G.R. No.

198967, March 07, 2016

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON, Respondent.

TOPIC: DISMISSAL

FACTS:

On March 11, 1 996, respondent Crisan to P. Uson (Uson) began his employment with Royal
Class Venture Phils., Inc. (Royal Class Venture) as an accounting clerk. 3 Eventually, he was
promoted to the position of accounting supervisor, with a salary of Phpl3, 000.00 a month, until
he was allegedly dismissed from employment on December 20, 2000.

The LA ruled in favor of Uson and ordered Royal Class to reinstate him with payment of
backwages and 13th month pay. Guillermo elevated the matter to the NLRC, but the court
denied his appeal.The CA agreed with the LA and NLRC, which held Guillermo personally liable
for the obligations of Royal Class to Uson.

DOCTRINE:

Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil apply in labor cases

The Court rules that in labor cases, officers may indeed be ordered to answer for the companys
obligations to employees, but only when there is a presence of fraud, malice or bad faith on the
part of the officers.
 G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016
INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS &
CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B.
ARRIOLA, Respondents.

TOPIC: Illegal termination of an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW).

FACTS:

When can a foreign law govern an overseas employment contract? Petitioner is a local
placement agency duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with petitioner Angelito C.
Hernandez as its president and managing director. Petitioner SNC Lavalin Engineers &
Contractors, Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) is the principal of IPAMS, a Canadian company with business
interests in several countries. On the other hand, respondent Arriola (Arriola) is a licensed
general surgeon in the Philippines.

Respondent is a licensed general surgeon in the Philippines, was hired by SNC-Lavalin, through
its local manning agency, IPAMS, as a safety officer in its Ambatovy Project site in Madagascar.

Arriola filed a complaint against the petitioners for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
overtime pay, vacation and sick leave pay before the Labor Arbiter (LA).The petitioners asserted
that Arriolas employment documents were processed in Canada, not to mention that SNC-
Lavalins office was in Ontario, so that the principle of lex loci celebrationis was applicable. They
relied on a copy of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) of Ontario, which was duly
authenticated by the Canadian authorities and certified by the Philippine Embassy. Hence, they
insisted that Canadian laws governed the contract.

In fine, as the petitioners failed to meet all the four requisites on the applicability of a foreign
law, then the Philippine labor laws must govern the overseas employment contract of Arriola.

DOCTRINE:

Doctrine of processual presumption- where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is
not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours
 G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016
ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,*Petitioners, v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO,
VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN;
INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION),
AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

TOPIC: IILEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:

The petitioners appeal the adverse judgment promulgated on July 31, 2002,[1] whereby the
Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
declaring them as project employees hired for a fixed period.

Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), a domestic corporation engaged in the

business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired individuals on various dates.
After their respective contracts expired, the individuals filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as project employees in
order to prevent them from becoming regular employees.

Labor Arbiter (LA) Vicente Layawen rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for lack of
merit. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of LA. The CA upheld the NLRC.

In fine, the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a fixed
term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract. Their complaint for illegal dismissal was
plainly lacking in merit.

DOCTRINE:

The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. When a court has laid
down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle
and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same; but when the facts
are essentially different, stare decisis does not apply because a perfectly sound principle as
applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is introduced
 G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016
TABUK MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-
ANGAN, Petitioners, v. MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.

TOPIC: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:

Tabuk Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (TAMPCO) is a duly registered cooperative based in

Tabuk, Kalinga. It employed Magdalena Duclan as Cashier on August 15, 1989.

TAMPCO introduced Special Investment Loans (SILs) to its members and prospective borrowers.
Among those who availed themselves of the SILs were Brenda Falgui and Juliet Kotoken.

TAMPCO introduced Special Investment Loans (SILs) with a limited grant but SILs were still
granted to Falgui and Kotoken over and above the ceiling set. The BOD suspended Duclan
without pay, and ordered to either collect the SIL she released or suffer dismissal from
employment. Duclan failed to produce the money, hence TAMPCO wrote her a letter dated
February 1, 2005, informing her of her dismissal.

The LA ruled that Duclan was illegally dismissed. The NLRC found the dismissal valid. The CA
reversed the decision of the NLRC and held Duclans dismissal as illegal. Supreme Court's Ratio
Decidendi, Duclan was dismissed for just cause. The Court cites Article 282[4] of the Labor Code,
which enumerates just causes for dismissal of an employee.
 G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016
UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO
CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS, AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN
BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents.

TOPIC: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:

The Nagkahisuang Mamumuno sa Ursumco-National Federation of Labor (the Union) filed

complaint against Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. (URSM) for non-compliance with Wage
Order No. 3. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) found URSM liable to the
members of the Union in the total amount of P210,217.54. On September 11, 2003, the DOLE
sheriff went to URSMs Personnel Manager, Jocelyn Teo, to enforce the judgment. She refused
to comply by reason of URSMs pending appeal before the Secretary of Labor. On November 12,
2003, the sheriff went back to enforce the judgment, with the help of the Union Officers. Teo
refused to comply again, so the sheriff, together with Elmer Albay and his co-repondents, took
URSMs forklifts outside the company premises, and deposited them at the municipal hall for
safekeeping.

Because of this incident, URSM dismissed respondents from employment. Respondents then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The LA dismissed respondents complaint. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The CA
reversed the NLRC ruling and declared the respondents illegally dismissed. Supreme Court's
Ratio Decidendi, Respondents were illegally dismissed. Under Article 297 (formerly Article 282)
of the Labor Code, one of the just causes to validly terminate an employee is [s]erious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work.
 G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016
SILVERTEX WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v.TEODORA F.
CAMPO, Respondent.
TOPIC: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL

FACTS:

Teodora F. Campo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against Silvertex
Weaving Corporation (STWC).

Campo claimed that STWC employed her as a weaving machine operator beginning June 11,
1999, until STWC dismissed her on November 21, 2010. Prior to her dismissal, STWC suspended
her for one week beginning November 14, 2010 after a stitching machine that she was operating
overheated and emitted smoke on November 13, 2010. When the respondent tried to report
back to work on November 21, 2010, she was denied entry by the STWCs security guard.

STWC argued that the Campo voluntarily resigned after STWC reprimanded her for poor job
performance. It submitted a handwritten resignation letter allegedly executed by the Campo on
November 13, 2010, together with the Waiver, Release and Quitclaims Statement that she
supposedly signed following her receipt of 30,000.00 from STWC. Campo denies signing these
documents and receiving the money.

The LA dismissed the Campos complaint for lack of merit. Initially, the NLRC found that Campos
signature on the documents were mere forgeries. Campo appealed to the CA, which the latter
granted. Supreme Court's Ratio Decidendi, STWC has the burden to prove the authenticity of
the documents. The Court holds that the employer has the burden to prove that the employee
was not dismissed, or that the dismissal was legal.
 [ G.R. No. 210308, April 06, 2016 ]
ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENT.

TOPIC: Violations on recruitment

FACTS:

Rule II, Part VI of the 2002 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Rules and
Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-based Overseas Workers
(2002 POEA Rules) authorizes the filing of a complaint by the POEA upon its own initiative[3]
against a recruitment agency suspected of violations of its Rules on the recruitment and
placement of overseas workers. In particular, Section 2(e) of Rule I, Part VI thereof provides:
SECTION 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions: Engaging in act/s of
misrepresentation in connection with recruitment and placement of workers, such as furnishing
or publishing any false notice, information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment.

Premises considered, [AIMS] was liable for violation of Section 2(e), Rule I, Part VI of the [2002
POEA Rules] and is hereby imposed with the penalty of suspension of its license for four (4)
months or, in lieu thereof, fine amounting to PHP40,000.00.

It is true that in administrative proceedings, as in the case, only substantial evidence is needed,
or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Unfortunately, there is no evidence against AIMS to speak of, much less substantial
evidence. Clearly, AlMS's right to be informed of the charges against it, and its right to be held
liable only upon substantial evidence, have both been gravely violated.
 G.R. No. 212382, April 06, 2016
SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS
DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO
CANOZA, Petitioners, v.EMILIO CONAG, Respondent.

TOPIC: PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS

FACTS:

Since 2002, respondent Emilio A. Conag (Conag) had been deployed annually by petitioner
Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. (Scanmar). According to him, his job entailed lifting heavy loads
and occasionally, he would skid and fall while at work on deck. On June 19, 2009, as he was
going about his deck duties, he felt numbness in his hip and back. He was given pain relievers
but the relief was temporary. Two months later, the pain recurred with more intensity, and on
August 18, 2009 he was brought to a hospital in Tunisia.

Conag was medically repatriated, upon arrival in Manila on August 27, 2009, he was referred to
the company-designated physicians at the Metropolitan Medical Center (MMC), Marine Medical
Services, where he was examined and subjected to laboratory examinations. Condition did not
improve despite medicine and that his symptoms aggravated due to his work which entails
carrying of heavy loads. Dr. Jacinto then assessed Conag as unfit to go back to work as a
seafarer.

LA held that the disability assessment of Dr. Jacinto was reflective of Conag's actual medical and
physical condition. NLRC in its Decision dated November 30, 2010, dismissed Conag's complaint
for lack of merit. In upholding the LA decision, the CA found "undisputed" evidence that Conag
suffered from spinal injuries which caused his total disability, discrediting as without basis the
NLRC's dismissal of Dr. Jacinto's assessment. Supreme Court likewise granted the petition,
reinstated NLRCs decision.
 G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016
VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA,
BOTH SURNAMED BALBA, Petitioners, v. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME
CORP., Respondents.

TOPIC: COMPENSATION

FACTS:

Rogelio entered into a 10-month contract of employment with Tiwala Human Resources, Inc. He
was employed as chief cook on board the vessel M/V Giga Trans. He was declared fit for work in
his pre-employment medical examination and boarded the vessel M/V Giga Trans on November
13, 1998.

Upon the expiration of his contract, Rogelio was repatriated to the Philippines. Rogelio was
confined at the Seamen's Hospital and was found to have metastatic cancer. As such, he sought
disability compensation and benefits from the respondents but these were denied. Rogelio was
admitted at the Philippine General Hospital for lung cancer. He succumbed to his illness in July
2000. As a result of Rogelio's death, his complaint was subsequently amended and his wife,
Violeta Balba, and two children, Roy and Vienna Gracia, were substituted as complainants.

LA dismissed the complaint after finding that Rogelio's death was not compensable under the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC).[14]
Within the reglementary period, the petitioners appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC reversed the
LA's Decision. CA declared that the evidence on record is bereft of any proof linking Rogelio's
cancer with his work as chief cook. Supreme court affirmed CAs decision.
 G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016
ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.

TOPIC: Illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, and nonpayment

FACTS:

Respondent Elizabeth Villa brought against the petitioner her complaint for illegal suspension,
illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, and nonpayment of service incentive leave pay in
the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of the NLRC in Cebu City.

Villa averred that she had been employed by petitioner Robina Farms as sales clerk.

Upon reporting back to work, she had been advised to cease working because her application
for retirement had already been approved; application had been disapproved, and had then
been advised to tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance; had been
replaced by another employee.

Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug rendered her decision finding that Villa had not been
dismissed from employment. The NLRC rendered its judgment dismissing the appeal by the
petitioner but granting that of Villa. The CA promulgated its assailed decision dismissing the
petition for certiorari. Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents
ROBINA FARMS CEBU (a Division of UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION) and LILY NGOCHUA to
REINSTATE complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges
within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision but without payment of backwages.
Respondents are also ordered to pay complainant SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY
FOUR PESOS (P7,194.00) as service incentive leave pay benefits.
 G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016
DOEHLE-PHILMAN1 MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T.
GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. HENRY C. HARO, Respondent.

TOPIC: Disability benefits

FACTS:

On May 30, 2008, Doehle-Philman, in behalf of its foreign principal, Dohle Ltd., hired respondent
as oiler aboard the vessel MV CMA CGM Providencia[8] for a period of nine months with basic
monthly salary of US$547.00 and other benefits. Before deployment, respondent underwent
pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty. But, he
experienced heartache and loss of energy after hammering and lifting a 120-kilogram machine.

Finally, petitioners argued that since respondent's illness is not an occupational disease, then he
must prove that his work caused his illness; because of his failure to do so, then he is not
entitled to disability benefits.

LA dismissed the case for lack of merit. NLRC dismissed the appeal. CA stated that NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the LA Decision dismissing the Complaint.

Supreme Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Resolutions, which affirmed the
dismissal of the Complaint. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the NLRC were not tainted
with grave abuse of discretion as respondent's claim for disability benefits is unsupported by
substantial evidence. Indeed, when the evidence adduced negates compensability, the claim
must necessarily fail.
 G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016
FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO,
JR., Respondents.

TOPIC: Illegal dismissal, underpayment

FACTS:

The instant petition stemmed from a Complaint for illegal dismissal dated December 19, 2007
filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by petitioner Francis C. Cervantes
against respondents City Service Corporation and/or Valentin Prieto, Jr. for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of salaries/wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day
premium, service incentive leave, separation pay, ECOLA, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees.

Procedurally, petitioner insists that he filed the petition for certiorari on time, which should be
reckoned from the moment his counsel was informed about the Resolution denying his motion
for reconsideration, and not from the date his mother received a copy of the NLRC Resolution.
The purpose of the rules on service is to make sure that the party being served with the
pleading, order or judgment is duly informed of the same so that he can take steps to protect his
interests.

Labor Arbiter, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC affirmed the assailed Resolutions.

Supreme Court finds that the NLRC correctly upheld petitioner's dismissal to be valid. Records
show that petitioner was relieved from his post in UST due to his poor work performance and
attitude. However, while petitioner was removed from UST, private respondent immediately
reassigned him to Mercury Drug Fairview which he refused to accept. Despite notices requiring
him to report back to work, petitioner refused to heed. Considering that it was petitioner who
went on absence without official leave (AWOL), the same negates the allegation of illegal
dismissal.