heated exchange of words. Naguit then elbowed Regala,

hitting him in the face, causing him to lose his balance and fall to the
ground. During the administrative investigation, Naguit opted to remain
silent and did not address the charges against him. Hence, company found
Naguit guilty of willful injury, an infraction of the company’s rules and
regulations.
The Court does not agree with petitioner's argument that the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon him is too harsh and is not commensurate to the
infraction he has committed, considering that he has been in respondent's
employ for fifteen years and that this is just his first offense of this nature.
The settled rule is that “fighting within company premises” is a valid ground
for the dismissal of an employee (Malaya Shipping Services, Inc. v. NLRC,
351 Phil. 421 [1998]). Moreover, the act of assaulting another
employee is serious misconduct which justifies the termination of
employment. (Ha Yuan Restaurant v. NLRC, 516 Phil. 124 [2006].) Where the
totality of the evidence warrants dismissal, no distinction ought to be made
between a first offender and a habitual delinquent. (Aparente, Sr. v. NLRC,
387 Phil. 96 [2006.)
5.1.2 Verbal abuse of employer by employee: Is there any

difference if done in an informal setting versus a formal
setting?
Roque B. Benitez, et al., vs. Santa Fe Moving and Relocation Services,

et al., G.R. No. 208163, April 20, 2015.
Facts: Benitez maligned the company’s Managing Director by uttering

abusive words (viz: “putang ina mo VK, gago ka!”), and even attempted to
throw a beer bottle at him but was restrained by other employees, during
the company’s Christmas party which were attended by other company
officials, employees, their families, as wells as company clients and guests.
Benitez was terminated for violation of “Santa Fe Policy and Procedure
under Conduct and Behavior and under Art. 282 of the Labor Code on
Serious Misconduct”.
Benitez defense: Samson vs. NLRC (386 Phil. 669 [2000]), where the
alleged misconduct of an employee, consisting of offensive
utterances and obscene gestures8 during an informal Christmas
gathering, cannot be viewed a serious. It is only expected that during
this kind of gatherings, employees are expected to express their
grievances and gripes against their employers given that their
tongues are more often than not, loosened by liquor and other
alcoholic beverages. (Samson vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 460 [2000])
Supreme Court: Benitez’s offense constituted a serious misconduct as

defined by law. His display of insolent and disrespectful behavior, in utter
disregard of the time and place of its occurrence, had very much to do with
his work.
8Utterances in Samson vs. NLRC: “Si EDT [Epitacio D. Titong, the General Manager and
President of the employer], bullshit yan,” “sabihin mo kay EDT yan” and “sabihin mo kay EDT,
bullshit yan,” while making the “dirty finger” gesture, and warning that the forthcoming national
sales conference of the company would be a “very bloody one.”
24
Atty. Ada D. Abad
The present case is not in parallel with the case of Samson vs. NLRC (386
Phil. 669 [2000]), Samson’s outburst occurred during an informal gathering
of company sales officials and staff and his maligned superior was not
present during the gathering. On the other hand, Benitez went up the stage
and confronted his superior with verbal abuse which caused grave
embarrassment for the audience who witnessed the incident, including
company officials whom he likewise maligned, in the presence of company
clients.
5.1.3 Libel as ground for termination
Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et al. vs.

Visayan Electric Company, Inc., (VECO), G.R. No. 205575, 22 July 2015.
The Union President, Casmero Mahilum, was terminated from employment

due to loss of trust and confidence, as well as violating the Company Code
of Discipline, for causing the publication of what VECO deemed as a
libelous article.
This termination was precipitated by the Union’s march on the streets of

Cebu to protest VECO’s alleged refusal to comply with the political and
economic provisions of the CBA. When interviewed by the media, they
handed out a Press Release containing their alleged grievances, the gist of
which came out in local newspapers. They even exhorted the public to
oppose any electricity rate increase by VECO and vilified the memory of
then Corporate Officer Luis Alfonso Y. Aboitiz into disrepute.
With the derogatory statements issued by Mahilum that were intended to

incite, not just public condemnation of VECO, but antagonism and
obstruction against rate increases in electricity that it may be allowed, by
law, to fix, there can be no dispute that VECO, indeed, had lost its trust and
confidence in Mahilum and ability to perform his task with utmost efficiency
and loyalty expected of an employee entrusted to handle customers and
funds. Settled is the rule that an employer cannot be compelled to retain an
employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the employer. A
company has the right to dismiss its employee if only as a measure of self-
protection.
5.2 ON LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE:
a) ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER VS. MA. THERESA SANCHEZ, G.R.

