SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
PRELIMINARY TITLE
Construction of Labor Laws
“Retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, however, such interpretation cannot be made if there is a clear lack of consensual and statutory basis of the grant of retirement benefits.” [DIVINA S. LOPEZ vs. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION]
Limitations on Management Prerogative
The exercise of management prerogative is not absolute. While it may be conceded that
management is in the best position to know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and public policy on labor and social justice. That prerogative accorded management could not defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist. By its very nature, encompassing as it could be, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of fair play at heart and justice in mind. [PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs.
JOSELITO PASCUA, ET AL.]
RA 8042; Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
An employee of a company or corporation engage in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment The employee or agent of a corporation engage in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as a principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion however slight his contribution may be. [EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET.AL.
vs CA]
BOOK I
Illegal Recruitment; Elements
Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. [PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLOR GUTIERREZ
Y TIMOD]
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Elements
The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. [PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSE DUJUA]
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Elements
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The fact that the accused in an illegal recruitment did not sign nor issue some of the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on his culpability so long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. [PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARLENE
OLERMO]
Solidary Liability of Employer
An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer. [PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
ELIZABETH CORPUZ]
BOOK III
Double Holiday Pay
Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. [ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION vs.
COURT OF APPEALS] Double Holiday Pay
The minimum allowable divisor is 287, which is the result of 365 days, less 52 Sundays and less 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). Any divisor below 287 days means that the workers are deprived of their holiday pay for some or all of the ten legal holidays. [CEZAR ODANGO, ET AL. vs.
NLRC, ET AL.] Leave Credits
Despite their dismissal from the service, government employees are entitled to the leave credits that they have earned during the period of their employment. As a matter of fairness and law, they may not be deprived of such remuneration, which they have already earned prior to their dismissal. [ANSBERTO P. PAREDES vs. FRANCISCO S. PADUA]
Liability of an Indirect Employer
When the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards, the corporation as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards' wages. Petitioner cannot evade its liability by claiming that it had religiously paid the compensation of guards as stipulated under the contract with the security agency. [MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Wage Order and its Exemption
Section 7 of the NWPC Revised Guidelines on Exemption, which is the applicable rule on this matter, provides that the maximum period of exemption that can be accorded to a qualified applicant is only for one (1) year from the effectivity of the Wage Order. This non-extendable one year period of exemption is to afford protection to workers who may be unfairly affected by the deleterious effect of a prolonged exemption which is not in accord with the very purpose of the issuance of a Wage Order. [NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, PHILIPPINE WALLBOARD CORPORATION
AND ANAKAN LUMBER COMPANY vs. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES and WESTERN AGUSAN WORKERS UNION]
Wage Distortion
A situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of differentiation.
[BANKARD EMPLOYEES UNION-WORKERS ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION]
Elements of Wage Distortion
“(1.) An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates; (2) A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one; (3) The elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and (4) The existence of the distortion in the same region of the country.” [BANKARD EMPLOYEES UNION-WORKERS
ALLIANCE TRADE UNIONS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION]
BOOK V
Money Claim
Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted and employee-employer relation. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice. [EDUARDO G.
EVIOTA vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Test to Determine Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
(1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the last one is the most important. [EMPERMACO B. ABANTE, JR. vs. LAMADRID
BEARING & PARTS CORP. and JOSE LAMADRID] Independent Job Contractor
Someone who (a) carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof; and (b) has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipments, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business. [NEW GOLDEN CITY BUILDERS &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS ]
Creation of Employer-Employee Relationship in Job Contracting
In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. [NEW GOLDEN CITY BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Independent Contractor
In determining the existence of an independent contractor relationship, several factors may be considered. In Job-contacting, the contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. The principal employer therefore becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. Petitioner's liability is that of a direct employer and thus solidarily liable. [SAN
MIGUEL CORPORATION vs. MAERC INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC] Independent Contractor; Radio and Broadcast Talents
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well — the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. [JOSE Y. SONZA vs. ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORP.] Litigation on the Merits
As much as practicable, litigation should be decided on the merits and not on procedural technicalities. The statement holds true especially in labor cases in which the defect has been cured by the motion for reconsideration. [NOVELTY PHILIPPINES vs. CA]
CA Cannot Annul NLRC Decision
The appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a final and executory judgment of the NLRC. Section 9 of BP 129 as amended, only vests in the Court of Appeals “exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.” Moreover, annulment of judgment is allowed only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through s fault of petitioners. [ELCEE FARMS, INC., and CORAZON SAGUEMULLER vs. PAMPILO SEMILLANO]
Final and Executory Judgments of the NLRC
Except for correction of clerical errors, final and executory judgments can neither be amended nor altered, even if the purpose is to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or of law.
[C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. NLRC] Technicalities Not Strictly Applied in Labor Cases
Article 221 of the Labor Code allows the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter to decide a case on the basis of position papers and other documents submitted by the parties without resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in regular courts of justice. [PAL, INC. vs. TONGSON]
Well settled is the rule that technical rules of procedure shall not be strictly applied in labor cases. Pursuant to this policy, employers may, on cogent grounds, be allowed to present, even on appeal, evidence of business losses to justify the retrenchment of workers. [TANJUAN vs.
PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, INC.] Litigation of the Case Should be on the Merits
Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided. [VAN MELLE PHILS vs. VICTOR ENDAYA]
Perfection of Appeal
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period for the same is jurisdictional in character. [CORPORATE INN HOTEL, ET AL. vs. JENNEVIE H. LIZO]
Binding Effect of the Decision of the NLRC
A position is redundant where it is superfluous. It is not enough for a company to merely declare that it has become overmanned. It must produce adequate proof that such is the actual situation to justify the dismissal of the affected employees for redundancy. [BONIFACIO ASUFRIN,
JR. vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION] Computation of Benefits
Respondent who was illegally dismissed from work is actually entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges as well as to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. ASPECT OF DUE PROCESS: “(1) the legality of the act of dismissal, that is, dismissal based on the grounds provided by Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (2) the legality in the manner of dismissal. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process. [BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE,
INC. vs. ARSENIO M. TOSTON] Consequence of Illegal Dismissal
Firstly, that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and secondly, the payment of backwages corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. [TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS ]
Findings of Fact of the CA: When Binding to the Supreme Court
Time and again the much-repeated but not so well-heeded rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly where it is in absolute agreement with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, as in this case, are accorded not only respect but even finality and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. [GALLERA DE
GUISON HERMANOS, INC., ET AL. vs. MA. ASUNCION C. CRUZ] Validity of Compromise Agreement
A compromise agreement entered into by the parties not in the presence of the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending shall be approved by him if, after confronting the parties, particularly the complainants, he is satisfied that they understand the terms and conditions of the settlement and that it was entered into freely and voluntarily by them and the agreement is not contrary to law, morals, and public policy. [R & E TRANSPORT, INC. vs. AVELINA P. LATAG,
representing her deceased husband, PEDRO M. LATAG] Payment of Appeal Bond
Payment of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC. It is only in rare instances that the court relaxes the rule upon a showing of substantial compliance with it and to prevent patent injustice. [FILSYSTEMS INC. vs. NLRC ]
Finality of Decision
Once a decision or resolution becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court or tribunal to order its execution. Such order is not appealable. [KING INTEGRATED
SECURITY SERVICES, INC. vs. GALO S. GATAN] When Judgment has become Final and Executory
A party who has not appealed from a decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from. An appellee who has himself not appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the lower court. [SOLIDBANK CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GERARDO A.
GARCIA]
Exhaustion of Remedies
The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION, ET AL. vs.YOLIBELLE S.
AVINANTE, ET AL.] Duty to Bargain
The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement within three (3) years from the effectivity of the original CBA. [GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Surface Bargaining; Blue-Sky Bargaining
Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of negotiating” without any legal intent to reach an agreement.Blue-Sky Bargaining is defined as “unrealistic and unreasonable demands in negotiations by either or both labor and management, where neither concedes anything and demands the impossible.” It actually is not collective bargaining at all. [STANDARD
CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION vs.MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, ET AL.] Collective Bargaining Agreement; Signing Bonus
A bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation but it may nevertheless be granted on equitable considerations as when the giving of such bonus has been the company's long and regular practice or even if not a practice, the bonus was agreed upon by the parties or unilaterally offered as an additional incentive. [PHILACOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.]
Interpretation of CBA
Contracts which are not ambiguous are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and not beyond their obvious intendment. [MINDANAO STEEL CORPORATION vs.
MINSTEEL FREE WORKERS ORGANIZATION (MINFREWO-NFL) CAGAYAN DE ORO] Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor
Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE on appeal shall be final and executory. Upon finality of the Decision of the Secretary, the entire records of the case shall be remanded to the office of origin for implementation of the Decision, unless restrained by the appropriate court. The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy.
[SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS UNION — FEBRUARY SIX MOVEMENT vs. TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL CORP.]
Jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor
It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Med-Arbiter and the Office of the Secretary in certification election proceedings to resolve this issue. When this case was filed, the Med-Arbiter and later on the Office of the Secretary acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and the parties to it, to the exclusion of all other adjudicating agencies. There was no longer any emergency, urgency or a pressing necessity for the CA to still issue a writ of preliminary injunction. There is no showing in the record that despite the assumption by the SOLE of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner is bent on staging a strike against the respondent in defiance by the petitioner of the order of the SOLE. [TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORPORATION
WORKERS' ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA) vs. COURT OF APPEALS ] Strike and Lockout
The respondents' claim of good faith is not a valid excuse to dispense with the procedural steps for a lawful strike. Thus, even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike is illegal. Hence, the need for a union to adhere to and comply strictly with the procedural conditions sine qua non provided for by the law in staging a strike. [GRAND
BOULEVARD HOTEL vs. GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES]
Consequences of an Illegal Strike
In Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code it could be gleaned that while a union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike, an ordinary striking employee, like petitioners herein, must have participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. There must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike. Substantial evidence, which may justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal, may suffice. [ELIZABETH C. BASCON vs. COURT
OF APPEALS] Illegal Strike
Continuing a strike in defiance of the return-to-work-order is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of the union’s officers is in order. [SAN JUAN
DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS et.al. vs. SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. (HOSPITAL) and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION]
Consequence of an Illegal Strike
Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination from employment of a union officer. However, mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members. But the employer must still comply with the two-notice rule in dismissing the union officer. [STAMFORD MARKETING CORP. vs. JOSEPHINE JULIAN ]
BOOK VI
Probationary Period under Section 2, Rule VII, of the Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law
An employee with original appointment must serve a 6-month probationary period and the employee may be dropped from the service for unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity anytime before the expiration of the probationary period: Provided, that such action is appealable to the Commission. [GALLARDO U. LUCERO vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Probationary Employee
Probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is under observation and evaluation to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. During the probationary period, the employer is given the opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of the employee while the latter seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. [FLORENCIO M. DE LA
CRUZ, JR. vs. NLRC ]
Probationary Employment; Computation
Our computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following. [RADIN C. ALCIRA vs.
NLRC, ET AL.]
Dismissal, Just and Valid Cause
In order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and valid cause as provided in Article 282 and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Dismissal may also be based on any of the authorized causes provided for in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. [PHIL. EMPLOY SERVICES and RESOURCES, INC. vs.
JOSEPH PARAMIO, ET AL.] Breach of Trust; When Willful
Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that an employer can terminate the employment of the employee concerned for "fraud or willful breach by an employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." The loss of trust and confidence
must be based on the willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Ordinary breach will not suffice. A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. [DIAMOND MOTORS CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS]
Right to Refuse Promotion
An employee cannot be promoted, even if merely as a result of a transfer, without his consent. There is no law that compels an employee to accept a promotion for the reason that a promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which a person has a right to refuse. Hence, the exercise by the private respondents of their right cannot be considered in law as insubordination, or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employee. [PT & T CORPORATION vs. COURT OF
APPEALS]
Abandonment of Work; Requisites
For abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to severe the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to go back to his work post and resume his employment must be established. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer. [SAMUEL SAMARCA vs. ARC-MEN INDUSTRIES, INC]
Abandonment of Work
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Of the two, the second element is the more determinative factor and should be manifested by some overt acts. Mere absence is not sufficient. [R TRANSPORT CORP.
vs. ROGELIO EJANDRA] Hearsay; Affidavits
Where the adverse party is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. [NUGUIT vs. NLRC]
Summary Hearing of Labor Cases
Formal hearing of the case on its merits is not mandatory in labor cases but is dependent on the discretion of the labor arbiter who has the sole power to determine whether or not there is a need for a hearing. [SHOPPES MANILA, INC vs. NLRC]
Two-Notice Requirement
(a) A written notice containing a statement of the cause for the termination to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; (b) If the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reason therefor. [SHOPPES MANILA, INC vs. NLRC]
Illegal Dismissal; Abandonment of Work
For abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. [ACD INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY, INC. vs. PABLO D. DAQUERA]
Illegal Dismissal; Two Notice Rule
Singer has shown compliance with the two-notice requirement — first, of the intention to dismiss, indicating therein the acts or omissions complained against; and second, of the decision to
dismiss an employee — and in between such notices, an opportunity for him to answer and rebut the charges against him. [GUTIERREZ vs. SINGER SEWING MACHINE]
Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal exists where there is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. It is also present when an employee's functions and such reduction is not grounded on valid grounds such as genuine business necessity. [FERNANDO GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MOLDEX PRODUCTS, INC.]
Closure of Establishment
It is only in instances of “retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses” that employees whose employment has been terminated as a result are entitled to separation pay. [JOSEFINA A. CAMA vs. JONI’S FOOD SERVICES, INC. ]
Closure of Establishment for a Lawful Cause; When Made
The owner, for any bona fide reason, can lawfully close shop at anytime. Just as no law forces anyone to go into business, no law can compel anybody to continue in it. It would indeed be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if SC were to unjustly interfere with the management's prerogative to close or cease its business operations, just because said business operation or undertaking is not suffering from any loss or simply to provide the workers continued employment. And since private respondents' cessation and closure of business was lawful, there was no illegal dismissal to speak of. This fact negated the obligation to pay backwages. Instead private respondents were required to give separation pay, which they already did, to all their regular employees. [MAC ADAMS METAL ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION-INDEPENDENT vs. MAC ADAMS
METAL ENGINEERING ] Retrenchment; Valid Causes
Retrenchment is a management prerogative consistently recognized and affirmed by this Court. It is, however, subject to faithful compliance with the substantive and the procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. It must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting. [EMCO PLYWOOD
CORPORATION vs. PERFERIO ABELGAS et. al.] Judicial Review of Labor Cases
The findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. [CBL TRANSIT, INC. vs. NLRC]
Cessation
Simply asserting a state of insolvency is not enough to show serious financial losses. [CBL TRANSIT, INC. vs. NLRC]
Backwages
An employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him (which, as a rule, is from the time of his illegal dismissal) up to the time of his actual reinstatement. [PHIL. JOURNALISTS, INC. vs. MICHAEL MOSQUEDA]
Backwages; Period Covered for Payment
The Court's decision in G.R. No. 114290, which directed the payment of the petitioners' backwages from the time they were dismissed up to the time they are actually reinstated, has become the "law of the case" which now binds the NLRC and the private respondent. The "law of the case" doctrine has been defined as "a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal.
[FULGENCIO vs. NLRC] Full Backwages; Definition
The clear legislative intent of the law amending the Labor Code (Rep. Act. No. 6715) is to give more benefits to workers than was previously given them under the Mercury Drug rule or the 'deduction of earnings elsewhere' rule. Thus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy behind Rep. Act. No. 6715 points to 'full backwages' as meaning exactly that, i.e., without deducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employee during the period of his illegal dismissal. In other words, the provision calling for 'full backwages' to illegally dismissed employees is clear, plain and free from ambiguity and, therefore, must be applied without attempted or strained interpretation. Index animi sermo est. [JACINTO RETUYA vs. DUMARPA]
Retirement Benefits and Separation Pay
The right of the concerned employees to receive both retirement benefits and separation pay depends upon the provisions in the Retirement Plan. [JOSE B. CRUZ et.al. vs. PHILIPPINE
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND/OR ALFREDO PARUNGAO] Illegal Dismissal; Backwages
In the present case, petitioners were dismissed because of a "change of management." They were not given any prior written notice, but simply told that their services were terminated on the day they stopped working for Insular Builders, Inc. Under the circumstances, the CA was correct in upholding the labor arbiter's finding that they had been illegally dismissed. Having been illegally dismissed, petitioners should be awarded back wages. The fact that they worked for a sister company immediately after being dismissed from Insular Builders, Inc. should not preclude such award. [JACINTO RETUYA vs. DUMARPA]
SPECIAL LAWS
PD 626; Death Benefits
It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to leave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process. [GSIS vs. TEODOSIO CUANANG]
Permanent Total Disability
The test of whether or not an employee suffers from permanent total disability is the capacity of the employee to continue performing his work notwithstanding the disability he incurred. Permanent total disability does not mean a state of absolute helplessness, but means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work, or work of similar nature, that he was trained for, or any work which a person of similar mentality and attainment could do.
[GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. LEO L. CADIZ] Requisites of Agrarian Tenancy Relationship; PARAB’S Jurisdiction
(1) the subject matter should be agricultural land; (2) the purpose should be agricultural production; and (3) there should be personal cultivation done by the tenants themselves. [SPS.
NUMERIANO and CARMELITA ROMERO vs. MERCEDES L. TAN] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to leave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process. [SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA SA SAN JOSEP vs. MARIETTA VALISNO, ET AL.]
P.D. 626
The present law has not ceased to be an employees' compensation law or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails, and the official agency charged by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability, especially in light of the compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances. [AZUCENA O. SALALIMA vs. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.]
CASE DIGESTS
PRELIMINARY TITLE
CONSTRUCTION OF LABOR LAWS
DIVINA S. LOPEZ vs. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION [G.R. No. 149674. February 16, 2004]
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ:
FACTS: The National Steel Corporation, herein respondent, embarked on two (2) massive projects,
the Five-Year Expansion Program (Phase II-B) and the Integrated Steel Mill Project. Consequently, respondent employed and trained several employees for the operation of the projects. One of them was Divina S. Lopez, herein petitioner. She was appointed researcher, she was promoted as a senior researcher at respondent’s Market Research Department.
With this development, respondent adopted an organizational streamlining program. Respondent issued a memorandum announcing the retrenchment of several workers at its Iligan and Pasig Plants and Makati Head Office. Respondent terminated petitioner’s services and having rendered twelve (12) years of service, was paid by respondent representing her separation benefits at the rate of “two months basic salary per year of service.” Additionally, she received her leave credits, 13th month pay, and uniform and rice subsidy differential. And after having been paid her
separation benefits, she executed and signed a Release and Quitclaim. Barely three (3) years thereafter, petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for payment of retirement benefits against respondent, docketed and was consolidated with case entitled “Benito Anievas et al. vs.
National Steel Corporation.” The complainants here are also retrenched employees of respondent.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing the complaints. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, she filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for certiorari alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that she is not entitled to retirement benefits and in holding that she is precluded from claiming such benefits because of her quitclaim. The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the assailed Resolutions of the NLRC. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits.
HELD: While it is axiomatic that retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the persons
intended to be benefited, however, such interpretation cannot be made in this case in light of the clear lack of consensual and statutory basis of the grant of retirement benefits to petitioner.
It bears stressing that as held by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, there is no provision in the parties’ CBA authorizing the payment to petitioner retirement benefits in addition to her retrenchment pay; and that there is no indication that she was forced or “duped” by respondent to sign the Release and Quitclaim. The Court of Appeals also ruled that petitioner, not having reached the retirement age, is not entitled to retirement benefits under Article 287 of the Labor Code.
This Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case. The reason for this is that quasi-judicial agencies, like the Arbitration Board and the NLRC, have acquired a unique expertise because their jurisdictions are confined to specific matters.
LIMITATIONS ON MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs. JOSELITO PASCUA, ET AL. [G.R. No. 143258. August 15, 2003.]
FACTS: PAL hired private respondents as station attendants on a four or six-hour work-shift a day
at five to six days a week. On certain occasions, PAL compelled private respondents to work overtime because of urgent necessity. The contracts with private respondents were extended twice, the last of which appears to have been for an indefinite period.
Private respondent Joselito Pascua, in his and on behalf of other 79 part-time station attendants, filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a complaint for regularization and other benefits. During the pendency of the case, PAL President Garcia and PAL Chairman & Corporate Executive Officer Dominguez converted the employment status of private respondents from temporary part-time to regular part-time. Private respondents dropped their money claim then pending before the Office of Executive Labor Arbiter Guanio, thus leaving for consideration their complaint for "regularization" — conversion of their employment status from part-time to regular (working on an 8-hour shift). Finding private respondents' remaining cause of action was rendered "moot and academic" by their supervening regularization, the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the former’s complaint. On appeal, the NLRC, finding for private respondents, declared them as regular employees of PAL with an eight-hour work-shift.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, which was denied. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari to annul the NLRC decision but was dismissed and petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court erred when it upheld the decision of the NLRC to accord
respondents regular full-time employment although petitioner, in the exercise of its management prerogative, requires only part-time services.
HELD: It must be borne in mind that the exercise of management prerogative is not absolute.
While it may be conceded that management is in the best position to know its operational needs, the exercise of management prerogative cannot be utilized to circumvent the law and public policy on labor and social justice. That prerogative accorded management could not defeat the very purpose for which our labor laws exist: to balance the conflicting interests of labor and management, not to tilt the scale in favor of one over the other, but to guaranty that labor and management stand on equal footing when bargaining in good faith with each other. By its very nature, encompassing as it could be, management prerogative must be exercised always with the principles of fair play at heart and justice in mind.
Article 280 of the Labor Code 13 provides that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed, and his employment shall continue while such activity actually exists. It is basic to the point of being elementary that nomenclatures assigned to a contract shall be disregarded if it is apparent that the attendant circumstances do not support their use or designation. The same is true with greater force concerning contracts of employment, imbued as they are with public interest. Although respondents were initially hired as part-time employees for one year, thereafter the over-all circumstances with respect to duties assigned to them, number of hours they were permitted to work including over-time, and the extension of employment beyond two years can only lead to one conclusion: that they should be declared full-time employees. Thus, not without sufficient and substantial reasons, the claim of management prerogative by petitioner ought to be struck down for being contrary to law and policy, fair play and good faith.
RA 8042
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et. al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (May 25, 2004)
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS: ACRO-Phil filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC to declare as
unconstitutional Sec.2, par.(g), Sec. 6, pars.(a)-(j),(l),&(m), Sec. 7, pars.(a)&(b),Secs. (9)&(10) of RA 8042 (The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), with a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents therein from enforcing the assailed provisions of the law.
The respondents contends that, (1) the law discriminated against unskilled workers and their families as the law encourage the deployment skilled Filipino workers, (2) the grant of incentives to service contractors and manning agencies to the exclusion of all other licensed and authorized recruiters is an invalid qualification, (3) the penalty imposed by law, being disproportionate to the prohibited acts, discourage the business of licensed and registered recruitment agency, (4) the law violates the prohibition against ex-post facto law and bill of attainder because it presumes that a licensed and registered recruitment agency is guilty of illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage, upon a finding that it committed any of the prohibited acts under the law, (5) the 90-day period which the labor arbiter should decide a money claim is relatively short, and could deprived a licensed and registered recruiters of their right to due process, (6) the law impair the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure, (7) the law abridge freedom to contract, (8) the singling out of entertainers and performing artist under the assailed department orders (implementing rules and regulations of RA 8042) constitutes class legislation and violates the equal protection clause.
The respondent justified its plea for injunctive relief on the allegation in its amended petition that its members are exposed to the immediate and irreparable danger of being deprived
of their right to a livelihood and other constitutional rights without due process, on its claim that a great number of duly licensed recruitment agencies have stopped and suspended for fear that (a) their officers and employees would be prosecuted under the unjust and unconstitutional penal provisions af RA 8042 and meted equally unjust and excessive penalties, including life imprisonment, for illegal recruitment without regard to whether the recruitment agencies involved are licensed and/or authorized and (b) if the members of the respondent, which are licensed and authorized, decide to continue with their business, they face the stigma and the coursed of being labeled “illegal recruiters”.
Petitioners contend that the petitioners has no locus standi, it failed to adduce in evidence a certified copy of its Articles of Incorporation and the resolution of said members authorizing it to represent the said agencies in the proceedings. The petitioners assert that the law is presumed constitutional and, as such, the respondent was burdened to make a case strong enough to overcome such presumption and establish a clear right to injunctive relief.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the trial courts order and the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by it enjoining the petitioners from implementing the the provisions of RA 8042.
HELD: The assailed order and writ of preliminary injunction is mooted by case law. In People vs.
Chowdury, it was held that illegal recruitment is a crime of economic sabotage and must be enforced. The court in this case upheld the validity of Sec. 6 of RA 8042 which provides that employees of recruitment agencies may be criminally liable for illegal recruitment. An employee of a company or corporation engage in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment The employee or agent of a corporation engage in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as a principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion however slight his contribution may be.
In People vs. Diaz, the SC held that RA 8042 is but an amendment of the Labor Code of the Philippines and is not an ex-post facto law because it is not applied retroactively. In JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. vs. CA, the issue of the extent of the police power of the state to regulate a business, profession or calling vis-a-vis the equal protection clause and the non-impairment clause were raised and it was held that, a profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a living because this are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable wrong. Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the state, the public health and welfare and public morals.
In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drillon, the court held that the non-impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the government. Equally important, into every contract is read provisions of existing law and always a reservation of the police power for so long as the agreement deals with a subject impressed with public welfare.
The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It is not to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to the object to which it is directed and by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but merely all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
By its rulings, the court thereby affirmed the validity of the assailed penal and procedural provisions of RA 8042, including the imposable penalties therefore. Until the court, by final judgment, declares that the said provisions are unconstitutional, the enforcement of said provisions cannot be enjoined.
BOOK 1
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; ELEMENTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLOR GUTIERREZ Y TIMOD [G.R. No. 124439. February 5, 2004]
TlNGA, J.:
FACTS: With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused
was a licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not so licensed, they proceeded to the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) to execute their respective affidavits. The investigator confirmed with the POEA that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit overseas contract workers. The accused was arrested on an entrapment operation.
In her defense, the accused claimed that as an “employee” of a duly licensed agency who was tasked to recruit and offer job placements abroad, she could not be held liable for illegal recruitment. She admitted that she had no authority to recruit in her personal capacity, but that her authority emanated from a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Certification issued by a licensed agency. At the time complainants applied for overseas employment, the accused was “employed” as a Marketing Directress of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, a duly licensed agency with License No. OS-91-LB-61193-NL issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. [58] A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Sarifudin, dated May 1, 1994, states that she was authorized. Accused Flor Gutierrez filed the present appeal seeking the reversal of her conviction.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the conviction of the accused should be upheld even though she is licensed
recruiter.
HELD: Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no
valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code defines “recruitment and placement” as “any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the addition of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. As found by the trial court, the evidence on record, notably appellant’s own version, indicates that she was running her own labor recruitment business.
Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense. As appellant committed illegal recruitment against three or more persons, she is liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; ELEMENTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSE DUJUA [G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004]
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: Complainant Beldon Caluten, went to the accused’s office, the World Pack Travel and
Tours. Upon Beldon’s inquiry, Ramon Dujua said that he sends applicants abroad and gave Beldon an application form. Beldon filled up the form and submitted it to Ramon, who told him that he must pay a processing fee and make an advance payment. Beldon was promised work as a factory worker in Japan. He advanced money for his processing fees and other expenses. Despite such payments, the promise to send Beldon to work in Japan remained unfulfilled, Beldon asked Ramon to give him back his money. Beldon never recovered his payments, however, prompting him and his fellow applicants to file a complaint at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Private complainants Jaime Cabus, Roberto Perlas and Romulo Partos suffered the same fate as Beldon. He also filed a compliaint against the accused.
The prosecution presented a Certification issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch of the POEA, stating that Ramon Dujua is not licensed or authorized by the POEA to recruit workers abroad. Another Certification, of even date shows that neither is the World Pack Travel and Tours authorized to recruit workers abroad. The accused Ramon Dujua denied that he was a recruiter. He claimed that he was a mere janitor, messenger and errand boy of the World Pack Travel and Tours. The company is owned by his aunt, Editha Singh, and managed by his mother Rose Dujua. He admitted he did not have a license to recruit,but acknowledged receiving the money given by complainants but denied knowing what it was for. He said, however, that his mother only asked him to count the money.
RTC convicted Dujua of illegal recruitment in large scale, committed against Jaime Cabus, Beldon Caluten and Roberto Perlas, and of two counts of estafa, committed against Cabus and Perlas.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused in illegal recruitment in
large scale by means of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: Yes. The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the
accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily prove that appellant promised them employment and assured them placement overseas. Complainants were firm and categorical. All of them positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. Their testimonies dovetail each other on material points. There is no adequate showing that any of them was impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant.
Second, appellant did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, the World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; ELEMENTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARLENE OLERMO [G.R. No. 127848. July 17, 2003.]
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS: In separate informations filed before the RTC of Valenzuela, Marlene Olermo a.k.a. Marlene
Tolentino was accused of illegal recruitment in large scale as defined and penalized under Article 38 in relation to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 2018, and five counts of estafa.
Appellant Olermo denied all the charges against her. She alleged that she was engaged only in visa assistance. She denied ever having represented herself as possessing authority to deploy workers for overseas employment. She thus explained that she only offered complainants Villanueva, Aquino-Villanueva, Aparicio and Majarucon assistance in processing their tourist visas. With respect to the accusation of complainant Berador, appellant alleged that she was only helping him process his trainee's visa. However, the trial court rendered a decision convicting appellant of the crimes charged. Hence, this appeal.
