Anda di halaman 1dari 4

PASEI v. Drilon The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the Dept. Order No.

ied that the classification made-the Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988, Sarmiento, J. preference for female workers — rests on substantial consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel
(Labor Standards, Police Power defined) distinctions. does not impair the right, as the right to travel is subjects
among other things, to the requirements of “public safety” as
FACTS: PASEI VS. DRILON [163 SCRA 386; L-81958; 30 JUN may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female domestic
Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged 1988] helper is a valid exercise of police power. Police power as been
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and Monday, February 02, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may
female of overseas employment. It challenges the Labels: Case Digests, Political Law interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote
constitutional validity of Dept. Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE general welfare. Neither is there merit in the contention that
entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Facts: Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of
Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.” engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule
It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and male and female of overseas employment. It challenges the making powers.
females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but constitutional validity of Dept. Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE
only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of PLDT vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ROMEO F. BOLSO
that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also being an Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.”
invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Further, PASEI It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and FIRST DIVISION
invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but
worker participation in policy and decision-making processes only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and Gentlemen:
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also being an
Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Further, PASEI Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for Court dated OCT 16 2000.
the police power of the State and informed the court that the worker participation in policy and decision-making processes
respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some states affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. G.R. No. 140716 (Philippine Long Distance Telephone
where there exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE Company vs. Heirs of the late Romeo F. Bolso.)
existing mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards to submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving
ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers. the police power of the State and informed the court that the This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed
respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some states by Romeo Bolso against petitioner Philippine Long Distance
ISSUE: where there exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and Telephone Company on August 15, 1997. On August 6, 1998,
Whether or not D.O. No. 1 of DOLE is constitutional as it is existing mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards to the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
an exercise of police power. ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered the
RULING: Issue: Whether or not there has been a valid classification in reinstatement of Bolso. Petitioner received a copy of the
“[Police power] has been defined as the "state authority to the challenged Department Order No. 1. decision of the NLRC on April 16, 1999. On April 26, 1999,
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of
property in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been the NLRC. On May 24, 1999, petitioners received the
it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or valid classification, the Filipino female domestics working resolution of the NLRC denying their motion for
property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not abroad were in a class by themselves, because of the special reconsideration. They filed a petition for certiorari with the
capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled risk to which their class was exposed. There is no question that Court of Appeals on July 23, 1999. The Court of Appeals,
in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does however, dismissed the petition for certiorari for late filing. It
not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. It is held:
“The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the well settled hat equality before the law under the constitution
contested measure should be nullified. There is no question does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and "According to the petitioner, it received, through counsel, the
that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract women. It admits of classification, provided that: assailed NLRC dated March 26, 1999 on April 16, 1999. Ten
workers," but it does not thereby make an undue (10) days later, or, on April 26, 1999, it submitted a Motion for
discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that 1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions Reconsideration thereby leaving it with only fifty (50) days to
"equality before the law" under the Constitution does not 2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law institute a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1999
import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women. 3. They are not confined to existing conditions (sic) Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner received the denial of
It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such 4. They apply equally to al members of the same class its Motion for Reconsideration on May 24, 1999. Sixty (60)
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are days thereafter, or on July 23, 1999, the instant petition was
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial filed. Unfortunately it was already ten (10) days beyond the
to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all distinctions. reglementary period. xxx.
members of the same class.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied Following the present rule, we find the petition for certiorari business or trade and abridged the right to personal liberty and
by the Court of Appeals. filed with the Court of Appeals timely. freedom of locomotion?
2) Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe
On December 28, 1999, petitioners filed with this Court the IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed decision and resolution of upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of
instant petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The instant case is social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of
dismissing its petition for certiorari and denying its motion for REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. all the people?
reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that the sixty-day period for Held:
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Very truly yours, 1) No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe
Court must be counted from the date of receipt of the transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads in the
resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Hence, it MAXIMO CALALANG vs A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law,
argues that the petition was timely filed. G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of
Doctrine: Social Justice public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire
At the time of the filing of the petition to the Court of Appeals, LAUREL, J.: to relieve congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the public
the prevailing rule was that the reglementary period for filing a Facts: safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom of the promulgation of
petition for certiorari is counted from the date of receipt of the the said law and the state in order to promote the general
main decision of the lower tribunal. The running of the period The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and
is, however, tolled upon filing of a motion for reconsideration 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public with business and occupations. Persons and property may be
or new trial. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court then read: Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure
Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. To this
"Sec. 4. Where and when petition to be filed.-The petition may from passing along the following for a period of one year from fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the
be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment, the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic: individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which should
order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court 1) Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to not be made to prevail over authority because society will fall
or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a Dasmariñas into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Street from 7:30Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined and paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty
by the Supreme Court. xxx 2) along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at is precisely the very means of insuring its preserving.
Antipolo Street to 2) No. Social justice is “neither communism, nor despotism,
If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and
reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so
or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If 1940 recommended to the Director of Public Works with the that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception
the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition approval of the Secretary of Public Works the adoption of may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than thethemeasure proposed in the resolution aforementioned in promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. pursuance of the provisions of theCommonwealth Act No. Government of measures calculated to insure economic
xxx" 548 which authorizes said Director with the approval from the stability of all the competent elements of society, through the
Secretary of the Public Works and Communication to maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in
However, on August 1, 2000, the Court En Banc passed a promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the the interrelations of the members of the community,
resolution amending Section 4 of Rule 65. The present rule use of and traffic on national roads. constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
states: On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
Secretary the approval of the recommendations made by the powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
"Sec. 4. When an where petition filed.-The petition shall be Chairman of the National Traffic Commission with time-honored principles of salus populi estsuprema lex.
filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, modifications. The Secretary of Public Works approved the Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the
order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or recommendations on August 10,1940. The Mayor of Manila necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units
new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and of a society and of the protection that should be equally and
the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from the notice of caused to be enforced the rules and regulation. As a evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social
the denial of said motion. consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
and pick up passengers in the places above mentioned to the paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort
xxx" detriment not only of their owners but of the riding public as and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest
well. good to the greatest number.”
The amendment took effect on September 1, 2000. Issues:
1) Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Agabon vs NLRC
As rules of procedure in the courts apply to actions pending respondents pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act Facts:
and are still undetermined at the time of their passage, we apply NO. 548 constitute an unlawful inference with legitimate
the amendment to Section 4 Rule 65 to the instant case.
Virgilio and Jenny Agabon were cornice installers of Riviera Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners employer. Such sanctions, however, must be stiffer than that
Home Improvements, a company engaged in thebusiness of filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. imposed in Wenphil.
selling ornamental construction materials.They were employed
from January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999, when they were The Court of Appeals in turn ruled that the dismissal of the Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case,
dismissed for abandonmentof work.The Agabons filed a petitioners was not illegal because they had abandoned their the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA, who ruled in their employment but ordered the payment of money claims. dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the
favor. The NLRC reversed on appeal.The CA sustained the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of
NLRC’s decision. The Agabons further appealed to the SC, Petitioners also claim that private respondent did not comply his statutory rights
disputing the finding of abandonment, and claiming that the with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.
company did notcomply with the twin requirements of notice Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order
and hearing. Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded
petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for
Issue: the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
WON the Agabons were illegally dismissed Issues: Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed. by him.

Held: Ruling: To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process
NO. SC upheld the finding of abandonment, because the act existence of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity
of the Agabons in seeking employment elsewhere clearly to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend in the form of nominal damages.
showed a deliberate intent to severe the ER-EE relationship. himself.
Procedural due process (for just cause, there must be a written Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we
notice informing him of grounds for termination, a hearing or Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00.
opportunity to be heard, and a final notice of termination employee to resume his employment.[14] It is a form of
stating the grounds therefore): There was no due process neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is further ORDERED to
because ER did not send the requisite notices to the last known employment by the employer.[15] For a valid finding... of pay each of the petitioners the amount of P30,000.00 as
address of the EEs. ER only gave a flimsy excuse that the abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory due
notice would be useless because the EEs no longer lived there. failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable process.
This is not a valid excuse, they should have still sent a notice reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee
as mandated by law. For not sending the requisite notices, the relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor Principles: Labor Law
ER should be held liable for non-compliance with the which is manifested by... overt acts from which it may be
procedural requirements of due process. deduced that the employees has no more intention to work. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case,
The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
JENNY M. AGABON v. NLRC, GR No. 158693, 2004-11- clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. An employee dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the
17 who deliberately absented from work without leave or employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of
permission from his employer, for the purpose of looking for his statutory rights
Facts: a job elsewhere, is considered to have abandoned his job.
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is Political Law... we affirmed the presumption that all
engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and The dismissal should be upheld because it was established that constitutional provisions are self-executing. To declare
construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another otherwise would result in the pernicious situation wherein by
Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the mere inaction and... disregard by the legislature, constitutional
installers on January 2, 1992[2] until February 23, 1999 when notice requirements and instead... argued that sending notices mandates would be rendered ineffectual.
they were dismissed for abandonment of work. to the last known addresses would have been useless because
they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and private respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly
payment of money claims[3] and on December 28, 1999, the mandates the twin notice requirements to the employee's last... granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissals known address.[21] Thus, it should be held liable for non- provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement,
illegal and ordered private respondent to pay the monetary compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. provide... a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights
claims. secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable
that in cases involving dismissals for cause but without safeguards around the exercise of the right. The mere fact that
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter because it observance of the twin requirements of notice and hearing, the legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty
found that the petitioners had abandoned their work, and were better rule is to abandon the for the violation of a self-executing... constitutional provision
not entitled to backwages and separation pay. does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of
Serrano doctrine and to follow Wenphil by holding that the such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any
dismissal was for just cause but imposing sanctions on the express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability
is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be... construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio
self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on
constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when they the employee’s last known address.
the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the were dismissed for abandonment of work. Thus, Petitioners
constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under
make it more available. money claims Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written
notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested
Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that Petitioners also claim that private respondent did not comply by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice
the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. Private specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing
enforceable. respondent, on the other hand, maintained that petitioners or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity
were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the
Thus, the constitutional mandates of protection to labor and dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and
security of tenure may be deemed as self-executing in the sense Issue: WON petitioners were illegally dismissed. 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department
that these are automatically acknowledged and observed of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the
without need for any enabling legislation. However, to declare Held: effectivity of his separation.
that the constitutional provisions... are enough to guarantee the Accordingly, petitioners’ dismissal was for a just cause. They
full exercise of the rights embodied therein, and the realization had abandoned their employment and were already working From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be
of ideals therein expressed, would be impractical, if not for another employer. derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282
unrealistic. The espousal of such view presents the dangerous of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283,
tendency of being overbroad and exaggerated. The To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was
guarantees... of "full protection to labor" and "security of of a just and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or authorized cause
tenure", when examined in isolation, are facially unqualified, the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just
and the broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket himself. or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the
shield in favor of labor against any form of removal regardless dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was
of circumstance. This interpretation... implies an Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an not observed.
unimpeachable right to continued employment-a utopian employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of
notion, doubtless-but still hardly within the contemplation of duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The
the framers. Subsequent legislation is still needed to define the employer. dismissal should be upheld because it was established that the
parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the protection petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another company.
and promotion, not... only the rights of the labor sector, but of After establishing that the terminations were for a just and Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice
the employers' as well. Without specific and pertinent valid cause, we now determine if the procedures for dismissal requirements and instead argued that sending notices to the
legislation, judicial bodies will be at a loss, formulating their were observed. last known addresses would have been useless because they did
own conclusion to approximate at least the aims of the The procedure for terminating an employee is found in Book not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private
Constitution. VI, Rule I, Section 2(d) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates
the Labor Code: the twin notice requirements to the employee’s last known
Ultimately, therefore, Section 3 of Article XIII cannot, on its address. Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with
own, be a source of a positive enforceable right to stave off the Standards of due process: requirements of notice. – In all cases the procedural requirements of due process.
dismissal of an employee for just cause owing to the failure to of termination of employment, the following standards of due
serve proper notice or hearing. As manifested by several process shall be substantially observed: Petition denied. CA affirmed with modifications.
framers of the 1987
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined Note:
Constitution, the provisions on social justice require legislative in Article 282 of the Code: The Supreme Court reviewed and compared the Serrano and
enactments for their enforceability. Wenphil cases. In doing so, they came up with a clear cut rule
A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground on employment termination and payment of separation pay,
or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee and if proper, with damages. The said review is not included in
AGABON vs NLRC reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; the digest.
DECEMBER 19, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ A hearing or conference during which the employee Ergo, just read it in the full text.
concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so
GR 158693 desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present
his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
Facts: (c) A written notice of termination served on the employee
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances,
engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and grounds have been established to justify his termination.