No. 212054, 11 March 2015
Question: Whether or not employee may validly set up as a defense

that there was no real intention to bring out unused hospital supplies
left by patients (syringe, micropore, cotton balls, gloves, etc), to
avoid termination?
Answer: NO.
Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC for her willful disregard and
disobedience of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline, which
reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, i.e., “theft, pilferage of hospital or
co-employee property, x x x or its attempt in any form or manner from the
hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers (external and
25
Atty. Ada D. Abad
internal)” with termination from employment. Such act is obviously

connected with Sanchez’s work, who, as a staff nurse, is tasked with the
proper stewardship of medical supplies.
Significantly, records show that Sanchez made a categorical admission in

her handwritten letter – i.e., “[k]ahit alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong
[makapag-uwi] ng gamit” – that despite her knowledge of its express
prohibition under the SLMC Code of Discipline, she still knowingly brought
out the subject medical items with her.
It is apt to clarify that SLMC cannot be faulted in construing the

taking of the questioned items as an act of dishonesty (particularly,
as theft, pilferage, or its attempt in any form or manner) considering
that the intent to gain may be reasonably presumed from the furtive
taking of useful property appertaining to another. Note that Section 1,
Rule 1 of the SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the
company policy requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items
for proper handling65\\ and providing a restriction on taking and bringing
such items out of the SLMC premises without the proper authorization or
“pass” from the official concerned, which Sanchez was equally aware
thereof.
On a related point, the Court observes that there lies no competent basis
to support the common observation of the NLRC and the CA that the
retention of excess medical supplies was a tolerated practice among the
nurses at the Pediatric Unit. While there were previous incidents of
“hoarding,” it appears that such acts were – in similar fashion – furtively
made and the items secretly kept, as any excess items found in the
concerned nurse’s possession would have to be confiscated. Hence, the
fact that no one was caught and/or sanctioned for transgressing the
prohibition therefor does not mean that the so-called “hoarding” practice
was tolerated by SLMC. Besides, whatever maybe the justification behind
the violation of the company rules regarding excess medical supplies is
immaterial since it has been established that an infraction was deliberately
committed.
Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not suffered any
actual damage. While damage aggravates the charge, its absence does
not mitigate nor negate the employee’s liability. Neither is SLMC’s non-
filing of the appropriate criminal charges relevant to this analysis.
b. YABUT VS MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, G.R. No. 190436, 16

January 2012, J. Reyes.
Facts: Norman Yabut worked with Meralco from February 1989 until his
dismissal from employment on February 5, 2004. At the time of said dismissal,
he was assigned at the Meralco Malabon Branch Office as a Branch Field
Representative tasked, among other things, to conduct surveys on service
applications, test electric meters, investigate consumer-applicants' records of
Violations of Contract (VOC) and perform such other duties and functions as
may be required by his superior. Meralco’s inspection office was informed
that there was an illegal service connection at the Yabut's residence,
which allowed power transmission to the petitioner's residence despite the
fact that Meralco had earlier disconnected his electrical service due to his
failure to pay his electric bills.
Yabut admitted that he was the registered customer of the said address,
that his electric service was disconnected due to unpaid electric bills, that
he had noticed shunting wires on their meter during the inspection and that
a service deposit was made as payment to his account. He however
26
Atty. Ada D. Abad
denied knowing the person who installed the discovered shunting wires.
Meralco alleges that Yabut’s own wife had admitted his authorship of the
illegal connection but this was denied by Yabut. He was terminated after
due process, for which reason he filed this case for illegal termination.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decision: For employee Yabut. There was no
clear and direct evidence to prove that Petitioner performed the shunting of
his metering installation and it was not related to the performance of his
duties as an employee of the respondent.
CA Decision: For Meralco. The dismissal of the petitioner to be lawful and
petitioner's right to due process was not violated, as he was served the
required notices and given sufficient opportunity to be heard
Issues: Whether Yabut was validly dismissed by Meralco?
Decision: YES. The dismissal of the petitioner was founded on just causes
under Article 282 of the Labor Code and that the requirements of
procedural due process were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of just cause was satisfied in this

