G.R. No. 180660 July 20, 2010 MARIBAGO RESORT vs.

DUAL

FACTS: On January 5, 2005, a group of Japanese guests and their companionsdined at Maribago Beach Resorts Poolbar/Restaurant. Captain waiter AlvinHiyas took their dinner orders comprising of 6 sets of lamb and 6 sets of fish.As per company procedure, Hiyas forwarded one copy of the order slip to thekitchen and another copy to Nito Dual. Pursuant to the order slip, fourteen (14) sets of dinner were prepared by the chef. Hiyas and waiter GenaroMission, Jr. served 12 set dinners to the guests, and another 2 sets to theirguides free of charge (total of 14 sets of dinner). After consuming their dinner, the guests paid the amount indicated in their bill and thereafter leftin a hurry. The receipt show that only P3,036.00 was remitted by cashierDual corresponding to 6 sets of dinner. A discrepancy was found between theorder slip and the receipt issued which prompted petitioner Maribago to ask for an explanation from Dual and the waiters why they should not bepenalized. Clarificatory hearings were made and it was found out that theguests gave P10,500.00 to Mission as payment for the bill of P10,100.00. Itwas discovered later that only P3,036.00 was entered by Dual in the cashregister. The rest of the payment was missing. The original transactionreceipt for P10,100.00 was likewise missing and in its place, only atransaction receipt for P3.036.00 was registered. Upon verification, it wasalso found out that the order slip was tampered by Alcoseba to make itappear that only six (6) set dinners were ordered. Respondent Dual wasfound guilty of dishonesty for his fabricated statements and for asking one of the waiters (Mission) to corroborate his allegations. He was terminated fordishonesty based on his admission that he altered the order slip.Dual then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found thatrespondents termination was without valid cause and ruled that respondentis entitled to separation pay. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiters decisionand dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals however reversed thedecision and resolution of the NLRC. Finding no sufficient valid cause to justify respondents dismissal, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to pay respondent full backwages and separation pay. Thus a petition for reviewunder Rule 45 was filed in the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally dismissed. HELD: No. Petitioners evidence proved that respondent is guilty ofdishonesty and of stealing money entrusted to him as cashier. Instead ofreporting P10,100.00 as payment by the guests for their dinner, respondentcashier only reported P3,036.00 as shown by the receipt which he admitted to have issued. Respondents acts constitute serious misconduct which is ajust cause for termination under the law. Theft committed by an employee isa valid reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule this Courtleans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment or to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts ofdishonesty in the handling of company property, petitioners income in thiscase, are a different matter.

CORPORATION G.R. No. 167347 CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR EDWIN CHUA vs. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING JANUARY 31, 2007

FACTS: BuklodngManggagawasaChuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation (the union), a legitimate labor organization, is the recognized bargaining agent of Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation of whjch its co-petitioner Edwin Chua is the President. In the election of the union officers, CamiloLenizo emerged as President. The corporation however refused to recognize the newly elected officers for the reason that there is an intra-union conflict between the factions of CamiloLenizo and Romeo Ibanez, the former acting union President. The union staged a strike which causes illegal acts that intimidated and harassed the corporation and non-striking employees. The strikers use physical violence and harass those employees who were not on their side by shouting and threatening them not to go to work anymore. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and thus, some of the members who participated in the mass action lost their employment status.

ISSUE: Whether or not some of the employees who participated in the strike should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights.

RULING: Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his\her employment status. Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike in this case , the strike is declared illegal by the court because the means employed by the union are illegal.

CITIBANK N.A. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION and ROSITA TAN PARAGAS (2008) FACTS: Rosita Tan Paragas worked as a filing clerk of Citibank, N.A.for eighteen (18) years. She was terminated by Citibank for serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties and gross inefficiency. Paragas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was dismissed for lack of merit finding that the dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency was valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that Paragas should be paid separation pay as a form of equitable relief view of her length of service with Citibank.Paragas filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution. She no longer challenged her dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency, but prayed that Citibank be ordered to pay her the Provident Fund benefits under its retirement plan for which she claimed to be qualified pursuant to Citibanks Working Together Manual. The said Manual Provides that an employment discharged for reasons other the misconduct will be paid a percentage of her share in the fund. Finding that Paragas dismissal was for causes other than misconduct, the NLRC granted Paragas motion. On Appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit affirmedin Toto the challenged NLRC Resolution. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRCs decision despite the latter HELD: Paragas indeed prayed for other just and equitable relief, but the same may not be interpreted so broadly as to include even those which are not warranted by the factual premises alleged by a party. The January 24, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals correctly stated: it has been ruled in this jurisdiction that the general prayer for other reliefs is applicable to such other reliefs which are warranted by the law and facts alleged by the respondent in her basic pleading and not on a newly created issue. Paragas assertion that she mentioned the matter regarding the Provident Fund even prior her Motion for Partial Resolution is unavailing.Her Notice of Appeal Memorandum was filed after she had already submitted her position paper. Thus, any mention of the Provident fund therein would fail to adhere to the above ruling in Manebo, the thrust of which was precisely that all facts, evidence and causes of action should already preferred in the position papers and the supporting documents thereto, not in any later pleading. As to Paragas position paper, there was only the mere mention of Provident A & C, with the corresponding amount of P1,086,335.43, among the actual damages that she was allegedly suffering from her continued severance from employment. Paragas made no attempt to define what this Provident A & C was, nor offer any substantiation for including it to be among her actual damages. She did not even mention how Provident A& C had a Bearing on retirement benefits. Paragas justifies her failure to claim for retirement benefits before the labor arbiter by alleging that it would be inconsistent with her prayer for reinstatement. Parags, however could have easily claimed such benefits as an alternative relief.

In any event, Paragas is not entitled to retirement benefits as the Court finds that she was validly dismissed for serious misconduct and not merely for work inefficiency. DELTAVENTURES vs.CABATO MARCH 9, 2000

FACTS: The NLRC declared Deltaventures guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. A writ of execution was issued. Deltaventures filed with the RTC a complaint for injunction and damages. RTC issued a TRO. The laborers moved for the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction RULING: No. The RTC has no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom, including the execution of decisions, awards or orders. The RTC, being a co-equal body of the NLRC, has no jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction to enjoin the execution of any decision of the latter.

EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION MERALCO vs. QUISUMBING JANUARY 27, 1999 FACTS: The court directed the parties to execute of CBA incorporating the terms among which are the following modifications:Wages; P 1,900 for 1995-96Retroactibility: December 28, 1996- December 27, 1999. Dissatified, some members of the union filed a motion for intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner warns that if the wage increase of P 2, 200 per month as ordered is allowed, it would pass the cost covering such increase to the consumer through an increase rate of electricity. On the retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the parties reckon the period as when retraction shall commence. ISSUE: Whether or not retroacting of arbitral awards shall commence at such time as granted by the Secretary RULING: In St. Lukes Medical vs. Torres, a deadlock developed during CBA negotiations between management unions. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration of the previous CBA. The Court rationale thus: In the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactive of the affectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary pursuant to Art. 263 (9) of the Labor Code, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectiveness.In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the affectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other hand the law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement but by intervention of the government. In the absence of the CBA, the Secretarys determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control. The arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to November 3, 1997: and the award of wage is increased from 1900 to P 2,000.00.

CABRERA vs. NLRC JUNE 27, 1991

FACTS: Dismissed by the National Service Corporation, the petitioners complained to the Ministry of Labor and Employment on September 17, 1980. After considering the position papers of the parties, the Labor Arbiter ordered the petitioners' reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment to them of two years back wages and other benefits. 3 The decision was appealed to and affirmed by the First Division of the NLRC on December 9, 1985, and in due time, the petitioners moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This was opposed by NASECO on the ground that it had not been furnished with a copy of the decision, but the opposition was rejected and the petition was granted. Reconsideration of the order having been denied, the NASECO appealed to the NLRC, which, through its Third Division this time, declared itself without jurisdiction and dismissed the case on August 18, 1987. 4 Citing the NHA case, the public respondent held that the NASECO was not covered by the Labor Code but by Civil Service rules and regulations, being a government-owned or controlled corporation applying thereto the 1973 Constitution Article XII-B, Section 1(1) providing that "the Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Labor Code or the Civil Service rules and regulations shall apply to the instant case RULING: In National Service Corporation v. NLRC, however, that decision was overturned on November 24, 1988, after the Court found that the NASECO did not have an original charter from the legislature. The rule applied was Article IX-B, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution providing that "the Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.On the applicability of the new doctrine, the Court said: On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter. DECISION: The NLRC erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the rule now is that only government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters come under the Civil

Service. The NASECO having been organized under the Corporation Law and not by virtue of a special legislative charter, its relations with its personnel are governed by the Labor Code and come under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. NAGUIAT/CLARK FIELD TAXI vs. NLRC MARCH 13, 1997 FACTS: CFTI under the management of Sergio Naguiat, a co-owner of the corporation operated a taxi business within the Clark Airfield. Due to the phase out of the US Military bases in the Philippines, taxi operation ceased and reasoned great financial losses and lost business opportunity. Private respondents claimed that CFTI and Sergio F. Naguiat be joined as indispensable party whose liability is joint and several. ISSUE: Whether or not Naguiat Enterprise is solidarily liable for the obligation of CFTI to its terminated taxi drivers RULING: The labor arbiter found that individual respondents were regular employees of CFTI who received wages on a boundary or commission basis. Labor-only contracting exist where 1) the person workers to an employer does not have substantial capital investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery and work premises among others; and 2) the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of employer. There was no substantial basis to hold that Naguiat Enterprise is an indirect employer of individual respondents much less labor only contractor.

LOLITA LOPEZ vs. QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB, INC (QCSC) JANUARY 19,2009 FACTS: The KasapiangManggatgawasa Quezon City Sports Club (Union) filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against QCSC. On July 1997, the union wrote to the management for their lease of the members salaries and for the implementation of wage increase mandated by CBA. W h e n t h e l e t t e r w a s unanswered, the union filed a notice of strike. QCSC placed some of i t s employees under lay-off status due to redundancy and likewise filed a petition for cancellation of registration against union.QCSC contended that the union was not a legitimate labor union as it had a pending complaint for cancellation of certificate of registration, that there was no valid CBA and staged an illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter (LA) decides finding QCSC guilty of ULP. In turn, the union filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal for non-perfection due to failure to post the appeal bond. TheQCSCfiled a Supplement to its appeal. The NLRC in its decision granted the appeal and reversed the LAdecision. ISSUE: Whether the simultaneous filing of the matter to reduce the appeal bond and posting of the reduced amount of bond within the reglementary period for appeal constitute substantial compliance with Article 223 of the Labor Code RULING: It should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, it is me r e l y a s t a t u e o f p r i v i l e g e a n d m a y b e e x e r c i s e o n l y if in manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party when seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. In case a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond raised by a reputable bonding company and admitted by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment applied for. Appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond. Thus, the posting of the bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter

LABOR LAW CASE DIGESTS

SUBMITTED BY: GOLINO, KIER H.

SUBMITTED TO: ATTY. JACQUELINE BUNDOC