USC LAW| 2024

PRE-BAR LECTURE
LABOR LAW

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

All doubts in the implementation and interpretation
of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be
resolved in favor of labor (Art. 4, LC)

If doubts exist between the evidence presented by

the employer and the employee, the scale of justice
must be tilted in favor of the employee.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 A Survey of
Justice Mario V. Lopez Cases in Labor

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Monetary Claims of Seafarers for
Sickness and Disability Benefits

JOEMAR BACABAC V. NYK-FIL SHIPMANAGEMENT INC. AND

NYK
SHIPMANAGEMENT PTE LTD. G.R. NO. 228550, JULY 28, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Under Section 20 of the POEA-SEC, the employer is liable
when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness
during the term of his contract. Those illnesses not listed
in Section 32 are disputably presumed work-related.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Here, the company doctor's report only indicated the
diagnosis for Severe Acute Cholangitis. There is no
explanation as to how the company physician arrived at
his conclusion that the illness is not work- related. There is
no other document submitted to support such finding. To
reiterate, what the POEA-SEC requires is for the company
physician to justify the assessment using the medical
findings he had gathered during his treatment of the
seafarer. A bare claim that the illness is not work-related,
or that the seafarer is fit for sea duties is insufficient.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Monetary Claims of Seafarers for
Sickness and Disability Benefits

BLUE MANILA, INC. AND/OR OCEANWIDE CREW MANILA, INC. V.

ANTONIO JAMIAS G.R. NOS. 230919 AND 230932 JANUARY 20, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Any illness complained of, and/or diagnosed during the
mandatory PEME under Section 20 (A) is deemed existing
during the term of the seafarer's employment, and the
employer is liable therefor. This is true, regardless of
whether
the existing illness was the immediate cause of a medical
repatriation.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Monetary Claims of Seafarers for
Sickness and Disability Benefits

PAL MARITIME CORP, ET AL. V. DARWIN

DALISAY
G.R. NO. 218115 JANUARY 27, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

A seafarer who is guilty of fraudulent concealment in the
PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and
benefits which include sickness allowance.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

PAL Maritime is justified in their denial of the claim for
sickness allowance and discontinuing medical treatment
when they discovered that Darwin concealed his pre-
existing illness. In awarding attorney's fees despite the
seafarer's malicious concealment would be tantamount to
rewarding his fraudulent conduct.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Monetary Claims of Seafarers for
Sickness and Disability Benefits

TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC., ET AL. V. MAGNO

UTANES
G.R. NO. 236498 SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

To be entitled to disability benefits for an occupational illness, the
seafarer must prove that the disease was contracted as a result of
exposure to the described risks and within a period of exposure.
Moreover, disability benefits to seafarers can be denied due to
concealment even if the concealment was discovered after the
treatment period or after a claim for benefits was filed.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Utanes deliberately concealed his history of coronary artery disease,
which disqualifies him from claiming disability benefits. Even if the
concealment was discovered during his treatment, it does not negate his
deception. Previous cases have denied disability benefits to seafarers
due to concealment, even if the concealment was discovered after the
treatment period or after a claim for benefits was filed. Moreover, to be
entitled to disability benefits for an occupational illness, the seafarer
must prove that the disease was contracted as a result of exposure to
the described risks and within a period of exposure. He failed to provide
sufficient evidence to show that his working conditions contributed to or
aggravated his illness.
Therefore, failing to meet the requirements, he is not entitled to disability
benefits dueto his deliberate concealment of his pre-existing condition
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
Monetary Claims of Seafarers for
Sickness and Disability Benefits

MARYVILLE MANILA INC. V. LLOYD

ESPINOSA
G.R. NO. 229372 AUGUST 27, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

If the illness is discovered or manifested after the term of the
contract, Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC applies. Section 32-A
categorizes illness into two; work-related illness that is listed as an
occupational disease meeting the conditions under Section 32-A, and
an illness not listed as occupational disease but reasonably linked to
the work of the seafarer.

Whoever claims entitlement to benefits provided by law must

establish his right by substantial evidence.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The reasonable linkage test provides:

a. The seafarer must establish the risks involved in his work;

b. The illness was contracted as a result of the exposure to the risks;
c. The illness or disease was contracted within a period of exposure
and under other factors necessary to contract them;
d. The seafarer must not be notoriously negligent.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Company-Designated Physician Medical
Assessment

SKANFIL MARITIME SERVICES, INC. ET AL V. ALMARIO

CENTENO
G.R. NO. 227655 APRIL 27, 2022

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment
within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then
the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. The 120
days is reckoned from the date of the seafarer’s repatriation. The
medical assessment must be final, conclusive, and definite. It must
clearly state whether the seafarer is fit to work, or the exact
disability rating, or whether such illness is workrelated and without
any further condition or treatment.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Post-Employment Medical Examination;
Seafarer’s claim

CELESTINO JUNIO V. PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC. ET AL

G.R. NO. 220657 MARCH 16, 2022

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be
used to defeat a seafarer's claim, especially when the failure to
satisfy this requirement was not due to his fault but because of the
inadvertence or deliberate refusal of the employer. The burden to
prove that the seafarer was referred to the company physician falls
on the employer, and not the seafarer. Without the assessment from
the company-designated doctor, there is nothing for the seafarer to
contest and this entitles him to receive total and permanent
disability benefits.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Referral to a third party physician;
seafarer’s claim

DOEHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC., ET. AL. V. JOSE

GATCHALIAN, JR., G.R. NO. 207507 FEBRUARY 17, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Failure to comply with the requirement of referral to a third-party
physician is tantamount to violation of the POEA-SEC, and without a
binding third-party opinion, the findings of the company-designated
physician shall prevail over the assessment made by the seafarer's
doctor.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Contract Substitution; Illegal Recruitment

FIL-EXPAT PLACEMENT AGENCY V. MARIA LEE

G.R. NO. 250439 SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The substitution or alteration of employment contracts is
listed as a prohibited practice under Article 34(i) of the
Labor Code. To substitute or alter employment contracts to
the prejudice of the worker is considered an act of "illegal
recruitment" under Section 6(i) of Republic Act No. 8042.
The OFW's refusal to sign does not absolve the agency from
liability and the mere intention to commit contract
substitution is still unlawful and punishable.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Illegal Recruitment

PEOPLE V. REGINA BEGINO, ET AL

G.R. NO. 251150 MARCH 16, 2022

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Elements of large-scale illegal recruitment are:
a. The offender has no valid license or authority required by law
to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers;
b. The offender undertakes any of the activities within the
meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of
the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042);
c. The offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and
placement against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Legitimate Contracting;
Employer-Employee Relationship

RICO CONJUSTA V. PPI HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL

G.R. NO. 252720 AUGUST 22, 2022

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

A certificate of registration as an independent contractor is not
conclusive evidence of such status. Also, despite proof of
substantial capital, a contractor is still considered engaged in
labor-only contracting whenever it is established that the
principal actually controls the manner of the employee's work.
Indeed, the true nature of the relationship between the
principal, contractor, and employee cannot be dictated by mere
expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The element of control is a strong indicator of the nature of a
contractor's activity and its relationship with the employee.
Whenever it is established that the principal, not the contractor,
actually controls the manner of the employee's work, such
contractor is considered as engaged in labor-only contracting,
as in this case.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Labor-Only Contracting

OSCAR ORTIZ V. FOREVER RICHSONS TRADING CORP.

G.R. NO. 238289 JANUARY 20, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Article 106 of the Labor Code, defines labor-only contracting as
an arrangement where a person, who does not have substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises,among others, supplies workers to
an employer to perform activities which are directly related to
the principal business of the employer.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Workpool Manpower solely provided Forever Richsons with
workers nothing more. The contract between the principal and
the contractor is not the final word on how the contracted
workers relate to the principal and the purported contractor; the
relationship must be tested on the basis of how they actually
operate.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Employer-Employee Relationship

PEDRO DUSOL AND MARICEL DUSOL V. EMMARK LAZO

G.R. NO. 200555 JANUARY 20, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

All the elements of an employer-employee relationship are
present. First, Ralco Beach engaged the services of Pedro as
caretaker and Maricel as a storekeeper. Second, Emmarck paid
their wages in the form of allowances and commissions. The
term 'wages' encompasses "the remuneration or earnings,
however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of
money, whether fixed or commission basis.” Third, Emmarck
terminated their employment when he notified them that he
would be leasing the beach Resort, and that their services were
no longer needed. Finally, and most importantly, Emmarck had
the power to control their conduct in the performance of their
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
duties.
First, the records of the case are bereft of evidence that
petitioners were duly informed of the nature and status of
their engagement with Shogun Ships. Notably, in the
absence of a clear agreement or contract, whether written
or otherwise, which would clearly show that petitioners
were properly informed of their employment status with
Shogun Ships, petitioners enjoy the presumption of regular
employment in their favor.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Fixed-Term Employment

JULIAN TUNGCUL TUPPIL, JR, ET AL V. LBP SERVICE CORP.

G.R. NO. 228407 JUNE 10, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Contracts of employment for a fixed term are valid unless it is
apparent that the periods have been imposed to circumvent the
laws on security of tenure. The validity of fixed-term employment
depends on whether the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper
pressure.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

There was no illegal dismissal when the employees’ services
were terminated after the contract expired. There was even no
need for a notice of termination because they knew exactly
when their contracts would end. Contracts of employment for a
fixed period terminate on their own at the end of such period.
Notably, Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al. can still be deployed to
other clients. Yet, Tuppil, et al. opted not to wait for the
reassignments and submitted their resignation letters.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Termination; Procedural Due Process

BICOL ISAROG TRANSPORT SYSTEM INC V. ROY RELUCIO

G.R. NO. 234725 SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

WILFREDO MARIANO V. G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT

G.R. NO. 240882 SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Despite having a just cause for dismissal, non-adherance to
proper procedural requirements entitles defendant to
nominal damages of P30,000.00.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Regular Employment

FREDDIE LAURENTE V. HELENAR CONSTRUCTION AND JOEL

ARGARIN G.R. NO. 243812 JULY 7, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

What determines regular employment is not the employment
contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. The
applicable test is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual business of the employer, following Article 280 of the
Labor Code. The standard supplied by the law itself is whether
the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Generally, length of service is a measure to determine whether or not an
employee who was initially hired on a temporary basis has attained the
status of a regular employee who is entitled to security of tenure.
However, such measure may not necessarily be applicable in a
construction industry since construction firms cannot guarantee
continuous employment of their workers after the completion stage of a
project. In addition, a project employee's work may or may not be usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
Thus, the fact that a project employee's work is usually necessary and
desirable in the business operation of his/her employer does not
necessarily impair the validity of the project employment contract which
specifically stipulates a fixed duration of employment. ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction;
Labor Arbiter

U R EMPLOYED INTERNATIONAL CORP, ET AL V. MIKE PINMILIW,

ET AL., G.R. NO. 225263 MARCH 16, 2022

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (or the Doctrine of Prior
Resort) is the power and authority upon an administrative body
to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. This
will not apply when two administrative bodies do not have
concurrent jurisdiction, and the complaints lodged in each
body involve different
causes of action.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

This doctrine does not apply in this case because the complaints
filed with LA and POEA involved different causes of action. LA
complaint involved the issue of illegal dismissal and various
money claims, while the POEA complaint involved administrative
disciplinary liability for violation of the 2002 POEA Rules and
Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of
Land-Based Overseas Workers. The jurisdiction of these
administrative bodies does not in any way intersect as to
warrant the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Thus, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
 Burden of proof; Money claims

REGGIE ZONIO V. 1ST QUANTUM SECURITY AGENCY AND

ROMULO PAR, G.R. NO. 224944 MAY 5, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

In determining the employee's entitlement to monetary claims, the
burden of proof is shifted from the employer or the employee,
depending on the monetary claim sought.
(a) In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive
leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the
employer to prove payment.
(b) For overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the
burden is shifted on the employee, as these monetary claims are not
incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon
the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in
excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he in
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
fact worked on holidays and rest days.
 Illegal Dismissal; Separation pay but no
backwages

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAURENCE MARGIN

G.R. NO. 216599 SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Even though it is basic in labor law that an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement, or separation pay if
reinstatement is not viable, and payment of full backwages, in
some instances, the Court has carved out exceptions where the
reinstatement of an employee was ordered without an award of
backwages. This is on account of: (1) the fact that dismissal of
the employee would be too harsh of a penalty; and (2) that the
employer was in good faith in terminating the employment.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

[W]e absolve Verizon from the payment of backwages. While we
held that Laurence did not violate Verizon's rules on authorized
and unauthorized absences since he was able to notify his
immediate supervisor of his absence on February 3, 2012
because of his sickness, he cannot be deemed entirely faultless.
Aside from the text message he sent, he did nothing else to
comply with the company's rules.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

 Non-Diminution of Benefits; CBA

SOCIAL HOUSING EMPLOYEES ASSOC INC. V. SOCIAL HOUSING

FINANCE CORP.
G.R. NO. 237729 OCTOBER 14, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Revocation of the CBAs' economic provisions will not
amount to diminution of benefits when the new benefits
and increases were not authorized by law.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

SHFC does not have the authority to negotiate new
benefits and increases in the CBA due to existing laws and
regulations prohibiting GOCCs from doing so such as EO
No. 7 which provides a moratorium on increases and
benefits in GOCCs, RA No. 10149 which developed a
compensation system subject to the approval of the
President, and EO No. 203 expressly disallowing the
governing boards of GOCCs, whether chartered or non-
chartered, to negotiate the economic terms of their CBAs.
SHFC's revocation of the CBAs' economic provisions
cannot amount to diminution of
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
benefits since SOHEAI is not entitled to benefits.
 Non-Diminution of Benefits; Company
practice

HOME CREDIT AND MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOC. V. MA.

ROLLETTE PRUDENTE
G.R. NO. 200010 AUGUST 27, 2020

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

The non-diminution rule applies only if the benefit is based
on an express policy, a written contract, or has ripened
into a practice. To be considered a company practice, the
benefit must be consistently and deliberately granted by
the employer over a long period of time. The burden to
establish it rests with the employee.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Home Credit has no existing car plan at the time Rollette
was hired. Rollette's employment contract does not even
contain any express provision on her entitlement to a
service vehicle at full company cost. Generally, employees
have a vested right over existing benefits that the
employer
voluntarily granted them. These benefits cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated
consistent with the constitutional mandate to protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD
Appeal Bond; Mandatory Requirement

ABELARDO SALAZAR V. ALBINA SIMBAHON, ET AL

G.R. NO. 202374 JUNE 30, 2021

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that in case of a judgment
involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a
reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the
amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed
from.

ATTY. LOUIE JOHN D. LOOD

Thank You!

Atty. Louie John D. Lood