Digested Labor cases

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Compilation of Labor Cases - Digested

Text of Digested Labor cases

San Miguel Corp v. NLRC & Maliksi, GR No. 147566, Dec. 6, 2006

The act if hiring and re-hiring the petitioners over a period of time without considering them as regular employees evidences bad faith on the part of private respondent. Regularization is a labor benefit that should apply to all qualified employees similarly situated and may not be denied merely because some employees were allegedly not parties to or were not impleaded in the voluntary arbitration case. It must be noted that the Court extended the benefit of regularization not only to the original complainants but also to those workers who are similarly situated to therein complainants.

LIIKHA-PMPB v. Burlinggame corp., GR No. 162833, June 15, 2007

Job contracting is permissible only if the following conditions are met: 1) the contractor 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 2) contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business. Mentioned sec. 5 of DO 18-02 which states the prohibition against labor-only contracting (see DO)Promo-girls were directly related to the principal business or operation of Burlingame. Marketing and selling of products is an essential activity to the main business of the principal. In labor-only contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is 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.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 131 (1999)

mentioned Singer Sewing Machine vs Drilon: the definition that regular employees are those who perform activities which are desirable and necessary for the business of the employer is not determinative in this case. Any agreement may provide that one party shall render services for and in behalf of another for a consideration (no matter how necessary for the latters business) even without being hired as an employee. This is precisely true in the case of an independent contractorship as well as in an agency agreement. Art 280 is not the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees i.e. regular and casual for purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union or to security of tenure. Art 280 does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute (compare with Manila Water)Painting jobs performed we sporadic. The infrequency or irregularity of assignments countervails Canonicatos submission that he was assigned to undertake the task for the whole year round. Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Pena, 434 SCRA 52 (2004)

ACGI was engaged in labor-only contracting and as such, is considered merely an agent of the petitioner. In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. 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. Private resp performed activities which were necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. Thus, they were regular employees of petitioner regardless of whether the engagement was merely an accommodation of their request pursuant to Art. 280 (compare with Far East Bank-blind employees).Art. 280: the provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. Under this provision, the evil sought to be prevented is singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It has no application where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought upon the employee and absent any circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter.Under 279 of LC, an employee who is unjustly dismissed form work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer possible, the employer has the alternative of paying the employee his separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security & General Services, Inc.,

The only time the indirect employer may be made solidarily liable with the contractor is when the contractor fails to pay his employees their wages and other benefits claimed. Security of tenure, although provided in the Constitution, does not give an employee an absolute vested right in a position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change their assignment or transfer them where they will be most uselful. When a transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient, nor prejudicial to an employee; and it doesn not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his pay, benefits, and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. San Miguel Corporation v. Abella, 461 SCRA 392 (2005)

effect of finding: there being a finding of labor-only contracting, liability must be shouldered by either SMC (principal) or Sunflower (contractor) or shared by both. SMC however should be held solely liable for Sunflower became non-existent with the closure of the aquaculture of business of SMC (CA reason).In legitimate labor contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e. to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. 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. Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive prupose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. 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. Retrenchment is a management prerogative consistently recognized and affirmed by this Court. It is, however, subject to faithful compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence. For retrenchment to be considered valid, the following substantial requirements must be met:the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extentsubstantial losses apprehended must be reasonably imminent such as can be perceived objectively and in good faith by the employerthe retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected lossesthe alleged losses, if already incurred, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence.

SMC proved substantial business reverses justifying retrenchment of its employeesFor termination due to retrenchment be valid, the law requires that written notices of the intended retrenchment be served by the employer on the worker and on the DOLE at least 1 month before the actual date of the retrenchment in order to give employees some time to prepare for the eventual loss of their jobs, as well as to give DOLE the opportunity to ascertain the verity of the alleged cause of termination. Where the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Art 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiff as the dismissal process was initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative, as opposed to a dismissal based on a just cause under 282, because the dismissal is imputable to the employee. Almodiel v. NLRC, 223 SCRA 341 (1993)

Redundancy for purposes of our Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. The characterization of an employees services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and therefore, properly terminable, was an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of such characterization was not subject to discretionary review on the part of the LA nor of the NLRC so long, of course, as violation of law or merely arbitrary of malicious action is not shown. In International Macleod vs IAC, it was held that the determination of the nee