Labor Review Cases

CANTANILLA, RIJANE A.
4th YEAR – JURIST DOCTOR

LABOR LAW REVIEW
UR EMPLOYED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND PAMELA

MIGUEL VS. MIKE PINMILIW, MURPHY PACYA, SIMON BASTOG AND
RYAN AYOCHOK
G.R NO. 225263, March 16, 2022
FACTS:
UR Employed International Corporation (UREIC) hire Pinmiliw, Pacya,

Bastog and Ayochok as a construction worker in Kota Kinanalu, Sabah,
Malaysia for its principal The W Construction (TWC). The respondents
contract was for 2 years with basic monthly salary of RM800. The
respondent alleged that the petitioner promised them good working
conditions, suitable sleeping quarters and food which would be provided
free of charge. Upon the arrival to Malaysia, they were made to live in a
place with unsafe conditions and the broker who fetched them from airport
took their passports. The respondent worked beyond regular hours without
pay and later, they discovered that they only had tourist visa and TWC was
hiding them from the authorities because they did not have work permits.
The respondent report their living and work conditions to UREIC but their
grievances were unheeded. Left without any other recourse, Pinmiliw sent
an email to the editor of the Baguio Midland Courier to seek assistance.
Week after, TWC human relations question them about the email, and
informed them that they were terminated and being processed for
repatriation. Respondent file a complaint for illegal dismissal and money
claim against UREIC. Labor Arbiter found that the respondent were
constructively dismissed due to the unbearable and favorable working
conditions set by the employer. On petitioner’s appeal, the National Labor
Relation Commission (NLRC) and Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of
Labor Arbiter. Petitioner alleged that the LA and NLRC violates the doctrine
of primary administrative jurisdiction and immutability of judgment which
does not consider POEA and DOLE’s order which dealt with the same
allegations and also alleged that the affidavits and position paper of the
respondent was unverified.
ISSUE:
Whether the LA and NLRC has a administrative jurisdiction over complaint

for illegal dismissal and money claim?
RULING:
Yes, The LA and NLRC has jurisdiction.
According to Section 10 of RA 8042 as amended, the Labor Arbiters of the

National Labor Relation Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within 90 calendar days after filing
LABOR LAW REVIEW
of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee

relationship or by virtue of nay law or conduct involving Filipino workers for
overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damage.
The doctrine of immutability of judgment does not apply to this case. Under
the doctrine, all issue between the parties are deemed resolve and laid to
rest once a judgment become final. Here, DOLE’s order settled the issue in
violation of 2002 POEA rules and regulation in governing recruitment and
employment of land-based overseas worker. It did not involved illegal
dismissal and money claim.
The rules and procedure are invariably relax when it comes to proceeding
before labor tribunals. The failure to verify the affidavits and position paper
did not nullify the proceedings before the labor tribunals.
Therefore, the petition was denied and the resolution of Labor arbiter was
affirmed with modification of granting back wages, placement refund,
damages, attorney’s fee and legal interest of 6% per annum.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
DORELCO EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCO VS. DON ORESTES

ROMUALDEZ ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (DORELCO)
G.R NO. 240130, March 15, 2021
FACTS:
DORELCO employees union submitted for arbitration to National

Conciliation and Mediation Board(NCMB) whether the rank and file
employees are entitled to salary adjustment under CBA agreement.
Petionioner therein was a retired employee of DORELCO which execute
quit claims so they can receive their retirement benefits. However, some
opted to wait for the resolution of the arbitration case. NCMB rule that the
employees are entitled to salary increase. Accordingly. DORELCO paid the
retirements benefits with differential for those who did not executed their
quitclaims. Thereafter, Union submitted for arbitration whether those retired
employee who execute quitclaims prior to the ruling of NCMB to the salary
adjustment are entitled to the salary increase. NCMB rule that those who
execute quitclaims are not entitled to salary increase. Dissatidfied with the
resolution, Union move for reconsideration but it was also Denied. Union
appealed to the Court of Appeals but the petition was dismissed because
the Voluntary arbitrator’s ruling is not subject for reconsideration and
becomes final and executory unless appealed within 10 calendar days from
notice.
ISSUE:
Whether the decision of Voluntary Arbitrator’s is not subject for

reconsideration?
RULING:
No, the petition is meritorious.
Under Article 276 of the Labor Code, the award or decision of the
Voluntary Arbitrators shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days
from notice. On the other hand, Rule 43 of the Rules of court provides that
an appeal from the judgment or final orders of voluntary arbitrator must be
made within 15 days from notice.
The Court En Banc that the 10 days period in Article 276 should be
understood as the time which the adverse party may move for a
reconsideration from the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrators. Only
after the resolution of the motion for reconsideration may the aggrieve party
appeal to the Court of Appeals.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
Here, the records reveal that the Union received the Voluntary Arbitrator's
resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on Nov. 27, 2017 which
had 15 days or until Dec. 12, 2017 whithin which to perfect an appeal.
Therefore, the petition was granted and the ruling of CA was set aside and
remanded for a proper resolution on the merit with dispatch.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
SOCIAL HOUSING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY

ITS PRESIDENT WILL PERAN VS. SOCIAL HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION
G.R NO. 237729, October 12 2020
FACTS:
Social Housing Finance Corporation (SFHC) is a government owned

corporation and Social Housing Employees Association, Inc. (SOHEAI) is
the legitimate labor organization of its rand and file employees. SOHEAI
and SFHC negotiated the economic provision of the agreement and
adjustment of several benefits. The Governance Commission for
government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) informed SHFC
that it has no authority to negotiate new increases and benefits.
Accordingly, SHFC revoked the new benefits. SOHEIA alleged that the
revocation of the new benefits violated the policy on non-diminution of
benefits and like wise alleged that the grant of annual state of the nation
address (SONA) bonus per employee ripened into a regular benefit. After
the request of reconsideration was denied, SOHEAI request for preventive
mediation and enter into a new CBA with SHFC. However, mediation was
in vain. Aggrived SOHEAI submitted the controversy to the Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA), however SHFI claim that PVA has no
jurisdiction to settle the issue on the adjustment of the CBA’s economic
provisions and to determine whether the SONA bonus has ripened into
regular benefit. PVA ruled in favor of SOHEAL and ordered SHFC to
comply with the CBA. Aggrived SHFC appealed to the CA and annulled
PVA’s ruling for lack of Jurisdiction. CA note that there have been laws
already effective which provide that the approval of the President must first
obtain for the compensation, allowances, and benefits system in all
GOCCs.
ISSUE:
Whether Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has Jurisdiction over GOCCs

benefits controversy?
RULING:
No, Panel Of Voluntary Arbitrators has no jurisdiction.
Section 26 of PD No. 1445 which vested COA the authority to examie,

audit, and settle all debts and claims of nay sort due from or owning to the
government, or any of its subdivision, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including all GOCCs.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
Verily All money claims against the government must first be filed with the
COA which must act upon it within 60 days. The rejection of the claim will
authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on

Certiorari and in effect, sue state.
Therefore, the petition was denied and the Decision of the Court of Appeal
is affirmed.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REYNALDO MEDINA

G.R NO. 243768, September 05, 2022
FACTS:
Reynaldo Medina was employed as a driver at G & S transport also known

as Avis Rent-A-Car for seven years and has no derogatory records. Medina
was primarily responsible for fetching tourist to and from the airport and
onward to their next destination. However, Medina was involved in a heated
argument with his co-employee for the first time in his career. G & S alleged
that Medina was drunk when he assaulted his co- employee. After
submission of various written explanation, Medina was placed under
preventive suspension. And after administrative hearing of G & S, they
concluded that Medina violates the code of discipline when he fought with
his co-employee inside the work premises. Thus, Medina was terminated
from employment. Medina sought relief to Labor Arbiter but the complaint
was dismissed because there was no illegal dismissal and fighting with co-
employee within work premises is consider serious misconduct and a valid
ground for termination of Medina’s employment. Medina appealed in
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but the NLRC affirmed
Labor Arbiter decision, Medina sought for reconsideration but the same
was dismissed. Medina exhausts all the quasi-judicial remedy and brought
the instant petition to the Court of appeals where the petition was granted
and order the G & S to reinstate without loss of seniority rights and the
payment of full back wages corresponding to the period from his illegal
dismissal up to actual reinstatement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, fighting within work premises is consider serious

misconduct and a valid ground for termination?
RULING:
No, misconduct as a ground of dismissal must be serious or of such grave.

To justify termination on the ground of serious misconduct, the following
requisites must concur:
1. The misconduct must be serious;

2. It must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties, showing
that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer; and
3. It must have been performed with wrongful intent.
LABOR LAW REVIEW
Here, none of the requisites for serious misconduct is present. The CA

found that only a petty quarrel involving slight pushing transpired between
the two employees. It did not cause work stoppage nor posed a threat to
the safety
of the other employees. The G & S failed to show how Medina’s

misconduct affect the business or how he become unfit to continue to work
for the company.
Therefore, the petition of G & S was denied and the Supreme court agree
with the ruling of court of appeals where penalty of dismissal is to hard and
is not commensurate with the act committed which constitute illegal
dismissal.

Labor Review Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Review Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CANTANILLA, RIJANE A.

4th YEAR – JURIST DOCTOR

UR EMPLOYED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND PAMELA

UR Employed International Corporation (UREIC) hire Pinmiliw, Pacya,

Whether the LA and NLRC has a administrative jurisdiction over complaint

Yes, The LA and NLRC has jurisdiction.

According to Section 10 of RA 8042 as amended, the Labor Arbiters of the

of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee

DORELCO EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCO VS. DON ORESTES

DORELCO employees union submitted for arbitration to National

Whether the decision of Voluntary Arbitrator’s is not subject for

No, the petition is meritorious.

SOCIAL HOUSING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY

Social Housing Finance Corporation (SFHC) is a government owned

Whether Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has Jurisdiction over GOCCs

No, Panel Of Voluntary Arbitrators has no jurisdiction.

Section 26 of PD No. 1445 which vested COA the authority to examie,

authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on

G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REYNALDO MEDINA

Reynaldo Medina was employed as a driver at G & S transport also known

Whether or not, fighting within work premises is consider serious

No, misconduct as a ground of dismissal must be serious or of such grave.

1. The misconduct must be serious;

Here, none of the requisites for serious misconduct is present. The CA

of the other employees. The G & S failed to show how Medina’s

You might also like