Lawyerly

GR No. 169158

2015-07-01

PENTAGON INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING SERVICES v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

It is relevant to observe that Pentagon cannot feign ignorance of Section 10, paragraph 2, of the Migrant Workers' Act of 1995 to the effect that its liabilities would continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract, and would not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification of the contract made either locally or in a foreign country. The provisions of the POEA Rules and Regulations to the effect that the manning agreement extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the recruitment agreement are also clear enough.[18] As such, Pentagon is not exempt from its liabilities and responsibilities towards Madrio and Rubiano.

GR No. 178551

2010-10-11

ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION v. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign principals, Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affords the OFWs with a recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. Skippers United Pacific v. Maguad[8] explains: . . . [T]he obligations covenanted in the recruitment agreement entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign principal are not coterminous with the term of such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose for which the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted. (emphasis supplied)

GR No. 169523

2010-06-16

LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS

PERALTA, J.

It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.[21] This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and elaborated in the Labor Code.[22] A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[23] The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[24]

GR No. 152048

2009-04-07

FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH

CORONA, J.

This Court has consistently ruled that the due process requirement in cases of termination of employment does not require an actual or formal hearing. Thus, we categorically declared in Skipper's United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad:[25]

GR No. 167614

2009-03-24

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

of the Monetary Award Skippers v. Maguad[84] 6 months 2 months 4 months 4 months Bahia Shipping v. Reynaldo Chua [85] 9 months 8 months 4 months 4 months Centennial Transmarine v. dela Cruz l[86] 9 months 4 months 5 months 5 months Talidano v. Falcon[87] 12 months 3 months 9 months 3 months Univan v. CA [88] 12 months 3 months

GR No. 156029

2008-11-14

SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The above provisions are clear that the private employment agency shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer.[19] This Court has, time and again, ruled that private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.[20] This joint and solidary liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him.[21] This is in line with the policy of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class.

GR No. 165389

2008-10-17

NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS v. NLRC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There are two requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal of employees, to wit: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[24]

GR No. 160338

2008-10-06

VENTIS MARITIME CORPORATION v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Factual issues may be considered by this Court when the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[12] The general rule is that factual findings of the labor officials are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[13] This Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions as when it finds insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings, or when it is perceived that far too much is concluded, inferred, or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing of record.[14]

GR No. 160965

2008-07-21

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN

NACHURA, J.

In petitions for review before this Court, as a general rule, only questions of law are allowed. An exception to this is when the findings of the administrative agencies below and the appellate court differ, as in the case at bar.[16] Thus, an independent evaluation of the facts of this case is called for, especially considering that, while the LA and the NLRC both found respondent's dismissal valid and legal, the bases for their findings are also different.[17] Hence, the claim of petitioner that these findings are conclusive upon us is incorrect.

GR No. 172031

2008-07-14

JUANITO TALIDANO v. FALCON MARITIME

TINGA, J,

We also note that private respondent failed to comply with the procedural due process requirement for terminating an employee. Such requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to man's innate sense of justice. The Labor Code does not, of course, require a formal or trial type proceeding before an erring employee may be dismissed. This is especially true in the case of a vessel on the ocean or in a foreign port. The minimum requirement of due process in termination proceedings, which must be complied with even with respect to seamen on board a vessel, consists of notice to the employees intended to be dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present their own side of the alleged offense or misconduct, which led to the management's decision to terminate. To meet the requirements of due process, the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected, i.e., (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice after due hearing which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[53]

GR No. 152894

2007-08-17

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Under Article 279[22] of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just causes[23] or for authorized causes.[24] Furthermore, under Article 277(b)[25] of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to be terminated, a written notice stating the causes for termination and must give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Thus, to constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[26]

	GR No. 169158 2015-07-01	PENTAGON INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING SERVICES v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
It is relevant to observe that Pentagon cannot feign ignorance of Section 10, paragraph 2, of the Migrant Workers' Act of 1995 to the effect that its liabilities would continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract, and would not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification of the contract made either locally or in a foreign country. The provisions of the POEA Rules and Regulations to the effect that the manning agreement extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the recruitment agreement are also clear enough.[18] As such, Pentagon is not exempt from its liabilities and responsibilities towards Madrio and Rubiano.
	GR No. 178551 2010-10-11	ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION v. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their foreign principals, Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affords the OFWs with a recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. Skippers United Pacific v. Maguad[8] explains: . . . [T]he obligations covenanted in the recruitment agreement entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign principal are not coterminous with the term of such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose for which the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted. (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 169523 2010-06-16	LIMA LAND v. MARLYN CUEVAS PERALTA, J.
It must be noted that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for just cause and failure to do so would mean that the dismissal is not justified.[21] This is in consonance with the guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution and elaborated in the Labor Code.[22] A dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges leveled against him by his employer.[23] The determination of the existence and sufficiency of a just cause must be exercised with fairness and in good faith and after observing due process.[24]
	GR No. 152048 2009-04-07	FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CORONA, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that the due process requirement in cases of termination of employment does not require an actual or formal hearing. Thus, we categorically declared in Skipper's United Pacific, Inc. v. Maguad:[25]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
of the Monetary Award Skippers v. Maguad[84] 6 months 2 months 4 months 4 months Bahia Shipping v. Reynaldo Chua [85] 9 months 8 months 4 months 4 months Centennial Transmarine v. dela Cruz l[86] 9 months 4 months 5 months 5 months Talidano v. Falcon[87] 12 months 3 months 9 months 3 months Univan v. CA [88] 12 months 3 months
	GR No. 156029 2008-11-14	SANTOSA B. DATUMAN v. FIRST COSMOPOLITAN MANPOWER LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The above provisions are clear that the private employment agency shall assume joint and solidary liability with the employer.[19] This Court has, time and again, ruled that private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employment.[20] This joint and solidary liability imposed by law against recruitment agencies and foreign employers is meant to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due him.[21] This is in line with the policy of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class.
	GR No. 165389 2008-10-17	NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There are two requisites which must be complied with by an employer for a valid dismissal of employees, to wit: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[24]
	GR No. 160338 2008-10-06	VENTIS MARITIME CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Factual issues may be considered by this Court when the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Labor Arbiter are inconsistent with those of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[12] The general rule is that factual findings of the labor officials are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[13] This Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions as when it finds insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings, or when it is perceived that far too much is concluded, inferred, or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing of record.[14]
	GR No. 160965 2008-07-21	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN NACHURA, J.
In petitions for review before this Court, as a general rule, only questions of law are allowed. An exception to this is when the findings of the administrative agencies below and the appellate court differ, as in the case at bar.[16] Thus, an independent evaluation of the facts of this case is called for, especially considering that, while the LA and the NLRC both found respondent's dismissal valid and legal, the bases for their findings are also different.[17] Hence, the claim of petitioner that these findings are conclusive upon us is incorrect.
	GR No. 172031 2008-07-14	JUANITO TALIDANO v. FALCON MARITIME TINGA, J,
We also note that private respondent failed to comply with the procedural due process requirement for terminating an employee. Such requirement is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will. Its disregard is a matter of serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in response to man's innate sense of justice. The Labor Code does not, of course, require a formal or trial type proceeding before an erring employee may be dismissed. This is especially true in the case of a vessel on the ocean or in a foreign port. The minimum requirement of due process in termination proceedings, which must be complied with even with respect to seamen on board a vessel, consists of notice to the employees intended to be dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present their own side of the alleged offense or misconduct, which led to the management's decision to terminate. To meet the requirements of due process, the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected, i.e., (1) a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice after due hearing which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him.[53]
	GR No. 152894 2007-08-17	CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
Under Article 279[22] of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate the services of an employee for just causes[23] or for authorized causes.[24] Furthermore, under Article 277(b)[25] of the Labor Code, the employer must send the employee who is about to be terminated, a written notice stating the causes for termination and must give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Thus, to constitute valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[26]

SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. JERRY MAGUAD