case. The petitioner's employment was terminated by the herein
respondents for violation of Meralco's Company Code on Employee
Discipline, and for the existence of just cause under Article 282 of the
Labor Code. The petitioner's violation of the company rules was evident.
What is significant is that the meter was registered under his named
and located within the premise of his property. It was the petitioner and
his family who could have benefited from the illegal connection. The logical
conclusion that may be deduced from these attending circumstances is
that the petitioner was a party, or at the very least, one who agreed to the
installation of the shunted wires, and who also benefited from the illegal
connection at the expense of his employer-company. The quantum of
proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Tampering with electric meters or metering installations of the
Company or the installation of any device, with the purpose of
defrauding the Company" is classified as an act of dishonesty from
Meralco employees which is prohibited under the company’s rules.
c) CONTRA: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS MA. LUISA

BELTRAN, G.R. No. 173774; 30 January 2012, J. Del Castillo
Facts: Beltran was employed by MERALCO as Senior Branch Clerk at

MERALCO’s Pasig branch. While rendering overtime on a Sunday, Beltran
received Chang’s cash payment of P15,164.48, in exchange for a returned
chec and issued an ante-dated Auxiliary Receipt on 30 September 1996.
She received said payment despite her initial misgivings because it was
not part of her duties, but solely upon insistence of the Collection Route
Supervisor. Beltran remitted the amount only after her immediate
supervisor, Garcia, called her attention about the payment and its non-
remittance on 13 January 1997. After due process, Beltran was found
guilty of misappropriating and withholding Chang’s payment and
terminated accordingly. Beltran filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against MERALCO.
LA Decision: regarded the penalty of dismissal as not commensurate to

the degree of infraction committed as there was no adequate proof of
misappropriation on the part of Beltran
27
Atty. Ada D. Abad
NLRC Decision: reversed LA’s Decision and dismissed Beltran’s

complaint against MERALCO. It found that Beltran withheld company
funds by failing to remit it for almost four months.
CA Decision: the NLRC’s ruling was reversed
Issue: Whether there is sufficient ground supported by substantial

evidence to justify Beltran’s dismissal
Case for employee: Beltran argued that she had no intention to withhold
company funds, and that it was not her customary duty to collect and remit
payments from customers. She claimed good faith, believing that her
acceptance of Chang’s payment is considered goodwill in favor of both
MERALCO and its customer. If at all, her only violation was a simple delay
in remitting the payment, which caused no considerable harm to the
company. Further, her nine years of unblemished service to the company
should be taken into account such that the penalty of dismissal is not a
commensurate penalty for the unintentional act committed.
Case For Company: MERALCO insisted that Beltran’s act renders her
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of her position.
MERALCO maintained that under company policy, Beltran had the duty to
remit payment for electric bills by any customer on the day the same was
received. It opined that if indeed the money was kept intact inside the
drawer and was not put to personal use, Beltran could have easily turned
over the same when Garcia instructed her to do so. However, Beltran
failed to remit the money at that time and even on the following day when
she reported for work. Worse, in the two succeeding days, she went on
leave. Thus, there was a clear sign of misappropriation of company funds,
considered a serious misconduct and punishable by dismissal from the
service. Further, Beltran’s reason for her failure to perform such obligation
on account of family problems deserves scant consideration.
SUPREME COURT DECISION: For employee Beltran. There are no

