Lawyerly

GR No. 201595

2016-01-25

ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer under Article 248 and by labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor Code,[45] which provides as follows:ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:

GR No. 174184

2015-01-28

G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP v. RICARDO AMBOS

LEONEN, J.

However, despite this management prerogative, employers closing their businesses must pay the affected workers separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or to at least one-half-month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[40] The reason is that an employee dismissed, even for an authorized cause, loses his or her means of livelihood.[41]

GR No. 174184

2015-01-28

G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP v. RICARDO AMBOS

LEONEN, J.

Considering that G.J.T. Rebuilders failed to prove its alleged serious business losses, it must pay respondents their separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half-month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In computing the period of service, a fraction of at least six months is considered a year.[59]

GR No. 208890

2014-12-08

JOEL N. MONTALLANA v. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE MANILA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

"Willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work" is one of the just causes to terminate an employee under Article 296 (a) (formerly Article 282 [a]) of the Labor Code.[64] In order for this ground to be properly invoked as a just cause for dismissal, the conduct must be willful or intentional, willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude.[65] In Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc.,[66] "willfulness" was described as "attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination."[67]

GR No. 200857

2014-10-22

FVR SKILLS v. JOVERT SEVA

BRION, J.

Article 280 (now Article 294)[23] of the Labor Code governs the determination of whether an employee is a regular or a project employee.[24]

GR No. 187621

2014-09-24

MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE EMPLOYEES UNION v. MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE

REYES, J.

Retrenchment, as an authorized cause for the dismissal of employees, finds basis in Article 283[24] of the Labor Code, which states: Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

GR No. 201237

2014-09-03

PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU*

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

For an appeal from the LA's ruling to the NLRC to be perfected, Article 223 (now Article 229)[61] of the Labor Code requires the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, viz.: ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:

GR No. 200746

2014-08-06

BENSON INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP v. BENSON INDUSTRIES

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Closure of business may be considered as a reversal of an employer's fortune whereby there is a complete cessation of business operations and/or an actual locking-up of the doors of the establishment, usually due to financial losses. Under the Labor Code, it is treated as an authorized cause for termination, aimed at preventing further financial drain upon an employer who cannot anymore pay its employees since business has already stopped. As a form of recompense, the employer is required to pay its employees separation benefits, except when the closure is due to serious business losses.[19] Article 297 (formerly Article 283)[20] of the Labor Code, as amended, states this rule: Art. 297. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, x x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 191714

2014-02-26

T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION

MENDOZA, J.

In the case at bench, petitioners are being accused of violations of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 257 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code,[13] to wit: Article 257. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

GR No. 191714

2014-02-26

T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION

MENDOZA, J.

The concept of ULP is embodied in Article 256 (formerly Article 247) of the Labor Code,[14] which provides: Article 256. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof. Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management,

GR No. 167286

2014-02-05

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANILA v. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Article 282[65] of the Labor Code provides:ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

GR No. 173154

2013-12-09

SANGWOO PHILIPPINES v. SANGWOO PHILIPPINES

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

The issues for the Court's resolution are as follows: (a)whether or not the minority employees are entitled to separation pay; and (b) whether or not SPI complied with the notice requirement of Article 297 (formerly Article 283)[26] of the Labor Code.

GR No. 202158

2013-09-25

ERIC ALVAREZ v. GOLDEN TRI BLOC

REYES, J.

Under Article 293 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code,[28] an employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except only for a just or authorized cause. A dismissal not anchored on a just or authorized cause is considered illegal and it entitles the employee to reinstatement or in certain instances, separation pay in lieu thereof, as well as the payment of backwages.

GR No. 163431

2013-08-28

NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS

BERSAMIN, J.

Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is one of the valid grounds to terminate an employee under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code.[19] For willful disobedience to be a ground, it is required that: (a) the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge.[20] Willfulness must be attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination.[21] In any case, the conduct of the employee that is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code constitutes harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his employer.[22] It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undue advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.

GR No. 192571

2013-07-23

ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary employee; the usual two-notice rule does not govern.[65] Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states that "[i]f the termination is brought about by the x x x failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination."

GR No. 192306

2013-07-15

JESSIE G. MARTINEZ v. CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 296(c) (formerly Article 282[c]) of the Labor Code,[26] the following guidelines must be observed: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[27]

GR No. 192826

2013-02-27

PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS v. MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Article 293 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code[25] provides that the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except only for a just or authorized cause. If an employer terminates the employment without a just or authorized cause, then the employee is considered to have been illegally dismissed and is thus, entitled to reinstatement or in certain instances, separation pay in lieu thereof, as well as the payment of backwages.

GR No. 175002

2013-02-18

PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Under Article 297 of the Labor Code,[50] retrenchment is one of the authorized causes to validly terminate an employment. It reads: ART. 297. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis supplied.)

GR NO. 167979

2006-03-16

WILSON S. UY v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration.[15] The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,[16] this Court reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the appointment of co-administrators under certain circumstances, to wit:Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the office.[17] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 146737

2001-12-10

IN MATTER OF INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE JUAN 'JHONNY' LOCSIN v. JUAN C. LOCSIN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

An "interested party", in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor.[9] Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees.[10] In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,[11] this Court held that in the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed administrator.

	GR No. 201595 2016-01-25	ALLAN M. MENDOZA v. OFFICERS OF MANILA WATER EMPLOYEES UNION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the employer under Article 248 and by labor organizations under Article 249 of the Labor Code,[45] which provides as follows:ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
	GR No. 174184 2015-01-28	G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP v. RICARDO AMBOS LEONEN, J.
However, despite this management prerogative, employers closing their businesses must pay the affected workers separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or to at least one-half-month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.[40] The reason is that an employee dismissed, even for an authorized cause, loses his or her means of livelihood.[41]
	GR No. 174184 2015-01-28	G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP v. RICARDO AMBOS LEONEN, J.
Considering that G.J.T. Rebuilders failed to prove its alleged serious business losses, it must pay respondents their separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one-half-month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In computing the period of service, a fraction of at least six months is considered a year.[59]
	GR No. 208890 2014-12-08	JOEL N. MONTALLANA v. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE MANILA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work" is one of the just causes to terminate an employee under Article 296 (a) (formerly Article 282 [a]) of the Labor Code.[64] In order for this ground to be properly invoked as a just cause for dismissal, the conduct must be willful or intentional, willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude.[65] In Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc.,[66] "willfulness" was described as "attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination."[67]
	GR No. 200857 2014-10-22	FVR SKILLS v. JOVERT SEVA BRION, J.
Article 280 (now Article 294)[23] of the Labor Code governs the determination of whether an employee is a regular or a project employee.[24]
	GR No. 187621 2014-09-24	MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE EMPLOYEES UNION v. MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE REYES, J.
Retrenchment, as an authorized cause for the dismissal of employees, finds basis in Article 283[24] of the Labor Code, which states: Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
	GR No. 201237 2014-09-03	PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
For an appeal from the LA's ruling to the NLRC to be perfected, Article 223 (now Article 229)[61] of the Labor Code requires the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, viz.: ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
	GR No. 200746 2014-08-06	BENSON INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU-TUCP v. BENSON INDUSTRIES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Closure of business may be considered as a reversal of an employer's fortune whereby there is a complete cessation of business operations and/or an actual locking-up of the doors of the establishment, usually due to financial losses. Under the Labor Code, it is treated as an authorized cause for termination, aimed at preventing further financial drain upon an employer who cannot anymore pay its employees since business has already stopped. As a form of recompense, the employer is required to pay its employees separation benefits, except when the closure is due to serious business losses.[19] Article 297 (formerly Article 283)[20] of the Labor Code, as amended, states this rule: Art. 297. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, x x x. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (½) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 191714 2014-02-26	T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION MENDOZA, J.
In the case at bench, petitioners are being accused of violations of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 257 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code,[13] to wit: Article 257. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
	GR No. 191714 2014-02-26	T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION MENDOZA, J.
The concept of ULP is embodied in Article 256 (formerly Article 247) of the Labor Code,[14] which provides: Article 256. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof. Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
	GR No. 167286 2014-02-05	INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANILA v. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 282[65] of the Labor Code provides:ART. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
	GR No. 173154 2013-12-09	SANGWOO PHILIPPINES v. SANGWOO PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The issues for the Court's resolution are as follows: (a)whether or not the minority employees are entitled to separation pay; and (b) whether or not SPI complied with the notice requirement of Article 297 (formerly Article 283)[26] of the Labor Code.
	GR No. 202158 2013-09-25	ERIC ALVAREZ v. GOLDEN TRI BLOC REYES, J.
Under Article 293 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code,[28] an employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except only for a just or authorized cause. A dismissal not anchored on a just or authorized cause is considered illegal and it entitles the employee to reinstatement or in certain instances, separation pay in lieu thereof, as well as the payment of backwages.
	GR No. 163431 2013-08-28	NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS BERSAMIN, J.
Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is one of the valid grounds to terminate an employee under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code.[19] For willful disobedience to be a ground, it is required that: (a) the conduct of the employee must be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been engaged to discharge.[20] Willfulness must be attended by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent with proper subordination.[21] In any case, the conduct of the employee that is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code constitutes harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his employer.[22] It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undue advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.
	GR No. 192571 2013-07-23	ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary employee; the usual two-notice rule does not govern.[65] Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states that "[i]f the termination is brought about by the x x x failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination."
	GR No. 192306 2013-07-15	JESSIE G. MARTINEZ v. CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To validly dismiss an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence under Article 296(c) (formerly Article 282[c]) of the Labor Code,[26] the following guidelines must be observed: (1) the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[27]
	GR No. 192826 2013-02-27	PHILIPPINE PLAZA HOLDINGS v. MA. FLORA M. EPISCOPE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Article 293 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code[25] provides that the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except only for a just or authorized cause. If an employer terminates the employment without a just or authorized cause, then the employee is considered to have been illegally dismissed and is thus, entitled to reinstatement or in certain instances, separation pay in lieu thereof, as well as the payment of backwages.
	GR No. 175002 2013-02-18	PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES v. ANECITO MOLON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Article 297 of the Labor Code,[50] retrenchment is one of the authorized causes to validly terminate an employment. It reads: ART. 297. Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR NO. 167979 2006-03-16	WILSON S. UY v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration.[15] The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,[16] this Court reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the appointment of co-administrators under certain circumstances, to wit:Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the office.[17] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 146737 2001-12-10	IN MATTER OF INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE JUAN 'JHONNY' LOCSIN v. JUAN C. LOCSIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
An "interested party", in estate proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor.[9] Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees.[10] In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,[11] this Court held that in the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed administrator.

NILDA GABRIEL v. CA