TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

A. State Policy Towards Labor
• Reyes vs. Rural Bank of San Rafael Bulacan, Inc., G.R. No. 230957, March 23,
2022 ........................................................................................................ 1
• JR Hauling Services vs. Gavino L. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020
............................................................................................................... 1

II. PRE-EMPLOYMENT
A. Recruitment and Placement of Local and Migrant Workers
• C.F. Sharp Crew Management vs. Jimmy G. Jaicten, G.R. No. 208981, February
1, 2021 .................................................................................................... 1
• People of the Philippines vs. Oliver Imperio Y Antonio, G.R. No. 232623, October
5, 2020 .................................................................................................... 2
• People of the Philippines vs. Avelina Manalang, G.R. No. 198015, January 20,
2021........................................................................................................ 3

III. EMPLOYMENT PROPER

A. Labor Standards
• Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod vs. Melinda Montaño, G.R. No. 212333, March 28,
2022........................................................................................................ 3
B. Social Welfare Legislation
• Paglinawan vs. Dohle Philman Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 230735, April 4, 2022 3
• Efraim Daut Darroca vs. Century Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 234392,
November 10, 2021 .................................................................................. 4
• Gallevo Rodriguez vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 218311,
October 11, 2021 ..................................................................................... 5
• Edgardo I. Mabalot vs. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 224344
September 13, 2021 ................................................................................. 5
• Charlo P. Idul vs. Alster Int'l Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 209907, June 23,
2021........................................................................................................ 6
...............................................................................................................
• Armando H. De Jesus vs. Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No.
203478, June 23, 2021 ............................................................................. 7
• EMS Crew Management Philippines vs. Erwin C. Bauzon, G.R. No. 205385, April
26, 2021 .................................................................................................. 8
• V People Manpower Phils., Inc. vs. Dominador C. Buquid, G.R. No. 222311,
February 10, 2021 .................................................................................... 8
• Gerardo U. Ville vs. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 217879, February
01, 2021 .................................................................................................. 9
• Ronnie L. Singson vs. Arktis Maritime Corp., G.R. No. 214542, January 13, 2021
............................................................................................................... 10
• Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Almario C. San Juan, G.R. No. 207511,
October 5, 2020 ....................................................................................... 10
 • Cabatan vs. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 219495, February 28, 2022
............................................................................................................... 11
• Florencio B. Destriza vs. Fair Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 203539, February
10, 2021 .................................................................................................. 11

IV. POST-EMPLOYMENT
A. Employer-Employee Relationship
• Gerome B. Ginta-Ason vs. J.T.A. Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 244206, March
16, 2022 .................................................................................................. 12
• Maria Lea Jane I. Gesolgon vs. Cyberone Ph., Inc., G.R. No. 210741, October
14, 2020 .................................................................................................. 13
• Allan Regala vs. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020
(Regular Employment) .............................................................................. 13
• Pedrito R. Parayday vs. Shogun Shipping Co. Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 06,
2020........................................................................................................ 14
• Eduardo G. Jovero vs. Rogelio Cerio, G.R. No. 202466, June 23, 2021 ......... 15
• Engineering & Construction Corporation of Asia vs. Segundino Palle, G.R. No.
201247, July 13, 2020 .............................................................................. 15
• Palgan vs. Holy Name University, G.R. No. 219916, February 10, 2021 ........ 16
• Allan Regala vs. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020
(Fixed-Term Employment) ........................................................................ 16
B. Termination of Employment by Employer
• Efren Santos, Jr. vs. King Chef G.R. No. 211073, November 25, 2020 .......... 16
• Reyes vs. Rural Bank Of San Rafael Bulacan, Inc., G.R. No. 230957, March 23,
2022........................................................................................................ 17
• Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod vs. Melinda Montaño, G.R. No. 212333, March 28,
2022........................................................................................................ 17
• Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation vs. Michelle Elvi C.
Ballesteros, G.R. No. 217119, April 25, 2022 .............................................. 17
• Evelina E. Belarso vs. Quality House, Inc, G.R. No. 209983, November 10, 2021
............................................................................................................... 18
• Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. vs. Violeta Noche, G.R. No. 202392, October 04,
2021........................................................................................................ 19
• University of the Cordilleras vs. Benedicto F. Lacanaria, G.R. No. 223665,
September 27, 2021 ................................................................................. 20
• Inter-Island Information Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187323,
June 23, 2021 .......................................................................................... 20
• Salvacion A. Lamadrid vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, G.R. No. 200658, June
23, 2021 .................................................................................................. 20
• Susan M. Bance vs. University of St. Anthony, G.R. No. 202724, February 03,
2021........................................................................................................ 21
• Fernando C. Gososo vs. Leyte Lumber Yard, G.R. No. 205257, January 13, 2021
............................................................................................................... 21
• JR Hauling Services vs. Gavino L. Solamo et al., G.R. No. 214294, September
30, 2020 .................................................................................................. 22
 •San Miguel Corporation vs. Rosario A. Gomez, G.R. No. 200815, August 24, 2020
............................................................................................................... 23
• Lufthansa Technik Philippines, Inc. vs. Roberto Cuizon, G.R. No. 184452,
February 12, 2020 .................................................................................... 23
• Philippine National Bank vs. Manuel C. Bulatao, G.R. No. 200972, December 11,
2019 ....................................................................................................... 24
• Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation vs. Rolando B.
Mesina, G.R. No. 217169, November 04, 2020 ........................................... 25
• Teletech Customer Care Management Philippines, Inc. vs. Mario Gerona, Jr.,
G.R. No. 219166, November 10, 2021 ....................................................... 25
• Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. vs. Violeta Noche, G.R. No. 202392, October 04,
2021 ....................................................................................................... 26
• Jose R. Dela Torre vs. Twinstar Professional Protective Services, G.R. No.
222992, June 23, 2021 ............................................................................. 27
• Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Sylvia De Luna, G.R. No. 209437,
March 17, 2021 ........................................................................................ 28
• Susan M. Bance vs. University of St. Anthony, G.R. No. 202724, February 03,
2021........................................................................................................ 28
• JR Hauling Services vs. Gavino L. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020
............................................................................................................... 29
• Pedrito R. Parayday vs. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 6,
2020........................................................................................................ 29
• Jose Del Pilar vs. Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELIC II), G.R. No.
160121, February 19, 2020 ....................................................................... 30
C. Termination of Employment by Employee
• Jose Edwin Esico vs. Alphaland Corporation, G.R. No. 216716, November 17,
2021........................................................................................................ 31
• Renato C. Tacis vs. Shields Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 234575, July 07,
2021........................................................................................................ 31
• Jose R. Dela Torre vs. Twinstar Professional Protective Services, G.R. No.
222992, June 23, 2021 ............................................................................. 32
• Fernando C. Gososo vs. Leyte Lumber Yard, G.R. No. 205257, January 13, 2021
............................................................................................................... 33
• Allan Regala vs. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020
............................................................................................................... 33
• Italkarat 18, Inc. vs. Juraldine N. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, September 28,
2020........................................................................................................ 34
• Telus International Philippines, Inc. vs. Harvey De Guzman, G.R. No. 202676,
December 04, 2019 .................................................................................. 34
• Villola vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc. (UPL), G.R. No. 230047, October 09, 2019
............................................................................................................... 35

D. Preventive Suspension
• Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod vs. Melinda M. Montaño, G.R. No. 212333, March
28, 2022 .................................................................................................. 35
 E. Reliefs from Illegal Dismissal
• Fernando C. Gososo vs. Leyte Lumber Yard, G.R. No. 205257, January 13, 2021
............................................................................................................... 36
• Philippine National Bank vs. Manuel C. Bulatao, G.R. No. 200972, December 11,
2019........................................................................................................ 36

V. JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

A. Labor Arbiter
• Salvacion A. Lamadrid vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, G.R. No. 200658, June
23, 2021 .................................................................................................. 37
B. National Labor Relations Commission
• Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. vs. Violeta Noche, G.R. No. 202392, October 04,
2021........................................................................................................ 37
• Jose Del Pilar vs. Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELIC II), G.R. No.
160121, February 19, 2020 ....................................................................... 38
• Jose R. Dela Torre vs. Twinstar Professional Protective Services, G.R. No.
222992, June 23, 2021 ............................................................................. 39
C. Court of Appeals
• Italkarat 18, Inc. Vs. Juraldine N. Gerasmio, G.R. No. 221411, September 28,
2020........................................................................................................ 39
D. Supreme Court
• Charlo P. Idul vs. Alster Int'l Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 209907, June 23,
2021........................................................................................................ 40
E. DOLE Regional Directors
• Del Monte Land Transport Bus Co. vs. Renante A. Armenta, G.R. No. 240144,
February 3, 2021 ...................................................................................... 41
1. In an illegal dismissal case against a bank’s Who has the burden of proving the claims for
compliance officer who refused to certify a salary differentials?
report claiming that no investigation was
conducted, the bank claims that they were
denied due process as there were no summons The employer has the burden of proving the
sent to them after the filing of the amended payment.
complaint. The bank contends that rules should
be relaxed and liberally interpreted in favor of In determining an employee's entitlement to his
the employer. monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted
from the employer to the employee depending
The NLRC applied a liberal interpretation and on the nature of the money claim prayed for. In
relaxed procedural rules in favor of the bank claims involving payment of salary differentials,
and was affirmed by the CA. Is the CA correct? this Court has held that the burden rests on the
employer to prove payment following the basic
rule that "in all illegal dismissal cases, the
No. Relaxed and liberal interpretation of labor burden rests on the defendant to prove
procedures is mainly for the benefit of the payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove
employee, and not the employer. non-payment." This rationale is supported by
the fact that all pertinent personnel files,
Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that all payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
doubts in the implementation and documents which show that the salary
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor differentials have in fact been paid are not in
Code, including its implementing rules and the possession of the worker but are in the
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. custody and control of the employer. (JR
HAULING SERVICES VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO
The measures embedded in our legal system G.R. NO. 214294, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020, PER J.
which accord specific protection to labor stems HERNANDO)
from the reality that normally, the laborer
stands on unequal footing as opposed to an
employer. Indeed, the labor force is a special 3. Jaicten was employed by C.F. Sharp Crew
class that is constitutionally protected because Management, and was declared fit to work
of the inequality between capital and labor. during his pre-employment medical
(REYES VS. RURAL BANK OF SAN RAFAEL examination. Months later, he started to
BULACAN, INC., G.R. NO. 230597, MARCH 23, experience chest pains for two days. He had a
2022, J. HERNANDO) procedure, balloon dilation with stenting, and
was repatriated to the Philippines.

2. Gavino, Ramil, Armando, etc. are former The company-designated physician certified
drivers/helpers of JR Hauling. They were Jaicten as fit to work, but after seeking a
required to make two trips per day and were second opinion from Dr. Vicaldo, Jaicten was
thus paid Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) per declared unfit to resume sea duties. Hence, he
trip or a total of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) filed a complaint for payment of total and
per day. They averred that the broiler farms are permanent disability benefits. C.F Sharp argued
located in remote and distant areas, they could that Jaicten is not entitled to such, anchored on
only accomplish, on the average, one trip per the assessment of the company-designated
day, and would thus earn only P300.00 per day. physician, declaring him as fit to work.

JR Hauling claimed that these drivers/helpers Is Jaicten entitled to permanent and total
were receiving an average daily salary rate of disabilities?
P600 a day which is beyond the minimum daily
wage rate.
No. Settled is the rule that the company-
designated physician is tasked with assessing

1
the seafarer's disability, whether total or partial, employment abroad, Oliver collected from
due to either injury or illness, during the term these applicants certain amounts of money.
of the latter's employment. However, his or her
assessment is not automatically final, binding or Despite the applicants' repeated inquiries, and
conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the lapse of a considerable length of time,
the courts as its inherent merits would still be Oliver failed to secure overseas employment for
weighed and duly considered. Moreover, the them as promised. He demanded an additional
seafarer has the right to dispute such amount of P1,500.00 from each of the
assessment by consulting his own doctor. In applicants as notarization fee for their papers
addition, in case of disagreement between the submitted to the United States Embassy.
findings of the company-designated physician
and the seafarer's doctor of choice, both parties These applicants filed their complaints with the
may agree to jointly refer the matter to a third NBI, and it was revealed that Oliver has no
doctor whose decision shall be final and binding license or authority to recruit applicants for
on them. overseas employment.

Jaicten anchored his claim on the medical Is Oliver guilty of illegal recruitment in large
certificate issued by his doctor of choice. scale?
However, a perusal of said medical certification
would show that it is not supported by any
diagnostic test and/or procedure as to Yes. Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-
effectively and adequately refute the holder of authority is liable for Illegal
assessments made, and tests administered, by Recruitment when the following elements
the company-designated physician. concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to
As between the findings of the company- lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
designated physicians who conducted of workers; and (2) the offender undertakes
extensive examination on respondent, on one any of the activities within the meaning of
hand, and Dr. Vicaldo, on the other hand, who "recruitment and placement" under Article 13
saw him on only one occasion and did not even (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited
perform any medical test to support his practices enumerated under Section 6 of RA
assessment, the formers should prevail. (C.F. 8042. In the case of Illegal Recruitment in
SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, JAMES FISHER Large Scale, a third element is added: that the
TANKSHIP, LTD., AND/OR MR. RAGAEL T. offender commits any of the acts of recruitment
SANTIAGO VS. JIMMY G. JAICTEN, GR NO. and placement against three or more persons,
208981, FEBRUARY 1, 2021) individually or as a group.

To prove Illegal Recruitment, it must be shown

4. Oliver informed Llave that his aunt, who was that the accused gave the complainants the
based in California, was hiring a data encoder. distinct impression that he or she had the
Llave forwarded her resume to Oliver, and paid power or ability to deploy the complainants
him the amount of P7,000.00 as processing fee abroad in such a manner that they were
for her visa application with the United States convinced to part with their money for that end.
Embassy, for which no receipt was issued. Upon
Oliver's request for other referrals, Llave Here, Oliver has no valid license or authority to
recommended Concrenio, Cherry Beth Barabas, engage in recruitment and placement of
John Daryl De Leon, Sta. Maria, and a certain workers but still engaged in such by offering
Michelle. employment and collecting money in exchange
thereof to a number of applicants. Clearly, the
Oliver offered Concrenio overseas employment acts of Oliver satisfied the elements of illegal
in Canada as a utility worker. Meanwhile, like recruitment in large scale. (PEOPLE OF THE
Barabas and De Leon, Oliver offered Sta. Maria PHILIPPINES VS. OLIVER IMPERIO y ANTONIO
overseas employment with a salary of G.R. No. 232623, October 05, 2020, PER J.
P90,000.00. In consideration for their HERNANDO)

2
5. Manalang represented herself to have the CSA-B explains that the school just opted to
capacity to contract, enlist, and transport separate the reporting of the basic pay from the
Filipino workers for employment abroad honorarium in the computation slip.
without first having secured the required
license or authority from the Department of Was there a diminution of benefit?
Labor. Manalang failed to deploy them, and
failed to repay despite the victims’ demand to
reimburse the expenses incurred by the latter. Yes. There is diminution of benefits when the
following are present: (1) the grant or benefit
Whether Manalang is guilty of illegal is founded on a policy or has ripened into a
recruitment in large scale and estafa. practice over a long period of time; (2) the
practice is consistent and deliberate; (3) the
practice is not due to error in the construction
Yes, Manalang is guilty of illegal recruitment in or application of a doubtful or difficult question
large scale and estafa. of law; and (4) the diminution or
discontinuance is done unilaterally by the
For the crime of illegal recruitment, the employer. In addition to policy or company
following elements must be present: practice, the grant or benefit may also be
founded on a written contract. Consistent with
1. Manalang promised to deploy the the constitutional mandate of protecting the
private complainants for work abroad rights of workers and promoting their welfare,
upon payment of their placement fee; benefits enjoyed by employees cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or
2. Manalang was neither licensed nor
eliminated.
authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment; and The explanation of the school that the amount
3. The illegal recruitment was committed was merely broken down is untenable. It must
in large scale as Manalang defrauded at be emphasized that there was no showing that
least three persons. Dr. Montaño received honorarium prior to her
2009 reappointment as school registrar. Her
For the crime of estafa, the Court found that prior appointments stated that she was to
there was deceit and damage as Manalang’s receive compensation equivalent to a certain
representation induced the victims to part with number of load or units pertaining to her
their money resulting in damage. academic rank; there was no mention of
payment of honorarium then. Thus, it is but fair
The Court further explained that in the crime of and just to conclude that the entire P33,319.00
estafa, damage is essential, unlike in illegal that she had received prior to her 2009
recruitment. Moreover, in illegal recruitment, it reappointment is considered as her monthly
is the lack of the necessary license or authority, basic pay. As it was established that she
and not the fact of payment that renders the continued to receive the same amount of
recruitment activity as unlawful. (PEOPLE OF P33,319.00 despite the addition of honorarium
THE PHILIPPINES VS. AVELINA MANALANG, for the 2009 reappointment, it can be
G.R. NO. 198015, JANUARY 20, 2021, PER J. concluded then that the basic pay indeed was
HERNANDO) reduced. This resulted to diminution of benefit
that is expressly prohibited by the Labor Code.
(COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN-BACOLOD vs
6. Dr. Melinda Montaño claims that her basic MELINDA MONTAÑO, G.R. NO. 212333, March
pay as a school registrar has been reduced by 28, 2022, PER J. HERNANDO)
Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod (CSA-B) from
P33,319 to P26,658.20.
7. Edgardo was diagnosed with ulcerative
colitis and the Dohle’s company-designated
physician opined that Edgardo’s illness is not
work-related. Thus, his claim for permanent

3
disability benefits was denied. Edgardo 8. After 1 month of working in the sea vessel,
consulted a second physician only after filing Darroca started to experience difficulty in
the complaint for disability benefits. The NLRC sleeping and extreme exhaustion. He was
and CA found that the second physician did not diagnosed with major depression and
personally examine Edgardo, thus, his psychomotor retardation and was declared
certification that Edgardo is unfit to work as a unfit to work. Thus, he was repatriated to the
seafarer is not reflective of Edgardo’s actual Philippines for treatment. Upon arrival in the
condition. Philippines, Darroca was referred to a
company-designated physician who examined
Is Edgardo entitled to permanent disability him and found his condition not to be work-
benefits? related or work-aggravated since there were no
elicited conflicts in his associations within his
work environment.
No. Edgardo is not entitled to permanent
disability benefits for his failure to procure a Darroca consulted Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag, a
second physician's opinion, and for failing to clinical psychologist who diagnosed him to be
show that his illness is work-related or work- suffering from "major depression with psychotic
aggravated. features" and was recommended to undergo
continuous psychological and psychiatric
POEA-SEC provides that for an illness to be intervention. Darroca filed a complaint claiming
compensable, two elements must concur: (a) permanent and total disability benefits, but the
the injury or illness must be work-related; and, company refused, alleging that Darroca’s illness
(b) the work-related injury or illness must have was not work-related.
existed during the term of the seafarer's
employment contract. Is the company correct?

The POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as

"any sickness as a result of an occupational Yes. For disability to be compensable under the
disease, and illnesses not listed in the POEA- POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the
SEC may still be compensable as they are injury or illness must be work-related; and (2)
treated as disputably presumed to be work- the work-related injury or illness must have
related. There is no automatic compensation, existed during the term of the seafarer's
however, as the seafarer has to prove the employment contract. It is not sufficient to
correlation of his illness to the nature of his establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has
work and the conditions for compensability rendered him permanently or partially disabled;
should be satisfied. The seafarer must prove by it must also be shown that there is a causal
substantial evidence that "there is a reasonable connection between the seafarer's illness or
causal connection between his illness and the injury and the work for which he had been
work for which he has been contracted." contracted.

Edgardo’s claim for permanent disability Darroca failed to sufficiently establish that his
benefits is premature because he already filed illness is work-related and compensable.
his complaint before he sought the opinion of a
second physician. The cause of action accrues In the absence of substantial evidence, working
when the company-designated physician issues conditions cannot be considered to have caused
a finding that the seafarer's illness is not work- or at least increased the risk of contracting the
related, but the physician of choice and a third mental illness or in this case, major depression
doctor found otherwise that the seafarer is unfit with psychotic features. After all, the onus
to work. Edgardo did not have the required probandi falls on the seafarer to establish his
contrary opinion as he only availed of a second claim for disability benefits and substantially
opinion after he filed the complaint. prove that his work conditions caused or at
(PAGLINAWAN VS. DOHLE PHILMAN AGENCY, least increased the risk of contracting his
G.R. NO. 230735, APRIL 4, 2022, PER J. illness. (EFRAIM DAUT DARROCA VS. CENTURY
HERNANDO)

4
MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., G.R. NO. 234392, RODRIGUEZ VS. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE
NOVEMBER 10, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO) CARRIERS, INC., G.R. NO. 218311, OCTOBER
11, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)

9. While on a cargo-watch duty, Allan figured

in an accident when a turnbuckle fell on his 10. Mabalot complained that he was
right shoulder. He was declared unfit for sea experiencing pain on his left shoulder while on
duty due to his displaced right clavicular sea duties. He was diagnosed with Omarthritis
fracture. The company-designated doctors and was medically repatriated. Dr. Alegre, the
John Ericson T. Sanez and Marilar F. De company designated physician for Maersk-
Guzman, diagnosed Allan with a fractured and Filipinas Crewing, assessed that Mabalot is
displaced right clavicle. suffering from Frozen Shoulder. On February 2,
2012, or 110 days from Mabalot’s repatriation,
Allan consulted his physician of choice and Dr. Alegre issued a Grade 11 interim disability
declared Allan unfit for sea duty. Thus, Allan assessment on Mabalot. The Medical Report
filed a claim for permanent and total disability clearly states it cannot be considered as a
benefits. The company denied the claim, definite and final assessment. Dr. Alegre still
alleging that Allan abandoned his treatment by advised Mabalot to continue with his physical
not showing up on the date of his check-up. therapy, seek consultation with a Rehabilitation
Medicine Specialist and report back on February
Is the company correct? 10, 2012 for a follow-up check-up. Mabalot
informed Dr. Alegre that he wished to seek a
second opinion from a Doctor of his choice and
No. Allan breached his duty by not showing up asked to postpone his treatment with Dr.
on his scheduled appointment thereby Alegre.
effectively preventing Dr. Sanez from making a
final disability assessment. On March 5, 2012, Mabalot consulted Dr.
Jacinto, Jr., who declared him to be suffering
A seafarer commits medical abandonment from permanent total disability and unfit to go
when he fails to complete his treatment before back to work. Mabalot filed a claim for
the lapse of the 240-day period, which prevents permanent and total disability benefits alleging
the company physician from declaring him fit to that despite the continuous medical treatment
work or assessing his disability. Section 20 (D) provided for by the company-designated
of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides that "no physician for more than 120 days, he was still
compensation and benefits shall be payable in unfit to work as a seafarer as he could no longer
respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or raise his left arm and shoulder.
death of the seafarer resulting from his willful
or criminal act or intentional breach of his Is he entitled to permanent and total disability
duties. A seafarer is duty-bound to complete his benefits?
medical treatment until declared fit to work or
assessed with a permanent disability rating by
the company-designated physician. No. The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas
employment to disability benefits is governed
It must be stressed that while the Court by law, the parties' contracts, and the medical
adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of findings of the company-designated physician,
the seafarer, it cannot allow claims for the seafarer's physician of choice and the
compensation based on whims and caprices. opinion of the third doctor.
When the evidence presented negates
compensability, the claim must fail, lest it The rules governing the seafarer's claim for
causes injustice to the employer. disability benefits, is as follows:
● The company-designated physician
Allan is therefore entitled to disability benefits must issue a final medical assessment
equivalent to Grade 12 of POEA-SEC but not to on the seafarer's disability grading
total and permanent disability. (GALLEVO

5
 within a period of 120 days from the physician to make a complete assessment of his
time they reported to him. injury and recommend the appropriate
● If the company-designated physician disability rating, if any.
fails to give his assessment within the
Mabalot cannot rely on the Medical Certificate
period of 120 days, without justifiable issued by his physician of choice. The rule is
reason, then the seafarer's disability that while a seafarer has the right to seek the
becomes permanent and total; opinion of other doctors, such right may be
● If the company-designated physician availed of on the presumption that the
fails to give his assessment within the company-designated doctor had already issued
period of 120 days with a sufficient a definite declaration on the medical condition
of the seafarer, and the seafarer finds it
justification (e.g., seafarer required
disagreeable. Given the lack of certification
further medical treatment or seafarer from the company-designated doctor, Mabalot
was uncooperative), then the period of cannot rely on the assessment made by his own
diagnosis and treatment shall be doctor. (EDGARDO I. MABALOT VS. MAERSK-
extended to 240 days. The employer FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., G.R. NO. 224344
has the burden to prove that the SEPTEMBER 13, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
company-designated physician has
sufficient justification to extend the
11. Charles Idul figured in an accident while
period; and working when the lashing wires broke and hit
● If the company-designated physician his left leg resulting to a fracture. He underwent
still fails to give his assessment within surgery in France and was repatriated back to
the extended period of 240 days, then the Philippines for further medical attention. Dr.
the seafarer's disability becomes Chuasuan, the company-designated physician,
issued a medical report on July 6, 2009 and
permanent and total, regardless of any
gave Idul a Grade 10 disability rating due to
justification. "immobility of the ankle joint in abnormal
position.
A final and definite disability assessment is
necessary in order to truly reflect the true Meanwhile, Idul’s doctor of choice (Dr.
extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer Garduce), assessed Idul to be totally and
and his or her capacity to resume work as such. permanently disabled. Thus, Idul filed a claim
The law steps in and considers the seafarer's for total and permanent disability benefits.
disability as total and permanent when the
company-designated physician fails to arrive at Alster Shipping denied liability for full disability
a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness benefits alleging that Idul was assessed by the
to work or permanent disability within the company-designated physician to be suffering
prescribed periods and if the seafarer's medical from a Grade 10 disability only.
condition remains unresolved.
Is the company correct?
The failure of Dr. Alegre to issue a complete
and definite medical assessment within the
120-day period did not automatically render Yes. The medical reports issued by Dr. Lim and
Mabalot's disability as total and permanent. To Dr. Chuasuan reveal that Idul was examined,
reiterate, the February 2, 2012 Medical Report treated, and rehabilitated for about seven (7)
stated that Mabalot needed to continue physical months. Thereafter, Dr. Chuasuan's
therapy and seek consultation with a assessment of Idul's disability grading was
Rehabilitation Medicine Specialist. Thus, issued on July 6, 2009 or on the 207th day from
Mabalot remained in need of medical attention, December 11, 2008, and therefore, well within
a sufficient justification for the extension of the the 240-day period. Clearly, Idul's condition did
120-day period to the maximum period of 240 not become a permanent total disability just by
days in order for the company-designated the mere lapse of the 120-day period, especially

6
since the extension was necessary for his Report issued by Dr. Donna Delia S. Urlanda of
rehabilitation. YGEIA Medical Clinic declared De Jesus' illness
as not work-related. De Jesus alleged that he
As to the conflicting findings of Dr. Chuasuan did not receive a copy of the said report, the
and Dr. Garduce, the medical findings of Dr. same was unsubstantiated by evidence. De
Chuasuan must prevail. Under Section 20 (A) Jesus never questioned the findings of Dr.
(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, if a doctor appointed Urlanda and her recommendation.
by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment,
a third doctor may be agreed jointly between De Jesus returned to Cebu but all expenses for
the employer and the seafarer, whose decision his treatment was for his own account since
shall be final and binding on both parties. Inter-Orient informed him that he already
received all that was due him. Thus, De Jesus
It bears stressing that the employee seeking filed a complaint for disability benefits.
disability benefits carries the responsibility to
secure the opinion of a third doctor. In fact, the Inter-Orient filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
employee must actively or expressly request for ground of res judicata.
it. The referral to a third doctor has been
recognized by this Court to be a mandatory Is Inter-Orient’s contention tenable?
procedure. Failure to comply therewith is
considered a breach of the POEA-SEC, and
renders the assessment by the company- Yes. The 2000 POEA-SEC provides for the
designated physician binding on the parties. company-designated doctor to assess the
illness of the seafarer or his fitness to return to
Dr. Chuasuan's assessment of a Grade 10 sea duties. In the event the seafarer disagrees
disability, which was a result of months of with the assessment of the company-
consultations, examinations, and treatments, designated physician, he ought to consult his
prevails. It certainly bears more weight than the doctor of choice. It is a cardinal rule in the
findings of Dr. Garduce who only examined Idul interpretation of contracts that if the terms of a
once and based his medical assessment on the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
latter's previous medical history. (CHARLO P. intention of the contracting parties, the literal
IDUL VS. ALSTER INT'L SHIPPING SERVICES, meaning of its stipulation shall control. There is
INC. G.R. NO. 209907, JUNE 23, 2021, PER J. no ambiguity in the wording of the Standard
HERNANDO) Employment Contract — the only qualification
prescribed for the physician entrusted with the
task of assessing the seaman's disability is that
12. De Jesus was diagnosed with Acute he be "company-designated.
Extensive Myocardial Infarction in Egypt. Upon
his arrival in the Philippines on April 12, 2006, Here, instead of consulting his own physician,
De Jesus proceeded directly to the office of De Jesus executed a release and quitclaim in
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises. He inquired favor of Inter-Orient. In executing this
about his unpaid salaries and was told that he document, De Jesus thus impliedly admitted
needed to sign a Quitclaim before his salaries the correctness of the assessment of the
could be released. He signed the Quitclaim company-designated physician, and
without fully understanding its consequences. acknowledged that he could no longer claim for
disability benefits. (ARMANDO H. DE JESUS VS.
De Jesus submitted himself to a medical INTER-ORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC.
examination by the company-designated doctor G.R. NO. 203478, JUNE 23, 2021, PER J.
a day after his arrival in Manila. In that HERNANDO)
examination, it was confirmed that he had
Myocardial Infarction and must undergo
rehabilitation and continuous medication. De 13. Bauzon experienced difficulty in swallowing
Jesus requested for his treatment to be due to severe pain in his throat. He reported his
continued in Cebu, under the supervision of health problem to the vessel's master, but he
Inter-Orient's accredited doctors. The Medical was advised to finish his contract. Since the

7
pain in his throat persisted, he requested for occurred during the term of the
medical repatriation. contract.

On August 4, 2010, he reported his physical and Bauzon was able to substantially prove the
medical condition to EMS Phils. and he was foregoing conditions. As a Seaman on board the
referred to the company’s accredited hospital, vessel, he was exposed to harsh sea weather,
Seamen's Hospital. chemical irritants, dusts, heat, stress brought
about by being away from his family, long hours
On March 9, 2011, Bauzon engaged the of work, and limited and unclean air/oxygen, all
services of his private physician, Dr. Manuel C. of which invariably contributed to his illness.
Jacinto, Jr. where he diagnosed Bauzon with There was at least a reasonable connection
Papillary Cancer, declared him physically unfit between his job and his contracting the throat
to go back to work and his disability to be total ailment during his employment, which
and permanent. Thus, Bauzon filed a complaint eventually developed into papillary cancer.
for payment of disability/medical benefits. (EMS CREW MANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES VS.
ERWIN C. BAUZON G.R. NO. 205385, APRIL 26,
a. Is Bauzon’s illness was work-related? 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
b. Can Bauzon claim disability benefits?

