Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE SONGCO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, Manulife raises the issue of the correctness of the computation of the award to Tongko made by the NLRC by claiming that Songco v. National Labor Relations Commission[32] is inapplicable to the instant case, considering that Songco was dismissed on the ground of retrenchment.
	GR No. 167622 2008-11-07	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. VELASCO JR., J.
Tongko bolstered his argument by citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. NLRC (4th Division)[7] and Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. NLRC,[8] which Tongko claimed to be similar to the instant case.
	GR No. 152991 2008-07-21	ALBERTO P. OXALES v. UNITED LABORATORIES REYES, R.T., J.
Admittedly, this Court held in the case of Songco v. National Labor Relations Commission[56] that not only the basic salary but also the "allowances" (like transportation and emergency living allowances) and "earned sales commissions" should be taken into consideration in computing the backwages and separation pay of the employee. However, a closer examination of the case would show that the CBA[57] between Zuellig and F.E. Zuellig Employees Association, in which Songco was a member, did not contain an explicit definition of what salary is. Neither was there any inclusions or exclusions in the determination of the salary of the employee. Here, the URP has an explicit provision excluding any commissions, overtime, bonuses, or extra compensations for purposes of computing the basic salary of a retiring employee. Too, the Songco case was decided before the passage of R.A. No. 7641.
	GR No. 159890 2004-05-28	EMPERMACO B. ABANTE v. LAMADRID BEARING YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Neither can we subscribe to petitioner's misplaced reliance on the case of Songco v. NLRC.[19] While in that case the term "commission" under Article 96 of the Labor Code was construed as being included in the definition of the term "wage" available to employees, there is no categorical pronouncement that the payment of compensation on commission basis is conclusive proof of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. After all, commission, as a form of remuneration, may be availed of by both an employee or a non-employee.
	GR No. 154448 2003-08-15	DR. PEDRITO F. REYES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "[a]ll 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", and Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides that "[i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer."[34]