Barops Labor Law

8/17/2019 Barops Labor Law

1/389

Topic: Constructive Dismissal

Ponente: Perez, J.

Chiang Kai Shek College v. Torres, G.R. o. !"#$%&, 'pril (, ()!$

*acts: Petitioner Chiang Kai Shek College is a private educational institutionthat ofers elementary to college education to the public. Individual

petitioner Carmelita Espino is the Vice-President o the school. !espondent

had been employed as a grade school teacher o the school rom "uly #$%&

until '# (ay )&&'.

!espondent *as accused o leaking a copy o a special +ui, given to rade

students o /EK0SI . Petitioners came to kno* about the leakage rom one

o the teachers o /EK0SI 1 0ileen 2enabese. (s. 2enabese narrated that

ater giving a special +ui,1 she borro*ed the book o one o her students1

0ileen !egine (. 0nduyan1 or the purpose o making an ans*er key. 3hen

she opened 0ileen4s book1 a piece o paper ell. Said paper turned out to be a

copy o the same +ui, she had 5ust given and the same already contained

ans*ers.

0ssistant Supervisor Encarnacion Koo1 conronted respondent1 *ho had

initially denied leaking the test paper but later on admitted that she gave the

test paper to (rs. 6eresita 0nduyan1 her co-teacher and the mother o 0ileen.

6he school4s Investigating Committee ound respondent and (rs. 0nduyan

guilty o committing a grave ofense o the school policies by leaking a

special +ui,. 6he Investigating Committee had actually decided to terminate

respondent but the respondent pleaded that she suspended instead and that

she *ill resign at the end o the school year. Petitioners acceded to the

re+uest.

7n #8 9ebruary )&&' ho*ever1 respondent4s counsel sent a letter to

petitioners demanding the payment o her back*ages1 bonus1 teacher4s day

git1 moral damages and e:emplary damages. !espondent4s counsel alsore+uired petitioner to cease and desist rom calling respondent or her

resignation at the end o the school year )&&) ; )&&'.

Petitioners1 through counsel1 *rote to respondent4s counsel asserting that

respondent *as being terminated but the latter re+uested that


2/389

suspended instead on condition that she *ill tender her voluntary resignation

at the end o the school year.<

7n #& "une )&&'1 respondent =led a complaint or constructive dismissal and

illegal suspension *ith the >abor 0rbiter. /o*ever1 the complaint *as

dismissed or lack o merit. 6he >abor 0rbiter deemed respondent4ssuspension coupled *ith petitioner4s allo*ance o respondent4s resignation

at the end o the school year as generous acts considering the ofense

committed.

7n appeal1 the ?>!C a@rmed the decision but ordered the petitioners to pay

separation pay e+uivalent to one-hal A#B) month salary or every year o

service on the grounds o e+uity and social 5ustice.

6he Court o 0ppeals reversed the ?>!C decision. 0 (otion or

!econsideration *as =led but it *as denied.

/ence1 this petition.

+ssue: Does the school4s act o imposing the penalty o suspension insteado immediate dismissal rom service at the behest o the erring employee1 in

e:change or the employee4s resignation at the end o the school year1

constitute constructive dismissal

Ruling: .

!esignation is the voluntary act o an employee *ho is in a situation *here

one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacri=ced or the avor o

employment1 and opts to leave rather than stay employed. It is a ormal

pronouncement or relin+uishment o an o@ce1 *ith the intention o

relin+uishing the o@ce accompanied by the act o relin+uishment. 0s the

intent to relin+uish must concur *ith the overt act o relin+uishment1 the

acts o the employee beore and ater the alleged resignation must be

considered in determining *hether1 he or she1 in act1 intended to sever his

or her employment.

6here is constructive dismissal *hen there is cessation o *ork1 because

continued employment is rendered impossible1 unreasonable or unlikely1 as

an ofer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and other

bene=ts. 0ptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal

but made to appear as i it *ere not1 constructive dismissal may1 like*ise1


3/389

e:ist i an act o clear discrimination1 insensibility1 or disdain by an employer

becomes so unbearable on the part o the employee that it could oreclose

any choice by him e:cept to orego his continued employment. 6here *as

here no discrimination committed by petitioners. 3hile respondent did not

tender her resignation *holeheartedly1 circumstances o her o*n making did

not give her any other option. 3ith due process1 she *as ound to have

committed the grave ofense o leaking test +uestions. Dismissal rom

employment *as the 5usti=ed e+uivalent penalty. /aving reali,ed that1 she

asked or1 and *as granted1 not 5ust a deerred imposition o1 but also an

acceptable cover or the penalty.

!espondent4s proession1 the gravity o her inraction1 and the act that she

*aited until the close o the school year to challenge her impending

resignation demonstrate that respondent had bargained or a graceul e:it

and is no* trying to renege on her obligation. !espondent should not bere*arded or reneging on her promise to resign at the end o the school year.

7ther*ise1 employers placed in similar situations *ould no longer e:tend

compassion to employees. Compromise agreements1 like that in the instant

case1 *hich lean to*ards desired liberality that avor labor1 *ould be

discouraged.

Topic: emplo-er emplo-ee relationship/ illegal 0ismissal/ 0octrineo1 straine0 relation

Ponente: Re-es, J.

Tenazas v. R. 2illegas Ta3i Transport, G.R. o. !#(##", 'pril (, ()!$

*acts: 7n "uly 81 )&&%1 2ernard 0. 6ena,as and "aime (. 9rancisco =led acomplaint or illegal dismissal against !. Villegas 6a:i 6ransport andBor!omualdo Villegas and 0ndy Villegas. 0t that time1 a similar case had alreadybeen =led by Isidro . Endraca against the same respondents. 6he t*o A)cases *ere subse+uently consolidated.

!elaying the circumstances o his dismissal1 6ena,as alleged that on "uly #1

)&&%1 the ta:i unit assigned to him *as sides*iped by another vehicle1causing a dent on the let ender near the driver seat. 6he cost o repair orthe damage *as estimated at P&&.&&. Fpon reporting the incident to thecompany1 he *as scolded by respondents !omualdo and 0ndy and *as toldto leave the garage or he is already =red. /e *as even threatened *ithphysical harm should he ever be seen in the company4s premises again.Despite the *arning1 6ena,as reported or *ork on the ollo*ing day but *as


4/389

told that he can no longer drive any o the company4s units as he is already=red.

9rancisco1 on the other hand1 averred that his dismissal *as brought aboutby the company4s unounded suspicion that he *as organi,ing a labor union.

/e *as instantaneously terminated1 *ithout the bene=t o procedural dueprocess1 on "une 81 )&&%.

Endraca1 or his part1 alleged that his dismissal *as instigated by an occasion*hen he ell short o the re+uired boundary or his ta:i unit. /e related thatbeore he *as dismissed1 he brought his ta:i unit to an auto shop or anurgent repair. /e *as charged the amount o P%&&.&& or the repair servicesand the replacement parts. 0s a result1 he *as not able to meet his boundaryor the day. Fpon returning to the company garage and inorming themanagement o the incident1 his driver4s license *as con=scated and *astold to settle the de=ciency in his boundary =rst beore his license *ill be

returned to him. /e *as no longer allo*ed to drive a ta:i unit despite hispersistent pleas.

9or their part1 the respondents admitted that 6ena,as and Endraca *ereemployees o the company1 the ormer being a regular driver and the latter aspare driver. 6he respondents1 ho*ever1 denied that 9rancisco *as anemployee o the company or that he *as able to drive one o the company4sunits at any point in time.

6he respondents urther alleged that 6ena,as *as never terminated by thecompany. 6hey claimed that 6ena,as *ent to the company garage to get his

ta:i unit but *as inormed that it is due or overhaul because o somemechanical deects reported by the other driver *ho takes turns *ith him inusing the same. /e *as thus advised to *ait or urther notice rom thecompany i his unit has already been =:ed. 7n "uly G1 )&&%1 ho*ever1 uponbeing inormed that his unit is ready or release1 6ena,as ailed to report backto *ork or no apparent reason.

0s regards Endraca1 the respondents alleged that they hired him as a sparedriver in 9ebruary )&. 6hey allo* him to drive a ta:i unit *henever theirregular driver *ill not be able to report or *ork. In "uly )&&'1 ho*ever1Endraca stopped reporting or *ork *ithout inorming the company o his

reason.

7n (ay '&1 )&&G1 the >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision stating that there*as no illegal dismissal as there *as no proo o overt act o dismissalcommitted by the respondents.

7n appeal1 the ?>!C reversed the decision o the >0. It held that theadditional pieces o evidence belatedly submitted by the petitioners su@ced


5/389

to establish the e:istence o employer-employee relationship and their illegaldismissal.

6he respondents then =led a petition or certiorari *ith the C0. 6he C0agreed *ith the ?>!C4s =nding that 6ena,as and Endraca *ere employees o

the company1 but ruled other*ise in the case o 9rancisco or ailing toestablish his relationship *ith the company. It also deleted the a*ard o separation pay and ordered or reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca.


+ssue:

#. Is 9rancisco an employee o the respondent). Is reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca possible

Ruling:

#. .

In determining the presence or absence o an employer-employeerelationship1 the Court has consistently looked or the ollo*ing incidents1 to*itH Aa the selection and engagement o the employee Ab the payment o *ages Ac the po*er o dismissal and Ad the employer4s po*er to controlthe employee on the means and methods by *hich the *ork isaccomplished. 6he last element1 the so-called control test1 is the mostimportant element.<

6here is no hard and ast rule designed to establish the aoresaid elements.0ny competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may beadmitted. Identi=cation cards1 cash vouchers1 social security registration1appointment letters or employment contracts1 payrolls1 organi,ation charts1and personnel lists1 serve as evidence o employee status.

In this case1 ho*ever1 9rancisco ailed to present any proo substantialenough to establish his relationship *ith the respondents. 2eret o anyevidence1 the C0 correctly ruled that 9rancisco could not be considered anemployee o the respondents.

). 45S.

6he C04s order o reinstatement o 6ena,as and Endraca1 instead o thepayment o separation pay1 is also *ell in accordance *ith prevailing 5urisprudence. 0n illegally dismissed employee is entitled to t*o reliesHback*ages and reinstatement. 6he t*o relies provided are separate anddistinct. In instances *here reinstatement is no longer easible because o


6/389

strained relations bet*een the employee and the employer1 separation payis granted. In efect1 an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to eitherreinstatement1 i viable1 or separation pay i reinstatement is no longerviable1 and back*ages.

0ter a perusal o the ?>!C decision1 this Court ailed to =nd the actual basiso the a*ard o separation pay to the petitioners. 6he ?>!C decision did notstate the acts *hich demonstrate that reinstatement is no longer a easibleoption that could have 5usti=ed the alternative relie o granting separationpay instead.

6he petitioners themselves like*ise overlooked to allege circumstances*hich may have rendered their reinstatement unlikely or un*ise and evenprayed or reinstatement alongside the payment o separation pay in theirposition paper. 0 bare claim o strained relations by reason o termination isinsu@cient to *arrant the granting o separation pay. >ike*ise1 the =ling o

the complaint by the petitioners does not necessarily translate to strainedrelations bet*een the parties. 0s a rule1 no strained relations should ariserom a valid and legal act asserting one4s right. 0lthough litigation may alsoengender a certain degree o hostility1 the understandable strain in theparties4 relation *ould not necessarily rule out reinstatement *hich *ould1other*ise1 become the rule rather the e:ception in illegal dismissal cases. 6hus1 it *as a prudent call or the C0 to delete the a*ard o separation payand order or reinstatement instead1 in accordance *ith the general rulestated in 0rticle )%$ o the >abor Code.


7/389

Topic: pro6ationar- emplo-ment o1 teachers in private schools/illegal 0ismissal

Ponente: 2illarama, Jr., J.

7niversi0a0 De Sta. +sa6el v. Sam6a8on, Jr., G.R. os. !#&(") 9!#&("&, 'pril (, ()!$

*acts: Fniversidad de Sta. Isabel is a non-stock1 non-pro=t religiouseducational institution in ?aga City. Petitioner hired (arvin-"ulian >.Samba5on1 "r. as a ull-time college aculty member *ith the rank o 0ssistantProessor on probationary status1 as evidenced by an 0ppointment Contractdated ?ovember #1 )&&)1 efective ?ovember #1 )&&) up to (arch '&1 )&&'.

0ter the aoresaid contract e:pired1 petitioner continued to give teachingloads to respondent *ho remained a ull-time aculty member o the

Department o !eligious Education or the t*o semesters o school-year)&&'-)&&8 and t*o semesters o SJ )&&8-)&&.

Sometime in "une )&&'1 ater respondent completed his course in (aster o 0rts in Education1 ma5or in uidance and Counseling1 he submitted thecorresponding Special 7rder rom the Commission on /igher EducationAC/ED1 together *ith his credentials or the said master4s degree1 to the/uman !esources Department o petitioner or the purpose o salaryad5ustmentBincrease. Subse+uently1 respondent4s salary *as increased1 asreected in his pay slips starting 7ctober #-#1 )&&8. /e *as like*ise re-ranked rom 0ssistant Proessor to 0ssociate Proessor.

In a letter dated 7ctober #1 )&&8 addressed to the President o petitioner1Sr. (a. 0suncion . Evidente1 D.C.1 respondent vigorously argued that hissalary increase should be made efective as o "une )&&' and demanded thepayment o his salary diferential. 6he school administration replied bye:plaining that there is no re ; ranking during the employee4s probationaryperiod.

6o resolve the issue1 a dialogue *as held bet*een respondent and Sr.Evidente but the parties gave conicting accounts. 7n 9ebruary )L1 )&&1respondent received his letter o termination.

7n 0pril #81 )&&1 respondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal againstthe petitioner.

6he >abor 0rbiter ruled that there *as no 5ust or authori,ed cause in thetermination o respondent4s probationary employment. Conse+uently1petitioner *as ound liable or illegal dismissal.


8/389

Petitioner appealed to the ?>!C raising the issue o the correct interpretationo Section $) o the (anual o !egulations or Private Schools and D7>E-DECS-C/ED-6ESD0 7rder ?o. series o #$$L1 and alleging grave abuse o discretion committed by the >abor 0rbiter in ruling on a cause o actionBissuenot raised by the complainant Arespondent in his position paper.

7n 0ugust #1 )&&G1 the ?>!C rendered its Decision a@rming the >abor0rbiter and holding that respondent had ac+uired a permanent statuspursuant to Sections $#1 $) and $' o the #$$) (anual o !egulations orPrivate Schools1 in relation to 0rticle )G# o the >abor Code1 as amended.

Fnder the circumstances1 it must be concluded that the complainant hasac+uired permanent status. 6he last paragraph o 0rticle )G# o the >aborCode provides that !C that respondent had already ac+uired permanent

status *hen he *as allo*ed to continue teaching ater the e:piration o his=rst appointment-contract on (arch '&1 )&&'. /o*ever1 the C0 ound itnecessary to modiy the decision o the ?>!C to include the a*ard o back*ages to respondent.


+ssues:

#. Did the ?>!C correctly resolve an issue not raised in petitioner4s appealmemorandum

). 3as the respondent illegally dismissed

Ruling:

#. 45S.

6he ?>!C shall1 in cases o perected appeals1 limit itsel to revie*ing thoseissues *hich are raised on appeal. 0s a conse+uence thereo1 any other


9/389

issues *hich *ere not included in the appeal shall become =nal ande:ecutory.

In this case1 petitioner sought the correct interpretation o the (anual o !egulations or Private School 6eachers and D7>E-DECS-C/ED-6ESD0 7rder

?o. series o #$$L1 insoar as the probationary period or teachers. Inrevie*ing the >abor 0rbiter4s =nding o illegal dismissal1 the ?>!C concludedthat respondent had already attained regular status ater the e:piration o his =rst appointment contract as probationary employee. Such conclusion*as but a logical result o the ?>!C4s o*n interpretation o the la*. Sincepetitioner elevated the +uestions o the validity o respondent4s dismissaland the applicable probationary period under the aoresaid regulations1 the?>!C did not gravely abuse its discretion in ully resolving the said issues.

). 45S.

6he probationary employment o teachers in private schools is not governedpurely by the >abor Code. 6he >abor Code is supplemented *ith respect tothe period o probation by special rules ound in the (anual o !egulationsor Private Schools. 7n the matter o probationary period1 Section $) o the#$$) (anual o !egulations or Private Schools regulations statesH

Section 92. Probationary Period. – Subject in all instances tocompliance with the Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more thanthree (! consecuti"e years of satisfactory ser"ice for those in theelementary and secondary le"els, si# ($! consecuti"e re%ular

semesters of satisfactory ser"ice for those in the tertiary le"el, and nine (9! consecuti"e trimesters of satisfactory ser"ice for those inthe tertiary le"el where colle%iate courses are o&ered on atrimester basis.

In this case1 it *as e:plicitly provided in the third appointment contract o the respondent that unless rene*ed in *riting respondent4s appointmentautomatically e:pires at the end o the stipulated period o employment.Simply because the *ord


10/389

!egulations. 6he circumstance that respondent4s services *ere hired onsemester basis did not negate the applicable probationary period1 *hich isthree school years or si: consecutive semesters.

In a situation *here the probationary status overlaps *ith a =:ed-term

contract not speci=cally used or the =:ed term it ofers1 0rticle )G# shouldassume primacy and the =:ed-period character o the contract must give*ay.

?ot*ithstanding the limited engagement o probationary employees1 theyare entitled to constitutional protection o security o tenure during andbeore the end o the probationary period. 6he services o an employee *hohas been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated or any o theollo*ingH Aa a 5ust or Ab an authori,ed cause and Ac *hen he ails to+ualiy as a regular employee in accordance *ith reasonable standardsprescribed by the employer.

6hus1 *hile no vested right to a permanent appointment had as yet accruedin avor o respondent since he had not completed the prere+uisite three-year period Asi: consecutive semesters necessary or the ac+uisition o permanent status as re+uired by the (anual o !egulations or PrivateSchools -- *hich has the orce o la* -- he en5oys a limited tenure. During thesaid probationary period1 he cannot be terminated e:cept or 5ust orauthori,ed causes1 or i he ails to +ualiy in accordance *ith reasonablestandards prescribed by petitioner or the ac+uisition o permanent status o its teaching personnel.

In a letter dated 9ebruary )L1 )&&1 petitioner terminated the services o respondent stating that his probationary employment as teacher *ill nolonger be rene*ed upon its e:piry on (arch '#1 )&&1 respondent4s =thsemester o teaching. ?o 5ust or authori,ed cause *as given by petitioner.Prior to this1 respondent had consistently achieved above average ratingbased on evaluation by petitioner4s o@cials and students. /e had also beenpromoted to the rank o 0ssociate Proessor ater =nishing his master4sdegree course on his third semester o teaching. Clearly1 respondent4stermination ater =ve semesters o satisactory service *as illegal.


11/389

Topic: circumstances hen a seaman ma- 6e alloe0 to pursue anaction 1or permanent an0 total 0isa6ilit- 6ene;ts/ aar0 o1 attorne-(, 'pril (, ()!$

*acts: Petitioners Fnited Philippine >ines1 Inc. and /olland 0merica >inehired Sibug as *aste handler on board the vessel (IS Volendam. 7n 0ugust

1 )&&1 Sibug ell rom a ladder *hile cleaning the silo sensor at a garbage

room o the Volendam and in5ured his knee. /e *as repatriated and had

anterior cruciate ligament A0C> reconstruction surgery at the (anila Doctors

/ospital. 7n "anuary #$1 )&&L1 he *as declared =t to return to *ork rom an

orthopedic point o vie*.

Sibug sought reemployment1 passed the pre-employment medical

e:amination1 and *as re-hired by petitioners in the same capacity or thevessel (BS !yndam. 7n board !yndam1 Sibug met another accident *hile

driving a orklit and in5ured his right hand and *rist. /e *as repatriated. /e

arrived in the Philippines on "anuary #1 )&&%1 and had surgery or his

!yndam in5ury. 7n September %1 )&&%1 the company-designated doctor

issued a medical report that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete

disability. In an email dated September )G1 )&&%1 the company-designated


12/389

doctor classi=ed Sibug4s disability rom his !yndam in5ury as a grade #&

disability.

Sibug =led t*o complaints or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 damages

and attorney4s ees against petitioners anchored on his Volendam in5ury and

!yndam in5ury.

6he >abor 0rbiter dismissed the Volendam case on the ground that Sibug

*as declared =t to *ork ater his 0C> reconstruction surgery. /e also passed

the pre-employment medical e:amination *hen he sought reemployment1

*as reemployed and *as able to *ork again in !yndam. 0s regards the

!yndam case1 the >abor 0rbiter a*arded to Sibug FSM#&1&% *hich is the

e+uivalent a*ard or the grade #& disability rating issued by the company-

designated doctor.

6he ?>!C reversed the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision. It ruled that Sibug is entitled

to permanent and total disability bene=t o FSML&1&&& or his Volendam

in5ury and another FSML&1&&& or his !yndam in5ury. 7n reconsideration1 the

?>!C reinstated the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision.

>ater1 the ?>!C denied Sibug4s motion or reconsideration. 6hus1 the case

*as elevated to the C0. 6he C0 set aside the ?>!C Decision dated (ay )$1

)&&$ and reinstated the ?>!C Decision dated December G1 )&&G. It ruled

that Sibug *as unable to perorm his customary *ork or more than #)& days

on account o his Volendam and !yndam in5uries. 6hus1 he is entitled topermanent and total disability bene=t or both in5uries.


+ssues:

#. Is Sibug entitled to permanent and total disability bene=ts or his

Volendam and !yndam in5uries

). Is he entitled to attorney4s ees

Ruling:

#. Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability bene=t or his

Volendam in5ury. 2ut he is entitled to permanent and total disability bene=t

or his !yndam in5ury and to attorney4s ees.


13/389

Sibug is not entitled to permanent and total disability bene=t or his

Volendam in5ury since he became already =t to *ork again as a seaman. /e

even admitted in his position paper that he *as declared =t to *ork. /e *as

also declared =t or sea service ater his pre-employment medical

e:amination *hen he sought reemployment *ith petitioners. 6he medical

certi=cate declaring Sibug =t or sea service even bears his signature. 0nd he

*as able to *ork again in the same capacity as *aste handler in !yndam.

0s regards his !yndam in5ury1 Sibug is entitled to permanent and total

disability bene=t amounting to FSML&1&&&. +n ?illan v. @allem ?aritimeServices, +nc., the 1olloing are the circumstances hen a seamanma- 6e alloe0 to pursue an action 1or permanent an0 total0isa6ilit- 6ene;ts:

Aa 6he company-designated physician ailed to issue a declaration asto his =tness to engage in sea duty or disability even ater the lapse o

the #)&-day period and there is no indication that urther medical

treatment *ould address his temporary total disability1 hence1 5ustiy

an e:tension o the period to )8& days

Ab )8& days had lapsed *ithout any certi=cation issued by the

company-designated physician

Ac 6he company-designated physician declared that he is =t or sea

duty *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period1 as the case may be1 but hisphysician o choice and the doctor chosen under Section )&-2A' o the

P7E0-SEC are o a contrary opinion

Ad 6he company-designated physician ackno*ledged that he is

partially permanently disabled but other doctors *ho he consulted1 on

his o*n and 5ointly *ith his employer1 believed that his disability is not

only permanent but total as *ell

Ae 6he company-designated physician recogni,ed that he is totally and

permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading

A 6he company-designated physician determined that his medical

condition is not compensable or *ork-related under the P7E0-SEC but

his doctor-o-choice and the third doctor selected under Section )&-2A'

o the P7E0-SEC ound other*ise and declared him un=t to *ork


14/389

Ag 6he company-designated physician declared him totally and

permanently disabled but the employer reuses to pay him the

corresponding bene=ts and

Ah 6he company-designated physician declared him partially and

permanently disabled *ithin the #)&-day or )8&-day period but heremains incapacitated to perorm his usual sea duties ater the lapse o

said periods.

Paragraph Ab applies to Sibug4s case. 6he company-designated doctor ailed

to issue a certi=cation *ith a de=nite assessment o the degree o Sibug4s

disability or his !yndam in5ury *ithin )8& days.

In 9il-Pride Shipping Company1 Inc.1 et al. v. 2alasta1 *e held that the

abor Code and !ule N1

Section ) o the 0mended !ules on Employees Compensation. I he ails to

do so and the seaarer4s medical condition remains unresolved1 the latter

shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.< 6his de=nite assessment

o the seaman4s permanent disability must include the degree o his

disability1 as re+uired by Section )&-2 o the P7E0-SEC.

In this case1 Sibug *as repatriated and arrived in the country on "anuary #1

)&&% ater his !yndam in5ury. /e had surgery on his in5ured hand. 7nSeptember %1 )&&%1 the company-designated doctor issued a medical report

that Sibug has a permanent but incomplete disability. 2ut this medical report

ailed to state the degree o Sibug4s disability. 7nly in an email dated

September )G1 )&&%1 copy o *hich *as attached as 0nne: ' o petitioners4

position paper1 *as Sibug4s disability rom his !yndam in5ury classi=ed as a

grade #& disability by the company-designated doctor. 2y that time1

ho*ever1 the )8&-day e:tended period *hen the company-designated doctor

must give the de=nite assessment o Sibug4s disability had lapsed. 9rom

"anuary #1 )&&% to September )G1 )&&% is )L days. /ence1 Sibug4s

disability is already deemed permanent and total.

). 45S. Sibug is entitled to attorney4s ees o FSML1&&& since he *as orcedto litigate to protect his valid claim. 3here an employee is orced to

litigate and incur e:penses to protect his right and interest1 he is entitled

to an a*ard o attorney4s ees e+uivalent to #&O o the a*ard.


15/389

Topic: +llegal DismissalA*loating Status

Ponente: 'ntonio T. Carpio, J.:

5meritus Securit- an0 ?aintenance S-stems +nc. v. Dailig, G.R. o.()$>&!, 'pril (, ()!$

*acts: Petitioner hired respondent as one o its security guards. !espondent*as relieved rom his post. !espondent =led a complaint or underpaymento *ages1 non-payment o legal and special holiday pay1 premium pay orrest day and underpayment o EC7>0 beore the D7>E. 6he hearing o@cerrecommended the dismissal o the complaint since the claims *ere alreadypaid.

!espondent =led a complaint or illegal dismissal and payment o separationpay against petitioner beore the Conciliation and (ediation Center o the?>!C. !espondent =led another complaint or illegal dismissal1underpayment o salaries and non-payment o ull back*ages beore the?>!C.

>abor 0rbiter ound illegal dismissal and ordered respondent to reinstatecomplainant and to pay him back*ages.

Court o 0ppeals a@rmed the =nding o illegal dismissal but orderedseparation pay instead o reinstatement.

+ssuesH 3hether or not there is illegal dismissal

3hether or not respondent is entitled to separation pay1 instead o reinstatement

RulingH 4es.

!espondent *as on oating status rom #& December )&& to #L "une )&&Lor more than si: months. 6he Court ound that a Boating status o1 asecurit- guar0, such as respon0ent, 1or more than si3 monthsconstitutes constructive 0ismissal. *actual ;n0ings o1 uasi8u0icial

6o0ies like the =RC, i1 supporte0 6- su6stantial evi0ence, areaccor0e0 respect an0 even ;nalit- 6- this Court, more so hen the-coinci0e ith those o1 the =a6or 'r6iter.

o.

0rticle )%$ o the >abor Code o the Philippines mandates the reinstatement

o an illegally dismissed employee1 to *itH


16/389

Security o 6enure. - : : : 0n employee *ho is un5ustly dismissed rom *ork

shall be entitled to reinstatement *ithout loss o seniority rights and other

privileges and to his ull back *ages1 inclusive o allo*ances1 and to his other

bene=ts or their monetary e+uivalent computed rom the time his

compensation *as *ithheld rom him up to the time o his actual

reinstatement.

6hus1 reinstatement is the general rule, hile the aar0 o1 separation pa- is the e3ception. 6he circumstances *arranting the granto separation pay1 in lieu o reinstatement1 are laid do*n by the Court in

lobe-(ackay Cable and !adio Corporation v. ?ational >abor !elations

Commission1 thusH

7ver time1 the ollo*ing reasons have been advanced by the Court or

denying reinstatement under the acts o the case and the la* applicablethereto that reinstatement can no longer be efected in vie* o the long

passage o time A)) years o litigation or because o the realities o the

situation or that it *ould be inimical to the employer4s interest4 or that

reinstatement may no longer be easible or1 that it *ill not serve the best

interests o the parties involved or that the company *ould be pre5udiced by

the *orkers4 continued employment or that it *ill not serve any prudent

purpose as *hen supervening acts have transpired *hich make e:ecution

on that score un5ust or ine+uitable or1 to an increasing e:tent1 due to the

resultant atmosphere o antipathy and antagonism4 or strained relations4 or

irretrievable estrangement4 bet*een the employer and the employee.

!espondent admits receiving a reinstatement notice rom petitioner.

6hereater1 respondent *as assigned to one o petitionerQs clients. /o*ever1

respondent pointed out that he *as not sreinstated by petitioner1 but *as

employed by another company1 Emme Security and (aintenance Systems1

Inc. 6hus1 according to respondent1 he *as not reinstated at all. Petitioner

countered that Emeritus and Emme are sister companies *ith the same

2oard o Directors and o@cers1 arguing that Emeritus and Emme are in efect

one and the same corporation.

Considering petitionerQs undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme are one

and the same1 there is no basis in respondentQs allegation that he *as not

reinstated to his previous employment. ?othing in the records sho*ed any

strained relations bet*een the parties to *arrant the a*ard o separation


17/389

pay. 6here is neither allegation nor proo that such animosity e:isted

bet*een petitioner and respondent.

Topic: +ntegration o1 'lloances

Ponente: Pres6itero J. 2elasco Jr., J.:

=an0 Eank v. aval, G.R. o. !#%&">, 'pril >, ()!$

*acts: Petitioner >2P granted its o@cers and employees Cost o >iving0llo*ance AC7>0 and a monthly allo*ance called a 2P issued a resolution integrating the C7>0 into the basic pay o >2Pemployees *hich took efect on (ay #L1 #$G$. 7n 0ugust )#1 #$G$1 !.0.L%G1 other*ise kno*n as the Salary Standardi,ation >a* ASS>1 *as enacted*hich provides the integrationBconsolidation o allo*ances and additionalcompensation into the standardi,ed salary rates save or certain additionalcompensation enumerated therein and others that the Department o 2udgetand (anagement AD2( is mandated to determine. D2(-CCC ?o. #& A!ulesand Implementation o !0 L%G or 7CCs and 9Is speci=cally stated thatthe C7>0 and 2EP granted to employees o 7CCs and 9Is shall be deemedintegrated into the basic salary efective "uly #1 #$G$. 6hus1 >2P integratedthe 2EP into the basic pay o its employees efective as o "uly #1 #$G$.

7n 9ebruary )'1 #$$1 !0 %$&% removed petitioner >2P rom the coverage o

the SS>.

6he Court nulli=ed D2(-CCC ?o. #& in De "esus v. Co0 because it *as notpublished in the 7@cial a,ette or in a ne*spaper o general circulation1 asre+uired by la*.


18/389

6he D2( remedied its circular4s deect by publishing D2(-CCC ?o. #& in the7@cial a,ette in (arch #$$$1 *hich *as released on "uly #1 #$$$. /ence1D2(-CCC ?o. #&1 as published1 took efect on "uly #L1 #$$$.

0ter the publication o the Decision in De "esus1 respondents startednegotiating *ith >2P or the payment o their C7>0 and 2EP bene=ts overand above their monthly basic salaries1 and back payment o the same romthe time that >2P stopped to e:tend them until the =nality o the Decision inDe "esus.

!espondents appealed to >2P or the restoration o their C7>0 and 2EP. >2P1ho*ever1 denied respondents4 appeal based on a Civil Service CommissionACSC ruling citing D2( 2udget Circular )&-&' *hich prohibits the paymento C7>0 and similar allo*ances on top o the basic salary on the ground thatit *ould constitute double compensation.

!espondents instituted a Petition or (andamus beore the !6C to compel

>2P to pay their C7>0 and the 2EP allo*ances over and above their basicsalaries. 6rial court granted the petition or mandamus and ordered >2P topay respondents4 claim.

Court o 0ppeals a@rmed *ith modi=cation directing respondents to pay aninterest o LO per annum on all the amounts due to respondents efective(ay #L1 #$G$1 in the case o C7>01 and "uly #1 #$G$1 in the case o 2EP1 up tothe =nality o this Decision1 *hich interest rate should become #)O perannum rom the =nality o this Decision up to its satisaction.

+ssue: 3hether or not respondents and intervenors are entitled to the C7>0and the 2EP on top o their basic salaries rom #$G$ up to the present

Ruling: o.

6he Court clari=ed that the nulli;cation o1 DE?CCC o. !) is irrelevantto the vali0it- o1 the provisions o1 the SS=. ?ot*ithstanding the rulingin De "esus vs. Commission on 0udit1 the Court declared the nullity o D2(-

CCC ?o. #&1 nothing in the decision suggested or intimated the suspension o

the efectivity o !ep. 0ct ?o. L%G pending the publication in the 7@cial

a,ette o D2(-CCC ?o. #&.

Section #) o SS>. Consolidation o 0llo*ances and Compensation. ; 0llallo*ances1 e:cept or representation and transportation allo*ances

clothing and laundry allo*ances subsistence allo*ance o marine o@cers

and cre* on board government vessels and hospital personnel ha,ard pay

allo*ances o oreign service personnel stationed abroad and such other

additional compensation not other*ise speci=ed herein as may be

determined by the D2(1 shall be deemed included in the standardi,ed salary


19/389

rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation1 *hether in

cash or in kind1 being received by incumbents only as o "uly #1 #$G$ not

integrated into the standardi,ed salary rates shall continue to be authori,ed.

E:isting additional compensation o any national government o@cial or

employee paid rom local unds o a local government unit shall be absorbedinto the basic salary o said o@cial or employee and shall be paid by the

?ational overnment.

9rom the oregoing provision1 it is immediately apparent that the SS>

mandates the integration o all allo*ances e:cept or the ollo*ingH

#. !epresentation and transportation allo*ances

). Clothing and laundry allo*ances

'. Subsistence allo*ance o marine o@cers and cre* on board

government vessels

8. Subsistence allo*ance o hospital personnel

. /a,ard pay

L. 0llo*ances o oreign service personnel stationed abroad

%. 0nd such other additional compensation not other*ise speci=edherein as may be determined by the D2(.

Since the C=' an0 the E5P are among those e3pressl- e3clu0e0 6-the SS= 1rom integration, the- shoul0 6e consi0ere0 as 0eeme0integrate0 in the stan0ar0ize0 salaries o1 =EP emplo-ees un0er thegeneral rule o1 integration.

C7>0 is one o those allo*ances deemed integrated under Sec. #) o the SS>because A# it had not been e:pressly e:cluded rom the general rule o

integration and A) it is a bene=t intended to reimburse the employee or thee:penses he incurred in the perormance o his o@cial unctions. C7>0 is notin the nature o an allo*ance intended to reimburse e:penses incurred byo@cials and employees o the government in the perormance o their o@cialunctions. It is not payment in consideration o the ul=llment o o@cial duty.0s de=ned1 cost o living reers to


20/389

are included in an accepted standard level o consumption.< 2ased on thispremise1 C7>0 is a bene=t intended to cover increases in the cost o living. 6hus1 it is and should be integrated into the standardi,ed salary rates.

>7I ?os. #&8 and ##L1 ho*ever1 *ould argue against the idea that theyprohibit the integration o either allo*ance into the basic pay o 9Iemployees. ?o*here in either issuance is it mandated that these allo*ancescan only be paid on top o1 and separate rom1 the basic and net pay o theemployees o 9Is. 6he rule is that the payment o a salary may be amendedby the po*er *hich granted it in the =rst place.

Sec. #& o !0 %$&% simply reads as ollo*sH

Sec. #&. Section $& o the same 0ct is hereby amended to read as ollo*sH

0 and 2EP contrary to the sound

business 5udgment o >2P recogni,ed and sustained in !0 %$&%.

6hus1 the back payment o the C7>0 and the 2EP to respondents1 *erereversed and set aside.


21/389

Topic: 7n1air =a6or Practice through Ea0 *aith EargainingA ational+nterest

Ponente: Teresita J. =eonar0oDe Castro, J.:

Ta6angao Shell Re;ner- 5mplo-ees 'ssociation v. Pilipinas Shell

Petroleum Corp., G.R. o. !>)))>, 'pril >, ()!$

*acts: ?ear the e:piration o the C201 petitioner and respondent startednegotiations or a ne* C20. Initially1 the union proposed )&O annualincrease in basic pay or the ne:t three years *hile the company made acounter-proposal to grant all covered employees a lump sum amount o PG&1&&&.&& yearly or the three-year period o the ne* C20. 6he unionlo*ered its proposal to #)O *hile the company increased the lump sumamount to PGG1&&&.&&. 6he company 5usti=ed that its counter-ofer is basedon its afordability or the company1 comparison *ith the then e:isting *agelevels o allied industry1 and the then e:isting total pay and bene=ts package

o the employees. Fnsatis=ed1 the union asked or additional 5usti=cation andre+uested or a copy o the comparison o the salaries o its members andthose rom allied industries. 6he company denied the re+uest on the groundthat the re+uested inormation *as entrusted to the company under acon=dential agreement. 0lleging ailure on the part o the company to 5ustiyits ofer1 the union maniested that the company *as bargaining in bad aith.

6he company proposed the declaration o a deadlock and recommended thatthe help o a third party be sought. 6he union replied that they *ouldormally ans*er the proposal o the company a day ater the signing o theo@cial minutes o the meeting. 7n that same day1 ho*ever1 the union =led a

?otice o Strike in the ?C(21 alleging bad aith bargaining on the part o thecompany. 6he ?C(2 immediately summoned the parties or the mandatoryconciliation-mediation proceedings but the parties ailed to reach anamicable settlement.

During the cooling of period1 the members o the union unanimously votedor the holding o a strike. Fpon being a*are o this development1 thecompany =led a Petition or 0ssumption o "urisdiction *ith the Secretary o >abor and Employment. Convinced that such a strike *ould have adverseconse+uences on the national economy1 the Secretary o >abor andEmployment ruled that the labor dispute bet*een the parties *ould cause or

likely to cause a strike in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 6hus1 he assumed 5urisdiction and the union *as en5oined rom any orm o concerted action.

Court o 0ppeals ruled that the So>E did not commit grave abuse o discretion.

6he union =led a complaint or unair labor practice beore ?>!C on theground that the company reused1 or violated its duty1 to bargain. 6he


22/389

complaint *as or*arded to So>E because the issue raised by the union *asa proper incident o the labor dispute over *hich the Secretary o >abor andEmployment assumed 5urisdiction.

So>E held that there *as already deadlock although the ground or the =rst?otice o Strike *as unair labor practice or bargaining in bad aith. It oundno unair labor practice through bad aith bargaining.

+ssuesH 3hether or not there is unair labor practice through bad aithbargaining

3hether or not the Secretary o >abor committed grave abuse o discretion*hen he assumed 5urisdiction over the labor dispute

Ruling: o.

6he 0octrine o1 conclusiveness o1 8u0gment states that a act or+uestion *hich *as in issue in a ormer suit1 and *as there 5udicially passedon and determined by a court o competent 5urisdiction1 is conclusivelysettled by the 5udgment therein1 as ar as concerns the parties to that actionand persons in privity *ith them1 and cannot be again litigated in any utureaction bet*een such parties or their privies1 in the same court or any othercourt o concurrent 5urisdiction on either the same or a diferent cause o action1 *hile the 5udgment remains unreversed or unvacated by properauthority. 6he only identities thus re+uired or the operation o the 5udgmentas an estoppel : : : are identity o parties and identity o issues.

6he Decision o the So>E in the labor dispute over *hich he assumed 5urisdiction has long attained =nality.

In this connection1 0rticle )L'Ai o the >abor Code is clearH

0!6. )L'. Strikes1 picketing1 and lockouts. ; : : :

: : : :

Ai 6he Secretary o >abor and Employment1 the Commission or the voluntary

arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute *ithin thirty A'& calendar days

rom the date o the assumption o 5urisdiction or the certi=cation or

submission o the dispute1 as the case may be. 6he decision o the President1the Secretary o >abor and Employment1 the Commission or the voluntary

arbitrator shall be =nal and e:ecutory ten A#& calendar days ater receipt

thereo by the parties.


23/389

Pursuant to 0rticle )L'Ai o the >abor Code1 the Decision o1 the So=56ecame ;nal an0 e3ecutor- ater the lapse o the period provided underthe said provision. (oreover1 neither party urther +uestioned the Decision.

' uestion o1 1act cannot properl- 6e raise0 in a petition 1or revie

un0er Rule $% o1 the Rules o1 Court. The e3istence o1 6a0 1aith is auestion o1 1act an0 is evi0entiar-. 6he crucial +uestion o *hether ornot a party has met his statutory duty to bargain in good aith typically turns

on the acts o the individual case1 and good aith or bad aith is an inerence

to be dra*n rom the acts. 6hus1 the issue o *hether or not there *as bad

aith on the part o the company *hen it *as bargaining *ith the union is a

+uestion o act. It re+uires that the revie*ing court look into the evidence to

=nd i indeed there is proo that is substantial enough to sho* such bad aith.

6he issue o *hether there *as already deadlock bet*een the union and thecompany is like*ise a +uestion o act. It re+uires the determination o

evidence to =nd *hether there is a abor and Employment need not *ait or a deadlock in thenegotiations to take cogni,ance o the matter. 6hat is the signi=cance o thepoer o1 the Secretar- o1 =a6or an0 5mplo-ment un0er 'rticle(&HIg o1 the =a6or Co0e to assume 8uris0iction over a la6or 0isputecausing or likel- to cause a strike or lockout in an in0ustr-


24/389

in0ispensa6le to the national interest. 0rticle )L'Ag is both ane:traordinary and a preemptive po*er to address an e:traordinary situation -a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 6hisgrant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice o strike or lockout thatmay have preceded the strike or lockout nor is it limited to the incidents o

the strike or lockout that in the mean*hile may have taken place. 0s theterm aborSecretary ull authority to resolve all matters *ithin the dispute that gaverise to or *hich arose out o the strike or lockout it includes and e:tends toall +uestions and controversies arising rom or related to the dispute1including cases over *hich the labor arbiter has e:clusive 5urisdiction.

Topic: =oss o1 Trust an0 Con;0ence

Ponente: Eienveni0o =. Re-es, J.:

Eluer than Elue Joint 2entures v. 5ste6an, G.R. o. !#(%"(, 'pril >,()!$

*acts: Esteban *as hired as Sales Clerk by petitioner. Part o her primarytasks *ere attending to all customer needs1 ensuring e@cient inventory1coordinating orders rom clients1 cashiering and reporting to the accountingdepartment.

Petitioner received a report that several employees have access to its P7Ssystem through a universal pass*ord given by 9lores. Fpon investigation1 it*as discovered that it *as Esteban *ho gave 9lores the pass*ord. 6hepetitioner sent a letter memorandum to Esteban1 asking her to e:plain in*riting *hy she should not be disciplinary dealt *ith or tampering *ith thecompany4s P7S system through the use o an unauthori,ed pass*ord.Esteban *as also placed under preventive suspension or ten days.

Esteban admitted that she used the universal pass*ord three times on thesame day1 ater she learned o it rom t*o other employees *ho she sa*


25/389

bro*sing through the petitioner4s sales in+uiry. She in+uired ho* theemployees *ere able to open the system and she *as told that they usedthe


26/389

un;t to continue orking 1or the emplo-er an0 it must 6e 6ase0 ona il1ul 6reach o1 trust an0 1oun0e0 on clearl- esta6lishe0 1acts.Such breach is *ilul i it is done intentionally1 kno*ingly1 and purposely1*ithout 5usti=able e:cuse as distinguished rom an act done carelessly1thoughtlessly1 heedlessly or inadvertently. 6he loss o trust and con=dence

must spring rom the voluntary or *ilul act o the employee1 or by reason o some blame*orthy act or omission on the part o the employee.

In this case1 Esteban4s acts do not amount to a *ilul breach o trust. /eracts *ere out o curiosity and *ithout any obvious intention o deraudingthe petitioner. She *as acting in good aith in veriying *hat her co-staf toldher about the opening o the computer by the use o the


27/389

authorize0 6- la or regulations issue0 6- the Secretar- o1 =a6oran0 5mplo-ment, among others.

6he 7mnibus !ules Implementing the >abor Code1 mean*hile1 providesH

SEC6I7? #8. Deduction or loss or damage. ; 3here the employer is engagedin a trade1 occupation or business *here the practice o making deductions

or re+uiring deposits is recogni,ed to ans*er or the reimbursement o loss

or damage to tools1 materials1 or e+uipment supplied by the employer to the

employee1 the employer may make *age deductions or re+uire the

employees to make deposits rom *hich deductions shall be made1 sub5ect

to the ollo*ing conditionsH

Aa 6hat the employee concerned is clearly sho*n to be responsible or

the loss or damage

Ab 6hat the employee is given reasonable opportunity to sho* cause

*hy deduction should not be made

Ac 6hat the amount o such deduction is air and reasonable and shall

not e:ceed the actual loss or damage and

Ad 6hat the deduction rom the *ages o the employee does not

e:ceed )& percent o the employee4s *ages in a *eek.

In this case1 the petitioner ailed to su@ciently establish that Esteban *as

responsible or the negative variance it had in its sales and that Esteban *as

given the opportunity to sho* cause the deduction rom her last salary

should not be made. 6he petitioners should =rst establish that the making o

deductions rom the salaries is authori,ed by la*1 or regulations issued by

the Secretary o >abor.

6hus1 the decision o the Court o 0ppeals is a@rmed but the a@rmation o

respondent4s preventive suspension *as reversed. >0 *as ordered to re-

compute the monetary a*ard in avor o Esteban and to e:clude the a*ardo back*ages during such period o preventive suspension1 i any.


28/389

Topic: 'ar0 o1 loss o1 1uture earnings, moral 0amages, e3emplar-0amages an0 attorne-abor !elations Commission A?>!C1claiming underpayment o disability bene=ts and attorney4s ees. /e lateramended his complaint to include claims or damages. 6he >abor 0rbiterdismissed Chin4s complaint or lack o merit. 6he ?>!C a@rmed thedismissal. 7n appeal1 ho*ever1 the Court o 0ppeals AC0 reversed thedismissal and ruled that Chin *as entitled to permanent total disabilitybene=t o FSML&1&&&.&&. 6he C0 remanded the case to the >abor 0rbiter ordetermination o the other monetary claims o Chin. 6his prompted petitioner(agsaysay to come beore this court on a petition or revie* on certiorari. 6he Court denied the petition1 ho*ever1 in a !esolution. 6his !esolutionbecame =nal and e:ecutor.

(agsaysay paid the de=ciency a*ard o FSM'&1&&&.&& in ull and =nalsettlement o Chin4s disability compensation claim. 7n 9ebruary )L1 )&&%1

ho*ever1 the >abor 0rbiter rendered a Decision ordering it to pay ChinH aP#$1)%$.% as reimbursement or medical e:penses b FSM#8%1&)L.8' asloss o uture *ages c P)&&1&&&.&& as moral damages d P%1&&&.&& ase:emplary damages and e #&O o the total a*ard as attorney4s ees. ?>!Cmodi=ed the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision by deleting the a*ards o loss o uture*ages and moral and e:emplary damages or lack o actual and legal bases.7n appeal1 the C0 reversed the ?>!C4s Decision and ordered thereinstatement o the >abor 0rbiter4s Decision1 hence1 this petition.


29/389

+ssueH 3hether or not the a*ard o loss o uture earnings on top o hisdisability bene=ts as *ell as a*ards o moral and e:emplary damages andattorney4s ees is valid.

Ruling:o.

>abor 0rbiter4s a*ard o loss o earning is un*arranted since Chin hadalready been given disability compensation or loss o earning capacity. 0nadditional a*ard or loss o earnings *ill result in double recovery. In acatena o cases1 the Court has consistently ruled that 0isa6ilit- shoul0 not6e un0erstoo0 more on its me0ical signi;cance 6ut on the loss o1 earning capacit-. Permanent total disability means disablement o anemployee to earn *ages in the same kind o *ork1 or *ork o similar naturethat he *as trained or or accustomed to perorm1 or any kind o *ork *hicha person o his mentality and attainment could do. Disability1 thereore1 isnot synonymous *ith


30/389

Topic:Computation o1 6ackages

Ponente: Justice 'rturo D. Erion

@5PL+= CRPR'T+ vs. '=?5R R. 'E+G an0 ''E5==5 ?.T7'M,G.R. o. ()>#"H 'pril >, ()!$

*acts: In a complaint or illegal dismissal =led by respondents 0lmer !.0bing and 0nabelle (. 6ua,on against petitioner 3enphil Corp.1 the ormer*ere a*arded back*ages. 2ut the period or the computation o theback*ages set by the >abor 0rbiter A>0 *as inconsistent *ith that o theCourt o 0ppeals AC0. 0ccording to the >01 *hose ruling the ?ational >abor!elations Commission A?>!C a@rmed1 the period or computation should berom 9eb. #1 )&&)1 the day *hen petitioner last paid respondents4back*ages1 until ?ov. G1 )&&) *hen the ?>!C4s decision became =nal and

e:ecutory.

7n the other hand1 the C01 in setting aside the ?>!C4s rulings1 relied on thecase o P=,er v. Velasco A.!. ?o. #%%8L%1 (arch $1 )#1 L8 SC!0 #'*here the Supreme Court ruled that the back*ages o the dismissedemployee should be granted during the period o appeal until reversal by ahigher court. Since the =rst C0 decision that ound the respondents had notbeen illegally dismissed *as promulgated on 0ug. )%1 )&&'1 then thereversal by the higher court *as efectively made on 0ug. )%1 )&&'.

+ssueH 3hether or not the Court o 0ppeals is correct that the date o

computation should start on 9ebruary #1 )&&).

Ruling:o.

0mong various vie*s1 the comman0ing one is the rule in P;zer1 *hichmerely echoes the rulings the Supreme Court ASC made in the cases o !o+uero v. Philippine 0irlines A.!. ?o. #)')$1 88$ Phil. 8'% A)&&' andarcia v. Philippine 0irlines A.!. ?o. #L8GL1 "anuary )&1 )&&$1 %L SC!08%$ that the perio0 1or computing the 6ackages 0ue to therespon0ents 0uring the perio0 o1 appeal shoul0 en0 on the 0atethat a higher court reverse0 the la6or ar6itration ruling o1 illegal0ismissal. In this case1 the higher court that =rst reversed the ?>!C4s ruling*as not the SC but rather the C0. In this light1 the C0 *as correct *hen itound that that the period o computation should end on 0ug. )%1 )&&'. 6hedate *hen the SC4s decision became =nal and e:ecutory need not matter asthe rule in !o+uero1 arcia and P=,er merely reerred to the date o reversal1not the date o the ultimate =nality o such reversal.


31/389

0s a last minor detail1 *e do not agree *ith the C0 that the date o computation should start on 9eb. #1 )&&). !ather1 it should be on 9eb. #L1)&&). 6he respondents themselves admitted in their motion or computationand issuance o *rit o e:ecution that the last date *hen they *ere paid theirback*ages *as on 9eb. #1 )&&). 6o start the computation on the same date

*ould result to a duplication o *ages or this day thus1 computation shouldstart on the ollo*ing date ; 9eb. #L1 )&&).


32/389

Topic: 'ar0 o1 moral an0 e3emplar- 0amages

Ponente: Justice Eienveni0o =. Re-es

SP+ T5CL=G+5S, +C. an0 =5' 2+=='752' vs. 2+CTR+' K.?'P7', G.R. o. !#!!%$ 'pril >, ()!$

*acts: Victoria K. (apua *as the Corporate Development4s!esearchB2usiness Intelligence Fnit /ead and (anager o SPI 6echnologies1Inc. ASPI. Subse+uently1 the Vice President and Corporate Development/ead1 Peter (a+uera hired Eli,abeth ?olan as (apua4s supervisor. 6he harddisk on (apua4s laptop crashed1 causing her to lose =les and data. (apuainormed ?olan and her colleagues that she *as *orking on recovering thelost data and asked or their patience or any possible delay on her part inmeeting deadlines. (apua retrieved the lost data *ith the assistance o ?ational 2ureau o Investigation 0nti-9raud and Computer Crimes Division.

Jet1 ?olan inormed (apua that she *as realigning (apua4s position tobecome a subordinate o co-manager Sameer !aina due to her missing a*ork deadline.

?olan and !aina started giving out ma5ority o her research *ork and otherduties under /ealthcare and >egal Division to the rank-and-=le staf. (apuaconsulted these *ork problems *ith SPI4s /uman !esource Director1 >eaVillanueva and asked i she can be transerred to another department *ithinSPI. (apua allegedly sa* the ne* table o organi,ation o the CorporateDevelopment Division *hich *ould be renamed as the (arketing Division. 6he ne* structure sho*ed that (apua4s level *ill be again do*ngraded

because a ne* manager *ill be hired and positioned bet*een her rank and!aina4s. She *as inormed that she should cease reporting or *ork the ne:tday. /er laptop computer and company mobile phone *ere taken right a*ayand her o@ce phone ceased to unction.

(apua =led *ith the >abor 0rbiter A>0 a complaint or illegal dismissal1claiming reinstatement or or separation pay. 0ter*ards1 she *ent to ameeting *ith SPI1 *here she *as given a second termination letter1 thecontents o *hich *ere similar to the =rst one.(apua received through mail1a third ?otice o 6erminationbut the date o efectivity o the termination *aschanged. It urther stated that her separation pay *ill be released and a

notation *as inscribed1


33/389

unnamed 2usiness Process 7utsourcing company located in ParaTa+ue City.(apua suspected that this advertisement *as or SPI because the *ritingstyle used *as similar to !aina4s. She also claimed that SPI is the only 2P7o@ce in ParaTa+ue City at that time. 6hereater1 she applied or the positionunder the pseudonym o


34/389

! Ruling: 4es.

6he Court does not agree *ith the rationali,ation o the ?>!C that !C ailed to perceive is that


35/389

Topic: Seaman Permanent Disa6ilit-

Ponente: Justice Eienveni0o =. Re-es

E'RK +T5R'T+'=, +C. AC'PT. T5DR E. O7+J' 'DAR*74 K'+7 C. =TD. vs. 5E5R=4 S. '=C'4, G.R. o. !""!#), 'pril(!, ()!$

*acts: 6he respondent *as employed by 9uyo Kaiun Co. >td. through itslocal manning agent1 2arko International1 Inc. Apetitioners1 as 0ble-bodiedSeaman. 6he employment contract provided or a contract period o ninemonths. /is prime duty1 among others1 *as to paint and chip rust on deck orsuperstructure o ship and to give directions to the cre* engaged in cleaning*heelhouse and +uarterdeck on board the vessel1 (BV Cape Iris./avingpassed the re+uired Pre-Employment (edical E:amination APE(E and ound=t or sea service1 the respondent boarded the ocean vessel (BV Cape Iris.

0ter one month on board the vessel1 the respondent complained o stif neck1 and his right 5a* started to s*ell. /is physical condition *orseneddespite medications given him on board until he signed of at the port o theSue, Canal1 Egypt *here he *as e:amined by a certain Dr. (ichael /.(ohsen o the Dr.?a,my /ospital. Dr. (ohsen4s diagnosis stated that therespondent had a


36/389

designated physician1 in act1 issued a hand*ritten medical evaluation=nding his condition *ell-controlled1 asymptomatic1 and stable and thereore1physically =t to resume *ork anytime. Dr. Cru, declared the respondent =t to*ork on even date ater completion o the anti-Koch4s medication or si:months. Such act *as not disputed hence1 there is no disability to speak

o.>0 granted the claim o the respondent. 6he ?>!C reversed the decision o the >0 as it ound no actual and legal basis to support the respondent4sallegation. 6he C0 granted the petition o the respondent and reversed theresolution o the ?>!C. /ence this petition.

+ssueH 3hether or not the respondent is entitled to total and permanentdisability bene=ts 5ust because his in5ury rendered him incapable o perorming his *ork or more than #)& days.

Ruling: 4es.

3hat is important is that he as una6le to per1orm his customar-ork 1or more than !() 0a-s hich constitutes permanent total0isa6ilit-1 and not the actual in8ur- itsel1 . Fndoubtedly1 the illness o therespondent *hich incapacitated him to *ork more than #)& days aterrepatriation is considered as *ork-related *hich entitles him to disabilitybene=ts.

6he Court1 moreover1 agrees *ith the C0 regarding the applica6ilit- o1 the0octrine in the case o1 Cr-stal Shipping that a sea1arers continuousina6ilit- to ork 0ue to a orkrelate0 illness 1or a perio0 o1 morethan !() 0a-s nee0 not 6e uali;e0 6- a 0eclaration o1 ;tness toork by a company-designated physician 1or it to 6e consi0ere0 as apermanent total 0isa6ilit- *hich is compensable. It *ould1 thus1 beillogical to apply the ruling laid do*n in Vergara *hich *as promulgated on7ctober L1 )&&G1 or more than t*o years rom the time the complaint *as=led. 6he o6servance o1 the principle o1 prospectivit- 0ictates that2ergara shoul0 not operate to strip the respon0ent o1 his cause o1 action or total and permanent disability that accrued since the time o hisinability to perorm his customary *ork.


37/389

Topic: Retrenchment 0ierentiate0 1rom Re0un0anc-

Ponente: ER+, J.

'R'E+T, et al., v. J'RD+5 P'C+*+C *+'C5, +C., G.R. o. !"!>!#,

'pril (!, ()!$

*acts: Petitioners *ere ormer regular employees o respondent "ardinePaci=c 9inance1 Inc. Aormerly (2 9inance A"ardine. 6he petitioners *ere alsoo@cers and members o (2 9inance Employees 0ssociation-993 ChapterAthe Fnion1 a legitimate labor union and the sole e:clusive bargaining agento the employees o "ardine. 7n the claim o =nancial losses1 "ardine decidedto reorgani,e and implement a redundancy program among its employees. 6he petitioners *ere among those afected by the redundancy program. "ardine thereater hired contractual employees to undertake the unctionsthese employees used to perorm. 6he Fnion alleged unair labor practice on

the part o "ardine1 as *ell as discrimination in the dismissal o its o@cersand members. ?egotiations ensued bet*een the Fnion and "ardine under theauspices o the ?C(21 and both parties eventually reached an amicablesettlement. In the settlement1 the petitioners accepted their redundancy pay*ithout pre5udice to their right to +uestion the legality o their dismissal *iththe ?>!C.

7n "une #1 #$$$1 the petitioners and the Fnion =led a complaint against "ardine *ith the ?>!C or illegal dismissal and unair labor practice. 6he >0ruled in the petitioners4 avor. 6he C0 reversed the >04s and the ?>!C4srulings1 and granted "ardine4s petition or certiorari.

+ssueH 3hether or not the C0 correctly ruled that the ?>!C committed graveabuse o discretion *hen it ound that "ardine validly terminated thepetitioners4 employment because o redundancy

Ruling: o.


38/389

!etrenchment and redundancy are t*o diferent concepts they are notsynonymous thus1 they should not be used interchangeably. !edundancye:ists *here the services o an employee are in e:cess o *hat is reasonablydemanded by the actual re+uirements o the enterprise. 0 position isredundant *here it is superuous1 and superuity o a position or positions

may be the outcome o a number o actors1 such as over hiring o *orkers1decreased volume o business1 or dropping o a particular product line orservice activity previously manuactured or undertaken by the enterprise.Primarily1 employers resort to redundancy *hen the unctions o anemployee have already become superuous or in e:cess o *hat thebusiness re+uires. 9or the implementation o a redundancy program to bevalid1 the employer must comply *ith the ollo*ing re+uisitesH A# *rittennotice served on both the employees and the Department o >aborand Employment at least one month prior to the intended date o retrenchment A) payment o separation pay e+uivalent to at least onemonth pay or at least one month pay or every year o service1 *hichever is

higher A' good aith in abolishing the redundant positions and A8 air andreasonable criteria in ascertaining *hat positions are to be declaredredundant and accordingly abolished.Topic: Pa-ment o1 accrue0 ages 0espite reversal o1 0ecision

Ponente: ER+, J.

E5RG+ v. S7TL 5'ST 'S+' '+R=+5S, G.R. o. !#%((>, 'pril(!, ()!$

*acts: 7n 0pril '&1 )&&81 the petitioners =led beore the >0 a complaint or

illegal dismissal and illegal suspension *ith prayer or reinstatement againstrespondents South East 0sian 0irlines ASE0I! and Irene Dornier as SE0I!4sPresident Acollectively1 the respondents. 6he >0 ound the petitionersillegally dismissed and ordered the respondents1 among others1 toimmediately reinstate the petitioners *ith ull back*ages. 6he respondentsappealed *ith the ?>!C the (ay '#1 )&& illegal dismissal ruling o the >0. 6he ?>!C issued an Entry o "udgment on 9ebruary L1 )&&% declaring its?ovember )$1 )&&L resolution =nal and e:ecutory. 6he C0 rendered itsdecision Aon the illegal dismissal ruling o the >0 partly granting therespondents4 petition. 6he Court like*ise denied the petitioners4 subse+uentmotion or reconsideration1 and thereater issued an Entry o "udgment

certiying that its 0ugust 81 )&&G resolution had become =nal and e:ecutoryon (arch $1 )&&$. In its "uly #L1 )&&G resolution1 the ?>!C a@rmed in totothe >04s (arch #'1 )&&G order. 6he C0 reversed1 or grave abuse o discretion1 the ?>!C4s "uly #L1 )&&G decision that a@rmed the >04s order torelease the garnished amount.

+ssueH 3hether or not the petitioners may recover the accrued *ages priorto the C04s reversal o the >04s (ay '#1 )&& decision.


39/389

Ruling: 4es.

0n employer1 *ho1 despite the >abor 0rbiter4s order o reinstatement1 did notreinstate the employee during the pendency o the appeal up to the reversal

by a higher tribunal may still be held liable or the accrued *ages o theemployee1 i.e.1 the unpaid salary accruing up to the time the higher tribunalreverses the decision. 6he rule1 thereore1 is that an employee may stillrecover the accrued *ages up to and despite the reversal by the highertribunal. 6his entitlement o the employee to the accrued *ages proceedsrom the immediate and sel-e:ecutory nature o the reinstatement aspect o the >04s decision.

53ception. 6o determine *hether an employee is thus barred1 t*o testsmust be satis=edH A# actual delay or the act that the order o reinstatementpending appeal *as not e:ecuted prior to its reversal and A) the delay must

not be due to the employer4s un5usti=ed act or omission. ?ote that under thesecond test1 the delay must be *ithout the employer4s ault. I the delay isdue to the employer4s un5usti=ed reusal1 the employer may still be re+uiredto pay the salaries not*ithstanding the reversal o the >04s decision.

Fnder the acts and the surrounding circumstances1 the delay *as due to theacts o the respondents that *e =nd *ere un5usti=ed. 6he respondentsQailure in this case to e:ercise either option rendered them liable or thepetitionersQ accrued salary until the >0 decision *as reversed by the C0 onDecember #%1 )&&G.Topic: Stan0ar0s 1or regularization/ conceptual un0erpinnings

Ponente: P5R='SE5R'E5, J.

'66ot =a6oratories Philippines, et al. v. Perlie 'lcaraz GR o.!#(%>!, 'pril (H, ()!H

*acts: 6he respondent 0lcara, *as the !egulatory 0fairsand Inormation (anager o 0ventis Pasteur Philippines *ho sho*ed interestin applying as a (edical and !egulatory 0fairs (anager1 a position that *aspublished by the petitioner 0bbot >aboratories in the ne*spaper. 3hen thepetitioner ormally ofered the position to the respondent1 the latter accepted

the position. It *as on (ay )'1 )&& that 3alsh1 0lma,ar and 2ernardoormally handed to the respondent a letter terminating her employment *iththe detailed e:planation or her termination. 6he respondent then =led acomplaint or illegal dismissal *ith damages against the petitioner and itso@cers. 6he >abor 0rbiter upheld the termination o probationaryemployment o the respondent holding that the termination *as 5usti=ed*ith no evidence sho*ing that the o@cers o the 0bbot >ab acted in badaith *hen terminating her services.


40/389

6he ?>!C annulled and set aside the ruling o the >abor 0rbiter *hichprompted the petitioners to =le beore the Court o 0ppeals a petition orcertiorari *ith prayer or issuance o a temporary restraining order and *rito preliminary in5unction. (ean*hile1 the action o the petitioner on its

motion or reconsideration o the C04s resolution in the second C0 petition*as denied that became =nal on "anuary #&1 )# because the petitionerailed to =le a timely appeal on the said decision. 0lcara,1 in her comment1raised the issue on orum shopping *hen the petitioner =led its secondpetition to the C0 pending the resolution o the motion or reconsiderationthat they =led earlier in the December #&1 )&&$ decision. 0lcara, urthercontends that the petitioners ailed to comply *ith certi=cation re+uirementunder Section 1 !ule % o the rules o court *hen they ailed to disclose intheir petition =led on "une #L1 )& (emorandum o 0ppeal =led beore the?>!C.

+ssueH 3hether or not 0lcara, *as validly terminated rom her employment.

Ruling: 4es.

0lcara, *as su@ciently inormed o the reasonable standards. 6he employeris made to comply *ith t*o A) re+uirements *hen dealing *ith aprobationary employeeH =rst1 the employer must communicate theregulari,ation standards to the probationary employee and second1 theemployer must make such communication at the time o the probationaryemployee4s engagement. I the employer ails to comply *ith either1 theemployee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary employee.

0 punctilious e:amination o the records reveals that 0bbott had indeedcomplied *ith the above-stated re+uirements. 6his conclusion is largelyimpelled by the act that 0bbott clearly conveyed to 0lcara, her duties andresponsibilities as !egulatory 0fairs (anager prior to1 during the time o herengagement1 and the incipient stages o her employment.

!ecords sho* that 0lcara, *as terminated because she Aa did not manageher time efectively Ab ailed to gain the trust o her staf and to build anefective rapport *ith them Ac ailed to train her staf efectively and Ad*as not able to obtain the kno*ledge and ability to make sound 5udgments

on case processing and article revie* *hich *ere necessary or the properperormance o her duties. Due to the nature and variety o these managerialunctions1 the best that 0bbott could have done1 at the time o 0lcara,Qsengagement1 *as to inorm her o her duties and responsibilities1 theade+uate perormance o *hich1 to repeat1 is an inherent and impliedstandard or regulari,ation this is unlike the circumstance in 0liling *here a+uantitative regulari,ation standard1 in the term o a sales +uota1 *as readilyarticulable to the employee at the outset. /ence1 since the reasonableness


41/389

o 0lcara,Qs assessment clearly appears rom the records1 her termination*as 5usti=ed. 2ear in mind that the +uantum o proo *hich the employermust discharge is only substantial evidence *hich1 as de=ned in case la*1means that amount o relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might acceptas ade+uate to support a conclusion1 even i other minds1 e+ually

reasonable1 might conceivably opine other*ise. 0 diferent procedure is applied *hen terminating a probationary employeethe usual t*o-notice rule does not govern. Section )1 !ule I1 2ook VI o theImplementing !ules o the >abor Code states that


42/389

corporation due to the latter4s non-compliance *ith the t*in re+uirements o notice and hearing. /e asserts that *hile there *as a notice charging him o !C ound thatrespondent *as not only validly dismissed or cause ; he *as also properlyaccorded his constitutional right to due process. 6he C0 disagreed *ith the?>!C and ruled that it *as immaterial *hether respondent ailed1 reused1 oravoided being tested. 6he C0 ho*ever ound that a*ard o moral ande:emplary damages is *ithout basis due to lack o bad aith on the part o the petitioner corporation *hich merely acted *ithin its management

prerogative.

+ssueH 3hether or not the respondent *as illegally dismissed

Ruling: 4es.

6here *as illegal dismissal. 3hile the adoption and enorcement bypetitioner corporation o its anti-drugs policy is recogni,ed as a valid e:erciseo management prerogative as an employer1 such e:ercise is not absoluteand unbridled.

3e agree *ith the disposition o the appellate court that there *as illegaldismissal in the case at bar. 3hile the adoption and enorcement by petitioner corporation o its 0nti-Drugs Policy is recogni,ed as a valid e:ercise o its management prerogativeas an employer1 such e:ercise is not absolute and unbridled. (anagerialprerogatives are sub5ect to limitations provided by la*1 collective bargainingagreements1 and the general principles o air play and 5ustice.8L In thee:ercise o its management prerogative1 an employer must thereore ensurethat the policies1 rules and regulations on *ork-related activities o theemployees must al*ays be air and reasonable and the corresponding

penalties1 *hen prescribed1 commensurate to the ofense involved and tothe degree o the inraction.8% 6he 0nti-Drugs Policy o (irant ell short o these re+uirements.Topic: 'cci0ent an0 Disa6ilit- Eene;ts

Ponente: Erion, J.


43/389

Sunga v. 2ir8en Shipping Corporation, G.R. o. !#"&$), 'pril (H,()!$

*acts: Vir5en Shipping Corporation AVir5en1 acting in behal o its oreignprincipal1 ?issho 7dyssey Ship (anagement Pte. >td.1 entered into a contract

o employment *ith Sunga. Fnder the contract1 Sunga *ould be *orking as a=tter on board the ocean-going vessel (6 Sun*ay or nine A$ months on amonthly salary o FSM LL.&&. Sunga4s employment *as covered by the I29 "FSB0(7SFP-I((0" Collective 2argaining 0greement AC20 e:ecutedbet*een Vir5en and ?issho 7dyssey1 0ll "apan Seamen4s Fnion and 0(7SFP.

Sometime in )&&%1 *hile already on board the (6 Sun*ay vessel1 Sungastarted to e:perience an on-and-of right ank pain1 making it di@cult orhim to *ork. 6he pain became more intense as the days progressed1 therebyprompting him to re+uest or repatriation. 6he re+uest *as granted. Sungareported to Vir5en4s company-designated physician1 Dr. Cru,1 or medical

e:amination. 6he doctor instructed him to undergo (agnetic !esonanceImaging A(!I o his lumbosacral spine. 6he (!I4s results merited themedical advice that Sunga undergo physical therapy or a period o our A8months under the supervision o Dr. Cru,. Despite the therapy1 Sunga stille:perienced episodes o moderate to severe pain on his right lo*ere:tremity and back. /e also maniested limited trunk mobility and *asunable to undertake liting activities.

Dr. Cru, issued a medical certi=cate recommending a rade G disabilityA(oderate rigidity or )B' loss o motion or liting po*er o the trunk based onthe Philippine 7verseas Employment 0dministration AP7E0 Standard

Employment Contract or Seaarers. Dr. Cru, also issued another medicalcerti=cate recommending a disability grading o )O A2ack pains *ithconsiderable reduction o mobility in accordance *ith the parties4 C20. 7nthe strength o these t*o certi=cates1 Vir5en immediately ofered Sunga theamount o FSM #L1%$.&&1 in accordance *ith the P7E0 StandardEmployment Contract or Seaarers1 as ull settlement or the latter4sdisability bene=ts. /o*ever1 Sunga re5ected the ofer he demanded insteadthat his disability bene=ts be based on the disability grading o )O1pursuant to the provisions o the parties4 C20.

Vir5en denied Sunga4s demand. /ence1 on 7ctober )'1 )&&%1 Sunga =led a

complaint beore the ?>!C against Vir5en or disability bene=ts as stated inthe parties4 C20 Anot under the P7E0 Standard Employment Contract orSeaarers in the amount o FSM ##&1&&&.&&. 6he complaint like*ise prayedor attorney4s ees1 plus moral and e:emplary damages.

>abor 0rbiter ruled in Sunga4savour. It ordered Vir5en to pay Sunga hisdisability compensation bene=ts in the amount o FSM ##&1&&&.&& pursuantto the provisions o the parties4 C20. 6he >abor 0rbiter ruled that Sunga4s


44/389

in5ury is not merely an anatomical deect but a bodily harm brought upon bythe perormance o his duties and unctions as =tter o the vessel.Vir5en =led a petition or certiorari *ith the C01 attributing grave abuse o discretion on the part o the ?>!C *hich *as granted. 6he C0 reasoned thataccident is an unintended and unoreseen in5urious occurrence1 something

that does not occur in the usual course o events or could not be reasonablyanticipated. 0ccording to the appellate court1 the in5ury *as not accidental itis common kno*ledge that carrying heavy ob5ects can cause in5ury and thatliting and carrying heavy ob5ects are part o his duties as =tter. 6hus1 a backin5ury is reasonably anticipated. It cannot serve as basis1 thereore1 or Sungato be entitled to disability bene=ts.

+ssues:!. 3hether the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion to 5ustiy its

substitution by the C0(. 3hether the in5ury sufered by Sunga is accidental or him to get

disability bene=ts.

Ruling:!. . rave abuse o discretion1 amounting to lack or e:cess o

5urisdiction1 has been de=ned as the capricious and *himsical e:erciseo 5udgment amounting to or e+uivalent to lack o 5urisdiction. 6here isgrave abuse o discretion *hen the po*er is e:ercised in an arbitraryor despotic manner by reason o passion or personal hostility1 andmust be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion o apositive duty or to a virtual reusal to perorm the duty en5oined or toact at all in contemplation o la*.

6he Court ailed to see any grave abuse o discretion on the part o the?>!C *hich *ould authori,e the appellate court to substitute its o*nruling over that o the ?>!C. 6here *as ample evidence to support the=ndings o the ?>!C. 6he C01 in a !ule L petition1 is limited to asimple revie* o *hether there e:isted grave abuse o discretion theC0 should not concern itsel *ith the determination o *hether the?>!C1 ater evaluation o the evidence presented beore it1 hadcorrectly ruled on the merits o the case. 6he +uestion o intrinsicmerits is an issue best let to the labor tribunals *hich are deemed tohave mastery over the sub5ect matter.

(. 45S. 0s ound by both the ?>!C and the >abor 0rbiter1 Sunga4s in5ury*as the result o the accidental slippage in the handling o the )&&-kilogram globe valve *hich triggered Sunga4s back pain the *eight o the globe valve1 coupled *ith the abruptness o the all1 e:plained *hythe in5ury *as so severe as to render Sunga immobile. 3hile indeedSunga had not e:plained in the re+uest or repatriation the pro:imate


45/389

cause o the in5ury1 there *as enough circumstantial evidence tosubstantiate the claim.

In "arco (arketing Corporation1 et al.1 v. Court o 0ppeals1 *e ruled thatan accident pertains to an unoreseen event in *hich no ault or

negligence attaches to the deendant. It is Wa ortuitous circumstance1event or happening an event happening *ithout any human agency1or i happening *holly or partly through human agency1 an event*hich under the circumstances is unusual or une:pected by the personto *hom it happens.X

Since Sunga encountered an accident on board (6 Sun*ay1 the C0thus grossly misappreciated and misread the ruling o the ?>!C1leading the appellate court to =nd a grave abuse o discretion su@cientor a reversal o the ?>!C ruling. In other *ords1 as the ?>!C ound1SungaQs disability bene=ts should all *ithin the coverage o the

partiesQ C201 *hich providesH

'rticle 2) Disability 2.!

W0 seaarer *ho sufers permanent disability as a result o an accident*hilst in the employment o the Company regardless o ault1 includingaccidents occurring *hile traveling to or rom the ship1 and *hoseability to *ork as a seaarer is reduced as a result thereo1 bute:cluding permanent disability due to *illul acts1 shall in addition tosick pay1 be entitled to compensation according to the provisions o this 0greement.X

In sum1 *e =nd that the ?>!C did not abuse its discretion. It arrived ata proper decision ater ully appreciated o the partiesQ arguments andcareully considering the presented evidence. 6hus1 there *as no basisor the C04s conclusion that the ?>!C committed grave abuse o discretion.


46/389

Topic: Reim6ursement o1 me0ical e3penses

Ponente: Erion, J.

Javier v. Transmarine Carriers, +nc., G.R o. ()$!)!, Jul- )(, ()!$

*acts: Philippine 6ransmarine Carriers1 Inc. (PTCI) hired 0lberto asWpumpman1X on board the vessel (6 ?eptune lory. 6his *as 0lberto4s )&thcontract *ith the respondents. Pursuant to the agreement1 0lberto receiveda basic monthly salary o FSMLL.&& or a contract period o nine months.Prior to his hiring on (arch '1 )&&'1 0lberto under*ent the re+uired Pre-employment (edical E:amination (PEME) and *as declared W=t or *orkX byP6CI4s designated physician. In )&&'1 0lberto suddenly elt severe headache

accompanied by di,,iness1 vomiting and physical *eakness *hile he *as onboard (6 ?eptune lory.

7n ?ovember #1 )&&'1 0lberto *as con=ned at the Fniversity o 6e:as(edical 2ranch /ospital in alveston1 6e:as. /e under*ent a series o medical e:amination and *as diagnosed to be sufering rom hypertension.7n the doctors4 advice1 0lberto *as repatriated to the Philippines on?ovember )'1 )&&' or urther medical treatment.Fpon arrival in (anila1 0lberto *as reerred to Dr. Cammayo at the (anilaDoctors /ospital. 0lberto under*ent a series o medical treatment ande:amination. 7n (arch '&1 )&&81 0lberto under*ent coronary artery bypasssurgery due to a three vessel Coronary 0rtery Disease.7n 0pril #81 )&&81 0lberto *as discharged rom the (anila Doctors /ospital. 6he doctors1 ho*ever1 ailed to either declare him as W=t to return to *orkX orto assess his disability grading. 6hus1 0lberto sought the opinion o Dr.ErenVicaldo1 a private doctor-cardiologist1 *ho assessed 0lberto4s disabilityas Wimpediment grade #X and declared the latter as Wun=t to resume *ork as


47/389

seaman in any capacityX and Wnot e:pected to land a gainul employmentgiven his medical background.X

In vie* o Dr. Vicaldo4s assessment1 0lberto claimed rom the respondents4disability bene=ts and sickness allo*ance pursuant to the Philippine

7verseas Employment 0dministration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). 6he respondents denied 0lberto4s claim. /ence1 0lberto =led beore the>0 a complaint or disability bene=ts1 illness allo*ance1 and reimbursemento medical e:penses1 damages and attorney4s ees. 6he >0 ordered therespondents to pay 0lberto the total amount o FSMLG1GGL.8& or itsPhilippine Peso e+uivalent at the prevailing rate o e:change it consistedo disability bene=ts Ain the amount o FSML&1&&&.&&1 sickness allo*ance Ainthe amount o FSM)1L)8.&& or 0lberto4s basic monthly *age o FSMLL.&&or our months1 and attorney4s ees e+uivalent to #&O o the monetarya*ard. 0ccording to the >01 0lberto contracted his illness during the term o his contract *ith the respondents and because o his constant e:posure to

e:traneous *ork. /ence1 he is entitled to disability bene=ts.

6he ?>!C a@rmed the >04s decision *ith modi=cation. 6he ?>!C ound that0lberto made an 0pril #)1 )&&8 certi=cation ackno*ledging receipt in ull o his sickness allo*ance e+uivalent to #)& days Ain the amount o P#881'#G.&' and payment in ull o his medical treatment Ain the amount o P#1$)G1G8#.)%. Since these e:penses1 in the total amount o P)1&%'1#$.'&1have already been paid1 the ?>!C ordered its deduction rom the pesoe+uivalent o the total monetary a*ard o FSMLG1GGL.8&.

C0 a@rmed the ?>!C4s resolution. 6he C0 brushed aside the petitioners4

claim or reimbursement o medical e:penses incurred by 0lberto becausethe petitioners ailed to appeal the portion o the >04s decision that denied0lberto4s claim on these. It also denied 0lberto4s claim or sickness allo*ancebecause o 0lberto4s 0pril #)1 )&&8 certi=cation. It re5ected the petitioners4claim or death bene=ts. It pointed out that death bene=ts are granted to theheirs o the seaarer only *hen the seaarer dies during the term o thecontract and or causes that are *ork-related. In this case1 0lberto died aterhis employment contract *ith the respondents had already been terminated.

+ssue: 3hether 0lberto4s heirs are entitled to reimbursement o thee:penses that 0lberto incurred or his medical treatment as medical

e:penses and sickness allo*ance are separate and distinct rom one anotherand rom disability bene=ts

Ruling: 45S. 6he employment o seaarers and its incidents are governed bythe contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired. 6hese contractshave the orce o la* bet*een the parties as long as their stipulations are notcontrary to la*1 morals1 public order

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jordan-tumayan
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Barops Labor Law

Documents