REGARDING HOUSEHELPERS

HOUSEHELPERS

ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS A/O ROSIE TIO v GENISTON, NLRC

This special civil action for certiorari arises from an illegal dismissal complaint filed by private respondent Geniston. He claims to have been an “all-around worker” of Ultra Villa Food Haus Restaurant. He was employed from March 1, 1989 until May 13, 1992. As Geniston served acted as NUCD Poll Watcher in the 1992 elections, he did not report for work on May 11-12, 1992. He alleged that his employer told his mother that he was dismissed from work and his pleas for reinstatement failed.

Petitioner Tio maintains that Geniston was her personal driver and not an employee of Ultra Villa. His responsibility was to drive her to and from her Office. Although May 12, 1992 was a holiday, she asked him to report for work, but was told that he was doing election duties. Hence she had to hire a substitute driver, as Respondent returned to work a week after and only to collect his salary.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Geniston was Petitioner’s personal driver and therefore not entitled to OT, premium pay, SIL pay and 13^th month pay. He was also deemed not entitled to salary differentials or separation pay. However, Petitioner was ordered to indemnify private Respondent the amount of P1,000.00 for failure of employer to observe procedural due process.

On appeal, the NLRC ordered petitioner to reinstate Geniston and pay backwages, OT,Holiday pay, premium pay, 13^th month pay and SIL. On Motion for Reconsideration, the NLRC ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (due to closure of the business) but denied Geniston’s prayer for damages and attorney’s fees. It denied petitioner’s MR, ruling that Gensiton was an employee of Ultravilla Food Haus.

The Supreme Court found Geniston was the personal driver of petitioner, not of Ultra Villa Food Haus, as shown by the submitted evidence and admissions of the respondent that he was petitioner’s personal driver. The criterion of househelper under Art. 141 have been met: “ Domestic or household service shall mean services in the employers home which is usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment therefore and includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employers’ household, including services of family drivers.” Book III, Title 1 of the Labor Code and Article 82, expressly excludes domestic helpers from its coverage, and as such, petitioner is not required to grant OT, holiday pay, premium pay and SIL. While PD851 excludes househelpers from the coverage of 13^th month pay, petitioner was required to pay such considering that it has been its practice to give its employees 13^th Month Pay.

The Court found, however, that respondent did not abandon his job, as the two requisites ( failure to report to work without valid reason, and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship) were not met. Petitioner failed to prove abandonment. It is quite unbelievable that private respondent would leave a stable and relatively well-paying job as petitioner’s family driver to work as an election worker… the functions of which are seasonal and temporary in nature. He was unjustly dismissed from work, and is entitled to indemnity as provided for under Art. 149 of the Labor Code. “…. compensation already earned plus that for fifteen days by way of indemnity.” Further, because of failure to comply with die process in dismissing private respondent, petitioner was also ordered to pay an additional indemnity of P 1,000.00

REGARDING APPRENTICESHIP

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v CA & PALAD 17 August 2007

Palad was hired by Petitioner and started working as an apprentices on 17 July 1997. The apprenticeship agreement was submitted to TESDA a week after. The TESDA approval was granted on 26 September 1997.

Palad received low ratings and reportedly had incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As such, she was issued a termination notice on 22 November 1997, to take effect on 28 November 1997. She file a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment/non-payment. The case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed with modification by the NLRC. Palad’s MR was denied and she went to the CA. The CA declared that Palad was illegally dismissed. Petitioner Company went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that TESDA approval of an Apprenticeship Program is a pre-requisite to hiring apprentices. It stated that RA7796 has since transferred to TESDA from the DOLE the authority over apprenticeship programs. Prior TESDA approval is needed in order to ensure the protection of apprentices from possible abuses of prospective employers “who may want to take advantage of the lower wage rates for apprentices and circumvent the right of the employees to be secure in their employment.”

Petitioner entered into an apprenticeship agreement with Palad before the apprenticeship program was submitted for TESDA approval. The apprenticeship agreement was enforced even before TESDA approval, hence the apprenticeship agreement is void because it lacked prior TESDA approval. Palad is a regular employee performing work necessary in petitioner’s business as a fish cleaner.

Palad was also deemed illegally dismissed because the employer failed in his burden of proving the validity of Palad’s dismissal. “ When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.” Palad was also denied due process as she was not warned of her alleged poor performance, neither was Palad given the opportunity to explain and defend herself.

APPLICATION OF TWO-NOTICE RULE IN THE CASE OF AN OFW; DEFINITION OF APPRENTICE

WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. & WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., v NLRC 15 October 1996

Macatuno and Gurimbao, able-bodied Filipino seamen were on board their Liberian-registered vessel M/V Fortuna when they had an altercation with a cadet/apprentice officer when the ship was docked in Kawasaki, Japan. Both Filipinos were repatriated to the Philippines where they subsequently filed separate complaints with the POEA (which at that time still had jurisdiction over such matters). POEA ruled for them. The submitted evidence, was not given much weight considering that it consisted only of handpicked and copied portions of the supposed official logbook of the vessel that were not even authenticated. Even granting that the logbook entries were true, such would show the denial of due process to the complainants. The NLRC upheld the POEA .

The Supreme Court upheld the assailed decisions. Dismissal can only be effected for just and authorized causes. Management prerogative is subject to regulation by the State’s police power. While a ship’s logbook is a vital evidence, as per Article 612 of the Code of Commerce, in the present case, the Petitioner company submitted typewritten collated excerpts of the supposed captain’s logbook. The company could have easily photocopied the pertinent pages of the logbook itself. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the dismissal.

The failure to substantiate grounds for a valid dismissal was worsened by the manner of the termination of employment. The right and power to dismiss and employee should not be confused with the manner of exercising such right. The Labor Code provides that termination of employment can only ensue after notice and formal investigation. Even if the captain witnessed the altercation, such will not justify dispensing of the two-notice rule.

The employment contract punishes assault on a senior officer. In the present case, the alleged victim is not a superior officer but an apprentice officer. “ An apprentice is a person bound in the form of law to a master, to learn from him his art, trade, or business, and to serve him during the time of his apprenticeship. “ The Court does not tolerate assault in any form but in cases where a person’s livelihood is at stake, the employment contract must be strictly interpreted in favor of the worker, to affirm the constitutional provision protecting labor.

end of school year

happy graduation to my students in labor review.

wishing you the best for the bar exams.

INTRODUCTION

1.EURO-LINEA PHILS, INC. v NLRC 1 December 1987

2.GELMART INDUSTRIES v NLRC 10 August 1989

1. SOSITO VS AGUINALDO DEVT CORP GR 48926 DECEMBER 24, 1987
2. HOMEOWNERS’ SLA VS NLRC 26 SEPTEMBER 1996
3. JAT GENERAL SERVICES, INC. VS NLRC 26 JANUARY 2004
4. CBTC EU VS CLAVE 7 JANUARY 1986
5. JUCO V NLRC AND NHC GR 98107 AUGUST 18, 1997

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

1. SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO 14 MARCH 1990
2. PP VS. PANIS (1986) 142 SCRA 664:
3. PP VS GOCE( 1995) : 247 SCRA 780:
4. PP VS TAN TION MENG 10 APRIL 1997:
5. PP vs SAGAYAGA,et.al. 23 FEBRUARY 2004
6. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY etc. vs CA,etc.
7. PP v CHOWDURY(2000)

EMPLOYMENT OF NON-RESIDENT ALIENS :

1. DEE CHUAN & SONS VS CIR 31 JANUARY 1950:
2. ALMODIEL VS. NLRC, 14 JUNE 1993:
3. GMC VS. TORRES 22 APRIL 1991:

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (BOOK II, HRD)

1. NITTO ENTERPRISES V NLRC September 29, 1995:
2. MARITES BERNARDO VS NLRC JUNE 12, 1999

LABOR STANDARDS

1. TICZON VS VIDEO POST MANILA JUNE 15, 2000:
2. AFWU v COMPANIA MARITIMA 19 SCRA 258
3. MERALCO VS BENAMIRA 14 JULY 2005:
4. CAURDANETAAN PIECEWORKERS UNION VS LAGUESMA FEBRUARY 24, 1998:
5. WACK-WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB VS NLRC 15 APRIL 2005
6. VICENTE SY V NLRC 2 FEBRUARY 2003
7. MANILA WATER V PENA 8 JULY 2004
8. MARAGUINOT V NLRC, JANUARY 22, 1998:
9. ICMC VS. NLRC, 30 JANUARY 1989:
10. CFC et.al. vs NLRC 23 SEPTEMBER 1999
11. JAT GENERAL SERVICES v NLRC 26 JANUARY 2004:
12. EURO-LINEA ,PHILS. INC v NLRC 1 DECEMBER 1987
13. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC vs. NLRC [GRN 119205 April 15, 1998.]

WAGES :

1. MAYON HOTEL & REST v ADANA 16 MAY 2005
2. IRAN v NLRC 22 APRIL 1998
3. JOSE SONGCO, et.al. vs. NLRC MARCH 23,1990 PETITION
4. ATOK BIG WEDGE v ABUMBA 3 MARCH 1953
5. MABEZA vs. NLRC, PETER NG/HOTEL SUPREME April 18, 1997
6. STATE MARINE CORP. v CEBU SEAMENS’ ASSOCIATION 28 FEBRUARY 1963:
7. GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION, FREDERICK WHITE and JESUS SANTIAGO, vs. NLRC, FFW-GLOBE MACKAY EMPLOYEES UNION and EDA CONCEPCION, June 29, 1988:
8. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC., , vs. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFlT ASSOCIATION, [GRN L-5276 March 3, 1953]
9. SPECIAL STEEL PROD v LUTGARDO VILLAREAL 8 JULY 2004
10. VILLAR ET. AL v NLRC 11 MAY 2000:

MINIMUM WAGE RATES

1. LABOR CONGRESS of the PHILIPPINES VS. NLRC MAY 21, 1998
2. MAKATI HABERDASHERY v NLRC CIT v CIMEU-NFL 5 JULY 2001
3. ECOP v NWPC 24 SEPTEMBER 1991
4. G.R. No. 128399 January 15, 1998 CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING COMPANY, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, DIRECTOR RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, SR., and CARSUMCO EMPLOYEES UNION
5. GRN 116008 July 11, 1995 METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC., vs. NLRC: METROBANK TCEU-ALU-TUCP VS NLRC 10 SEPTEMBER 1993

WORKING CONDITIONS AND REST PERIODS IN GENERAL

1. BISIG NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG PRC,INC. VS PRC,INC.SEPTEMER 30, 1981

2. INTERPHIL LEU- -FFW vs. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., [G. R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001]
3. San Juan de Dios Hospital Employees Association vs. NLRC (G. R. No. 126383, Nov. 28, 1997
4. UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION VS UPANG (20 FEBRUARY 1984):
5. SIBAL v NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA 23 FEBRUARY 1990
6. DURABILT RECAPPING v NLRC 27 JULY 1987
7. NDC VS CIR,NATWU November 30, 1962
8. SIME DARBY VS NLRC 15 APRIL 1998
9. Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. Dayao, et al. September 30, 1982:
10. DAMASCO v NLRC 4 DECEMBER 2000
11. CALTEX VS. CIR 3 NOVEMBER 1986
12. PASUDECO V CIR 29 JUNE 1982
13. NWSA vs. NWSA Consolidated Union, et al. August 31, 1964 GRN L-18938 :

PAID REGULAR HOLIDAYS

1. ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATOPM VS. CA, [G. R. No. 144664, March 15, 2004]

2. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v THE HON.CA, [G. R. No. 146775, January 30, 2002]
3. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU) vs. INCIONG GRN 52415 October 23, 1984 MAKASIAR, J.:*
4. JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE WORKERS, [GRN L-65482 December 1, 1987
5. WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, vs TRAJANO GRN 114698 July 3, 1995:

SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE (Art. 95)

1. INTEGRATED CONTRACTOR & PLUMBING WORKS, INC. vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 152427, August 9, 2005]
2. JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS VS CA [G. R. No. 151966, July 8, 2005],
3. AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEM, INC. VS BAUTISTA [G. R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005],
4. CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. OPLE, DECEMBER 18, 1987:
5. IMBUDO v NLRC 31 MARCH 2000

TIPS

1. ACE NAVIGATION CO.,INC. v CA,NLRC (15 AUGUST 2000):

13^th MONTH PAY

1. PRODUCERS’ BANK v NLRC 28 MARCH 2001
2. BOIE TAKEDA v DE LA SERNA 10 DECEMBER 1993:
3. HONDA PHILS.,INC. v SAMAHAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA HONDA, G. R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005).
4. SEVILLA TRADING CO VS A. V. A. Semana, G. R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004],
5. CLARION PRINTING HOUSE v NLRC, [G. R. No. 148372, June 27, 2005
6. JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS vs. CA, [G. R. No. 151966, July 8, 2005

MODE OF PAYMENT

1. JIMENEZ v JUAWATA 2 APRIL 1996:

RECIPIENT

1. CONSUEGRA v GSIS 30 JANUARY 1971

CONTRACTING OUT

2. CHAVEZ v NLRC 17 JANUARY 2005
3. SONZA v ABS-CBN 10 JUNE 2004
4. SMC v MAERC INTEGRATED SERVICES 10 JULY 2003
5. DE LOS SANTOS v NLRC 20 DECEMBER 2001
6. MANILA WATER CO v PENA 8 JULY 2004
7. GRN L-78382 December 14, 1987 BROADWAY MOTORS, INC., vs. NLRC:
8. PBC VS NLRC DEC 19, 1986
9. FILSYN VS NLRC JUNE 14, 1996
10. NERI VS NLRC JULY 23, 1993
11. GRN L-37790 March 25, 1976] MAFINCO TRADING CORPORATION, vs. OPLE
12. AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION VS. NLRC JANUARY 28, 1997:
13. ABELLA v PLDT 8 JUNE 2005
14. SSS v CA 14 DECEMBER 2000
15. MARIVELES SHIPYARD 11 NOVEMBER 2003
16. RCI AUTOMATION CENTER v NLRC 29 JANUARY 1996

BONUS:

1. GLOBE MACKAY VS NLRC JUNE 29,1988
2. ATOK BIG WEDGE MARCH 3, 1953

OTHERS

1. SPECIAL STEEL PROD v LUTGARDO VILLAREAL 8 JULY 2004
2. 5J TAXI VS NLRC AUGUST 22,1994

WORKERS’ PREFERENCE

1. BOLINAO, et.al. vs. PADOLINA GRN 81415 June 6, 1990
   RUBBERWORLD v NLRC 26 JULY 2000
2. DBP VS Sec Lab Nov 28, 1989
3. REPUBLIC v PERALTA 20 MAY 1987

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1. TAGANAS VS. NLRC September 7,1995 GRN 118746:
2. TRADERS’ ROYAL BANK v NLRC 14 MARCH 1997

WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS OF WORKERS

Paternity Leave Act of 1996 (RA 8187)

1. LABUDAHON v NLRC 11 DECEMBER 1995

Prohibited Acts

1. PT&T VS NLRC MAY 23, 1997
2. Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. Lolita Velasco, GR No. 153477, March 6, 2007:
3. PHILIPPINE AEOLUS VS NLRC APRIL 28, 2000:

HOUSEHOLD HELP

1. APEX VS. NLRC APRIL 22, 1991

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND STATE INSURANCE FUND

2. NORMA ORATE v CA 26 MARCH 2003
3. SMC v NLRC 15 AUGUST 1988
4. SALALIMA v ECC 20 MAY 2004
5. GUEVARRA V CACHO HERMANOS 22 July 1933
6. MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL V CA 27 August 1990
7. SAMAR VS WCC MARCH 31,1971
8. AKMAD VS GSIS MAY 9,1990
9. CENTRAL AZUCARERA VS DE LEON DEC 28, 1957
10. DIOPENES V GSIS 205 SCRA 331 (1992)
11. ENAO v ECC 135 SCRA 660
12. CUEVO V BARREDO 24 February 1938
13. VERZOSA V AMAZ 15 December 1953
14. CHUA YENG v ROMAN 31 October 1960

15. G.R. No. 90267 December 21, 1993 PERLITA LOPEZ,vs. ECC QUIASON, J.:

16. HONOGUIN VS ECC APRIL 1,1989

17. BELARMINO VS ECC MAY 11,1990
18. CLEMENTE VS GSIS JULY 31, 1987
19. DABATIAN VS GSIS APRIL 8, 1987
20. ILOILO DOCK VS WCC NOV 27,1968
21. ALANO VS ECC MARCH 16, 1988
22. GALANIDA VS ECC SEPT 24, 1987
23. GRN 58445 April 27, 1989 RARO, vs. ECC GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
24. Pa-ac vs. Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. July 23, 1987 GRN L-35800 July 23, 1987
25. G.R. No. 90204. May 11, 1990 MANUEL BELARMINO, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
26. GRN L-48594 March 16, 1988 GENEROSO ALANO, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES'COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
27. GRN L-70660 September 24, 1987.* EULALIO GALANIDA, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
28. GRN No.85024 January 23,1991.DOMINGO VICENTE, vs. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
29. SARMIENTO VS ECC MAY 11,1988
30. RARO VS ECC APRIL 27, 1989
31. RINO VS ECC MAY 9, 2000

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

1. SUANES V WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION: 31 JANUARY 1989

VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWER (Art. 128)

1. G.R. No. 167512 March 12, 2007 V.L. ENTERPRISES and/or FAUSTINO J. VISITACION, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SHERIFF WILLY GABITO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE) and CAMILO FRANCISCO

2. VILLAR v NLRC 11 MAY 2000

LABOR RELATIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

Employee

1. BAUTISTA VS. INCION MARCH 16, 1988
2. PAL VS PALEA 19 SCRA 483
3. MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES v NLRC GR109224 19 JUNE 1997
4. THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989 MOISES DE LEON, vs.NLRC, et.al.FERNAN
5. PHIL FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERAIVES, INC. VS. NLRC 11 DECEMBER 1998
6. UST v NLRC 15 FEBRUARY 1990
7. BONGAR v NLRC 24 AUGUST 1998
8. G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998 ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR. and PAULINO ENERO, vs. NLRC
9. VIERNES v NLRC GR103405 4 APRIL 2003

10. G.R. No. 122653 December 12, 1997 PURE FOODS CORPORATION, vs. NLRC, ETC. DAVIDE, JR., J.:

11. HACIENDA FATIMA v NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS- FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE GR 149440 28 JANUARY 2003:

12. G.R. NOS. 82643-67 August 30, 1990 PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL,INC., vs. NLRC PARAS, J.:

13. SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984 BUISER vs. LEOGARDOGUERRERO, J.:

14. VILLANUEVA v NLRC, GR 127448 10 SEPTEMBER 1998
15. LIM VS NLRC/SWEET LINES VS NLRC:
16. SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 131248. December 11, 1998] DUNLOP SLAZENGER (PHILS.), INC., vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and DUNLOP SLAZENGER STAFF ASSOCIATION - APSOTEU
17. G.R. No. 122226 March 25, 1998 UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU), vs. LAGUESMA and PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC.
18. SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO., V. DRILON, et.al. 24 January 1991:

19. G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989 MOISES DE LEON, vs.NLRC, et.al.FERNAN, C.J

20. G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998 ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR. and PAULINO ENERO, vs.NLRC
G.R. No. 74969 May 7, 1990 TELESFORO MAGANTE, vs. NLRC FERNAN, C.J.:

21. G.R. No. 122653 December 12, 1997 PURE FOODS CORPORATION, vs. NLRC, ETC. DAVIDE, JR., J.:

22. G.R. Nos. 82643-67 August 30, 1990 PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC.,
vs. NLRC PARAS, J.:

23. SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984 BUISER vs. lleogardo GUERRERO, J.:

Labor Dispute

1. SMCEU-PTWGO VS BERSAMIRA , JUNE 13,1990
2. GR 132400 MARIÑO, ET.AL. AND USTFU VS. GAMILLA, ET.AL. 31 JANUARY 2005
3. CAURDANETAAN PIECEWORKERS UNION VS LAGUESMA FEBRUARY 24, 1998:
4. AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION VS. NLRC JANUARY 28, 1997

THE NLRC

1. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA VS NLRC, JUNE 27, 1991

2. HAWAIIAN-PHIL CO. VS. GULMATICO NOVEMBER 16, 1994

LABOR ARBITERS

1. NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES VS LAZARO, JANUARY 19M, 1988:
2. MANILA MANDARIN EU VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 [GRN L-76989 September 29, 1987
3. SMC VS NLRC MARCH 15, 1996:
4. MAINLAND VS MOVILLA NOVEMBER 23, 1995
5. TABANG VS NLRC JANUARY 21, 1997
6. PEPSI-COLA VS MARTINEZ MARCH 15,1982
7. SMC VS NLRC MAY 31, 1988
8. LIM VS NLRC and SWEET LINES VS NLRC MARCH 16, 1989
9. SILVA VS NLRC JUNE 19,1997

VENUE:

1. DAYAG, ET.AL VS. NLRC , MARCH 6, 1998

PROCEDURE

1. ANG TIBAY VS CIR FEBRUARY 27, 1940
2. SAN JOSE V NLRC AUGUST 17, 1998:
3. FORD PHIL SEA VS NLRC , DECEMBER 11, 1987: GRN L-75347
4. NICARIOvs. NLRC G.R. No. 125340. September 17, 1998.

. art. 222 prior resort to amicable settlementAPPEAL

1. ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOMES VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 G.R. No. 130866.

WHY IS KP NOT APPLICABLE TO LABOR DISPUTES?

1. MONTOYA VS ESCAYO MARCH 21,1989 GRN Nos. 82211 March 21, 1989. PETITION

COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS

1. HEIRS OF TEODOLO M. CRUZ vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELALATIONS GRN L-23361 December 27, 1969
2. MORALES ET.AL. VS NLRC FEBRUARY 6, 1995
3. OLACAO VS NLRC AUGUST 29, 1989
4. VELOSO V DOLE, AUGUST 5, 1991:
5. LABOR VS NLRC GRN 110388 September 14, 1995:
6. PNCC V NLRC, OCTOBER 22, 1999
7. PRINCIPE, vs. PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. GRN 80918 August 16, 1989

BLR REGISTRY OF UNIONS AND CBA FILE

1. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMP VS LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC. DECEMBER 29, 1989 GRN 58768

LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

1. SEE SEPTEMBER 2007 CASE RE SMC
2. PAFLU VS SECLAB FEBRUARY 27,1969
3. PROGRESSIVE DEVT CORP VS SECLAB FEBRUARY 4, 1992

4. UMALI VS LOVINA 86 PHIL 313

MODES OF CREATING A UNION AT THE ENTERPRISE LEVEL:

1. PHIL. SKYLANDERS VS. NLRC, 21 JANUARY 2002:
2. MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG M. GREENFIELD VS. RAMOS, 28 FEBRUARY 2000:
3. TROPICAL HUT EU-CGW VS TROPICAL HUT JANUARY 20, 1990
4. VILLAR ET AL VS INCIONG APRIL 20,1983

CANCELLATION OF UNION REGISTRATION

SEE THE SC DECISION RE APPLELLATE JURISDICTION OF BLR AND SEC LAB

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

1. UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), vs. BITONIO JR.. November 16, 1999 GRN 131235 November 16, 1999
2. PALACOL VS CALLEJA FEB 26, 1990
3. ABS-CBN SEU VS ABS-CBN MARCH 11, 1999

RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR UNIONS

1. PAMPANGA SUGAR VS CIR 114 SCRA 725(1982)
2. GEN RUBBER & FOOTWEAR VS DRILON 169 SCRA 808 (1989)
3. ACEDERA VS ICTS GR 146073 JANUARY 13, 2003:
4. HEIRS OF TEODOLO CRUZ VS CIR 30 SCRA 917 December 27, 1969 GRN L-23331

COVERAGE (ART. 243-246)

1. UNIV OF LIFE VS BLR APRIL 12, 1989
2. TUPAS VS NHA MAY 4, 1989
3. UP VS CALLEJA JULY 14, 1992
4. PAMANTASAN VS CSC FEB 21, 1995

“EMPLOYEE TYPE” : (ART.245)

1. FRANKLIN BAKER VS TRAJANO JAN 28,1988
2. DUNLOP VS SEC LAB DECEMBER 11, 1998
3. PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA VS NLRC OCT 13, 1989
4. ATLAS VS LAGUESMA January 6, 1992
5. ZAMBOANGA WOOD VS NLRC OCT 13,1989 GRN 82088 October 13, 1989
6. GRN 122226 March 25, 1998 UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU), vs. LAGUESMA
7. ENGINEERING EQPT VS NLRC, 133 SCRA 752-1984

EXCLUDE FROM UNION MEMBERSHIP:

1. August 15, 1997 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. PONCE, vs. LAGUESMA
2. NATU-RPBSC VS TORRES GR 93468 DECEMBER 29, 1994
3. METROLAB VS CONFESOR GR 108855 FEB 28, 1996
4. SAN MIGUEL CSEU VS LAGUESMA GR110399 AUG 15,1997
5. GRN 79025 December 29, 1989.BENECO vs. FERRER-CALLEJA,
6. SAN JOSE ELECTRIC VS MIN.LAB MAY 31, 1989
7. ICMC VS CALLEJA GR85750 September 28, 1990
8. KAPISANAN VS SEC LAB SEPT 28,1990
9. KAPATIRAN SA MEAT & CANNING DIVISION VS CALLEJA JUNE 20, 1988
10. VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE ROPE SEPTEMBER 12, 1974

EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION

1. PAL VS NLRC GR 85985 AUGUST 13, 1993
2. MERALCO VS QUISUMBING GR 127598 JANUARY 27,1999

EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE

1. DEMOCRATIC LABOR UNION VS CEBU STEVEDORING FEBRUARY 28, 1958
2. PLASLU VS CIR NOVEMBER 29,1960
3. LAGUNA COLLEGES VS CIR 25 SCRA 167-1968
4. UP VS CALLEJA
5. SMC SUPERVISORS VS LAGUESMA GRN 110399 August 15, 1997 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION AND ERNESTO L. PONCE, vs. LAGUESMA
6. GOLDEN FARMS VS SECLAB 234 SCRA 517 = 1994
7. SAN MIGUEL EU-PTWGO VS CONFESOR SEPTEMBER 19, 1996

REPRESENTATION ISSUE IN ESTABLISHMENTS:

1. PROGRESSIVE VS SECLAB FEBRUARY 4,1992
2. LOPEZ SUGAR VS SECLAB AUGUST 1, 1995

EMPLOYER FILES CE PETITION

1. ASIAN DESIGN VS CALLEJA JUNE 29, 1989
2. CALIFORNIA MFG VS USECLAB JUNE 8, 1992
3. NATL FED OF LABOR VS SECLAB MARCH 19, 1998
4. TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL CORP WA VS CA GR 148924 SEPTEMBER 24,2003:
5. NAFLU VS SECLAB GR 104556 MARCH 19,1998

METHODS OF SELECTING THE BARGAINING AGENT

1. BISCOM VS PAFLU 8 SCRA 700
2. WARREN MFG VS BLR MARCH 30, 1988
3. PALEA VS CALLEJA JUNE 22, 1988
4. ALU VS CALLEJA JULY 19, 1989

GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF CE PETITION:

1. SAN MIGEUL SEU-PTWGO VS CONFESOR SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
2. NACUSIP VS CALLEJA JANUARY 27,1992
3. ALU VS CALLEJA MAY 5,1989
4. ALU VS CALLEJA NOV 6,1989
5. ATU VS TRAJANO JUNE 20, 1998
6. NACUSIP VS TRAJANO APRIL 10,1992
7. CALIFORNIA MC VS LAGUESMA JUNE 8, 1992
8. NAMAWU-UIF VS LUNA JUNE 15, 1978
9. LA SUERTE CIGAR VS DIRECTOR 123 SCRA 679 – 1983:

WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE

1. AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. VS DIR. OF LABOR RELATIONS GR80612-16 DECEMBER 29,1989
2. M.Y.SAN BISCUITS INC. VS. LAGUESMA GR 95011 APRIL 22, 1991

APPEAL FROM CE ORDERS

1. G.R. No. 149833. June 29, 2004]NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA, vs. LAGUESMA,etc.:

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DUTY

1. BENGUET CONSO0LIDATED VS BCIEU-PAFLU APRIL 30, 1968 [GRN L-24711 April 30, 1968]
2. ELLISCO-ELIROL LU VS NORIEL DECEMBER 29, 1977
3. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN VS MARCELO ENT NOVEMBER 12, 1982
4. ATU VS TRAJANO JUNE 20, 1988
5. ALU VS FERRER-CALLEJA MAY 5, 1989
6. PLANTERS PRODUCTS VS NLRC JANUARY 20,1989
7. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMP VS LIBERTY FLOUR 180 SCRA 668 – 1989

TERMS OF A CBA:

1. SAN MIGUEL EU-PTWGO VS. CONFESOR GR111262 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
2. MERALCO VS QUISUMBING JANUARY 27,1999

PROHIBITION ON INJUNCTION

1. DINIO VS LAGUESMA JUNE 9,1997
2. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN VS DE LOS ANGELES 64 SCRA 262

REMINDERS:

1. MARCOPPER MINING VS NLRC AUGUST 5, 1991
2. LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA VS ABIERA December 19,1970
3. SUNDOWNER DEVCOR VS DRILON DECEMBER 6, 1989

GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND VA

1. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOPFORM VS NLRC, SEPTEMBER 7, 1998
2. MANALANG VS ARTEX OCTOBER 30, 1967
3. SUNDOWNER DEVT VS DRILON DECEMBER 6,1989
4. BENGUET CI VS EMPLOYEES APRIL 30, 1968
5. SMC VS NLRC MARCH 15, 1996

VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

1. Luzon devt bank vsass of ldba OCTOBER 6, 1995
2. SAN JOSE VS NLRC AUGUST 17, 1998
3. CONTINENTAL MARBLE VS NLRC MAY 9, 1988
4. MANTRADE VS BACUNGAN 144 SCRA 510 (1986)

ULP

1. MARIANO VS ROYA FEBRUARY 27, 1961
2. RUBBERWORLD VS NLRC, JULY 19,1989
3. BONDOC VS CIR JANUARY 26,1989
4. WISE & CO VS WEU OCTOBER 13, 1989
5. LVN PICTURES VS LVN 35 SCRA 147
6. CLCC EG GOCHANGCO U VS NLRC MAY 1988
7. DIONELA VS CIR AUGUST 31, 1963

EMPLOYER ULP

1. REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK VS CIR 21 SCRA 226)
2. DABUET VS ROCHE APRIL 30, 1987
3. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO VS NLRC, JULY 17,1997
4. INSULAR EU VS INSULAR JANUARY 30, 1971
5. SHELL OIL WORKERS’ UNION VS SHELL, MAY 31, 1971
6. OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS VS CIR January 31, 1963
7. PROGRESSIVE DEVCOR VS CIR 80 SCRA 434 (1977)
8. Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. vs. NLRC May 9, 1988.
9. PAGKAKAISANG ITINATAGUYOD NG MGA MANGGAGAWA VS MARCELO 118 SCRA 422 -1982:
10. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK VS. HAMILTON DISTILLERY OCTOBER 30, 1962
11. METROLAB INDUSTRIES VS. CONFESOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996
12. LIBERTY FLOUR EU VS LIBERTY FLOUR December 29, 1989
13. TANDUAY DISTILLERY LU VS NLRC 149 SCRA 470 = 1987
14. TROPICAL HUT EU VS TROPICAL HUT JANUARY 20, 1990
15. GRN L-68147 June 30, 1988 RANCE, ET AL. vs. NLRC
16. MABEZA VS NLRC APRIL 18, 1997
17. KIOK LOY VS NLRC JANUARY 22, 1986: 1 SCRA 179
18. DIVINE WORD U OF TACLOBAN VS SECLAB SEPTEMBER 11, 1992

EMPLOYEE ULP

1. HEIRS OF CRUZ VS CIR, DECEMBER 27, 1969
2. SALUNGA VS CIR 21 SCRA 216 – 1967
3. RANCE VS NLRC JUNE 30, 1988
4. SALUNGA VS CIR 21 SCRA 216 1967

STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

1. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA VS NLRC JUNE 27, 1991
2. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES VS NESTLE DECEMBER 19, 1990
3. INTERNATIONAL PHRAMACEUTICALS VS SECLAB JANUARY 9, 1992
4. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE VS TORRES JUNE 29, 1992
5. MERALCO VS QUISUMBING JANUARY 27, 1999
6. BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 16, 1993
7. PHIL CAN COMPANY VS CIR JULY 13, 1950
8. SEE COKE CASE CITED IN SLCEA DECISION
9. REX TAXICAB VS CIR 40 O.G. NO 13, P. 138
10. SSSEA VS A 175 SCRA 686 = 1989s employeeorkers may organize, they do not have the right to strike
11. ip (Art.264c)f force, violence, coercion, threats or intim
    
12. GRN 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION vs. NLRC
13. GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. INPORT), vs. NLRC GRN 103599 July 6, 1995
14. SHELL OIL WU VS SHELL 39 SCRA 289
15. PEOPLE’S ICEWO VS PICC MARCH 15, 1982 GR 37687
16. TIU & HAYUBAY VS NLRC AUGUST 18, 1997
17. CONSOLIDATED LAP VS MARSMAN JULY 31, 1964
18. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA VS NLRC GR 91980 JUNE 27,1991:
19. PHILIPPINE METAL FOUNDRIES VS CIR 90 SCRA 135 1979

PROHIBITED ACTS WHILE PURSUING THE STRIKE

1. PROGRESSIVE WORKERS’ VS AGUA 50 SCRA 429 = 1987
2. GOLD CITY INTEGRATED VS NLRC JULY 6, 1995
3. RELIANCE SURETY VS NLRC JANUARY 25,1991
4. PHILIPPINE MARINE RADIO OFFICERS VS CIR 102 PHIL 373 = 1957
5. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL S CIR SEPTEMBER 30, 1964
6. UNITED EMPLOYEES WA VS ISAAC PERAL SEPTEMBER 30, 1958
7. PHIL MARINE OFFICERS’ GUILD VS COMPANIA MARITIMA 22 SCRA 1113
8. CONSOLIDATED LABOR VS MARSMAN 11 SCRA 589
9. INSULAR LIFE EA VS INSULAR LIFE 37 SCRA 244
10. COMMODITY TRANSPORT VS NLRC GR84926 MAY 8, 1989
11. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED VS BCIEU-PAFLU 23 SCRA 465
12. LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS VS PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS’ UNION, OCTOBER 23, 1981

POST-EMPLOYMENT CITATIONS

SECURITY OF TENURE

1. ESCAREAL VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
2. RANCE VS NLRC JUNE 30, 1988
3. MAGLUTAC VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 21, 1990

