1.) FLORES vs.

CA
Facts: Flores was employed by Eco-Triangle as Sales Supervisor. He was subsequently promoted
to Senior Sales Supervisor and eventually, to Assistant Sales Manager. He was entrusted with
sensitive and confidential information. In August 1998, Eco-Triangles Managing Director went
on study leave. He entrusted the sales department to Flores. Flores entered into a covert
agreement with Gouldstar, a former supplier, to engage in business in direct competition with
Eco-Triangle. Flores took advantage of the absence of the Managing Director to sabotage Eco-
Triangles business and, in connivance with Gouldstar, diverted the sales of Eco-Triangle to
Gouldstar, etc. On December 27, 2000, Flores suddenly turned in his resignation letter stating
that his resignation. Eco-Triangle filed a complaint for damages against Flores with the RTC.
Flores filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction claiming that since the
complaint stemmed from the employer-employee relations between the parties, the labor
arbiter had jurisdiction.
Issue: Who has jurisdiction to hear the case?
Ruling: The RTC has jurisdiction. The damages claimed by Eco-Triangle do not have a reasonable
causal connection with any of the claims enumerated under Article 217 of the Labor Code. The
allegations in the complaint unequivocally reveal that the action was based on Articles 19 and
21 of the Civil Code and does not involve the adjudication of a labor dispute. Plainly, the
employer-employee relationship between Eco-Triangle and Flores is merely incidental and does
not negate the jurisdiction of the trial court. Not every dispute between an employer and
employee involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of
their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC
under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee
relationship, which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes,
or their collective bargaining agreement.
2.) PAGCOR vs. BIR
Facts: PAGCOR was one of the GOCCs exempted from paying corporate income tax as provided
by RA 8424 (NIRC of 1997). When RA 9337 was enacted, PAGCOR was excluded from the
enumeration of GOCCs that are exempt from paying corporate income tax. PAGCOR argues that
the omission is unconstitutional as it is in violation of the equal protection and non-impairment
clauses of the Constitution.
Issue: Is RA 9337 in violation of the equal protection and non-impairment clauses of the
Constitution?

Ruling: No, RA 9337 is not in violation of the equal protection clause. PAGCORs exemption
from payment of corporate income tax, as provided in RA 8424 (old law), was not made
pursuant to a valid classification based on substantial distinctions and the other requirements
of a reasonable classification by legislative bodies, so that the law may operate only on some,
and not all, without violating the equal protection clause. The basis of the grant of exemption
to PAGCOR from corporate income tax was PAGCORs own request to be exempted.
No, RA 9337 is not in violation of the non-impairment clause. There is impairment if a
subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between the parties, imposes new conditions,
dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of
the parties. In Manila Electric Company v. Province of Laguna, the Court held that a franchise
partakes the nature of a grant, which is beyond the purview of the non-impairment clause of
the Constitution. PAGCOR was granted a franchise to operate and maintain gambling casinos,
clubs, etc. within the Philippines. Under Sec. 11, Art. XII of the Constitution, PAGCORs franchise
is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress. Hence, the provision in RA 9337,
amending RA 8424 by withdrawing the exemption of PAGCOR from corporate income tax,
which may affect any benefits to PAGCORs transactions with private parties, is not in violation
of the non-impairment clause.
3.) Austria v. NLRC GR 124382 August 16, 1999
Facts: Petitioner Austria was an employee of Private Respondent Seventh Day Adventist (SDA)
for 28 years. His last post before being terminated was the position of a District Pastor. There
are two salient occasions that led to Pastor Austrias dismissal: 1) Pastor Austria received
several communications from the SDA asking him to take accountability for the non
remittance of church tithes collected by his wife, to which he tried to explain that it was not
him who authorized the collections. 2) He had a heated argument with Pastor Buhat, the
president of the SDA Mission at that time, when the latter refused to convene a meeting to
settle a dispute where Pastor Austria is involved. On October 17, 1991, petitioner received a
letter inviting him to a meeting where his alleged violations will be discussed. Subsequently
after, petitioner received a letter of dismissal finding him guilty of the violations he was charged
with. Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter who ruled in his favor. Upon appeal
to the NLRC, the NLRC ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration and the NLRC reversed its decision. In view of this, Respondents filed another
MR this time citing the doctrine of separation of church and state, and that the Labor Arbiter
has no jurisdiction as the matter was ecclesiastical in nature. The NLRC once again reversed
itself and ruled for the Respondents.

Issue: Whether or not the termination of the Petitioner was an ecclesiastical affair and thus
involving the doctrine of separation of church and state?
Ruling: No. An ecclesiastical or purely religious affair involves the relationship between the
church and its members relating to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship, and
congregation governance. What is involved in this matter is not internal matters of church
governance but the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee.
The grounds invoked for the petitioners dismissal, e.g., breach of trust, misappropriation,
serious misconduct, among others, are all based on Article 282 of the Labor Code. Further,
Article 2778 of the Labor Code is comprehensive enough to cover religious corporations such as
SDA as it states that this Title shall apply to all establishments xxx whether for profit or not.
In termination of cases, the burden of proving that the termination was valid rests on the
employer. Requisites for a valid dismissal requires due process and that the dismissal must be
based on just cause. The requisites of due process requires two written notices: 1) written
notice specifying the ground for termination, giving the employee the right to defend himself
and 2) notice that the employer decided to terminate him after due consideration. Private
respondent failed to comply with such requirements.
4.) Salenga v. NLRC GR 174941 February 1, 2012
Facts:
There are two salient circumstances surrounding this case: 1) Petitioner Salenga filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against Respondent Corporation (Clark Development
Corporation) when the latter declared his position as head executive assistant to be redundant.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Petitioner. When the decision was rendered, the new
President of the Respondent Corporation ordered that the decision must not be appealed
anymore. Despite this, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) appealed the
decision on behalf of the Corporation and its former president. However, there was no board
resolution giving authority to the appellants to represent the Corporation. 2) Pending the
resolution of the first case, Petitioner applied for an early retirement which was approved.
However, he insists that the computation of the retirement benefits should include the 40 years
of government service he rendered and not just the 17 years he served under the present
Corporation.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by the OGCC and
CDCs former president absent the board resolution.
2. Whether or not Petitioner is covered by the Civil Service Law.
Ruling:
1. No. The Rules of NLRC clearly provides that appeals must be verified and certified
against forum shopping by the parties in interests. A corporation can only exercise its powers
when there is a board resolution authorizing its officers to do so. The power of the corporation
to sue and be sued is solely exercised by its board of directors. The purpose then for the
issuance of board resolution and verification is to secure that the allegations in the pleadings
are true, correct, and filed in good faith. Thus, neither the OGCC thru Timbol Roman nor Atty
Mallari, can be considered as the appellant representing the employer under Rule VI
Sections 4 6 of the NLRC. As the Court opined, We cannot agree with the OGCCs attempt to
downplay this procedural flaw by claiming that, as the statutorily assigned counsel for GOCCs, it
does not need such authorization. In Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, 456 Phil. 273,
294-298 (2003), we exhaustively explained why it was necessary for government agencies or
instrumentalities to execute the verification and the certification against forum-shopping
through their duly authorized representatives. (Antonio P. Salenga and NLRC vs. Court of
Appeals and Clark Development Corp., G.R. No. 74941, Feb. 1, 2012). The exception to this is
when equitable circumstances which are manifest from the records prevail.
2. Petitioner is not covered by Civil Service Law. It is not disputed that Respondent
Corporation are GOCCs without original charters, hence they are not under Civil Service Law.
Therefore, Petitioner is entitled only his retirement benefits based on the number of years he
was employed with the corporation under the conditions provided under its retirement plan, as
well as granted to him by existing laws.
5.) JV Angeles Construction Corporation vs NLRC
Facts: Petitioner assailed the decision of NLRC concerning a case between petitioner and
private respondent Pedro Santos. Petitioner was the employer of Pedro for 23 years and after
Pedro compulsorily retired, he filed a complaint for retirement benefits and service incentive
leave pay under RA 7641. Petitioner contended that it should not be made to pay the demands
of private respondent because the statute involved in this case cannot be given retroactive
effect.
Issue: Whether or not RA 7641 can be applied retroactively in this case.
Ruling: No. Pedro was no longer an employee of petitioner at the time the said law took effect.
Court said, "In CJC Trading Inc. v. NLRC, the aforecited doctrine was elaborated upon by
enumerating the circumstances which must occur before the law could be given retroactive
effect, to wit: (1) the claimant for retirement benefits was still the employee of the employer at
the time the statute took effect; and (2) the claimant has complied with the requirements for
eligibility under the statute for such retirement benefits."
6.) Executive Secretary v CA
Facts: Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals in a case between petitioner and
respondent Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter (ARCO-Phil). Respondent assailed the
constitutionality of several provisions of RA 8042 alleging among others that such law is an ex
post facto law.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8042 was constitutional.
Ruling: Yes. RA 8042 was constitutional. The Court said, "In People v. Diaz, we held that Rep. Act
No. 8042 is but an amendment of the Labor Code of the Philippines and is not an ex-post facto
law because it is not applied retroactively." Moreover, the law in question has already been
applied in previous cases by the Supreme Court. The Court, thru Justice Callejo, went on to
elaborate, "By its rulings, the Court thereby affirmed the validity of the assailed penal and
procedural provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042, including the imposable penalties therefor. Until
the Court, by final judgment, declares that the said provisions are unconstitutional, the
enforcement of the said provisions cannot be enjoined."
7.) People vs. Dela Piedra
FACTS: Maria Lordes Modesto, Nancy Araneta and her friends went to the house of Jasmine
Alejandro after learning that Carol dela Peidra was there to recruit applicants for Singapore.
They were welcomed by Jasmine and sat down while listening to the recruiter who was then
talking about the breakdown of the fees. Dela Piedra said that she has been recruiting nurse for
Singapore. Subsequently, the girls filed a bio-data submitted pictures and other documents.
After the interview, Lourdes gave initial payment of P2,000 to Jasmine who assured she is
authorized to received the money.
Meanwhile, Atty. Ramos of POEA received a telephone call from an unidentified woman that
asking about the legitimacy of the recruitment. Atty. Ramos together with his conducted
surveillance. One of them pretended to be an applicant. Ramos confirmed to the CIS to
organize the arrest of the illegal recruiter. Subsequently, Dela Piedra was convicted for ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT.
On appeal she questioned her conviction and even assailed the constitutionality of Article 13 of
the Labor Code that it is void for vagueness.

ISSUES: a. Whether or not said provision as amended by Illegal Recruitment Law violates due
process clause.
b. Whether or not the accused was denied equal protection clause because she was
the only one charged and therefore should be exculpated.
HELD:
A. No. Section 13 of the labor code as amended is not a perfectly vague act whose
obscurity is evident on its face. If at all, the proviso therein is merely couched in imprecise
language that was salvaged for proper construction. It is not void for vagueness.

B. No. The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted,
is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by
officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled
to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it
an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. But a discriminatory purpose is not
presumed, there must be a showing of clear and intentional discrimination. In the case at bar,
dela Piedra failed to show that, in charging her, there was clear and intentional discrimination
on the part of the prosecuting officials.

8.) People vs Gutierrez GR 124439
Facts: In the case at hand, there were four victims of illegal recruitment namely: Evelyn Ramos,
Rosemarie Tugade, Generosa Asuncion and Rosalyn Sumayo. They suffered the same fate under
the hands of the Flor Gutierrez who conspired with other recruiter-agents. The victims were
applying as a domestic helpers in Dubai. All of them were able to comply with the various
requirements / documents and pay a certain amount of money as placement fee, passport,
medical fee, terminal fee and the like. They were hopeful that after they have complied with all
the necessary documents and payments, their supposed departure to Dubai would push
through. However, despite a series of promises by their recruiter, their departure never came
into a reality. There were even a series of postponements of flights but it never materialized.
With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused was
a licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not licensed, they proceeded to
the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission to execute their affidavits. There the investigators are
planning for an entrapment operation against the accused. She was then arrested as soon as
she finished counting the mark money as payment to her by the 4 complainants. In her defense,
she claimed that she cannot held liable for illegal recruitment because she is has the authority
emanated from a Special Power of Attorney and Certification issued by a licensed agency in the
name of Marketing Directress of Serafudin Manpower and General Services.
Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of illegal recruitment?
Ruling: Yes. Illegal Recruitment is committed when two elements concur, 1.) the offender has
no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment
and placement of workers; 2.) undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices
under Article 34 of the Labor Code In addition the crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale when the above mentioned elements concur with the addition of the third element: the
recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. In the
case at hand, accused contended that she cannot be held liable for such crime because she has
an authority from a duly licensed recruitment agency. However, the SC disagree because under
Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, it
requires that every appointment of representatives or agents of licensed agency shall be
subject to prior approval or authority of the POEA. Since appellant Serafudin agency did not
submit its appointment of Ms. Gutierrez as representative to the POEA, POEA has nothing to
approve. Therefore, the appointment of Ms. Gutierrez is not authorized by POEA. Hence, as
accused committed illegal recruitment against three or more persons, she is liable for Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale.

9.) People vs Segun GR 119076
Facts:Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam without any license and/or authority to engage in
recruitment and placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment, recruited the 13
persons allegedly to work in Manila namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard Aranas, Victoria
Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban, Jonard Genemelo, Jhonely
Genemelo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico Villaver. They all came from Linamon, Lanao del
Norte. All of them have different stories on how they were recruited by the appellants to work in
Manila. It was also allegedly claimed that the transportation to Manila was free. It was established by
the prosecution that the said appellants were neither licensed nor authorized by the DOLE to recruit
workers. Secondly, it was corroborated by the Mayor of Linamon that appellants per records were not
authorized to conduct recruitment for local or overseas employment. On the other hand, both Roger
and Josephine admitted that they did not have any license to recruit. They only helped their neighbors
find jobs because they took pity on them when their neighbors begged them for jobs. However, the
Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Issue: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale?
Ruling:No. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur.
First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment
and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) or any prohibited acts enumerated under Article 34 of
the Labor Code. Third, offender commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a
group. In the case at hand, the first element is present when a certification issued by DOLE states that
appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and overseas employment. The
appellants also conceded that they have no license to recruit. As to the second element, the trial court
was able to deduced the testimonies of different witnesses and came up with the conclusions that most
of their testimonies were hearsy and that during their direct or cross examinations, they used the term
recruit which according to the Supreme Court is a conclusion of law. The prosecution failed to elicit
from them the specific act constituting the recruitment. The victims must testify as to the facts that
would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state that the accused recruited
the victim. In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many witnesses the specific acts constituting
the recruitment of the alleged victims. However, the prosecution was able to prove that appellants
performed recruitment activity only in cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. Since the third
element which is that the offender commits the acts against three or more persons is absent, therefore,
appellants is only guilty of two counts of simple illegal recruitment.




10. People of the Philippines vs. Chowdury

Facts: Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Calleja,
Miranda, and Sasis for employment in Korea. Appellant (Chowdury) interviewed private complainant in
at Craftrades office. At that time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under
temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. He was charged based on the fact
that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal
capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. Chowdurys primary duty was to interview job applicants
for abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed the instructions given by his superiors.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of
the crime charged.
Held: No, an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as
principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal
recruitment. In this case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president
and managing director. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has
an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment.
A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its
operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the
agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with
the applicants in its behalf.

11. STOLT-NIELSEN TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC vs
SULPECIO MEDEQUILLO, JR.

Facts:
On November 6, 1991 respondent Medequillo was hired by Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc
on behalf of its principal Chung-Gai Ship Management of Panama as Third Assistant Engineer on board
the vessel Stolt Aspiration for a period of nine (9) months which stipulates a monthly basic salary of
$808.00 and a fixed overtime pay of $404.00 or a total of $1,212.00 per month during the employment
period commencing on 6 November 1991. Thus November 8, 1991, he joined the vessel MV Stolt
Aspiration.
However, on February 1992 or for nearly three (3) months of rendering service and
while the vessel was at Batangas, he was ordered by the ships master to disembark the vessel and
repatriated back to Manila for no reason or explanation, urging him to immediately proceed to the
petitioners office where he was transferred employment with another vessel named MV Stolt Pride
under the same terms and conditions of the First Contract which was was noted and approved by the
POEA.
Nevertheless, despite the commencement of the Second Contract on 21 April 1992, petitioners
failed and refused to deploy him with the vessel MV Stolt Pride. And instead, when respondent
demanded for his passport, seamans book and other employment documents, he was constrained to
sign a certain document involuntarily in exchange of his papers. With such, respondent filed an action
praying for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees for his illegal dismissal and in
view of the Petitioners bad faith in not complying with the Second Contract of deploying him.


Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction of cases involving non-deployment of
employees under a perfected contract?

Ruling:

Considering that the breach of contract happened on February 1992 and the law applicable at
that time was the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment which provides
that the penalty for non-deployment without valid reason is suspension or cancellation of license or
fine.
The absence of the POEA Rules with regard to the payment of damages to the affected
seafarer without claim for compensation arising from employer-employee relationship does not mean
that the seafarer is precluded from claiming the same. The Court do not forefend a seafarer from
instituting an action for damages against the employer or agency which has failed to deploy him. And
thus decrees the application of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) which
provides for money claims by reason of a contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment.
The law provides:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the
claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
of damages.
And following the applicable law, the claim is cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC under
the second phrase of the provision.