COURSE OUTLINE

FOR LABOR STANDARDS

I. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS. (FIRST WEEK)

A. Constitutional Foundation/Basic Policies

1. Bias in favor of Labor

a. Article XIII, Sec. 3 – 1987 constitution

b. Article III, Sec. 8
c. Article IX – B, Sec 2 (3)(5)(6)
d. Article XIII, Sec 4, 5 & 6
e. Article XIII, Sec. 9
f. Article XIII, Sec. 14
g. Article VI
h. Article XII, Sec. 1
i. Article XVIII, Sec. 16

2. Protection of capital/shared responsibility

a. Article II, Sec. 20

b. Management Prerogative

B. Social Justice

a. Calalang vs. Williams 70 Phil. 726

b. Guido vs. Rural Progress Adm. L-2089, Oct. 31, 1949
c. Article XIII

C. Labor code

1. Declaration of policy – Article 3

2. Rules of Construction – Article 4
3. Coverage
a. public, private institutions
i) National Housing vs. Juco 134 SCRA 172
ii) National Service Corp vs. NLRC L-69870, Nov. 29, 1988
b. employment relations

II. PRE-EMPLOYMENT

A. Recruitment/placement

1. License
2. Authority
3. What constitutes recruitment
 i) People vs. Panis 142 SCRA 664
ii) People Goce – 64 SCRA 72
iii) Article 13 (b), labor code

B. Parties and Agencies involved

1. DOLE
2. POEA –
3. Principal –
4. Agency –
5. Migrant worker – RA 8042
a. land-based
b. sea-based
6. Solidary liability

C. POEA jurisdiction – Regulatory/Adjudicatory

1. Transferred to NLRC
a. RA 8042 –Section 10
2. Retained by POEA
a. regulatory powers
b. disciplinary powers

D. Regulatory requirements

1. Direct hiring
2. Nationality requirement
3. Remittance
a. Article 22
b. EO # 857
4. Repatriation of workers
5. Travel agencies
6. Bonds
7. Placement/Service Fees

E. Illegal Recruitment/Prohibited Acts (SECOND WEEK)

1. Article 34
2. Article 38
a. simple illegal recruitment
b. large scale/economic sabotage
3. RA 8042 Section 6
4. People vs. Verano
5. People vs. Angeles

F. Employent of Aliens

G. Sanction/Remedies
 1. Search & Seizure
2. Closure/suspension
3. Warrant of arrest
a. Salazar vs. Achacoso GR No. 81510, March 14, 1990

III. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

A. TESDA (RA 7796) – Technical Education and Skills Development

Authority TESDA ACT of 1994.
a. Absorbed the National Manpower and Youth Council (NYMC)
b. Governing board of TESDA
c. Secretariat of TESDA - the director General
d. TESDA circular No. 16, series of 2004
B. Apprentices

1. Qualifications
2. Terms/conditions of Apprenticeship Agreement
3. Age requirement - 15 years old
4. Qualification of the employer
5. Qualification of an apprentice
6. Compensation and duration of apprenticeship
7. TESDA approval; effect of absence of approval
8. School initiated apprenticeship
9. Cases:
a. Nitto Enterprises vs. NLRC GR No. 114337, Sept. 29, 1995
- absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved
by the DOLE; approval of the apprenticeship agreement was given by
DOLE only after it was executed by the parties;
b. Filamer vs. ICA GR No. 75112, Aug. 17, 1992
-working scholar; dole regulations declaring no
employment relationship is for the purpose of applying labor standard
provisions; when it comes to determining civil liability however, the civil
code provision applies;
c. Century Canning Corporation vs CA GR No. 152894 August
17,2007

C. Learners

1. Qualifications (non-apprenticeable; which may be learned

through
2. Terms/conditions of Agreement
3. Age requirement
4. Duration and compensation
5. Qualification of the employer and the learner
6. Learner becoming a regular employer (after 2 months of
learnership)

D. Handicapped workers
 1. Terms of Agreement
2. RA 7277, Magna carta for the disabled
3. Rights and privileges of disabled persons
4. Discrimination on Employment
5. Cases:
a) Bernardo vs. NLRC 310 SCRA 186 (1999)

IV. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (WEEK THREE)

A. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
a. Elements of the relationship
b. Four fold Test
i. Control test
c. Economic reality test
d. Job Contracting- Department Order No. 18-A
i. Labor only contracting
ii. Permissible job contracting
e. Cases:
1.South East International Rattan, Inc. and/or Estanislao
Agbay v. Jesus Coming; GR 186621 (2014)
- status of sizing machine operator of south east rattan
- application of the four fold test
-it is south east rattan that exercises control
-control is shown by the following
*work is done in the premises
* there is a definite schedule of work
* enforcement of company rules and regulations
* mode of payment for services is under the discretion
of south east rattan
* work performed is necessary and desirable
2.Cesar Lirio (Celkor Ad Sonicmix) v. Wilmer Genovia; GR
169757 (2011)
- hiring of a studio manager for a recording studio
- industrial partner (partnership) as contrasted with
employment
- co-producer in the production of a musical album
- proof of employment – payment of a fixed monthly
compensation
- doubt in the appreciation of evidence resolved in favor of
labor
- no evidence of the existence of the alleged partnership

3 .Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar v. CA, Gallera de

Mandaue and Spouses Loot; GR 196426 (2011)
-masiador and sentenciador in a cokpit
- paid fixed compensation every week
- issued employment ID
- cockpit claims that they are independent contractors
 4. Wilhelmina Orozco v. CA, PDI, and Leticia Jimenez
Magsanoc; GR 155207 (2008)
5. Tabas vs California Manaufacturing Corpo GR No. L-
80680 January 26, 1989
6. Sonza vs ABS CBN GR No. 138051 June 10, 2004
7. Insular Life Assurance Co. vs NLRC GR No. 84484
November 15, 1989
8. Philippine Bank of Communications v. NLRC, Hon. Arbiter
Teodorico Dogelio & Ricardo Orpiada; GR L-66598 (1986)

B. COVERAGE

a. Article 82 and the Implementing Rules

C. EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES:

a. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
i. Civil Service Commission
ii. Executive Order No. 180
b. MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES
i. Definition
ii. Members of managerial staff
c. FIELD PERSONNEL
d. PIECE RATE WORKERS
e. FAMILY MEMBERS
f. DOMESTIC HELPERS;
i. Study RA 10361 - Kasambahay law
g. Cases:
i. Nasurefco vs NLRC – Gr No. 101761 March 24, 1993
ii. Penaranda vs Baganga Plywood Corp GR No. 159577,
May 3, 2006
iii. National service corporation vs NLRC GR No. 69870
November 29, 1988
iv. Labor Congress of the Phil vs NLRC GR No. 123938 May
21, 1998

D. MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVES (WEEK FOUR)

a) concept and forms of managerial prerogatives

b) limitations on managerial prerogatives

V. LABOR STANDARDS

a. Hours of Work
 i. Coverage
Art. 82, Art. 282; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 1, 2;
Art. 218; Art. 83
 International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. NLRC and Dr.
Virginia Camacho Quintia; GR 106331 (1998)
 Mercidar Fishing Corporation v. NLRC and Fermin
Agao, Jr.; GR 112574 (1998)
 Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. v. Jimmy Lebatique
and CA; GR 162813 (2007)
 Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC, Empire
Food Products, et al.; GR 123934 (1998)
 Best Wear Garments v. Adelaida De Lemos and
Cecille Ocubillo; GR 191281 (2012)
 Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Hernani Realuyo aka Joey
Roa; GR 153511 (2012)

ii. Compensation/Worked Hours

Art. 84, Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 3, 4
 8 hour work day.
 work hours/work week of health personnel; paid
rest days rule
 fixed overtime rule
 overtime pay cannot be waived;
 compressed work week
 definition of “hours worked”

iii. Rest Period/Rest Day

Art. 84; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 7, 4
Article 91, Rule III, Book III

Coverage –
 all employees are covered
 but for purposes of premium pay , employees
excluded from coverage for purposes of OT
premiums are also excluded from rest day
premium
Compulsory rest day work – under exceptional
circumstances

iv. Meal Period

Art. 85; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 7
 PAL v. NLRC, LA Romulus Protacio and Dr. Herminio
Fabros; GR 132805 (1999)
 Not compensable if not less than 60 minutes
 Compensable if of short duration (not less than 20
minutes)
  Changes in the meal period is an exercise of
managerial prerogative. Ok to change from 30
(compensable) to 60 minutes (non-compensable)

v. Waiting Time
Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 5
 Teofilo Arica et al. v. NLRC, STANFILCO, et al.; GR
78210 (1989)
 Waiting time as an integral part of the work

vi. Travel Time

 Hilario Rada v. NLRC and Philnor Consultants and
Planners, Inc.; GR 96078 (1992)
 Considered as work when the travel time cuts across
or coincides with his regular work hours.

vii. Night Shift Differentials

1. Coverage/not covered
a. Retail/service establishment Employing not
more than 5
b. Same exclusions in Article 82
viii. Overtime Work
1. Coverage
Art. 87, 89; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 8
 Abduljuahid Pigcaulan v. Security and Credit
Investigation, Inc.; GR 173648 (2012)
2. Undertime offset with overtime (Article 88)
3. Compressed work week; waiver of overtime pay;
4. Premium Pay
Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule 1, Sec. 9
a. Premium Pay
Art. 93; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule III, Sec.
7
 basis – regular wage only (includes the value of the
facilities because this is considered as part of the
wage)

b. Holiday Pay
Art. 82, 93, 94; Omnibus Rules, Book III Rule
IV Sec 1; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule III,
Sec. 2; P.D. 1083, Arts. 169-172

Coverage/excluded
>retail/service establishment employing less
than 10
> same exclusions as in Section 2, Rule I, Book
III
  Mantrade/FMMC Division Employees and
Workers Union v. Arbitrator Bacungan and
Mantrade; GR L-48437 (1986)
 Entitlement of monthly paid
employees to holiday pay
 Jose Rizal College v. NLRC and National
Alliance of Teachers / Office Workers; GR L-
65482 (1987)

 TAPEA and Arnel Galvez NLRC, Trans-Asia

(Phils.) and Ernesto De Castro; GR 118289
(1999)

 Wellington Investment and Manufacturing

Corp. v. USec. Trajano, Elmer Abadilla and 34
others; GR 114698 (1995)

 San Miguel Corporation v. CA, et al.; GR

146755 (2002)

b. Leaves - (WEEK FIVE AND SIX)

i. Service Incentive Leave
Art. 95; Omnibus Rules, Book III, Rule V, Sec. 1

Coverage/exclusion – Rule V, Book III, section 1

 Exclusion same as in Rule 1, Book III, Section 2

 Field personnel, whose performance is
unsupervised, including those who are engaged
on task basis etc, purely commission basis,
 retail/service establishment of with less than 10
employees
 those already enjoying the benefits
 those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least
5 days
 with less than one year of service
 those exempted by the sec of labor due to its
financial condition

Meaning of one year service - service within 12 months

whether continuous or broken; (authorized absences
and holidays are counted)

SIL of partime employees

Commutation to cash of SIL – full/prorata. Not

provided in the law, but in the implementing rules.
 Contract workers (faculty members) are entitled to SIL
- they are not the same as employees on task or basis.
They are not similar to field personnel;

Question – is sick leave with pay similar to the SIL?

Is VL with pay but not convertible to cash similar
to SIL?

 Makati Haberdashery, Inc., et al. v. NLRC, LA Diosana,

SANDIGAN, TUCP and its members; GR 83380-81
(1989)

ii. Vacation Leave/Sick Leave

 Granted as a matter of employer voluntary policy or
practice; CBA benefit;
 Makati Haberdashery, Inc., et al. v. NLRC, LA
Diosana, SANDIGAN, TUCP and its members; GR
83380-81 (1989)

iii. Paternity Leave

RA 8187; RA 7277; 1987 Consti, Art. XV, Sec. 1; RA 8972

 must be married; must be cohabiting with the

spouse as of the time she gives birth or has a
miscarriage; for the first 4 deliveries only
 7 working days with full pay (although the law
does not say working days)
 non-commutable to cash
 one year service is not required;
 when to apply – within reasonable time from
expected date of delivery; availed of after the
delivery;
 creditability of existing benefit;

iv. Maternity Leave

v. Solo parent leave

RA 8972

vi. VAWC Leave

RA 9262, Sec. 43; RA 9262 Rules, Rule VI, Sec. 42;

Paid leave up to 10 days, or an extended period, needed to

secure a TPO

vii. Gynecological leave (RA 9710- Magna carta of women) -

special leave of 2 months with full pay (gross monthly
 salary) – following surgery caused by gynecological
disorder ; provided with 6 months prior service

c. Wage
viii. Coverage/definition - (see article 97, par f)
ix. Facilities, Supplements, Commissions, allowances
 Songco vs NLRC - GR No. 50999 March 23, 1990

 Mabeza vs NLRC GR No. 118506, April 18, 1997


 Soriano vs NLRC 155 SCRA 124
 Rule VII-A, Book III Implementing Rules
 Facility
 Gratuity/bonuses -
 Allowances – existing laws exclude allowances in the
computation of retirement and other benefits
 Planters products vs NLRC
 Liduvino vs NLRC –
 Eligir vs PAL –
 Oxales vs Unilab

x. Payment of Wages
 Title II, Chapter III Labor Code; Rule VIII, Book III,
Implementing Rules
 Minimum wages
 Deductions
 Frequency of payment
 Form of payment
 Deposits
 Article 214 Labor Code

xi. Non-diminution of benefits (WEEK SEVEN)

 Article 100, Labor Code;
o What kind of benefits could not be
diminished:
 Given as an employer policy
 Has become a practice over a long
period of time
 Consistent and deliberate
o Exceptions:
 Error/mistakes in interpretation
 Contingent or conditional
 Bonus - when is this a binding
practice and when is it not?
 Part of wage or compensation
 Product of generosity
  Substitution of benefits
 Arco Metal Products vs Samahan ng mga mangagawa
sa Arco GR No. 170734 May 14, 2008
 Globe Mackay Cable vs NLRC GR No. 74156, June 29,
1988
 Pagasa Steel Workers vs CA GR 166647 March 31,
2006
 American Wire and Cable Union vs American Wire
GR 155059, April 29, 2005

xii. 13th Month Pay

PD 851
 additional compensation but not part of the wage
 the amount is gross basic pay for one year divided by
twelve
 overtime pay are not included in the computation;
allowances are not included in the computation; but
commission may be included
o test - allowances or monetary benefits which
are not integrated or considered as part of
the basic pay of the employee
o question of fact ( company policy or practice
to be followed)
 not considered for purposes of overtime; separation
pay, retirement pay (not anymore- 1/12 of the 13th
month pay)
 legally payable only to rank and file employees but
at least one month of service is required
 who are not covered:
o government workers (with original charters)
o distressed employer
o domestic workers
o employees paid purely commission
o employees who are paid on task
basis/pakyaw, except piece rate workers
o those who are also receiving the “equivalent”
of a 13th month pay
o managerial employees; supervisors;
managerial staff (?)
o
 cases:

 NFSW vs Ovejera 114 SCRA 354 (1982)

 Universal Corn Products vs NLRC GR No. 60337,
August 21, 1987
 Archilles Manufacturing Corporation, et al.v. NLRC,
Geronimo Manuel, et al.; GR 107225 (1995)
 xiii. Wage Orders (WEEK EIGHT)
 Article 123 Labor Code
o RTWPB per region (7 members)
o Effectivity – consultation and publication (15
days from publication)
xiv. Wage Distortion
 Article 124 Labor Code- when is there actionable
wage distortion?
o There is an increase in the prescribe wage
rates
o It resulted in the elimination or severe
contraction
o Of intentional quantitative differences in
wage or salary rates
o Between and among employee groups
o Obliterate the distinctions embodied in such
wage structure based on skills, length of
service, or other logical basis of
differentiation
 How resolved:
o Grievance machinery; voluntary arbitration
(if there is a CBA/Union)
o NCMB – through conciliation and mediation ;
then VA
o NLRC- compulsory arbitration
 Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs NLRC GR No.
108556 , November 19, 1996
 Metropolitan Bank vs NLRC – GR 102636
September 10, 1993

d. Service Charges
 Hotels, restaurants and similar establishments
 85% for covered employees (rank and file?); divided
equally
 15% for management
 integration in the wage (in case of abolition)
 RA 11360 New service charge law
e. Special Classes of Workers
i. Apprenticeship and Learnership
ii. Women Workers

1987 Consti, Art. II, Sec. 14, Art. XIII, Sec. 14; Omnibus
Rules, Book III, Rule XII, Sec. 1, 13; RA 9710; RA 8282; RA
7877
 Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Co v. NLRC; GR
118978 (1997)
  Duncan Association of Detailman -PTGWO v. Glaxo
Wellcome; GR 162994 (2004)
 Philip Aeolus Automotive United Corp v. NLRC; GR
124617 (2000)
 Libres v. NLRC; GR 123737 (1999)

iii. Persons with Disabilities (PWD) -

iv. Minors -
v. Kasambahay - RA 10361 and implementing rules

MIDTERMS EXAM (October 22)

f) Employment of Women (WEEK NINE)

- covered employers-
- facilities for women
- prohibited acts
o discrimination
o prohibition against marriage
- maternity leave benefits
- other leaves for women employees
- sexual harassment
- special classes of women workers
-
g) Employment of minor

- employable age (15)

o below 15 ok if under the sole responsibility of the parent or
guardian
- hazardous employment (15 to 18)
- special employment opportunities for minor (students)
-
h) Kasambahay law (househelpers)

- definition of domestic or household service

- duration of employment contract
- minimum wages
-

i)Homeworkers

- industrial homeworkers
- who is the employer?

j)Night workers - see also the implementing rules

a. Coverage
 b. Definition of night worker - work for not less than 7 hours during
the night (10 p.m to 6 a.m)
c. Mandatory health assessment
d. Mandatory facilities
e. Women night workers

VI. VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS AND JOB

CONTRACTING (WEEK TEN)

A. Visitorial and Enforcement Power of DOLE

1. Article 128 Labor Code;

2. Department Order 183-17;
3. Quasi-judicial power of Regional Directors;
Article 129 Labor Code; Rule XI Book 3 of the
Labor Code;
4. Cases:
a. People Broadcasting (Radyo Bombo) vs
Secretary of Labor and Employment GR
No. 179652, March 6, 2012.

B. Job Contracting/Labor only Contracting

1. Articles 106 to 109 Labor Code

2. Department Order 174
3. DOLE Dept Circular No. 1 Series of 2017
4. Cases:
i. PBCOM vs NLRC and Orpiada – GR L
66598 (1986)
ii. Sasan Sr et al vs NLRC GR 176240,
October 17, 2008

VII . HEALTH SAFETY AND SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

A. MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES

a. First aid treatment
i. All employers are covered
ii. Subject to the rules and regulations issued by the DOLE
b. Services of a first aider
i. For employers not engaged in hazardous undertaking
(from 50 to 200 employees)
c. Services of a nurse
i. Full time registered nurse (50 or more employees)

d. Services of a doctor
i. Partime if more than 200 employees not more than 300
 ii. Fulltime if more than 300
e. Emergency clinic/hospital
i. Clinic if more than 200 less than 300
ii. Hospital if more than 300
f. Services of a dentist
i. Partime if more than 200 less than 300
ii. Fulltime if more than 300
g. Assistance of employer
i. to provide all necessary assistance to ensure adequate and
immediate medical and dental assistance and treatment to
an injured or sick employee in case of emergency

B. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

a. Health and safety standards
i. Set by the Secretary of Dole through rules and regulations
issued by him
b. Administration of safety and health laws
i. DOLE is solely responsible for the administration and
enforcement of occupation safety and health laws
ii. Local governments may be allowed to conduct industrial
safety inspections of establishments within their respective
jurisdictions
iii. Setting up of safety committees

VIII. SOCIAL LEGISLATION AND EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION (PD 626) (WEEK

ELEVEN AND TWELVE)

A. COVERAGE
a) Social Security System (SSS)
b) GSIS
c) ECC
d) HDMF
e) Philhealth

B. Prerequisites
a) employer-employee relationship

C. BENEFITS

D. OBLIGATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER

a. Direct liability vs insured liability

i. The concept of social insurance
1. Raro vs ECC - GR No. 58445 (april 27, 1989)

b. Under the old law (WCA- Act No. 3428))

 i. Presumption of compensability – for injuries that occurred
in the course of employment
ii. Principle of aggravation

c. Under the new law (ECC- PD 626)

i. State Insurance Fund
ii. No more presumption of compensability
1. Exception: for AFP members and Policemen (ECC
policy, applied in Quebec vs GSIS - ECC case no.
4310 (nov. 9, 1988))
2.
E. BURDEN OF PROOF

a) The employee should prove compensability; the government

protects the SIF against non-compensable claims; however the ECC
adopts a liberal policy in determining compensability pursuant to the
social justice principle

F. COMPENSABLE INJURY OR ILLNESS

a) Injury/disability/death
i.Place of injury - workplace or such place where he is
executing the order of an employer
ii. Employee is performing official function

b)Sickness

i.Illness accepted as occupational disease as listed by the ECC

ii.Illness caused by the employment- subject to proof that the

risk of contracting the same is increased by the working
condition
iii. Degree of proof- proof of reasonable work connection
iv. Proof of reasonable connection is required only if cause is
know
*In cancer cases, proof that the working condition
has increased the risk of cancer is required.
G. CONCEPT OF ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
a.Concept:
i.Arising out - origin or cause
ii. In the course of - time and place
b.Proximate cause
i. Sufficient cause - that which sets other causes in motion;
natural and continuous chain of event
ii.Independent intervening cause – usually the claimant’s
negligence or misconduct
c. Special rule for AFP and PNP personnel
i. 24 hour rule for military and police personnel- work
connection still required
 ii. different concept of the workplace (but performing task
which are basically related to their duty as peace officers)
iii. injury during vacation leave or while moonlighting – non
compensable
d. ingress and egress rule (the proximity rule)
i. going to/coming from - general rule, not covered
1. exceptions:
a. proceeding to or from his work in the
premises of the employer
b. about to enter or about to leave the
workplace
c. employee is performing some errand for the
employer on his way to or from the
workplace
d. the employer provides the transportation
going to or coming from the work place
(shuttle bus rule)
e. ECC Resolution No. 3914 (July 1988)
i. Going to and coming from, extends up to the residence –
provided the travel must be a continuing act (no diversion)
- street peril doctrine not anymore applied
f. Incidents of employment
i. Acts of ministration
ii. Rest/refreshments
iii. Lunch period
iv. Acts for the benefits of the employer
v. Acts to further the goodwill of the business
vi. Slight deviation from work, curiosity or otherwise
vii. Acts in emergencies
viii. Work at home – if made pursuant to the request of the
employer (not compensable if voluntarily performed by the
employee)
ix. Employer sponsored activities
x. Dual purpose doctrine
g. Fortuitous events
i. Positional and local rules -
h. Assault as an accident (work connection is required; or in the
course of employment - the job has increased the risk of being
exposed to the assault)

H. EFFECTS OF VIOLATON OF THE RULE

a. Still compensable
b. Except when due to intoxication, willful intention to injure himself,
notorious negligence
IX. POST EMPLOYMENT (WEEK THIRTEEN TO FOURTEEN)
A. Security of Tenure

1. Substantial due process

a. Just Causes for dismissal

i. Article 283 Labor Code

b. Authorized cause for dismissal

i. Article 284 Labor Code

c. Application of Union security clause

2. Procedural Due Process

a. Twin Notice requirement

b. Ample opportunity to be heard

3. Effect of sale of business/merger

4. DO No. 147-15
5. Cases:
a. Aliviado et al vs Procter and Gamble
Phil GR No. 160506 March 9, 2010

B. Consequences of Dismissal

a. Full Backwages
i. Scope of backwages
b. Reinstatement
i. When is it immediately executory
ii. Exceptions (when reinstatement is
not ordered)
c. Payroll Reinstatement
d. Separation Pay
i. When payable
ii. Basis for computation
e. Cases:
i. Bustamante et a vs NLRC GR 111651
Nov 28, 1996
ii. Paramount Vinyl Products Corp vs
NLRC Gr No. 81200 October 17,
1990
iii. Santos vs NLRC GR No. 76721
September 21, 1987
iv. Magana vs Medicard Philippines GR
No. 174833 (2010)
v. Planters product vs NLRC GR No.
78524 (1989)
vi. Islriz Trading vs Capada et al Gr
168501 January 31, 2011
vii. Agabon vs NLRC Gr No. 158693,
November 17, 2004
viii. Jaka Food vs Pakot et al GR No.
151378 March 28, 2005
 C. Preventive Suspension

D. Suspension of operations
a. Article 286
E. Resignations
a. Constructive Dismissal
b. Burden of proof

F. Retirement

a. Article 287 Labor Code

b. Amount and basis of retirement pay
c. Employee’s consent
i. Laya vs CA GR 205813 January 10,
2018

FINAL EXAMS. (December 17)