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

1. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES VS OPLE FEBRUARY 8, 1989)
2. MERALCO VS QUISUMBING JANUARY 27,1999:
3. SHOEMART VS NLRC AUGUST 11, 1989
4. PT&T VS LAPLANA JULY 23, 1991
5. PETROPHIL VS NLRC AUGUST 29, 1986:
6. MERALCO VS NLRC JULY 12, 1989

JUST CAUSES OF TERMINATION

1. ANITA-LLOSA TAN VS SILAHIS HOTEL MAY 27,1991
2. GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORTS VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 21, 1990
3. ESCOBIN CS NLRC APRIL 15, 1998:
4. CITIBANK VS GATCHALIAN JANUARY 18, 1995: LABOR VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 14, 1995:
5. MABEZA VS HOTEL SUPREME APRIL 18, 1997
6. RUFFY VS NLRC FEBRUARY 15, 1990
7. DIZON VS NLRC DECEMBER 14, 1989)

AUTHORIZED CAUSE

1. PHIL SHEET METAL WU VS CIR 83 PHIL 453
2. ESCAREAL VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
3. ASIAWORLD VS OPLE JULY 23, 1987
4. LOPEZ SUGAR VS FFW AUGUST 30,1990
5. BOGO-MEDELLIN SPA VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
6. SEBUGERO VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 27, 1995:
7. EDGE APPARREL VS NLRC: FEBRUARY 12, 1998
8. REVIDAD VS NLRC JUNE 27, 1995
9. MOBIL EA AND ILO VS NLRC MARCH 28, 1990
10. BROTHERHOOD LABOR UMP VS ZAMORA JANUARY 7, 1987:
11. NORTH DAVAO MINING CORP VS NLRC APRIL 15, 1997:
12. CAMELCRAFT CORP VS NLRC JUNE 6, 1990
13. SAN FELIPE NERI VS. NLRC, SEPTEMBER 11, 1991)
14. MARINA PORT VS. INIEGO JANUARY 22, 1990
15. FILIPINAS PORT VS. NLRC AUGUST 16, 1991)
16. FERNANDO VS ANGAT LABOR UNION 5 SCRA 248:

PROCEDURE:

1. SHOEMART VS NLRC AUGUST 11, 1989
2. MANEJA VS NLRC JUNE 5, 1998

STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS:

1. SHOPPERS’ GAIN VS NLRC JULY 26, 1996
2. MAGNOLIA DAIRY PRODUCTS VS NLRC JANUARY 29, 1996:
3. ANSCOR TRANSPORT VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 28, 1990
4. HELLENIC PHIL VS E SIETE & NLRC MARCH 13, 1991

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION:

1. GLOBE MACKAY VS NLRC MARCH 3, 1992

FILING COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

1. DAYAG VS CANIZARES, NLRC MARCH 6,1998

CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION:

1. PLDT VS NLRC AUGUST 23, 1988
2. REYES VS MIN LAB FEBRUARY 9, 1989
3. INDUSTRIAL TIMBER VS NLRC FEBRUARY 14, 1996
4. SANTOS VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 21, 1987:
5. GEN BAPTIST BIBLE VS NLRC MARCH 5, 1993:
6. BUSTAMANTE VS NLRC NOVEMBER 28, 1996
7. ALA MODE GARMENTS VS NLRC FEBRUARY 17, 1997
8. PHIL TOBACCO FLUE-CURING VS NLRC DECEMBER 10, 1998)
9. GLOBE MACKAY VS NLRC MARCH 3, 1992)
10. DV QUIJANO VS MERCURY DRUG JULY 8, 1998
11. MARANAO HOTEL VS NLRC NOVEMBER 16, 1994
12. SUARIO VS BPI, APRIL 25, 1989
13. PRIMERO VS IAC 156 SCRA 435= 1987:
14. GARCIA VS NLRC 234 SCRA 632=1994

PERSONS LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL:

1. SUNIO VS NLRC 127 SCRA 390=1984
2. ASIONICS PHIL VS NLRC MAY 19, 1998:
3. PABALAN VS NLRC APRIL 20, 1990
4. UICHICO VS NLRC JUNE 2, 1997
5. SENTINEL SECURITY VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 3, 1998
6. ROSEWOOD CS NLRC MAY 21, 1998

TERMINATION BY EMPLOYEE

1. PHIMCO VS NLRC JUNE 11, 1997
2. CUSTODIO VS MOLE JULY 19, 1990
3. TRAVELAIRE & TOURS VS NLRC AUGUST 20, 1998

CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL:

1. PHILIPPINE JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON VS NLRC MARCH 8, 1989
2. V REYES VS NLRC AUGUST 31, 1989)
3. CONCRETE AGGREGATES VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 7, 1989

WHEN IS EMPLOYMENT NOT DEEMED TERMINATED?

1. VALDEZ VS NLRC
2. SENTINEL SECURITY VS NLRC SEPTEMBER 3, 1998

RETIREMENT

1. BRION VS PHIL UNITED MISSION OF THE 7^TH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, MAY 19, 1999

RETIREMENT BENEFITS VS SEPARATION PAY:

1. UE VS UE FACULTY ASS JULY 31, 1987:
2. AQUINO VS NLRC FEBRUARY 11, 1992