Calalang vs.

Williams
Facts:  The National Traffic Commission recommended the Director of Public Works
and to the Secretary of Public Works and Communication that animal-drawn vehicles be
prohibited from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarinas St. from 7:30 am to 12 pm and 1:30 pm to 5:30 pm and also along Rizal
Avenue from 7 am to 11 pm from a period of one year from the date of the opening of
Colgante Bridge to traffic. It was subsequently passed and thereafter enforce by Manila
Mayor and the acting chief of police. Maximo Calalang then, as a citizen and a taxpayer
challenges its constitutionality.
Issue: Whether or not the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being
and economic security of all the people.
Held: The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group. It is the promotion of the welfare of all people. It is neither
communism, despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

P. A. Almira vs. B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC.

Facts:
In the course of the mass picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were committed by the
respondents such as physically blocking and preventing the entry of complainant's
customers, supplies and other employees who were not on strike, Injuries were also
inflicted on certain employees of the complainant.
The complainant caused the publication of notices in newspapers of general and wide
circulation ... for all employees not participating in the illegal strike to report for work on
or before April 23, 1971, otherwise such failure will be considered as participation
therein.
Issue:
Whether a violent strike would automatically tantamount to an illegal strike which would
justify the valid termination of the employees
Held:
No.
A strike otherwise valid, if violent in character, may be placed beyond the pale. Care is
to be taken, however, especially where an unfair labor practice is involved, to avoid
stamping it with illegality just because it is tainted by such acts. To avoid rendering
illusory the recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such case should be
individual and not collective.
It is thus clear that not every form of violence suffices to affix the seal of illegality on a
strike or to cause the loss of employment by the guilty party.

G.R. No. 112630 September 5, 1997

CORAZON JAMER and CRISTINA AMORTIZADO, vs. NLRC, ISETANN
DEPARTMENT STORE and/or JOHN GO
(Social Justice)
Facts:
Jamer and Amortizano who are both working at "Joy Mart," a sister company of Isetann.
, were promoted and transferred to Isetann Carriedo and Isetann Cubao, Complainants
discovered a shortage of P15,353.78. They did not, immediately report the shortage to
management hoping to find the cause of the shortage but to no avail.
Complainants were asked to submit their respective written explanations. They,
together with Inducta (co-store cashier) were placed under preventive suspension and
administrative investigation. Finding the explanation of the complainants to be
unsatisfactory, respondent dismissed the complainants from the service. Complainants
instituted an action for illegal dismissal praying for reinstatement with payment of
backwages and other benefits.

Issue:
Whether petitioners were validly dismissed on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence.

Held:
Yes. Petitioners were validly dismissed for just cause and after observance of due
process. Under the Labor Code, as amended, the requirements for the lawful dismissal
of an employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not
only must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law, but the
rudimentary requirements of due process, basic of which are the opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself, must be observed before an employee may be dismissed.
The failure of petitioners to report to management the aforementioned irregularities
constitutes "fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in them by their employer or duly
authorized representative" — one of the just causes in terminating employment as
provided for by paragraph (c), Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended.

RODOLFO FUENTES et al, vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION

Principle: Social Justice

Facts

Petitioners were regular employees of Agusan Plantations, Inc., which was

engaged in the operation of a palm tree plantation. Claiming that it was suffering
business losses, private respondent sent notices of termination to petitioners and the
DOLE. Petitioners filed with the DOLE a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement, backwages and damages against Agusan Plantation, Inc. In their answer
respondents denied the allegations and contended that upon receipt of instructions from
the head office in Singapore to implement retrenchment, private respondents conducted
grievance conferences or meetings with petitioners' representative labor organization,
the Association of Trade Unions.

Issues

Whether or not the petitioners were legally terminated from their employment.

Ruling

No. There is no question that an employer may reduce its work force to prevent
losses. However, these losses must be serious, actual and real. Otherwise, this ground
for termination of employment would be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers
who might be merely feigning losses in their business ventures in order to ease out
employees.

In this case at hand, private respondents merely alleged in their answer and
position paper that after their officials from the head office had visited the plantation,
respondent manager received a letter from the head office directing him to proceed
immediately with the termination of workers and staff, Private respondents did not
present any other documentary proof of their alleged losses which could have been
easily proven in the financial statements. Indeed, private respondents failed
to prove their claim of business losses. 
 MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989

Facts: Ladisla was employed by Mercury Drug Corporation as Stock Analyst.

for 2 years and nine months when he was apprehended by representatives of Mercury Drug Cor
poration while in the act of pilfering company property(drugs). Petitioner filed before the DOLE 
an application for the termination of Ladisla’s employment on the grounds of dishonesty and br
each of trust. While the case was being heard by the Labor Arbiter, petitioner filed a criminal co
mplaint for attempted qualified theft. Labor Arbiter sustained the validity of the dismissal but w
as reversed by the NLRC and ordered reinstatement on despite the RTC’s conviction of Ladisla f
or the crime of simple theft.

Issue: W/N there was substantial evidence for the dismissal of the private
respondent
Ruling: Yes. The NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction in finding no substantial evidence to sustain the charge against
private respondent. This conclusion is in complete and utter disregard of the conviction
of private respondent for the crime of simple theft which decision was rendered prior to
its own assailed decision.
Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of management
but also of labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its interest, a
company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. We therefore find justification in
the termination of private respondent Ladisla's employment by Mercury.

6. SOCIAL JUSTICE

G.R. NO. 152048 : April 7, 2009]

FELIX B. PEREZ and AMANTE G. DORIA, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH

AND TELEPHONE COMPANY and JOSE LUIS SANTIAGO,Respondents.

FACTS:

Perez and Doria were working as shipping clerk and supervisor, respectively in PT & T.
Acting on an alleged unsigned letter regarding anomalous transactions at the Shipping
Section, PT & T formed a special audit team to investigate and it was discovered that
the Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for goods shipped and that
the duplicates of the shipping documents allegedly showed traces of tampering,
alteration and superimposition.
Petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30 days for their alleged
involvement which was extended for 15 days twice.  In view of the said suspension and
criminal charges, Perez and Doria were then dismissed from the service. They filed a
complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and alleged that they were
dismissed on the same date that they received the complaint memorandum.

ISSUE: 

Whether petitioners were dismissed for just cause and with the observance of due
process

RULING:

No, petitioners were not dismissed for just cause and with the observance of due
process

To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an employee, an employer

must furnish the worker with 2 written notices: (1) a written notice specifying the
grounds for termination and giving to said employee a reasonable opportunity to explain
his side and (2) another written notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the employer’s decision to
dismiss the employee.
 
Petitioners were neither apprised of the charges against them nor given a chance to
defend themselves. They were simply and arbitrarily separated from work and served
notices of termination in total disregard of their rights to due process and security of
tenure. Respondents failed to comply with the two-notice requirement for terminating
employees.
Furthermore, in cases of termination for a just cause, an employee must be given
“ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.” 
Perez and Amante v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No.
152048, April 7, 2009
TOPIC: Property Rights
Facts:
Perez and Doria were working as shipping clerk and supervisor, respectively in PT & T.
Acting on an alleged unsigned letter regarding anomalous transactions at the Shipping
Section, PT & T formed a special audit team to investigate and it was discovered that
the Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for goods shipped and that
the duplicates of the shipping documents allegedly showed traces of tampering,
alteration and superimposition.

Petitioners were placed on preventive suspension for 30 days for their alleged
involvement which was extended for 15 days twice.  In view of the said suspension and
criminal charges, Perez and Doria were then dismissed from the service. They filed a
complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and alleged that they were
dismissed on the same date that they received the complaint memorandum.
Issue: WON Perez and Doria were deprived of their property right.

Held: Yes, they were deprived of their property right.

the respondents failed to prove just cause. The alterations on the shipping documents
could not reasonably be attributed to petitioners because it was never proven that
petitioners alone had control of or access to these documents. Unless duly proved or
sufficiently substantiated otherwise, impartial tribunals should not rely only on the
statement of the employer that it has lost confidence in its employee.

Between an employer and an employee, the latter is oftentimes on the losing or inferior position.
Without the mandatory requirement of a hearing, employees may be unjustly terminated from their
work, effectively losing their means of livelihood. The right of persons to their work is considered a
property right which is well within the meaning of the constitutional guarantee.10 Depriving employees
their job without due process essentially amounts to a deprivation of property without due process

.LEO T. MAULA v. XIMEX DELIVERY EXPRESS, January 25, 2017

PRINCIPLE: PROPERTY RIGHTS “The right of a person to his labor is deemed to be a

property within the meaning of constitutional guarantees. Any deprivation of this
constitutionally guaranteed right must be attended by due process of law.”
Facts:Maula works at Simex as operation staff in 2002. He performed duties including
documentation, checker, dispatcher or airfreight coordinator. He was on call anytime of
day or night. He was rendering night duty and often went beyond the normal eight-hour
schedule. On February 2009, they were required by the HRD to sign a form sub-titled
“Personal Data For New Hires.” It was stated in the said form that the designated
salary/wage was daily instead of on a monthly basis. On March 2009, the parties
reached a stipulation in NCMB and disclosed that Respondent’s counsel admits that
petitioner is a regular employee. On May 2009, after he received a memorandum and
was suspended from work for alleged misconduct and willful disobedience, he received
a dismissal letter. The suspension and dismissal stemmed from an event where a cargo
was misrouted. He was accused that he erroneously wrote the label on the box.
Subsequently, he received a memorandum of reassignment and trained his
replacement during that day, said replacement went straight home without finishing the
training. Later on, he was required by his supervisor to continue his former work, which
he did not comply in view of the reassignment. The following day, he received a
memorandum and was required to explain why he did not perform his former work and
not report to his re-assignment, whereby upon receipt of said memo, he shouted to his
supervisor, “Siguro na abnormal ang utak mo!”
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal is valid?
HELD: No.The right of a person to his labor is deemed to be property within the
meaning of constitutional guarantees.” Security of tenure of workers is not only a
statutorily protected; it is also a constitutionally guaranteed right. Thus, any deprivation
of this right must be attended by due process of law. In dismissal from employment,
there must be substantive due process which involves legality of dismissal and
procedural due process which relates to the manner of dismissal.
In this case, Respondent Simex failed to prove that petitioner’s act constitutes
serious misconduct and the procedural due process requirement was not complied with
as he was merely given by respondent a memorandum without stating the specific facts
of the grounds of his dismissal. Thus, he was not accorded with ample opportunity to be
heard which renders the dismissal invalid.

G.R. No. L-46496             February 27, 1940

ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor, and

NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
INC., respondents.

Toribio Teodoro claimed that there was a shortage of leather soles that
prompted him to lay off 89 laborers belonging to the National Labor Union Inc.

The NLUI claimed that it was a scheme to systematically discharge their

members.

Petitioners alleged under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition, to
prove Teodoro’s substantial averments, are inaccessible to the respondents
that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to
have obtained them and effected as evidence in the Court of Industrial
Relations. And that the documents are of such far reaching importance and
effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and
reversal of judgement tendered.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a new trial be granted since the documents attached to the
petition was inaccessible to the respondent NLUI.

HELD:
Re-trial was granted.

RULING:
That the interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given the
opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in the motion
and such evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved.

Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services

Facts:

Serrano claims that the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8042 violates the OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of
their contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them due process.
Serrano’s employment contract was for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998
up to March 19, 1999, but at the time of his repatriation on May 26, 1998, he had served
only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of
nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days. Antonio filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a
Complaint9 against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his
money claims. LA declared the dismissal of Antonio illegal and awarded him monetary
benefits, representing the Antonio’s salary for three (3) months of the unexpired portion
of the aforesaid contract of employment.1av

Issue:
 Whether or not the subject clause violates the due process clause, for it deprives
Antonio of the salaries and other emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed-period
employment contract.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that the subject clause violates petitioner's right to substantive due
process, for it deprives him of property, consisting of monetary benefits, without any
existing valid governmental purpose. The argument of the Solicitor General, that the
actual purpose of the subject clause of limiting the entitlement of OFWs to their three-
month salary in case of illegal dismissal, is to give them a better chance of getting hired
by foreign employers. The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive
governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that the clause violates not just
petitioner's right to equal protection, but also her right to substantive due process under
Section 1,137 Article III of the Constitution. The subject clause being unconstitutional,
petitioner is entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months and 23
days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the
enactment of R.A. No. 8042.

#11 DUE PROCESS - AGABON v. NLRC G.R. No. 158693            

November 17, 2004

FACTS: Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. employed Virgilio Agabon and Jenny
Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers until they were dismissed for
abandonment of work. Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
payment of money claims. The assert that they were dismissed because the private
respondent refused to give them assignments unless they agreed to work on
a "pakyaw" basis. They did not agree on this arrangement because it would mean
losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS) members. Petitioners also claim that
private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

Private respondent, maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned
their work.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners’ right to due process was violated.

RULING: No. The Court agrees with Court of Appeals that petitioners' dismissal was for
a just cause since they had abandoned their employment and were already working for
another employer. However, the requirement of due process was not complied with.

Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer
must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if
requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the
grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after
hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss. This became
known as the Wenphil or Belated Due Process Rule.
In this case, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be
cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be
held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.

12. DUE PROCESS

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D.

FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUTMISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G.
ALMAZAR, v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ
G.R. No. 192571               July 23, 2013

FACTS:

Abbott Laboratories, Philippines caused the publication in a major broadsheet

newspaper the said need which included the duties and responsibilities.

PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, hired thereafter under probationary contract for 6 months.
Her responsibilities were discussed to her during her pre-orientation.
Alcaraz was told that her method of management was too strict. Subsequently, Alcaraz
was called to a meeting with the Abbotts’ former director, where she was informed that
that she failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs
Manager. Next day, she was told that Walsh and Terrible already announced to the
whole Hospira ALSU staff that Alcaraz already resigned due to health reasons. A week
later, she was handed a letter stating that her services had been terminated effective
May 19, 2005. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from her employment

RULING:
Yes. Alcaraz was validly terminated.

A probationary employee enjoys security of tenure. The services of an employee who

has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: 
(a)   a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. 

Provided that: the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under
which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no
standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular
employee. 

Abbott indicated the job description in the newspaper were they offered the job to
interested applicants. Received employment contract, underwent to pre-employment
contract, training, received code of conduct manual. Alcaraz had previously worked for
another pharmaceutical company and had admitted to have an "extensive training and
background" to acquire the necessary skills for her job, thus the fact that she was well-
aware of her duties and responsibilities and that her failure to adequately perform the
same would lead to non-regularization and eventually, termination.

13. The Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (PBOAP), et al. v.
Department of Labor and Employment, July 17, 2018
Principle: NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE; Not all contracts are protected under the non-
impairment clause. Contracts whose subject matters are so related to the public welfare
are subject to the police power of the State. The relations between capital and labor are
not merely contractual. Labor contracts are impressed with public interest and,
therefore, must yield to the common good.
FACTS: Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of a DOLE Department Order and
an LTFRB Memorandum Circular.. Said Order and Circular provided with the Terms and
Conditions of Employments of Driver’s and Conductors’ of Public Utility Bus, grant of
benefits and the Compensation scheme. It also mandates that the compensation
scheme shall be a part-fixed-part performance-based compensation system. The fixed
component shall not be based on the price agreed by the owner/operator and
driver/conductor, which should not be lowered than the applicable minimum wage and
the performance-based component shall be based on the net income of operator, safety
performance, and other related parameters. Petitioners claim that the above-mentioned
Department Order and Memorandum Circular violate bus operator’s right to non-
impairment of obligation of contracts because these issuances force them to abandon
their time-honored employment contracts or arrangements with their drivers and
conductors.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuances violate the petitioners’ right to non-impairment of
obligations of contracts?
HELD: No. For one, the relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual
as provided in Article 1700 of the Civil Code. By statutory declaration, labor contracts
are impressed with public interest and, must yield to the common good. Labor contracts
are subject to special laws on wages, working conditions, hours of labor, and similar
subjects. In other words, labor contracts are subject to the police power of the State.
D.O. No. 118-12 was issued to grant bus drivers and conductors minimum wages and
social welfare benefits. It was admitted that in paying their bus drivers and conductors,
they employ the boundary system or commission basis, payment schemes which cause
drivers to drive recklessly.

MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU-
MIF)
Topic: Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation
Facts: Marcopper Mining Corporation and NAMAWUMIF entered into a (CBA) effective
from May 1, 1984 until April 30, 1987. On July 25, 1986, prior to the expiration of the
aAgreement, the petitioner and private respondent executed a Memorandum of
Agreement wherein the terms of the CBA, specifically on matters of wage increase and
facilities allowance were modified. On June 1, 1987, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 178
was promulgated mandating the integration of the cost of living allowance under Wage
Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 into the basic wage of workers, its effectivity retroactive to
May 1, 1987.
Consequently, the basic wage rate of petitioner's laborers categorized as non-
agricultural workers was increased by P9.00 per day. Furthermore, the petitioner
implemented the second five percent (5%) wage increase due on the same date and
thereafter added the integrated COLA. However, the private respondent assailed the
manner in which the second wage increase was affected. It argued that the COLA
should first be integrated into the basic wage before the 5% wage increase is computed.

Issue: WON THE DOCTRINE OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION IN FAVOR OF LABOR

IN CASE OF DOUBT is APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. 

Held:
The petitioner misinterprets the declaration of the Labor Arbiter in the assailed decision
that "when the pendulum of judgment swings to and fro and the forces are equal on
both sides, the same must be stilled in favor of labor." While petitioner acknowledges
that all doubts in the interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of
labor, 20 it insists that what is involved here is the amended CBA which is essentially a
contract between private persons. What petitioner has lost sight of is the avowed policy
of the State, enshrined in our Constitution, to accord utmost protection and justice to
labor.
When conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social
justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counter-balanced by sympathy and
compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker. Any doubt concerning the
rights of labor should be resolved in its favor pursuant to the social justice policy.

G.R. No. 160123, June 17, 2015

Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation v. Aguinaldo Naluis and CA
(Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation)
Facts:
Centro Project engaged Naluis to work abroad as a plumber under (Pacific Micronesia)
The work was covered by the primary Employment Contract dated March 11, 1997,
whereby his employment would last for 12 months, and would commence upon his
arrival in Northern Marianas. On June 3, 1997, the Department of Labor and
Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands issued an Authorization for Entry (AE) in his
favor.
Naluis left for Northern Mariana on September 13, 1997, the date of his actual
deployment, and his employment continued until his repatriation to the Philippines on
June 3, 1998 allegedly due to the expiration of the employment contract. Not having
completed 12 months of work, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Centro
Project.
Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC resolved the doubt in favor of the employer
However, the CA set aside their resolutions, and ruled to the contrary.
Issue:
WON the date contained in the AE issued by the Department of Labor and Immigration
of Northern Mariana Islands validly cut short Naluis' stay and thus justified the pre-
termination of his work?

Held:
No.
It appears that the (AE) issued by the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands
does not limit the employee’s stay in the said country. The shows that the person to
whom it is issued should enter CNMI not later than May 13, 1998 as a general rule or, if
he is an employee, not later than 3 months from its issuance. The Court submit that an
authorization of entry is different from a limitation of stay in the country visited. The AE
clearly indicates that the date of May 13, 1998 refers to the expiration of the document
itself. Centro Project stretched its interpretation to bolster its contention that May 13,
1998 was the limit of stay for Naluis in Northern Marianas.
The burden of proof to show that the employment contract had been validly terminated
pertained to the employer. The employer must rely on the strength of its own evidence.
But Centro Project’s reliance on the AE limiting Naluis’ stay was unwarranted, and,
worse, it did not discharge its burden of proof as the employer to show that Naluis’
repatriation had been justified.

CONTROL TEST
South East International Rattan, Inc. v. Jesus Coming
Facts: Petitioner South East International Rattan is a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing and exporting furniture to various countries. Respondent Coming
was hired by petitioner as Sizing Machine Operator whose work is initially compensated on
‘pakiao basis’ but sometime was fixed per day and a work schedule of 8:00am to 5:00pm.
Without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to
resume work in 2 months time but was never called back. Respondent thus filed a complaint
before the regional arbitration branch. The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent as a regular
employee of petitioner SEIRI but on appeal, was reversed by the NLRC. CA then reversed the
NLRC decision and ruled that there existed an employer-employee relationship between
petitioners and respondent.

Issue: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between SEIRI and
Jesus Coming.
Held: YES. To ascertain the existence of employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has
invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control
the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.” As to the "control test", the following
facts indubitably reveal that respondents wielded control over the work performance of
petitioner, to wit: (1) they required him to work within the company premises; (2) they
obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the
same job; (3) they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 o’clock in
the morning to 5 o’clock in the afternoon; (4) the mode of payment of petitioner’s salary
was under their discretion, at first paying him on pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily
basis; (5) they implemented company rules and regulations; (6) [Estanislao] Agbay
directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and (7)
petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent
company.

#17 Control Test - Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. vs. Gison G.R. No. 169510  
August 8, 2011

FACTS: Jesus P. Gison was engaged as part-time consultant on retainer basis by Atok.
Petitioner did not require respondent to its office on a regular basis, except when
occasionally requested by the management to discuss matters of his expertise. As
payment for his services, Gison received a retainer fee of P3,000.00 which was
delivered to him at his residence or in a local restaurant. The said arrangement
continued for the next eleven years. Since the respondent was getting old he requested
that petitioner cause his registration with the SSS but petitioner did not accede his
request. Respondent filed a complaint with the SSS against petitioner for the latter’s
refusal to cause his registration with the SSS. On the same date the petitioner issued a
memo advising the termination of the respondent’s retainer contract. Thus he filed for
illegal dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner

and the respondent.

RULING: No. To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship

jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test to wit: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal;
and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test”.

Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is apparently

absent in the case at bar. Among other things, respondent was not required to report
everyday during regular office hours of petitioner. Respondent's monthly retainer fees
were paid to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More importantly,
petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of
the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed; respondent was left
alone and given the freedom to accomplish the tasks using his own means and method.
Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the manner
and methods by which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the absence of the
element of control on the part of the petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an
employee of the petitioner.

ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, KASEI

CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN LIZA, IRENE
BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA,
G.R. No. 170087 August 31, 2006

Facts: Angelina Francisco was hired by Kasei Corporation during its incorporation stage
as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and later as a Liaison Officer. Subsequently she was
also designated Acting Manager until replaced, but was assured by the company that she was
still connected as Technical Consultant. Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced petitioner’s
salary until it was later withheld despite repeated follow-ups. Petitioner once again asked for her
salary but was informed that she is no longer connected with the company

Issue: W/N there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and

respondent-corporation

Ruling: Yes.
There are certain cases where the control test is not sufficient to give a complete picture
of the relationship between the parties, owing to the complexity of such a relationship
where several positions have been held by the worker. The better approach would
therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s power to
control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei
Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of the
corporation’s Technical Consultant. She reported for work regularly and served in
various capacities.

BERNARD A. TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT

Facts:

(Tenazas) and (Francisco) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi
Transport and/or Romualdo and Andy Villegas.

Tenazas alleged that on 2007, the taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another
vehicle, causing a dent on the left fender near the driver seat. Upon reporting the
incident to the company, he was scolded by respondents and was told that he is already
fired. He was even threatened with physical harm should he ever be seen in the
company's premises again., Tenazas reported for work on the following day but was
told that he can no longer drive any of the company's units as he is already fired.
Francisco, on the other hand, averred that his dismissal was brought about by the
company's unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor union. He was
instantaneously terminated, without the benefit of procedural due process

Issues:

Whether there was an employer-employee relationship

Ruling:

No substantial evidence was presented to support the conclusion that Francisco was an
employee of the respondents and accordingly modified the NLRC decision.

It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial

proceedings, "the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount
of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a...
conclusion." Francisco failed to present any proof substantial enough to establish his
relationship with the respondents. He failed to present documentary evidence like
attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record or any personnel file that could somehow
depict his... status as an employee. Anent his claim that he was not issued with
employment records, he could have, at least, produced his social security records which
state his contributions, name and address of his employer, as his co-petitioner Tenazas
did.

JACK C. VALENCIA, Petitioner,
vs.
CLASSIQUE VINYL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOHNNY CHANG (Owner) and/or
CANTINGAS MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondents.

Facts:
Jack Valencia alleged that he applied for work with Classique Vinyl but was told by
the latter's personnel office to proceed to Cantingas Manpower Services (CMS), a local
manpower agency, and therein submit the requirements for employment. CMS made
him sign a contract of employment. He then proceeded to Classique Vinyl for interview
and thereafter started working for the company. Classique Vinyl, for its part, denied
having hired Valencia and instead pointed to CMS as the one who actually selected,
engaged, and contracted out Valencia's services. It averred that CMS would only deploy
Valencia to Classique Vinyl whenever there was an urgent specific task or temporary
work. Valencia's deployment to Classique Vinyl was intermittent and limited.

Issue:
 Who has the burden of proving the employee-employer relationship?

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue’." Since it is Valencia here who is claiming to be an employee of
Classique Vinyl, it is thus incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence
of employer-employee relationship between them. He "needs to show by substantial
evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims
illegal dismissal." Indeed, there is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the
aforementioned elements of employer-employee relationship.23 "Any competent and
relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted."24 In this case, however,
Valencia failed to present competent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support
his claimed employer-employee relationship between him and Classique Vinyl. All he
advanced were mere factual assertions unsupported by proof.

Topic: Probationary Employee

(There is a shorter version at the latter part)

G.R. No. 192571               July 23, 2013

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D.

FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUTMISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G.
ALMAZAR, Petitioners,
vs.
PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent.

Facts:
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines caused the publication in a major broadsheet
newspaper the said need which included the duties and responsibilities.
PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, hired thereafter under probationary contract for 6 months.
Her responsibilities were discussed to her during her pre-orientation.
Alcaraz was told that her method of management was too strict. Subsequently, Alcaraz
was called to a meeting with the Abbotts’ former director, where she was informed that
that she failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs
Manager. Next day, she was told that Walsh and Terrible already announced to the
whole Hospira ALSU staff that Alcaraz already resigned due to health reasons. A week
later, she was handed a letter stating that her services had been terminated effective
May 19, 2005. 
Issue: Whether or not Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to
qualify her as a regular employee and was validly terminated from her employment

Held:

Yes. A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure.

However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized causes of
termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e.,
the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the employer to
the employee at the time of the engagement.

ABERDEEN COURT, INC., AND RICHARD NG, PETITIONERS, VS. MATEO C.

AGUSTIN JR., RESPONDENT.

Principle: Probationary Employee

Facts

Aberdeen Court, Inc. employed Agustin under a six-month probationary basis.

Agustin asserts that Engr. Abad requested him to accompany the aforesaid
personnel to show the location the exhaust air outlets. He avers that the request of
Engr. Abad is actually the responsibility of the company's mechanical engineers.
However, being a subordinate of Engr. Abad, he obliged.. Being an electrical engineer,
petitioner obviously has no knowledge of the procedure and the equipment used in the
conduct of the reading. After the Centigrade personnel finished their job, they submitted
their report to Agustin which the latter signed. Agustin claims that he signed merely to
evidence that he received a copy of the report. Engineer Abad later checked the work of
the Centigrade employees only to find out that four rooms in the fifth floor and five
rooms in the sixth floor were incorrectly done.

Agustin claims that two days after the report was submitted by Centigrade
Industries, he was summarily dismissed. Respondent Agustin thereafter filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues

Whether or not there is just cause to justify the dismissal of the probationary
employee.

Ruling

Yes. Probationary employment shall be governed by Article 281 of the Labor

Code which states that the services of an employee who has been engaged on
probationary basis may be terminated only for a just cause, and when he fails to qualify
as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer. The employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which
he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement.

Nevertheless, it appears that petitioners violated due process in the dismissal of

respondent by not affording him the required notice. However, respondent is declared
dismissed for just cause but petitioners are ordered to pay him nominal damages.

PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION and VICTORIA ABRIL
G.R. No. 121071 December 11, 1998

Facts: In 1982, Victoria Abril was employed by petitioner and held positions in
different capacities therein. Shortly after resuming her position as office secretary, she
subsequently went on leave until she gave birth. Upon her return in 1989, she
discovered that another person was permanently appointed to her former position. Still,
she accepted the position of Regional Field Officer as evidenced by a contract which
stipulated, among other things, that Abril’s employment status shall be probationary for
a period of six (6) months. Said period having elapsed, she was allowed to work until
petitioner presented to her another employment contract for a period of one year after
which period, her employment was terminated.

As such, Abril filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed
the same for lack of merit. On appeal, however, the said decision was reversed by the
NLRC, directing the petitioner to reinstate Abril to her position last held.

Issue: W/N Abril is deemed a regular employee

Ruling: Yes.

After a careful scrutiny of the employment contract, the Court affirms the findings of the
NLRC that Abril has become a regular employee entitled to security of tenure
guaranteed under the Constitution and labor laws. Regardless of the designation
petitioner may have conferred upon her employment status, it is, however,
uncontroverted that the latter, having completed the probationary period and allowed to
work thereafter, became a regular employee who may be dismissed only for just or
authorized causes under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as amended.
Therefore, the dismissal, premised on the alleged expiration of the contract, is illegal
and entitles respondent to the reliefs prayed for.

Topic: Regular Employees

G.R. No. 184262**, April 24, 2017

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (UST), Petitioner, v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA

NG UST, FERNANDO PONTESOR,* RODRIGO CLACER, SANTIAGO BUISA, JR.,
AND JIMMY NAZARETH, Respondents.

Facts:
Respondents alleged that on various periods spanning the years 1990-1999, petitioner
repeatedly hired Pontesor, et al. to perform various maintenance duties within its
campus. Essentially, respondents insisted that they should be deemed regular
employees of petitioner and that as an educational institution, with rooms, buildings, and
facilities to maintain, petitioner could not dispense with their services which are
necessary and desirable to the business of petitioner.

On the other hand, petitioner maintained that they were merely hired on a per-project
basis, as evidenced by numerous Contractual Employee Appointments (CEAs) signed
by them.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents are regular employees.
Held:
Yes, respondents are regular employees.
Article 295 of the Labor Code provides for two (2) types of regular employees, namely:
(a) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (first category); and (b) those
who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with
respect to the activity in which they are employed (second category).
In the case at bar, Pontesor,  nature of work are not necessary and desirable to
petitioner's usual business as an educational institution; hence, removing them from the
ambit of the first category of regular employees under the law.
Nonetheless, it is clear that their respective cumulative periods of employment as per
their respective CEAs each exceed one (1) year. Thus, Pontesor, et al. fall under the
second category of regular employees under the Labor Code. Accordingly, they should
be deemed as regular employees but only with respect to the activities for which they
were hired and for as long as such activities exist.

