Lawyerly

GR Nos. 173254-55 & 173263

2016-01-13

DIAMOND FARMS v. SPFL-WORKERS SOLIDARITY

JARDELEZA, J.

Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Philippines[71] (Labor Code) explains the relations which may arise between an employer, a contractor, and the contractor's employees,[72] thus:ART. 106. Contractor or subcontracting. - Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the formers work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

GR No. 202645

2015-08-05

FORTUNATO R. BARON v. EPE TRANSPORT

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Finally, it is apt to clarify that petitioners' submission to the company's grievance machinery does not disprove illegal dismissal. What was referred to the grievance machinery was the unfair labor practice case filed by the petitioners before they were terminated, which contains issues that are different and distinct from their cause of action for illegal dismissal. It bears to note that Article 223 (c)[61] of the Labor Code,[62] as amended, is explicit that the LA shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, as provided in the CBA, those cases that involve the interpretation of said agreements. Further, Article 272[63] of the same Code provides that all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA, including violations of said agreement, are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. As such, petitioners cannot be faulted in invoking the grievance machinery even after they had been dismissed in compliance with the provisions of the CBA, to which they were bound.

GR No. 211263

2015-08-05

OKS DESIGNTECH v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Article 294[34] of the Labor Code[35] provides that:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

GR No. 209822

2015-07-08

DIONISIO DACLES v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Tested against these considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents' certiorari petition before it, since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner was a regular employee of MEC when the latter had established by substantial evidence that petitioner was merely a project employee. On the other hand, there is no evidence on record to substantiate petitioner's claim that he was employed as early as 1998. Article 294[36] of the Labor Code,[37] as amended, distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee as follows:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

GR No. 194192

2015-06-16

DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ

PEREZ, J.

As a consequence of their actions, GM Gamboa sent a Memorandum dated 14 November 2007 addressed to the officers and members of NAMADACWAD, requiring them to explain the reasons for the attire they wore during the anniversary celebration. Through a collective letter dated 19 November 2007, the officers and members explained that the Memorandum only required the employees to wear any sports attire, though theirs were with additional inscriptions containing grievances. They countered that the inscriptions were but manifestations of their constitutional rights of free speech and freedom.of expression.[9]

GR No. 209499

2015-01-28

MA. CHARITO C. GADIA v. SYKES ASIA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Article 294[47] of the Labor Code,[48] as amended, distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee as follows:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

GR No. 190486

2014-11-26

STANLEY FINE FURNITURE v. VICTOR T. GALLANO

LEONEN, J.

Grounds for termination of employment are provided under the Labor Code.[63] Just causes for termination of an employee are provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code: ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

GR No. 160352

2008-07-23

REPUBLIC v. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

If there is one constant precept in our labor laws - be it Commonwealth Act No. 213 (1936),[36] R.A. No. 875 (1953),[37] P.D. No. 442 (1974), Executive Order (E.O.) No. 111 (1986)[38] or R.A. No. 6715 (1989) - it is that only a legitimate labor organization may exercise the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.[39] What has varied over the years has been the degree of enforcement of this precept, as reflected in the shifting scope of administrative and judicial scrutiny of the composition of a labor organization before it is allowed to exercise the right of representation.

GR NO. 135928

2007-07-06

TEODORO BERDIN v. EUFRACIO A. MASCARIÑAS

TINGA, J.

Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 was amended by Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49[15] dated 17 October 1989, by specifying that the civil remedies available include the "padlocking of the establishment and/or seizure of property and revocation of the permit or license and/or eviction from public property and/or by legal action."[16] The Provincial Treasurer approved Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49 on 8 January 1990 and held that it was within the power of the municipality to enact the ordinance pursuant to Secs. 60 to 63, Art. 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 231, as amended, or the Local Tax Code.[17]

GR NO. 148619

2006-09-19

ABOITIZ HAULERS v. MONAORAI DIMAPATOI

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Article 106 of the Labor Code[24] explains the relations which may arise between an employer, a contractor and the contractor's employees thus:ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. - Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former's work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

GR NO. 150437

2006-07-17

SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

This Court has held that strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends are to be achieved.[10] The rationale of the prohibition under Article 264 is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.[11] Indeed it is among the chief policies of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrial disputes.[12] In Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor,[13] Chief Justice Fernando declared that the principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis, subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation.[14]

GR No. 145930

2003-08-19

C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NLRC

PANGANIBAN, J.

Under the Labor Code,[26] it became mandatory to award back wages, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of reinstatement.[27] This notwithstanding, the Court continued to apply the Mercury Drug rule, but limited the award to three (3) years.

	GR Nos. 173254-55 & 173263 2016-01-13	DIAMOND FARMS v. SPFL-WORKERS SOLIDARITY JARDELEZA, J.
Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Philippines[71] (Labor Code) explains the relations which may arise between an employer, a contractor, and the contractor's employees,[72] thus:ART. 106. Contractor or subcontracting. - Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the formers work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
	GR No. 202645 2015-08-05	FORTUNATO R. BARON v. EPE TRANSPORT PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, it is apt to clarify that petitioners' submission to the company's grievance machinery does not disprove illegal dismissal. What was referred to the grievance machinery was the unfair labor practice case filed by the petitioners before they were terminated, which contains issues that are different and distinct from their cause of action for illegal dismissal. It bears to note that Article 223 (c)[61] of the Labor Code,[62] as amended, is explicit that the LA shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, as provided in the CBA, those cases that involve the interpretation of said agreements. Further, Article 272[63] of the same Code provides that all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA, including violations of said agreement, are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. As such, petitioners cannot be faulted in invoking the grievance machinery even after they had been dismissed in compliance with the provisions of the CBA, to which they were bound.
	GR No. 211263 2015-08-05	OKS DESIGNTECH v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Article 294[34] of the Labor Code[35] provides that:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
	GR No. 209822 2015-07-08	DIONISIO DACLES v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Tested against these considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents' certiorari petition before it, since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner was a regular employee of MEC when the latter had established by substantial evidence that petitioner was merely a project employee. On the other hand, there is no evidence on record to substantiate petitioner's claim that he was employed as early as 1998. Article 294[36] of the Labor Code,[37] as amended, distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee as follows:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
	GR No. 194192 2015-06-16	DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ PEREZ, J.
As a consequence of their actions, GM Gamboa sent a Memorandum dated 14 November 2007 addressed to the officers and members of NAMADACWAD, requiring them to explain the reasons for the attire they wore during the anniversary celebration. Through a collective letter dated 19 November 2007, the officers and members explained that the Memorandum only required the employees to wear any sports attire, though theirs were with additional inscriptions containing grievances. They countered that the inscriptions were but manifestations of their constitutional rights of free speech and freedom.of expression.[9]
	GR No. 209499 2015-01-28	MA. CHARITO C. GADIA v. SYKES ASIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Article 294[47] of the Labor Code,[48] as amended, distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee as follows:Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
	GR No. 190486 2014-11-26	STANLEY FINE FURNITURE v. VICTOR T. GALLANO LEONEN, J.
Grounds for termination of employment are provided under the Labor Code.[63] Just causes for termination of an employee are provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code: ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
	GR No. 160352 2008-07-23	REPUBLIC v. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
If there is one constant precept in our labor laws - be it Commonwealth Act No. 213 (1936),[36] R.A. No. 875 (1953),[37] P.D. No. 442 (1974), Executive Order (E.O.) No. 111 (1986)[38] or R.A. No. 6715 (1989) - it is that only a legitimate labor organization may exercise the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.[39] What has varied over the years has been the degree of enforcement of this precept, as reflected in the shifting scope of administrative and judicial scrutiny of the composition of a labor organization before it is allowed to exercise the right of representation.
	GR NO. 135928 2007-07-06	TEODORO BERDIN v. EUFRACIO A. MASCARIÑAS TINGA, J.
Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 was amended by Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49[15] dated 17 October 1989, by specifying that the civil remedies available include the "padlocking of the establishment and/or seizure of property and revocation of the permit or license and/or eviction from public property and/or by legal action."[16] The Provincial Treasurer approved Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49 on 8 January 1990 and held that it was within the power of the municipality to enact the ordinance pursuant to Secs. 60 to 63, Art. 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 231, as amended, or the Local Tax Code.[17]
	GR NO. 148619 2006-09-19	ABOITIZ HAULERS v. MONAORAI DIMAPATOI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 106 of the Labor Code[24] explains the relations which may arise between an employer, a contractor and the contractor's employees thus:ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. - Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former's work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
	GR NO. 150437 2006-07-17	SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This Court has held that strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends are to be achieved.[10] The rationale of the prohibition under Article 264 is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.[11] Indeed it is among the chief policies of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrial disputes.[12] In Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor,[13] Chief Justice Fernando declared that the principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis, subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation.[14]
	GR No. 145930 2003-08-19	C-E CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NLRC PANGANIBAN, J.
Under the Labor Code,[26] it became mandatory to award back wages, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of reinstatement.[27] This notwithstanding, the Court continued to apply the Mercury Drug rule, but limited the award to three (3) years.

ROSALINA Z. TIONGCO v. GUILLERMO DE LA MERCED