Labor Law
155421, 07 July
-governs and regulates the relationship
between employers and employees
Labor Standards
- it is a part of labor law which prescribes the
minimum terms, conditions and benefits
-private sector
-employer and employee relationship
-is that branch of labor law that prescribes the
minimum requirements for hours of work,
wages, monetary benefits, welfare benefits,
and occupational health and safety.
Rights of employee
-equal work opportunities
-right to self organization and collective
bargaining agreement
-security of tenure
-just and humane conditions of work
Absolute prerogative
1. What is the extent of the rights and
prerogatives of management?
Our laws recognize and respect the exercise
by management of certain rights and
prerogatives. For this reason, courts often
decline to interfere in legitimate business
decisions of employers. In fact, labor laws
discourage interference in employers’
judgment concerning the conduct of their
business. (Philippine Industrial Security
Agency Corporation vs. Aguinaldo, G. R. No.
149974, June 15, 2005; Mendoza vs. Rural
Bank of Lucban, G.R. No. 155421, July 7,
2004).
An employer can regulate, generally without
restraint, according to its own discretion and
judgment, every aspect of its business. (Deles,
Jr. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 121348, March 9,
2000). chanrobles virtual law library
This privilege is inherent in the right of
employers to control and manage their
enterprise effectively. (Mendoza vs. Rural
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
1|Page
Bank of Lucban, G.R. No.
2004).
2.What are the limitations on the exercise of
management prerogatives?
Needless to state, the exercise of
management prerogative is not absolute. The
exercise of management prerogative is
subject to the limitations imposed by law or
by CBA, employment contract, employer
policy or practice and general principles of fair
play and justice. (The Philippine American Life
and General Insurance Co. vs. Gramaje, G. R.
No. 156963, Nov. 11, 2004).
3.What is the extent of management’s
prerogative to prescribe working methods,
time, place, manner and other aspects of
work?
Employers have the freedom and prerogative,
according to their discretion and best
judgment, to regulate and control all aspects
of employment in their business
organizations. Such aspects of employment
include hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work,
tools to be used, processes to be followed,
supervision of workers, working regulations,
transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-
off of workers and the discipline, dismissal
and recall of workers. (Philippine Airlines, Inc.
vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 115785, Aug. 4,
2000). chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, as held in one case, management
retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies
of the service so require, to change the
working hours of its employees. (Sime Darby
Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119205, 15
April 1998, 289 SCRA 86). chanrobles virtual
law library
Caltex Refinery Employees
Association (CREA) vs. National
Labor Relations Commission (Third
Division)
Labor Law; Management Prerogatives;
Prerogative of employers to regulate all
aspects of employment subject to the
limitation of special law is recognized.
The prerogative of employers to regulate all
aspects of employment subject to the
limitation of special laws is recognized. A valid
exercise of management prerogative
encompasses hiring, work assignments,
working methods, time, place and manner of
work, tools to be used, procedure to be
followed, supervision of workers, working
regulations, transfer of employees, discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers (San Miguel
Corporation v. Ubaldo, 218 SCRA 293
[1993]).
This prerogative must, however, be exercised
in good faith for the advancement of the
employer’s interest and not for the purpose
of defeating the rights of the employees
granted by law or contract (Garcia v. Manila
Times, 224 SCRA 399 [1993]).
Same; Same; Security of Tenure; The right of
the employer must not be exercised
arbitrarily and without just cause. Otherwise,
the constitutional mandate of security of
tenure of the workers would be rendered
nugatory.
There are restrictions to guide the employers
in the exercise of management prerogatives,
particularly the right to discipline or dismiss
employees, for both the Constitution and the
law guarantee employees’ security of tenure.
Thus, employees may be dismissed only in the
manner provided by law
(RadioCommunications of the Phil., Inc.
v.National Labor Relations Commission, 223
SCRA 656 [1993]).
The right of the employer must not be
exercised arbitrarily and without just cause.
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
2|Page
Otherwise, the constitutional mandate of
security of tenure of the workers would be
rendered nugatory (China City Restaurant
Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 217 SCRA 443 [1993]).
Same; Same; Same; Penalty of dismissal
must commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and
imposed in connection with the employer’s
disciplinary authority.
But while Clarete may be guilty of violation of
company rules, we find the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon him by respondent
Caltex too harsh and unreasonable. As
enunciated in Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Commission, supra,
“such a penalty (of dismissal) must be
commensurate with the act, conduct or
omission imputed to the employee and
imposed in connection with the employer’s
disciplinary authority” (at p. 667). Even when
there exist some rules agreed upon between
the employer and employee on the subject of
dismissal, we have ruled in Gelmart Industries
Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 176 SCRA 295 (1989), that the
same cannot preclude the State from
inquiring on whether its rigid application
would work too harshly on the employee.
Same; Same; Same; The penalty of dismissal
imposed on Clarete is unduly harsh and
grossly disproportionate to the reason for
terminating his employment.
Indeed, considering that Clarete has no
previous record in his eight years of
service;that
the value of the lighter fluid, placed at P8.00,
is very minimal compared to his salary of
P325.00 a day; that after his dismissal,he has
undergone mental torture; that respondent
Caltex did not lose anything as the bottle of
lighter fluid was retrieved on time;
and that there was no showing that Clarete’s
retention in the service would work undue
prejudice to the viability of employer’s
operations or is patently inimical to its
interest, we hold that the penalty of dismissal
imposed on Clarete is unduly harsh and
grossly disproportionate to the reason for
terminating his employment. Hence, we find
that the preventive suspension imposed upon
private respondent is a sufficient penalty for
the misdemeanor committed by petitioner
(Gelmart Industries Phils.,Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 176 SCRA 295
[1989]).
E-E criteria: (Viana v. Al-LAgadan)
1. Selection and engagement of employee
- Hiring
- Written contract, not necessary
- An understanding that one is to render
service to the other,and a recognition by
them of the right of one to order andcontrol
the other is sufficient
2. Payment of wages
Wages – remuneration of earnings
- Considered wages if paid in consideration of:
a) The labor being performed
b) The results or finished work
3. Power of dismissal
-Person hired is subjected to the rules of
discipline of the employer
4. Power to control the employee’s conduct
-Most important element
Control test: the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the rights to
control not only the end to be achieved but
also the means to be used in reaching such
end.
-The control should be on both the means and
the end.
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
3|Page
Kelan may illegal
recruitment/penalty
SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act,
illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or
not, when undertaken by non-licensee or
non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any
such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged.
It shall likewise include the following acts,
whether committed by any person, whether a
non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly
any amount greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to
make a worker pay or acknowledge any
amount greater than that actually received
by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or
information or document in relation to
recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony,
information or document or commit any act
of misrepresentation for the purpose of
securing a license or authority under the
Labor Code, or for the purpose of
documenting hired workers with the POEA,
which include the act of reprocessing
workers through a job order that pertains to
nonexistent work, work different from the
actual overseas work, or work with a
different employer whether registered or not
with the POEA;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker
already employed to quit his employment in
order to offer him another unless the transfer
is designed to liberate a worker from
oppressive terms and conditions of
employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any
person or entity not to employ any worker
who has not applied for employment through
his agency or who has formed, joined or
supported, or has contacted or is supported
by any union or workers' organization;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement
of workers in jobs harmful to public health or
morality or to the dignity of the Republic of
the Philippines;
xxxxx
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of
employment, placement vacancies,
remittance of foreign exchange earnings,
separation from jobs, departures and such
other matters or information as may be
required by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of
the worker, employment contracts approved
and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the
period of the expiration of the same without
the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or
placement agency to become an officer or
member of the Board of any corporation
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
4|Page
engaged in travel agency or to be engaged
directly or indirectly in the management of
travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents
from applicant workers before departure for
monetary or financial considerations, or for
any other reasons, other than those
authorized under the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted
worker without valid reason as determined by
the Department of Labor and Employment;
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by
the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes
of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place
without the worker's fault.
and
(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or
manage a licensed recruitment/manning
agency.
Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage;
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group.
"In addition to the acts enumerated above, it
shall also be unlawful for any person or entity
to commit the following prohibited acts:
(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino
worker with interest exceeding eight percent
(8%) per annum, which will be used for
payment of legal and allowable placement
fees and make the migrant worker issue,
either personally or through a guarantor or
accommodation party, postdated checks in
relation to the said loan;
(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive
arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino
worker is required to avail of a loan only
from specifically designated institutions,
entities or persons;
(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan
incurred by an overseas Filipino worker after
the latter's employment contract has been
prematurely terminated through no fault of
his or her own;
(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive
arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino
worker is required to undergo health
examinations only from specifically
designated medical clinics, institutions,
entities or persons, except in the case of a
seafarer whose medical examination cost is
shouldered by the principal/shipowner;
(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive
arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino
worker is required to undergo training,
seminar, instruction or schooling of any kind
only from specifically designated institutions,
entities or persons, except for
recommendatory trainings mandated by
principals /shipowners where the latter
shoulder the cost of such trainings;
(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning
agency to engage in any kind of recruitment
activity including the processing of pending
workers' applications; and
(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a
foreign principal/employer to pass on the
overseas Filipino worker or deduct from his
or her salary the payment of the cost of
insurance fees, premium or other insurance
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
5|Page
related charges, as provided under the
compulsory worker's insurance coverage.
The persons criminally liable for the above
offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the
officers having ownership, control,
management or direction of their business
who are responsible for the commission of
the offense and the responsible
employees/agents thereof shall be liable
.
In the filing of cases for illegal recruitment or
any of the prohibited acts under this section,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the
POEA Administrator or their duly authorized
representatives, or any aggrieved person may
initiate the corresponding criminal action with
the appropriate office. For this purpose, the
affidavits and testimonies of operatives or
personnel from the Department of Labor and
Employment, POEA and other law
enforcement agencies who witnessed the acts
constituting the offense shall be sufficient to
prosecute the accused.
In the prosecution of offenses punishable
under this section, the public prosecutors of
the Department of Justice shall collaborate
with the anti-illegal recruitment branch of the
POEA and, in certain cases, allow the POEA
lawyers to take the lead in the prosecution.
The POEA lawyers who act as prosecutors in
such cases shall be entitled to receive
additional allowances as may be determined
by the POEA Administrator.
The filing of an offense punishable under this
Act shall be without prejudice to the filing of
cases punishable under other existing laws,
rules or regulations."
SEC. 7. Penalties. -
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not
less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day
but not more than twenty (20) years and a
fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) nor more than Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of not less than Two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00) nor more than Five million
pesos (P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed if
illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined therein.
Provided, however, That the maximum
penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally
recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of
age or committed by a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority.
(c) Any person found guilty of any of the
prohibited acts shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years
and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12)
years and a fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
If the offender is an alien, he or she shall, in
addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be
deported without further proceedings.
In every case, conviction shall cause and carry
the automatic revocation of the license or
registration of the recruitment/manning
agency, lending institutions, training school or
medical clinic.
Discuss the types of illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code.
Under the Labor Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as
the ―Overseas Filipinos and Migrant Workers
Act of 1998‖, there are two types of illegal
recruitment, particularly simple illegal
recruitment and illegal recruitment which is
considered as an offense involving economic
sabotage.
Illegal recruitment as an offense involving
economic sabotage is committed under the
following qualifying circumstances, to wit:
When illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate, that is when it is carried out by a
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
6|Page
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another; or
When illegal recruitment is committed in
large scale that is when it is committed
against three (3) or more persons whether
individually or as a group.
Is RA 8042 exclusive to migrant worker
No, it also includes overseas workers
Can a person be charged of estafa & illegal
recruitment?
Yes, as this Court held in People v. Yabut 316
SCRA 237
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person
who commits illegal recruitment may be
charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa
under par. 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment
is malum prohibitum where the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where
the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for
conviction. Conviction for offenses under the
Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws.
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par.
2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
does not bar a conviction for illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows
that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will
not necessarily result in his acquittal of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and
vice versa.
The crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment, as a
general rule, is committed when two
essential elements concur:
1. that the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers, and/ or
2. that the offender undertakes any activity
within the meaning of recruitment and
placement defined under Republic Act No.
10022 or any prohibited practices
enumerated thereunder.
For purposes of R.A. 10022, illegal
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes
referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether
for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Labor
Code of the Philippines:
Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-
holder who, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall
likewise include the enumerated acts,
whether committed by any person, whether a
non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority:
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines
recruitment and placement as:
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not: Provided, that any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or
more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.
Amount of Placement fee (Art. 32
Labor code)
Fees that may be collected by Recruitment
Agencies for local Employment pg 80 Ungos
1. From the worker- Recruitment
agencies for local employment cannot
charge any fee from the workers that
it recruited
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
7|Page
2. From the employer- Recruitment
agencies for local employment can
charge the following fees from the
employer:
(a) Service fee
(b) Transportation expenses for the
transfer of the worker from the
place of residence to the place of
work.
Fees that may be collected by recruitment
Agencies for Land-Based Overseas pg 81
Ungos
1. From the worker- Recruitment
agencies for land-based overseas
employment can charge the following
fee from the workers that it recruited:
(a) Placement fee equivalent to one
(1) month salary;
(b) Document expenses, e.g. for
passport, NBI/Police/Barangay
Clearance, authentication, birth
certificate, medicare, trade Test,
and medical examination fees.
2. From the principal/employer-
Recruitment agencies for land-based
overseas employment can charge the
following fees from the employer:
(a) Service fee for services rendered
in the recruitment,
documentation and placement of
workers.
(b) Cost of visa fee; airfare; POEA
processing fee; and OWWA
membership fee.
Fees that may be collected by manning
agencies for overseas maritime Employment
1. From the seafarer- manning
agencies cannot charge any fee
 from seafarers for their
recruitment and deployment
services;
2. From the principal- manning
agencies may charge from their
principals manning fee to cover
services in the recruitment and
deployment of seafarers.
Ban on direct hiring
ART. 18. Ban on direct-hiring. –
General rule: No employer may hire a Filipino
worker for overseas employment
exception through the Boards and entities
authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-
hiring by
1. members of the diplomatic corps,
2. international organizations and such other
3.employers as may be allowed by the
Secretary of Labor is exempted from this
provision.
Can a worker directly apply for employment
with a foreign employer? Pg 45 Ungos
Yes, a Filipino worker can apply for
employment with a foreign employer without
the assistance or participation of a
recruitment agency, in which case, he is called
a “name hire”. But name hires should still
register with the POEA
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
8|Page
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime
The Supreme Court further holds that the
subject clause violates petitioner’s right to
substantive due process, for deprives him of
property, consisting of monetary benefits,
without any existing valid governmental
purpose.
The subject clause being unconstitutional
petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the
entire unexpired period. The subject clause
does not state or imply any definitive
governmental purpose; and it is for that
precise reason that the clause violates not just
petitioner’s right to equal protection, but also
her right to substantive due process under
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
Sameer vs. Cabiles
Citing the case of Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Services, Inc. this court ruled that the clause
“or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less” is
unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due
process.
Two-notice rule (written notice)
The employer is required to give the charged
employee at least two written notices before
termination; Aside from the notice
requirement, the employee must also be
given “an opportunity to be heard.”
1. Inform the employee of the acts that
may cause his/her dismissal
2. Must inform the employee of the
employer’s decision
Recruitment and Placement, Art.13
(b) Labor Code
Refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers. It includes contract
services, referrals, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether
for profit or not.
The Essential Element of Recruitment and
Placement
-the basic element of recruitment and
placement is offer or promise of
employment.
-without an offer or promise of
employment, there is no recruitment
activity, and therefore, there can be
no illegal recruitment.
Who May Engage In Recruitment
and Placement pg 42 Ungos
General Rule: only public employment offices
can engage in recruitment and placement of
workers, whether for local or overseas
employment.
Exception:
1. Private employment agency;
2. Private recruitment entity;
3. Shipping or manning agency; and
4. Other persons authorized by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Private Employment Agency
-refers to any person or entity who
recruits workers for employment for a fee
which is charged directly or indirectly against
the workers or employers or both.
Private Recruitment Entity
-refers to any person or associoation
who recruits workers for employment,
without charging directly or indirectly, any
fee against the worker.
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
9|Page
Manning Agency
-refers to any person, partnership or
corporation who recruits and deploys
seafarers for maritime employment.
Jurisdiction of the POEA(Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration)pg 44
Ungos
1. All pre-employment/recruitment
violation cases, which are
administrative in character, involving
or arising out of violations of Rules
and Regulations relating to licensing
and registration, including refund fees
collected from the workers or
violation of the conditions for
issuance of license or authority to
recruit workers; and
2. Disciplinary action cases and other
special cases, which are
administrative in character, involving
employers, principals, contracting
partners and OFWs processed by the
POEA
Matters Beyond the Jurisdiction of
the POEA
1. Suit for enforcement of a
judgment rendered by a
foreign court. And
2. Money claims of migrant
workers arising out of an
employer-employee
relationship.
Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 8042, as amended,
provides as follows:
SEC. 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) shall have the original
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
within ninety (90) calendar days after the
filing of the complaint, the claims arising out
of an employer-employee relationship or by
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including
claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damage. Consistent with this
mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor to update
and keep abreast with the developments in
the global services industry.
"The liability of the principal/employer and
the recruitment/placement agency for any
and all claims under this section shall be joint
and several. This provision shall be
incorporated in the contract for overseas
employment and shall be a condition
precedent for its approval. The performance
bond to de filed by the
recruitment/placement agency, as provided
by law, shall be answerable for all money
claims or damages that may be awarded to
the workers. If the recruitment/placement
agency is a juridical being, the corporate
officers and directors and partners as the case
may be, shall themselves be jointly and
solidarily liable with the corporation or
partnership for the aforesaid claims and
damages…….
Who are qualified to operate a
private recruitment agency? pg 49
Ungos
The privilege to operate a private recruitment
or manning agency or recruitment entity,
whether for local employment or for overseas
employment, is available only to persons who:
1. Are Filipino citizens, or partnerships,
75% owned and controlled by
Filipinos, and corporations, the
authorized and voting capital stock of
which is 75% owned and controlled by
Filipinos.
2. Have the required capitalization; and
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
10 | P a g e
3. Have an office space with a minimum
floor area of fifty (50) square meters
(for recruitment agencies for local
employment) and 100 square meters
(for recruitment agencies for local
employment).
What to file requirement of
putting up a recruitment
agency? pg 50 Ungos
A person intending to put up a
recruitment agency for local
employment should file an
application for license with the DOLE
Regional Office having jurisdiction
over the place where the application
intends to establish his office. The
application should be accompanied by
the following:
1. Certified copy of business papers,
to wit:
(a) For sole proprietorship-
Certificate of Registration
with DTI.
(b) For partnerships- Articles of
Partnership registered with
SEC.
(c) For corporations- Articles of
Incorporation registered with
SEC.
Remedy if the Application for
License is Denied
Appeal the order to the Office of
the Secretary of Labor and
Employment within 10 days from
receipt.
Validity of License
-agencies for local employment is
valid for three (3) years from issuance
A person intending to put up a recruitment
agency for overseas employment should file
an application for license with the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA). The application should be
accompanied by the following:
1. Certified copy of business papers,
to wit:
(d) For sole proprietorship-
Certificate of Registration
with DTI.
(e) For partnerships- Articles of
Partnership registered with
SEC.
(f) For corporations- Articles of
Incorporation registered with
SEC.
Validity of License
-agencies for overseas employment are for
four (4) years from date of issuance.
Almira vs. Goodrich Philippines,
Inc.
Labor law; Labor relation; Unfair labor
practice; Strike;Coercive nature of strike
does not render it illegal.—What respondent
judge apparently could not resist was the
compelling force of what by now should be an
outmoded view of a strike being “by its very
nature coercive * * *." To display such a
predisposition is to ignore the leading case of
Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Cement
Workers Union. For, as was therein pointed
out, the ruling in National Labor Union, Inc.
vs. Philippine Match Factory to the effect that
a strike “is an economic weapon at war with
the policy of the Constitution and the law,”
resort to which “is not, in plain terms,
outlawed,” although certainly discouraged,
is obsolete. , , . This 1968 decision of this
Court, if present in the consciousness of
Labor Standards by: PROTACIO
11 | P a g e
respondent Judge Salvador, certainly could
have caused, at the very least, a hesitancy on
his part to declare the strike illegal. This is not
to deny that the labor union ought not to
have declared a strike under such
circumstances, but at least, while premature,
it could have been plausibly viewed as
inspired by good faith, although perhaps not
guided by sound legal advice.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Circumstances of
violence in the strike does not automatically
render the same illegal.—A strike otherwise
valid, if violent in character, may be placed
beyond the pale. Care is to be taken,however,
especially where an unfairlabor practice is
involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality
justbecause it is tainted by such acts. To avoid
rendering illusory the responsibility in such a
case should be individual and not collective. A
different conclusion would be called for, of
course, if the existence of force while the
strike lasts is pervasive and widespread,
consistently and deliberately resorted to as a
matter of policy. It could be reasonably
concluded then that even if justified as to
ends, it becomes illegal because of the means
employed.
Constitutional law; Protection to labor;
Security of tenure of workers is protected by
the Constitution.—This conclusion is further
fortified by the stress on the security of
tenure that is a notable feature of the present
Constitution. As pointed out in a decision
rendered only last month, “The futility of this
appeal becomes even more apparent
considering the express provision in the
Constitution already noted, requiring the
State to assure workers ‘security of tenure.’ It
was not that specific in the 1935 Charter. The
mandate was limited to the State
affording‘protection to labor, especially to
working women and minors,***.'*** That is
to conform to the ideal of the New Society,
the establishment of which was so felicitously
referred to by the FirstLady as the
Compassionate Society.”
It is not only because of the law’s concern for
the workingman. There is, in addition, his
family to consider. Unemployment brings
untold hardships and sorrows on those
dependent on the wage-earner. The misery
and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then
could be avoided if there be acceptance of the
view that under all the circumstances of this
case, petitioners should not be deprived of
their means of livelihood. Nor is this to
condone what had been done by them.
Finally, labor law determinations, to
quotefrom Bultmann, should be not only
secundum rationem but also secundum
caritatem.
equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s pay for
every year of service computed from his date
of employment up to October 28, 1994 when
he was declared to have lost his employment
status. Indeed, equities of this case should be
accorded due weight because labor law
determinations are not only secundum
rationem but also secundum caritatem
secundum rationem (according to reason)
secundum caritatem (according to a
charitable heart)

Pinero vs. NLRC et. al G.R. No.

149610 (compassionate justice)

The Court notes that petitioner Piñero turned

60 years old and retired on March 1,
1996 after 29 years of service, rendering his
dismissal from service moot and
academic. However, in view of the propriety
of his termination as a consequence of the
illegal strike, he is no longer entitled to
payment of retirement benefits because he
lost his employment status effective as of the
date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter –
October 28, 1994.

Although meriting termination of

employment, Piñero’s infraction is not so
reprehensible nor unscrupulous as to warrant
complete disregard of his long years of
service. Moreover, he has no previous
derogatory records. Weighed on the scales
of justice, conscience and reason tip in favor
of granting financial assistance to support him
in the twilight of his life after long years of
service.

Under the circumstances, social and

compassionate justice dictate that petitioner
Piñero be awarded financial assistance

Labor Standards by: PROTACIO

12 | P a g e