#25 Regular Employee – Herma Shipyard, Inc. vs. Oliveros April 17, 2017 G.R.
No.208936

FACTS: The respondents were the employees Herma Shipyard occupying various
positions such as welder, leadman, pipe fitter, laborer, helper, etc.
The respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, and non-payment
of service incentive leave pay with prayer for the payment of full backwages and
attorney's fees against petitioners. Respondents alleged that they are Herma Shipyard's
regular employees who have been continuously performing tasks usually necessary and
desirable in its business.
For their defense, petitioners argued that respondents were its project-based
employees in its shipbuilding projects and that the specific project for which they were
hired had already been completed, in support thereof, Herma Shipyard presented
contracts of employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents were project-based employees
RULING: Yes. A project employee under Article 280 (now Article 294) of the Labor
Code, as amended, is one whose 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.
The principal test in determining whether particular employees were engaged as
project-based employees, as distinguished from regular employees, is whether they
were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which was specified at, and made known to them, at the time of their engagement.
Indeed, if we consider the nature of petitioner’s business, it is clear that petitioner only
hire workers when it has existing contracts for ship building and repair.
Hence, Herma Shipyard should be allowed to reduce its work force into a number suited
for the remaining work to be done upon the completion or proximate accomplishment of
each particular project.
26. HERMA SHIPYARD, INC. v. DANILO OLIVEROS, et al. April 17, 2017
Facts: Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, and non-
payment of service incentive leave pay with payment of full backwages against
petitioner. They allege that they are Petitioner’s regular employees who were employed
as pipe fitters, welders, laborers, helpers, ship fitters, electrician and leadman, who
have been continuously performing tasks usually necessary and desirable in its
business and that they were made to sign employment contracts for a fixed period
ranging from one to four months to make it appear that they are project employees. As
defense, petitioner argued that respondents were its project-based employees in
shipbuilding projects and that the specific project for which they were hired had already
been completed. The argument was supported by the contracts of employment. The CA
ruled in favor of respondents and held that they are regular employees, even if they
were initially hired as project-based workers because they were performing tasks that
are necessary and vital to the operation of petitioner’s business. Also, they were
repeatedly and successively rehired as employees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are regular employees of respondent?
HELD: No. The respondents are project-based employee. The principal test in
determining whether an employee is a project-based employee, as distinguished from
regular employees, is whether they were assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which was specified at, and made known to
them, at the time of hiring. It is crucial that the employees were informed of their status
as project employees at the time of hiring and the period of employment must be
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.
In this case, the respondents were adequately informed of their employment
status as project-based employees. Length of service is not the controlling determinant
in project-based employees and they will remain project employees regardless of the
number of projects in which they have worked.
WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND/OR TERESITA UY AND WILLIAM UY
VS. JORGE R. TRINIDAD
Topic: Project Employee
Facts:
Trinidad had been working with William Uy Construuction Corp. For 16 years as a driver
for its service vehicles. He had signed several contracts with him being identiied as a
project employee. However, he alleged that the company terminated him after it shut
down operations because of lack of projects. The company countered that Trnidad’s
employment had to be co-terminous with the completion of specific projects.
Issue: Whether or not the company's repeated rehiring of respondent Trinidad over
several years as project employee for its various projects automatically entitled him to
the status of a regular employee.
Held: The test for distinguishing a "project employee" from a "regular employee" is
whether or not he has been assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking,"
with the duration and scope of his engagement specified at the time his service is
contracted. Here, it is not disputed that the company contracted respondent Trinidad's
service by specific projects with the duration of his work clearly set out in his contract

Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee
initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one. But this standard cannot
be applied to the construction industry because it cannot guarantee work and funding
for its payrolls beyond the life of each project.

. In this case, Trinidad's series of employments with the company were co-terminous
with its projects. When the project was finished in December 2004, Trinidad's
employment ended with it. He was not dismissed. His employment contract simply
ended.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. & Rene Cabati vs Ferdinand Acibo et al.
GR No. 186439
Jan. 15, 2014
FACTS:
Universal Robina is a sugar cane milling corporation, while Cabati is the business unit.
Its employees were hired on different days and with different duties, they signed a one-
month period employment contracts or seasonal employment contracts. URSMco
repeatedly hired Acibo et al. to perform the same duties, and each time required them to
sign new employment contracts for the same period or season.
Acibo filed for regularization and entitlement to benefits under the existing CBA with the
LA. However, it was dismissed since they were seasonal or project workers—not
regular employees. As such, tgey were not entitled to benefits under the CBA.
NLRC declared them as regular employees, as the activities they perform were usually
necessary and desirable in the trade of business of URSMco.
ISSUE:
WON Acibo et al. are regular employees.
HELD:
NO, they are not regular employees. (but they are regular seasonal employees)
Regular employment refers to that arrangement where the employee has been engaged
to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the
employer. The standard that determines regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the usual
trade or business of the employer, emphasizing on the necessity or desirability of the
employee’s activity.
By way of an exception the Labor Code also considers regular a casual employment
arrangement when the casual employee’s engagement has lasted for at least one year,
regardless of the engagement’s continuity. The controlling test in this arrangement is
the length of time during which the employee is engaged.
The services of the project employees are legally and automatically terminated upon the
end or completion of the project as the employee's services are coterminous with the
project. Unlike in a regular employment the length of time of the asserted "project"
employee's engagement is not controlling as the employment may, in fact, last for more
than a year, depending on the needs or circumstances of the project.
Nevertheless, this length of time may serve as a badge of regular employment when the
activities performed by the purported "project" employee are necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer

UST vs Samahang Manggagawa ng UST

GR No. 184262

April 24, 2017

Principle: Casual Employee

Facts

The instant case stemmed from a complaint for regularization and illegal
dismissal filed by respondents Samahang Manggagawa ng UST and Pontesor, et al.
Respondents alleged that on various periods spanning the years 1990-1999, petitioner
repeatedly hired Pontesor, et al. to perform various maintenance duties within its
campus. On the other hand, while petitioner admitted that it repeatedly hired
Pontesor, et al. in different capacities throughout the aforesaid years, it nevertheless
maintained that they were merely hired on a per-project basis, as evidenced by
numerous Contractual Employee Appointments (CEAs) signed by them

Issues

Whether or not Pontesor, et al. are merely casual project-based employees.

Ruling

No. Article 295 of the Labor Code states 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. An employment
shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the aforementioned rule provided
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
exists.

In the case at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al.'s respective CEAs reveal that

petitioner repeatedly rehired them for various positions. It is clear that their respective
cumulative periods of employment as per their respective CEAs each exceed one (1)
year. Thus, Pontesor, et al. fall under the second category of regular employees.
Accordingly, they should be deemed as regular employees but only with respect to the
activities for which they were hired and for as long as such activities exist.

BRENT SCHOOL vs. ZAMORA

FACTS:

Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly
compensation of P20,000.00. The contract fixed a specific term, five (5) years.
Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent School with the Department of
Labor advising of the termination of his services effective. The stated ground for the
termination was "completion of contract, expiration of the definite period of employment
ISSUE:

Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended, have anathematized
"fixed period employment" or employment for a term.
Held:
Respondent Alegre's contract of employment with Brent School having lawfully
terminated with and by reason of the expiration of the agreed term of period thereof, he
is declared not entitled to reinstatement.

The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July 18,
1971, at a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet been
promulgated. At that time, the validity of term employment was impliedly recognized by
the Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052, as amended by R.A. 1787.

31. FIXED TERM EMPLOYEE

G.R. Nos. 174365-66               February 4, 2015

ROMEO BASAN, DANILO DIZON, JAIME L. TUMABIAO, JR., ROBERTO DELA
RAMA, JR., RICKY S. NICOLAS, CRISPULO D. DONOR, GALO FALGUERA, and
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,Petitioners, 
vs.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINE

FACTS:

Romeo Basan, Danilo Dizon, Jaime L. Tumabiao, Jr., Roberto Dela Rama, Jr.,
Ricky S. Nicolas, Crispulo D. Donor, Galo Falguera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with money claims against Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, alleging that respondent
dismissed them without just cause and prior written notice required by law.
Coca-Cola, however countered that it hired petitioners as temporary route
helpers to act as substitutes for its absent regular route helpers merely for a fixed period
in anticipation of the high volume of work in its office.
The LA ruled that since the petitioners were performing activities necessary and
desirable to the usual business of Coca Cola for more than the period for regularization,
they should be considered as regular employees, thus, their dismissal was unlawful.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are considered as regular employees.
RULING:

The Court ruled in the affirmative.

In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the

applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed
by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The
standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer
Petitioners, in this case, as route helpers, who are engaged in the service of loading
and unloading softdrink products of respondent company to its various delivery points,
which is necessary or desirable in its usual business or trade, petitioners are deemed
regular employees.

People vs. Trinidad

Facts:
(De Villa), together with her cousin Elma Hernandez, was brought by their aunt
Patricia to the house of appellant Anita Trinidad for possible job placement as domestic
helpers in Italy. Convinced by appellant’s representation that she can send her to Italy,
De Villa agreed to give appellant ₱240,000.00, representing the price of her ticket and
the processing of her papers. de Villa and three other recruits left the
Philippines.11 However, instead of sending them to Italy, appellant and accused Mauro
Marasigan (Marasigan) sent them to Bangkok, Thailand where the latter assured them
that they will secure their needed Italian visas. However, the appellant continued to fail
to deliver her promise of securing Italian visas for them. Hence, they returned to the
Philippines and filed a complaint against appellant and her companions.

Issue:
Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that the respective testimonies of private complainants clearly
established that appellant promised them employment in Italy and that she asked
money from them for the processing of their papers. Relying upon appellant’s
representations, complainants parted with their money. That appellant recruited them
without the requisite license from the POEA makes her liable for illegal recruitment. In
the instant case, appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale because it was
committed against three private complainants. This is in accordance with the
penultimate paragraph of Section 6 Republic Act No. 8042 which provides that illegal
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

Illegal Recruitment
People v. Bayker
Facts: Caniazares testified that he and Dahab had met the accused-appellant at the
house of a friend. She had then represented herself to be recruiting workers for
overseas employment. Caniazares paid the accused P4,000 for his medical
examination. Subsequently, accused informed Caniazares that he would be deployed
as a seaman instead but that he had to pay more to which the latter complied. However,
the accused informed Caniazares that his seaman’s application would not push through.
The two of them proceeded to the accused’s office where she introduced her manager,
Bermudez, who promised to Caniazares that he will be deployed in Hongkong within 2
weeks. Caniazares was not deployed as promised, thus, he went to the POEA wherein
he learned that the accused had not been issued the license to recruit and place people
overseas. On the other hand, Dahab alleged that he paid the accused P2,500 for his
medical examination and that he had undergone training for which he paid P2,500.
Issue: Whether or not the accused has committed the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale.
Held: Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article
34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.23 It is committed in large
scale when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. 24

The CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the RTC for illegal
recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed acts of recruitment
against at least three persons (namely: Canizares, Dahab, and Miparanum) despite her
not having been duly licensed or authorized by the POEA for that purpose.

34. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

G.R. No. 119076      March 25, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
ROGER SEGUN and JOSEPHINE CLAM, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

Roger Segun and Josephine Clam, without any license and/or authority to engage in
recruitment and placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment,
allegedly recruited 13 persons to work in Manila. It was claimed that the transporation to
Manila was free. It was established that the recruiters were neither licensed nor
authorized by the DOLE to recruit workers. Furthermore, the Mayor of Linamon testified
that the appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local overseas
employment. Segun and Clam admitted not having the authority to to recruit but argued
that they merely helped their neighbors find jobs. The RTC convicted the accused for
violation of the Labor Code.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Segun and Clam are guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale

RULING:

No, the appellants are not guilty of the crime.

The crime of illegal recruitment occurs when the three elements concur: first, the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers:
second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code; and
third, the offender commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a
group.
There is no dispute that the first element is present in this case. However, as to the
second element, the Court believes that there is no evidence that appellant undertook
the recruitment activity. During the testimony of the witnesses, they used term “recruit”
which the SC found to be a conclusion of law. The prosecution failed to elicit from many
witnesses the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the alleged victims.

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C. CABILES

G.R. No. 170139, August 05, 2014

Facts: Joy Cabiles responded to an ad published by petitioner and submitted her

application for a quality control job in Taiwan. Her application was accepted and was
asked to sign a one-year employment contract as quality control. However, in Taiwan,
she was asked to work as a cutter for Taiwan Wacoal, Co. Ltd. (Wacoal). On July 14,
1997, petitioner claimed that a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, without
prior notice, that she was terminated and that “she should immediately report to their
office to get her salary and passport.”
Joy then filed a complaint with the NLRC against petitioner and Wacoal, claiming
she was illegally dismissed.
Issue: W/N Joy is entitled not to the three-month equivalent of her salary but to
the amount equivalent to the unexpired term of her employment contract.

Ruling: Yes.
Cabiles, having been illegally dismissed, is entitled to her salary for the unexpired
portion of the employment contract that was violated, together with attorney’s fees, and
reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary.
The Court has ruled in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. that the clause
“or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less” under
Section 10 of RA No. 8042 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause
and substantive due process. The reinstatement of such clause in Section 7 of RA
10022 in 2010 does not cure its nullity.

Topic: Disability/ Compensability of Seamen

(With a shorter version at the latter part)

G.R. No. 167614               March 24, 2009

ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,
vs.
Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION CO.,
INC., Respondents.

Facts:

Petioner Serrano, who entered into an overseas employment contract for a period of 12
months, but at the time of his repatriation, he had served only two (2) months and seven
(7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9) months and twenty-
three (23) days, claims that the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8042 violates the OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of
their contract, deprives them of equal protection and denies them due process.

(2) Whether overtime and leave pay are included in the terms which is the basis for the
computation of the monetary award

HELD
(2) The word “salaries” in Sec. 10(5) of the LC does not include OT and leave pay. For
seafarers, DO No. 33, series of 1996, provides a Standard Employment Contract of
Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the basic wage, exclusive of OT, leave pay
and other bonuses; whereas OT pay is compensation for all work “performed” in excess
of the regular 8 hours, and holiday pay is compensation for any work “performed” on
designated rest days and holidays.

JEBSENS MARITIME INC., represented by MS. ARLENE ASUNCION and/or ALLIANCE

MARINE SERVICES, LTD., Petitioners,
vs.
ENRIQUE UNDAG,

FACTS:
Undag was hired as a Lead Operator on board vessel owned by Alliance Marine
Services, Ltd. And managed by, Jebsens Maritime, Inc. He was eventually repatriated
to the Philippines after his contract had expired. About two months after repatriation, he
went to see a physician for a check-up and was diagnosed to have “Hypertensive
cardiovascular disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Diabetes Mellitus II, Impediment Grade X.”
According to Dr. Vicaldo, Undag’s ailment was aggravated by his work as a seaman,
and he was no longer fit for work. For said reason, respondent requested for financial
assistance from Jebens but was deined.
ISSUE:
WON Undag is entitled to full disability benefits for the petitioner.
HELD:
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a matter governed, not
only by medical findings, but by law and by contract.
Pursuant to the law, two elements must concur for an injury or illness to be
compensable. First, that the injury or illness must be work-related; and second, that the
work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarers
employment contract.
The seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three working days upon his return, except when
he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case a written notice to the agency
within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with
the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the
above benefits.
#39 Theory of Imputed Knowledge - APQ SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., LTD., AND APQ
CREW MANAGEMENT USA, INC., Petitioner, v. ANGELITO L.
CASEÑAS, Respondent.

FACTS: Casenas was hired by APQ, acting for and in behalf of its principal, Crew
Management, as Chief Mate for vessel MV Perseverance for a period of eight (8)
months.

Casenas alleged that on June 16, 2004, he left Manila to join his assigned vessel in
USA, though the vessel could not leave because of its incomplete documents for
operation, he was transferred to another vessel, although again because of incomplete
documents, the vessel could not leave the port. He suffered extreme stress and anxiety
because of the uncertainty of the situation. He reported to APQ for post-employment
medical examination where the company-designated physician later diagnosed him with
Ischemic Heart Disease. He was declared "unfit for sea service and as a result, he was
not able to work for more than 120 daysfrom his repatriation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employment contract of Caseñas was extended with the
consent of APQ/Crew Management.

RULING: Yes.

Again, a scrutiny of the records reveals otherwise. The e-mail and eticket consistently
relied upon by the petitioners clearly showed that the eticket was issued on January 18,
2006. These e-mails and etickets were sent by Crew Management to APQ viafax. Crew
Management also executed the letter, dated February 24, 2006, addressed to DOLE
OWWA in response to the report of the wife of Caseñas to DOLE regarding his
repatriation.

APQ cannot now feign ignorance of any extension of the contract and claim that it did
not consent to it. As it had knowledge of the extended contract, APQ is solidarily liable
with Crew Management for Caseñas’ claims. Caseñas is, therefore, entitled to the
unpaid wages during the extended portion of his contract. Moreover, as the CA found,
Caseñas now deemed to be in a state of permanent total disability is clearly entitled to
the total disability benefits provided by law.

SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division; HON. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL, in his
capacity as Labor Arbiter, NLRC; NCR, Arbitration Branch, Quezon City and
DIVINA A. MONTEHERMOZO,
Topic: Theory of Imputed Knowledge
Facts:
Sunace deployed Divina to Taiwwan as a domestic helper under a 12-month contract.
However, Divina continued working despite th expiration of her contact. Upon her return
in the Philippines, she filed a complaint against Sunace alleging that she was jailed for
three months and that she was underpaid.
The General Manager of Sunace filed its Verified Answer claiming that Divina is there is
no cause of action against Sunace considering that she haas been totally paid of all the
monetary benefits due her under her contract. Furthermore, Sunace alleged that
Divina’s 2-year extension was without the knowledge and consent of Sunace, hence, it
had no liability to any claim.
The Labor Arbiter rejected Sunace’s claim that the extension was without its knowledge.
The NLRC and the CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Issue: WON Sunace consented to the extension made by Divina.
Held: NO.
The fact that Sunace continually communicated with the foreign “principal” does not
imply that the former had consented to the said extension.
The Theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowldge of the agent, Sunace, to the
principal, eployer Xiong, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal
cannot be imputed to Sunace. There being no substantial proof that Sunace consented
to be bound under the 2-year extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto.
Furthermore, the was an implied revocation of the agency relationship between the
foreign principal and Sunace after the termination of the original employment contract.
The principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new contract.
Placewell International Services Corporation v. Camote
Facts: Placewell International Services Corporation (PISC) deployed Ireneo B. Camote
to work as building carpenter for (SAAD) at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for a
contract duration of two years. At the job site, respondent was allegedly found
incompetent by his foreign employer; thus the latter decided to terminate his services.
However, respondent pleaded for his retention and consented to accept a lower salary
Thus, SAAD retained respondent until his return to the Philippines two years after. On
November 27, 2001, respondent filed a sworn Complaint4 for monetary claims against
petitioner alleging that when he arrived at the job site, he and his fellow Filipino workers
were required to sign another employment contract written in Arabic under the
constraints of losing their jobs if they refused.
Issue: Whether or not the subsequent agreement between Camote and Saad was valid.
Held: NO. R.A. No. 8042 explicitly prohibits the substitution or alteration to the prejudice
of the worker, of employment contracts already approved and verified by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) from the time of actual signing thereof by
the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the DOLE. Thus, we held in Chavez v. Bonto-Perez10 that the subsequently
executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with her foreign employer
which reduced her salary below the amount approved by the POEA is void because it is
against our existing laws, morals and public policy.