Lawyerly

GR Nos. 174365-66

2015-02-04

ROMEO BASAN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES

PERALTA, J.

As for the primordial issue in this case, it must be noted that the same has already been resolved in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men,[20] wherein this Court has categorically declared that the nature of work of route helpers hired by Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. is necessary and desirable in its usual business or trade thereby qualifying them as regular employees, to wit: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leading and largest manufacturers of softdrinks in the country. Respondent workers have long been in the service of petitioner company. Respondent workers, when hired, would go with route salesmen on board delivery trucks and undertake the laborious task of loading and unloading softdrink products of petitioner company to its various delivery points.

GR No. 181508

2013-10-02

OSCAR CONSTANTINO v. HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO

PEREZ, J.

Accordingly, in order not to put a premium to the circumvention of the laws as contemplated by the parties in the instant case, we must declare both contracts as void. Indeed, any circumvention of the law cannot be countenanced.[48]

GR No. 183915

2011-12-14

MA. JOY TERESA O. BILBAO v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent the Undertaking signed by Bilbao, this Court is of the opinion that the same was validly and voluntarily executed. Indeed, not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. There are legitimate waivers and quitclaims that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of workers' claims which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[20] And if such agreement was voluntarily entered into and represented a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and should not later be disowned.

GR No. 183122

2011-06-15

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

In its assailed 16 November 2007 decision in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232, the CA's then Eighteenth Division brushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim on the ground, among other matters, that the same only covered the employees' separation pay and retirement benefits but did not extend to the benefits which had accrued in their favor under the imposed CBA; and, that to be valid, the waiver "should be couched in clear and unequivocal terms leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them." [61] In so doing, however, the CA's Eighteenth Division egregiously disregarded the clear intent on the part of the employees who executed said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim to relinquish all present and future claims arising out of their employment with GMC. Although generally looked upon with disfavor, [62] it cannot be gainsaid that legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims should be so respected by the Court as the law between the parties. [63] It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. [64] The absence of showing of these factors in the case at bench impels us to uphold the validity of said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim and, to exclude the employees who executed the same from those still entitled to the benefits under the imposed CBA both before and after the remaining term of the original CBA. The waiver was all inclusive. There was not even a hint of a limitation of coverage.

GR No. 184977

2009-12-07

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. RICKY E. DELA CRUZ

BRION, J.

The CA examined the circumstances of the contractual arrangements between Peerless and Excellent, on the one hand, and the company, on the other, and found that Peerless and Excellent were engaged in labor-only contracting, a prohibited undertaking.[16] The appellate court explained that based on the respondents' assertions and the petitioner's admissions, the contractors simply supplied the company with manpower, and that the sale and distribution of the company's products are the same allied services found by this Court in Magsalin v. National Organization of Workingmen[17] to be necessary and desirable functions in the company's business.

GR No. 172628

2009-02-13

COATS MANILA BAY v. PURITA M. ORTEGA

TINGA, J.

The Court disagrees. Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against policy, except: (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.[26] Indeed, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims which should be respected by the Court as the law between the parties. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking,[27] and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.[28]

GR No. 172628

2009-02-13

COATS MANILA BAY v. PURITA M. ORTEGA

TINGA, J.

In the case at bar, the release waivers and quitclaims were executed by respondents without any force or duress exerted on them. Respondents merely alleged that they voluntarily executed the documents by reason of dire economic necessity. "Dire necessity" may be an acceptable ground to annul quitclaims if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it,[29] but is not an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not shown that the employee has been forced to execute it.[30]

GR No. 178505

2008-09-30

CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, the applicable test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[22]

GR NO. 160854

2006-03-03

BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO

QUISUMBING, J

Considering the submission of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the unanimous ruling of the Court of Appeals, NLRC and Labor Arbiter that respondents are petitioner's regular employees. Respondents were employed for more than one year and their work as carpenters was necessary or desirable in petitioner's usual trade or business of manufacturing office furniture. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, the applicable test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[20]

GR NO. 158753

2005-06-08

MINDORO LUMBER v. EDUARDO D. BACAY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The petitioner is correct in saying that there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker's claim which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[21] Indeed, not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their faces; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions.[22] Such quitclaims are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers from claiming the full measure of their legal rights.[23]

GR NO. 158684

2005-05-16

PATERNO S. MENDOZA v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

While the petitioner is correct in saying that quitclaims are commonly frowned upon for being contrary to public policy, there are, however, legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker's claim which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[21] Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking.[22] Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.[23]

GR NO. 149793

2005-04-15

WACK WACK GOLF v. NLRC

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It cannot be said that the respondents in the case at bar did not fully comprehend and realize the consequences of their acts. Herein respondents are not unlettered persons who need special protection. They held responsible positions in the petitioner-employer, so they presumably understood the contents of the documents they signed. There is no showing that the execution thereof was tainted with deceit or coercion. Further, the respondents were paid hefty amounts of separation pay indicating that their separation from the company was for a valuable consideration. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking.[37] As in contracts, these quitclaims amount to a valid and binding compromise agreement between the parties which deserve to be respected.[38]

GR No. 158255

2004-07-08

MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Notably, private respondents performed activities which were necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. Thus, they were regular employees of petitioner, regardless of whether the engagement was merely an accommodation of their request, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code which reads: The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. As such regular employees, private respondents are entitled to security of tenure which may not be circumvented by mere stipulation in a subsequent contract that their employment is one with a fixed period. While this Court has upheld the legality of fixed-term employment, where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.[22]

	GR Nos. 174365-66 2015-02-04	ROMEO BASAN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
As for the primordial issue in this case, it must be noted that the same has already been resolved in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men,[20] wherein this Court has categorically declared that the nature of work of route helpers hired by Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. is necessary and desirable in its usual business or trade thereby qualifying them as regular employees, to wit: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leading and largest manufacturers of softdrinks in the country. Respondent workers have long been in the service of petitioner company. Respondent workers, when hired, would go with route salesmen on board delivery trucks and undertake the laborious task of loading and unloading softdrink products of petitioner company to its various delivery points.
	GR No. 181508 2013-10-02	OSCAR CONSTANTINO v. HEIRS OF CONSTANTINO PEREZ, J.
Accordingly, in order not to put a premium to the circumvention of the laws as contemplated by the parties in the instant case, we must declare both contracts as void. Indeed, any circumvention of the law cannot be countenanced.[48]
	GR No. 183915 2011-12-14	MA. JOY TERESA O. BILBAO v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent the Undertaking signed by Bilbao, this Court is of the opinion that the same was validly and voluntarily executed. Indeed, not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. There are legitimate waivers and quitclaims that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of workers' claims which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[20] And if such agreement was voluntarily entered into and represented a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and should not later be disowned.
	GR No. 183122 2011-06-15	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
In its assailed 16 November 2007 decision in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02232, the CA's then Eighteenth Division brushed aside said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim on the ground, among other matters, that the same only covered the employees' separation pay and retirement benefits but did not extend to the benefits which had accrued in their favor under the imposed CBA; and, that to be valid, the waiver "should be couched in clear and unequivocal terms leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them." [61] In so doing, however, the CA's Eighteenth Division egregiously disregarded the clear intent on the part of the employees who executed said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim to relinquish all present and future claims arising out of their employment with GMC. Although generally looked upon with disfavor, [62] it cannot be gainsaid that legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims should be so respected by the Court as the law between the parties. [63] It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. [64] The absence of showing of these factors in the case at bench impels us to uphold the validity of said deeds of waiver, release and quitclaim and, to exclude the employees who executed the same from those still entitled to the benefits under the imposed CBA both before and after the remaining term of the original CBA. The waiver was all inclusive. There was not even a hint of a limitation of coverage.
	GR No. 184977 2009-12-07	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. RICKY E. DELA CRUZ BRION, J.
The CA examined the circumstances of the contractual arrangements between Peerless and Excellent, on the one hand, and the company, on the other, and found that Peerless and Excellent were engaged in labor-only contracting, a prohibited undertaking.[16] The appellate court explained that based on the respondents' assertions and the petitioner's admissions, the contractors simply supplied the company with manpower, and that the sale and distribution of the company's products are the same allied services found by this Court in Magsalin v. National Organization of Workingmen[17] to be necessary and desirable functions in the company's business.
	GR No. 172628 2009-02-13	COATS MANILA BAY v. PURITA M. ORTEGA TINGA, J.
The Court disagrees. Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against policy, except: (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.[26] Indeed, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of laborers' claims which should be respected by the Court as the law between the parties. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking,[27] and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind.[28]
	GR No. 172628 2009-02-13	COATS MANILA BAY v. PURITA M. ORTEGA TINGA, J.
In the case at bar, the release waivers and quitclaims were executed by respondents without any force or duress exerted on them. Respondents merely alleged that they voluntarily executed the documents by reason of dire economic necessity. "Dire necessity" may be an acceptable ground to annul quitclaims if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it,[29] but is not an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not shown that the employee has been forced to execute it.[30]
	GR No. 178505 2008-09-30	CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, the applicable test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[22]
	GR NO. 160854 2006-03-03	BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO QUISUMBING, J
Considering the submission of the parties, we are constrained to agree with the unanimous ruling of the Court of Appeals, NLRC and Labor Arbiter that respondents are petitioner's regular employees. Respondents were employed for more than one year and their work as carpenters was necessary or desirable in petitioner's usual trade or business of manufacturing office furniture. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, the applicable test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[20]
	GR NO. 158753 2005-06-08	MINDORO LUMBER v. EDUARDO D. BACAY CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner is correct in saying that there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker's claim which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[21] Indeed, not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their faces; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions.[22] Such quitclaims are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers from claiming the full measure of their legal rights.[23]
	GR NO. 158684 2005-05-16	PATERNO S. MENDOZA v. SAN MIGUEL FOODS CALLEJO, SR., J.
While the petitioner is correct in saying that quitclaims are commonly frowned upon for being contrary to public policy, there are, however, legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and reasonable settlement of a worker's claim which should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties.[21] Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking.[22] Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face; in these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction.[23]
	GR NO. 149793 2005-04-15	WACK WACK GOLF v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
It cannot be said that the respondents in the case at bar did not fully comprehend and realize the consequences of their acts. Herein respondents are not unlettered persons who need special protection. They held responsible positions in the petitioner-employer, so they presumably understood the contents of the documents they signed. There is no showing that the execution thereof was tainted with deceit or coercion. Further, the respondents were paid hefty amounts of separation pay indicating that their separation from the company was for a valuable consideration. Where the person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being a valid and binding undertaking.[37] As in contracts, these quitclaims amount to a valid and binding compromise agreement between the parties which deserve to be respected.[38]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Notably, private respondents performed activities which were necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. Thus, they were regular employees of petitioner, regardless of whether the engagement was merely an accommodation of their request, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code which reads: The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. As such regular employees, private respondents are entitled to security of tenure which may not be circumvented by mere stipulation in a subsequent contract that their employment is one with a fixed period. While this Court has upheld the legality of fixed-term employment, where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.[22]

BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKING MEN