LABOR CASE DIGESTS

1. PT&T vs NLRC

Facts: PT&T (Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company) initially hired Grace de
Guzman specifically as “Supernumerary Project Worker”, for a fixed period from
November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 as reliever for C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity
leave. She was again invited for employment as replacement of Erlina F. Dizon who went
on leave on 2 periods, from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991 and July 19, 1991 to August 8,
1991. On September 2, 1991, de Guzman was again asked to join PT&T as a
probationary employee where probationary period will cover 150 days. She indicated in
the portion of the job application form under civil status that she was single although she
had contracted marriage a few months earlier. When petitioner learned later about the
marriage, its branch supervisor, Delia M. Oficial, sent de Guzman a memorandum
requiring her to explain the discrepancy. Included in the memorandum, was a reminder
about the company’s policy of not accepting married women for employment. She was
dismissed from the company effective January 29, 1992. Labor Arbiter handed down
decision on November 23, 1993 declaring that petitioner illegally dismissed De Guzman,
who had already gained the status of a regular employee. Furthermore, it was apparent
that she had been discriminated on account of her having contracted marriage in violation
of company policies.

Issue: Whether the alleged concealment of civil status can be grounds to terminate the
services of an employee.

HELD: No. Article 136 of the Labor Code, one of the protective laws for women, explicitly
prohibits discrimination merely by reason of marriage of a female employee. It is
recognized that company is free to regulate manpower and employment from hiring to
firing, according to their discretion and best business judgment, except in those cases of
unlawful discrimination or those provided by law.
2. Lakpue Drug Inc. vs Belga

Facts: Ma. Lourdes Belga (Belga), respondent herein, worked at Tropical Biological
Philippines, a subsidiary of Lakpue Drug Inc., petitioner herein. On March 19, 2001,Belga,
brought her daughter to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for treatment of broncho-
pneumonia. While at the PGH, Belga who was pregnant experienced labor pains and
gave birth on the same day. Two days after giving birth, Tropical summoned Belga to
report for work but the latter replied that she could not comply because of her situation.
Belga was dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct. Tropical alleged that Belga
concealed her pregnancy from the company. She did not apply for leave and her absence
disrupted Tropical’s financial transactions.

Issue: Whether or not Belga is illegally dismissed.

Held: Yes. The alleged misconduct of Belga barely falls within the situation contemplated
by the law. Her absence for 16 days was justified considering that she had just delivered
a child, which can hardly be considered a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty; much less
does it imply wrongful intent on the part of Belga. Tropical harps on the alleged
concealment by Belga of her pregnancy. This argument, however, begs the question as
to how one can conceal a full-term pregnancy. We agree with respondent’s position that
it can hardly escape notice how she grows bigger each day. While there may be instances
where the pregnancy may be inconspicuous, it has not been sufficiently proven by
Tropical that Belga’s case is such. Belga’s failure to formally inform Tropical of her
pregnancy can not be considered as grave misconduct directly connected to her work as
to constitute just cause for her separation.
3. Apex Mining Company, Inc. vs NLRC

Facts: On December 18, 1987, while she was attending to her assigned task and she was
hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a stone. She reported
the accident to her immediate supervisor Mila de la Rosa and to the personnel officer,
Florendo D. Asirit. As a result of the accident she was not able to continue with her work.
She was permitted to go on leave for medication. De la Rosa offered her the amount of
P 2,000.00 which was eventually increased to P5,000.00 to persuade her to quit her job,
but she refused the offer and preferred to return to work. Petitioner did not allow her to
return to work and dismissed her on February 4, 1988. The foregoing definition clearly
contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is employed in the employer's
home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's
family. Such definition covers family drivers, domestic servants, laundry women, yayas,
gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps. The definition cannot be interpreted
to include househelp or laundrywomen working in staffhouses of a company, like
petitioner who attends to the needs of the company's guest and other persons availing of
said facilities. By the same token, it cannot be considered to extend to then driver,
houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company, the staffhouses and its
premises. They may not be considered as within the meaning of a "househelper" or
"domestic servant" as above-defined by law.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed

Held: Yes. The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer
in the home of said employer. While it may be true that the nature of the work of a
househelper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company staffhouse
may be similar in nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance
they are actually serving the family while in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or
a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other agricultural or similar
pursuit, service is being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the business
of the employer. In such instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the
business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.

Petitioner contends that it is only when the househelper or domestic servant is assigned
to certain aspects of the business of the employer that such househelper or domestic
servant may be considered as such as employee. The Court finds no merit in making any
such distinction. The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within
the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its
business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants
the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered
as a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic
servant as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended.

4. Barcenas vs. NLRC

Facts: The Buddhist Temple has hired petitioner who speaks the Chinese language as
secretary and interpreter. The head monk, Chua Se Su, had sexual relations with
petitioner, which resulted to the latter giving birth to a child. In May, 1982, of five months
before giving birth to the alleged son of Su on October 12, 1982, petitioner was sent home
to Bicol. Upon the death of Su in July, 1983, complainant remained and continued in her
job. In 1985, respondent Manuel Chua (Chua, for short) was elected President and
Chairman of the Board of the Poh Toh Buddhist Association of the Philippines, Inc. and
Rev. Sim Dee for short) was elected Head Buddhist Priest. Thereafter, Chua and Dee
discontinued payment of her monthly allowance and the additional P500.00 allowance
effective 1983. Petitioner and her son were evicted forcibly from their quarters in the
temple by six police officers. She was brought first to the Police precinct in Tondo and
then brought to Aloha Hotel where she was compelled to sign a written undertaking not
to return to the Buddhist temple in consideration of the sum of P10,000.00. Petitioner
refused and Chua shouted threats against her and her son. Her personal belongings
including assorted jewelries were never returned by respondent Chua.
Chua alleges that she was never an employee of the temple, but only attended to the
personal needs of the former head monk, hence was co-terminus with such.
LA ruled in favour of the petitioner. NLRC reversed.

Issue: WON petitioner is an employee of the temple

Held: Petitioner is an employee of the temple as secretary and interpreter.Moreover, the

work that petitioner performed in the temple could not be categorized as mere domestic
work. We find that petitioner, being proficient in the Chinese language, attended to the
visitors, mostly Chinese, who came to pray or seek advice before Buddha for personal or
business problems; arranged meetings between these visitors and Su and supervised the
preparation of the food for the temple visitors; acted as tourist guide of foreign visitors;
acted as liaison with some goverment offices; and made the payment for the temple’s
Meralco, MWSS and PLDT bills. Indeed, these tasks may not be deemed activities of a
household helper. They were essential and important to the operation and religious
functions of the temple. In spite of this finding, her status as a regular employee ended
upon her return to Bicol in May, 1982 to await the birth of her love-child allegedly by Su.
The records do not show that petitioner filed any leave from work or that a leave was
granted her. Neither did she return to work after the birth of her child on October 12, 1982,
whom she named Robert Chua alias Chua Sim Tiong. The NLRC found that it was only
in July, 1983 after Su died that she went back to the Manila Buddhist Temple. Petitioner’s
pleadings failed to rebut this finding. Clearly, her return could not be deemed as a
resumption of her old position which she had already abandoned.

5. Metrobank vs NWPC

Facts: On October 17, 1995, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board,
Region II, Tuguegarao, Cagayan (RTWPB), by virtue of Republic Act No. 6727 (R.A. No.
6727), otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act, issued Wage Order No. R02-
03 (Wage Order), as follows: Section 1. Upon effectivity of this Wage Order, all
employees/workers in the private sector throughout Region II, regardless of the status of
employment are granted an across-the-board increase of P15.00 daily. The Wage Order
was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 2, 1995 and took effect
on January 1, 1996. Its Implementing Rules were approved on February 14, 1996. Per
Section 13 of the Wage Order, any party aggrieved by the Wage Order may file an appeal
with the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) through the RTWPB
within 10 calendar days from the publication of the Wage Order. Banker’s Council in a
letter inquiry to NWPC requested for ruling to seek exemption from coverage of the wage
order since the members bank are paying more than the regular wage. NWPC replied
that the member banks are covered by the wage order and does not fall with the
exemptible categories. In another letter inquiry, Metrobank asked for the interpretation of
the applicability of the wage order. NWPC referred it to RTWPB. RTWPB in return clarified
that establishments in Region 2 are covered by the wage order. Petitioner filed a petition
with the CA and denied the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the wage order is void thus it has no legal effect and the RTWPB
acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

