Labor Case Digest

7/21/2019 Labor Case Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-case-digest-56d99f7a65507 1/54

MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL vs. COROSG.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010

Bersamin, J.

FACTS: Respondent Ricardo Coros was dismissed b !etitioner "at#in$ as its %! &or

'inance and (dministratation. Coros t)en &i#ed an i##e$a# dismissa# case wit) t)e N*RC,+b-Re$iona# (rbitration Branc) //, /#i$an Cit. !etitioners moed to dismiss t)e caseon t)e $rond t)at t)e comp#aint pertained to t)e risdiction o& t)e +ecrities andc)an$e Commission 4+C de to t)e controers bein$ intra-corporate inasmc) ast)e respondent was a member o& "at#in$s Board o& 6irectors aside &rom bein$ its %ice-!resident &or 'inance and (dministration prior to )is termination. Coros opposed t)esame insistin$ t)at )is stats as a member o& "at#in$s Board o& 6irectors was dobt&#,considerin$ t)at )e )ad not been &orma## e#ected as sc) t)at )e did not own a sin$#es)are o& stoc in "at#in$, considerin$ t)at )e )ad been made to si$n in b#an anndated indorsement o& t)e certi&icate o& stoc )e )ad been $ien in 1992 t)at "at#in$)ad taen bac and retained t)e certi&icate o& stoc in its cstod and t)at een

assmin$ t)at )e )ad been a 6irector o& "at#in$, )e )ad been remoed as t)e %ice!resident &or 'inance and (dministration, not as a 6irector, a &act t)at t)e notice o& )istermination dated (pri# 10, 2000 s)owed.

)e *abor (rbiter dismissed t)e case. On (ppea#, t)e N*RC set aside t)edecision o& t)e *(, statin$ t)at sc) %! position was not #isted in t)e Compan;sConstittion and B-*aws )ence, Coros was not a corporate o&&icer. )e motion &orreconsideration b petitioners was denied.

!etitioners &i#ed a petition &or certiorari wit) t)e C(, to w)ic) t)e #atter dismissed:Coros; position was not a corporate o&&ice bt an ordinar o&&ice. <ence, t)is petition

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e *( or t)e RC )ad risdiction oer )is comp#aint &or i##e$a#dismissa#.

HELD: Coros> position was an ordinar o&&ice, not a corporate o&&ice. )e Board o&6irectors o& "at#in$ co#d not a#id# de#e$ate t)e power to create a corporate o&&ice tot)e !resident, in #i$)t o& +ection 25 o& t)e Corporation Code re?irin$ t)e Board o&6irectors itse#& to e#ect t)e corporate o&&icers. %eri#, t)e power to e#ect t)e corporateo&&icers was a discretionar power t)at t)e #aw ec#sie# ested in t)e Board o&6irectors, and co#d not be de#e$ated to sbordinate o&&icers or a$ents. The office ofVice Preside! for Fi"ce "d Ad#iis!r"!io, cre"!ed $% M"!&i'(s Preside!)*rs*"! !o +% L" No. V, "s " ordi"r%, o! " cor)or"!e, office.

(#so, t)e *( )as risdiction oer t)e case. en t)o$) )e mi$)t )ae become astoc)o#der o& "at#in$ in 1992, )is promotion to t)e position o& %ice !resident &or'inance and (dministration in 1987 was b irte o& t)e #en$t) o& ?a#it serice )e )adrendered as an emp#oee o& "at#in$. <is sbse?ent ac?isition o& t)e stats o&6irector@stoc)o#der )ad no re#ation to )is promotion. Besides, )is stats o&6irector@stoc)o#der was na&&ected b )is dismissa# &rom emp#oment as %ice



!resident &or 'inance and (dministration. The cri!eri" for dis!i'*ishi' $e!eecor)or"!e officers ho #"% $e o*s!ed fro# office "! i&&, o oe h"d, "dordi"r% cor)or"!e e#)&o%ees ho #"% o&% $e !er#i"!ed for -*s! c"*se, o !heo!her h"d, do o! de)ed o !he "!*re of !he services )erfor#ed, $*! o !he#"er of cre"!io of !he office. /n t)e respondent>s case, )e was spposed# at

once an emp#oee, a stoc)o#der, and a 6irector o& "at#in$.



GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION. vs. CA G.R. No. 1A728, 'ebrar 11, 200A

ismbin$, J .:

FACTS: Genera# "i##in$ Corporation 4G"C and t)e Genera# "i##in$ Corporation

/ndependent *abor Dnion conc#ded a co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$reement 4CB( w)ic)inc#ded t)e isse o& representation e&&ectie &or a term o& t)ree ears. )e CB( wase&&ectie &or t)ree ears retroactie to 6ecember 1, 1988. <ence, it wo#d epire onNoember 30, 1991. On Noember 29, 1991, t)e Dnion tried to renew t)e CB( a&ter itepired bt t)e Compan did not reco$niEe t)em to be eistin$ de to a##e$ed massiedisa&&i#iation o& members wit) it.

On Fanar 13, 1992, G"C dismissed "arcia mbi$a, a nion member, on t)e$rond o& incompetence. )e Dnion protested and re?ested to )ae t)e mattersbmitted to t)e $rieance procedre in t)e CB(, bt t)e Compan re&sed based onits preios #etter statin$ t)at it &e#t t)ere was no basis to ne$otiate wit) a nion w)ic)

no #on$er eisted.

)s, t)e nion &i#ed, on F# 2, 1992, a comp#aint a$ainst G"C wit) t)e N*RC, (rbitration 6iision, Ceb Cit. )e comp#aint a##e$ed n&air #abor practice on t)e part o& G"C. )e #abor arbiter dismissed t)e case wit) t)e recommendation t)at a petition &orcerti&ication e#ection be )e#d to determine i& t)e nion sti## enoed t)e spport o& t)eworers. )e nion appea#ed to t)e N*RC.

N*RC set aside t)e decision o& t)e *(, statin$ t)at t)e Compan abide b t)e1991-1993 CB( dra&t t)at t)e nion proposed, bein$ sti## t)e ec#sie bar$ainin$ a$ent.Dpon G"C>s "otion &or Reconsideration, N*RC set aside its decision. C( )oweerreersed t)e decision o& t)e N*RC. <ence, t)is petition

ISSUE: =)et)er G"C is $i#t o& n&air #abor practice &or io#atin$ t)e dt to bar$ainco##ectie# and@or inter&erin$ wit) t)e ri$)t o& its emp#oees to se#&-or$aniEation.

=)et)er t)e C( $rae# absed its discretion in imposin$ pon G"C t)e dra&t

CB( proposed b t)e nion &or two ears to be$in &rom t)e epiration o& t)e ori$ina#CB(.

HELD: G"C is $i#t on t)e &irst isse. /t is indisptab#e t)at he !he *iore*es!ed for " ree'o!i"!io of !he ecoo#ic !er#s of !he C+A o Nove#$er /0,

1001, i! "s s!i&& !he cer!ified co&&ec!ive $"r'"ii' "'e! of !he or2ers, $ec"*sei! "s see2i' s"id ree'o!i"!io i!hi five 345 %e"rs. G"Cs &ai#re to mae atime# rep# to t)e proposa#s presented b t)e nion is indicatie o& its tter #ac o&interest in bar$ainin$ wit) t)e nion. /ts ecse t)at it &e#t t)e nion no #on$errepresented t)e worers, was main# di#ator as it trned ot to be tter# base#ess.

)ere is no abse. +C was not inc#ined to $rati& G"C wit) an etended term o&t)e o#d CB( a&ter it resorted to de#ain$ tactics to preent ne$otiations. +ince it was



G"C w)ic) io#ated t)e dt to bar$ain co##ectie#, based on io *o and 6iine =ordDniersit o& ac#oban, it )ad #ost its stattor ri$)t to ne$otiate or rene$otiate t)e termsand conditions o& t)e dra&t CB( proposed b t)e nion. Ar!ic&e /46 of !he L"$or Code,"s "#eded, #"d"!es !he )"r!ies !o 2ee) !he s!"!*s *o hi&e !he% "re s!i&& i!he )rocess of or2i' o*! !heir res)ec!ive )ro)os"& "d co*!er )ro)os"&. The

'eer"& r*&e is !h"! he " C+A "&re"d% e7is!s, i!s )rovisio sh"&& co!i*e !o'over !he re&"!ioshi) $e!ee !he )"r!ies, *!i& " e oe is "'reed *)o. )er#e necessari# prespposes t)at a## ot)er t)in$s are e?a#. )at is, t)at neit)er part is$i#t o& bad &ait). Hoever, he oe of !he )"r!ies "$*ses !he 'r"ce )eriod $%)*r)ose&% de&"%i' !he $"r'"ii' )rocess, " de)"r!*re fro# !he 'eer"& r*&e is"rr"!ed.



COLEGIO DE SAN 8UAN DE LETRAN vs.ASSOCIATION OF EMPLO9EES AND FACULT9 OF LETRAN

G.R. No. 1A1A71, +eptember 18, 2000apnan, J .

FACTS: On 6ecember 1992, +a#ador (btria, t)en !resident o& respondent nioninitiated t)e rene$otiation o& its Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement wit) petitioner Co#e$iode +an Fan de *etran &or t)e #ast two 42 ears o& t)e CB(;s &ie 45 ear #i&etime &rom1989-199A. (mbas, new# e#ected nion president wanted to contine t)e rene$otiationo& t)e CB( bt petitioner, t)ro$) 'r. dwin *ao, c#aimed t)at t)e CB( was a#readprepared &or si$nin$ b t)e parties. )e parties sbmitted t)e dispted CB( to are&erendm b t)e nion members, w)o eenta## reected t)e said CB(.

On Fanar 18, 199, t)e parties a$reed to disre$ard t)e nsi$ned CB( and tostart ne$otiation on a new &ie-ear CB( startin$ 199A-1999. 6rin$ t)e corse o& t)erene$otiation, (mbas was dismissed on t)e $rond o& insbordination. *ater on, t)e

nion )e#d a strie. )e +ecretar o& *abor and mp#oment assmed risdiction andordered a## striin$ emp#oees inc#din$ t)e nion president to retrn to wor and &orpetitioner to accept t)em bac nder t)e same terms and conditions be&ore t)e acta#strie. !etitioner readmitted t)e striin$ members ecept (mbas. )e parties t)ensbmitted t)eir p#eadin$s inc#din$ t)eir position papers w)ic) were &i#ed on F# 17,199. /##e$a# dismissa# case on 2 conts o& n&air #abor practice was &i#ed a$ainst t)e+c)oo#. )e +ecretar and t)e C(, on appea# to it, )e#d in &aor o& t)e nion. <ence t)ispetition.

ISSUE: =)et)er petitioner is $i#t o& n&air #abor practice b re&sin$ to bar$ain wit)t)e nion w)en it ni#atera## sspended t)e on$oin$ ne$otiations &or a new CB( ponmere in&ormation t)at a petition &or certi&ication )as been &i#ed b anot)er #e$itimate#abor or$aniEationH

=)et)er t)e termination o& t)e nion president amonts to an inter&erence o& t)eemp#oees; ri$)t to se#&-or$aniEationH

HELD: )e petition is wit)ot merit.

(rtic#e 252 o& t)e *abor Code de&ines t)e meanin$ o& t)e p)rase Idt to bar$ainco##ectie#,I as &o##ows:

Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. - The duty to bargain collectively

means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly andexpeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect towages hours of wor! and all other terms and conditions of employment including

proposals for ad"usting any grievances or #uestions arising under such agreement andexecuting a contract incorporating such agreements if re#uested by either party but suchduty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to ma!e any concession.

Notewort) in t)e aboe de&inition is t)e re*ire#e! o $o!h )"r!ies of !he)erfor#"ce of !he #*!*"& o$&i'"!io !o #ee! "d covee )ro#)!&% "d



e7)edi!io*s&% i 'ood f"i!h for !he )*r)ose of e'o!i"!i' " "'ree#e!. Dndobted#, respondent (ssociation o& mp#oees and 'ac#t o& *etran 4('*4)ereina&ter, InionI #ied p to t)is re?isite w)en it presented its proposa#s &or t)eCB( to petitioner on 'ebrar 7, 199. On t)e ot)er )and, petitioner deised was andmeans in order to preent t)e ne$otiation.

!etitioner;s tter #ac o& interest in bar$ainin$ wit) t)e nion is obios in its&ai#re to mae a time# rep# to t)e proposa#s presented b t)e #atter and is anindication o& bad &ait). "ore t)an a mont) a&ter t)e proposa#s were sbmitted b t)enion, petitioner sti## )ad not made an conter-proposa#s, in io#ation o& t)e procedrein (rtic#e 250 o& t)e *abor Code, as amended.

Art. 25$. %rocedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures shall beobserved in collective bargaining&

'a( )hen a party desires to negotiate an agreement it shall serve a writtennotice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall ma!e

a reply thereto not later than ten '*$( calendar days from receipt of such notice.

/n order !o "&&o !he e#)&o%er !o v"&id&% s*s)ed !he $"r'"ii' )rocess!here #*s! $e " v"&id )e!i!io for cer!ific"!io e&ec!io r"isi' " &e'i!i#"!ere)rese!"!io iss*e. <ence, t)e mere &i#in$ o& a petition &or certi&ication e#ection doesnot ipso &acto sti& t)e sspension o& ne$otiation b t)e emp#oer. )e petition mst&irst comp# wit) t)e proisions o& t)e *abor Code and its /mp#ementin$ R#es. 'oremostis t)at " )e!i!io for cer!ific"!io e&ec!io #*s! $e fi&ed d*ri' !he si7!%:d"%freedo# )eriod. )e ;Co!r"c! +"r R*&eI nder +ection 3, R#e /, Boo %, o& t)eOmnibs R#es /mp#ementin$ t)e *abor Code, proides t)at: IIf " co&&ec!ive$"r'"ii' "'ree#e! h"s $ee d*&% re'is!ered i "ccord"ce i!h Ar!ic&e /61 of!he Code, " )e!i!io for cer!ific"!io e&ec!io or " #o!io for i!erve!io c" o&%$e e!er!"ied i!hi si7!% 3<=5 d"%s )rior !o !he e7)ir% d"!e of s*ch "'ree#e!.I)e r#e is based on (rtic#e 232, in re#ation to (rtic#es 253, 253-( and 25 o& t)e *aborCode. No petition &or certi&ication e#ection &or an representation isse ma be &i#ed a&ter t)e #apse o& t)e sit-da &reedom period. )e o#d CB( is etended nti# a new one issi$ned. )e r#e is t)at despite t)e #apse o& t)e &orma# e&&ectiit o& t)e CB( t)e #aw sti##considers t)e same as continin$ in &orce and e&&ect nti# a new CB( s)a## )ae beena#id# eected. <ence, t)e contract bar r#e sti## app#ies. )e prpose is to ensrestabi#it in t)e re#ations)ip o& t)e worers and t)e compan b preentin$ &re?entmodi&ications o& an CB( ear#ier entered into b t)em in $ood &ait) and &or t)e stip#atedori$ina# period.

)e &acta# bacdrop o& t)e termination o& "s. (mbas #eads s to no ot)erconc#sion t)at s)e was dismissed in order to strip t)e nion o& a #eader w)o wo#d &i$)t&or t)e ri$)t o& )er co-worers at t)e bar$ainin$ tab#e. "s. (mbas, at t)e time o& )erdismissa#, )ad been worin$ &or t)e petitioner &or ten 410 ears a#read. /n &act, s)e wasa recipient o& a #oa#t award. "oreoer, &or t)e past ten 410 ears )er worin$sc)ed#e was &rom "onda to 'rida. <oweer, t)in$s be$an to c)an$e w)en s)e wase#ected as nion president and w)en s)e started ne$otiatin$ &or a new CB(. )s, it



was w)en s)e was t)e nion president and drin$ t)e period o& tense and di&&ic#tne$otiations w)en )er wor sc)ed#e was a#tered &rom "ondas to 'ridas to esdasto +atrdas. =)en s)e did not bd$e, a#t)o$) )er sc)ed#e was c)an$ed, s)e wasotri$)t# dismissed &or a##e$ed insbordination.

(dmitted#, #""'e#e! h"s !he )rero'"!ive !o disci)&ie i!s e#)&o%ees foris*$ordi"!io. But when the exercise of such management right tends tointerfere with the employees' right to self-organization, it amounts to union- busting and is therefore a prohibited act. )e dismissa# o& "s. (mbas was c#ear#desi$ned to &rstrate t)e Dnion in its desire to &or$e a new CB( wit) t)e Co##e$e t)at isre&#ectie o& t)e tre wis)es and aspirations o& t)e Dnion members. <er dismissa# wasmere# a sbter&$e to $et rid o& )er, w)ic) smacs o& a pre-conceied p#an to ost )er&rom t)e premises o& t)e Co##e$e. /t )as t)e e&&ect o& bstin$ t)e Dnion, strippin$ it o& itsstron$-wi##ed #eaders)ip. =)en mana$ement re&sed to treat t)e c)ar$e o&insbordination as a $rieance wit)in t)e scope o& t)e Grieance "ac)iner, t)e actiono& t)e Co##e$e in &ina## dismissin$ )er &rom t)e serice became arbitrar, capricios and

w)imsica#, and t)ere&ore io#ated "s. (mbas; ri$)t to de process.I



ST. LU>E(S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs. TORRES223 +CR( 779, 1993

"e#o, J.

FACTS: !riate respondent +*"C(-('= bro$)t to t)e attention o& petitioner a #etter

dated F# A, 1990 t)at t)e 1987-1990 was abot to epire, and mani&ested in t)eprocess t)at priate respondent wanted to renew t)e CB(. )is dee#opment tri$$eredrond-tab#e ta#s on w)ic) occasions petitioner proposed, amon$ ot)er items, amaimm across-t)e-board mont)# sa#ar increase o& !375.00 per emp#oee, to w)ic)proposa# priate respondent demanded a !1,500.00 )ie or 50J increase based on t)e#atest sa#ar rate o& eac) emp#oee, w)ic)eer is )i$)er.

( dead#oc on isses, especia## t)at bearin$ on across-t)e-board mont)# andmea# a##owances &o##owed and to pre-empt t)e impendin$ strie as oted pon b amaorit o& priate respondent;s members)ip, petitioner #od$ed t)e petition be#ow. )e+ecretar o& *abor immediate# assmed risdiction and t)e parties sbmitted t)eir

respectie p#eadin$s.

On Fanar 28, 1991, pb#ic respondent +ecretar o& *abor issed t)e Ordernow nder c)a##en$e. +aid Order contained a disposition on bot) t)e economic andnon-economic isses raised in t)e petition. One o& t)e r#in$s in t)e order is t)e $rantin$o& t)e retroactie e&&ect to t)e en&orceabi#it o& t)e CB(.

!etitioner ar$es t)at t)e Order o& Fanar 28, 1991 is io#atie o& (rtic#e 253-(o& t)e *abor Code, partic#ar# its proisions on retroactiit. +aid (rtic#e pertinent#proides:

xxx Any agreement on such other provisions of the collective bargainingagreement entered into within six '+( months from the date of expiry of theterm of such other provisions as fixed in the collective bargainingagreement shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. ,fany such agreement is entered into beyond six months the parties shallagree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. ,n case of a deadloc! in therenegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement the parties mayexercise their rights under this ode.

!etitioner ar$es t)at in $rantin$ retroactie e&&ect to t)e en&orceabi#it o& t)eCB(, pb#ic respondent committed an act contrar to t)e aboe proision o& #aw,pointin$ ot t)at t)e o#d CB( epired on F# 30, 1990 and t)e ?estioned order wasissed on Fanar 28, 1991.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e CB( s)o#d be $ien retroactie e&&ect

HELD: )e e&&ectiit o& t)e Order o& Fanar 28, 1991, mst retroact to t)e date o& t)eepiration o& t)e preios CB(, contrar to t)e position o& petitioner. Dnder t)ecircmstances o& t)e case, (rtic#e 253-( cannot be propert app#ied to )erein case. (s



correct# stated b pb#ic respondent in )is assai#ed Order o& (pri# 12, 1991 dismissin$petitioner;s "otion &or Reconsideration K

(nent t)e a##e$ed #ac o& basis &or t)e retroactiit proisions awarded, wewo#d stress t)at t)e proision o& #aw inoed b t)e <ospita#, (rtic#e 253-

( o& t)e *abor Code, spea o& a$reements b and between t)e parties,and not arbitra# awards . . . 4p. 818, Ro##o.

)ere&ore, in t)e absence o& a speci&ic proision o& #aw pro)ibitin$ retroactiit o&t)e e&&ectiit o& arbitra# awards issed b t)e +ecretar o& *abor prsant to (rtic#e 234$ o& t)e *abor Code, sc) as )erein ino#ed, pb#ic respondent is deemed estedwit) p#enar and discretionar powers to determine t)e e&&ectiit t)ereo&.



PIER ? ARRASTRE @ STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. ROLDAN:CONFESSORG.R. No. 11085A, 'ebrar 13, 1995

!no, J.

FACTS: !etitioner corporation and priate respondent #abor nion entered into a t)ree-

ear Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement 4CB( wit) epir date on Noember 27, 1991.6rin$ t)e &reedom period, t)e Nationa# 'ederation o& *abor Dnions 4N('*D?estioned t)e maorit stats o& !riate respondent t)ro$) a petition &or certi&icatione#ection. )e e#ection condcted on 'ebrar 27, 1992 was won b priate respondent.On "arc) 19 19912, priate respondent was certi&ied as t)e so#e and ec#siebar$ainin$ a$ent o& petitioner>s ran and &i#e emp#oees.

On Fne 22, 1992, priate respondent>s CB( proposa#s were receied bpetitioner. Conter-proposa#s were made b petitioner. Ne$otiations co##apsed, and on

($st 2A, 1992, priate-respondent &i#ed a notice o& strie wit) t)e NC"B. )e NC"Btried bt &ai#ed to sett#e t)e parties> controers. On +eptember 30, 1992, t)e +ecretar

o& *abor assmed risdiction oer t)e dispte. +)e reso#ed t)e bar$ainin$ dead#ocbetween t)e parties t)ro$) an Order, dated "arc) A, 1993.

On )er order wit) re$ard to t)e e&&ectiit o& t)e CB(, s)e )e#d t)at t)e CB( s)a##be e&&ectie &rom t)e time s)e assmed risdiction oer t)e dispte, t)at is, on 22+eptember 1992, and s)a## remain e&&ectie &or &ie 45 ears t)erea&ter. !etitionerso$)t partia# reconsideration o& t)e order. On Fne 8, 1993, pb#ic respondent a&&irmed)er &indin$s, ecept &or t)e date o& e&&ectiit o& t)e CB( w)ic) was c)an$ed to+eptember 30, 1992. )is is t)e date w)en s)e assmed risdiction oer t)e dead#oc.

ISSUE: =)en s)o#d t)e new CB( be $ien e&&ectH

HELD: )e app#icab#e #aws are (rtic#es 253 and 253- ( o& t)e *abor Code, t)s:

Art. 25. /uty to bargain collectively when there exists a collectivebargaining agreement. 0 )hen there is a collective bargaining agreement the duty tobargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify suchagreement during its lifetime. 1owever either party can serve a written notice toterminate or modify the agreement at least sixty '+$( days prior to its expiration date. ,tshall be the duty of both parties to !eep the status #uo and to continue in full force andeffect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the +$-day period andor until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

and

Art. 25-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. 0 Any ollective 3argaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall insofar as the representation aspect isconcerned be for a term of five '5( years. 4o petition #uestioning the ma"ority status ofthe incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall beconducted by the /epartment of abor and 6mployment outside the sixty-day periodimmediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the ollective 3argaining

Agreement. All other provisions of the ollective 3argaining Agreement shall berenegotiated not later than three '( years after its execution. Any agreement on such



other provisions of the ollective 3argaining Agreement entered into within six '+(months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in suchollective 3argaining Agreement shall retroact to the day immediately following suchdate. ,f any such agreement is entered into beyond six months the parties shall agree onthe duration of collective bargaining agreement the parties may exercise their rightsunder this ode.

/n 7nion of 8ilipino 6mployees v. 49 *:2 ;9A <*< '*::$(, t)is cortinterpreted t)e aboe #aw as &o##ows:

/n #i$)t o& t)e &ore$oin$, !his Co*r! *)ho&ds !he )roo*ce#e!of !he NLRC ho&di' !he C+A !o $e si'ed $% !he )"r!ies effec!ive*)o !he )ro#*&'"!io of !he "ss"i&ed reso&*!io. /t is c#ear andep#icit &rom (rtic#e 253-( t)at an a$reement on sc) ot)er proisions o&t)e CB( s)a## be $ien retroactie e&&ect on# w)en it is entered into wit)insi 4 mont)s &rom its epir date. /& t)e a$reement was entered intootside t)e si 4 mont) period, t)en t)e parties s)a## a$ree on t)e

dration o& t)e retroactiit t)ereo&.

)e assai#ed reso#tion w)ic) incorporated t)e CB( to be si$ned bt)e parties was prom#$ated Fne 5, 1989, t)e epir date o& t)e pastCB(. Based on t)e proision o& +ection 253-(, its retroactiit s)o#d bea$reed pon b t)e parties. Bt since no a$reement to t)at e&&ect wasmade, pb#ic respondent did not abse its discretion in $iin$ t)e saidCB( a prospectie e&&ect. )e action o& t)e pb#ic respondent is wit)in t)eambit o& its at)orit ested b eistin$ #aw.

/n t)e case o& ope= ;ugar orporation v. 8ederation of 8ree )or!ers *>:;9A *?: '*::*(, t)is Cort reiterated t)e r#e t)at "&!ho*'h " C+A h"s e7)ired, i!co!i*es !o h"ve &e'"& effec!s "s $e!ee !he )"r!ies *!i& " e C+A h"s $eee!ered i!o. I! is !he d*!% of $o!h )"r!ies !o 2ee) !he s!"!*s *o, "d !o co!i*ei f*&& force "d effec! !he !er#s "d codi!ios of !he e7is!i' "'ree#e! d*ri'!he <=:d"% freedo# )eriod "dor *!i& " e "'ree#e! is re"ched $% !he )"r!ies.

(pp#ied to t)e case at benc), !he &e'"& effec!s of !he i##edi"!e )"s! C+A $e!ee)e!i!ioer "d )riv"!e res)ode! !er#i"!ed, "d !he effec!ivi!% of !he e C+A$e'", o&% o M"rch B, 1006 he )*$&ic res)ode! reso&ved !heir dis)*!e .



MERALCO vs. UISUM+INGG.R. No. 127598, Fanar 27, 1999

"artineE, J .

FACTS: On +eptember 7, 1995, "era#co mp#oees and =orers (ssociation 4"=(

in&ormed "R(*CO o& its intention to re-ne$otiate t)e terms and conditions o& t)eireistin$ 1992-1997 Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement 4CB( coerin$ t)e remainin$period o& two ears startin$ &rom 6ecember 1, 1995 to Noember 30, 1997. <oweer,despite t)e series o& meetin$s between t)e ne$otiatin$ pane#s o& "R(*CO and"=(, t)e parties &ai#ed to arrie at terms and conditions acceptab#e to bot) o& t)em.On (pri# 23, 199, "=( &i#ed a Notice o& +trie wit) t)e NC"B. )e NC"B t)encondcted a series o& conci#iation meetin$s bt t)e parties &ai#ed to reac) an amicab#esett#ement.

)e +ecretar assmed risdiction and made a Retrn-o-=or Order. )e+ecretar reso#ed and awarded to respondents an a##e$ed $ross# eorbitant paca$e

and ot)ers, and a#so main$ t)e CB( e&&ectie not on t)e time t)e +ecretar reso#edsc) matter eercisin$ its discretion.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e retroactiit o& arbitra# awards s)a## commence at sc) time as$ranted b +ecretar.

HELD (rtic#e 253-( seres as t)e $ide in determinin$ w)en t)e e&&ectiit o& t)e CB(

at bar is to tae e&&ect. /t proides t)at t)e representation aspect o& t)e CB( is to be &ora term o& 5 ears, w)i#e

L(M## ot)er proisions o& t)e Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement s)a## bere-ne$otiated not #ater t)an 3 ears a&ter its eection. (n a$reement onsc) ot)er proisions o& t)e Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement entered intowit)in mont)s &rom t)e date o& epir o& t)e term o& sc) ot)erproisions as &ied in sc) Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement s)a## retroactto t)e da immediate# &o##owin$ sc) date. /& sc) a$reement is enteredinto beond mont)s, t)e parties s)a## a$ree on t)e dration o& t)ee&&ectiit t)ereo&. .

Dnder t)ese terms, it is c#ear t)at t)e 5-ear term re?irement is speci&ic to t)erepresentation aspect. =)at t)e #aw additiona## re?ires is t)at a C+A #*s! $e re:e'o!i"!ed i!hi 6 %e"rs "f!er i!s e7ec*!io . /t is in t)is re-ne$otiation t)at $ies riseto t)e present CB( dead#oc. If o "'ree#e! is re"ched i!hi < #o!hs fro# !hee7)ir% d"!e of !he 6 %e"rs !h"! fo&&o !he C+A e7ec*!io, !he &" e7)ress&% 'ives!he )"r!ies : o! "%$od% e&se : !he discre!io !o fi7 !he effec!ivi!% of !he"'ree#e!.

+i$ni&icant#, t)e #aw does not speci&ica## coer t)e sitation w)ere mont)s)ae e#apsed bt no a$reement )as been reac)ed wit) respect to e&&ectiit. /n t)is



eenta#it, we )o#d t)at an proision o& #aw s)o#d t)en app# &or t)e #aw ab)ors aacm.

One sc) proision is t)e )rici)&e of ho&d over, i.e., !h"! i !he "$sece of "e C+A, !he )"r!ies #*s! #"i!"i !he s!"!*s *o "d #*s! co!i*e i f*&&

force "d effec! !he !er#s "d codi!ios of !he e7is!i' "'ree#e! *!i& " e"'ree#e! is re"ched. /n t)is manner, t)e #aw preents t)e eistence o& a $ap in t)ere#ations)ip between t)e co##ectie bar$ainin$ parties. (not)er #e$a# princip#e t)ats)o#d app# is t)at in t)e absence o& an a$reement between t)e parties, t)en, anarbitrated CB( taes on t)e natre o& an dicia# or ?asi-dicia# award it operatesand ma be eected on# respectie# n#ess t)ere are #e$a# sti&ications &or itsretroactie app#ication.

Conse?ent#, e fid o s*fficie! &e'"& 'ro*d o !he o!her -*s!ific"!iofor !he re!ro"c!ive "))&ic"!io of !he dis)*!ed C+A, "d !herefore ho&d !h"! !heC+A sho*&d $e effec!ive for " !er# of / %e"rs co*!ed fro# Dece#$er /?, 100<

3!he d"!e of !he Secre!"r% of L"$ors dis)*!ed order o !he )"r!ies #o!io forrecosider"!io5 *) !o Dece#$er /, 1000.

HELD: 3Fe$r*"r% //, /===5

*abor #aws are si#ent as to w)en an arbitra# award in a #abor dispte w)ere t)e+ecretar )ad assmed risdiction b irte o& (rtic#e 23 4$ o& t)e *abor Code s)a##retroact. /n $enera#, " C+A e'o!i"!ed i!hi si7 #o!hs "f!er !he e7)ir"!io of !hee7is!i' C+A re!ro"c!s !o !he d"% i##edi"!e&% fo&&oi' s*ch d"!e "d if "'reed!here"f!er, !he effec!ivi!% de)eds o !he "'ree#e! of !he )"r!ies. On t)e ot)er)and, t)e #aw is si#ent as to t)e retroactiit o& a CB( arbitra# award or t)at $ranted notb irte o& t)e mta# a$reement o& t)e parties bt b interention o& t)e $oernment.6espite t)e si#ence o& t)e #aw, t)e Cort r#es )erein t)at C+A "r$i!r"& ""rds 'r"!ed"f!er si7 #o!hs fro# !he e7)ir"!io of !he &"s! C+A sh"&& re!ro"c! !o s*ch !i#e"'reed *)o $% $o!h e#)&o%er "d !he e#)&o%ees or !heir *io. A$se! s*ch ""'ree#e! "s !o re!ro"c!ivi!%, !he ""rd sh"&& re!ro"c! !o !he firs! d"% "f!er !he si7:#o!h )eriod fo&&oi' !he e7)ir"!io of !he &"s! d"% of !he C+A sho*&d !here $eoe. I !he "$sece of " C+A, !he Secre!"r%s de!er#i"!io of !he d"!e ofre!ro"c!ivi!% "s )"r! of his discre!io"r% )oers over "r$i!r"& ""rds sh"&& co!ro&.

B petitioners own actions, t)e Cort sees no reason to retroact t)e sbect CB(awards to a di&&erent date. )e period is )erein set at two 42 ears &rom 6ecember 1,1995 to Noember 30, 1997.

3A*'*s! 1, /===5

Dpon a reconsideration o& t)e 6ecision, t)is Cort issed t)e assai#ed Reso#tionw)ic) r#ed t)at here " "r$i!r"& ""rd 'r"!ed $e%od si7 #o!hs "f!er !hee7)ir"!io of !he e7is!i' C+A, "d !here is o "'ree#e! $e!ee !he )"r!ies "s!o !he d"!e of effec!ivi!% !hereof, !he "r$i!r"& ""rd sh"&& re!ro"c! !o !he firs! d"%



"f!er !he si7:#o!h )eriod fo&&oi' !he e7)ir"!io of !he &"s! d"% of !he C+A. /nt)e dispositie portion, )oweer, t)e period to w)ic) t)e award s)a## retroact wasinadertent# stated as be$innin$ on 6ecember 1, 1995 p to Noember 30, 1997.

)is Cort trned to t)e dictates o& &airness and e?itab#e stice and t)s arried

at a &orm#a t)at wo#d address t)e concerns o& bot) sides. <ence, t)is Cort )e#d t)att)e arbitra# award in t)is case be made to retroact to t)e &irst da a&ter t)e si-mont)period &o##owin$ t)e epiration o& t)e #ast da o& t)e CB(, i.e., &rom Fne 1, 199 to "a31, 1998. )is Cort, t)ere&ore, maintains t)e &ore$oin$ r#e in t)e assai#ed Reso#tionpro )ac ice. /t mst be c#ari&ied, )oweer, t)at consonant wit) t)is r#e, t)e two-eare&&ectiit period mst start &rom Fne 1, 199 p to "a 31, 1998, not 6ecember 1,1995 to Noember 30, 1997.

6rin$ t)e interre$nm between t)e epiration o& t)e economic proisions o& t)eCB( and t)e date o& e&&ectiit o& t)e arbitra# award, it is nderstood t)at t)e )o#d-oerprincip#e s)a## $oern, iE:

IL/Mt s)a## be t)e dt o& bot) parties to eep t)e stats ?o and tocontine in &## &orce and e&&ect t)e terms and conditions o& t)e eistin$a$reement drin$ t)e 0-da &reedom period and@or nti# a newa$reement is reac)ed b t)e parties.I 6espite t)e #apse o& t)e &orma#e&&ectiit o& t)e CB( t)e #aw sti## considers t)e same as continin$ in&orce and e&&ect nti# a new CB( s)a## )ae been a#id# eected



LMG CHEMICALS CORPORATION vs. SECRETAR9 OF DOLEG.R. No. 127A22, (pri# 17, 2001

+andoa#-GtierreE, J.

FACTS: *"G C)emica#s Corp, 4petitioner is a domestic corporation en$a$ed in t)e

man&actre and sa#e o& arios inds o& c)emica# sbstances, inc#din$ a#minms#&ate w)ic) is essentia# in pri&in$ water, and tec)nica# $rade s#&ric acid sed int)erma# power p#ants. !etitioner )as t)ree diisions, name#: t)e Or$anic 6iision,/nor$anic 6iision and t)e !inamcan B# Carriers. )ere are two nions wit)inpetitioner>s /nor$anic 6iision. One nion represents t)e dai# paid emp#oees and t)eot)er nion represents t)e mont)# paid emp#oees. C)emica# =orers Dnion,respondent, is a d# re$istered #abor or$aniEation actin$ as t)e co##ectie bar$ainin$a$ent o& a## t)e dai# paid emp#oees o& petitioner>s /nor$anic 6iision.

+ometime in 6ecember 1995, t)e petitioner and t)e respondent startedne$otiation &or a new CB( as t)eir o#d CB( was abot to epire. )e were ab#e to

a$ree on t)e po#itica# proisions o& t)e new CB(, bt no a$reement was reac)ed on t)eisse o& wa$e increase

=it) t)e CB( ne$otiations at a dead#oc, on "arc) , 199,respondent nion &i#ed a Notice o& +trie wit) t)e Nationa# Conci#iation and "ediationBoard, Nationa# Capita# Re$ion. 6espite seera# con&erences and e&&orts o& t)edesi$nated conci#iator-mediator, t)e parties &ai#ed to reac) an amicab#e sett#ement. )e+ecretar o& *abor and mp#oment assmed risdiction oer t)e dispte and issedt)e dispted orders.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e +ecretar absed its discretion in settin$ t)e e&&ectiit o& t)earbitra# awards

HELD: /t is we## sett#ed in or risprdence t)at t)e at)orit o& t)e +ecretar o& *aborto assme risdiction oer a #abor dispte casin$ or #ie# to case a strie or #ocotin an indstr indispensab#e to nationa# interest inc#des and etends to a## ?estionsand controersies arisin$ t)ere&rom. )e power is p#enar and discretionar in natre toenab#e )im to e&&ectie# and e&&icient# dispose o& t)e primar dispte.

/n +t. *es "edica# Center, /nc. s. orres, a dead#oc dee#oped drin$ t)eCB( ne$otiations between t)e mana$ement and t)e nion. )e +ecretar o& *aborassmed risdiction and ordered t)at t)eir CB( s)a## retroact to t)e date o& t)eepiration o& t)e preios CB(. )e mana$ement c#aimed t)at t)e +ecretar o& *abor$rae# absed )is discretion. )is Cort )e#d:

777

Fi"&&%, !he effec!ivi!% of !he Order of 8"*"r% /?, 1001, #*s! re!ro"c! !o !hed"!e of !he e7)ir"!io of !he )revio*s C+A, co!r"r% !o !he )osi!io of !he)e!i!ioer. Uder !he circ*#s!"ces of !he c"se, Ar!. /46:A c"o! $e )ro)er&%"))&ied !o herei c"se. As correc!&% s!"!ed $% )*$&ic res)ode! i his "ss"i&edOrder of A)ri& 1/, 1001 :



Ae! !he "&&e'ed &"c2 of $"sis for re!ro"c!ivi!% )rovisios""rded, e o*&d s!ress !h"! !he )rovisio of &" ivo2ed $% !heHos)i!"&, Ar!ic&e /46:A of !he L"$or Code, s)e"2s of "'ree#e! $%"d $e!ee !he )"r!ies, "d o! "r$i!r"& ""rds.

Therefore i !he "$sece of !he s)ecific )rovisio of &" )rohi$i!i're!ro"c!ivi!% of !he effec!ivi!% of !he "r$i!r"& ""rds iss*ed $% !he Secre!"r% ofL"$or )*rs*"! !o Ar!ic&e /<63'5 of !he L"$or Code, s*ch "s herei ivo&ved, )*$&icres)ode! is dee#ed ves!ed i!h )&e"r% )oers !o de!er#ie !he effec!ivi!%!hereof.

'ina##, to deprie respondent +ecretar o& sc) power and discretion wo#d rnconter to t)e we##-estab#is)ed r#e t)at a## dobts in t)e interpretation o& #abor #awss)o#d be reso#ed in &aor o& #abor. /n p)o#din$ t)e assai#ed orders o& respondent+ecretar, t)is Cort is on# $iin$ meanin$ to t)is r#e. /ndeed, t)e Cort s)o#d )e#p#abor at)orities in proidin$ worers immediate bene&its, wit)ot bein$ )ampered barbitration or #iti$ation processes t)at proe to be not on# nere-wracin$ bt &inancia##brdensome in t)e #on$ rn.

(s we said in "aternit C)i#drens <ospita# s. +ecretar o& *abor:

Soci"& 8*s!ice Le'is&"!io, !o $e !r*&% #e"i'f*& "d re"rdi' !o o*ror2ers, #*s! o! $e h"#)ered i i!s "))&ic"!io $% &o' ided:"r$i!r"!io "d&i!i'"!io. Ri'h!s #*s! $e "sser!ed "d $eefi!s received i!h !he &e"s!icoveiece. L"$or &"s "re #e"! !o )ro#o!e, o! !o defe"!, soci"& -*s!ice.



NATIONAL UNION OF +AN> EMPLO9EES 3NU+E5 vs.PHILNA+AN> EMPLO9EES ASSOCIATION 3PEMA5 AND PN+

G.R. No.17A287, ($st 12, 2013!era#ta, J.

FACTS: Respondent !)i#ippine Nationa# Ban 4!NB sed to be a $oernment-ownedand contro##ed banin$ instittion estab#is)ed nder !b#ic (ct 212, as amended bectie Order No. 80 dated 6ecember 3, 198 4ot)erwise nown as )e 198Reised C)arter o& t)e !)i#ippine Nationa# Ban. /ts ran-and-&i#e emp#oees, bein$$oernment personne#, were represented &or co##ectie ne$otiation b t)e !)i#nabanmp#oees (ssociation 4!"(, a pb#ic sector nion.

/n 199, t)e +ecrities and c)an$e Commission approed !NB>s new (rtic#eso& /ncorporation and B-#aws and its c)an$ed stats as a priate corporation. !"(a&&i#iated wit) petitioner Nationa# Dnion o& Ban mp#oees 4NDB, w)ic) is a #abor&ederation composed o& nions in t)e banin$ indstr, adoptin$ t)e name NDB-!NB

mp#oees C)apter 4NDB-!C. *ater, NDB-!C was certi&ied as t)e so#e andec#sie bar$ainin$ a$ent o& t)e !NB ran-and-&i#e emp#oees. ( co##ectie bar$ainin$a$reement 4CB( was sbse?ent# si$ned between NDB-!C and !NB coerin$ t)eperiod o& Fanar 1, 1997 to 6ecember 31, 2001.

'o##owin$ t)e epiration o& t)e CB(, t)e !)i#naban mp#oees (ssociation-''=4!"(-''= &i#ed on Fanar 2, 2002 a petition &or certi&ication e#ection amon$ t)eran-and-&i#e emp#oees o& !NB. )e petition so$)t t)e condct o& a certi&icatione#ection to be participated in b !"(-''= and NDB-!C.

=)i#e t)e petition &or certi&ication e#ection was sti## pendin$, two si$ni&icant eentstranspired t)e independent nion re$istration o& NDB- !C and its disa&&i#iation wit)NDB.

!"( sent a #etter to t)e !NB mana$ement in&ormin$ its disa&&i#iation &romNDB and re?estin$ to stop, e&&ectie immediate#, t)e c)ec-o&& o& t)e !15.00 de &orNDB. (ctin$ t)ereon, on F# A, 2003, !NB in&ormed NDB o& !"(>s #etter and itsdecision to contine t)e dedction o& t)e !15.00 &ees, bt stop its remittance to NDBe&&ectie F# 2003. !NB a#so noti&ied NDB t)at t)e amonts co##ected wo#d be )e#din a trst accont pendin$ t)e reso#tion o& t)e isse on !"(>s disa&&i#iation.

(##e$in$ n&air #abor practice 4D*! &or non-imp#ementation o& t)e $rieancemac)iner and procedre, NDB bro$)t t)e matter to t)e Nationa# Conci#iation and"ediation Board 4NC"B &or preentie mediation.

ISSUE: =)et)er !"( a#id# disa&&i#iated itse#& &rom NDB, t)e reso#tion o& w)ic), intrn, ineitab# a&&ects t)e #atter>s ri$)t to co##ect t)e nion des )e#d in trst b !NB.

HELD: )e ri$)t o& t)e #oca# members to wit)draw &rom t)e &ederation and to &orm anew #oca# nion depends pon t)e proisions o& t)e nion;s constittion, b-#aws and



c)arter and, in t)e absence o& en&orceab#e proisions in t)e &ederation;s constittionpreentin$ disa&&i#iation o& a #oca# nion, a #oca# ma seer its re#ations)ip wit) its parent.

/n t)e case at bar, t)ere is not)in$ s)own in t)e records nor is it c#aimed bNDB t)at !"( was epress# &orbidden to disa&&i#iate &rom t)e &ederation nor were

t)ere an conditions imposed &or a a#id breaawa. )is bein$ so, !"( is notprec#ded to disa&&i#iate &rom NDB a&ter ac?irin$ t)e stats o& an independent #aboror$aniEation d# re$istered be&ore t)e 6O*.

Conse?ent#, b !"(;s a#id disa&&i#iation &rom NDB, t)e inc#m t)atpreios# bond t)e two entities was comp#ete# seered. (s NDB was diested o&an and a## power to act in representation o& !"(, an act per&ormed b t)e &ormert)at a&&ects t)e interests and a&&airs o& t)e #atter, inc#din$ t)e spposed ep#sion o&+errana et a#., is rendered wit)ot &orce and e&&ect.

(#so, in e&&ect, NDB #oses it ri$)t to co##ect a## nion des )e#d in its trst b

!NB. )e moment t)at !"( separated &rom and #e&t NDB and eists as anindependent #abor or$aniEation wit) a certi&icate o& re$istration, t)e &ormer is no #on$erob#i$ed to pa des and assessments to t)e #atter natra##, t)ere wo#d be no #on$eran reason or occasion &or !NB to contine main$ dedctions.



HOL9 CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL vs. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMASG.R. No. 1791A, F# 23, 2013

!era#ta, J.

FACTS: On "a 31, 2002, a petition &or certi&ication e#ection was &i#ed b priate

respondent !ina$-/san$ ini$ at *aas n$ (napawis <o# C)i#d Cat)o#ic +c)oo#eac)ers and mp#oees *abor Dnion 4<CC+-*D!/G*(+, a##e$in$ t)at: !/G*(+ isa #e$itimate #abor or$aniEation d# re$istered wit) t)e 6epartment o& *abor andmp#oment 46O* representin$ <CC+-*D-!/G*(+ <CC+ is a priate edcationa#instittion d# re$istered and operatin$ nder !)i#ippine #aws t)ere are approimate#one )ndred twent 4120 teac)ers and emp#oees comprisin$ t)e proposedappropriate bar$ainin$ nit and <CC+ is nor$aniEed, t)ere is no co##ectie bar$ainin$a$reement or a d# certi&ied bar$ainin$ a$ent or a #abor or$aniEation certi&ied as t)eso#e and ec#sie bar$ainin$ a$ent o& t)e proposed bar$ainin$ nit wit)in one earprior to t)e &i#in$ o& t)e petition.

!etitioner sc)oo# assai#s t)e petition &or certi&ication e#ection &i#ed b priaterespondent. (mon$ t)e 120 members, some are ice-principa#s, department )eads,coordinators, sperisors, and ot)er non-teac)in$ personne# a#on$ wit) re$#ar teac)in$sta&&. /t insisted t)at, &or not bein$ in accord wit) (rtic#e 2A5 o& t)e *abor Code, priaterespondent is an i##e$itimate #abor or$aniEation #acin$ in persona#it to &i#e a petition &orcerti&ication e#ection, as )e#d in oota "otor !)i#ippines Corporation . oota "otor!)i#ippines Corporation *abor Dnion and an inappropriate bar$ainin$ nit &or want o&commnit or mta#it o& interest, as r#ed in 6n#op +#aEen$er 4!)i#s., /nc. .+ecretar o& *abor and mp#oment and 6e *a +a##e Dniersit "edica# Center andCo##e$e o& "edicine . *a$esma.

ISSUE: =)et)er a petition &or certi&ication e#ection is dismissib#e on t)e $rond t)at t)e#abor or$aniEation>s members)ip a##e$ed# consists o& sperisor and ran-and-&i#eemp#oees.

HELD: 'o##owin$ t)e doctrine #aid down in awas)ima and +"CC-+per, it mst bestressed t)at petitioner cannot co##atera## attac t)e #e$itimac o& priate respondent bprain$ &or t)e dismissa# o& t)e petition &or certi&ication e#ection:

cept w)en it is re?ested to bar$ain co##ectie#, an emp#oer is a merebstander to an petition &or certi&ication e#ection sc) proceedin$ is non-adersaria#and mere# inesti$atie, &or t)e prpose t)ereo& is to determine w)ic) or$aniEation wi##represent t)e emp#oees in t)eir co##ectie bar$ainin$ wit) t)e emp#oer. )e c)oice o&t)eir representatie is t)e ec#sie concern o& t)e emp#oees t)e emp#oer cannot)ae an partisan interest t)erein it cannot inter&ere wit), mc) #ess oppose, t)eprocess b &i#in$ a motion to dismiss or an appea# &rom it not een a mere a##e$ationt)at some emp#oees participatin$ in a petition &or certi&ication e#ection are acta##mana$eria# emp#oees wi## #end an emp#oer #e$a# persona#it to b#oc t)e certi&icatione#ection. )e emp#oer;s on# ri$)t in t)e proceedin$ is to be noti&ied or in&ormedt)ereo&.



(rtic#e 2124$ o& t)e *abor Code de&ines a #abor or$aniEation as Ian nion orassociation o& emp#oees w)ic) eists in w)o#e or in part &or t)e prpose o& co##ectiebar$ainin$ or o& dea#in$ wit) emp#oers concernin$ terms and conditions o&emp#oment.I

On t)e ot)er )and, a bar$ainin$ nit )as been de&ined as a I$rop o& emp#oeeso& a $ien emp#oer, comprised o& a## or #ess t)an a## o& t)e entire bod o& emp#oees,w)ic) t)e co##ectie interests o& a## t)e emp#oees, consistent wit) e?it to t)eemp#oer, indicated to be best sited to sere reciproca# ri$)ts and dties o& t)e partiesnder t)e co##ectie bar$ainin$ proisions o& t)e #aw

)e teac)in$ and non-teac)in$ personne# o& petitioner sc)oo# mst &ormseparate bar$ainin$ nits. )s, t)e order &or t)e condct o& two separate certi&icatione#ections, one ino#in$ teac)in$ personne# and t)e ot)er ino#in$ non-teac)in$personne#. /t s)o#d be stressed t)at in t)e sbect petition, priate respondent nion

so$)t t)e condct o& a certi&ication e#ection amon$ a## t)e ran-and-&i#e personne# o&petitioner sc)oo#.



GO9A, INC. vs. GO9A, INC. EMPLO9EES UNION:FFG.R. No. 17005A, Fanar 21, 2013

!era#ta, J. FACTS: !etitioner Goa /nc. 4Goa )ired contracta# emp#oees &rom !+O

Resorces 6ee#opment Corporation 4!+O. )is prompted Goa, /nc. mp#oeesDnion-''= 4Dnion to re?est &or a $rieance con&erence on t)e $rond t)at t)econtracta# worers do not be#on$ to t)e cate$ories o& emp#oees stip#ated in t)eirCB(. )e Dnion a#so ar$ed t)at )irin$ contracta# emp#oees is contrar to t)e nionsecrit c#ase embodied in t)e CB(.

=)en t)e matter remained nreso#ed, t)e $rieance was re&erred to t)e NC"B&or o#ntar arbitration. )e Dnion ar$ed t)at Goa is $i#t o& D*! &or $ross io#ationo& t)e CB(. )e o#ntar arbitrator dismissed t)e Dnions c)ar$e o& D*! bt Goa wasdirected to obsere and comp# wit) t)e CB(. =)i#e t)e Dnion moed &or partia#consideration o& t)e %( decision, Goa immediate# &i#ed a petition &or reiew be&ore t)e

Cort o& (ppea#s to set aside t)e %(s directie to obsere and comp# wit) t)e CB(commitment pertainin$ to t)e )irin$ o& casa# emp#oees. Goa ar$ed t)at )irin$contracta# emp#oees is a a#id mana$ement prero$atie. )e Cort o&

(ppea#s dismissed t)e petition. ISSUE: =)et)er t)e act o& )irin$ contracta# emp#oees is a a#id eercise o&mana$ement prero$atieH HELD: )e C( did not commit serios error w)en it sstained t)e r#in$ t)at t)e )irin$o& contracta# emp#oees &rom !+O was not in eepin$ wit) t)e intent and spirit o& t)eCB(. )e said r#in$ is interre#ated and intertwined wit) t)e so#e isse to be reso#edt)at is, I=)et)er or not t)e Compan is $i#t o& n&air #abor practice in en$a$in$ t)eserices o& !+O, a t)ird part serice proider, nder eistin$ CB(, #aws, and

risprdence.I Bot) isses concern t)e en$a$ement o& !+O b t)e Compan w)ic) isperceied as a io#ation o& t)e CB( and w)ic) constittes as n&air #abor practice on t)epart o& t)e Compan.P

O !he -*risdic!io of !he Vo&*!"r% Ar$i!r"!or

/n t)e case o& *do Q *m Corporation . +aornido, t)e cort r#ed t)at:

@enerally the arbitrator is expected to decide only those #uestions expresslydelineated by the submission agreement. 4evertheless the arbitrator can assume thathe has the necessary power to ma!e a final settlement since arbitration is the finalresort for the ad"udication of disputes. The succinct reasoning enunciated by the A insupport of its holding that the oluntary Arbitrator in a labor controversy has "urisdictionto render the #uestioned arbitral awards deserves our concurrence.



MR INDUSTRIES vs. MA8EN COLAM+OTG.R. No. 179001, ($st 28, 2013

!era#ta, J.

'(C+: On 'eb. 8, 2000, petitioner "ari#o iroE, Owner and %ice-!resident &or

'inance and "aretin$ o& "R, )ired respondent "aen Co#ambot as messen$er.Co#ambot;s dties and responsibi#ities inc#ded &ie#d, messen$eria# and ot)er #iaisonwor.

<oweer, be$innin$ 2002, Co#ambot;s wor per&ormance started to deteriorate.!etitioners issed seera# memoranda to Co#ambot &or )abita# tardiness, ne$#i$ence,and io#ations o& o&&ice po#icies. <e was a#so $ien written warnin$s &or insbordinationcommitted, &or ne$#i$ence cased b care#ess )and#in$ o& con&identia# o&&ice docments,&or #eain$ )is post wit)ot proper trnoer and insbordination.

Co#ambot was t)erea&ter sspended &rom Noember 2, 200A nti# 6ecember ,

200A &or insbordination. !etitioners c#aimed t)e waited &or Co#ambot to report bac &or wor on 6ecember 7, 200A, bt t)e neer )eard &rom )im anmore. *ater, petitionerswere srprised to &ind ot t)at Co#ambot )ad &i#ed a comp#aint &or i##e$a# sspension,nderpament o& sa#aries, oertime pa, )o#ida pa, rest da, serice incentie #eaeand 13t) mont) pa. )e comp#aint was #ater on amended to i##e$a# dismissa#.

/++D: =)et)er t)ere was abandonment.

<*6: /n a nmber o& cases, t)is Cort consistent# )e#d t)at to constitteabandonment o& wor, two e#ements mst be present: &irst, t)e emp#oee mst )ae&ai#ed to report &or wor or mst )ae been absent wit)ot a#id or sti&iab#e reasonand second, t)ere mst )ae been a c#ear intention on t)e part o& t)e emp#oee toseer t)e emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip mani&ested b some oert act.

/n t)e instant case, ot)er t)an Co#ambot;s &ai#re to report bac to wor a&tersspension, petitioners &ai#ed to present an eidence w)ic) tend to s)ow )is intent toabandon )is wor. /t is a sett#ed r#e t)at mere absence or &ai#re to report &or wor isnot eno$) to amont to abandonment o& wor. )ere mst be a concrrence o& t)eintention to abandon and some oert acts &rom w)ic) an emp#oee ma be dedced as)ain$ no more intention to wor. On t)is point, t)e C( was correct w)en it )e#d t)at:

"ere absence or &ai#re to report &or wor, een a&ter notice to retrn, is nottantamont to abandonment. )e brden o& proo& to s)ow t)at t)ere was nsti&iedre&sa# to $o bac to wor rests on t)e emp#oer. (bandonment is a matter o& intentionand cannot #i$)t# be presmed &rom certain e?ioca# acts. o constitte abandonment,t)ere mst be c#ear proo& o& de#iberate and nsti&ied intent to seer t)e emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip. C#ear#, t)e operatie act is sti## t)e emp#oee>s #timate act o&pttin$ an end to )is emp#oment. 'rt)ermore, it is a sett#ed doctrine t)at t)e &i#in$ o& acomp#aint &or i##e$a# dismissa# is inconsistent wit) abandonment o& emp#oment. (nemp#oee w)o taes steps to protest )is dismissa# cannot #o$ica## be said to )ae



abandoned )is wor. t)e &i#in$ o& sc) comp#aint is proo& eno$) o& )is desire to retrnto wor, t)s ne$atin$ an s$$estion o& abandonment.

+&&ice it to sa t)at, it is t)e emp#oer w)o )as t)e brden o& proo& to s)ow ade#iberate and nsti&ied re&sa# o& t)e emp#oee to resme )is emp#oment wit)ot

an intention o& retrnin$. /t is t)ere&ore incmbent pon petitioners to ascertain t)erespondents> interest or non-interest in t)e continance o& t)eir emp#oment. )is,petitioners &ai#ed to do so.



ALILEM CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. SALVADOR M. +ANDIOLA, 8R.G.R. No. 173A89, 'ebrar 25, 2013

!R(*(, J.

FACTS: Respondent was emp#oed b petitioner as booeeper. !etitioner;s Board o&6irectors receied a #etter &rom a certain Napo#eon Gao-a reportin$ t)e a##e$edimmora# condct and nbecomin$ be)aior o& respondent b )ain$ an i##icitre#ations)ip wit) Napo#eon>s sister, )e#ma G. !a#ma. ( pre#iminar inesti$ation wast)ere&ore condcted. On Fne 7, 1997, t)e Board receied a petition &rom abot &i&tmembers o& t)e cooperatie asin$ t)e re#ie& o& respondent de to )is i##icit a&&air wit))e#ma. /n a "emorandm, respondent was in&ormed o& t)e Board>s decision toterminate )is serices. )s, a comp#aint &or /##e$a# 6ismissa# was &i#ed.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e dismissa# was a#id.

HELD: /t is ndispted t)at res)ode! "s dis#issed fro# e#)&o%#e! fore'"'i' i e7!r"#"ri!"& "ff"irs, " 'ro*d for !er#i"!io of e#)&o%#e! s!"!ed i)e!i!ioer(s Persoe& Po&ic%. )is basis o& termination was made nown torespondent as ear# as t)e &irst commnication made b petitioner. /n its Fne 20, 1997#etter, petitioner directed respondent to ep#ain in writin$ or persona# con&rontation w))e s)o#d not be terminated &or io#ation o& +ection A.1.A o& t)e !ersonne# !o#ic.Respondent mere# denied t)e accsation a$ainst )im and did not ?estion t)e basis o& sc) termination. =)en t)e *( was ca##ed pon to decide t)e i##e$a# dismissa# case, itr#ed in &aor o& petitioner and p)e#d t)e basis o& sc) dismissa# w)ic) is t)e cited!ersonne# !o#ic.

o be sre, " e#)&o%er is free !o re'*&"!e "&& "s)ec!s of e#)&o%#e! . I! #"%#"2e re"so"$&e r*&es "d re'*&"!ios for !he 'over#e! of i!s e#)&o%eeshich $eco#e )"r! of !he co!r"c! of e#)&o%#e! )rovided !he% "re #"de 2o!o !he e#)&o%ee. /n t)e eent o& a io#ation, an emp#oee ma be a#id# terminated&rom emp#oment on t)e $rond t)at an emp#oer cannot rationa## be epected toretain t)e emp#oment o& a person w)ose #ac o& mora#s, respect and #oa#t to )isemp#oer, re$ard &or )is emp#oer>s r#es and app#ication o& t)e di$nit andresponsibi#it, )as so p#ain# and comp#ete# been bared.

=)i#e respondent>s act o& en$a$in$ in etra--marita# a&&airs ma be consideredpersona# to )im and does not direct# a&&ect t)e per&ormance o& )is assi$ned tas as

booeeper, aside &rom t)e &act t)at t)e act was speci&ica## proided &or b petitioner>s!ersonne# !o#ic as one o& t)e $ronds &or termination o& emp#oment, said act raisedconcerns to petitioner as t)e Board receied nmeros comp#aints and petitions &romt)e cooperatie members t)emse#es asin$ &or t)e remoa# o& respondent becase o&)is immora# condct.



PICOP RESOURCES INC vs. TANECAG.R. No. 10828, ($st 9, 2010

!R(*(, J.

FACTS: On 'ebrar 13, 2001, respondents &i#ed a Comp#aint &or n&air #abor

practice, i##e$a# dismissa# and mone c#aims a$ainst petitioner !/CO! Resorces,/ncorporated 4!R/. Respondents were re$#ar ran-and-&i#e emp#oees o& !R/ and bona&ide members o& Na$a)isan$ "ammo sa !R/ +ot)ern !)i#ippines 'ederation o&*abor 4N("(!R/-+!'*, w)ic) is t)e co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$ent &or t)e ran-and-&i#eemp#oees o& petitioner !R/. !R/ )as a CB( wit) N("(!R/-+!'*. On "a 1, 2000,

(tt. 'entes, !resident o& +ot)ern !)i#ippines 'ederation o& *abor 4+!'*, sent a#etter to t)e mana$ement o& !R/ demandin$ t)e termination o& emp#oees w)o a##e$ed#campai$ned &or, spported and si$ned t)e !etition &or Certi&ication #ection o& t)e'ederation o& 'ree =orers Dnion 4''= drin$ t)e e&&ectiit o& t)e CB(. N("(!R/-+!'* considered said act o& campai$nin$ &or and si$nin$ t)e petition &or certi&icatione#ection o& ''= as an act o& dis#oa#t and a a#id basis &or termination &or a case in

accordance wit) its Constittion and B-*aws, and t)e terms and conditions o& t)e CB(,speci&ica## (rtic#e //, +ections .1 and .2 on Dnion +ecrit C#ase.

On October 1, 2000, !R/ sered notices o& termination &or cases to emp#oeesw)om N("(!R/*-+!'* so$)t to be terminated on t)e $rond o& acts o& dis#oa#tPcommitted a$ainst it w)en respondents a##e$ed# spported and si$ned t)e !etition &orCerti&ication #ection o& ''= be&ore t)e &reedom periodP drin$ t)e e&&ectiit o& t)eCB(. ( Notice dated October 21, 2000 was a#so sered on t)e 6O*, Cara$a Re$ion.

)e *abor (rbiter dec#ared t)e respondents> dismissa# to be i##e$a#. )e N*RC,on appea#, reersed t)e decision o& t)e *abor (rbiter. )e C( )oweer reersed t)edecision o& t)e N*RC and reinstated t)e decision o& t)e *abor (rbiter. <ence, t)ispetition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e Dnion +ecrit C#ase ma be a $rond &or termination o&emp#oment.

HELD: Uio sec*ri!%; is " 'eeric !er#, hich is "))&ied !o "d co#)reheds;c&osed sho),; *io sho),; ;#"i!e"ce of #e#$ershi),; or "% o!her for# of"'ree#e! hich i#)oses *)o e#)&o%ees !he o$&i'"!io !o "c*ire or re!"i*io #e#$ershi) "s " codi!io "ffec!i' e#)&o%#e!. )ere is nion s)op w)ena## new re$#ar emp#oees are re?ired to oin t)e nion wit)in a certain period as a

condition &or t)eir contined emp#oment. )ere is maintenance o& members)ip s)opw)en emp#oees, w)o are nion members as o& t)e e&&ectie date o& t)e a$reement, orw)o t)erea&ter become members, mst maintain nion members)ip as a condition &orcontined emp#oment nti# t)e are promoted or trans&erred ot o& t)e bar$ainin$ nit,or t)e a$reement is terminated. ( c#osed s)op, on t)e ot)er )and, ma be de&ined as anenterprise in w)ic), b a$reement between t)e emp#oer and )is emp#oees or t)eirrepresentaties, no person ma be emp#oed in an or certain a$reed departments o&t)e enterprise n#ess )e or s)e is, becomes, and, &or t)e dration o& t)e a$reement,



remains a member in $ood standin$ o& a nion entire# comprised o& or o& w)ic) t)eemp#oees in interest are a part.

<oweer, i !er#i"!i' !he e#)&o%#e! of " e#)&o%ee $% eforci' !he

*io sec*ri!% c&"*se, !he e#)&o%er eeds !o de!er#ie "d )rove !h"! 315 !he

*io sec*ri!% c&"*se is "))&ic"$&e 3/5 !he *io is re*es!i' for !heeforce#e! of !he *io sec*ri!% )rovisio i !he C+A "d 365 !here is s*fficie!evidece !o s*))or! !he decisio of !he *io !o e7)e& !he e#)&o%ee fro# !he*io. )ese re?isites constitte st case &or terminatin$ an emp#oee based on t)enion secrit proision o& t)e CB(.

(s to t)e &irst re?isite, t)ere is no ?estion t)at t)e CB( between !R/ and

respondents inc#ded a nion secrit c#ase, speci&ica##, a maintenance o&members)ip as stip#ated in +ections o& (rtic#e //, Dnion +ecrit and C)ec-O&&.'o##owin$ t)e same proision, !R/, pon written re?est &rom t)e Dnion, can indeedterminate t)e emp#oment o& t)e emp#oee w)o &ai#ed to maintain its $ood standin$ as a

nion member.

+econd#, it is #iewise ndispted t)at N("(!R/-+!'*, in two 42 occasionsdemanded &rom !R/, in t)eir #etters dated "a 1 and 23, 2000, to terminate t)eemp#oment o& respondents de to t)eir acts o& dis#oa#t to t)e Dnion.

<oweer, as to t)e t)ird re?isite, we &ind t)at t)ere is no s&&icient eidence to

spport t)e decision o& !R/ to terminate t)e emp#oment o& t)e respondents.



ERECTOR ADVERTSING SIGN GROUP, INC. vs. NLRCG.R. No. 17218, F# 2, 2010

!era#ta, J.

FACTS: !etitioner rector (dertisin$ +i$n Grop, /nc. is a domestic corporationen$a$ed in t)e bsiness o& constrctin$ bi##boards and adertisin$ si$ns. +ometime int)e midd#e o& 199, petitioner en$a$ed t)e serices o& peditoC#oma 4C#oma ascompan drier and t)e #atter )ad sered as sc) nti# )is dismissa# &rom serice in "a2000. C#oma &i#ed a Comp#aint wit) t)e N*RC &or a##e$ed i##e$a# sspension andt)erea&ter dismissa# &rom )is emp#oment wit)ot de process o& #aw.

)e *abor (rbiter dismissed t)e Comp#aint &or #ac o& merit bt was reersed bt)e N*RC. )e C( a&&irmed t)e decision o& t)e N*RC. <ence, t)is petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er C#oma was dismissed wit) st case and wit) de process o& #aw.

HELD: =e &ind no merit in t)e petition.

)e a#idit o& an emp#oee>s dismissa# &rom serice )in$es on t)e satis&action o&t)e two sbstantie re?irements &or a #aw&# termination. )ese are, &irst, he!her !hee#)&o%ee "s "ccorded d*e )rocess !he $"sic co#)oe!s of hich "re !heo))or!*i!% !o $e he"rd "d !o defed hi#se&f . )is is t)e procedra# aspect. (ndsecond, he!her !he dis#iss"& is for "% of !he c"*ses )rovided i !he L"$or Codeof !he Phi&i))ies. )is constittes t)e sbstantie aspect.

i!h res)ec! !o d*e )rocess re*ire#e!, !he e#)&o%er is $o*d !o f*rish

!he e#)&o%ee cocered i!h !o 3/5 ri!!e o!ices $efore !er#i"!io ofe#)&o%#e! c" $e &e'"&&% effec!ed. One is t)e notice apprisin$ t)e emp#oee o& t)epartic#ar acts or omissions &or w)ic) )is dismissa# is so$)t and t)is ma #oose# beconsidered as t)e proper c)ar$e. )e ot)er is t)e notice in&ormin$ t)e emp#oee o& t)emana$ement>s decision to seer )is emp#oment. )is decision, )oweer, mst comeon# a&ter t)e emp#oee is $ien a reasonab#e period &rom receipt o& t)e &irst noticewit)in w)ic) to answer t)e c)ar$e, t)ereb $iin$ )im amp#e opportnit to be )eardand de&end )imse#& wit) t)e assistance o& )is representatie s)o#d )e so desire . There*ire#e! of o!ice, i! h"s $ee s!ressed, is o! " #ere !echic"&i!% $*! "re*ire#e! of d*e )rocess !o hich ever% e#)&o%ee is e!i!&ed .

/n t)is case, we &ind t)at C#omas dismissa# &rom serice did not comp# wit) t)isbasic precept.



MA. ANA M. TAMONTE "d EDIL+ERTO A. TAMONTE vs.HONG>ONG "d SHANGHAI +AN>ING CORPORATION LTD.

G.R. No. 1970, ($st 17, 2011!era#ta, J .

FACTS: !etitioner "a. (na ". amonte was a re$#ar emp#oee o& t)e <on$on$ and+)an$)ai Banin$ Corporation *td. and a member o& t)e <on$on$ and +)an$)aiBanin$ Corporation +ta&& Retirement !#an 4<+BC +R!. !etitioner (na app#ied &or a)osin$ #oan wit) t)e <+BC +R! secred b a rea# estate mort$a$e contract oer t)eirpropert coered b C No. 1719 o& t)e Re$ister o& 6eeds o& !araSa?e. )emont)# amortiEations o& t)e #oan were paid b petitioner (na t)ro$) atomatic paro##dedctions. (na was )oweer inc#ded in t)ose w)o were dismissed &rom serice &orabandonment a&ter a #abor dispte arose between t)e ban and t)e nion w)ic)c#minated in a strie. )e *abor (rbiter dismissed t)e case &or i##e$a# dismissa# statin$t)at t)e strie was i##e$a#.

On Noember 28, 199A <+BC +R! demanded &or t)e pament o& (na>s npaidacconts w)ic) inc#ded )er )osin$ #oan. !etitioners &ai#ed to sett#e t)eir ob#i$ationt)s, t)e rea# estate mort$a$e was &orec#osed. ( Comp#aint &or (nn#ment o& t)e ntire!roceedin$s in 'orec#osre was t)erea&ter &i#ed wit) t)e RC w)ic) dismissed t)esame. )e C(, on appea#, a&&irmed t)e RC decision. <ence, t)is petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e petitioners )ad case o& action.

HELD: !etitioners were a#read in de&a#t in t)e pament o& t)eir #oan ob#i$ations t)s,&orec#osre o& t)e mort$a$e propert was resorted to b respondents. Respondentswere on# en&orcin$ t)e cii# ob#i$ation o& petitioners nder t)eir mort$a$e contract.)ere is no #abor aspect ino#ed in t)e en&orcement o& petitioners; ob#i$ation.

/n 4estle %hilippines ,nc. v. 4ational abor 9elations ommission '49(, t)eCort )e#d t)at:

Nestl's demand for payment of the private respondents' amortizations on

their car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is not alabor, but a civil, dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather thanemployee-employer relations.

As noted the options given to the private respondents are civil in nature arisingfrom contractual obligations. There is no labor aspect involved in the enforcement ofthose obligations.

The 49 gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its "urisdiction by issuingthe writ of in"unction to stop the company from enforcing the civil obligation of the privaterespondents under the car loan agreements and from protecting its interest in the carswhich by the terms of those agreements belong to it 'the company( until their purchase

price shall have been fully paid by the employee. The terms of the car loan agreementsare not in issue in the labor case. he rights and obligations of the parties under



those contracts may be enforced by a separate civil action in the regular courts,not in the N!"#.

/n 1ong!ong and ;hanghai 3an!ing orporation td. ;taff 9etirement %lan'1;3 ;9%( v. ;pouses 3ro#ue=a w)ic) ino#ed t)e dismissed co-emp#oees o&)erein petitioner (na w)o were a#so nab#e to pa t)e mont)# amortiEations o& t)eirrespectie #oans, and despite <+BC +R!;s demand &or t)em to pa t)eir #oan, t)e sti##&ai#ed to pa t)eir #oan ob#i$ations, =e said, amon$ ot)ers, !h"! !he eforce#e! of "&o" "'ree#e! ivo&ves de$!or:credi!or re&"!ios fo*ded o co!r"c!s "d doeso! i "% "% cocer e#)&o%ee re&"!ios.

o reiterate, respondent <+BC +R! and petitioners a$reed in t)eir mort$a$econtract t)at <+BC +R! as mort$a$ee was at)oriEed to &orec#ose t)e mort$a$edpropert in t)e eent t)at t)e petitioners-mort$a$ors &ai#ed to pa t)e sm o& monesecred b t)e mort$a$e. Af!er )e!i!ioers f"i&ed !o )"% *)o de#"d, !he civi&o$&i'"!io of !he )e!i!ioers *der !he #or!'"'e co!r"c! #*s! $e eforced !o)ro!ec! HS+C SRPs i!eres! i !he ho*si' &o". The dis#iss"& of )e!i!ioersco#)&"i! for !he "*&#e! of !he forec&os*re )roceedi's is, !herefore, v"&id"d )ro)er.



V"rorie! Shi))i' Co., INC. vs. Gi& A. F&oresG.R. No. 1193A, October , 2010

!era#ta J.

FACTS On (pri# 7, 1997, petitioners emp#oed respondent &or t)e position o& C)ie&

O&&icer on board M (ria per Contract o& mp#oment d# approed b t)e !)i#ippineOerseas mp#oment (dministration 4!O( &or a period o& 12 mont)s.

On (pri# 1, 1997, )e was dep#oed aboard "@% (ria in Ban$o, )ai#and.6rin$ )is emp#oment, t)e master o& t)e esse# sent respondent to t)e Centre "edica#de N$odi at 6o#a, Cameroon, w)ere )e was treated &or t)ree das de to t)e s)ootin$pain in t)e #ower etremities, partic#ar# on )is ri$)t &oot. /n t)e "edica# Certi&icatedated Fne 19, 1997, t)e attendin$ p)sician, 6r. R. "on$o c)oaT, stated t)at )edia$nosed respondent;s pain on t)e ri$)t &oot as sciatic nera#$ia and administeredLdripsM, inection, and acpnctre. Respondent was dec#ared not &it to wor. )e doctorrecommended respondent>s repatriation to t)e !)i#ippines &or continin$ treatment.

)s, )e was repatriated on Fne 21, 1997.

Respondent t)en nderwent seera# medica# eaminations and treatment. On+eptember 19, 1997, respondent &i#ed a Comp#aint a$ainst petitioner &or t)ereimbrsement o& )is medica# epenses. !etitioners )oweer contered t)at respondentcan no #on$er see contination o& )is medica# treatment and c#aim &or sicness wa$esand reimbrsement o& medica# epenses becase pon )is repatriation, )e )adreceied t)e amont o& D+U1,010.00 4or t)e e?ia#ent t)en o& abot !A0,A00.00 assett#ement &or )is sicness wa$es and ot)er bene&its, as eidenced b t)e Receipt anditc#aim dated Fne 25, 1997, eected b respondent. )e *abor (rbiter dismissedt)e comp#aint, bt was reersed b t)e N*RC dedctin$ )oweer, t)e D+U1,010.00&rom t)e award o& sicness wa$es. )e C( a&&irmed t)e decision o& t)e N*RC, )encet)is petition.

ISSUES =)et)er t)e ?itc#aimP was a#id.

HELD )e Receipt and itc#aim eected b respondent #acs t)e e#ements o&o#ntariness and &ree wi## and, t)ere&ore, does not abso#e petitioners &rom #iabi#it inpain$ )im t)e sicness wa$es and ot)er monetar c#aims.

/n More Maritime Agencies ,nc. v. 49 , t)e Cort r#ed t)at !he &" does o!cosider "s v"&id "% "'ree#e! !o receive &ess co#)es"!io !h" h"! "or2er is e!i!&ed !o recover or )reve! hi# fro# de#"di' $eefi!s !o hichhe is e!i!&ed. itc#aims eected b t)e emp#oees are t)s common# &rowned ponas contrar to pb#ic po#ic and ine&&ectie to bar c#aims &or t)e &## measre o& t)eworers #e$a# ri$)ts, considerin$ t)e economic disadanta$e o& t)e emp#oee and t)eineitab#e pressre pon )im b &inancia# necessit. )s, i! is ever eo*'h !o "sser!!h"! !he )"r!ies h"ve vo&*!"ri&% e!ered i!o s*ch " *i!c&"i#. There "re o!herre*isi!es, !o i! 3"5 !h"! !here "s o fr"*d or decei! o !he )"r! of "% of !he)"r!ies 3$5 !h"! !he cosider"!io of !he *i!c&"i# is credi$&e "d re"so"$&e "d



3c5 !h"! !he co!r"c! is o! co!r"r% !o &", )*$&ic order, )*$&ic )o&ic%, #or"&s or'ood c*s!o#s, or )re-*dici"& !o " !hird )erso i!h " ri'h! reco'iJed $% &".

( persa# o& t)e proisions o& t)e Receipt and itc#aim s)ows t)at respondent

wo#d be re#easin$ and disc)ar$in$ petitioners &rom a## c#aims, demands, cases o&

action, and t)e #ie in an a##-encompassin$ manner, inc#din$ t)e &act t)at )e )ad notcontracted or s&&ered an i##ness or inr in t)e corse o& )is emp#oment and t)at )ewas disc)ar$ed in $ood and per&ect )ea#t). )ese stip#ations c#ear# p#acedrespondent in a disadanta$eos position is--is t)e petitioners.



+RIGHT MARITIME CORPORATION vs. FANTONIALGR No. 15935, 'ebrar 08, 2012

!era#ta, J.

FACTS ( Contract o& mp#oment was eected b petitioner Bri$)t "aritime

Corporation 4B"C, a mannin$ a$ent and respondent Ricardo B. 'antonia#, w)ic)contract was eri&ied and approed b t)e !)i#ippine Oerseas mp#oment (dministration 4!O( on Fanar 17, 2000. )e emp#oment contract proided t)atrespondent s)a## be emp#oed as boatswain o& t)e &orei$n esse# "@% (D &or one ear,wit) a basic mont)# sa#ar o& D+UA50, p#s an a##owance o& D+U220.

Respondent was made to nder$o a medica# eamination at t)e C)ristian"edica# C#inic, w)ic) was petitioner>s accredited medica# c#inic. Respondent was isseda "edica# Certi&icate dated Fanar 17, 2000, w)ic) certi&icate )ad t)e p)rase '/ O=OR stamped on its #ower and pper portion.

On t)e da o& )is departre )oweer, respondent was to#d b t)e #iaison o&&icer o& t)e petitioner t)at )e co#d not #eae de to some de&ects in )is medica# certi&icate. <ewent bac to t)e c#inic and #earned t)at t)ere was not)in$ wron$ wit) )is medica#certi&icate, t)s )e proceeded to petitioner>s o&&ice &or ep#anation, bt )e was mere#to#d to wait &or t)eir ca##, as )e was bein$ #ined-p &or a &#i$)t to t)e s)ip;s net port o&ca##. <oweer, respondent neer $ot a ca## &rom petitioners.

On "a 1, 2000, respondent &i#ed a comp#aint a$ainst petitioners &or i##e$a#dismissa#, pament o& sa#aries &or t)e nepired portion o& t)e emp#oment contract and&or t)e award o& mora#, eemp#ar, and acta# dama$es as we## as attorne>s &ees be&oret)e Re$iona# (rbitration Branc) No. 7 o& t)e N*RC in Ceb Cit.

ISSUE =)et)er t)e emp#oment contract was per&ected.

HELD (n emp#oment contract, #ie an ot)er contract, is per&ected at t)e moment 41t)e parties come to a$ree pon its terms and 42 concr in t)e essentia# e#ementst)ereo&: 4a consent o& t)e contractin$ parties, 4b obect certain w)ic) is t)e sbectmatter o& t)e contract, and 4c case o& t)e ob#i$ation. )e obect o& t)e contract was t)erendition o& serice b respondent on board t)e esse# &or w)ic) serice )e wo#d bepaid t)e sa#ar a$reed pon.

<ence, in t)is case, !he e#)&o%#e! co!r"c! "s )erfec!ed o 8"*"r% 14,/=== w)en it was si$ned b t)e parties, respondent and petitioners, w)o entered intot)e contract in be)a#& o& t)eir principa#, Ran$er "arine +.(., t)ereb si$ni&in$ t)eirconsent to t)e terms and conditions o& emp#oment embodied in t)e contract, and t)econtract was approed b t)e !O( on Fanar 17, 2000. <oweer, !he e#)&o%#e!co!r"c! did o! co##ece, since petitioners did not a##ow respondent to #eae onFanar 17, 2000 to embar t)e esse# "@% (D in German on t)e $rond t)at )e wasnot et dec#ared &it to wor on t)e da o& departre, a#t)o$) )is "edica# Certi&icatedated Fanar 17, 2000 proed t)at respondent was &it to wor.



/n $antiago v. #% $harp #rew &anagement, Inc., t)e Cort )e#d t)at t)e

emp#oment contract did not commence w)en t)e petitioner t)erein, a )ired seaman,was not ab#e to depart &rom t)e airport or seaport in t)e point o& )ire t)s, no emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip was created between t)e parties.

Neert)e#ess, een be&ore t)e start o& an emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip,contemporaneos wit) t)e per&ection o& t)e emp#oment contract was t)e birt) o&certain ri$)ts and ob#i$ations, t)e breac) o& w)ic) ma $ie rise to a case o& actiona$ainst t)e errin$ part. /& t)e reerse )appened, t)at is, t)e sea&arer &ai#ed or re&sed tobe dep#oed as a$reed pon, )e wo#d be #iab#e &or dama$es.



LIRIO vs. GENOVIAG.R. No. 18757, Noember 23, 2011

!era#ta, J.

FACTS On F# 9, 2002, respondent =i#mer 6. Genoia &i#ed a comp#aint a$ainst

petitioner Cesar *irio and@or Ce#or (d +onicmi Recordin$ +tdio &or i##e$a# dismissa#,non-pament o& commission and award o& mora# and eemp#ar dama$es.

/n )is !osition !aper, respondent Genoia a##e$ed, amon$ ot)ers, t)at on ($st

15, 2001, )e was )ired as stdio mana$er b petitioner *irio, owner o& Ce#or (d+onicmi Recordin$ +tdio 4Ce#or. <e was emp#oed to mana$e and operate Ce#orand to promote and se## t)e recordin$ stdio;s serices to msic ent)siasts and ot)erprospectie c#ients.

Respondent stated t)at a &ew das a&ter )e started worin$ as a stdio mana$er,petitioner approac)ed )im and to#d )im abot )is proect to prodce an a#bm &or )is

15-ear-o#d da$)ter, Ce#ine "ei *irio, a &ormer ta#ent o& (B+-CBN +tar Records.!etitioner ased respondent to compose and arran$e son$s &or Ce#ine and promisedt)at )e 4*irio wo#d dra&t a contract to assre respondent o& )is compensation &or sc)serices.

'or seera# occasions, respondent reminded petitioner abot t)e contract on )iscompensation as composer and arran$er o& t)e a#bm. !etitioner )oweer in&ormedrespondent t)at )e was entit#ed on# to 20J o& t)e net pro&it, and not o& t)e $ross sa#eso& t)e a#bm, and t)at t)e sa#aries )e receied and wo#d contine to receie as stdiomana$er o& Ce#or wo#d be dedcted &rom t)e said 20J net pro&it s)are. Respondentobected and insisted t)at )e be proper# compensated. On "arc) 1A, 2002, petitioner

erba## terminated respondent>s serices, and )e was instrcted not to report &or wor.!etitioner asserted t)at )e was i##e$a## dismissed and t)at )ain$ wored &or more t)an mont)s, )e was a#read a re$#ar emp#oee.

ISSUE =)et)er t)ere is an emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip between petitioner andrespondent.

HELD )e e#ements to determine t)e eistence o& an emp#oment re#ations)ip are: 4at)e se#ection and en$a$ement o& t)e emp#oee 4b t)e pament o& wa$es 4c t)epower o& dismissa# and 4d t)e emp#oer>s power to contro# t)e emp#oees condct. )emost important e#ement is t)e emp#oer;s contro# o& t)e emp#oee>s condct, not on# as

to t)e res#t o& t)e wor to be done, bt a#so as to t)e means and met)ods toaccomp#is) it.

/t is sett#ed t)at no partic#ar &orm o& eidence is re?ired to proe t)e eistenceo& an emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip. (n competent and re#eant eidence to proet)e re#ations)ip ma be admitted.



/n t)is case, t)e docmentar eidence presented b respondent to proe t)at )ewas an emp#oee o& petitioner are as &o##ows: 4a a docment denominated as Iparo##I4dated F# 31, 2001 to "arc) 15, 2002 certified correct by petitioner , w)ic) s)owedt)at respondent receied a mont)# sa#ar o& !7,000.00 4!3,500.00 eer 15t) o& t)emont) and anot)er !3,500.00 eer 30t) o& t)e mont) wit) t)e correspondin$

dedctions de to absences incrred b respondent and 42 copies o& pett cas)oc)ers, s)owin$ t)e amonts )e receied and si$ned &or in t)e paro##s.

)e said docments s)owed t)at petitioner )ired respondent as an emp#oeeand )e was paid mont)# wa$es o& !7,000.00. !etitioner wie#ded t)e power to dismissas respondent stated t)at )e was erba## dismissed b petitioner, and respondent,t)erea&ter, &i#ed an action &or i##e$a# dismissa# a$ainst petitioner. )e power o& contro#re&ers mere# to t)e eistence o& t)e power. /t is not essentia# &or t)e emp#oer toacta## sperise t)e per&ormance o& dties o& t)e emp#oee, as it is s&&icient t)at t)e&ormer )as a ri$)t to wie#d t)e power. Neert)e#ess, petitioner stated in )is !osition!aper t)at it was a$reed t)at )e wo#d )e#p and teac) respondent )ow to se t)e stdio

e?ipment. /n sc) case, petitioner certain# )ad t)e power to c)ec on t)e pro$ressand wor o& respondent.

Based on t)e &ore$oin$, t)e Cort a$rees wit) t)e Cort o& (ppea#s t)at t)eeidence presented b t)e parties s)owed t)at an emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ipeisted between petitioner and respondent.



NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES vs. VICTORINO ANGELOGR No. 1A181, +eptember 1A, 2011

!era#ta, J.

FACTS Respondent %ictorino (n$e#o was emp#oed b Nissan on "arc) 11, 1989 as

one o& its paro## sta&&. On (pri# 7 to 17, 2000, respondent was on sic #eae, t)s, )ewas not ab#e to prepare t)e paro## &or t)e said period. ($ain, on (pri# 27 and 28, 2000,respondent was on an approed acation #eae w)ic) a$ain res#ted in t)e non-preparation o& t)e paro## &or t)at partic#ar period.

On "a 8, 2000, respondent receied a "emorandm &rom !etitioner in&ormin$)im t)at t)e Compan is considerin$ )is dismissa# &rom emp#oment on t)e $ronds o&serios miscondct, wi##&# disobedience and $ross ne$#ect o& dties and t)at apreentie sspension is imposed a$ainst )im. (&ter t)e inesti$ation, petitioner isseda notice o& termination. )s, a comp#aint &or i##e$a# dismissa# was &i#ed.

ISSUE =)et)er t)e termination o& t)e respondent is one o& t)e at)oriEed st caseso& N*RC.

HELD )e *abor Code proides t)at an emp#oer ma terminate t)e serices o& anemp#oee &or a st case. !etitioner, t)e emp#oer in t)e present case, dismissedrespondent based on a##e$ations o& serios miscondct, wi##&# disobedience and $rossne$#ect.

One o& t)e st cases enmerated in t)e *abor Code is serios miscondct.

"iscondct is improper or wron$ condct. /t is t)e trans$ression o& some estab#is)edand de&inite r#e o& action, a &orbidden act, a dere#iction o& dt, wi##&# in c)aracter, and

imp#ies wron$&# intent and not mere error in d$ment. +c) miscondct, )oweerserios, mst neert)e#ess be in connection wit) t)e emp#oee;s wor to constitte stcase &or )is separation. )s, &or miscondct or improper be)aior to be a st case&or dismissa#, 4a it mst be serios 4b it mst re#ate to t)e per&ormance o& t)eemp#oees dties and 4c it mst s)ow t)at t)e emp#oee )as become n&it to contineworin$ &or t)e emp#oer. Goin$ t)ro$) t)e records, t)is Cort &ond eidence tospport t)e a##e$ation o& serios miscondct or insbordination.

(not)er st case cited b t)e petitioner is wi#&# disobedience. One o& t)e&ndamenta# dties o& an emp#oee is to obe a## reasonab#e r#es, orders andinstrctions o& t)e emp#oer. 6isobedience, to be a st case &or termination, mst be

wi#&# or intentiona#, wi#&#ness bein$ c)aracteriEed b a wron$&# and pererse menta#attitde renderin$ t)e emp#oees act inconsistent wit) proper sbordination. ( wi#&# orintentiona# disobedience o& sc) r#e, order or instrction sti&ies dismissa# on# w)eresc) r#e, order or instrction is 41 reasonab#e and #aw&#, 42 s&&icient# nown to t)eemp#oee, and 43 connected wit) t)e dties w)ic) t)e emp#oee )as been en$a$ed todisc)ar$e.



!etitioner a#so dismissed respondent becase o& $ross or )abita# ne$#i$ence.Ne$#ect o& dt, to be a $rond &or dismissa#, mst be bot) $ross and )abita#. /n &indin$t)at petitioner was ab#e to addce eidence t)at wo#d sti& its dismissa# o&respondent, t)e N*RC correct# r#ed t)at t)e #atter;s &ai#re to trn oer )is &nctions tosomeone capab#e o& per&ormin$ t)e ita# tass w)ic) )e co#d not e&&ectie# per&orm or

ndertae becase o& )is )eart ai#ment or condition constittes $ross ne$#ect.

Gross ne$#i$ence connotes want o& care in t)e per&ormance o& one;s dties.<abita# ne$#ect imp#ies repeated &ai#re to per&orm one;s dties &or a period o& time,dependin$ pon t)e circmstances. On t)e ot)er )and, &rad and wi##&# ne$#ect o&dties imp# bad &ait) on t)e part o& t)e emp#oee in &ai#in$ to per&orm )is ob to t)edetriment o& t)e emp#oer and t)e #atter;s bsiness.

/t mst be emp)asiEed at t)is point t)at t)e ons probandi to proe t)e

#aw&#ness o& t)e dismissa# rests wit) t)e emp#oer. /n termination cases, t)e brden o&proo& rests pon t)e emp#oer to s)ow t)at t)e dismissa# is &or st and a#id case.

'ai#re to do so wo#d necessari# mean t)at t)e dismissa# was not sti&ied and,t)ere&ore, was i##e$a#. /n t)is case, bot) t)e *abor (rbiter and t)e N*RC were not amissin &indin$ t)at t)e dismissa# o& respondent was #e$a# or &or a st case based onsbstantia# eidence presented b petitioner. +bstantia# eidence, w)ic) is t)e?antm o& proo& re?ired in #abor cases, is t)at amont o& re#eant eidence w)ic) areasonab#e mind mi$)t accept as ade?ate to sti& a conc#sion.



ST. PAUL COLLEGE UEON CIT9 vs.REMIGIO MICHAEL ANCHETA II "d C9NTHIA ANCHETA

G.R. No. 19905, +eptember 7, 2011!era#ta, F.

FACTS: Respondents Remi$io "ic)ae# (nc)eta // and Cnt)ia (nc)eta were )iredin t)e +c)oo# Vear 4+V 199-1997 b t)e +t. !a# Co##e$e eEon Cit as a Genera#dcation teac)er wit) probationar ran and as a part time "ass Commnicationteac)er, respectie#. )eir appointments were renewed &or +V 1997-1998. On 'ebrar13, 1998, t)e sposes wrote a #etter to +!CC !resident, +r. *i#ia o#entino si$ni&in$t)eir intention to renew t)eir contract &or +V 1998-1999. Co##e$e 6ean +r. Bernadetteresponded t)ro$) two #etters dated "arc) 9, 1998 in&ormin$ t)e sposes t)at t)esc)oo# is etendin$ to t)em new contracts &or +V 1998-1999. On (pri# 30, 1998,)oweer, +r. Bernadette wrote a #etter to +r. *i#ia, endorsin$ t)e immediate terminationo& t)e teac)in$ serices o& t)e sposes on t)e &o##owin$ $ronds:

*. 4on-compliance with the departmental policy to submit their final test #uestions to their respective program coordinators for chec!ingcomments 'violating par. ?.* p. +5 of the8aculty Manual(.

This policy was formulated to ensure the validity and reliability of test #uestions ofteachers for the good of the students. This in effect can minimi=e if not preventunnecessary failure of students.

2. 4on-compliance with the standard format 'multiple choice( of final test #uestions asagreed upon in the department. Mr. Ancheta prepared purely essay #uestions for thestudents.)ell-prepared multiple choice #uestions are more ob"ective and develop critical thin!ingamong students.

. 8ailure to encode their modular grade reports as re#uired 'violating par. 1. > p. ++ ofour 8aculty manual(.

<. 8ailure to submit and update re#uired modules 'syllabi( of their sub"ect despitereminders 'violating / *.5 p. <$ of our 8aculty Manual(.

5. 3oth spouses have a gross number of failure in their class.

)e sposes were $ien an opportnit to comment. +bse?ent#, t)e

receied t)eir respectie #etters o& termination on "a 1A, 1998. )eir #etter &orreconsideration was denied. )eir comp#aint &or i##e$a# dismissa# was dismissed b t)e*abor (rbiter on Noember 20, 2000 and was a&&irmed b t)e N*RC on 'ebrar 28,2003. )e C( )oweer, in a petition &or certiorari, reersed t)e decision o& t)e *abor

(rbiter and t)e N*RC. <ence, t)is petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)ere was i##e$a# dismissa#.



HELD: E#)&o%#e! o )ro$"!io"r% s!"!*s of !e"chi' )ersoe& is o!'overed )*re&% $% !he L"$or Code.

)e *abor Code is spp#emented wit) respect tot)e period o& probation b specia# r#es &ond in t)e "ana# o& Re$#ations &or !riate+c)oo#s.

On t)e matter o& probationar period, +ection 92 o& t)ese re$#ations proides:

;ection :2. %robationary %eriod. - ;ub"ect in all instances tocompliance with the /epartment and school re#uirements the

probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three'( consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementaryand secondary levels six '+( consecutive regular semesters ofsatisfactory service for those in the tertiary level and nine ':( consecutivetrimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level wherecollegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis.

For !he e!ire d*r"!io of !his !hree:%e"r )eriod, !he !e"cher re#"is *der)ro$"!io. U)o !he e7)ir"!io of his co!r"c! of e#)&o%#e!, $ei' si#)&% o

)ro$"!io, he c"o! "*!o#"!ic"&&% c&"i# sec*ri!% of !e*re "d co#)e& !hee#)&o%er !o ree his e#)&o%#e! co!r"c!.

+ection 91 o& t)e "ana# o& Re$#ations &or !riate +c)oo#s, states t)at:

;ection :*. 6mployment ontract. 6very contract of employmentshall specify the designation #ualification salary rate the period andnature of service and its date of effectivity and such other terms andcondition of employment as may be consistent with laws and rulesregulations and standards of the school. A copy of the contract shall befurnished the personnel concerned

/t is important t)at t)e contract o& probationar emp#oment speci& t)e period orterm o& its e&&ectiit. )e &ai#re to stip#ate its precise dration co#d #ead to t)ein&erence t)at t)e contract is bindin$ &or t)e &## t)ree-ear probationar period.)ere&ore, t)e #etters sent b petitioner +r. Racadio, w)ic) were oid o& an speci&icscannot be considered as contracts. )e c#osest t)e can resemb#e to are t)at o&in&orma# correspondence amon$ t)e said indiida#s. (s sc), )e!i!ioer schoo& h"s!he ri'h! o! !o ree !he co!r"c!s of !he res)ode!s, !he o&d oes h"vi' $eee7)ired "! !he ed of !heir !er#s.



SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. vs.SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND EKEMPT UNION

G.R. No. 1A20, ($st 1, 2011!era#ta, J .

FACTS: )e Cort, in G.R. No. 110399 entit#ed ;an Miguel orporation;upervisors and 6xempt 7nion v. aguesma )e#d t)at sperisor emp#oees 3 and Aand t)e eempt emp#oees o& +an "i$e# 'oods, /nc. are not to be consideredcon&identia# emp#oees becase t)e con&identia# data t)e )and#e do not pertain to #abor re#ations, partic#ar#, ne$otiation and sett#ement o& $rieances, t)s t)e were a##owedto &orm an appropriate bar$ainin$ nit &or t)e prpose o& co##ectie bar$ainin$. )eCort a#so dec#ared t)at t)e emp#oees be#on$in$ to t)e t)ree di&&erent p#ants o& +an"i$e# Corporation "a$no#ia !o#tr !rodcts !#ants in Cabao, +an 'ernando, andOtis, )ain$ commnit or mta#it o& interests, constitte a sin$#e bar$ainin$ nit.)e per&orm wor o& t)e same natre, receie t)e same wa$es and compensation, andmost important#, s)are a common stae in concerted actiities.

!rsant to sc) r#in$, t)e 6O*-NCR condcted pre-e#ection con&erences. On+eptember 30, 1998, a certi&ication e#ection was condcted. On t)e same date,petitioner &i#ed t)e Omnibs Obections and C)a##en$e to %oters, ?estionin$ t)ee#i$ibi#it to ote b some o& its emp#oees on t)e $ronds t)at some emp#oees do notbe#on$ to t)e bar$ainin$ nit w)ic) respondent sees to represent or t)at t)ere is noeistence o& emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip wit) petitioner.

)e "ed-(rbiter issed an order, based on t)e res#ts o& t)e certi&icatione#ection, statin$ t)at respondent is certi&ied to be t)e ec#sie bar$ainin$ a$ent o& t)esperisors and eempt emp#oees o& petitioner;s "a$no#ia !o#tr !rodcts !#ants inCabao, +an 'ernando, and Otis. )e 6O* Dndersecretar a&&irmed t)e said Orderwit) modi&ication ec#din$ &or emp#oees &rom t)e bar$ainin$ nit. )e C( a&&irmedt)e decision o& t)e 6O* Dndersecretar wit) modi&ication ec#din$ t)ose )o#din$ t)epositions o& <man Resorce (ssistant and !ersonne# (ssistant &rom t)e bar$ainin$nit. <ence, t)is petition.

ISSUE 1. =)et)er t)e C( departed &rom risprdence w)en it epanded t)escope o& t)e bar$ainin$ nit de&ined b t)e r#in$ in G.R. No. 110399.

/. =)et)er t)e C( departed &rom risprdence on t)e Cort>s de&inition o& a con&identia# emp#oee.

6. =)et)er t)e mp#oer )as persona#it to ?estion a certi&icatione#ection.

HELD 1. /n G.R. No. 110399, t)e Cort ep#ained t)at t)e emp#oees o& +an"i$e# Corporation "a$no#ia !o#tr !rodcts !#ants o& Cabao, +an 'ernando, andOtis constitte a sin$#e bar$ainin$ nit, w)ic) is not contrar to t)e one-compan, one-nion po#ic. A "))ro)ri"!e $"r'"ii' *i! is defied "s " 'ro*) of e#)&o%ees of" 'ive e#)&o%er, co#)rised of "&& or &ess !h" "&& of !he e!ire $od% of



e#)&o%ees, hich !he co&&ec!ive i!eres! of "&& !he e#)&o%ees, cosis!e! i!he*i!% !o !he e#)&o%er, idic"!e !o $e $es! s*i!ed !o serve !he reci)roc"& ri'h!s"d d*!ies of !he )"r!ies *der !he co&&ec!ive $"r'"ii' )rovisios of !he &".

)ere s)o#d be on# one bar$ainin$ nit &or t)e emp#oees in Cabao, +an

'ernando, and Otis o& "a$no#ia !o#tr !rodcts !#ant ino#ed in dressed c)icenprocessin$ and "a$no#ia !o#tr 'arms en$a$ed in #ie c)icen operations. Certain&actors, sc) as speci&ic #ine o& wor, worin$ conditions, #ocation o& wor, mode o&compensation, and ot)er re#eant conditions do not a&&ect or impede t)eir commona#ito& interest. (#t)o$) t)e seem separate and distinct &rom eac) ot)er, !he s)ecific!"s2s of e"ch divisio "re "c!*"&&% i!erre&"!ed "d !here e7is!s #*!*"&i!% ofi!eres!s hich "rr"!s !he for#"!io of " si'&e $"r'"ii' *i!.

/. Con&identia# emp#oees are de&ined as !hose ho 315 "ssis! or "c! i "cofide!i"& c")"ci!%, i re'"rd 3/5 !o )ersos ho for#*&"!e, de!er#ie, "deffec!*"!e #""'e#e! )o&icies i !he fie&d of &"$or re&"!ios. )e two criteria are

cm#atie, and bot) mst be met i& an emp#oee is to be considered a con&identia#emp#oee - t)at is, t)e con&identia# re#ations)ip mst eist between t)e emp#oee and)is sperisor, and t)e sperisor mst )and#e t)e prescribed responsibi#ities re#atin$ to#abor re#ations. The e7c&*sio fro# $"r'"ii' *i!s of e#)&o%ees ho, i !heor#"& co*rse of !heir d*!ies, $eco#e ""re of #""'e#e! )o&icies re&"!i' !o&"$or re&"!ios is " )rici)"& o$-ec!ive so*'h! !o $e "cco#)&ished $% !hecofide!i"& e#)&o%ee r*&e.

)e C( correct# )e#d t)at t)e position o& !aro## "aster does not ino#e dea#in$wit) con&identia# #abor re#ations in&ormation in t)e corse o& t)e per&ormance o& )is&nctions. Sice !he "!*re of his or2 does o! )er!"i !o co#)"% r*&es "d

re'*&"!ios "d cofide!i"& &"$or re&"!ios, i! fo&&os !h"! he c"o! $e e7c&*dedfro# !he s*$-ec! $"r'"ii' *i!.

6. /t bears stressin$ t)at a certi&ication e#ection is t)e so#e concern o& t)eworers )ence, an emp#oer #acs t)e persona#it to dispte t)e same. The 'eer"&r*&e is !h"! " e#)&o%er h"s o s!"di' !o *es!io !he )rocess of cer!ific"!ioe&ec!io, sice !his is !he so&e cocer of !he or2ers. *aw and po#ic demand t)atemp#oers tae a strict, )ands-o&& stance in certi&ication e#ections. )e bar$ainin$representatie o& emp#oees s)o#d be c)osen &ree &rom an etraneos in&#ence o&mana$ement. ( #abor bar$ainin$ representatie, to be e&&ectie, mst owe its #oa#t tot)e emp#oees a#one and to no ot)er. The o&% e7ce)!io is here !he e#)&o%er

i!se&f h"s !o fi&e !he )e!i!io )*rs*"! !o Ar!ic&e /4? of !he L"$or Code $ec"*se of" re*es! !o $"r'"i co&&ec!ive&%.



INSULAR HOTEL EMPLO9EES UNION:NFL vs.ATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAOG.R. Nos. 17A0A0-A1, +eptember 22, 2010

!era#ta, J.

FACTS: On Noember , 2000, respondent =ater&ront /ns#ar <ote# 6aao sentt)e 6O*, Re$ion /, 6aao Cit, a Notice o& +spension o& Operations noti&in$ t)esame t)at it wi## sspend its operations &or a period o& si mont)s de to seere andserios bsiness #osses. /n said notice, respondent assred t)e 6O* t)at i& t)ecompan co#d not resme its operations wit)in t)e si-mont) period, t)e companwo#d pa t)e a&&ected emp#oees a## t)e bene&its #e$a## de to t)em.

6rin$ t)e period o& t)e sspension, 6om R. Roas, t)e !resident o& 6aao/ns#ar <ote# 'ree mp#oees Dnion 46/<'D-N'*, t)e reco$niEed #abor or$aniEationin =ater&ront 6aao, sent respondent a nmber o& #etters asin$ mana$ement toreconsider its decision. (&ter series o& ne$otiations, respondent and 6/<'D-N'*

si$ned a "emorandm o& ($reement w)erein respondent a$reed to re-open t)e )ote#sbect to certain concessions o&&ered b 6/<'D-N'* in its "ani&esto. (ccordin$#,respondent downsiEed its manpower strctre to 100 ran-and-&i#e emp#oees as set&ort) in t)e terms o& t)e "O(. "oreoer, as a$reed pon in t)e "O(, a new pa sca#ewas a#so prepared b respondent. On Fne 15, 2001, respondent resmed its bsinessoperations.

On ($st 22, 2002, 6aris Foes and 6ebbie !#anas, c#aimin$ to be #oca#o&&icers o& t)e Nationa# 'ederation o& *abor 4N'*, &i#ed a Notice o& "ediation be&ore t)eNationa# Conci#iation and "ediation Board 4NC"B, Re$ion /, 6aao Cit. /n saidNotice, it was stated t)at t)e Dnion ino#ed was 6(R/D+ FO%+@6BB/ !*(N(+ .

(*, Nationa# 'ederation o& *abor. )e isse raised in said Notice was t)e 6imintion o&wa$es and ot)er bene&its t)ro$) n#aw&# "emorandm o& ($reement.

)e Respondent maintained t)at t)e NC"B )ad no t)e risdiction oer t)eNotice o& "ediation and mani&ested its intention to wit)draw &rom t)e proceedin$s. )e%o#ntar (rbitrator, )oweer, r#ed in &aor o& petitioner. )e C( r#ed in &aor o&respondent. <ence, t)is petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e NC"B )as risdiction oer t)e Notice o& "ediation.

HELD: =)i#e it is ndispted t)at a sbmission a$reement was si$ned brespondent and /<D-N'*, t)en represented b Foes and C##o, t)is Cort &inds t)att)ere are two circmstances w)ic) a&&ect its a#idit: firs!, !he No!ice of Medi"!io "sfi&ed $% " )"r!% ho h"d o "*!hori!% !o do so secod, !h"! res)ode! h"d)ersis!e!&% voiced o*! i!s o$-ec!io *es!ioi' !he "*!hori!% of 8oves, C*&&o "d!he idivid*"& #e#$ers of !he Uio !o fi&e !he co#)&"i! $efore !he NCM+ .



!rocedra##, t)e &irst step to sbmit a case &or mediation is to &i#e a notice o&preentie mediation wit) t)e NC"B. /t is on# a&ter t)is step t)at a sbmissiona$reement ma be entered into b t)e parties concerned.

+ection 3, R#e /% o& t)e NC"B "ana# o& !rocedre proides w)o ma &i#e a

notice o& preentie mediation, to wit: )ho may file a notice or declare a stri!e or loc!out or re#uest preventivemediation. -A% cer!ified or d*&% reco'iJed $"r'"ii' re)rese!"!ive #"% fi&e "o!ice or dec&"re " s!ri2e or re*es! for )reve!ive #edi"!io ic"ses of $"r'"ii' de"d&oc2s "d *f"ir &"$or )r"c!ices . )eemp#oer ma &i#e a notice or dec#are a #ocot or re?est &or preentiemediation in t)e same cases. /n t)e absence o& a certi&ied or d#reco$niEed bar$ainin$ representatie, an #e$itimate #abor or$aniEation int)e estab#is)ment ma &i#e a notice, re?est preentie mediation or

dec#are a strie, bt on# on $ronds o& n&air #abor practice. 'rom t)e &ore$oin$, i! is c&e"r !h"! o&% " cer!ified or d*&% reco'iJed

$"r'"ii' "'e! #"% fi&e " o!ice or re*es! for )reve!ive #edi"!io. /t is criost)at een C##o )imse#& admitted, in a nmber o& p#eadin$s, t)at t)e case was &i#ed notb t)e Dnion bt b indiida# members t)ereo&. C&e"r&%, !herefore, !he NCM+ h"d o

-*risdic!io !o e!er!"i !he o!ice fi&ed $efore i!.



PHARMACIA "d UP8OHN, INC. vs. RICARDO P. AL+A9DA, 8R.G.R. No. 17272A, ($st 23, 2010

!era#ta, J.

FACTS: Respondent Ricardo (#bada, Fr. was an emp#oee o& Dpo)n, /nc. in 1978

and contined worin$ t)ere nti# 199 w)en a mer$er between !)armacia and Dpo)nwas created. (&ter t)e mer$er, respondent was desi$nated b petitioner !)armacia andDpo)n as 6istrict +a#es "ana$er assi$ned to 6istrict / in t)e =estern %isaas area.6rin$ t)e period o& )is assi$nment, respondent sett#ed in Baco#od Cit. /n 6ecember1999, respondent receied a memorandm reassi$nin$ )im as 6istrict +a#es "ana$erto 6istrict // in t)e Nort)ern "indanao area. /n seera# #etters, respondent re?estedt)at )e be reassi$ned in =estern %isaas area bt sc) was denied. *ater on, )e was$ien an option to be assi$ned in "etro "ani#a, )oweer respondent reiterated t)econcerns )e preios# raised in )is preios #etters.

6e to t)e &ai#re o& respondent to report &or wor, a memorandm, dated Fne

15, 2000, was sent to )im directin$ )im to report &or wor wit)in 5 worin$ das &romreceipt t)ereo&. (not)er "emorandm was sent on Fne 2, 2000. Respondent waswarned t)at t)e same wo#d be a &ina# notice &or )im to report &or wor in "ani#a wit)in 5worin$ das &rom receipt o& t)e memo ot)erwise, )is serices wi## be terminated on t)ebasis o& bein$ absent wit)ot o&&icia# #eae 4(=O*. On F# 13, 2000 anot)ermemorandm was sent to respondent noti&in$ )im o& t)eir decision to terminate )isserices a&ter )e repeated# re&sed to report &or wor despite de notice.

)e respondent &i#ed a comp#aint wit) t)e N*RC &or constrctie dismissa#. )e*abor (rbiter dismissed t)e case. On appea#, t)e N*RC a&&irmed t)e decision o& t)e*abor (rbiter. "otion &or reconsideration was #iewise denied. /n a petition &or Certiorari,t)e C( r#ed in &aor o& respondent and denied t)e motion &or reconsideration. <ence,t)is petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)ere was a#id dismissa#.

HELD: )e petition is meritorios.

O )e!i!ioers e7ercise of #""'e#e! )rero'"!ive

Frisprdence reco$niEes t)e eercise o& mana$ement prero$atie to trans&er orassi$n emp#oees &rom one o&&ice or area o& operation to anot)er, proided t)ere is nodemotion in ran or dimintion o& sa#ar, bene&its, and ot)er prii#e$es, and t)e action isnot motiated b discrimination, made in bad &ait), or e&&ected as a &orm o& pnis)mentor demotion wit)ot s&&icient case. o determine t)e a#idit o& t)e trans&er o&emp#oees, t)e emp#oer mst s)ow t)at t)e trans&er is not nreasonab#e, inconenient,or predicia# to t)e emp#oee nor does it ino#e a demotion in ran or a dimintion o&)is sa#aries, prii#e$es and ot)er bene&its. +)o#d t)e emp#oer &ai# to oercome t)is



brden o& proo&, t)e emp#oee;s trans&er s)a## be tantamont to constrctie dismissa#.+o!h !he LA "d !he NLRC r*&ed !h"! !he re"ssi'#e! of res)ode! "s " v"&ide7ercise of )e!i!ioer(s #""'e#e! )rero'"!ive. T)e r#e in or risdiction is t)at&indin$s o& &act o& t)e N*RC, a&&irmin$ t)ose o& t)e *(, are entit#ed to $reat wei$)t andwi## not be distrbed i& t)e are spported b sbstantia# eidence. +bstantia# eidence

is an amont o& re#eant eidence w)ic) a reasonab#e mind mi$)t accept as ade?ateto sti& a conc#sion. Based on t)e &ore$oin$, t)is Cort r#es t)at t)e C( )adoerstepped its #e$a# mandate b reersin$ t)e &indin$s o& &act o& t)e *( and t)e N*RCas it appears t)at bot) decisions were based on sbstantia# eidence. )ere is no proo&o& arbitrariness or abse o& discretion in t)e process b w)ic) eac) bod arried at itsown conc#sions. )s, t)e C( s)o#d )ae de&erred to sc) specia#iEed a$enciesw)ic) are considered eperts in matters wit)in t)eir risdictions.

O !he e7is!ece of 'ro*ds !o dis#iss res)ode! fro# !he service

)is Cort )as #on$ stated t)at t)e o$-ec!io !o !he !r"sfer $ei' 'ro*ded

so&e&% *)o !he )erso"& icoveiece or h"rdshi) !h"! i&& $e c"*sed !o !hee#)&o%ee $% re"so of !he !r"sfer is o! " v"&id re"so !o diso$e% " order of!r"sfer. +c) bein$ t)e case, respondent cannot adamant# re&se to abide b t)eorder o& trans&er wit)ot eposin$ )imse#& to t)e ris o& bein$ dismissed. <ence, )isdismissa# was &or st case in accordance wit) (rtic#e 2824a o& t)e *abor Code.

*ast#, w)i#e it is nderstandab#e t)at respondent does not want to re#ocate )is&ami#, t)is Cort a$rees wit) t)e N*RC w)en it obsered t)at sc) inconenience isconsidered an emp#oment or pro&essiona# )aEard w)ic) &orms part o& t)e concessionsan emp#oee is deemed to )ae o&&ered or sacri&iced in t)e iew o& )is acceptance o& aposition in sa#es.

O !he o$serv"ce of d*e )rocess

/n termination proceedin$s o& emp#oees, procedra# de process consists o& t)e!i re*ire#e!s of o!ice "d he"ri'. The e#)&o%er #*s! f*rish !hee#)&o%ee i!h !o ri!!e o!ices $efore !he !er#i"!io of e#)&o%#e! c" $eeffec!ed 315 !he firs! "))rises !he e#)&o%ee of !he )"r!ic*&"r "c!s or o#issios for hich his dis#iss"& is so*'h! "d 3/5 !he secod ifor#s !he e#)&o%ee of !hee#)&o%ers decisio !o dis#iss hi#. )e re?irement o& a )earin$ is comp#ied wit) as#on$ as t)ere was an opportnit to be )eard, and not necessari# t)at an acta# )earin$was condcted. =)i#e no acta# )earin$ was condcted be&ore petitioners dismissedrespondent, t)e same is not &ata# as on# an amp#e opportnit to be )eard is w)at isre?ired in order to satis& t)e re?irements o& de process. )e reassi$nment o&respondent to anot)er territor was a a#id eercise o& petitioners mana$ementprero$atie and, conse?ent#, )is dismissa# was &or case and in accordance wit) t)ede process re?irement o& #aw.

O !he )"%#e! of se)"r"!io )"%



A e#)&o%ee ho is dis#issed for c"*se is 'eer"&&% o! e!i!&ed !o "%fi"ci"& "ssis!"ce. E*i!% cosider"!ios, hoever, )rovide " e7ce)!io. ?it)as been de&ined as stice otside #aw, bein$ et)ica# rat)er t)an ra# and be#on$in$ tot)e sp)ere o& mora#s t)an o& #aw. /t is $ronded on t)e precepts o& conscience and noton an sanction o& positie #aw, &or e?it &inds no room &or app#ication w)ere t)ere is

#aw.

/n t)e instant case, t)is Cort r#es t)at an award to respondent o& separationpa b wa o& &inancia# assistance, e?ia#ent to one-)a#& 41@2 mont)s pa &or eerear o& serice, is e?itab#e. (#t)o$) respondent;s actions constitted a a#id $rond toterminate )is serices, t)e same is to t)is Cort;s mind not so repre)ensib#e as towarrant comp#ete disre$ard o& )is #on$ ears o& serice. /t a#so appears t)at t)e same isrespondent;s &irst o&&ense. =)i#e it ma be epected t)at petitioners wi## ar$e t)atrespondent )as on# been in t)eir serice &or &or ears since t)e mer$er o& !)armaciaand Dpo)n too p#ace in 199, e?it considerations dictate t)at respondent;s tenrebe compted &rom 1978, t)e ear w)en respondent started worin$ &or Dpo)n.



DUT9 FREE PHILIPPINES SERVICES, INC. vs. MANOLITO TRIAG.R. No. 17A809, Fne 27, 2012

!era#ta, J.

FACTS: !etitioner 6t 'ree !)i#ippines +erices, /nc. is a manpower a$enc t)at

proides personne# to 6t 'ree !)i#ippines'/8%(. "ano#o ria was emp#oed b!etitioner and was seconded to 6'! as a =are)ose +perisor. /n an (dit Report itwas &ond ot t)at t)ere were $#arin$ discrepancies in t)e docments o& its prodctsw)ic) indicate a ma#icios attempt to concea# an anoma#os irre$#arit. /t was &ond to)ae been &abricated and a## si$natories t)erein, name#, d Garcia, +toceeperCat)erino (. Bero, 6/D +perisor and Constantino *. CrE, were )e#d accontab#e &ort)e irre$#ar #oss o& t)e nacconted "ar#boro + !ac o& 5.

Garcia disc#osed t)at it was respondent "ano#ito ria w)o ordered )im to #oo &or a an &or t)e spposed direct condemnation o& t)e sbect merc)andise.Respondent denied )is participation in t)e i##e$a# transaction. 6'! 6iscip#ine Committee

issed a Joint 9esolution )o#din$ respondent @7,TB C8 /,;1C46;TB for 'his( direct participation in the fa!e condemnation and pilferage of the missing *$2$ Marlboro %ac! of 5s cigarettes and orders 'his( /,;M,;;A from the service. !etitioner sentrespondent a memorandum terminatin$ )is emp#oment wit) !etitioner. Respondent&i#ed a Comp#aint a$ainst !etitioner &or /##e$a# 6ismissa# and &or pament o& bacwa$es,attornes &ees and dama$es. *abor (rbiter rendered a 6ecision &indin$ respondent to)ae been i##e$a## dismissed &rom emp#oment. N*RC a&&irmed t)e *( decision. =)enpetitioner e#eated t)e case to t)e C(, it denied &or t)e &irst time t)e eistence o&emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip and pointed to 6'! as respondent>s rea# emp#oer. )eappe##ate cort, )oweer, considered said de&ense barred b estoppe# &or its &ai#re toraise t)e de&ense be&ore t)e *( and t)e N*RC. !etitioner e#eates t)e case be&ore t)eCort in t)is petition &or reiew on certiorari. ISSUE: =)et)er t)e absence o& emp#oer - emp#oee re#ations)ip cannot be raised &ort)e &irst time on appea# and is barred b estoppe#.

HELD Ves. /t is a matter o& #aw t)at w)en a part adopts a partic#ar t)eor and t)ecase is tried and decided pon t)at t)eor in t)e cort be#ow, )e wi## not be permitted toc)an$e )is t)eor on appea#. )e case wi## be reiewed and decided on t)at t)eor andnot approac)ed and reso#ed &rom a di&&erent point o& iew.

)e reiew o& #abor cases is con&ined to ?estions o& risdiction or $rae abseo& discretion. )e a##e$ed absence o& emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip cannot be raised&or t)e &irst time on appea#. )e reso#tion o& t)is isse re?ires t)e admission andca#ibration o& eidence and t)e *( and t)e N*RC did not pass pon it in t)eir decisions.=e cannot permit petitioner to c)an$e its t)eor on appea#. /t wo#d be n&air to t)eaderse part w)o wo#d )ae no more opportnit to present &rt)er eidence, materia#to t)e new t)eor, w)ic) it co#d )ae done )ad it been aware ear#ier o& t)e new t)eorbe&ore t)e *( and t)e N*RC. "ore so in t)is case as t)e spposed emp#oer o&respondent w)ic) is 6'! was not and is not a part to t)e present case.



/n t)is case, petitioner insisted t)at respondent was dismissed &rom emp#oment&or case and a&ter t)e obserance o& t)e proper procedre &or termination.Conse?ent#, petitioner cannot now den t)at respondent is its emp#oee. =)i#eindeed, risdiction cannot be con&erred b acts or omission o& t)e parties, petitionersbe#ated denia# t)at it is t)e emp#oer o& respondent is obios# an a&tert)o$)t, a

deise to de&eat t)e #aw and eade its ob#i$ations. =e a$ree wit) t)e appe##ate cortt)at 6'!6Cs conc#sions are not spported b c#ear and conincin$ eidence towarrant t)e dismissa# o& respondent. /n case o& dobt, sc) cases s)o#d be reso#ed in&aor o& #abor, prsant to t)e socia# stice po#ic o& #abor #aws and t)e Constittion.

)e petition is 6N/6 &or #ac o& merit. )e Cort o& (ppea#s 6ecision is (''/R"6.



ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULA9 vs.A+OITI 8E+SEN MARITIME, INC. "d GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC.

G.R. No. 172A2, Fne 13, 2012!era#ta, J .

FACTS: Ne#son R. 6#a was emp#oed b respondent Genera# C)arterers /nc. 4GC/, asbsidiar o& (boitiE Febsen "aritime /nc. since 198. On ($st 13, 2000, or 25 dasa&ter t)e comp#etion o& )is emp#oment contract, Ne#son died de to acte rena# &ai#resecondar to septicemia. (t t)e time o& )is deat), Ne#son was a bona &ide member o&t)e (ssociated "arine O&&icers and +eaman>s Dnion o& t)e !)i#ippines 4("O+D!,GC/>s co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$ent. Ne#son>s widow, "errid Fane, t)erea&ter c#aimed &ordeat) bene&its t)ro$) t)e $rieance procedre o& t)e Co##ectie Bar$ainin$ ($reement4CB( between ("O+D! and GC/. <oweer, on Fanar 29, 2001, t)e $rieanceprocedre was Idec#ared dead#ocedI as petitioners re&sed to $rant t)e bene&itsso$)t b t)e widow.

"errid Fane &i#ed a comp#aint wit) t)e N*RC +b-Re$iona# (rbitration Boarda$ainst GC/ &or deat) and medica# bene&its and dama$es. Foen "ar, Ne#son>s brot)er,receied !20,000.00 &rom respondents prsant to t)e CB( and si$ned a ICerti&icationIacnow#ed$in$ receipt o& t)e amont and re#easin$ ("O+D! &rom &rt)er #iabi#it."errid Fane contended t)at s)e is entit#ed to t)e a$$re$ate sm U90,000. "erridFane aerred t)at t)e !20,000.00 a#read receied b Foen "ar s)o#d be consideredadance pament o& t)e tota# c#aim o& D+U90,000. Respondents, on t)e ot)er )and,asserted t)at t)e N*RC )ad no risdiction oer t)e action on accont o& t)e absence o& emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip between GC/ and Ne#son at t)e time o& t)e #atter>sdeat).

)e *abor (rbiter r#ed in &aor o& priate respondent. /t ordered t)e petitioner topa !A,21,300.00, t)e e?ia#ent o& D+U90,000.00 #ess !20,000.00. N*RC a&&irmed.

(ppea# to t)e C(. )e C( r#ed t)at w)i#e t)e sit &i#ed b "errid Fane is a monec#aim, t)e same basica## ino#es t)e interpretation and app#ication o& t)e proisions int)e sbect CB(. (s sc), risdiction be#on$s to t)e o#ntar arbitrator and not t)e#abor arbiter. !etitioner contends t)at +ection 10 o& R.(. 80A2 ests risdiction on t)eappropriate branc)es o& t)e N*RC to entertain disptes re$ardin$ t)e interpretation o& aco##ectie bar$ainin$ a$reement ino#in$ mi$rant or oerseas 'i#ipino worers.!etitioner ar$es t)at t)e aboementioned +ection amended (rtic#e 217 4c o& t)e *abor Code w)ic), in trn, con&ers risdiction pon o#ntar arbitrators oer interpretation orimp#ementation o& co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$reements and interpretation or en&orcement o& compan personne# po#icies. <ence, t)e instant petition.

ISSUE: =)et)er t)e C( committed error in r#in$ t)at t)e *abor (rbiter )as no risdiction oer t)e case.

HELD )e petition is wit)ot merit. /t is tre t)at R.(. 80A2 is a specia# #aw $oernin$oerseas 'i#ipino worers. <oweer, a care&# readin$ o& t)is specia# #aw wo#d readi#s)ow t)at t)ere is no speci&ic proision t)erender w)ic) proides &or risdiction oer



disptes or nreso#ed $rieances re$ardin$ t)e interpretation or imp#ementation o& aCB(. +ection 10 o& R.(. 80A2, w)ic) is cited b petitioner, simp# speas, in $enera#, o&Ic#aims arisin$ ot o& an emp#oer-emp#oee re#ations)ip or b irte o& an #aw orcontract ino#in$ 'i#ipino worers &or oerseas dep#oment inc#din$ c#aims &or acta#,mora#, eemp#ar and ot)er &orms o& dama$es.I

On t)e ot)er )and, (rtic#es 2174c and 21 o& t)e *abor Code are er speci&ic instatin$ t)at o#ntar arbitrators )ae risdiction oer cases arisin$ &rom t)einterpretation or imp#ementation o& co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$reements. +tated di&&erent#,t)e instant case ino#es a sitation w)ere t)e specia# statte 4R.(. 80A2 re&ers to asbect in $enera#, w)ic) t)e $enera# statte 4*abor Code treats in partic#ar. /n t)epresent case, t)e basic isse raised b "errid Fane in )er comp#aint &i#ed wit) t)eN*RC is: w)ic) proision o& t)e sbect CB( app#ies inso&ar as deat) bene&its de to t)e)eirs o& Ne#son are concerned. )e Cort a$rees wit) t)e C( in )o#din$ t)at t)is issec#ear# ino#es t)e interpretation or imp#ementation o& t)e said CB(. )s, t)e speci&icor specia# proisions o& t)e *abor Code $oern.

/n an case, t)e Cort a$rees wit) petitioner;s contention t)at t)e CB( is t)e #awor contract between t)e parties. (rtic#e 13.1 o& t)e CB( entered into b and betweenrespondent GC/ and ("O+D!, t)e nion to w)ic) petitioner be#on$s, proides as&o##ows:

)e Compan and t)e Dnion a$ree t)at in case o& dispte or con&#ict in t)einterpretation or app#ication o& an o& t)e proisions o& t)is ($reement, or en&orcemento& Compan po#icies, t)e same s)a## be sett#ed t)ro$) ne$otiation, conci#iation oro#ntar arbitration. /t is on# in t)e absence o& a co##ectie bar$ainin$ a$reement t)atparties ma opt to sbmit t)e dispte to eit)er t)e N*RC or to o#ntar arbitration.



HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. : MEDICAL CENTER MANILA vs.HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. : MEDICAL CENTER MANILA

EMPLO9EES ASSOCIATION:AF "d EDNA R. DE CASTROG.R. No. 17287, Fanar 31, 2011

!era#ta, J .

FACTS: Respondent 6e Castro started worin$ as a sta&& nrse at petitioner )ospita#since +eptember 28, 1990, nti# s)e was dismissed on F# 20, 1999. =)i#e respondent6e Castro and ward-c#er orientee Gina Gi##er$an were at t)e nrse station on ni$)t,one R&ina Casaren, an 81-ear-o#d patient o& petitioner )ospita# &or I$an$renoswond on )er ri$)t anterior #e$ and ri$)t &ore&ootI sc)ed#ed &or operation &e## &rom t)eri$)t side o& t)e bed as s)e was trin$ to reac) &or t)e bedpan. /nstead o& persona##seein$ t)e patient, respondent 6e Castro directed ward-c#er orientee Gi##er$an toc)ec t)e patient. )e ita# si$ns o& t)e patient were norma#. *ater, t)e p)sician ondt and t)e nrsin$ sta&& on dt &or t)e net s)i&t a$ain attended to patient Casaren.

C)ie& Nrse Fose&ina ". %i##anea in&ormed 6r. (sncion (baa-"orido,president and )ospita# director, abot t)e incident and re?ested &or a &orma#inesti$ation. )e #e$a# conse# o& petitioner )ospita# directed respondent 6e Castroand t)ree ot)er nrses on dt, +ta&& Nrse Fanit) %. !aderes and Nrsin$ (ssistants"ari#o Respicio and Berti##a . atad, to appear be&ore t)e /nesti$ation Committee.)e committee recommended t)at despite )er more t)an seen ears o& serice,respondent 6e Castro s)o#d be terminated &rom emp#oment &or )er #apse inrespondin$ to t)e incident and &or trin$ to manip#ate and in&#ence )er sta&& to coer-p t)e incident.

<R6 O&&icer o& petitioner )ospita#, issed a notice o& termination &or a##e$edio#ation o& compan r#es and re$#ations, partic#ar#:41 ne$#i$ence to &o##ow companpo#ic on w)at to do wit) patient R&ina Casaren w)o &e## &rom a )ospita# bed 42&ai#re to record and re&er t)e incident to t)e p)sician-Lon- dt and a##owin$ asi$ni&icant #apse o& time be&ore reportin$ t)e incident 43 de#iberate# instrctin$ t)e sta&& to &o##ow )er ersion o& t)e incident in order to coer p t)e #apse and 4A ne$#i$enceand care#essness in carrin$ ot )er dt as sta&& nrse-on-dt w)en t)e incident)appened. Respondent 6e Castro, wit) t)e assistance o& respondent <ospita#"ana$ement +erices /nc.-"edica# Center "ani#a mp#oees (ssociation-('=, &i#ed aComp#aint7 &or i##e$a# dismissa# a$ainst petitioners wit) praer &or reinstatement andpament o& &## bacwa$es wit)ot #oss o& seniorit ri$)ts, !20,000.00 mora#dama$es, !10,000.00 eemp#ar dama$es, and 10J o& t)e tota# monetar award asattorne;s &ees.

*abor (rbiter rendered a 6ecision, orderin$ petitioner )ospita# to reinstaterespondent 6e Castro to )er &ormer position or b paro## reinstatement, at t)e option o& t)e &ormer, wit)ot #oss o& seniorit ri$)ts, bt wit)ot bacwa$es. N*RC reersed t)e&indin$s o& t)e *abor (rbiter. /t obsered t)at respondent 6e Castro #aced di#i$enceand prdence in carrin$ ot )er dt w)en, instead o& persona## c)ecin$ on t)econdition o& patient Casaren a&ter s)e &e## &rom t)e bed, s)e mere# sent ward-c#er

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_176287_2011.html#fnt7

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_176287_2011.html#fnt7



orientee Gi##er$an to do t)e same in )er be)a#& and &or in&#encin$ )er sta&& to concea#t)e incident. C( reersed and set aside t)e 6ecision o& t)e N*RC and reinstated t)e6ecision o& t)e *abor (rbiter. C( r#ed t)at w)i#e respondent 6e Castro;s &ai#re topersona## attend to patient Caseran amonted to miscondct, )oweer, bein$ )er &irsto&&ense, sc) miscondct co#d not be cate$oriEed as serios or $rae t)at wo#d

warrant t)e etreme pena#t o& termination. <ence, t)is present petition.

ISSUE =)et)er t)e de#iberate re&sa# to attend to patient Casaren a&ter t)e #atter &e##&rom t)e bed sti&ies respondent 6e Castro;s termination &rom emp#oment de toserios miscondct.

HELD No. (rtic#e 282 4b o& t)e *abor Code proides t)at an emp#oer ma terminatean emp#oment &or $ross and )abita# ne$#ect b t)e emp#oee o& )is dties.

Ne$#ect o& dt, to be a $rond &or dismissa#, mst be bot) $ross and)abita#. Gross ne$#i$ence connotes want o& care in t)e per&ormance o& one;s dties.

<abita# ne$#ect imp#ies repeated &ai#re to per&orm one;s dties &or a period o& time,dependin$ pon t)e circmstances. ( sin$#e or iso#ated act o& ne$#i$ence does notconstitte a st case &or t)e dismissa# o& t)e emp#oee. 6espite or &indin$ o&c#pabi#it a$ainst respondent 6e Castro )oweer, we do not see an wron$&# intent,de#iberate re&sa#, or bad &ait) on )er part w)en, instead o& persona## attendin$ topatient Casaren, s)e re?ested Nrsin$ (ssistant atad and ward-c#er orienteeGi##er$an to see t)e patient, as s)e was t)en attendin$ to a new#-admitted patient atRoom 710. /t was )er d$ment ca##, a#beit an error o& d$ment, bein$ t)e sta&& nrsewit) presmab# more wor eperience and better #earnin$ cre, to send Nrsin$

(ssistant atad and ward-c#er orientee Gi##er$an to c)ec on t)e )ea#t) condition o&t)e patient, as s)e deemed it best, nder t)e $ien sitation, to attend to a new#-admitted patient w)o )ad more concerns t)at needed to be addressed accordin$#.Bein$ )er &irst o&&ense, respondent 6e Castro cannot be said to be $ross# ne$#i$ent soas to sti& )er termination o& emp#oment.

)e Cort emp)asiEes t)at t)e natre o& t)e bsiness o& a )ospita# re?ires a)i$)er de$ree o& cation and eactin$ standard o& di#i$ence in patient mana$ement and)ea#t) care as w)at is ino#ed are #ies o& patients w)o see r$ent medica#assistance. <oweer, in some cases, t)e Cort )ad r#ed t)at sanctionin$ an errin$emp#oee wit) sspension wo#d s&&ice as t)e etreme pena#t o& dismissa# wo#d betoo )ars). Considerin$ t)at t)is was t)e &irst o&&ense o& respondent 6e Castro in )ernine 49 ears o& emp#oment wit) petitioner )ospita# as a sta&& nrse wit)ot anpreios dero$ator record and, &rt)er, as )er #apse was not c)aracteriEed b anwron$&# motie or deceit&# condct, t)e Cort deems it appropriate t)at, instead o& t)e)ars) pena#t o& dismissa#, s)e wo#d be sspended &or a period o& si 4 mont)swit)ot pa, inc#sie o& t)e sspension &or a period o& 1A das w)ic) s)e )ad ear#iersered. )erea&ter, petitioner )ospita# s)o#d reinstate respondent dna R. 6e Castro to)er &ormer position wit)ot #oss o& seniorit ri$)ts, &## bacwa$es, inc#sie o&a##owances and ot)er bene&its, or t)eir monetar e?ia#ent, compted &rom t)eepiration o& )er sspension o& si 4 mont)s p to t)e time o& acta# reinstatement.



SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION "d DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.NATIONAL LA+OR RELATIONS COMMISSION 3B!h Divisio5 "d GORGONIO

MONGCALG.R. No. 1A118, 'ebrar 9, 2010

!era#ta, J .

FACTS: Respondent "on$ca# a##e$ed t)at on "a 7, 1993, )e was emp#oed as apa#oader operator b t)e respondent compan. )at on Fne 29, 1995, a dmp trcdrier o& t)e respondent compan &or trc No. 25, re?ested respondent to #oad )isdmp trc wit) constrction materia#s at t)e crs)er site. <e wi##in$# ob#i$ed to do )is

ob t)at it was #ater on discoered t)at said (#drin Rasote )ad dierted t)e de#ier o&said materia#s #oaded to anot)er person t)at as a res#t o& t)is incident, comp#ainantwas dismissed &rom )is ob e&&ectie 30 Fne 1995. Respondent denies )ain$ a )andnor was )e ino#ed in t)e act committed b trc drier (#drin Rasote.

"on$ca# a##e$ed t)at )is dismissa# &rom wor was e&&ected wit)ot an a#id$rond and io#atie o& t)e r#es on de process t)at )e was not in&ormed o& t)ereasons &or )is termination &rom t)e serice nor was )e $ien an opportnit to ep#ain)is side, and )ence, )e was depried o& )is means o& #ie#i)ood wit)ot de process o&#aw. <ence, )e pras &or reinstatement, bacwa$es, and separation pa i& reinstatementis no #on$er &easib#e.

)e *abor (rbiter r#ed in &aor o& petitioner b dismissin$ t)e comp#aint btordered petitioner to pa )erein priate respondent !1,000.00 &or &ai#re to obsere deprocess re?irements o& #aw. On appea#, t)e N*RC oertrned t)e *abor (rbiter;s r#in$orderin$ +ar$asso Constrction and 6ee#opment Corporation to pa Gor$onio"on$ca# separation pa and bacwa$es. C( a&&irmed N*RC wit) modi&ication: t)eseparation pa s)o#d be compted &rom t)e date o& priate respondent;s emp#omentnti# t)e &ina#it o& t)is decision w)i#e )is bacwa$es s)o#d be compted &rom t)e timeo& )is a##e$ed dismissa# p to t)e &ina#it o& t)is decision, and in bot) cases, sin$ )ismont)# sa#ar o& !3,380.00 as basis o& comptation

ISSUE =)et)er t)e <onorab#e Cort O& (ppea#s committed $rae error in sstainin$t)e award o& separation pa and bacwa$es to priate respondent.

HELD No. Dnder (rtic#e 279 o& t)e *abor Code, an i##e$a## dismissed emp#oee Is)a##be entit#ed to reinstatement wit)ot #oss o& seniorit ri$)ts and ot)er prii#e$es and to)is &## bacwa$es, inc#sie o& a##owances, and to )is ot)er bene&its or t)eir monetare?ia#ent compted &rom t)e time )is compensation was wit))e#d &rom )im p to t)etime o& )is acta# reinstatement.I /n addition to &## bacwa$es, t)e Cort )as a#sorepeated# r#ed t)at in cases w)ere reinstatement is no #on$er &easib#e de to strainedre#ations, t)en separation pa ma be awarded instead o& reinstatement. /n Mt. armelollege v. 9esuena t)e Cort reiterated t)at t)e separation pa, as an a#ternatie toreinstatement, s)o#d be e?ia#ent to one 41 mont) sa#ar &or eer ear o& serice.)e 6ecision and Reso#tion o& t)e Cort o& (ppea#s are a&&irmed. !etitioner is ordered



to pa respondent Gor$onio "on$ca# 4a separation pa in t)e amont e?ia#ent toone 41 mont) pa &or eer ear o& serice and 4b bacwa$es, compted &rom t)etime compensation o& respondent "on$ca# was wit))e#d &rom )im w)en )e was nst#terminated, p to t)e time o& pament t)ereo&. 'or t)is prpose, t)e records o& t)is caseare )ereb R"(N66 to t)e *abor (rbiter &or proper comptation o& said awards.

Costs a$ainst petitioner.

Labor Case Digest

Documents