sufficient grounds to warrant Beltran’s dismissal. Employee was
reinstated without backwages.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The burden of proving the legality of an employee’s dismissal lies with the
employer. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for
dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on
clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally,
knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from
an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. In
addition, loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and
not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion.
To begin with, MERALCO cannot claim or conclude that Beltran

misappropriated the money based on mere suspicion. The NLRC thus
erred in concluding that Beltran made use of the money from the
mere fact that she took a leave of absence after having been
reminded of the unremitted funds. And even if Beltran delayed
handing over the funds to the company, MERALCO still has the
burden of proof to show clearly that such act of negligence is
sufficient to justify termination from employment. Moreover, we find
that Beltrans delay does not clearly and convincingly establish a willful
breach on her part, that is, which is done intentionally, knowingly and
purposely, without any justifiable excuse. True, the reasons Beltran
28
Atty. Ada D. Abad
proffered for her delay in remitting the cash payment are mere allegations
without any concrete proof. Nonetheless, we emphasize that as the
employer, the burden still lies on MERALCO to provide clear and
convincing facts upon which the alleged loss of confidence is to be made
to rest.
Undoubtedly, Beltran was remiss in her duties for her failure to

immediately turn over Changs payment to the company. Such
negligence, however, is not sufficient to warrant separation from
employment. To justify removal from service, the negligence should be
gross and habitual. Gross negligence x x x is the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. Habitual neglect,
on the other hand, connotes repeated failure to perform ones duties for a
period of time, depending upon the circumstances. No concrete evidence
was presented by MERALCO to show that Beltran’s delay in remitting
the funds was done intentionally. Neither was it shown that same is
willful, unlawful and felonious contrary to MERALCOs finding as
stated in the letter of termination it sent to Beltran. Surely, Beltrans
single and isolated act of negligence cannot justify her dismissal
from service.
Moreover, Beltrans simple negligence did not result in any loss. From
the time she received the payment on September 28, 1996 until January 7,
1997 when she was apprised by her supervisor about Changs payment,
no harm or damage to the company or to its customers attributable to
Beltrans negligence was alleged by MERALCO. Also, from the time she
was apprised of the non-remittance by her superior on January 7, 1997,
until the turn-over of the amount on January 13, 1997, no such harm or
damage was ever claimed by MERALCO.
Under the circumstances, MERALCOs sanction of dismissal will not be

commensurate to Beltrans inadvertence not only because there was no
clear showing of bad faith and malice but also in consideration of her
untainted record of long and dedicated service to MERALCO.[33]
5.3 Retirement from the service during the pendency of an

administrative case does not render the case moot and
academic.
Segifredo T. Vilchez vs. Free Port Service Corporation, et al., G.R.

No. 183735, 06 July 2015.
Requisites for loss of trust and confidence: (1) the employee concerned
must be holding a position of trust and confidence; (2) there must be an
act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence; and (3) the act
complained of must be work-related.
The retirement from the service during the pendency of an administrative

case does not render the case moot and academic. (Applied by analogy
the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Dechavez (G.R. No. 176702,
Nov. 13, 2013; 709 SCRA375.)
29
Atty. Ada D. Abad
Since Vilchez’s termination was valid, there can be no award for

backwages, and there was no basis for his reinstatement and, therefore
there can be no earned retirement benefits under the law to speak of.
5.4 Option to resign rather than face investigation, not

constructive dismissal.
Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc., et al. vs. Janet T. Siason, July 29,
2015
The company conducted an audit of the purchases made by the

Purchasing Officer Siason. This led to the discovery of a number of
questionable discrepancies in several purchasing transactions. Hence,
the company gave her an option to resign or face an administrative
investigation. Siason resigned but filed forthwith a complaint that the
company constructively dismissed her.
The company did not constructively dismiss Siason. The circumstances

show that she was given the option to voluntarily resign from the
company, instead of dealing with an investigation which might result in
her dismissal.
The company’s action of giving Siason a graceful exit rather than filing a
case for redress is perfectly within the discretion of the former; as it is not
uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to avoid the
humiliation and embarrassment of being terminated for just cause after
the exposure of a malfeasance. (Willi Hahn Enterprises vs. Maghuyop, 488
Phil. 351 [2004]). There is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the
employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather
than smear the latter’s employment record. (Sicangco vs. NLRC, G.R.
No110261, August 04, 19947, 235 SCRA 96).
While it may be said that she did not tender her resignation
wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own making did not give her any
other option but to voluntarily do so. (Chiang Kai Shek College vs. Torres,
G.R. No. 189456, April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 424).
Ada Abad Labor Updates July 2016.