It is the contention of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Furthermore, she contends that her alleged act of illegally recruiting at least three persons was not sufficiently established by the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not appellant was engaged in recruitment and placement.
b) Whether or not appellant Olermo is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD: a) YES. Appellant's acts of promising, offering and assuring employment overseas to
complainants fall squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code, as amended. The fact that she did not sign nor issue some of the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on her culpability. The complainants have shown through their respective testimonies and evidence that she was indeed involved in the prohibited recruitment. In fact, it was even proven that appellant advertised her services in a newspaper.
b) YES. Article 38 of the Labor Code renders illegal those recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority from the POEA. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All these three elements were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. First, the complaining witnesses have satisfactorily established that appellant promised them employment and assured them of placement overseas. Appellant even had her services advertised in a newspaper, undoubtedly to reach more people seeking jobs abroad. Second, appellant did not have any license to recruit persons for overseas work. The Licensing Division of the POEA issued a certification to this effect. Third, appellant undertook the recruitment of not less than three workers. The complainants herein were recruited individually on different occasions. The law applies whether the workers were recruited individually or as a group.
SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELIZABETH CORPUZ G.R. No. 148198. October 1, 2003
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS: Private complainants Belinda Cabantog, Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual and Restian
Surio went to Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation to apply for employment in Taiwan. They were introduced by an “Aling Josie” to the agency's President and General Manager Mrs. Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes. Mrs. Reyes asked them to accomplish the application forms. Thereafter, they were told to return to the office with P10,000.00 each as processing fee. Private complainants returned to the agency to pay the processing fees. Mrs. Reyes was not at the agency that time, but she called her secretary of three months, herein appellant Elizabeth Corpuz, on the
telephone and told the latter to receive private complainants' processing fees. In compliance with the order of her employer and since the cashier was absent, appellant received the processing fees of private complainants. Thereafter, appellant advised the private complainants to wait for the contracts to arrive from the Taiwan employers.
Two months later, nothing happened to their applications. Thus, private complainants decided to ask for the refund of their money from appellant who told them that the processing fees they had paid were already remitted to Mrs. Reyes. When they talked to Mrs. Reyes, she told them that the money she received from appellant was in payment of the latter's debt. Thus, private complainants filed their complaint for illegal recruitment in large scale against appellant.
For her part, appellant resolutely denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment and claimed that she merely received complainants' processing fees in compliance with the order of her employer. Moreover, she had no knowledge that the agency's license was suspended by the POEA on July 29, 1998, the day before the fact. The trial court found appellant guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant guilty of the crime charged.
HELD: No. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.
The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove appellant's active participation in the illegal recruitment activities of the agency. As already established, appellant received the processing fees of the private complainants for and in behalf of Mrs. Reyes who ordered her to receive the same. She neither gave an impression that she had the ability to deploy them abroad nor convinced them to part with their money. More importantly, she had no knowledge that the license was suspended the day before she received the money. Their failure to depart for Taiwan was due to the suspension of the license, an event which appellant did not have control of. Her failure to refund their money immediately upon their demand was because the money had been remitted to Mrs. Reyes on the same day she received it from them.
While we strongly condemn the pervasive proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on innocent people anxious to obtain employment abroad, nevertheless, we find the pieces of evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
BOOK III
DOUBLE HOLIDAY PAY
ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS [G. R. No. 144664. March 15, 2004]
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
FACTS: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), issued an Explanatory Bulletin wherein
it clarified, inter alia, that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which apart from being Good Friday [and, therefore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday].
Despite the explanatory bulletin, petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig ng Asian
Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU, the controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. The Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered employees “200% and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9, 1998 which covers two regular holidays, namely, Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday.”
The Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator.further adding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them, clearly recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday, on whatever date they may fall in any calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the effectivity of the CBA and that “there is no condition, qualification or exception for any variance from the clear intent that all holidays shall be compensated.”
ISSUE: Whether or not, Relief under Rule 65 is the proper remedy of the petitioner; 2. Whether or
not, the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing an explanatory bulletin interpreting Art. 94 of the Labor Code.
HELD:
The petition is devoid of merit. Since the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition under Rule 65, any alleged errors committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari. The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, now Rule 45 and Rule 65, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered “plain, speedy and adequate” if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.
Technicality aside, this Court finds no ground to disturb the assailed decision. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. The provision is mandatory, regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive.
In any event, Art. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, Sec. 11, Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides that “Nothing in the law or the rules shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any benefits, supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as provided in existing individual or collective agreement or employer practice or policy.” The provision of the CBA entered into by the parties, petitioner had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law.
DOUBLE HOLIDAY PAY
CEZAR ODANGO, ET AL. vs. NLRC, ET AL. [G.R. No. 147420. June 10, 2004.]
CARPIO, J.:
