1. Philippine Airlines Inc. vs.

NLRC, 201 SCRA 687 FACTS - On March 15, 1985, the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. - PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code must conform with the requirements of sufficient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and prejudicial to the rights of the employees. It prayed that implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA; that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages (pp. 7-14, Record.). HELD - Indeed, industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. Thus, even before Article 211 of the Labor Code (P.D. 442) was amended by Republic Act No. 6715, it was already declared a policy of the State: "(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . . .as employees." This was, of course, amplified by Republic Act No. 6715 when it decreed the "participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare." PAL's position that it cannot be saddled with the "obligation" of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code, Republic Act No. 6715 had not yet been enacted (Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 44; Rollo, p. 212), cannot thus be sustained. While such "obligation" was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a harmonious labor-management relationship and the then already existing state policy of enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights. 2. Kiok Loy v. NLRC, 141 SCRA 179 (1986) FACTS - The union gave the employer copies of its proposed CBA and requested the company to make counterproposals. The company did not reply. The union again wrote the company but this was also ignored. HELD -It is unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement for wages, hours of work and other terms of employment. A companys refusal to make counter-proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is especially true where the Unions request for a counter proposal is left unanswered. We agree with the pronouncement that it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. 3. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Hon. Confesor, June 16, 2004 FACTS - On the other hand, the Bank filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Damages before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Manila, docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-06-04191-93 against the Union on June 28, 1993. The Bank alleged that the Union violated its duty to bargain, as it did not bargain in good faith. It contended that the Union demanded sky high economic demands, indicative of blue-sky bargaining.Further, the Union violated its no strike- no lockout clause by filing a notice of strike before the NCMB. Considering that the filing of notice of strike was an illegal act, the Union officers should be dismissed. Finally, the Bank alleged that as a consequence of the illegal act, the Bank suffered nominal and actual damages and was forced to litigate and hire the services of the lawyer. HELD - We, likewise, do not agree that the Union is guilty of ULP for engaging in blue-sky bargaining or making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals.[59] The Bank failed to show that the economic demands made by the Union were exaggerated or unreasonable. The minutes of the meeting show that the Union based its economic proposals on data of rank and file employees and the prevailing economic benefits received by bank employees from other foreign banks doing business in the Philippines and other branches of the Bank in the Asian region.

4. Jackbilt Industries, Inc. vs. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-Naflu-KMU FACTS -Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997, petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks, compelling most of its employees to go on leave for six months. - Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU immediately protested the temporary shutdown. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner was expiring during the period of the shutdown, respondent claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. The shutdown was allegedly motivated by anti-union sentiments. - Accordingly, on March 9, 1998, respondent went on strike. Its officers and members picketed petitioners main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the compound. HELD -Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employers premises. Since respondent was found in the July 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from petitioners compound, respondents officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9, 1998 strike. -The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal.Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the March 9, 1998 strike was ipso facto illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. 5. Roquero vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 15239, April 22, 2003 FACTS - Roquero and Pabayo, equipment mechanics of PAL, were caught red-handed possessing and using Methampethamine Hydrochloride or shabu in a raid conducted by PAL security officers and NARCOM personnel. The two alleged that they were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato, who is not an employee of PAL. - Then they received a notice of administrative charge for violating the PAL Code of Discipline. They were required to answer the charges and were placed under preventive suspension. Subsequently, they were dismissed. - They filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiters decision both parties at fault. PAL for instigation and complainants for giving into the temptation. It awarded separation pay and attorneys fees to the complainants. RTC acquitted complainants on account of instigation. NLRC awarded reinstatement but without backwages. CA reversed NLRC decision and upheld dismissal. HELD - For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the performance of the employees duty; and (3) must show that the employee has become unit to continue working for the employer. - It is of public knowledge that drugs can damage the mental faculties of the user. Roquero was tasked with the repair and maintenance of PALs airplanes. He cannot discharge that duty if he is a drug user. His failure to do his job can mean great loss of lives and properties. Hence, even if he was instigated to take drugs he has no right to be reinstated to his position. He took the drugs fully knowing that he was on duty and more so that it is prohibited by company rules. - On the defense of instigation: Instigation is only a defense against criminal liability. It cannot be used as a shield against dismissal from employment especially when the position involves the safety of human lives. 6. JGB and Associates, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R No. 10939, March 7, 1996 FACTS - On February 25, 1990, before the expiration of his contract of employment, private respondent was given notice by his employer that his employment was terminated for the reason that his performance both in productivity and efficiency was below average. The termination of his employment took effect on the same day. He was immediately scheduled to depart Saudi Arabia and on February 28, 1990, three days after his dismissal, he found himself already in the Philippines. - On March 12, 1990, private respondent filed with the POEA a complaint against JGB and Associates, Inc., Tariq Hajj Architects and Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, alleging illegal dismissal and seeking payment of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his employment contract, salary

differential, refund of S.R. 1,000 which was withheld from him for telephone bills, moral damages and attorneys fees. - Petitioner averred that private respondent was dismissed for neglect of duties and performance below par. Petitioner also alleged that although no prior notice of dismissal was given to private respondent, he was given in lieu thereof a notice pay equivalent to one month salary. HELD - Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of ones duties. [2] Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment of the employer and the latters business. - None of these causes is stated in the two letters of the employer as reasons for dismissing private respondent. None of the reasons there stated even approximates any of the causes provided in the contract of employment for the termination of employment by the employer. - Indeed, the grounds given for private respondents dismissal are nothing but general, vague and amorphous allegations. As the NLRC noted, the letters do not state particular acts which show that private respondent was indeed negligent and that his performance was below par. Nor did petitioner show the tangible financial loss which it claimed it suffered as a result of private respondents alleged neglect of duty. 7. Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 FACTS - PICOP grants certain allowances to its employees depending on the circumstances and need for such. The allowances in question pertains to the following: 1. Staff/Managers Allowance: Free housing facilities to supervisory and managerial employees assigned in Bislig. Due to shortage of housing facilities, the company was constrained to grant allowances to those who live or rent houses near the vicinity of the mill site. 2. Transportation Allowance: granted to Managers assigned to the mill site who use their own vehicles in the performance of their duties. 3. Bislig Allowance: given in consideration of being assigned to the hostile environment then prevailing in Bislig. - The Executive Labor Arbiter opined that the subject allowances formed part of the employees wages. Citing jurisprudence, he concluded that the allowances should be included in the computation of the employees base pay in determining the separation pay. The NLRC did not share the view of the Labor Arbiter. It found that the allowances were contingency-based and thus not included I their salaries. HELD Wage, as defined by the Labor Code, may include any determination by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate instances the fair and reasonable value of board, lodging and other facilities customarily furnished by an employer to his employees. The Court agrees with the OSG that the subject allowances were temporary and not regularly received by the petitioners. The allowance given to the employees in the instant case do not represent such fair and reasonable value because the allowance were given by the company in lieu of actual housing and transportation needs whereas the Bislig allowance was given in consideration of being assigned to the hostile environment then prevailing in Bislig; petitioners continuous enjoyment of the disputed allowances was based on contingencies the occurrence of which terminated such enjoyment. 8. Central Azucarrera dela Carlota vs. NLRC FACTS - On 31 March 1987 petitioner's Board of Directors passed a resolution authorizing its Vice PresidentResident Manager to undertake and implement a comprehensive cost reduction program to address petitioner's financial difficulties "on account of huge financial losses suffered due to a big production shortfall (in the) last crop year (which) was further aggravated by the reduction of areas planted to cane in the district and the recent dry spell." - Subsequently, petitioner apprised Reynaldo Decrepito of his dismissal due to retrenchment through a memorandum dated 18 June 1987 terminating his services effective 23 June 1987.

HELD Mere citation by the employer of the economic setback suffered by the sugar industry as a whole cannot, in the absence of adequate, credible and persuasive evidence, justify its retrenchment program 9. Sy, et al vs. CA, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003 FACTS - In April 1994, Sahot was already 59 years old. He had been incurring absences as he was suffering from various ailments. Particularly causing him pain was his left thigh, which greatly affected the performance of his task as a driver. He inquired about his medical and retirement benefits with the Social Security System (SSS) on April 25, 1994, but discovered that his premium payments had not been remitted by his employer. - Sahot had filed a week-long leave sometime in May 1994. At the end of his week-long absence, Sahot applied for extension of his leave for the whole month of June, 1994. It was at this time when petitioners allegedly threatened to terminate his employment should he refuse to go back to work. - At this point, Sahot found himself in a dilemma. He was facing dismissal if he refused to work, But he could not retire on pension because petitioners never paid his correct SSS premiums. The fact remained he could no longer work as his left thigh hurt abominably. Petitioners ended his dilemma. They carried out their threat and dismissed him from work, effective June 30, 1994 HELD - As this Court stated in Triple Eight integrated Services, Inc. vs. NLRC,[31] the requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with; otherwise, it would sanction the unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or extent of the employees illness and thus defeat the public policy in the protection of labor. - In the case at bar, the employer clearly did not comply with the medical certificate requirement before Sahots dismissal was effected.