For UP Law Center MCLE 6th compliance.
30

Ada4 Up Mcle Labor Updates July2016

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ada4 Up Mcle Labor Updates July2016

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2016 Updated Handouts for UP MCLE (July 2016)

Legal Trends and Updates on Labor Law and Social Legislation

LEGAL TRENDS AND UPDATES ON

OVERVIEW OF LECTURE FOR TODAY:

A. ISSUES IN THE LABOR COMPONENT OF THE K-12 SHIFT

 TWO-YEARS WITHOUT FIRST YEAR COLLEGE STUDENTS

 INTEGRATION OF LABOR MARKET WITH ASEAN BY

B. NEW LAWS AND DEPARTMENT ORDERS

1. MINIMUM WAGE LAW: WAGE ORDER No. NCR-20 (eff 02

2. DUTERTE’S CAMPAIGN PROMISE: THE END OF “ENDOC”

3. MAGNA CARTA OF WOMEN VIS-À-VIS NEW SUPREME

C. SUPREME COURT CASES RELATING TO LABOR RELATIONS

A. ISSUES IN THE LABOR COMPONENT OF THE K-12 SHIFT

The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely:

The areas of cooperation in the economic aspect include human resources

Legal Framework for K-12 Shift and ASEAN 2015 Integration

THE LAW ON K-12:

 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533 promulgated 15 May 2013

 ASEAN SUMMIT – BALI CONCORD II in 2003 (ASEAN 30th anniversary), calling

1 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Overview. http://www.asean.org/asean/about-asean

Knowledge and People. http://www.mondaq.com/x/166614/International+Trade/ASEAN+

Labor issues in the K-12 Shift

Labor issues in the ASEAN 2015 Integration

As had been intimated earlier, there is supposed to be an OPEN LABOR MARKET

In response to these dynamics, domestic labor forces need to be well prepared.

Article VII – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of

Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that

Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of

Article 40. Employment permit for non-resident aliens. Any

The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident

For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of

liberalized trade economy. It is a pragmatic approach to the realities of the 21st

The above notwithstanding, it is believed that these mechanisms can only be

B. NEW LAWS AND DEPARTMENT ORDERS AFFECTING

SECTOR/INDUSTRY BASIC COLA NEW NEW NEW

1.2 Service contracts between Company (principal) and Agency (Section 4)

• In cases of contracting out of projects, and for security, janitorial or similar

2. DUTERTE’S CAMPAIGN PROMISE: ERADICATION OF “ENDOC”

2.1 “END OF CONTRACT” signifies the cessation of employment of a person with

Factors to take into consideration: (a) nature of employment classification, viz.

Synthesis of salient points in Brent School doctrine and related

2.2.1 A contract of employment for a definite period terminates by its own

2.2.3 The decisive determinant in term employment should not be the

A. The fixed period of employment was KNOWINGLY

B. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and

2.3.2 Difference between “project employees” and “regular employees.”

Regular employees, in contrast, are legally entitled to remain in the

a. Firstly, a project could refer to a particular job or undertaking that is

The typical example of this first type of project is a particular

b. Secondly, a project could also refer to a particular job or

separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business

Example: It is unusual (but still conceivable) for a company to

“2.2 Indicators of project employment. - Either one or more of the

(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed,

(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the

(e) The termination of his employment in the particular

(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay

2.4 Employees of an independent contactor are not employees of the

2.4.1 Contracting out is valid as an exercise of management prerogative

The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that an employer's

Burden of proof is thus on the complaining employees to show that the

2.4.2 VALID JOB CONTRACTING VS. LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING