Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA: the weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally
dismissed because he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight
standards. It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by
petitioner for purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for being
overweight.
ISSUE: WON he was validly dismissed.
HELD: YES
A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion
than that they constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order
to keep the job. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article
282(e) of the Labor Code.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioners
claims that obesity is a disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from
1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is possible for him to lose weight given the
proper attitude, determination, and self-discipline. Indeed, during the
clarificatory hearing on December 8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that
[t]he issue is could I bring my weight down to ideal weight which is 172,
then the answer is yes. I can do it now.
Petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the
assistance of the company physician, per the advice of PAL.
In fine, We hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of
his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article
282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal from the service. His
obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA
correctly puts it, [v]oluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely
attributable to the employee without any external force influencing or
controlling his actions. This element runs through all just causes under
Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action or omission.
Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary
although it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).
NOTES:
The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide occupational
qualification defense. Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to
persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer
can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for
in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. On Nov. 15, 2000, the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo's policy was
valid...
ISSUE:
Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its
employees from marrying employees of any competitor company is valid
RULING:
On Equal Protection
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas,
marketing strategies, and other confidential programs and information from
competitors. The prohibition against pesonal or marital relationships with
employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo's employees is reasonable
under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might
compromise the interests of the company. That Glaxo possesses the right to
protect its economic interest cannot be denied.
It is the settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause
are addressed only to the state or those acting under color of its authority.
Corollarily, it has been held in a long array of US Supreme Court decisions
that the equal protection clause erects to shield against merely privately
conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful.
The company actually enforced the policy after repeated requests to the
employee to comply with the policy. Indeed the application of the policy was
made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with due regard for the lot of
the employee.
On Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an involuntary resignation
resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable
or unlikely; when there is demotion in rank, or diminution in pay; or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee. None of these conditions are present in the
instant case.
It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no
recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel admits,
such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Despite this,
the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of cause for the dismissal of
Catolico from employment Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided
by the Labor Code for the termination of Employment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57) Case Digest
Facts:
On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes
went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich,
Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and ask if she could inspect the
packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced Anita to seal the
package making it ready for shipment. Before being sent out for delivery, Job
Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, conducted
an inspection of the package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon
opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took
sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and
invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI
agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana
leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425
and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre filed an appeal in the
Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated
and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as
evidence against him.
Issue:
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that
the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the
state.
Then, an agreement between the University and DWUEU-ALU were held after
the filing of the notice of strike.
good customs, were valid and binding on her. They expressly gave rise to the
right of the intervenor to demand compensation.
In a word, she could not simply walk away from her contractual obligations
toward the Intervenor, for Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that
obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties
and should be complied with in good faith (Czarina T. Malvar vs. Kraft Food
Phils., Inc. and/or Kraft Foods International, G.R. No. 183952, Sept. 9, 2013).
Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion v Sps. Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma
(in behalf of daughterJasmin), White Falcon Services, and Jaime Ortiz
(Pres. Of White Falcon)Sps. Cuaresma (in behalf of Jasmin) v White Falcon
and BecmenFacts:
Jan 1997
Jasmin was deployed by Becmen to serve as assistant nurse in Al-Birk
Hospital in Saudi undera 3 year contract, for $247/mo.June 1998 - she died. Jessie
Fajardo, co-worker, found her dead inside her dormitory room with mouthfoaming and
smelling of poison. Medical report of Al-Birk Hosp stated that the cause of
death waspoisoning halt in blood circulation, respiratory system and brain damage
due to poisoning fromunknown substance.Sep 1998 her body was repatriated to
Manila. The City Health Officer of Cabanatuan found that Jasmindied under
violent circumstances not poisoning abrasions at her inner lip and gums;
lacerated woundsand abrasions on her left and right ears; lacerated wounds
and hematoma (contusions) on her bows;abrasions and hematoma on her
thigh and legs; intra-muscular hemorrhage at the anterior chest; ribfracture;
puncture wounds; and abrasions on the labia minora.Mar 1999Jasmins body
was exhumed by NBI. Toxicology report tested negative ffor non-volatile,metallic
poison and insecticides.Sps. Cuaresmas received from OWWA the following: 50k
death benefits, 50k loss of life; 20k funeralexpenses; 10k medical reimbursement.Nov
1999
Sps. Filed complaint against Becmen and Rajab & Silsilah Co (principal in Saudi)
claimingdeath andinsurance benefits. Sps. Claim that Jasmins death was work
-related having occurred at the employers premises; their entitled to
iqama insurance; compensatory damages amounting to $103kwhich is the sum of
her monthly salary 35 years (she was 25 yo when she died, assuming she
wouldsurvive until 60 yo).Becmen and Rajab claim that Jasmin committed suicide
and relied on the medical report of Al Birk. Theydeny liability since the Sps. Had already
received their benefits from OWWA. Later, Becmen manifestedthat Rajab had
terminated their agency, and impleaded White Falcon as the new agency of Rajab.
Summary of Rulings
LArb
dismissed for lack of merit, giving credence to Al Birk medical report
NLRC
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with DOLE against PNOC on the ground
of purported commission by the latter of ULP for "refusal to bargain
collectively, union busting and mass termination." On the same day, the
petitioner declared a strike and staged such strike. PNOC filed a complaint
for, among others, Strike Illegality with NLRC which ruled in its favour and
whose decision was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: WON the officers and members of petitioner Union are project
employees of respondent.
RULING:
In this case, as previously adverted to, the officers and the members of
petitioner Union were specifically hired as project employees for
respondents Leyte Geothermal Power Project located at the Greater
Tongonan Geothermal Reservation in Leyte. Consequently, upon the
completion of the project or substantial phase thereof, the officers and the
members of petitioner Union could be validly terminated. Clearly, therefore,
petitioners being project employees, or, to use the correct term, seasonal
employees, their employment legally ends upon completion of the project or
the [end of the] season. The termination of their employment cannot and
should not constitute an illegal dismissal.
DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ, in his capacity as an accredited Voluntary
Arbitrator and THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU-TUCP),
respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner and private respondent and the exclusive collective bargaining
agent of the rank and file workers entered into collective bargaining
agreement under Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII thereof, provide for sick leave
with pay benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one
(1) year of service with the company, thus:
Section 1. Sick Leaves The Company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave
with pay each year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already
rendered at least one year of service with the company. However, such sick
leave can only be enjoyed upon certification by a company designated
physician, and if the same is not enjoyed within one year period of the
current year, any unenjoyed portion thereof, shall be converted to cash and
shall be paid at the end of the said one year period. And provided however,
that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not
intermittent, are entitled to the herein sick leave privilege.
Section 3. All intermittent field workers of the company who are members
of the Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per
year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number
of hours rendered including overtime.
Upon its renewal, the coverage of the said benefits was expanded to include
the "present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this Agreement."
Section 3, Article VIII, as revised, provides, thus:
"Section 3. All intermittent field workers of the company who are members
of the Regular Labor Pool and present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the
signing of this agreement shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per
year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number
of hours rendered including overtime.
Also, all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor
pool and the present regular extra labor pool hours were extended sick leave
with pay benefits. Any unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current
year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said one-year period
pursuant to Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII of the CBA.
The commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay
benefits of the intermittent workers or its conversion to cash was, however,
discontinued or withdrawn when petitioner-company under a new assistant
manager, Mr. Benjamin Marzo (who replaced Mr. Cecilio Beltran, Jr. upon the
latter's resignation), stopped the payment of its cash equivalent on the
ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under Sections 1 and 3
of the 1989 CBA.
The Union objected said discontinuance because it would violate the
principle in labor laws that benefits already extended shall not be taken away
and that it would result in discrimination between the non-intermittent and
the intermittent workers of the petitioner-company. The Union brought it
before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and said public
respondent issued an award in favour of the Union. Hence, this instant
petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the intermittent field workers are entitled to conversion to
cash of any unused sick leave.
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It was said that CBA is not an
ordinary contract but impressed with public interest, thus it must yield to the
common good.
It must be noted that the 1989 CBA has two (2) sections on sick leave with
pay benefits which apply to two (2) distinct classes of workers in petitioner's
company, namely: (1) the regular non-intermittent workers or those workers
who render a daily eight-hour service to the company and are governed by
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA; and (2) intermittent field workers who
are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor
pool as of the signing of the agreement on April 15, 1989 or those workers
who have irregular working days and are governed by Section 3, Article VIII
of the 1989 CBA.
It is thus erroneous for petitioner to isolate Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989
CBA from the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits,
specifically Section 3 thereof, in its attempt to justify the discontinuance or
withdrawal of the privilege of commutation or conversion to cash of the
unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefit to regular intermittent workers
because well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or
conversion to cash, being an existing benefit, the petitioner-company may
not unilaterally withdraw, or diminish such benefits.
It is a fact that petitioner-company had, on several instances in the past,
granted and paid the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick
leave benefits of some intermittent workers. Under the circumstances, these
may be deemed to have ripened into company practice or policy which
cannot be peremptorily withdrawn.
PLDT vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 80609 August 23, 1988
Facts:
Abucay, a traffic operator of the PLDT, was accused by two complainants of
having demanded and received from them the total amount of P3,800.00 in
consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of their applications for
for dishonesty, as found by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and as
she herself has impliedly admitted. The fact that she has worked with the
PLDT for more than a decade, if it is to be considered at all, should be taken
against her as it reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have
strengthened instead of betraying during all of her 10 years of service with
the company. If regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of
dismissal, it will actually become a prize for disloyalty, perverting the
meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its
ranks of all undesirables.
Petition granted
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA, petitioner,
vs.
BELEN P. VILLAS, respondent.
FACTS: respondent Belen Villas was employed by the petitioner School as
high school teacher in September 1985. On May 15, 1995, she applied for a
study leave for six months, from June to December 31, 1995. In a letter
dated June 2, 1995, Mrs. Angelina Quiatchon, principal of the high school
department, told Villas that her request for study leave was granted for one
school year subject to the following conditions:
1. The requested study leave takes effect on June 5, 1995 and ends on March
31, 1996;
2. The requested study leave involves no remuneration on the part of the
School;
3. The documents that justify the requested study leave should be submitted
upon return on April 1, 1996;
4. Faculty Manual Section 40 Special Provisions on the Granting of Leave of
Absence should be observed:
a. Once proven beyond reasonable doubt during the period of the approved
leave of absence that the faculty member shall engage himself in
employment outside the institution, the administration shall regard the
faculty member on leave as resigned;
b. The maximum length of leave of absence that may be applied for by the
faculty member and granted by administration is twelve (12) months. If, at
the lapse of the period, the faculty member fails to return for work, the
administration shall regard the faculty member as resigned.
RESPONDENT ALLEGED: that she intended to utilize the first semester of her
study leave to finish her masteral degree at the Philippine Womens
University (PWU). Unfortunately, it did not push through so she took up an
Old Testament course in a school of religion and at the same time utilized her
free hours selling insurance and cookware to augment her familys income.
However, during the second semester of her study leave, she studied and
passed 12 units of education subjects at the Golden Gate Colleges in
Batangas City. In response to the letters sent her by petitioner to justify her
study leave, she submitted a certification from Golden Gate Colleges and a
letter explaining why she took up an Old Testament course instead of
enrolling in her masteral class during the first semester.
President and Rector of the School, Fr. Ramonclaro G. Mendez, O. P., wrote
her, stating that her failure to enroll during the first semester was a violation
of the conditions of the study leave and that the reasons she advanced for
failure to enroll during the first semester were not acceptable and thus:
In the first place, prudence dictates that you should have ascertained first
that you are still eligible to study at PWU to finish your masteral degree
before applying and securing the approval of your leave by the School. In the
second place, you should have informed the School at once that you could
not enroll in the first semester so that your leave could have been adjusted
for only one-half (1/2) year. Thirdly, your engaging in some part-time
business instead of studying in the first semester of your leave is sufficient
justification for the School to consider you as resigned under the Faculty
Manual. And lastly, your failure to study in the first semester of your study
leave without informing the School beforehand constitutes deception, to say
the least, which is not a good example to the other teachers.
Voluntary Arbitrator Mayuga who found that respondent was illegally
dismissed. MR denied. CA affirmed, Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: whether or not respondents alleged violation of the conditions of the
study grant constituted serious misconduct which justified her termination
from petitioner School.
HELD: NO
Under the Labor Code, there are twin requirements to justify a valid dismissal
from employment: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided
in Article 282 of the Labor Code (substantive aspect) and (b) the employee
must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself (procedural
aspect).7 The procedural aspect requires that the employee be given two
the Faculty Manual. Section 40 (a) of the Manual. The prohibition against
outside employment was enacted to prevent the teacher from using the
study leave period for unsanctioned purposes since the School pays the
teacher while pursuing further studies. That rationale was not violated by
respondent for the reason that her part-time activity of selling insurance and
cookware could not have prevented her in any way from studying and, more
importantly, she was not being paid by the School while on leave. How did
the school expect her and her family to survive without any income for one
whole year?
Petitioner also failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid
dismissal. Petitioner failed to give respondent the first notice which should
have informed the latter of the formers intention to dismiss her. Petitioner
argues that it complied with this requirement as there were several
exchanges of communication between the School and respondent regarding
the cause of her termination. However, we find that these letters did not
apprise respondent that her dismissal was being sought by petitioner School
as said letters only required respondent to submit proof of enrollment.
PETITION DENIED.
________________________
NOTES:
Examples of serious misconduct justifying termination, as held in some of
our decisions, include: sexual harassment (the managers act of fondling the
hands, massaging the shoulder and caressing the nape of a secretary);11
fighting within company premises;12 uttering obscene, insulting or offensive
words against a superior;13 misrepresenting that a student is his nephew
and pressuring and intimidating a co-teacher to change that students failing
grade to passing.
respondent is not entitled to the six-month study leave and vacation pay,
the same was expressly waived by complainant when she signed conforme
to the letter dated June 2, 1995 approving her study leave which states
among others, to wit: 2. The requested study leave involves no
remuneration on the part of the school
INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION V. WATERFRONT HOTEL DAVAO
(2010)
Peralta,
J.
- Nov 2000: the Hotel sent DOLE a Notice of Suspension of Operations for 6
months due to severe and serious business losses. - During the suspension,
Rojas, Pres. of Davao insular Hotel Free Employees Union (DIHFEU-NFL) the
recognized labor org in the Hotel, sent the Hotel several letters asking it to
reconsider its decision. The Union members wanted to keep their jobs and to
help the Hotel, so it suggested several ideas in its Manifesto to solve the high
cost on payroll, such as: downsize manpower structure to 100 rank-and-file
EEs, a new pay scale, etc. - DIHFEU-NFL signed a MOA where the Hotel
agreed to re-open the hotel. The retained EEs individually signed a
reconfirmation of Employment. In June 2001, the Hotel resumed its
business operations.
- Aug 2002: Darius Joves and Debbie Planas, local officers of the National
Federation of Labor (NFL), filed a Notice of Mediation before the NCMB,
stating that the Union involved was "DARIUS JOVES/DEBBIE PLANAS ET. AL,
National Federation of Labor." The issue was the diminution of wages and
benefits through unlawful MOA. In support of his authority to file the
complaint, Joves, assisted by Atty. Cullo, presented several SPAs which were,
undated and unnotarized.
- Petitioner and respondent signed a Submission Agreement, where the union
stated was "INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL."
- The Hotel filed with the NCMB a Manifestation with Motion for a Second
Preliminary Conference, alleging that the persons who filed the complaint in
the name of the Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL have no authority to
represent the Union.
- Cullo confirmed that the case was filed not by the IHEU-NFL but by the NFL.
When asked to present his authority from NFL, Cullo admitted that the case
was filed by individual employees named in the SPAs.
- The Hotel argued that the persons who signed the complaint were not the
authorized representatives of the Union indicated in the Submission
Agreement nor were they parties to the MOA. It filed a Motion to Withdraw,
which Cullo then filed an Opposition to where the same was captioned:
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR And 79 Individual Employees, Union
Members, Complainants,
-versusWaterfront Insular Hotel Davao, Respondent. Cullo reiterated that the
complainants were not representing IHEU-NFL.
- The Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator (AVA) denied the Motion to Withdraw.
- The Hotel submitted its MR and stressed that the Submission Agreement
was void because the Union did not consent thereto.
- Cullo filed a Comment/Opposition to the Hotel's MR. Again, Cullo admitted
that the case was not initiated by the IHEU-NFL, saying that the individual
complainants are not representing the union but filing the complaint through
their appointed attorneys-in-fact to assert their individual rights as workers
who are entitled to the benefits granted by law and stipulated in the
collective bargaining agreement. There is no mention there of Insular Hotel
Employees Union, but only National Federation of Labor (NFL). The local
file a notice of preventive mediation with the NCMB. It is only after this step
that a submission agreement may be entered into by the parties concerned.
Section 3, Rule IV of the NCMB Manual of Procedure provides who may file a
notice of preventive mediation, to wit: Any certified or duly recognized
bargaining representative may file a notice
or request for preventive mediation... In the absence of a certified or duly
recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor organization in
the establishment may file a notice, request preventive mediation or declare
a strike, but only on grounds of unfair labor practice. - It is clear that only a
certified or duly recognized bargaining agent may file a notice or request for
preventive mediation. It is curious that even Cullo himself admitted that the
case was filed not by the Union but by individual members thereof. Clearly,
therefore, the NCMB had no jurisdiction to entertain the notice filed before it.
- Even though the Hotel signed a Submission Agreement, it had immediately
manifested its desire to withdraw from the proceedings after it became
apparent that the Union had no part in the complaint. Only 4 days had
lapsed after the signing of the Submission Agreement when the Hotel called
the attention of the AVA that the persons who filed the instant complaint in
the name of Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL had no authority to
represent the Union. The Hotel cannot be estopped in raising the
jurisdictional issue, because it is basic that the issue of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by
waiver or by estoppel.
2. Petitioners have not been duly authorized to represent the union. In Atlas
Farms v. NLRC : x x x Pursuant to Art 260, the parties to a CBA shall name or
designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and if
the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to
the voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by parties to a CBA. - The
CBA recognizes that DIHFEU-NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative
of all permanent employees. The inclusion of the word "NFL" after the name
of the local union merely stresses that the local union is NFL's affiliate. It
does not, however, mean that the local union cannot stand on its own. The
local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its
members and not to the federation to which it belongs.
3. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE
: x x x A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it
is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its
creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local
union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the
license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract
of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local
unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely
their agent. x x x - The NFL had no authority to file the complaint in behalf of