14. After a colostomy surgery, Dominador, who

a. Yes. Bauzon's illness is work-related was employed as "Deck Crew/Rigger" for the
and occurred during the contract of KUMUL Marine Terminal Rejuvenation Works
(KUMUL Project) in Papua New Guinea, was
employment.
discharged and repatriated to the Philippines on
April 8, 2012. He was brought to the Asian
The 2000 POEA-SEC defines "work-related Hospital for check-up and was immediately
injury" as "injury[ies] resulting in disability or admitted per the attending physician's
death arising out of and in the course of recommendation. He was diagnosed with Stage
employment" and work-related illness as "any 3 Colon Cancer.
sickness resulting to disability or death as a
result of an occupational disease listed under Dominador consulted Dr. Jhade Lotus P.
Section 32-A of this contract with the conditions Peneyra for a second opinion. Dr. Peneyra
set therein satisfied." Further, Section 32-A of issued several medical abstracts which stated
the 2000 POEA-SEC listed down the that Dominador's illness was occupation
occupational illnesses that may be related/aggravated and that he was
compensable. permanently unfit for sea duties as a seaman in
any capacity.
Here, Bauzon's ailment of papillary cancer is not
specifically mentioned in said list. However, Dominador initiated a claim for disability
Section 20 (B) (4) of the 2000 POEA-SEC benefits against V People Manpower Phils., Inc.
likewise states that "[t]hose illnesses not listed
in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably V Manpower claimed that they were surprised
presumed as work related." This presumption is that Dominador was claiming disability benefits
limited to "work-relatedness" and does not as a seafarer and not as a land-based worker
extend to compensability. and that there was no evidence that
Dominador's work exposed him to harmful
substances.
b. Yes. Section 20-B of the 2000 POEA-
SEC, which lays out two primary Is Dominador entitled to disability benefits as a
conditions which the seafarer must seafarer?
meet in order for him or her to claim
disability benefits: (i) that the injury or
illness is work-related, and (ii) that it

8
No. Dominador cannot be considered as a jurisprudence, during the subject employment
seafarer and is thus not covered by the period with petitioners, and hence, is not
provisions of law applicable to seafarers only. entitled to any of the benefits reserved for
seafarers under the law, such as the permanent
Contrary to the allegations of Dominador, "M/V and total disability benefits found in the POEA-
KML Platform" does not exist and has no basis SEC. (V PEOPLE MANPOWER PHILS., INC. VS.
in the body of evidence presented before us. DOMINADOR C. BUQUID G.R. NO. 222311,
There is no mention of such a marine vessel in FEBRUARY 10, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
the employment contract between him and
petitioners, nor was there any proof presented
to show that a marine vessel was registered 15. Ville underwent Pre-Employment Medical
under the said name. The employment contract Examination (PEME) as a prerequisite for
simply mentioned that he will be hired as a deployment. In PEME, he disclosed for the first
project employee for the KUMUL Project and time that he has a history of high blood
that the work site is located in Papua, New pressure or hypertension and has been taking
Guinea.55 To reiterate, aside from Dominador's medication. The results of the PEME indicated
bare allegations, there was no mention of any that Ville had Coronary Artery Disease. Hence,
marine vessel or ship that was to be boarded he was declared "Unfit for Sea Duty."
by him.
Under the impression that he contracted the
In this regard, the Court takes notice that the illness while on board Adrian Maersk, Ville filed
KUMUL Marine Terminal Platform is a fixed a Complaint against Maersk-Filipinas for
offshore structure, anchored to the bottom of reimbursement of medical expenses and
the seabed. These allegations bolster the fact sickness allowance, payment of total and
that: 1) Dominador was not aboard any vessel permanent disability benefits, moral and
engaged in maritime navigation or mobile exemplary damages, attorney's fees plus legal
offshore or drilling unit, but a port, which is a interest.
fixed structure by nature; and 2) the said port
is located in the Gulf of Papua New Guinea, Maersk-Filipinas argued that Ville failed to
which only means that it is not located in the present any evidence that he suffer any injury
high seas. or illness during his employment and by his
failure to submit himself to a post-employment
Article 13(g) of the Labor Code defines a medical examination by the company-
seaman as any person employed in a vessel designated doctor within 72 hours or three (3)
engaged in maritime navigation. days upon his repatriation, Ville is disqualified
from any award of disability compensation."
In order to be considered a seaman or seafarer,
one would have to be, at the very least, Is the company correct?
employed in a vessel engaged in maritime
navigation. Thus, it is clear that those employed
in non-mobile vessels or fixed structures, even Yes. Section 18 of the POEA-SEC provides that
if the said vessels/structures are located the employment of the seafarer shall cease
offshore or in the middle of the sea, cannot be when the seafarer completes his period of
considered as seafarers under the law. Further, contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off
An overseas employee, in order to be from the ship and arrives at the point of hire.
considered as a "seafarer," must not only
perform tasks concerning manning marine A "contract between an employer and a
vessels or marine navigation, but they must seafarer ceases upon its completion, when the
also perform such functions onboard a vessel seafarer signs off from the vessel and arrives at
engaged in maritime navigation or a mobile the point of hire." Indeed, "the employment of
offshore rig or drilling unit in the high seas. seafarers and its incidents are governed by the
contracts they sign every time they are hired or
Dominador was clearly not a seafarer under any re-hired. These contracts have the force of law
of the definitions provided under law or between the parties as long as their stipulations

9
are not contrary to law, morals, public order or
public policy." Thus, upon Ville's signing off
from the vessel and repatriation on March 1, No. When a certain sickness or injury causes a
2012 due to the completion of his contract, his temporary and total disability which lasts
employment relationship with Maersk-Filipinas continuously for more than 120 days, then such
correspondingly ceased. Consequently, no total disability is considered to be permanent.
liability should attach to Maersk-Filipinas for However, as an exception to this rule, if the said
any illness or incident that may have been sickness or injury that caused the temporary
acquired or transpire after signing off or total disability requires medical treatment
expiration of his contract, as in this case. beyond the 120-day period but not to exceed
240 days, then the employee is only entitled to
Even on the assumption that Ville's illness is temporary total disability benefits until he is
work-related and that the same was acquired declared as either: 1) "fit to work," which stops
on-board and during the term of his his entitlement to disability benefits; or 2)
employment contract, his suit for disability "permanently and totally disabled," which then
benefits would still fail due to his non- entitles him to permanent total disability
compliance with the three-day reportorial benefits. In any event, if the 240 days had
requirement upon repatriation. lapsed without any certification issued by the
It is a settled rule that non-compliance with the company-designated doctor, then the
post-employment medical examination employee may pursue an action for permanent
requirement is tantamount to a waiver or total disability benefits.
forfeiture of any right to claim disability
benefits. (GERARDO U. VILLE VS. MAERSK- Here, Ronnie was declared fit to work 134 days
FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. G.R. NO. 217879, after the onset of the disability, well within the
FEBRUARY 01, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO) 240-day period, hence not entitled to
permanent disability benefits. (RONNIE L.
SINGSON VS. ARKTIS MARITIME CORP. G.R.
16. Ronnie boarded the M/T Atlanta 2 vessel NO. 214542, JANUARY 13, 2021, PER J.
on January 20, 2010 and commenced his HERNANDO)
employment. He complained of severe stomach
pains but after being confined at the hospital,
he was declared fit to work by the physician. He 17. While working as a Chief Cook on board the
was repatriated because his condition did not vessel, San Juan suffered fatigue, shortness of
improve. breath, and severe headaches. His condition
worsened when he worked on food
A day after his arrival in Manila, he was referred preparations for three (3) consecutive days. On
for a medical check-up at the company's January 23, 2010, San Juan signed off from the
accredited clinic, Christian Medical Clinic, Inc. vessel and was medically repatriated to the
The company physician, Dr. Lyn C. de Leon, Philippines on February 1, 2010. He was
diagnosed Ronnie as suffering from immediately referred to the company-
"cholecystlithiasis and r/o pancreatic pseudo designated physicians for examination and
cyst," with a recommendation for surgery. 134 treatment. After treatment, he was certified as
days after his arrival, he underwent an normal and fit to work for seaman duties on
examination where he was declared by the April 20, 2010 and April 30, 2010.
company-physician as fit to work.
On May 26, 2010 San Juan filed a complaint for
Ronie filed a complaint for the payment of permanent disability benefits alleging that
disability benefits alleging that the fit to work although he has a Certificate of Fitness for
declaration was absurd since he still had to Work, he was not rehired by Philippines
undergo surgery even after such declaration Transmarine Carriers Inc. (PTCI). on July 8,
was made. 2010, San Juan sought the opinion of Dr.
Pascual, his own physician. It is on the basis of
Whether Ronnie is entitled to permanent finding of his physician i.e., that he is "medically
disability benefits. unfit to work in any capacity as seaman," that

10
San Juan is claiming for permanent total SEACORP called him for possible deployment.
disability benefits. He was sent to the company-accredited clinic
for his pre-employment medical examination.
Is San Juan is entitled to his claim of permanent The doctor asked him to get an x-ray of his
disability benefits since his physician certified scrotal/inguinal area and lumbar spine. Cabatan
him as unfit to work? asked for financial assistance from SEACORP
considering that he sustained his injury during
his employment.
No, San Juan is not entitled to permanent
disability benefits because his doctor's The LA ruled in favor of Cabatan but was
certification does not prevail over the findings reversed by the CA. The NLRC posits that
of the company physician. Cabatan’s failure to report within the
mandatory period without justifiable cause
To definitively clarify how a conflict situation resulted in the forfeiture of his right to claim
should be handled, upon notification that the compensation and disability benefits.
seafarer disagrees with the company doctor's
assessment based on the duly and fully Is the NLRC correct?
disclosed contrary assessment from the
seafarer's own doctor, the seafarer shall then
signify his intention to resolve the conflict by YES. In order to claim compensability under its
the referral of the conflicting assessments to a Section 20 (B) paragraph 3, it is required that
third doctor whose ruling, under the POEA-SEC, the seafarer must have: (1) suffered a work-
shall be final and binding on the parties. Upon related illness or injury during the term of his
notification, the company carries the burden of contract; (2) submitted himself to a mandatory
initiating the process for the referral to a third post-employment medical examination within 3
doctor commonly agreed between the parties. working days upon his arrival. The purpose of
San Juan was duty-bound to actively request this three-day mandatory reporting
that the disagreement between his physician's requirement is to enable the company-
findings and that of the findings of PTCI's designated physician to ascertain if the
company-designated physicians be referred to seafarer’s injury or illness is work-related.
a final and binding third opinion. The records,
however, are bereft of any such evidence that It is evident that Cabatan was repatriated due
San Juan requested PTCI to refer the conflicting to the expiration of his contract. REGARDLESS
assessments of the physicians to a third doctor, OF THE CAUSE OF HIS REPATRIATION, he was
hence he is not entitled to permanent disability. required to submit himself to a post-
(PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC. employment medical examination by the
VS. ALMARIO C. SAN JUAN, G.R. NO. 207511, company-designated physician within three
OCTOBER 5, 2020, PER J. HERNANDO) working days upon his return in order to
ascertain if he was really suffering from a work-
related injury or illness. Cabatan may only be
18. Cabatan was employed as an oiler by excused from such a requirement if he was
Southeast Asia Corp. (SEACORP). While physically incapacitated to do so. However,
Cabatan was on his 12-hour duty, the spare such is not the case at bar. (CABATAN V.
parts assigned to one of the generators he was SOUTHEAST ASIA SHIPPING CORP., G.R. NO.
tasked to repair were delivered. While he was 219495, FEBRUARY 28, 2022, PER J.
carrying the spare parts and a heavy HERNANDO)
connecting rod, the vessel, which has a
restricted alley, suddenly swayed due to the big
waves. This caused him to bend and nearly fall 19. While on board the vessel, Destriza, a
to his knees. Then, he felt excruciating pain in seafarer, experienced abdominal pain and later
his scrotal/inguinal area. Cabatan disembarked diagnosed with billary duct stone, jaundice, and
upon the expiration of his contract on May 25, suspected pancreatitis. After his discharge\, he
2010. was medically repatriated to the Philippines.

11
Destriza was evaluated by FSC’s company CORPORATION G.R. No. 203539, February 10,
physician and was declared as fit to work. 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)

However, Destriza insisted that he remained 20. Gerome alleged that he was hired by JTA
unfit as he continued to experience recurring Packaging Corporation as an all-around driver
and severe abdominal pains. He underwent a on December 26, 2014. Jon, without any
medical check-up with Dr. May S. Donato-Tan reason, hit Gerome with a gun and kicked him
where he was declared unfit to resume work as several times. Out of fear, Gerome decided not
a seaman. to report to work. Gerome alleged that he was
constructively dismissed as his continued
Destriza filed the labor complaint claiming that employment became impossible, unbearable
he contracted his illness during his employment and unlikely.
with FSC and Boseline due to the poor working
conditions in the vessels. JTA Corporation alleged that Gerome was not
its employee. Gerome's name is not included in
Was Destriza entitled to disability benefits? the alphalist of its employees filed with the BIR,
payroll monthly reports, SSS, PhilHealth and
PAG-Ibig contributions.
No. Destriza failed to prove by substantial
evidence that his illness was work-related or a. Whether or not ER-EE relationship
was at least aggravated by his work as cook in existed between Gerome and JTA
M/V Cygnus. Corporation?
b. Whether or not Gerome has the burden
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 9 provides that
of proving the ER-EE relationship.
for an illness or injury to be compensable, it
must be work-related and must be incurred
during the term of the seafarer's contract. It
likewise enumerates the various diseases that a. No. There is no ER-EE relationship
are considered as occupational diseases when between Gerome and JTA Corporation.
contracted under the working conditions
involving the risks described therein. It further Jurisprudence provides for a "four-fold test" in
provides that those illnesses not listed in determining the existence of an employer-
Section 32 of this Contract are disputably employee relationship, to wit: (a) the selection
presumed as work-related, however, the and engagement of the employee; (b) the
seafarer still has the burden to establish, by payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal;
substantial evidence, that his illness is work- and (d) the power to control the employee's
related. As stated, the disputable presumption conduct.
does not amount to an automatic grant of
compensation. To prove the element of payment of wages,
Gerome submitted pay slips but the pay slip
Destriza's failure to resort to a third-doctor bore no indication as to their source. Absent
opinion proved fatal to his cause. It is settled any clear indication that Gerome was allegedly
that in case of disagreements between the receiving, payment of wages as an element of
findings of the company-designated physician ER-EE relationship cannot be concretely
and the seafarer's doctor of choice, resort to a established.
third-doctor opinion is mandatory. The third-
doctor opinion is final and binding between the With regard to the power of control, the
parties. The opinion of the company-designated purported driver's itineraries he presented
physician prevails over that of the seafarer's prescribed the manner by which his work as a
personal doctor in case there is no third-doctor driver is to be carried out, but said driver's
opinion. Thus, Dr. Cruz's declaration that itineraries were not signed by JTA's authorized
Destriza is fit to resume sea duties prevails over personnel.
the medical opinion issued by Dr. Donato-Tan.
(FLORENCIO B. DESTRIZA VS. FAIR SHIPPING

12
 b. YES. Gerome has the burden to prove As to the power of dismissal, the records reveal
the existence of ER-EE. that petitioners submitted letters of resignation
as directors of CyberOne PH and not as
Settled is the rule that the burden of proof is on employees thereof. This fact negates their
the party making the allegation. Since it is contention that they were dismissed by
Gerome who is claiming to be an employee of CyberOne PH as its employees. Lastly, the
JTA, the burden of proving the existence of an power of control of CyberOne PH over
employer-employee relationship lies upon him. petitioners is not supported by evidence on
Unfortunately, he failed to discharge this record. To reiterate, petitioners failed to prove
burden. Gerome is a stranger and was never an the manner by which CyberOne PH allegedly
employee of JTA. He presented no evidence to supervised and controlled their work. In fact,
prove the terms of his employment, like a petitioners failed to mention their functions and
contract of employment or a company ID. duties as employees of CyberOne PH. They
(GEROME B. GINTA-ASON VS. J.T.A. merely relied on their allegations that they were
PACKAGING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 244206, hired and paid by CyberOne PH without
MARCH 16, 2022, PER J. HERNANDO) specifying the terms of their employment as
well as the degree of control CyberOne PH had
over the means and method by which their
21. Maria and Marie alleged that they were work would be accomplished. (MARIA LEA JANE
hired by Mikrut as part-time home-based I. GESOLGON VS. CYBERONE PH., INC. G.R.
remote Customer Service Representative (CSR) No. 210741, October 14, 2020, Per J.
by CyberOne Pty. Ltd., an Australian company. Hernando)
They became dummy directors of CyberOne PH
and were promoted as managers.
22. Regala was hired by Manila Hotel
Sometime in 2010, Mikrut required them to Corporation as one of its waiters in 2000. In the
choose between taking an indefinite furlough, course of his employment, he worked for 6 days
or to tender a resignation. They pick the first to every week and Manila Hotel remitted his
save their jobs. Their salaries were reduced, contributions to SSS and PhilHealth. In
and consequently, they filed a case for illegal December 2009, Manila Hotel reduced his
dismissal. regular work days to 2 days.

Mikrut denied that any ER-EE relationship Regala alleged that he was not recognized as a
existed between them as Maria and Marie were regular employee despite having rendered
incorporators and directors and not regular services for several years. He also claimed that
employees. he was constructively dismissed when his work
days were reduced by the Hotel.
Are Maria and Marie employees of Mikrut?
Manila Hotel denied that Regala was its regular
employee claiming that he is a mere freelancer
or extra waiter. Manila Hotel presented the
No. Marie and Marie failed to present evidence
fixed-term service contract with Regala.
that they rendered services to CyberOne PH as
employees thereof.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit, stating that Regala was a fixed-
The four-fold test used in determining the
term employee of MHC.
existence of employer- employee relationship
involves an inquiry into: (a) the selection and
The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, noting
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment
that MHC failed to furnish a copy of Regala's
of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d)
written contract executed at the time of his
the employer's power to control the employee
engagement, which would show that he was
with respect to the means and method by which
engaged for a fixed period or duration. In the
the work is to be accomplished
absence of a clear agreement or contract, the
NLRC held that Regala enjoys the presumption

13
of regular employment in his favor. The NLRC in the volume of its business since February
also emphasized that Regala's position as 2000. Thus, the continuing need for his services
waiter required him to perform activities which for the past several years is also sufficient
are usually necessary and desirable to the usual evidence of the indispensability of his duties as
trade and business of MHC. waiter to MHC's business. (ALLAN REGALA VS
MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION G.R. No.
The CA reversed the NLRCs decision. 204684, October 05, 2020, Per J. Hernando)

Was Regala Manila Hotel’s regular employee?

23. Parayday alleged that he was employed as
a fitter by Oceanview/VRC Lighterage in
Yes. Regala is performing activities which are October 1996. In support of his allegation as an
necessary and desirable, if not indispensable, in employee, he presented a copy of his
the business of MHC. Moreover, Regala has Oceanview ID and COE dated February 5, 2001.
been working for MHC for several years since
February 2000. In 2003, Oceanview changed its corporate
name to “Shogun Ships, Inc.”, but maintained
The employment status of a person is defined the same line of business and retained in its
and prescribed by law and not by what the employ Oceanview employees.
parties say it should be. Article 295 of the Labor
Code "provides for two types of regular During Parayday’s assignment in Bataan, an
employees, namely: (a) those who are engaged explosion occurred which caused him to suffer
to perform activities which are usually third degree burns. Although medical expenses
necessary or desirable in the usual business or were borne by Shogun, they were not paid their
trade of the employer; and (b) those who have salaries while in hospital confinement.
rendered at least one year of service, whether Subsequently, he was verbally dismissed due to
continuous or broken, with respect to the lack of work as a fitter.
activity in which they are employed."
Shogun denied that Parayday was a regular
Regala is performing activities which are usually employee, maintaining that Oceanview and
necessary or desirable in the business or trade Shogun was a separate and distinct entity.
of MHC. This connection can be determined by Shogun alleged that Parayday was a helper
considering the nature of the work performed brought in by regular employees of Shogun
by Regala and its relation to the nature of the Ships on certain occasions when repairs were
particular business or trade of MHC in its needed to be done on its barges.
entirety. Being part of the hotel and food
industry, MHC, as a service oriented business Was Parayday a regular employee of Shogun?
enterprise, depends largely on its manpower
complement to carry out or perform services
relating to food and beverage operations, event Yes. In determining the existence of an
planning and hospitality. As such, it is essential, employer-employee relationship, the Supreme
if at all necessary, that it retains in its employ Court has invariably adhered to the fourfold
waiting staff, such as Regala, specifically tasked test, viz.: (1) the selection and engagement of
to attend to its guests at its various dining the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
establishments. the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee's conduct, or the so called
The fact alone that Regala was allowed to work "control test," considered to be the most
for MHC on several occasions for several years important element.
under various Service Agreements is indicative
of the regularity and necessity of his functions Shogun Ships engaged him as its employee,
to its business. Moreover, it bears to emphasize paid his salaries for services rendered; and had
that MHC has admitted, albeit implicitly, that it ultimate discretion to dismiss his services after
renewed Regala's Service Agreements on the needed repairs on the barges were carried
various occasions, i.e., during temporary spikes out. As regards Shogun Ship's power of control

14
over Parayday, Shogun contended that Shogun were informed at the time of their hiring, that
Ships did not direct the manner and method in they were project employees. Moreover,
which Parayday did his work. It bears petitioner's failure to file termination reports at
emphasis, however, that the control test calls the end of each project was an indication that
merely for the existence of the right to control respondents were regular employees.
the manner of doing the work and not the (EDUARDO G. JOVERO VS. ROGELIO CERIO
actual exercise of the right. (PEDRITO R. G.R. No. 202466, June 23, 2021, Per J.
PARAYDAY VS. SHOGUN SHIPPING CO. INC. Hernando)
G.R. No. 204555, July 06, 2020, Per J.
Hernando)
25. ECCA claimed that Segundo, who was hired
as project employee but without any written
24. Rogelio was hired by Sigma Corporation contract, was validly terminated in view of the
and Eduardo as cement cutters at the Philippine project's completion. It pointed out he was not
Geothermal, Inc.(PGI). PGI pre-terminated one a regular employee, but merely a project
of its contracts with Sigma. Due to such employee since he was hired for a specific
termination, the project manager of Sigma project or undertaking, the termination of
issued a notice to all cement cutters, informing which was determined at the time they were
them that the contract with PGI will be effective hired.
only until April 30, 1993.
Segundo claimed that ECCA hired them on
Rogelio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal different dates to perform tasks which were
against Sigma Corporation and PGI. necessary and desirable in its construction
business. However, ECCA informed them that
Sigma claimed that as a project employee, his the cause of their termination was "project
employment may be terminated upon completion." He further claimed that ECCA
completion or expiration of the project for continuously employed them for different
which they have been engaged in. Accordingly, construction projects of the company.
PGI's pre-termination of the contract with However, they did not enjoy the benefits given
Sigma entailed Sigma's termination as well. by the company to its regular employees, such
as, Christmas bonuses, hospitalization benefits,
Was Rogelio a project employee of Sigma? sick leaves, vacation leaves and service
incentive leaves, among others.

No. The principal test in determining whether Was Segundo a project employee?
an employee is a project employee is whether
he/she is assigned to carry out a "specific
project or undertaking," the duration and scope No. Settled is the rule that "although the
of which are specified at the time the employee absence of a written contract does not by itself
is engaged in the project, or where the work or grant regular status to the employees, it is
service to be performed is seasonal in nature evidence that they were informed of the
and the employment is for the duration of the duration and scope of their work and their
season. A true project employee should be status as project employees at the start of their
assigned to a project which begins and ends at engagement. When no other evidence is
determined or determinable times, and be offered, the absence of employment contracts
informed thereof at the time of hiring. raises a serious question of whether the
employees were sufficiently apprised at the
The presentation of service contracts between start of their employment of their status as
the employer and their client (even if it shows project employees. Further, a project employee
the duration of the project), in lieu of the "is one whose employment has been fixed for a
employees' individual employment contracts, specific project or undertaking, the completion
does not establish that the latter are project or termination of which has been determined at
employees. There was no other substantial the time of the engagement of the employee."
evidence offered to prove that respondents

15
Here, ECCA failed to persuasively show that contributions to SSS and PhilHealth. In
Segundo was informed at the time of his December 2009, Manila Hotel reduced his
engagement that his work was only for the regular work days to 2 days.
duration of the project. (ENGINEERING &
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF ASIA VS. Regala alleged that he was not recognized as a
SEGUNDINO PALLE G.R. No. 201247, July 13, regular employee despite having rendered
2020, Per J. Hernando) services for several years. He also claimed that
he was constructively dismissed when his work
days were reduced by the Hotel.
26. Arlene started working as a Casual or
Assistant Clinical Instructor for two semesters Manila Hotel denied that Regala was its regular
in Holy Name University. When she was elected employee claiming that he is a mere freelancer
as a Municipal Councilor in Carmen, Bohol, she or extra waiter. Manila Hotel presented the
took a leave of absence from NHU. fixed-term service contract with Regala.

Arlene argued that since she taught at HNU for Was Regala Manila Hotel’s fixed-term
more than six consecutive regular semesters, employee?
she already attained the status of a regular
employee pursuant to the Manual of
Regulations for Private School Teachers. No. A fixed-term employment, while not
expressly mentioned in the Labor Code, has
HNU contended that the completion of Arlene’s been recognized as a type of employment
probationary period did not automatically make "embodied in a contract specifying that the
her a permanent employee since she failed to services of the employee shall be engaged only
comply with all the conditions of her for a definite period, the termination of which
probationary employment. occurs upon the expiration of said period
irrespective of the existence of just cause and
Was Arlene a regular employee of HNU? regardless of the activity the employee is called
upon to perform." Further, the fixed-term
character of employment essentially refers to
No. The Manual of Regulations for Private the period agreed upon between the employer
Schools and not the Labor Code determines and the employee.
whether or not a faculty member in a private
educational institution has attained a Here, the service agreements presented by
permanent or regular status. Manila Hotel cannot be regarded as true fixed-
term employment contracts as they do not
The requisites before a private school teacher specify the periods of their expiration. (ALLAN
acquires permanent status are: 1) The teacher REGALA VS. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION
serves full-time; 2) he/she must have rendered G.R. No. 204684, October 05, 2020, Per J.
three consecutive years of service; and 3) such Hernando)
service must have been satisfactory.

Since Arlene was not a full-time teacher, she 28. On December 25, 2011, Santos rendered
failed to satisfy all the elements before a private only a half day work without prior authorization.
school teacher acquires permanent status. Salmasan did not report at all. They claimed
(ARLENE PALGAN VS. HOLY NAME UNIVERSITY that in view thereof, they were dismissed from
G.R. NO. 219916, FEBRUARY 10, 2021, PER J. employment. They averred that when they tried
HERNANDO) to report for work, their chief cook told them
that they were already terminated by King Chef.

27. Regala was hired by Manila Hotel King Chef argued that they violated the
Corporation as one of its waiters in 2000. In the memorandum that no absences would be
course of his employment, he worked for 6 days allowed on December 25, 26, 31 and January 1
every week and Manila Hotel remitted his unless justified. After they failed to report for

16
work on December 25, and returned the mental attitude rendering the employee's act
following day merely to get their share in the inconsistent with proper subordination.
accrued tips, they allegedly went on absence
without leave (AWOL) for the rest of the Th refusal of Reyes to certify said report is
Christmas season. based on his honest assessment that the report
cannot be completely validated for lack of
Were Santos and Salmasan illegally dismissed material data and evidence. Thus, imposing the
from work? ultimate penalty of dismissal for a disobedient
employee is simply too harsh and downright
unlawful. (REYES VS. RURAL BANK OF SAN
No. In cases of illegal dismissal, it is well-settled RAFAEL BULACAN, INC., G.R. NO. 230957,
that the employees must first establish by MARCH 23, 2022, J. HERNANDO)
substantial evidence that indeed they were
dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there
can be no question as to the legality or illegality 30. Claiming that she merely continued the
thereof. practice of previous registrars, Dr. Melinda
Montaño allowed some students of Colegio San
Here, they merely alleged that they were Agustin-Bacolod (CSA-B) to graduate even if
terminated by their chief cook and were barred they did not pass some of their subjects.
from entering the restaurant, without offering
any substantial evidence to prove the same. She was dismissed by CSA-B for gross
They failed to provide any document, notice of misconduct resulting in loss of trust and
termination or even any letter or confidence.
correspondence regarding their termination.
Aside from their bare allegations, they did not Is the dismissal valid?
present any proof which would at least indicate
that they were in fact dismissed. (EFREN
SANTOS, JR. VS. KING CHEF G.R. NO. 211073, Yes. The Labor Code provides for the just
NOVEMBER 25, 2020, PER J. HERNANDO) causes for the valid termination of employment
which includes serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful
29. In an illegal dismissal case against a bank’s orders of his employer or representative in
compliance officer who refused to certify a connection with his work
report claiming that no investigation was
conducted, the bank claims that they were Dr Montaño committed serious misconduct in
denied due process as there were no summons allowing ineligible students to march. She
sent to them after the filing of the amended violated an established school policy as
complaint. The bank contends that rules should espoused in a memorandum which states that
be relaxed and liberally interpreted in favor of no student will be allowed to march for
the employer. graduation unless he/she has fully complied
with all the academic requirements of his/her
Is the employee’s refusal to certify a report with course." (COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN-BACOLOD vs
justifiable reason a ground for dismissal? MELINDA MONTAÑO, G.R. NO. 212333, March
28, 2022)

No. For willful disobedience to be a ground, it

is required that: (a) the conduct of the 31. Ballesteros, working as an administrative
employee must be willful or intentional and (b) staff for SPID Corp, was asked by the President
the order the employee violated must have and Chief Executive Officer of the company to
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the resign because she was pregnant. Ballesteros
employee, and must pertain to the duties that then availed of the maternity leave and went
he had been engaged to discharge. Willfulness back to the office to inform the Personnel
must be attended by a wrongful and perverse Officer of SPID of her refusal to resign. The
latter then offered Ballesteros two options:

17
either file for resignation or the company will 32. Evelina E. Belarso was hired by Quality
terminate her. House as supervisor of the Raw Materials
Warehouse. At one instance, Belarso submitted
Ballesteros' employment was terminated based herself to the routinary outgoing inspection and
on her incompetence and inefficiency in the body frisking of employees and a belt buckle
performance of duties. SPID Corp. lost its was found inside her bag whereby she had no
confidence and trust in Ballesteros because of gate pass or authorization to bring out the said
her continued neglect of duty and habitual item from the warehouse.
absences and tardiness.
Belarso received a notice placing her under
While on maternity leave, Ballesteros preventive suspension and requiring her to
discovered that the company withheld her submit a written explanation within 48 hours.
salary and that it would be released only if she She submitted her written explanation denying
would process her SSS Maternity benefits and all the accusations against her. She explained
tender her resignation. She still refused to that her co-employees framed her up by putting
resign, and thereafter the company informed the belt buckle inside her bag without her
her of her termination from service. knowledge. Quality House found Belarso’s
explanation to be unsatisfactory and that her
Was Ballesteros validly terminated from employment was terminated for stealing
employment? company property and for loss of trust and
confidence.

No. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause Is there a just cause to terminate her
for dismissal, these two elements must concur: employment?
(1) the employee's assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness being
characterized by "a wrongful and perverse Yes. Loss or breach of trust and confidence, as
attitude"; and (2) the order violated must have a just cause for termination by an employer, is
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the based on Article 297 of the Labor Code.
employee, and must pertain to the duties which Jurisprudence provides for two conditions
he had been engaged to discharge. before an employee may be dismissed for such
cause:
Further, loss of trust and confidence may be a
just case for termination of employment only First: Breach of trust and confidence must be
upon proof that: (1) the dismissed employee premised on the fact that the employee
occupied a position of trust and confidence; and concerned holds a position of trust and
(2) the dismissed employee committed "an act confidence, where greater trust is placed by
justifying the loss of trust and confidence. management and from whom greater fidelity to
duty is correspondingly expected. The essence
SPID failed to prove by substantial evidence of the offense for which an employee is
that Ballesteros was habitually absent or penalized is the betrayal of such trust.
willfully violated the verbal instructions that
would show that the company gave clear verbal Second: There must be some basis for the loss
instructions regarding the preparation of of trust and confidence. The employer must
deposit slips. The presentation of the certified present clear and convincing proof of an actual
true copies of Ballesteros' leave ledger does not breach of duty committed by the employee by
sufficiently establish the required habituality of establishing the facts and incidents upon which
neglect that would merit her dismissal. the loss of confidence in the employee may
(SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND fairly be made to rest. This means that "the
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MICHELLE employer must establish the existence of an act
ELVI C. BALLESTEROS G.R. NO. 217119, APRIL justifying the loss of trust and confidence."
25, 2022, PER J. HERNANDO)
Here, Belarso never denied in her Petition that
she held a position of trust and confidence.

18
Further, QHI was able to establish the basis of be based on a willful breach of trust and
its loss of trust on Belarso which is her violation founded on clearly established facts.
of the company rule prohibiting the stealing or
attempting to steal company property. Here, PRBFI never really proved with
(EVELINA E. BELARSO V. QUALITY HOUSE, INC substantial evidence the alleged involvement of
G.R. NO. 209983, NOVEMBER 10, 2021, PER J. Violeta in the contamination of its products.
HERNANDO) Likewise, loss of trust and confidence as a
ground to dismiss an employee is inapplicable
to Violeta.
33. Violeta averred that they were dismissed
from work without a prior investigation or an Violetas’ positions as coconut parers are
opportunity to air their side. They claimed that essential in PRBFI's business of coconut
their suspension and eventual dismissal from products, but in no case do they fit the job
work was PRBFI's retaliatory measure against description of managerial employees and
theirs' complaint for non-regularization. fiduciary rank-and-file employees. Manual work
such as paring coconuts for commercial
PRBFI claimed that they never contested the production is a task that does not entail being
accusations against them during the routinely entrusted with the care and custody
investigations. It avers that by way of default, of money and property belonging to the
these are deemed to have admitted the truth of company like fiduciary rank-and-file employees.
the said allegations and therefore ultimately Much less can coconut parers be considered to
liable. be directly involved in the management and
policy-making of their employer as managerial
PRBFI claimed that they were validly dismissed employees. (PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS,
for just causes, i.e., serious misconduct, willful INC. VS. VIOLETA NOCHE G.R. No. 202392,
disobedience, and fraud or willful breach of the October 04, 2021, Per J. HERNANDO)
trust reposed in them by PRBFI, since as
coconut parers, they were employees who held
positions of trust and confidence affecting the 34. The University of Cordillera dismissed
entire coconut processing system of PRBFI. Lacanaria on the ground of serious misconduct
and conduct unbecoming of an academician.
Are they validly dismissed? They aver that Flores was forced to attend and
engage in the activity even when he was sick,
given that non-participation would warrant a
No. Bare suspicion is not a just cause to fire any grade of zero for the subject requirement. They
employee. Bare suspicion that the employee is assert that Flores' groupmates tried to assist
doing something detrimental to the interests of him but were prevented by Lacanaria when the
the employer is just a hunch, a mere gut feeling professor instructed them to return to their
that cannot amount to substantial evidence. A seats and to give way to the next presenters.
reasonable mind requires reason. Mere
allegations are not legally compelling unless The University of Cordillera issued a charge
proved. sheet with Notice of Investigation to Lacanaria.
He was directed to file an answer within five
Further, two requisites must concur for a valid days from receipt thereof.
termination of employment due to loss of trust
and confidence: First, the employee concerned Lacanaria failed to appear in the hearings,
must be one holding a position of trust and resulting in the waiver of his right to present his
confidence, thus, one who is either: (1) a evidence. Lacanaria then filed MR denying
managerial employee; or (2) a fiduciary rank- receipt of any notice regarding the hearing. He
and-file employee, who, in the normal exercise emphasized that the ruling which ordered his
of his or her functions, regularly handles dismissal came from the Office of the VP for
significant amounts of money or property of the Administration without any attached decision.
employer. Second, the loss of confidence must

19
Lacanaria questions the validity of the NOC's Technical Head, Rosellon explained that
dismissal. he was delisted from the said training due to
the expiration of his contract as would be
a. Was Lacanaria validly dismissed? further explained to him by the Human
b. Did UC comply with procedural due process? Resource Department.

After some time, Ibay was urged to submit his

a. Yes. It is within the management prerogative resignation letter and in exchange, Inter-Island
of the University to dismiss Lacanaria because would issue a Certificate of Employment which
it cannot be compelled to retain an employee he could use as reference for his application in
who acts contrary to its vision and interests. As other companies. Lam also threatened to block
such, "when professionals and educators his applications with other companies should he
violate the ethical standards of the profession refuse to resign. Consequently, Ibay was
to which they belong and for which they train allegedly prevented from entering Inter-
students, education institutions employing Island's premises. Hence, Ibay filed a complaint
them are justified in relieving them of their for illegal dismissal.
teaching posts and in taking other appropriate
precautionary or punitive measures." Inter-Island further averred that Ibay's work
continued to deteriorate until he abandoned his
b. No. To comply with procedural due process work and that Ibay was not terminated and
and validly dismiss an employee, the employer was, in fact, ordered to return to work.
is required to follow the two-notice rule. In
general, "first, an initial notice must be given to Was Ibay illegally dismissed?
the employee, stating the specific grounds or
causes for the dismissal. It must direct the
submission of a written explanation answering YES. The non-abandonment of work proves the
the charges. Second, after considering the lack of intention to sever th employer-employee
employee's answer, an employer must give relationship with the company.
another notice providing the findings and
reason for termination." Here, Ibay did not abandon his work in Inter-
Island as in fact he immediately filed a
While the University's own grievance procedure complaint for illegal dismissal after he was
is clear that an investigation should be prevented from entering the company
conducted and that the respondent-employee premises. Ibay's intent to earn a living during
should be informed of the particulars of the the pendency of the labor case should not be
hearing, the Charge Sheet failed to inform taken against him. Besides, even if he allegedly
Lacanaria of the date, time and place of the applied for a new job abroad, Inter-Island's
hearing, even if the grievance procedure of the illegal dismissal of Ibay and the latter's
University requires it. (UNIVERSITY OF THE subsequent filing of a complaint were fait
CORDILLERAS VS. BENEDICTO F. LACANARIA accompli, having already been accomplished
G.R. NO. 223665, SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 , PER way before Ibay's alleged application for work
J. HERNANDO) abroad.

This cannot erase the fact that the company

35. Inter-Island hired Ibay as a technical illegally dismissed its employee without just and
support in its Network Operations Center authorized cause and prevented the latter from
(NOC). Into seven (7) months of his entering the company premises. (INTER-
employment, Ibay received a Memorandum ISLAND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. VS.
issued by a certain Scott Lam (Lam) informing COURT OF APPEALS G.R. NO. 187323, JUNE
him of his inclusion in the Q Linux Schedule of 23, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
Training. However, in a subsequent revised
Memorandum signed by Lam, Ibay was delisted
as one of the trainees. When Ibay discussed his 36. Salvacion A. Lamadrid worked as a cabin
exclusion with Marianne Rosellon (Rosellon), crew and rendered about 17 years of service in

20
Cathay, and held the position of Senior Purser. enrolling her children and relatives, under the
In one instance, the Airport Services Officer of University's group enrollment incentive
Cathay in Sydney Airport, received a report program despite knowing that they were
from a customer that some crew members of unqualified. Upon discovery of the fraudulent
Cathay flight CX 139, including Lamadrid, were scheme in November 2007, Atty. Ortega
caught in possession of goods after alighting immediately ordered an investigation and called
from the aircraft. a conference with the alleged perpetrators.

Cathay requested Lamadrid to submit a written During the conference, Bance was apprised of
explanation regarding such incident and to the infractions she committed. During the
show cause why no disciplinary action should conference, she admitted that their children
be imposed against her since removal of and relatives indeed benefitted from the
company property without authorization is unauthorized discounts. Atty. Ortega thus
considered a serious misconduct. Lamadrid verbally informed them that their employment
submitted her reply-letter denying the will be terminated.
allegations against her. Cathay then informed
Lamadrid of the termination of her services Susan contended that her dismissal was illegal
effective immediately for committing serious for lack of just or authorized causes. Is Susan
misconduct by removing company property correct?
without authorization. According to Cathay, it
could no longer repose its trust and confidence
in Lamadrid considering the seriousness of her No. The Labor Code provides for the instances
violation. when an employer may terminate an
employment due to just cause which includes
Was Lamadrid illegally dismissed? fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative. To constitute willful
Yes. All circumstances must be considered, and breach of trust, the employee concerned must
the penalty must be commensurate to the be holding a position of trust and confidence,
violation committed by an employee. and there must be a willful act that would justify
Termination of the services of an employee the loss of trust and confidence.
should be the employer's last resort especially
when other disciplinary actions may be Susan’s position as Senior Accounts Officer
imposed, considering the employee's long years being supervisory in nature, can be considered
of service in the company, devoting time, as a position of trust. A supervisory position is
effort, and invaluable service in line with the considered a position of trust because of the
employer's goals and mission. high degree of honesty and responsibility
required and expected of the employee as
During Lamadrid's span of employment, she did compared with ordinary rank and file
not commit any infraction or was ever employees.
sanctioned except in the incident subject of the
present controversy. To impose a penalty as Susan willfully breached the trust that the
grave as dismissal for a first offense and University has reposed on her when it act
considering the value of the property allegedly accommodated into the University's group
taken would be too harsh under the enrollment incentive program the unqualified
circumstances. Therefore, Lamadrid was beneficiaries, including the children and
illegally dismissed from service. (SALVACION A. relatives of the petitioners. (SUSAN M. BANCE
LAMADRID VS. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS VS. UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANTHONY G.R. NO.
LIMITED G.R. NO. 200658, JUNE 23, 2021, PER 202724, FEBRUARY 03, 2021, PER J.
J. HERNANDO) HERNANDO)

37. Bance was found to have taken advantage 38. As a company policy, Leyte Lumber's sales
of her position in the Accounting Office by representatives were prohibited from getting

21
items or stocks from the storage area by measured up to the minimum evidential
themselves. Gososo, a sales representative, requirement from Gososo. Mere acts of
allegedly overstepped the boundaries of Leyte hostility, however grave, committed by the
Lumber's company policies. On October 6, employer towards the employee cannot on their
2008, he was on his way to the stockroom to lonesome be construed as an overt directive of
follow up on a customer's urgent order when dismissal from work. (FERNANDO C. GOSOSO
Yu stopped him. The next day, Yu saw Gososo VS. LEYTE LUMBER YARD G.R. NO. 205257,
step out of the store to check the availability of JANUARY 13, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
a ball caster having a customer's specifications
in the storage area.
39. Gavino, Ramil, Armando, etc. are former
Yu required Gososo to produce a letter of drivers/helpers of JR Hauling. They were
apology for the two incidents under pain of required to make two trips per day. They
dismissal. Admitting fault, Gososo submitted a averred that the broiler farms are located in
letter of apology to Yu. He reasoned that he remote and distant areas, they could only
was just doing his job for the company's clients accomplish, on the average, one trip per day.
and that he never intended to neglect his duties They further alleged that from the time they
or disobey the company policy. Yu allegedly were engaged by JR Hauling, they were not
refused to accept the letter of apology and paid their respective 13th month pay, holiday
instructed Gososo to write further in his letter pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, and
the words "I am not supposed to approach the SIL.
checker" and "I promise again to ask
permission from the manager before I can go They claimed that JR Hauling dismissed them
out." Gososo submitted the revised letter of from employment without notice and hearing
apology to Yu, who told him to come back the and/or investigation, and without any valid
next day. reason when the management allegedly
displayed their pictures at the gate and barred
When he returned to work, Yu allegedly told them from entering the company premises.
Gososo to sign a prepared document. Gososo
declined since the document contained JR Hauling countered that they incurred
admissions of offenses that he did not commit. shortages in their deliveries of broilers. Upon
Irked by Gososo's refusal, Yu informed him of further investigation, JR Hauling discovered
his termination from work. Yu allegedly even that these drivers/helpers, without the
threw a pair of scissors at Gososo but missed. knowledge or consent of JR Hauling, were
committing anomalous transactions involving
Did Leyte Lumber illegally dismiss Gososo? the sale of excess broilers and crates
somewhere in Concepcion, Tarlac.

No, Leyte Lumber did not illegally dismiss Was the dismissal proper?
Gososo.

In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must YES. Misconduct as "the transgression of some
first establish by substantial evidence the fact established and definite rule of action, a
of dismissal before the employer is charged forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
with the burden of proving its legality. character, and implies wrongful intent and not
mere error in judgment. For serious misconduct
Gososo never proved that he was dismissed in to justify dismissal under the law, "(a) it must
the first place. He simply alleged that upon his be serious; (b) must relate to the performance
refusal to sign a document prepared by of the employee's duties; and (c) must show
respondent Yu, the latter "flared up with his that the employee has become unfit to continue
usual hot temper and told him that he is working for the employer."
terminated from work on that very day," and
"even threw sharp scissors towards which Here, it was reasonably establish with certainty:
almost hit by a narrow margin." This barely (1) that excess broilers and crates were being

22
illegally sold; and (2) that respondents were SMC's property, in particular its mail matter
involved in the anomalous transaction. Thus, which included weighing and determining
the unauthorized sale of excess broiler and volumes of documents to be shipped.
broiler crates constitutes an act of dishonesty, Furthermore, Gomez willfully, intentionally,
a breach of trust and confidence reposed by JR knowingly, purposely, and without justifiable
Hauling upon them. (JR HAULING SERVICES excuse disregarded SMC's rules and regulations
VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO ET AL. G.R. NO. in the workplace. Thus, the termination is valid.
214294, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020, PER J. (SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION VS. ROSARIO A.
HERNANDO) GOMEZ G.R. No. 200815, August 24, 2020, Per
J. HERNANDO)

40. Gomez was employed as a researcher in

the Security Department and concurrently as 41. Lufthansa claims that Cuizon was validly
Executive Secretary to the Head of the Security terminated from employment for loss of trust
Department. C2K is a corporation engaged in and confidence in his ability to perform his
courier and delivery services. For the first three duties as MA2 Duty Manager which resulted
months, the relationship between C2K and SMC from several violations and blatant disregard of
went smoothly until C2K encountered difficulty the LTP Standards in the Workplace, which
in collecting its service fee from SMC. violations were committed in the course of two
Eventually, it was found out that C2K's former separate incidents, specifically: (1) Cuizon's
manager, Daniel Tamayo (Tamayo), formed willful concealment of the accidental light-up of
another courier services group, Starnec, which PAL Aircraft EI-BZE and (2) Cuizon's failure to
had been using fake C2K receipts and collecting observe the safety guidelines and precautions
the fees pertaining to C2K. C2K claimed that it of Lufthansa with respect to aircraft towing,
was through Gomez's intervention that which caused damage to PAL Aircraft RP-
Tamayo's group was able to transact business C4008.
with SMC.
a) Was Cuizon validly dismissed?
An audit was then conducted where it was b) Was Cuizon grossly negligent to
discovered that Gomez was allegedly involved warrant dismissal?
in anomalies which caused tremendous losses
to SMC. Thus, Gomez was found guilty of
committing fraud against SMC and of receiving
bribes through commissions in connection with
the performance of her function and was a. No. Cuizon was not validly dismissed.
terminated from her employment.
For dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and
Was the termination of Gomez from service confidence to be vallid: (1) the employee
valid, legal and effective? concerned must be holding a position of trust
and confidence; (2) there must be an act that
would justify the loss of trust and confidence;
and (3) such loss of trust relates to the
YES. The requisites for dismissal on the ground
employee's performance of duties.
of loss of trust and confidence are: "(1) the
employee concerned must be holding a position
Lufthansa failed to substantially prove the
of trust and confidence; (2) there must be an
second requisite (i.e., there must be an act that
act that would justify the loss of trust and
would justify the loss of trust and confidence).
confidence; [and (3)] such loss of trust relates
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause
to the employee's performance of duties.”
for dismissal must be based on a willful breach
of trust and founded on clearly established
Here, the nature of Gomez’s work falls under
facts. Such breach is willful if it is done
the second class of positions of trust and
intentionally, knowingly, and purposely,
confidence. Gomez occupied a position of trust
without justifiable excuse as distinguished from
and confidence, as defined by law and
jurisprudence, since she was entrusted with

23
an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, work and filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal
heedlessly or inadvertently. with a prayer for reinstatement before the
Lufthansa failed to prove that Cuizon willfully NLRC. Thereafter, he received a letter from the
disregarded LTP's rules and regulations in the Executive Vice-President, informing him that
workplace. Cuizon has substantially refuted the Board, by virtue of a Resolution approved
Lufthansa's claim on the alleged concealment and confirmed the acceptance of his resignation
of the accidental light-up and the towing (as the Board treated his application for
incident. retirement as a resignation).

b. No. Gross negligence implies a want or Was Bulatao illegally dismissed?

absence of or a failure to exercise slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to YES. The positive and overt act signifying
avoid them. Habitual neglect implies repeated Bulatao’s deliberate intent to sever his or her
failure to perform one's duties for a period of employment is wanting.
time, depending upon the circumstances.
To establish abandonment, the employer must
Lufthansa failed to show that Cuizon did not prove that 1) the employee must have failed to
exercise even a slight care or diligence which report for work or must have been absent
caused the grounding of and damage to the without valid or justifiable reason; and 2) that
aircraft during the towing operation. Moreover, there must have been a clear intention on the
they failed to prove that it was Cuizon's act that part of the employee to sever the employer-
directly or solely caused the grounding of and employee relationship manifested by some
damage to the aircraft during the towing overt act. Further, it is a well-settled doctrine
incident. (LUFTHANSA TECHNIK PHILIPPINES, that the filing by an employee of a complaint
INC. VS. ROBERTO CUIZON G.R. No. 184452, for illegal dismissal with a prayer for
February 12, 2020, PER J. HERNANDO) reinstatement is proof enough of his desire to
return to work, thus negating the employer's
charge of abandonment.
42. Manuel Bulatao who was formerly the
Senior Vice-President of the IT Group of PNB Bulatao’s letter signified that he was taking an
alleged that in light of a joint venture between official leave of absence following his statement
PNB and Mr. Roy, an Indian national, it was that he was taking the bank's offer to retire.
announced that not all IT staff would be Bulatao categorically withdrew his application
retained. Everyone had to undergo an to retire as mentioned in his memorandum
International Competitive Test as a prerequisite which he submitted before the Board
for absorption and those who would not be "approved" his application to "resign."
absorbed would be offered retirement
packages. PNB failed to show that Bulatao had a clear and
deliberate intent to sever his employment
Bulatao objected hence he manifested his without any intention of returning, as it was not
intent to retire in a letter addressed to Mr. able to rebut with sufficient evidence Bulatao's
Palma Gil, PNB’s President. Bulatao then had a withdrawal of his application for retirement.
meeting with Mr. Lucio Tan, member of the Additionally, PNB did not convincingly disprove
Board, who asked him to reconsider his decision Bulatao's claim that the real reason behind his
and join Mr. Tan's management team. Hence, filing for early retirement was his dissatisfaction
he went back to work on. As the Board had not with the agreement with the "Indian" group,
yet acted on his application for retirement, even if the said agreement did not materialize.
Bulatao withdrew it in a Memorandum. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MANUEL C.
BULATAO G.R. NO. 200972, DECEMBER 11,
After some time, HR informed him not to report 2019 , PER J. HERNANDO)
for work as the Board already accepted his
"resignation." Bulatao stopped reporting for

24
43. Overseas worker Rolando Mesina, was time of his employment. It was held that it is
hired by Omanfil International Manpower not required that the employment be the sole
Development Corporation as an Expediter. factor in the growth, development or
Omanfil then deployed Mesina to Modh Al Zoabi acceleration of the illness to entitle the claimant
Technical Projects Corporation (MAZTPC) with to the benefits provided therefor. It is enough
a particular job assignment at Al Khaji Joint that the employment had contributed, even to
Operations (AKJO) in Saudi Arabia. a small degree, to the development of the
disease. (OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL
Mesina experienced chest pains and was MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
confined twice at a local hospital. His severe VS. ROLANDO B. MESINA G.R. No. 217169,
chest pain was diagnosed as a heart disease, November 04, 2020, PER J. HERNANDO)
but he was discharged as his health was
regarded "in good condition." Mesina claimed
that against his will, MAZTPC requested AKJO 44. Mario Gerona, Jr. (Gerona) was hired as
to immediately repatriate him due to his serious one of Teletech's technical support
medical condition. Mesina sought representatives and was assigned to the
reimbursement for his medical expenses, Accenture account. Gerona became a regular
however, Omanfil did not accede to his employee.
demands since pursuant to the employment
contract, the free medical treatment may only Teletech's human resource office informed
be availed of by Mesina during the period of his Gerona that he would be transferred to the
employment and maintained that Mesina's Telstra account upon successfully passing the
heart ailment could not have been work- training, assessment and examination, and his
related. refusal to take the examinations would result in
the termination of his services on the ground of
Aggrieved by what he believed to be redundancy. Gerona refused to undergo
termination of his employment without any training and take the examinations under the
legal justification, Mesina proceeded to file a belief that he was entitled to security of tenure.
case for illegal dismissal, refund of Gerona received a notice informing him of his
hospitalization and medical expenses, damages dismissal due to redundancy. Through his
and attorney's fees against petitioners. counsel, he sent a demand letter to Teletech
asserting that there was no redundancy in the
Was Mesina illegally dismissed? company considering that they were even
continuously hiring other technical support
representatives. Moreover, as a regular
employee, he should no longer be required to
YES. For a dismissal on the ground of disease take another examination to prove his
to be considered valid, two requisites must qualifications.
concur: (a) the employee suffers from a disease
which cannot be cured within six months and Was Gerona dismissed for a valid and
his/her continued employment is prohibited by authorized cause?
law or prejudicial to his/her health or to the
health of his/her co-employees, and (b) a
certification to that effect must be issued by a
competent public health authority. No, Teletech failed to sufficiently prove that
Gerona was dismissed for a valid and
Omanfil did not comply with the foregoing authorized cause.
requirements to justify Mesina's termination on
the ground of a disease. MAZCO repatriated Redundancy exists when an employee's
Mesina to the Philippines without any showing services are in excess of what is reasonably
that he had a prolonged and permanent demanded by the actual requirements of the
disease. The very nature of Mesina's work as an business. To successfully invoke a valid
Expediter had contributed to the aggravation of dismissal due to redundancy, there must be:
his illness — if indeed it was pre-existing at the (1) a written notice served on both the

25
employees and the DOLE at least one month these are deemed to have admitted the truth of
prior to the intended date of termination of the said allegations and therefore ultimately
employment; (2) payment of separation pay liable.
equivalent to at least one month pay for every
year of service; (3) good faith in abolishing the PFRBI alleged that they were dismissed for just
redundant positions; and (4) fair and causes, i.e., serious misconduct, willful
reasonable criteria in ascertaining what disobedience, and fraud or willful breach of the
positions are to be declared redundant and trust reposed in them by PRBFI, since as
accordingly abolished. Moreover, the company coconut parers, they were employees who held
must provide substantial proof that the services positions of trust and confidence affecting the
of the employees are in excess of what is entire coconut processing system of PRBFI.
required of the company.
Are they validly dismissed?
Here, Teletech fails to show the alleged decline
in Accenture's business and that the expected
volume of calls for its Accenture account would
not materialize. Further, a company's new table No. The following should be considered in
of organization and certification from its human terminating the services of employees:
resources department attesting that the - The first written notice to be served on
position held by a certain employee is the employees should contain the
redundant are insufficient evidence to support
specific causes or grounds for
a claim of redundancy. In other words,
redundancy was not proven. termination against them, and a
directive that the employees are given
Since Teletech failed to prove that Gerona was the opportunity to submit their written
validly dismissed, Gerona is thus entitled to full explanation within a reasonable period.
backwages from the time he was illegally
dismissed and to separation pay in lieu of - After serving the first notice, the
reinstatement for every year of service. employers should schedule and
(TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT
conduct a hearing or conference
PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. MARIO GERONA, JR.
G.R. NO. 219166, NOVEMBER 10, 2021, PER J. wherein the employees will be given
HERNANDO) the opportunity to: (1) explain and
clarify their defenses to the charge
against them; (2) present evidence in
45. Violeta filed a complaint for non- support of their defenses; and (3) rebut
regularization despite the length of time that the evidence presented against them
they had been working for Pacific Royal Basic
by the management. During the
Foods, Inc.
hearing or conference, the employees
Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc sent letters to are given the chance to defend
Violeta on the alleged product quality themselves personally, with the
complaints. assistance of a representative or
counsel of their choice. Moreover, this
Violeta averred that they were dismissed from
conference or hearing could be used by
work without a prior investigation or an
opportunity to air their side. They claimed that the parties as an opportunity to come
their suspension and eventual dismissal from to an amicable settlement.
work was PRBFI's retaliatory measure against
theirs' complaint for non-regularization. - After determining that termination of
employment is justified, the employers
PRBFI claimed that they never contested the shall serve the employees a written
accusations against them during the notice of termination indicating that:
investigations. It avers that by way of default,

26
 (1) all circumstances involving the Moreover, Twinstar claimed that aside from
charge against the employees have these notices, a duty officer of the company
been considered; and (2) grounds have sent text messages and tried to call Dela Torre
but to no avail and he refused to receive a
been established to justify the
company letter and manifested his
severance of their employment. unwillingness to go on duty. Since Dela Torre
did not report back to Twinstar for
PRBFI failed to comply with the guidelines for reassignment despite all the opportunities
procedural due process that must be accorded given to him, the latter terminated the former's
to employees who are due for dismissal. Here, employment.
the silence of an employee against the
allegations of an employer, by its lonesome, Was Dela Torre’s right to procedural due
should not disadvantage the former. It remains process violated?
incumbent upon the employer as the party
making the allegations to demonstrate the truth
of the same by presenting substantial evidence. Yes. In terminating the services of the
(PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS, INC. VS. employees, the following must be met:
VIOLETA NOCHE G.R. NO. 202392, OCTOBER 1. The first written notice to be served on
04, 2021 , PER J. HERNANDO
the employees should contain the
specific causes or grounds for
46. Dela Torre alleged that after complaining termination against them, and a
about the underpayment of his salaries, he was directive that the employees are given
placed on floating status for more than six (6) the opportunity to submit their written
months which prompted him to file a complaint explanation within a reasonable period.
for illegal dismissal and underpayment/non-
2. After serving the first notice, the
payment of certain salaries and benefits against
Twinstar. employers should schedule and
conduct a hearing or conference
Despite receipt of summons for mandatory wherein the employees will be given
conferences on various dates, Twinstar failed to the opportunity to: (1) explain and
appear and thus, the Labor Arbiter (LA) clarify their defenses to the charge
required the parties to submit their respective against them; (2) present evidence in
position papers on the mandatory conference
support of their defenses; and (3) rebut
scheduled, only Dela Torre appeared and
submitted his position paper. the evidence presented against them
by the management. During the
LA held that Dela Torrre was constructively hearing or conference, the employees
dismissed. are given the chance to defend
themselves personally, with the
Twinstar filed an appeal with the National Labor assistance of a representative or
Relations Commission (NLRC). Twinstar
counsel of their choice. Moreover, this
admitted that it hired Dela Torre as a security
guard and that his latest assignment was in Las conference or hearing could be used by
Haciendas Luisitas in Tarlac City during which the parties as an opportunity to come
he went on absence without leave (AWOL). to an amicable settlement.
Twinstar alleged in its defense that it had sent 3. After determining that termination of
several notices to Dela Torre for him to report employment is justified, the employers
for duty, specifically: 1) Order to Report for
shall serve the employees a written
Duty dated June 3, 2011; 2) 2nd Notice to
Report for Work dated June 9, 2011; and 3) notice of termination indicating that:
Last & Final Order to Report for Duty dated (1) all circumstances involving the
June 22, 2011. charge against the employees have
been considered; and (2) grounds have

27
 been established to justify the her the opportunity to be heard and explain her
severance of their employment. side of the controversy.

The failure to adhere to the so-called "two- a. Was Bundoc afforded due process?
notice rule” clearly violated Dela Torre’s right to b. Is De Luna entitled to her salary, allowances
procedural due process. (JOSE R. DELA TORRE and benefits corresponding to the 10 days since
VS. TWINSTAR PROFESSIONAL PROTECTIVE the period of her preventive suspension went
SERVICES G.R. NO. 222992, JUNE 23, 2021, beyond the mandated period of 30 days?
PER J. HERNANDO)

a. No. In termination proceedings of

47. During an audit of Philam’s books of employees, procedural due process consists of
accounts, several irregularities were discovered the twin requirements of notice and hearing.
such as issuance of unauthorized official and The employer must furnish the employee with
provisional receipts, unrecorded and two written notices before the termination of
undeposited collections, and encashment of employment can be effected: (1) the first
personal checks. The Investigating Committee apprises the employee of the particular acts or
disclosed that De Luna and Bundoc were omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
involved in said fraudulent activities particularly (2) the second informs the employee of the
in the disbursement of Philam’s funds. employer's decision to dismiss him. The
requirement of a hearing is complied with as
During the audit process conducted by the long as there was an opportunity to be heard,
independent auditor, Bundoc took a leave of and not necessarily that an actual hearing was
absence for 30 days. conducted.

After submission of the final audit report, Philam failed to prove that Bundoc was notified
Philam required De Luna and Bundoc to appear and given the chance to explain and to refute
before the investigating committee and to the accusations against her. Bundoc was not
explain the irregularities and anomalies as well notified of the charges leveled against her or of
as to account for the total amount her termination. This clearly amounted to a
misappropriated. Philam asserted that despite violation of Bundoc's right to procedural due
said opportunity given to De Luna and Bundoc, process.
they still failed to participate and attend in the
investigation. Philam’s Board of Directors issued b. Yes. When the employer extends the period
a Memorandum informing them of their of preventive suspension beyond 30 days, he is
dismissal from service by reason of dishonesty, obliged to pay the wages and other benefits
misappropriation and malversation of funds. due to the employee but when the 30 days
expire, the employer should reinstate the
De Luna and Bundoc filed a complaint against employee by actual or payroll reinstatement.
Philam for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter
ruled in favor of Philam, finding that the In this case, the appellate court found that De
dismissal was based on a just cause and due Luna's preventive suspension lasted for 40
process was observed. It ruled that De Luna days. Even while the dismissal was valid, PHAI
and Bundoc held positions of trust and should have paid De Luna her salary for 10 days
confidence, hence, they are expected to corresponding to the number of days in excess
exercise greater fidelity, honesty and integrity of the 30-day period of preventive suspension.
in the performance of their duties. (PHILAM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
VS. SYLVIA DE LUNA G.R. NO. 209437 MARCH
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision but the CA 17, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
ruled that the dismissal was valid but due
process was not observed, as Philam failed to
present proof that it notified Bundoc and gave 48. Susan Bance was found to have taken
advantage of her position in the Accounting
Office by enrolling her children and relatives,

28
under the University's group enrollment and/or investigation, and without any valid
incentive program despite knowing that they reason when the management allegedly
were unqualified. Upon discovery of the displayed their pictures at the gate and barred
fraudulent scheme in November 2007, Atty. them from entering the company premises.
Ortega immediately ordered an investigation
and called a conference with the alleged JR Hauling countered that they incurred
perpetrators. shortages in their deliveries of broilers. Upon
further investigation, JR Hauling discovered
During the conference, Bance was apprised of that these drivers/helpers, without the
the infractions she committed. During the knowledge or consent of JR Hauling, were
conference, she admitted that their children committing anomalous transactions involving
and relatives indeed benefitted from the the sale of excess broilers and crates
unauthorized discounts. Atty. Ortega thus somewhere in Concepcion, Tarlac.
verbally informed them that their employment
will be terminated. The CA concluded that JR Hauling failed to
adduce substantial evidence to establish the
Susan contended that her dismissal was illegal charge against them which served as basis for
for non-observance of the requirements of JR Hauling's loss of trust and confidence that
procedural due process. Is Susan correct? warranted their dismissal from employment. On
the matter of JR Hauling's supposed failure to
comply with procedural due process of notice
Yes. To comply with the requirement of and hearing, the CA disregarded JR Hauling's
procedural due process, two written notices defense of abandonment and held that the
must be issued. The first written notice should drivers/helpers' filing of a complaint for illegal
contain the specific causes or grounds for dismissal negated any intent on their part to
termination against the employee. The second sever their employment with JR Hauling.
written notice contains the decision terminating Accordingly, the CA ordered that these
the employment after considering all drivers/helpers’ reinstatement and payment of
circumstances involving the charge. backwages.

Records showed that only the second written Were they validly dismissed?
notice or Office Memo was served on Bance.
Conferences and verbal announcements do not
suffice as substitute for the requisite first
written notice. (SUSAN M. BANCE VS. No. The Implementing Rules in relation to
UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANTHONY G.R. NO. Article 297 of the Labor Code provides for the
202724, FEBRUARY 03, 2021, PER J. procedure that must be observed in order to
HERNANDO) comply with the required procedural due
process in dismissal cases, to wit:
a) A written notice served on the employee
49. Gavino, Ramil, Armando, etc. are former specifying the ground or grounds for
drivers/helpers of JR Hauling. They were termination and giving said employee
required to make two trips per day. They reasonable opportunity within which to explain
averred that the broiler farms are located in his side.
remote and distant areas, they could only b) A written notice of termination served on the
accomplish, on the average, one trip per day. employee indicating that upon due
They further alleged that from the time they consideration of all circumstances, grounds
were engaged by JR Hauling, they were not have been established to justify his termination.
paid their respective 13th month pay, holiday
pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, and JR Hauling failed to categorically deny the
SIL. allegations on the complaint that they
dismissed their drivers/helpers without notice
They claimed that JR Hauling dismissed them and hearing and/or investigation when
from employment without notice and hearing management allegedly displayed their pictures

29
at the gate and barred them from entering the requirements is on the employer, who must
company premises. present clear, accurate, consistent, and
convincing evidence to that effect.
If petitioners were adamant to give
respondents the opportunity to explain their Shogun was unable to discharge the burden of
side and refute the accusations made against proof required to establish Paraydays' dismissal
them, petitioners should have served the from employment was legal and valid. The
notices personally to respondents, or where records also failed to show that Shogun
their whereabouts are unknown, such as in this afforded Parayday due process prior to their
case, by courier or registered mail at their last dismissal, as in fact, they were merely verbally
known addresses indicated in their employee dismissed, and were thus not served notices
file maintained or in the possession of JR informing them of the grounds for which their
Hauling. This, however, petitioners failed to do. dismissal was sought.
(JR HAULING SERVICES VS. GAVINO L.
SOLAMO G.R. NO. 214294, SEPTEMBER 30, Clearly, Paraydays' dismissal was not carried
2020, PER J. HERNANDO) out in accordance with law and was, therefore,
illegal. (PEDRITO R. PARAYDAY VS. SHOGUN
SHIPPING CO., INC. G.R. NO. 204555, JULY 6,
50. Parayday alleged that he was employed as 2020, PER J. HERNANDO)
a fitter by Oceanview/VRC Lighterage in
October 1996. In support of his allegation as an
employee, he presented a copy of his 51. Jose and his co-workers held rallies to
Oceanview ID and COE dated February 5, 2001. denounce the alleged corrupt, anomalous and
irregular activities of some BATELEC II officials.
In 2003, Oceanview changed its corporate They were dismissed for participating in an
name to “Shogun Ships, Inc.”, but maintained illegal strike, prompting them to file a complaint
the same line of business and retained in its for illegal dismissal against BATELEC II.
employ Oceanview employees.
The LA ruled in the employees favor and
During Parayday’s assignment in Bataan, an ordered the payment of their reinstatement and
explosion occurred which caused him to suffer full backwages.
third degree burns. Although medical expenses
were borne by Shogun, they were not paid their During the execution stage, BATELEC
salaries while in hospital confinement. contended that reinstatement had become
Subsequently, he was verbally dismissed due to impossible because of a major reorganization
lack of work as a fitter. and streamlining that it had undergone, which
resulted in the abolition of some positions.
Shogun denied that Parayday was a regular BATELEC II contends that it had substantially
employee, maintaining that Oceanview and complied with the notice requirement because
Shogun was a separate and distinct entity. complainants were given an ample opportunity
Shogun alleged that Parayday was a helper to controvert the retrenchment before the
brought in by regular employees of Shogun Labor Arbiter.
Ships on certain occasions when repairs were
needed to be done on its barges. The NLRC and the CA, treated BATELEC II's
refusal to reinstate as retrenchment, a form of
Was Parayday dismissed in accordance with authorized dismissal.
law?
Was there substantial compliance to effect a
valid termination?
No. It is an established principle that the
dismissal of an employee is justified where
there was a just cause and the employee was No. Article 283 of the Labor Code requires the
afforded due process prior to dismissal. The employer to serve a written notice on the
burden of proof to establish these twin workers and the Department of Labor and

30
Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month
before the intended date of retrenchment. In Esico tendered his letter of resignation
case of retrenchment, the separation pay shall addressed to Alphaland's HR Manager. He
be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least stated the following reasons: (a) serious
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of embarrassments and insults had been
service, whichever is higher. committed against his person, honor and
reputation on several occasions by a company
The purpose of a written notice under Article officer; (b) serious flight safety concerns; (c)
283 of the Labor Code is to give employees time absence of employment contract with
to prepare for the eventual loss of their jobs as Alphaland Corporation; (d) absence of
well as to give the DOLE the opportunity to helicopter recurrent training; (e) unresolved
ascertain the veracity of the alleged cause of issues on services already rendered in favor of
termination. Alphaland Corporation as fixed wing pilot from
May 2, 2011 to June 2012; and (f) other related
BATELEC failed to send actual notice of matters.
termination. It merely assumed that
complainants knew about the retrenchment Was Esico constructively dismissed?
when they actively participated in the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter who
tackled the validity of the reorganization. The No, Esico was not constructively dismissed.
offer to pay separation pay is not sufficient to
replace the formal requirement of written Constructive dismissal exists when continued
notice. At the time the reorganization took employment has become so unbearable
place, complainants were reinstated on payroll because of acts of clear discrimination,
so they were deemed employees of BATELEC insensibility or disdain by the employer, that the
II. Thus, there was no reason why BATELEC II employee has no choice but to resign. The test
could not have served them notice of of constructive dismissal is whether a
retrenchment before actually dismissing them. reasonable person in the employee's position
(JOSE DEL PILAR VS. BATANGAS II ELECTRIC would have felt compelled to give up his
COOPERATIVE, INC. (BATELIC II) G.R. NO. position under the circumstances and when a
160121, FEBRUARY 19, 2020, PER J. complaint for illegal dismissal is filed, the
HERNANDO) complainant has the duty to prove that he or
she was dismissed and that the dismissal is not
legal because there is no valid cause or no
52. Jose Edwin G. Esico was hired by PhilWeb compliance with due process.
Corporation (PhilWeb), as Risk & Security
Management Officer (RSMO). On April 19, Esico had failed to prove by substantial
2010, Alphaland concurrently engaged Esico as evidence respondents' acts amounted to
a rotary wing pilot assigned to fly the constructive dismissal. Esico voluntarily
Chairperson of Alphaland group of companies. resigned in contravention of the employment
contract with respondents and the acts
After numerous verbal attempts to raise the complained of by which he claims pushed him
matter of his employment status as a helicopter to resign either did not occur or were untrue.
pilot to his superiors went unheeded, Esico Perforce, there was no constructive dismissal.
emailed the officers of Alphaland. On August (JOSE EDWIN ESICO VS. ALPHALAND
22, 2011, he received a job offer sheet as pilot CORPORATION G.R. NO. 216716, NOVEMBER
from Alphaland Corporation with the level of 17, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
manager. Despite the job offer, Esico claimed
that he was never paid his salary as stated in
the job offer. On February 17, 2012, he was 53. Tacis and Lamis were regular employees of
informed by a fellow pilot about a plan by Mr. Shields Security Services, Inc. They were
Asperin, the then Security and Aviation Head, assigned at Texas Instruments and were tasked
that he will be served with a job termination to train the 15 new recruits. However, they
notice immediately. were told by their general manager that they

31
are being relieved and terminated per client’s was there proof that respondents employed
request. force or duress to compel petitioners to sign the
same. Basic is the rule that a mere allegation is
Tacis and Lamis executed their individual not evidence, and he who alleges has the
handwritten resignation letters, were paid with burden of proving his allegation with the
their separation benefits and have executed requisite quantum of evidence.
Quitclaim, Release and Waiver, in the guise that
they were expecting to be absorbed by Soliman Absent any extant and clear proof of coercion
Security, a sister agency of Shields. They were and deceit allegedly exerted by respondents
even told by their general manager to fill out upon petitioners that led them into signing the
application forms for their eventual transfer to quitclaims, it can be concluded that petitioners
Soliman Security. signed the same of their own accord. (RENATO
C. TACIS VS. SHIELDS SECURITY SERVICES,
Convinced that they would be absorbed by INC. G.R. NO. 234575, JULY 07, 2021, PER J.
Soliman Security, they submitted their HERNANDO)
respective resignation letters and quitclaims as
prerequisites for their receipt of cash benefits,
e.g. separation pay, 13th month pay, service 54. Jose R. Dela Torre was a security guard
incentive leave pay, cash bond, uniform employed by Twinstar Professional Protective
allowance and last salary. Services, Inc. since October 1988. He was
assigned at Las Haciendas in Tarlac City and
Tacis and Lamis filed a complaint for illegal paid P240.00 per day. In January 2011, he
dismissal, upon being informed that they were complained to a TV program about the
not absorbed by Soliman Security because underpayment of his salaries and was ordered
there were no vacant positions available. to report to Twinstar’s office in Quezon City. He
was informed that he was placed on floating
Were the two employees constructively status and remained so for more than six
dismissed? months.

Jose himself admitted declining the assignment

No, Tacis and Lamis were not constructively offered to him by the Twinstar within six (6)
dismissed. Jurisprudence provides that months from the time he was placed on floating
constructive dismissal is an act amounting to status.
dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.
It must be noted that bare allegations of Was he constructively dismissed?
constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by
the evidence on record, cannot be given
credence. No. Jose was not constructively dismissed.

In this case, Tacis relinquished their positions It must be emphasized that "not every
when they submitted their individual letters of inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or
resignation in their own handwriting. They disadvantage that an employee must endure
admitted having submitted the said letters, sustains a finding of constructive dismissal."
albeit, due to an alleged deceitful machination, What is vital is the weighing of the evidence
but which they utterly failed to substantiate for presented and a consideration of whether,
lack of substantial documentary or testimonial given the totality of circumstances, the
evidence. More importantly, there was no employer acted fairly in exercising a
indication in their respective resignation letters prerogative.
that they were unduly influenced or coerced to
resign. In fact, the said letters contained words Here, Jose utterly failed to prove that he was
of gratitude which can hardly come from an constructively dismissed. He never presented
employee forced to resign. Moreover, there was any evidence, aside from his self-serving
no showing that the quitclaims were procured allegations, that he was forced to be on floating
by respondents through fraud or deceit. Neither

32
status for more than six (6) months without
being given new assignment by Twinstar.
No, Leyte Lumber did not illegally dismiss
Twinstar was able to establish that Jose went Gososo.
on absence without leave and that it had
subsequently sent several notices to Jose to In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must
report for duty. More importantly, Jose himself first establish by substantial evidence the fact
admitted declining the assignment offered to of dismissal before the employer is charged
him by the Twinstar within six (6) months from with the burden of proving its legality.
the time he was placed on floating status in the
hearing dated October 18, 2011 before the LA. Gososo never proved that he was dismissed in
(JOSE R. DELA TORRE VS. TWINSTAR the first place. He simply alleged that upon his
PROFESSIONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES G.R. refusal to sign a document prepared by
NO. 222992, JUNE 23, 2021, PER J. respondent Yu, the latter "flared up with his
HERNANDO) usual hot temper and told him that he is
terminated from work on that very day," and
"even threw sharp scissors towards which
55. As a company policy, Leyte Lumber's sales almost hit by a narrow margin." This barely
representatives were prohibited from getting measured up to the minimum evidential
items or stocks from the storage area by requirement from Gososo. Mere acts of
themselves. Gososo, a sales representative, hostility, however grave, committed by the
allegedly overstepped the boundaries of Leyte employer towards the employee cannot on their
Lumber's company policies. On October 6, lonesome be construed as an overt directive of
2008, he was on his way to the stockroom to dismissal from work. (FERNANDO C. GOSOSO
follow up on a customer's urgent order when VS. LEYTE LUMBER YARD G.R. NO. 205257,
Yu stopped him. The next day, Yu saw Gososo JANUARY 13, 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)
step out of the store to check the availability of
a ball caster having a customer's specifications
in the storage area. 56. Regala was hired by MHC sometime in
February 20006 as one of its waiters assigned
Yu required Gososo to produce a letter of to the Food and Beverage Department. He was
apology for the two incidents under pain of later assigned as cook helper at MHC's
dismissal. Admitting fault, Gososo submitted a Chocolate Room/Cookies Kitchen during the
letter of apology to Yu. He reasoned that he period from October 18, 2004 to June 26, 2006.
was just doing his job for the company's clients In the course of his employment as waiter/cook
and that he never intended to neglect his duties helper, Regala worked for six (6) days every
or disobey the company policy. Yu allegedly week, and was paid a daily salary of P382.00
refused to accept the letter of apology and until sometime in December 2009. MHC
instructed Gososo to write further in his letter allegedly reduced his regular work days to two
the words "I am not supposed to approach the (2) days from the normal five (5)-day work
checker" and "I promise again to ask week starting December 2, 2009, which
permission from manager before I can go out." resulted in the diminution of his take home
Gososo submitted the revised letter of apology salary.
to Yu, who told him to come back the next day.
Was reduction of his regular work days and
When he returned to work, Yu allegedly told consequent diminution of his salary amounted
Gososo to sign a prepared document. Gososo to constructive dismissal?
declined since the document contained
admissions of offenses that he did not commit.
Irked by Gososo's refusal, Yu informed him of Yes, the reduction of his regular work days and
his termination from work. Yu allegedly even consequent diminution of his salary amounted
threw a pair of scissors at Gososo but missed. to constructive dismissal.

Did Leyte Lumber illegally dismiss Gososo?

33
There is constructive dismissal where "there is employee has not yet proven the fact of
cessation of work because 'continued dismissal.
employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving If the fact of dismissal is disputed, it is the
a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay' and complainant who should substantiate his claim
other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in for dismissal and the one burdened with the
disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but responsibility of proving that he was dismissed
made to appear as if it were not, constructive from employment, whether actually or
dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear constructively. Unless the fact of dismissal is
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an proven, the validity or legality thereof cannot
employer becomes so unbearable on the part even be an issue.
of the employee that it could foreclose any
choice by him except to forego his continued Here, the fact of the matter is that it was
employment." Juraldine himself who resigned from his work,
as shown by the resignation letter he submitted
The reduction of Regala's regular work days and the quitclaim that he acknowledged, and
from five (5) days to two (2) days resulted in a thus, he was never dismissed by the Company.
diminution in pay. Regala's change in his work (ITALKARAT 18, INC. VS. JURALDINE N.
schedule resulting in the diminution of his take GERASMIO G.R. NO. 221411, SEPTEMBER 28,
home salary is tantamount to constructive 2020, PER J. HERNANDO)
dismissal. The fact that Regala may have
continued reporting for work does not rule out
constructive dismissal, nor does it operate as a 58. On August 2, 2008 Telus received an
waiver. (ALLAN REGALA VS. MANILA HOTEL escalation complaint accusing De Guzman of
CORPORATION G.R. NO. 204684, OCTOBER disrespect and ridicule towards a person.
05, 2020, PER J. HERNANDO)
Telus conducted an administrative hearing on
the matter. Upon termination of the
57. Juraldine Gerasmio (Juraldine) was hired investigation, Telus found de Guzman not liable
by Italkarat 18, Inc. (Company) as the for the offenses charged and did not impose
Maintenance Head and Tool and Die Maker until any disciplinary sanction against him. De
his dismissal on November 20, 2008 on the Guzman’s preventive suspension was lifted and
ground of serious business losses. Juraldine he was fully compensated during the period.
executed and signed a resignation letter and Telus however decided to remove de Guzman
quitclaim. He was then informed to return to from his current designation and transfer him
get his check worth P170,000.00. to another practice. Telus sent De Guzman a
request for a profile interview which De
However, to his dismay, Juraldine was later Guzman deemed not to attend, and Telus sent
informed by San Pedro that he would be De Guzman a return to work order but Telus
receiving only the amount of P26,901.34. Thus, found out that De Guzman filed for constructive
Juraldine, through his lawyer, sent a letter dismissal with the NLRC.
essentially demanding the amount of
P170,000.00 he was allegedly promised earlier. Was De Guzman constructively dismissed?
Since the Company did not respond, Juraldine
filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
Yes, De Guzman was constructively dismissed.
Does the employer have the burden of proof in
an illegal dismissal claim even if the employee Constructive dismissal exists where there is
has not yet proven the fact of dismissal? cessation of work because continued
employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving
No, the employer does not have the burden of a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and
proof in an illegal dismissal claim if the other benefits. It also exists if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an

34
employer becomes so unbearable on the part No. Villola voluntarily resigned. The employer’s
of the employee that it could foreclose any failure to present a resignation letter does not
choice by him except to forego his continued negate their claim of voluntary resignation.
employment.
The fact of resignation is supported by the
The series of actions done by Telus manifests concurrence of the following: (1) the intent to
that De Guzman was terminated in disguise and relinquish one's office; and (2) the overt act of
such actions amount to constructive dismissal. relinquishment. In illegal dismissal cases,
fundamental is the rule that when an employer
The conclusion is all too clear that Telus interposes the defense of resignation, on him
fostered a working environment that was necessarily rests the burden to prove that the
hostile, discriminatory, unreasonable, and employee indeed voluntarily resigned.
inequitable that naturally compelled De
Guzman to give up his employment thereat to Here, Villaola failed to question Consunji's
avoid the difficulties he had to face just to keep request to submit a written resignation letter;
his employment. The actions of Telus show that he stopped reporting for work, at his own
De Guzman was actually subsequently initiative, after May 31, 2013; and he submitted
penalized with a much graver consequence his proposal under the name of another
than the supposed preventive suspension that corporate entity which is a clear indication that
he had undergone. (TELUS INTERNATIONAL he was no longer connected as an employee of
PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. HARVEY DE GUZMAN UPL. The pieces of evidence show that Villola
G.R. NO. 202676, DECEMBER 04, 2019, PER J. was not dismissed by UPL. Villola's own actions
HERNANDO) manifested that he freely and voluntarily chose
to resign from UPL and work for the latter as an
independent consultant. Moreover, Villola failed
59. Villola was employed by UPL as its to show evidence that he was coerced or forced
Information Technology and Communications by UPL to resign in any way, or that he was
Manager. On October 11, 2014, UPL released a dismissed at all. (VILLOLA VS. UNITED
Memorandum informing UPL employees of the PHILIPPINE LINES, INC. (UPL) G.R. NO.
fact of Villola's termination of employment from 230047, OCTOBER 09, 2019, PER J.
UPL effective June 1, 2013. Concomitantly, the HERNANDO)
same memorandum directed security personnel
to deny Villola entry from the company
premises. 60. Montaño, a school registrar of Colegio San
Agustin-Bacolod (CSA-Bacolod) was
Consunji and Villola also agreed that instead of investigated for allowing some students to join
terminating Villola's employment with UPL on the graduation ceremony despite not meeting
the ground of redundancy, he will simply the academic requirements. A notice of charges
voluntarily cease his employment with the was issued to Montaño for gross misconduct,
company. Villola was then instructed by tampering of school records, and willful breach
Consunji to formalize his resignation from UPL of trust and confidence or gross negligence. At
by furnishing management with his written the same time, she was placed under
resignation letter, which Villola failed to preventive suspension for 30 days.
produce despite follow-ups from UPL officers.
Villola stopped reporting for work but continued Was the preventive suspension valid?
to render part-time work during the period from
June to July 2013 as trainer in the Anti-Piracy
Awareness Program of a UPL affiliate, which Yes, the preventive suspension was valid.
were conducted at the company premises of
UPL. The implementing rules of the Labor Code
allows an employer to preventively suspend an
Was Villola validly dismissed from employment? employee if continued employment poses a
serious and imminent threat to the life or
property of the employer or co-workers. In

35
preventive suspension, the employer admissions of offenses that he did not commit.
safeguards itself from further harm or loss that Irked by the refusal, Miguel informed him of his
may further be caused by the erring employee. termination from work.
Miguel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but
CSA-Bacolod was well within its rights to failed to prove such fact. The employer has also
preventively suspend Montaño. The threat not demonstrated that Kendrick had abandoned
raised by the school was not unfounded as his work.
Montaño was school registrar, whose functions
include evaluation of subjects and credits Will Kendrick be reinstated? If not, what are the
earned by students and enforcement of other reliefs available?
graduation requirements. Respondent's
violation was indeed related to her functions as
school registrar. With her continued presence YES. Jurisprudence provides that where the
during the investigation, it is not impossible that employee fails to prove the fact of his or her
the school records under her custody may be illegal dismissal, and the employer has also not
tampered; it is also not impossible that the demonstrated that the employee abandoned
investigation may be influenced given the his or her work, the case usually ends with the
nature and ascendancy of her position. employee's reinstatement without the payment
(COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN-BACOLOD VS. of backwages.
MELINDA M. MONTAÑO G.R. NO. 212333,
MARCH 28, 2022, PER J. HERNANDO) Should reinstatement be rendered impossible
by strained relations of the parties, become
unreasonable with the passage of time since
61. Trisha Specs & Studios (TSS) hired the legal controversy, or otherwise attained
Kendrick as a sales representative. As a impossibility or impracticability due to the
company policy, TSS’s sales representatives present prevailing circumstances, equity impels
were prohibited from getting items or stocks the Court to award the petitioner separation
from the storage area by themselves. pay equivalent to one-month salary for every
year of service, computed up to the time he
Kendrick allegedly overstepped the boundaries stopped working for respondents. (FERNANDO
of TSS’s company policies as he was discovered C. GOSOSO VS. LEYTE LUMBER YARD G.R. NO.
to have entered the stock room to follow up on 205257, JANUARY 13, 2021, PER J.
a customer's urgent order and on another day, HERNANDO)
stepped out of the store to check the availability
of a ball caster having a customer's
specifications in the storage area. 62. Manuel C. Bulatao was formerly the Senior
Vice-President (SVP) of the Information
Miguel (General Manager) required Kendrick to Technology (IT) Group of Philippine National
produce a letter of apology for the two incidents Bank (PNB). On January 29, 2000 or four days
under pain of dismissal. Admitting fault, from the date of his Memorandum, Bulatao
Kendrick submitted a letter of apology to Miguel received a call from the SVP of Human
and reasoned that he was just doing his job for Resource Division who informed him not to
the company's clients and that he never report for work as the Board already accepted
intended to neglect his duties or disobey the his "resignation." Bulatao stopped reporting for
company policy. Miguel allegedly refused to work. Subsequently, he filed a Complaint for
accept the letter of apology and instructed illegal dismissal with the National Labor
Kendrick to write further in his letter the words Relations Commission (NLRC).
"I am not supposed to approach the checker"
and "I promise again to ask permission from Considerable amount of time have lapsed when
manager before I can go out." a favorable judgment was made in favor of
Bulatao. In fact, Bulatao revealed that he has
When he returned to work, Miguel allegedly told suffered and is still suffering from various
Kendrick to sign a prepared document but the medical ailments such as stroke, arthritis, gout,
latter declined since the document contained cervical spondylosis, and even had to undergo

36
cancer treatments and heart surgery during the including Lamadrid, were caught in possession
pendency of this case. of an Evian water bottle after alighting from the
aircraft. Cathay informed Lamadrid of the
What are the reliefs available for Bulatao? termination of her services effective
immediately for committing serious misconduct
by removing company property without
Bulatao is entitled to separation pay in lieu of authorization. According to Cathay, it could no
reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees longer repose its trust and confidence on the
and backwages with legal interest. petitioner considering the seriousness of her
violation.
Although reinstatement is a matter of right, the
award of separation pay is an exception to such Lamadrid instituted a complaint for illegal
rule, as it is awarded in lieu of reinstatement dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Cathay
when reinstatement can no longer be effected argued that the Labor Arbiter had no
in view of the passage of a long period of time jurisdiction to hear the dispute since the
or because of the realities of the situation. incident occurred in a foreign jurisdiction
involving foreign nationals.
Moral damages are also recoverable where the
dismissal of the employee was attended by bad Is the contention of Cathay correct?
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive
to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy, while NO. Article 224 of the Labor Code provides that
exemplary damages may be awarded if the the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive
dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive jurisdiction to hear and decide termination
or malevolent manner." Moreover, attorney's disputes involving all workers. This provision
fees may be awarded is there is a factual, legal, must be read together with Section 10 of RA
or equitable basis for doing so in light of the 8042 as amended by RA 10022, as well as
circumstances surrounding the case. Section 3 of RA 10022.

Taking into account the lapse of time as well as Here, Lamadrid is considered an Overseas
the age and capacity to work of Bulatao, Filipino Worker (OFW). She had been engaged
reinstatement is no longer feasible. Thus, the in a remunerated activity in a state where she
grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is not a citizen. Cathay's cabin crew are all
is more appropriate under the circumstances. based in Hong Kong, and in fact Lamadrid
resided and leased an apartment in Hong Kong
Likewise, Bulatao is entitled to damages and during her stint with Cathay. As an OFW faced
attorney's fees since "the proper action on his with a termination dispute, Lamadrid's case
application for retirement should have been to may be heard and decided by the Arbiter under
deny the same instead of immediately Article 224 of the Labor Code in relation to RA
terminating him and treating the same as a 8042 as amended by RA 10022. (SALVACION
resignation letter. Bulatao was also compelled A. LAMADRID VS. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS
to engage the services of counsel in order to LIMITED G.R. NO. 200658, JUNE 23, 2021, PER
protect his rights after he was unjustly J. HERNANDO)
dismissed. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS.
MANUEL C. BULATAO G.R. NO. 200972,
DECEMBER 11, 2019, PER J. HERNANDO) 64. Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc sent letters
to Violeta on the alleged product quality
complaints. Violeta averred that they were
63. Cathay hired Lamadrid as a cabin crew. dismissed from work without a prior
Cathay's Conditions of Service stipulated that all investigation or an opportunity to air their side.
its cabin crew shall be based in Hong Kong. They claimed that their suspension and
Prior to her termination in 2007, Lamadrid eventual dismissal from work was PRBFI's
rendered about 17 years of service. A report retaliatory measure against theirs' complaint for
that some crew members of Cathay flight, non-regularization.

37
 complied with. Otherwise, the ground of lack of
Violeta filed a complaint before the NLRC for jurisdiction becomes a waivable defect in
non-regularization despite the length of time procedure. Whether the NLRC accepts or
that they had been working for Pacific Royal rejects the appellant's motion to reduce bond,
Basic Foods, Inc. the ruling must be unequivocal, and such ruling
must be issued before or at the time the NLRC
PRBFI claimed that they never contested the resolves the appeal by final judgment. Failure
accusations against them during the to do so shall render the NLRC liable for grave
investigations. It avers that by way of default, abuse of discretion for having ruled on an
these are deemed to have admitted the truth of appeal without acquiring jurisdiction over the
the said allegations and therefore ultimately same, and the judgment it had issued shall be
liable. vacated as null and void. (PACIFIC ROYAL
BASIC FOODS, INC. VS. VIOLETA NOCHE G.R.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Violeta was illegally NO. 202392, OCTOBER 04, 2021, PER J.
dismissed and was not afforded procedural due HERNANDO)
process.

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held 65. Jose and his co-workers held rallies to
that they left the fact of product contamination denounce the alleged corrupt, anomalous and
undisputed and failed to show any ill motive on irregular activities of some BATELEC II officials.
PRBFI's part in accusing them of having caused They were dismissed for participating in an
such contamination. illegal strike, prompting them to file a complaint
for illegal dismissal against BATELEC II.
The CA reversed the NLRC. It found that PRBFI
did not present any proof of compliance as to The LA ruled in the employees favor and
the required posting of an appeal bond. Thus, ordered the payment of their reinstatement and
PRBFI's appeal before the NLRC should have full backwages.
been deemed not perfected, and the NLRC did
not acquire jurisdiction over PRBFI's appeal. During the execution stage, BATELEC
contended that reinstatement had become
Must the NLRC expressly rule on motions to impossible because of a major reorganization
reduce bond, or would an implied approval of a and streamlining that it had undergone, which
motion to reduce bond, i.e., the NLRC's disposal resulted in the abolition of some positions.
of the appeal by final decision, order, or BATELEC II contends that it had substantially
resolution, suffice as a grant of the appellant- complied with the notice requirement because
employer's motion to reduce bond? complainants were given an ample opportunity
to controvert the retrenchment before the
Labor Arbiter.

The NLRC must expressly rule on the motions The NLRC ruled that if the order appealed from
to reduce bond. is not an original decision of the Labor Arbiter
affecting the whole spectrum of the case, the
Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules requirement of an appeal bond may be
provides that an appeal may be perfected by dispensed with.
the appellant-employer only by the posting of a
bond in the equivalent amount of the full Is the NLRC correct?
monetary award granted to the appellee-
employee.

The perfection of an appeal in the manner and No. Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section
within the period set by law is not only 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
mandatory but jurisdictional. Consequently, do not limit the appeal bond requirement only
there should be no implied approval of a to certain kinds of rulings of the Labor Arbiter.
jurisdictional requirement that has not been These rules generally state that in case the

38
ruling of the LA involves a monetary award, an Is the CA correct?
employer's appeal may be perfected only upon
the posting of a bond. Therefore, absent any
qualifying terms, so long as the decision of the Yes. The rules of procedure in labor cases may
LA involves a monetary award, as in this case, be relaxed in certain instances as they are
that ruling can only be appealed after the intended to facilitate the attainment of justice
employer posts a bond. Nonetheless, this and not to frustrate it. The LA and the NLRC are
procedural rule may be relaxed in the interest mandated to use every and all reasonable
of substantial justice means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively, without regard to
Here, the case was already in its execution technicalities of law and procedure all in the
stage. BATELEC II had already posted an interest of substantial justice. In this
appeal bond when it appealed the case for the connection, the NLRC is not precluded from
first time on its merit. The winning party was receiving evidence on appeal as technical rules
already secured of payment by the losing party, of evidence are not binding in labor cases.
or in default thereof, by the surety company
and at the time when an appeal was made from Here, the NLRC, acting within its lawful
the NLRC Resolution, the final award, upon authority, decided to admit evidence for the
which the bond should be based, had not yet first time during appeal, and the circumstances
been settled. (JOSE DEL PILAR, VS. BATANGAS would show that the said decision was not
II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (BATELIC II) made arbitrarily or capriciously. The records
G.R. NO. 160121, FEBRUARY 19, 2020, PER J. would show that Twinstar, to its prejudice,
HERNANDO) failed to submit any evidence before the LA and
thus, the latter was not able to make an
informed decision on the issues presented
66. Dela Torre alleged that after complaining before it. (JOSE R. DELA TORRE VS. TWINSTAR
about the underpayment of his salaries, he was PROFESSIONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES G.R.
placed on floating status for more than six (6) NO. 222992, JUNE 23, 2021, PER J.
months which prompted him to file a complaint HERNANDO)
for illegal dismissal and underpayment/non-
payment of certain salaries and benefits against
Twinstar. 67. Juraldine Gerasmio was hired by Italkarat
18, Inc. as the Maintenance Head and Tool and
Despite receipt of summons for mandatory Die Maker until his dismissal on November 20,
conferences on various dates, Twinstar failed to 2008 on the ground of serious business losses.
appear. LA held that Dela Torrre was Juraldine executed and signed a resignation
constructively dismissed. letter and quitclaim. He was then informed to
get his check worth P170,000.00.
Twinstar filed an appeal with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). However, to his dismay, Juraldine was later
informed by San Pedro that he would be
The NLRC rendered a Decision granting receiving only the amount of P26,901.34. Thus,
Twinstar's appeal and reversing the assailed LA Juraldine, through his lawyer, sent a letter
Decision. The NLRC applied liberality and essentially demanding the amount of
allowed the presentation of Twinstar's evidence P170,000.00 he was allegedly promised earlier.
for the first time on appeal, and ruled that no Since the Company did not respond, Juraldine
constructive dismissal took place. The CA ruled filed the instant complaint for illegal dismissal.
that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of The LA rendered a decision declaring Juraldine
jurisdiction when it allowed Twinstar to present to have been unlawfully dismissed. It ruled that
its evidence for the first time on appeal and Juraldine was only forced to resign because of
when it ruled that petitioner was not illegally San Pedro's misrepresentation that he would be
dismissed. paid P170,000.00 as separation pay.

39
The NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling finding that permanent total disability. It stressed that a
Juraldine resigned from his job. temporary total disability becomes permanent
only when the company-designated physician
The CA found that Juraldine's resignation was declares it to be so within the 240-day period,
not unconditional since he was demanding or when after the lapse of said period, the
payment for his separation pay in accordance physician fails to make such declaration.
with the alleged company practice.
Idul elevated the case to the Supreme Court via
Italkarat filed a petition for certiorari alleging a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
that the NLRC’s decision has become final and Rules of Court.
executory, thus, the CA should have dismissed
the petition. Is Italkarat correct? Is the mode of appeal proper?

No. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the proper
final and executory NLRC decisions may be remedy to obtain the reversal of judgments,
subject of a petition for certiorari. It is precisely final orders or resolutions of the CA.
this final and executory nature of NLRC
decisions that makes a special civil action of It is elementary that the special civil action of
certiorari applicable to such decisions, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for
considering that appeals from the NLRC to the an appeal, where the latter remedy is available.
Supreme Court were eliminated. Rule 45 is clear that the decisions, final orders
or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any
The doctrine of immutability of judgment is not case , i.e., regardless of the nature of the action
violated when a party elevates a matter to the or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this
CA which the latter decided in favor of said Court by filing a petition for review, which
party. (ITALKARAT 18, INC. VS. JURALDINE N. would be but a continuation of the appellate
GERASMIO G.R. NO. 221411, SEPTEMBER 28, process over the original case. Under Rule 45
2020, PER J. HERNANDO) the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen
(15) days from notice of judgment or denial of
motion for reconsideration.
68. Charles Idul filed with the Labor Arbiter a
claim for total and permanent disability benefits Here, Idul received the Resolution of the CA
against Alster Shipping. denying his Motion for Reconsideration on
October 3, 2013. Thus, he had 15 days or until
Alster Shipping denied liability for full disability October 18, 2013 to file its Petition for Review
benefits alleging that Idul was assessed by the on Certiorari under Rule 45. However, the
company-designated physician to be suffering petition was only filed on November 15, 2013
from a Grade 10 disability only. or way beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Alster By simply alleging grave abuse of discretion
Shipping, which was reversed by the NLRC. The amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
NLRC explained that it is the loss of earning without explaining why an appeal could not
capacity and not the mere medical significance cure the errors by the CA, petitioner failed to
of the injury that determines the gravity of prove that there was no other plain, speedy,
disability. Thus, Idul's inability to perform his and adequate remedy under the law. To
job for more than 120 days from the time he reiterate, the remedy of a petition for review on
was examined by Dr. Chuasuan entitled him to certiorari under Rule 45 was available to Idul.
permanent disability benefits. Nevertheless, for unknown reasons, petitioner
opted not to avail of the said remedy. (CHARLO
Alster Shipping elevated the case to the CA, P. IDUL VS. ALSTER INT'L SHIPPING
which upheld the ruling of the LA. It held that SERVICES, INC. G.R. NO. 209907, JUNE 23,
Idul's condition cannot be considered a 2021, PER J. HERNANDO)

40
69. The Department of Labor and Employment prayer for reinstatement, jurisdiction is with the
(DOLE) issued Department Order No. 118-12 LA/NLRC.
(DO 118-12) providing for a fixed and
performance compensation scheme in the Here, the issues surrounding the money claims
computation of public utility bus driver or of respondents public utility bus drivers and
conductor's wages. The goal of the issuance conductors, as well as questions pertaining to
was to insure public road transport safety by the Labor Standard Compliance Certificates are
improving the working conditions, within the purview of the jurisdiction of the
compensation and competence of bus drivers DOLE pursuant to Article 128 and the provisions
and conductors thereby eliminating their risk of DO 118-12. (DEL MONTE LAND TRANSPORT
taking behavior. BUS CO. VS. RENANTE A. ARMENTA G.R. NO.
240144, FEBRUARY 3, 2021, PER J.
On July 28, 2014, a complaint for HERNANDO)
underpayment of wages, nonpayment of
holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day
premium, service incentive leave, 13th month
pay, and attorney's fees was filed before the
labor arbiter against Del Monte Land Transport
Bus, Co., Inc. (DLTB)- a domestic corporation
engaged in the transportation business and
duly registered to operate as a common carrier.

DLTB raised the issue of jurisdiction claiming

that the LA does not have jurisdiction to render
judgment or award on the alleged
underpayment of wages claimed since it is the
DOLE which has jurisdiction over their money
claims pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor
Code.

Is DLTB correct?

Yes, the DOLE Regional office has jurisdiction

over the issue.

The rules governing jurisdiction on labor

standards claims may be summed up as
follows:

1. If the claim involves labor standards benefits

mandated by the Labor Code or other labor
legislation regardless of the amount prayed for
and provided that there is an existing employer-
employee relationship, jurisdiction is with the
DOLE regardless of whether the action was
brought about by the filing of a complaint or
not.

2. If the claim involves labor standards benefits

mandated by the Labor Code or other labor
legislation regardless of the amount prayed for
and there is no existing employer-employee
relationship or the claim is coupled with a

41