Labor Cases Compilation

Labor Cases Compilation

1.) ISAE vs Quisumbing (Download)

ISAE vs Quisumbing Brief Summary

The court resolved the issue regarding the:

 (1) equality of the foreign hire teachers and local hire teachers, wherein, local hires invokes equality due to fact that local and foreign hires works under the same condition but foreign hires has greater benefits and higher salaries; and

(2) if the foreign hire can be included in the bargaining unit with the International School Inc.

The court resolved that the equal protection clause is not violated and there is substantial distinction as to their class and there is a reasonable cause why they should be given such benefits and higher salary, although they perform similar work, they have limited tenure unlike that local hires who enjoys security of tenure.

The court defined bargaining unit as "a group of employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of law." The court also posted the factors in determining an appropriate collective bargaining unit, to wit:

1. the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
2. affinity and unity of the employees' interest (Substantial Mutual Interest Rule);
3. prior collective bargaining history;
4. similarity of employment status.

2.) Ang Tibay vs CIR (Download)

Ang Tibay vs CIR Brief Summary

The court enunciated the requisites of Administrative Due Process, to wit:

1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The evidence must be substantial;
4. The decision must have something to support itself;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate at arriving a decision;
7. The board or body should, in all controversial question, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

3.) Felix Esmalin vs NLRC (Download)

Felix Esmalin vs NLRC

Felix Esmalin was the CARE Philippines OIC of TRANSCON bodega. He was dismissed for allegedly conspiring with John Dupree in manipulating the testing of the stocks in the bodega. He was thus subjected to  preventive suspension from his work during the investigation.

The court ruled that the right of the person to his labor is deemed to be property within the meaning of constitutional guarantees and thus, he cannot be deprived of his labor without due process of law. That dismissal of employee must be done without grave abuse of discretion and the right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is regulated by the State, for the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State.

4.) PMPWA vs Premier Productions Inc (Download)

Philippine Movie Pictures Workers' Association vs Premier Production Inc.

Premier Production Inc. seeks the approval of CIR for their petition in laying off 44 men on the ground of lack of work and they are suffering from financial losses, and they would be reinstated if there would be available work in the future. The CIR approved the petition after the investigation which was enunciated by Premier Productions Inc.

The court ruled that the case should be remanded to the court of origin for further proceeding since during the investigation did not determine the fundamental issue of the case which is the financial situation of Premier Productions Inc. PMPWA was deprived due process for the decision was rendered only on the basis of the investigation and the PMPWA was not given chance to present evidence and thus, was denied due process.

5.) Victorias Milling Co vs Workmen Compensation Commission (Download)

Victorias Milling Co. Inc vs Workmen Compensation Commission and Julio Segovia

An employee of VMCo sought right of compensation for having a work related tuberculosis. The said employee filed a notice of injury or sickness in the VMCo Regional Office but the latter failed to answer such  claim and thereafter the employee filed a motion for judgment by default .

VMCo Regional Office sought a petition for review contending that they were deprived due process, for the company failed to inform the Regional Office regarding the said facts.

The court ruled that due process is identified with fairness or reasonableness. That they were not deprived due process, the employee sent a notice via registered mail and cannot controvert their knowledge of their liability.

6.) The United States vs Ling Su Fan (Download)

The United States vs Ling Su Fan

Ling Su Fan was accused for exporting silver coins for the Philippines Islands.

In this case the court gave the definition of "due process". And that due process is "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial."

That "due process of law" is the process or proceeding according to the law of the land. It is not that the law shall be according to the wishes of all the inhabitants of the state but:

1. That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government;
2. That this law shall be reasonable in its operation;
3. That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
4. That it shall be applicable alike to all the citizen of the state or to all of a class.

7) Saladas vs Franklin Baker Company (Download)

Casiano Saladas vs Frankin Baker Company

Saladas was an employee of Franklin Baker Company and was thereafter dismissed form work. He subsequently filed a claim for overtime services rendered during the employment which was approved by the Wage Administration Service of Department of Labor. Franklin Baker Company did not give attention to the said demand. After the foregoing, RA 1993 was passed and took effect on June 22, 1957, and Sec. 7-A of the said law provides that:

"SEC. 7-A. Any action to enforce any cause of action under this Act shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued, otherwise such action shall be forever barred: Provided, however, that actions already commenced before the effective date of this Act shall not be affected by the period herein prescribed."

This law changed the period of instituting actions for six (6) years to three (3) years, which would tantamount to denial of due process and impairment of contractual obligation.

The court ruled that Saladas in not barred from suing and claiming overtime services. That the prescriptive period is interrupted either from filing of suit, a written extrajudicial demand or a wirtten acknowledgment of debt.

8.) Mortera et al vs CIR (Download)

Hermogenes Mortera and Canlubang Workers' Union(CLO) vs CIR, Canlubang Sugar Estate and Bisig ng Canlubang (NLU)

Petitioner sought the annulment of CIR's order requiring them to return to their work, or upon failure to do so, authorized Canlubang Sugar Estate to employ new workers and prohibit them from striking, on the ground that prohibiting picketing under any guise or form is contrary to law and that CLO is not a party to the case being a new Union and was not given chance to answer and defend.

The court ruled that Canlubang Sugar Estate is engaged in manufacture of sugar which is very important to the life of people, that reopening of the company is essential. Prohibition in picketing only covers picketing with the use of illegal means (illegal picketing). That peaceful picketing is allowed and is guaranteed by the freedom of speech of the constitution. Regarding the jurisdiction over the CLO, when they appeared for the first time as memebers of NLU, they appeared as workers of Canlubang Sugar Estate and after they formed CLO, they remained to appear as workers of Canlubang Sugar Estate. Therefore, splitting with NLU and creating CLO did not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the persons of the CLO. 

9.) Felix Abe et al vs Foster Wheeler Corp (Download)

Felix Abe, et al., vs Foster Wheeler Corporation and CALTEX (Phil.) Inc.


Defendant-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the employment of the workers involved in this case was for a definite period. The court ruled that the contract, the worker's term of employment is made subject to two conditions:
(1) upon the needs and requirements (not duration) of the particular work to which he (the worker) is assigned; and
(2) that such needs and requirements are to be as so determined by the employer.

That the duration of employment assigned to a particular kind of work is not necessarily coexistent with the duration of such work, the employer could, at any stage of work determine whether or not his services are needed or not, and, even after termination of a particular work, reassign the employee to another phase of work. That the worker is without any means to know when his services would still be necessary or not.

10.) Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas vs Gotamco Saw Mill (Download)

Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas vs Gotamco Saw Mill

Petitioners declared as strike against respondent suspending all the work in the company. After the case was brought to CIR, they were informed that the continuation of strike would prejudice both parties and they should have a temporary solution. Both parties accepted  the foregoing and agreed that the workers would resume in its operation under the following temporary conditions:

1. That all the laborers and workingmen will receive an over-all increase of P 2.00 daily, without meal, over the wages received by them before the strike;
2. That the management will permit the laborers to bring with them home, if available, small pieces of lumber to be utilized as firewood; and
3. That the foregoing increase and privilege will take effect upon return of the workingmen to work until the final determination of the controversy.

The respondent company is also enjoined not to lay-off, suspend or dismiss any laborer affiliated with the petitioning union, nor suspend the operation of the temporary agreement, and the labor union is enjoined not to stage a walk-out or strike during the pendency of the hearing.

Thereafter, respondent sought the petitioner to be held in contempt of court for striking during the pendency of the case, but petitioner contended in their counter-petition, that a representative of petitioner conferred with respondent regarding certain discriminations obtaining in the respondent's saw mill, but instead of entertaining their grievances respondent in a haughty and arbitrary manner ordered the stoppage of the work, further prayed that respondent be held in contempt for employing four new Chinese laborers during the pendency of the hearing without express authority for the court.

The court ruled, to wit:

(1) That there was a violation of the order of the court dated September 23, 1946, by the petitioning union and thereby ordering the special agent of the court, to take such action as may be warranted in the premises against the person or persons responsible therefor for contempt;

(2) That the question of picketing being closely and intimately related to the strike which had been found illegal, did not need to be passed upon, it being imbibed by question No. 1;

(3) That there being no strong and clear proof on the question of respondent having violated section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, respondent was thereby exonerated from any liability in connection with the alleged employment of four Chinamen;

(4) That Maximino Millan being of troublesome nature and unworthy to work among his fellow laborers, his petition for reinstatement contained in demand No. 5 of the main case was thereby denied.