Held: The Court finds that Section 1, Wage Order No. R02-03 is void insofar as it grants
a wage increase to employees earning more than the minimum wage rate; and pursuant
to the separability clause of the Wage Order, Section 1 is declared valid with respect to
employees earning the prevailing minimum wage rate.

The powers of NWPC are enumerated in ART. 121. Powers and Functions of the
Commission. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: (d) To
review regional wage levels set by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards
to determine if these are in accordance with prescribed guidelines and national
development plans; (f) To review plans and programs of the Regional Tripartite Wages
and Productivity Boards to determine whether these are consistent with national
development plans; (g) To exercise technical and administrative supervision over the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.
6.Nasipit vs. NWPC

Facts: On November 19, 1993, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board
(RTWPB) of Region X, Northern Mindanao, Cagayan de Oro City, issued Wage Order
No. RX-03.This Wage Order mandated a P7.00 increase in the minimum daily wage of all
workers and employees in the private sector in Region X receiving a daily wage of not
more than P130.00 per day and an additional P10.00 allowance per day. Subsequently
or on March 17, 1994, Nasipit Lumber Company, Philippine Wallboard Corporation and
Anakan Lumber Company (herein petitioners) filed their separate application for
exemption from compliance with Wage Order No. RX-03, claiming they are distressed
establishments whose paid-up capital has been impaired by at least twenty-five percent
(25%). After finding that the petitioners indeed sustained financial losses which impaired
their respective paid-up capital, the RTWPB, in a consolidated Order dated December 3,
1994, granted petitioners a full exemption from compliance with the said Wage Order for
a period of one (1) year or from December 8, 1993 to December 7, 1994.

Issue: whether or not the period of exemption under Wage Order RX-03 can be extended
for more than one (1) year.

Held: No. Section 7 of the NWPC Revised Guidelines on Exemption, which is the
applicable rule on this matter, provides for the duration and extent of exemption that can
be granted to a qualified applicant establishment, to wit. Establishments shall be granted
full exemption of one (1) year from effectivity of the Order for all categories of exemption.
As set forth by the aforecited rule, the maximum period of exemption that can be accorded
to a qualified applicant is only for one (1) year from the effectivity of the Wage Order. This
non-extendable one year period of exemption, which had been consistently applied to all
analogous cases in the past involving companies seeking extension of the period of their
exemption, remains and continues to be the existing policy on the matter. Precisely, the
rationale behind this policy is to afford protection to workers who may be unfairly affected
by the deleterious effect of a prolonged exemption which is not in accord with the very
purpose of the issuance of a Wage Order. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Board Resolution No. 95-01, Series of
1995 dated 24 February 1995 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

7. Cagayan Sugar Milling vs. Secretary of Labor

Facts: On September 12 and 13, 1994, labor inspectors from the DOLE Regional
Office examined the books of petitioner to determine its compliance with the wage
order. They found that petitioner violated the wage order as it did not implement an across
the board increase in the salary of its employees. At the hearing at the DOLE Regional
Office for the alleged violation, petitioner maintained that it complied with Wage Order No.
RO2-02 as it paid the mandated increase in the minimum wage. In an Order dated
December 16, 1994, public respondent Regional Director Ricardo S. Martinez, Sr. ruled
that petitioner violated Wage Order RO2-02 by failing to implement an across the board
increase in the salary of its employees. He ordered petitioner to pay the deficiency in the
salary of its employees in the total amount of P555,133.41. On January 6, 1995, petitioner
appealed to public respondent Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing. On the same
date, the Regional Wage Board issued Wage Order No. RO2-02-A,[2] amending the
earlier wage order.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty

Held: Yes. To begin with, there was no ambiguity in the provision of Wage Order
RO2-02 as it provided in clear and categorical terms for an increase in statutory minimum
wage of workers in the region. Hence, the subsequent passage of RO2-02-A providing
instead for an across the board increase in wages did not clarify the earlier Order but
amended the same. In truth, it changed the essence of the original Order. In passing
RO2-02-A without going through the process of public consultation and hearings, the
Regional Board deprived petitioner and other employers of due process as they were not
given the opportunity to ventilate their positions regarding the proposed wage increase. In
wage-fixing, factors such as fair return of capital invested, the need to induce industries
to invest in the countryside and the capacity of employers to pay are, among others, taken
into consideration. Hence, our legislators provide for the creation of Regional Tripartite
Boards composed of representatives from the government, the workers and the
employers to determine the appropriate wage rates per region to ensure that all sides are
heard. For the same reason, Article 123 of the Labor Code also provides that in the
performance of their wage-determining functions, the Regional Board shall conduct public
hearings and consultations, giving notices to interested parties.

8. ECOP vs. NWPC

Facts: The Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) is questioning the

validity of Wage Order No. NCR-01-A dated October 23, 1990 of the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Board, National Capital Region, promulgated pursuant to the
authority of Republic Act No. 6727, "AN ACT TO RATIONALIZE WAGE POLICY
DETERMINATION BY ESTABLISHING THE MECHANISM AND PROPER STANDARDS
THEREFORE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 99 OF, AND
INCORPORATING ARTICLES 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, AND 127 INTO,
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FIXING NEW WAGE RATES, PROVIDING
WAGE INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRIAL DISPERSAL TO THE COUNTRYSIDE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES," was approved by the President on June 9, 1989. Aside from
providing new wage rates,1 the "Wage Rationalization Act" also provides, among other
things, for various Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards in charge of
prescribing minimum wage rates for all workers in the various regions and for a National
Wages and Productivity Commission to review, among other functions, wage levels
determined by the boards.

Issue: Whether or not the Wage Order is valid

Held: No. The Court is not convinced that the Regional Board of the National Capital
Region, in decreeing an across-the-board hike, performed an unlawful act of legislation.
It is true that wage-fixing, like rate constitutes an act Congress; it is also true, however,
that Congress may delegate the power to fix rates provided that, as in all delegations
cases, Congress leaves sufficient standards. As this Court has indicated, it is impressed
that the above-quoted standards are sufficient, and in the light of the floor-wage method's
failure, the Court believes that the Commission correctly upheld the Regional Board of
the National Capital Region.
9. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC

Facts: This is a certification election case. The Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa, a

duly registered labor union and a member of Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
(TUCP), filed with the Ministry of Labor a petition for certification election. Instead of
deciding the appeal promptly, the Director turned over the record of the case to the TUCP,
a federation of labor unions, allegedly by virtue of an arrangement between the Ministry
of Labor and the said federation that cases involving its member-unions must first be
referred to it for possible settlement in accordance with its Code of Ethics. The TUCP has
not decided the controversy. Thus the IBM filed in this Court the instant petition for
mandamus to compel the Director of Labor Relations to decide the case, or, in the
alternative, to require the TUCP to return to the Director the record of the case.

Issue: Whether or not it was legal and proper for the Director of Labor Relations to refer
to the TUCP the appeal of the Associated Labor Unions in a certification election case.

Held: No. Ratio The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations
should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private
person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Such a surrender of official functions
is an anomalous, deplorable and censurable renunciation of the Director’s adjudicatory
jurisdiction in representation cases. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides in peremptory
terms that the Bureau of Labor Relations and the labor relations divisions in
the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor “shall have original and exclusive authority to
act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and
intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural,
except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective
bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or
voluntary arbitration.”
10. People’s Broadcasting Service vs Secretary of Labor

Facts: The instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assails the decision and the
resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition traces its origins to a complaint filed by
Jandeleon Juezan (respondent) against People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (Bombo
Radyo Phils., Inc) (petitioner) for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive
leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of
benefits, delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth
(non-diminution of benefits in the amount allegedly 6K) before the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE)Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City.2 On the basis of the
complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September 2003. Labor
Inspector wrote under the heading “Findings/Recommendations” “non-diminution of
benefits” and “Note: Respondent deny employer-employee relationship with the
complainant- see Notice of Inspection results.” Management representative informed that
complainant is a drama talent hired on a per drama ” participation basis” hence no
employer-employeeship [sic] existed between them. As proof of this, management
presented photocopies of cash vouchers, billing statement, employments of specific
undertaking (a contract between the talent director & the complainant), summary of billing
of drama production etc. They (mgt.) has [sic] not control of the talent if he ventures into
another contract w/ other broadcasting industries.

Issue: WON the Secretary of Labor have the power to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship.

Held: No.To resolve this pivotal issue, one must look into the extent of the visitorial and
enforcement power of the DOLE found in Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended
by Republic Act 7730. It reads Article 128 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles
129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-
employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor
standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of
labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the
course of inspection. The provision is quite explicit that the visitorial and enforcement
power of the DOLE comes into play only “in cases when the relationship of employer-
employee still exists.” Of course, a person’s entitlement to labor standard benefits under
the labor laws presupposes the existence of employer-employee relationship in the
first place.The clause signifies that the employer-employee relationship must have
existed even before the emergence of the controversy. Necessarily, the DOLE’s power
does not apply in two instances, namely: (a) where the employer-employee relationship
has ceased; and (b) where no such relationship has ever existed.

11. Jethro Intelligence vs. Secretary of Labor

Facts: Petitioner Jethro Intelligence and Security Corporation (Jethro) is a security

service contractor with a security service contract agreement with co-petitioner Yakult
Phils., Inc. (Yakult). On the basis of a complaint] filed by respondent Frederick Garcia
(Garcia), one of the security guards deployed by Jethro, for underpayment of wages,
legal/special holiday pay, premium pay for rest day, 13 th month pay, and night shift
differential, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)-Regional Office No. IV
conducted an inspection at Yakults premises in Calamba, Laguna in the course of which
several labor standards violations were noted, including keeping of payrolls and daily
time records in the main office, underpayment of wages, overtime pay and other benefits,
and non-registration with the DOLE as required under Department Order No. 18-02.
Hearings on Garcias complaint and on the subsequent complaints of his co-respondents
Gil Cordero et al. were conducted during which Jethro submitted copies of payrolls
covering June 16 to 30, 2003, February to May 16-31, 2004, June 16-30, 2003,
and February 1-15, 2004. Jethro failed to submit daily time records of the claimants from
2002 to June 2004, however, despite the order for it to do so.

Issue: Whether or not the Wage Order is valid

Held: No. In the case at bar, the Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction
over the case as it does not come under the exception clause in Art. 128(b) of the Labor
Code. While petitioner Jethro appealed the inspection results and there is a need to
examine evidentiary matters to resolve the issues raised, the payrolls presented by it were
considered in the ordinary course of inspection. While the employment records of the
employees could not be expected to be found in Yakults premises in Calamba, as Jethros
offices are in Quezon City, the records show that Jethro was given ample opportunity to
present its payrolls and other pertinent documents during the hearings and to rectify the
violations noted during the ocular inspection. It, however, failed to do so, more particularly
to submit competent proof that it was giving its security guards the wages and benefits
mandated by law. Jethros failure to keep payrolls and daily time records in Yakults
premises was not the only labor standard violation found to have been committed by it; it
likewise failed to register as a service contractor with the DOLE, pursuant to Department
Order No. 18-02 and, as earlier stated, to pay the wages and benefits in accordance with
the rates prescribed by law.