25. Baguio Central University v. Gallente, GR No.

188267, December 2, 2013

Facts:

In 1991, Gallente was hired and later on promoted in Baguio Central University (BCU) as the Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences and Public Administration. In 2005, he organized with other 6 incorporators
a GRC Review and Language Center, Inc. (GRC). In this regard, his attention was called by the BCU
President for using the address and resources of the BCU to realize the operation of the GRC. This
prompted him to resign and subsequently filed a complaint before the LA for illegal dismissal. The LA
ruled in his favor. An appeal to the NLRC by BCU was made which reversed the decision of the LA stating
that the establishment of the GRC resulted to conflict of interest and loss of trust and confidence.
Gallente filed a petition to the CA under Rule 65 which the latter reinstated the decision of the LA.

Issue:

Whether or not Gallente was validly dismissed based on loss of trust and confidence.

Ruling:

Yes. Gallente holds a trust and confidence position in BCU. As Dean, Gallente was responsible for the
over-all administration of his departments. This responsibility includes ensuring that his departments'
curriculum and program of study, to be adopted by the BCU, are up to date, relevant and reflective of the
scholastic requirements for the respective fields. And, to say the least, this curriculum and program of
study should be sufficient so that students would pass the requisite government examination, even
without enrolling in any review course. This responsibility also involves formulating the educational
policies in his departments as well as enforcing the BCU's policies, rules and regulations on subject loads,
subject sequence and subject pre-requisites and on admission and registration of students. In short, as
Dean, Gallente was duty-bound to uphold the BCU's interest above all.

24. Marcos v. NLRC, GR No. 111744, September 8, 1995

Facts:

Petitioners were regular employees of Insular Life Assurance Co. but they were dismissed on November
1, 1990 when their position were declared redundant. Petitioners, before their termination had served
several years in the company which prompted them to file a case claiming their service awards and other
prorated bonuses. The company required petitioners to execute a "Release and Quitclaim, and
petitioners complied but with a written protest reiterating their previous demand that they were
nonetheless entitled to receive their service awards.

Issue:

Whether or not that petitioners are not entitled to payment of service awards and other bonuses based
on their executed Release and Quitclaim.

Ruling:

No. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the fact that an employee has signed a satisfaction receipt for his
claims does not necessarily result in the waiver thereof. The law does not consider as valid any
agreement whereby a worker agrees to receive less compensation than what he is entitled to recover. A
deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally
entitled.

23. Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation v. Ativo, GR No. 188002, February 1, 2010

Facts:

The petitioner, on account of financial struggles, provided an option for voluntary resignation to its
employees including the respondent. On January 3, 2005, respondents executed their respective waivers
and quitclaims and were paid for their separation pay. However, on the following day, the respondent
filed a case before the NLRC for illegal dismissal and with prayer to receive full monetary benefits from
Goodrich.

Issue:

Whether the release, waiver and quitclaim signed by respondents are valid and binding.

Ruling:

It is true that the law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who have been
inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal
responsibilities and frustrate just claims of employees. 14 In certain cases, however, the Court has given
effect to quitclaims executed by employees if the employer is able to prove the following requisites, to
wit: (1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily; (2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part
of any of the parties; (3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (4) the
contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law. In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled
that respondents executed the quitclaims absent any coercion from the petitioners following their
voluntary resignation from the company.

22. Coats Manila Bay, Inc. v. Ortega, GR No. 176419, February 13, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of thread production. On April 27, 2000, the
petitioner announced the implementation of a redundancy plan to prevent further losses. The
respondent was one among the 135 employees who were terminated. The respondent filed for illegal
dismissal with the DOLE which ruled on their favor. An appeal to the NLRC was made and reversed the
decision of DOLE. Respondents filed a review on certiorari before the CA and reinstated the decision of
the DOLE.

Issue:

Whether or not the redundancy program implemented by petitioner is valid.

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner employed reasonable criteria in choosing which positions
to declare redundant such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b) efficiency and (c) seniority. The
Court notes that considerable considerations were made before the implementation of the redundancy
program like the issuance of memorandum, conduct of labor management meeting and a review of the
records shows that respondents' positions were abolished because there was duplicity of functions.

21. GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, GR No. 176419, November 27, 2013

Facts:

On July 19, 1999, private respondents filed a complaint before the NLRC against petitioner due to
miserable working conditions. After the filing of complaint, respondents were prohibited to report to
work. This prompted them to file an amended complaint of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
The LA dismissed their complaint and the respondents appealed to the NLRC. Per findings, the
respondents were regular employees and are entitled to separation pay and other benefits. The
petitioner elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are regular employees and are not project employees.

Ruling:

The respondents are regular employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Their jobs include manning
of the operations center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment,
and acting as cameramen and undertakings are clearly within the regular or usual business of the
company.

20. David v. Macasio, GR No. 195466, July 2, 2014

Facts:

Macasio works a butcher for David since January 6, 1995. In 2009, Macasio filed a complaint before the
LA against David for non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13 th month pay. In his
defense, David claims that Macasio works on “pakyaw” or task basis, hence, he is exempted from such
monetary claims. The LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint of Macasio.

Issue: Whether or not the LA and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case of
Macasio.

Ruling:

The LA and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion only with respect to the holiday pay and SIL. In
determining whether workers engaged on"pakyaw" or task basis" is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the
presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker's time and performance is the key:
if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is entitled to a
holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under Article 94
(holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on pakyaw or
task basis also falls within the meaning of "field personnel" under the law, then he is not entitled to
these monetary benefits. " With regard to the 13 th month pay claim of Macasio, Section 3 (e) of the IRR
of PD No. 851 provides that, "employers of those who are paid on . . . task basis, and those who are paid
a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance
thereof" are exempted.

19. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, GR No. 86439, January 15, 2014

Facts:

The complainants were hired by the petitioner, URSUMCO, a domestic corporation engaged in sugarcane
milling business. They were hired on various dates and various capacities for a period of one month or
for a given season. On August 23, 2002, the complainants filed before the LA complaints for
regularization, entitlement to the benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The
LA dismissed their complaint for lack of merit and held that complainants are not regular employees but
are only seasonal or project workers. The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and held that
complainants are regular employees and granted their monetary claims under the CBA. The CA affirmed
the decision of the NLRC but deleted the grant of monetary benefits.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents are regular employees of the URSUMCO.

Ruling:

The Court finds that the respondents are regular seasonal employees. They were tasked to perform
duties regularly and habitually needed in URSUMCO's operations during the milling season. Likewise,
they were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the same tasks year after year. Lastly, there is no
evidence on record showing that after the completion of their tasks at URSUMCO, the respondents
sought and obtained employment elsewhere.

18. Basan et. al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, GR Nos. 174365-66, February 4, 2015

Facts:

Basan et. al filed a complaint against the respondent for illegal dismissal and money claims. They alleged
that they were dismissed without just cause and prior notice. The respondent counters that their
position is temporary in duration as they were only hired for substitute of the regular route helpers for a
fixed period in anticipation of the high volume of work. The LA and NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioners
and held that that since they were performing activities necessary and desirable to the usual business of
petitioner for more than the period for regularization, petitioners are considered as regular employees.
On a petition for certiorari, the CA reversed the decisions of the LA and NLRC.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines.

Ruling:

Yes. In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the applicable
test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation
to the usual business or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the
work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can
be assessed by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the general scheme
under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific
undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in carrying on the particular business or
trade. But, although the work to be performed is only for a specific project or seasonal, where a person
thus engaged has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or is merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or
trade of the employer. The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with respect to
such activity and while such activity exists.

17. Gadia et.al. v. Sykes Asia Inc., GR No. 209499, January 28, 2015

Facts:

Sykes Asia is a corporation engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). On September 2, 2003, Alltel
Communications, Inc. (Alltel), a United States-based telecommunications firm, contracted Sykes Asia's
services to accommodate the needs and demands of Alltel clients for its postpaid and prepaid services
(Alltel Project). Sykes Asia hired petitioners as customer service representatives, team leaders, and
trainers for the Alltel Project. However, in 2009, Alltel sent letters to Sykes informing the latter of
terminating all support services related to Alltel. The petitioners were informed of their dismissal
through end-of-life notices. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint against Sykes for illegal dismissal.
In defense, Sykes averred that the petitioners were merely project-based employees. The LA ruled in
favor of the respondent. The NLRC reversed the decision. The CA annulled and set aside the decision of
the LA.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of Sykes Asia.

Ruling:

No. Records reveal that Sykes Asia adequately informed petitioners of their employment status at the
time of their engagement, as evidenced by the latter's employment contracts which similarly provide
that they were hired in connection with the Alltel Project, and that their positions were "project-based
and as such is co-terminus to the project." Also, Sykes Asia substantially complied with this requisite
when it expressly indicated in petitioners' employment contracts that their positions were "co-terminus
with the project." To the mind of the Court, this caveat sufficiently apprised petitioners that their
security of tenure with Sykes Asia would only last as long as the Alltel Project was subsisting.
16. Santos Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, GR No. 187226, January 28, 2015

Facts:

Cheryl Santos Leus was hired by the respondent as a non-teaching personnel in 2001. In 2003, the
petitioner conceived a child with her boyfriend without the benefit of marriage. The respondent school
informed the petitioner to resign as her pregnancy amounts to serious misconduct and conduct
unbecoming of an employee of a Catholic school. SSCW follows the 1992 Manual of Regulations for
Private Schools (1992 MRPS) on the causes for termination of employments; that Section 94 (e) of the
1992 MRPS cites "disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a ground for dismissal.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid ground to terminate her
employment.

Ruling:

No. There is no substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock caused
grave scandal to SSCW and its students and the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful
or immoral conduct since she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other.

1. South Cotabato Communications v. Sto. Tomas, GR No. 217575, June 15, 2016

Facts:

Following the conduct of Complaint Inspection by DOLE Region XII at the premises of DXCP Radio station
owned by the petitioner, it yielded a finding a violation of the Labor Standards provisions of the Labor
Code involving the respondents. Consequently, the DOLE issued a Notice of Inspection Result directing
the petitioner to effect restitution and/ or correction of the alleged violations within 5 days from notice
but the latter failed to comply. A Summary Investigation at DOLE was conducted but petitioners failed to
appear. Another hearing was scheduled but the petitioner still failed to appear and asked for resetting of
hearing date but DOLE denied the same. Thus, in an Order dated May 20, 2004, the DOLE Region-XII OIC
Regional Director directed petitioners to pay private respondents the total amount of P759,752,
representing private respondents' claim for wage differentials, 13th month pay differentials, service
incentive leave pay, holiday premium pay, and rest day premium pay.

Issue:

Whether or not DOLE’s Order lacks factual or legal basis.

Ruling:

Yes. The Regional Director merely noted the discovery of violations of labor standards provisions in the
course of inspection of the DXCP premises. No such categorical determination was made on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship utilizing any of the guidelines set forth. In a word, the
Regional Director had presumed, not demonstrated, the existence of the relationship. Of particular note
is the DOLE's failure to show that petitioners, thus, exercised control over private respondents' conduct
in the workplace. Without first determining the existence of the employer-employee relationship, the
DOLE could not acquire jurisdiction of the case.

2. Diokno, et.al. v. Cacdac, GR No. 168475, July 4, 2007

Facts:

The petitioners and private respondents are members of the First Line Association of Meralco
Supervisory Employees (FLAMES), a legitimate labor organization and supervisory union of Meralco. On
1 April 2003, the FLAMES Executive Board created the Committee on Election (COMELEC) for the conduct
of its union elections scheduled on 7 May 2003. Private respondents, Ong et.al, filed their respective
candidacies but were rejected by the COMELEC on the ground of being non-members of FLAMES. Also,
on May 2, 2003, petitioners filed disqualification petition for Daya et.al. on the ground of disloyalty for
allegedly colluded with non-members of the FLAMES. According to the COMELEC, Daya, et al., violated
Article IV, Section 4 (a) (6) 11 of the FLAMES Constitution and By-Laws (CBL) by allowing non-members to
aid them in their campaign. On May 7, 2003, the COMELEC declared the petitioners, Diokno, et. al. as
winners of the election. On 8 May 2003, private respondents Daya, et al., along with Ong, et al., filed
with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE-NCR, a Petition to: a) Nullify Order of Disqualification; b)
Nullify Election Proceedings and Counting of Votes; c) Declare Failure of Election; and d) Declare Holding
of New Election to be Controlled and Supervised by the DOLE. The Med Arbiter reversed the decision of
the COMELEC and ruled in favor of Daya et.al. Public respondent Director of Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR), Hans Leo J. Cacdac ruled, inter alia, that the COMELEC's reliance on Article IV, Section 4 (a) (6) of
the CBL, as a ground for disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al., was premature, nullifying the
COMELEC's order of disqualification of private respondents Daya et al., and annulling the 7 May 2003
FLAMES elections. The CA also affirmed the finding of the BLR Director that the COMELEC, in
disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al., committed a procedural shortcut.

Issue:

Whether or not the Bureau of Labor Relations has valid jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case.

Ruling:

Yes. Article 226 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the BLR with regard on all inter-union
and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-
management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those arising
from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements. Notwithstanding the
requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the COMELEC demonstrated non-observance of
due process.

3. Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. v. Adviento, GR No. 171212, August 4, 2014

Facts:

The respondent was hired as civil engineer by the petitioner which is engaged in the business of
manufacturing thread for weaving. Later on, the respondent was diagnosed with Chronic Poly Sinusitis,
and thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent Allergic Rhinitis. Distressed, respondent filed a
complaint against petitioner with the NLRC for alleged illegal dismissal and for the payment of
backwages, separation pay, actual damages and attorney's fees. Subsequently, respondent filed another
Complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, alleging that he contracted such
occupational disease by reason of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him with a safe, healthy
and workable environment. The petitioner averred that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint
since it is a labor-related issue.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent's claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitioner's gross negligence to provide
a safe, healthy and workable environment for its employees — a case of quasi-delict which is cognizable
by the RTC.

4. Upod v. Onon Trucking, GR No. 248299, July 14, 2021

Facts:

The petitioner was hired by the respondent as driver/ hauler in 2004. He was suspended in 2009 due to
an alleged ground of abandonment but was rehired in 2014 until 2017. When he was no longer getting
delivery assignments, he decided to leave and filed a case against the respondent for illegal dismissal and
money claims. The respondent asserted that there was no illegal dismissal against the petitioner as there
was no employer-employee relationship between them. The LA held otherwise. The NLRC reversed the
decision of the LA and declared that there was no employer-employee relationship. Petitioner charged
the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion with the CA and claims that he is a regular employee of the
respondent company.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee of Onon Trucking.

Ruling:

Yes. Using the four-fold test, there exist an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and
respondent corporation. Also, based on Article 295 of the Labor Code, a regular employee, is one who is
either (1) engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer; or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he or she is employed. As an entity engaged
in the wholesale and retail of various products, respondent company must necessarily engage the
services of delivery drivers, such as herein petitioner, for the purpose of getting its products delivered to
its clients. To be sure, since petitioner had performed acts necessary and desirable to respondent
company's business and trade for more than a year, his status had already ripened to a regular
employment.
 5. Tiangco v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GR No. 200434, December 6, 2021

Facts:

The petitioner was a talent of ABS-CBN from 1986 to 1991. Upon expiration of the contract dated 27
April 1991, ABS-CBN entered into the May 1994 Agreement (Agreement) with Mel & Jay Management
and Development Corporation (MJMDC), committing to provide petitioner's services to ABS-CBN as
exclusive talent for radio and television. One of the stipulations in the Agreement is the prohibition of
the talent to appear in commercials. However, the petitioner allegedly violated the same when she
appeared in a Tide commercial in December 1995. She was suspended for three months as a
consequence. On 11 March 1996, petitioner filed a complaint against ABS-CBN and its officers for illegal
dismissal, illegal suspension, and claims for backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, travel, vacation
benefits of Php150,000.00, shares of stocks, damages, and attorney's fees. The LA ruled in her favor. The
NLRC reversed the decision of the LA following the Sonza case and held that the petitioner is an
independent contractor. The case was elevated to the CA via a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is an independent contractor.

Ruling:

Yes. First, petitioner's acknowledgment that she was hired by reason of her peculiar talents, skills,
personality, and celebrity status proved the presence of one of the elements of an independent
contractor. Second, payment through the company payroll on specified dates with income tax withheld
at source is not conclusive proof of employer-employee relations. Third, petitioner viewed her three-
month suspension without pay as proof that ABS-CBN had power of discipline over her. Lastly, petitioner
alleged that ABS-CBN controlled the manner she performed her job. As a well-known veteran news
anchor, petitioner's manner in delivering the news was distinctly her own.

6. Portillo v. Lietz, GR No. 196539, October 10, 2012

Facts:

Portillo was hired by the respondent and was later promoted in 2002 as Sales Representative.
Consequently, she was asked by the respondent to sign a letter agreement containing a Goodwill Clause
stating that after cessation of her employment, she is prohibited from engaging directly and indirectly to
any related business of the respondent for three years. The petitioner resigned from Lietz and started a
new job with Ed Keller Philippines, a direct competitor of Lietz, Inc. In September 2005, the petitioner
filed a complaint with the NLRC for non-payment of 1 1/2 months' salary, two (2) months' commission,
13th month pay, plus moral, exemplary and actual damages and attorney's fees. The respondent
admitted liability for Portillo's money claims in the total amount of P110,662.16. However, Lietz, Inc.
raised the defense of legal compensation: Portillo's money claims should be offset against her liability to
Lietz, Inc. for liquidated damages in the amount of P869,633.09 7 for Portillo's alleged breach of the
"Goodwill Clause" in the employment contract when she became employed with Ed Keller Philippines,
Limited.
Issue:

Whether or not Portillo's money claims for unpaid salaries may be offset against respondents' claim for
liquidated damages.

Ruling:

No. There is no reasonable causal connection between the money claims of the petitioner and liquidated
damages. The former is a labor issue cognizable by the Labor Court and the latter is a civil complaint
cognizable by the regular court.

7. Emer Milan v. NLRC, GR No. 202961, February 4, 2016

Facts:

Petitioners are respondent Solid Mills, Inc.'s (Solid Mills) employees. As such, they were allowed
including their families to occupy SMI Village, a property owned by Solid Mills. Due to serious business
losses, petitioners were informed that effective October 10, 2003, Solid Mills would cease its operations.
Consequently, the respondent agreed to provide separation pay less accountabilities, accrued sick leave
benefits, vacation leave benefits, and 13th month pay to the employees. However, the respondent
withheld such benefits and released thereof will take place upon the premises of the SMI Village will be
vacated.

Issue:

Whether or not the monetary claims of petitioners should be held in abeyance pending compliance of
their accountabilities to respondent by turning over the subject lots they respectively occupy at SMI
Village.

Ruling:

Yes. Petitioners were merely allowed to possess and use it out of respondent Solid Mills' liberality. The
employer may, therefore, demand the property at will. The return of the property's possession became
an obligation or liability on the part of the employees when the employer-employee relationship ceased.
Thus, respondent Solid Mills has the right to withhold petitioners' wages and benefits because of this
existing debt or liability.

8. Pulp and Paper, Inc. v. NLRC, GR No. 116593, September 24, 1997

Facts:

Private respondent was employed as wrapper by petitioner on a piece-rate basis sometime in

September, 1975. On November 29, 1991, she was temporarily laid-off from work. On January 21, 1992,
private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. The Labor Arbiter
rendered judgment awarding separation pay and salary differentials based on the minimum wage. On
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Issue:

Whether or not Public Respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and serious reversible
error in the computation of separation pay and minimum wage of private respondent.

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of prescribed wage rates for piece-rate workers, the
ordinary minimum wage rates prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards
should apply in the computation of separation pay and salary differentials; that there was constructive
dismissal of an employee who was temporarily laid off and was not reemployed within six months; and
there was no valid retrenchment where the employer did not serve a written notice on the workers and
the DOLE at least one month before the intended date thereof.

9. PAL Airlines v. NLRC, GR No. 132805, February 2, 1999

Facts:

Private respondent was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company Philippine Air Lines (PAL). He
was assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic at Nichols. On February 17, 1994 he went home for a dinner
which was about five-minute drive away. Then, he received a call from his nurse with regard to an
emergency case of a patient. He immediately went back to the clinic but the nurse on duty had already
left with the patient. The patient died the following day. Private respondent was suspended for three
months on the ground of abandonment of his post. He filed a complaint of illegal suspension with the LA
and held that his suspension was illegal. The NLRC affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion in nullifying the 3-month suspension of private respondent.

Ruling:

No. The facts do not support petitioner's allegation that private respondent abandoned his post on the
evening of February 17, 1994. Private respondent left the clinic that night only to have his dinner at his
house, which was only a few minutes' drive away from the clinic. His whereabouts were known to the
nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed of Mr.
Acosta's condition, private respondent immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These facts
belie petitioner's claim of abandonment.

10. Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, GR No. 156367, May 16, 2005

Facts:

The respondent has been employed by the petitioner since May 24, 1995 as driver-conductor with
specific travel routes and was paid on commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross income
per travel, on a twice a month basis. In 2000, the bus he was driving accidentally bumped the rear of
another bus. Following the accident, he averred that he was not allowed to report back to work without
providing the full payment of the 30% of the cost of repair of the damaged buses. After a month, he
received a termination letter. Thus, on 02 February 2000, respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against
Autobus. The complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed by the LA but considered the awards of 13 th
month pay and SIL. The NLRC modified the decision of the LA by deleting the award on 13 th month pay.
The petitioner contend that respondent is not entitled to the grant of service incentive leave because he
was paid on purely commission basis

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is a field personnel or a regular employee who entitled to service incentive
leave.

Ruling:

Yes. The respondent is not a field personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually
necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioner's business. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to
the grant of service incentive leave.

11. Conqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v. Balingbing, GR No. 250311/ 250501,
January 5, 2022

Facts:

Sagara is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of various plastic parts and tubes for
automotive wiring harness, non-automotive applications, and fabrication of molding dies. The petitioner
is Sagara’s contractor wo hired the respondents to perform non-core activities. On June 8, 2015, the
respondents filed a Complaint for Inspection against Sagara and Conqueror (petitioner) for alleged
violation of labor laws. The respondents averred that the petitioner was a mere labor-only contractor
and that Sagara was their true employer.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is a legitimate labor contractor.

Ruling:

Yes. Article 106 of the Labor Code enumerates the elements of a labor-only contracting. In contrary,
Conqueror has a substantial capital of more than P3,000,000.00. Having substantial capital and work
premises of its own, Conqueror cannot be considered as a labor-only contractor by the alleged fact that
respondents performed activities directly related to the main business of Sagara. To be considered a
labor-only contractor, the lack of substantial capital or investment must concur with the fact that the
work of the employees is directly related to the main business of the principal, which is not the case
herein. Also, the Court was able to establish the valid employment relationship between the petitioner
and respondents. Thus, the petitioner is a legitimate labor contractor.
 12. Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., GR No. 224944, May 5, 2021

Facts:

The petitioner was hired as security guard by the respondent on march 13, 2011. On April 21, 2014, he
was suspended for allegedly sleeping while on duty. Thus, Zonio filed a complaint against respondents
for illegal suspension; underpayment of salary and 13th month pay; non-payment of overtime and
holiday pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay; service incentive leave pay; night shift differential pay;
reimbursement of cash bond and miscellaneous fees; moral and exemplary damages; and attorney's
fees. The LA held that Zonio failed to substantiate his claim for payment of overtime and holiday pay;
holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay. He appealed to the NLRC and it
modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that Zonio is entitled to overtime and holiday pay;
holiday and rest day premiums pay; and night shift differentials pay. The respondents filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA to question the award of overtime and holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums,
and night shift differentials pay in favor of Zonio. The CA partly granted the petition by deleting the
award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in deleting the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay,
and night shift differentials pay.

Ruling:

The Court partly granted the petition with respect to the award of overtime pay and night shift
differentials pay. Prima facie evidence is such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to
establish a given fact, or the group, or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which
if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted,
is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by
other evidence. The petitioner presented his logbook as prima facie evidence of his monetary claims.
However, the logbook does not contain whether Zonio worked on holidays or during his rest days. Thus,
Zonio's claim for holiday and rest day premiums is denied for lack of factual basis. The respondents
disputed the veracity of the entries in the logbook but failed to present evidence to rebut the same.

13. Hubilla v. HSY Marketing, GR No. 207354, January 10, 2018

Facts:

Petitioners allege that they were illegally dismissed from service when they were prevented from
entering their work premises a day after airing their grievance in a radio show of Raffy Tulfo. On the
other hand, respondents deny this allegation and state that petitioners were never dismissed from
employment. The respondent likewise alleged that the petitioners were given First Notice of Termination
of Employment, asking them to show cause why they should not be dismissed for their continued
absence from work. However, petitioners argue that this evidence should not be given weight since
there is no proof that they received this Notice.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed.

Ruling:

Yes. Where both parties in a labor case have not presented substantial evidence to prove their
allegations, the evidence is considered to be in equipoise. In such a case, the scales of justice are tilted in
favor of labor. Thus, petitioners are hereby considered to have been illegally dismissed. Petitioners were
not dismissed under any of the causes mentioned in Article 279 [282] of the Labor Code. They were not
validly informed of the causes of their dismissal. Thus, their dismissal was illegal.

14. Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, GR No. 213730, June
23, 2021

Facts:

Following the 15% increase in the tuition fees implemented by the petitioner, it allocated 70% to
employees’ benefits including retirement plan, pursuant to Section 5 (2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 6728.
On September 21, 2010, respondents sent a letter to petitioner, demanding that the 70% of the TIP be
allocated to the salaries of the employees. The Voluntary Arbitrator of NCMB ruled in favor of the
respondent. The CA concurred with respondents that under DECS Order No. 15, the retirement plan of
the employees cannot be considered as a wage-related benefit which may be charged against the 70% of
the tuition fee incremental proceeds (TIP).

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator that the allocation of a
portion of the 70% TIP to the retirement plan of petitioner's employees is not in accord with Section 5
(2) of RA 6728.

Ruling:

Yes. Section 5 (2) of RA 6728 clearly states that a tuition fee increase is allowed provided that seventy
percent (70%) of the amount subsidized allotted for tuition fee or of the tuition fee increases shall go to
the payment of salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
The law does not qualify the term "other benefits" to refer only to "wage-related benefits." Hence, the
allocation of a portion of the 70% TIP for the employees' retirement plan, which is clearly intended for
the benefit of the employees, fall under the category of "other benefits" as provided under the law

15. Star paper, et. al. v. Simbol, et. al., GR No. 164774, April 12, 2006

Facts:

Respondents Ronaldo D. Simbol (Simbol), Wilfreda N. Comia (Comia) and Lorna E. Estrella (Estrella) were
all regular employees of the petitioner company. As a company policy, when two employees developed a
friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of
them should resign. Simbol and Comia resigned from work for marrying their co-workers. Estrella also
opted to resign after being impregnated by a married co-worker. The respondents filed a complaint
against the petitioner. They averred that the aforementioned company policy is illegal and contravenes
Article 136 of the Labor Code. The LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The CA, via a
petition for certiorari, reversed the decisions of the LA and NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not the company policy is a violation of Article 136 of the Labor Code.

Ruling:

Yes. By applying the reasonable business necessity, petitioners failed to show how the marriage of
Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the Repacking Section,
could be detrimental to its business operations. Neither did petitioners explain how this detriment will
happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, then a Production Helper in the Selecting Department, who
married Howard Comia, then a helper in the cutter machine. As for the case of Estrella, she claims that
she was pressured to submit a resignation letter because she was in dire need of money. Given the lack
of sufficient evidence on the part of petitioners that the resignation was voluntary, Estrella's dismissal is
declared illegal.