11.) Primicias vs Fugoso (Download)

Primicias vs Fugoso

An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, especially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to local government. Stating as well Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

Freedom of Speech was violated. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court favored the second construction. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency.

The Mayor’s first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.


12.) Calalang vs. Williams (Download)

Calalang vs Williams

Pursuant to the power delegated to it by the Legislature, the Director of Public Works promulgated rules and regulations pertaining to the closure of Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles for a year in prohibition against respondent-public officers. Among others, the petitioners aver that the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon constitutional precept on the promotion of social justice to insure the well being and economic security of all people.

The rules and regulation promotes social justice. The promotion of Social Justice is to be adhered not through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group.

Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic force by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insureeconomic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."


13.) Ong vs Parel (Download)

Antonio Ong Sr. vs Henry M. Parel, et al.

Mansion House Genuine Labor Union through their President filed a request for inspection of petitioner's restaurant in connection with the failure to comply with certain labor standards law such as minimum wage, emergency cost of living allowance, 13th month pay and 5-day incentive leave pay.

An on-the-spot inspection was conducted, and since the respondent cannot present his business records, he was given five days to present the said records. Thirteen employees were interviewed who executed their respective affidavits charging petitioner with non-compliance of labor standards law. During the second visit, the petitioner was again not able to present the records. Thereafter, a subpoena duces tecum was issued to the petitioner to submit the DTR and payrolls relating to the payment of wages, 13th month pay, and incentive leave pay of the employees in his business establishment, but petitioner, instead of complying sent a letter to the MOLE requesting for clarification as to the inspection. He furthered inquired whether the said inspection was routinary or one based on a complaint filed against him. Petitioner failed to comply regarding the subpoena, and a narrative report was submitted regarding the result of the inspection and the computation of the claims of the thirteen workers.

The petitioner contended that all money claims of workers are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the  Labor Arbiter. The court ruled that the petition is meritorious. All money claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter alone and not vested upon respondent pursuant to Art. 217 of the Labor Code. The Regional Director of MOLE only has the visitorial power business establishments and does not include adjudication of money claims.

14.) Almoite vs Pacific Architects & Engineers Inc (Download)

Danilo O. Almoite vs Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc.

Petitioner challenged his alleged illegal dismissal by respondent on the ground that he was not given due process and his dismissal has no valid cause.

The court ruled that due to petitioner's acts, he was not denied due process. It is not denial of the right to be heared but the denial of the opportunity to be heard that constitutes violation of due process of law. The petitioner was given not only the opportunity to be heared, which he forfeited in the proceedings before the labor arbiter, but also the right to be heared, which he actually exercised through his various representations before the NLRC. The petitioner also failed to prove that his dismissal was illegal, while the respondent satisfactorily established the legal basis for his removal.

15.) SSS Employees Association vs CA (Download)

SSS Employees Association vs CA

On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on June 9, 1987, the officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike and barricade the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and SSS members from transacting business with the SSS; that the strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor - Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return to work; that the strikers refused to return to work; and that the SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike. The complaint prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the strike and that the strikers be ordered to return to work; that the defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay damages; and that the strike be declared illegal.

It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to act on the union's demands, which included: implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on check-off of union dues; payment of accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay; conversion of temporary or contractual employees with six (6) months or more of service into regular and permanent employees and their entitlement to the same salaries, allowances and benefits given to other regular employees of the SSS; and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00, and after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries of the employees and allegedly committed acts of discrimination and unfair labor practices.

The employees of the Social Security System (SSS) has no right to strike.

The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law" [Art. XIII, Sec. 31].
Resort to the intent of the framers of the organic law becomes helpful in understanding the meaning of these provisions. A reading of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution would show that in recognizing the right of government employees to organize, the commissioners intended to limit the right to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the right to strike.

Considering that under the 1987 Constitution "the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters" [Art. IX(B), Sec. .2(l) see also Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees in the civil service are denominated as "government employees"] and that the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 & 70295, November 24,1988] and are covered by the Civil Service Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being the case, the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal.