LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Art. 263-264

1Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011 (in relation to 263 and 264) ABON

2YSS Employees Union v. YSS Laboratories Inc., December 4, 2009 DIATO

3NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA, November 11, 2008 GARDIANO

4Jackbilt Industries Inc., v. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU, March 20, 2009 GO

5 NCMB primer on strikes and lockouts

6 APAP v. PAL, June 6, 2011 JULARBAL

7 Olisa et. al. v. Escario Et. al. (Art. 264 in rel to 279) TRINIDAD

8 VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014 MELCHOR

9Tavangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell, April 7, 2014. MENDOZA

9 Asia Brewery Inc. v. TPMA, September 18m, 2013. NASAM

DO 40-G-3 Series of 2010

DO 40-G-3 Series of 2013

Operation Guidelines of DO 40-G-3 Series of 2010

10 Escario Et. al. v NLRC 2010 case (Art. 264 in rel to 279) MANUEL

11University of San Augustin Employees Union v. CA, (2006 cases) VILLALOBOS

12Phil Diamond Hotel and Resort Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, 494 SCRA 336 ABON

13 Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. CA, 495 SCRA 336 TAPNIO

14Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Unions v. Filflex Industrial Manufacturing Corporation, 511 SCRA 247 GARDIANO

15Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee’s Union v. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437 GO

16Manila Hotel Employee’ Association v. Manila Hotel Corporation 517 SCRA 349 JULARBAL

17 G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante, 533 SCRA 289 MANUEL

18Steel Corporation of the Phils. v. SCP Employees Union National Federation of Labor Unions, 551 SCRA 595 MELCHOR

19 Chris Garments Case (January 2009) MENDOZAArt. 280

1 Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola, February 1, 2012 ABRENILLA

2 Sonza v. ABS CBN Broadcasting corp, June 10, 2004 ABUCAY

3 Consolidated Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. Oberio June 8, ALMAZAN

2007

4 Orozco v. CA, August 13, 2008 ANACAY

5 William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, March 10, 2010 BAGUILAT

6 DM Consunji Inc. v. Jamin April 18, 2012 CAPISTRANO

1

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Art. 263-264

1 Abaria v. NLRC, December 7, 2011 (in relation to 263 and 264)  

ABARIA vs. NLRC661 SCRA 687; December 7, 2011

FACTS:

The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Metro Cebu Communiity Hospital, Inc (MCCHI) presently known as Visayas Community Medical center (VCMC). There was an existing CBA effective from January 1994 until December 31, 1995. However,on December 6, 1195, Perla Nava, President of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL) wrote Rev. Iyoy, Hospital Admunistrator to renew the CBA. Atty. Alforque ,NFL legal counsel informed MCCHI that it has not authorized any other legal counsel or any person for collective bargaining negotiations. Nava and her group were suspended in union membership which led them to launch a series of mass actions.For their continued picketing activities without a valid Notice of Strike,100 striking employees were dismissed. A permanent injunction was issued enjoining Nava group from committing illegal acts mentioned in Art. 264 of the Labor Code. Several Complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice were filed.

LA : Dismissed the complaints for unfair labor practice because it found that there was no basis for ULP and declared the strike and picketing activities illegal having been conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL w/c is not a legitimate labor organization. Termination was valid. MCCHI was directed to grant separation pay equivalent to one-half month every year of service.

NLRC: The decision of LA is affirmed with modifications, the award of separation pay & attorney’s fees are deleted.

CA : Affirmed the decision of NLRC w modifications, there shall be awarded separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service.

ISSUE : WON the strike and picketing activities conducted by union officers and members were illegal.

HELD. Yes. Art. 263 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a duly registered or an independently registered union at the time it filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996.  Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for having been filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal personality as a legitimate labor organization, in violation of Art. 263 (c), (d) and (f) of the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.[47] Art. 264 makes a distinction between workers and union officers who participate in an illegal strike: an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he or she committed illegal acts during a strike. A union officer, on the other hand, may be terminated from work when he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, and like other workers, when he commits an illegal act during a strike.

2 YSS Employees Union v. YSS Laboratories Inc., December 4, 2009

G.R. No. 155125               December 4, 2009YSS EMPLOYEES UNION - PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION, Petitioner, vs. YSS LABORATORIES, INC., Respondent.

DOCTRINE: If there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. The striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

FACTS:

2

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)YSS Laboratories is a domestic corporation engaged in the pharmaceutical business. YSSEU is a duly registered labor organization and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of YSS Laboratories.

In order to arrest escalating business losses, YSS Laboratories implemented a retrenchment program which affected 11 employees4 purportedly chosen in accordance with the reasonable standards established by the company. Of the 11 employees sought to be retrenched, nine were officers and members of YSSEU.5 Initially, these employees were given the option to avail themselves of the early retirement program of the company.6When no one opted to retire early, YSS Laboratories exercised its option to terminate the services of its employees as allegedly authorized under Article 2837 of the Labor Code. Thus, copies of the Notices of Termination were filed with DOLE on 19 March 2001 and were served to concerned employees on 20 March 2001.

Claiming that YSS Laboratories was guilty of discrimination and union-busting in carrying out the said retrenchment program, YSSEU decided to hold a strike.

NCMB-NCR

After the necessary strike vote was taken under the supervision of the National Conciliation Mediation Board – National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR), YSSEU staged a strike on 20 April 2001. In order to forge a compromise, a number of conciliation proceedings were conducted by the NCMB-NCR, but these efforts proved futile since the parties’ stance was unbending.

SECRETARY OF LABOR

Secretary of Labor to finally intervene and deemed that the continuation of the labor dispute was inimical to national interest (Art 263[g]). The Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration and ordered that all striking workers were directed to return to work within 24 hours from their receipt of the said Order, and YSS Laboratories to accept them under the terms and conditions prevailing before the strike.

YSS Laboratories refused to fully comply with the directive of the Secretary of Labor and argued that since they were previously terminated from service pursuant to a valid retrenchment they should be excluded from the operation of the return-to-work order. YSSEU moved that YSS Laboratories be cited for contempt for refusing to admit the said workers and prayed for backwages.

The Secretary of Labor granted the motion of YSSEU and directed YSS Laboratories to accept back to work the retrenched employees who initiated the illegal strike pending determination of the validity of the retrenchment and illegal strike cases. Should actual physical reinstatement be no longer possible, YSS Laboratories was ordered to reinstate the striking workers in the company’s payroll.

COURT OF APPEALS

YSS Laboratories brought a Petition for Certiorari15 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the certification order and the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor.

Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the Petition and reversing the Orders of the Secretary of Labor for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that YSS Laboratories validly carried out its retrenchment program, which effectively severed the concerned employees’ employment with the company. For lack of factual and legal basis, the Court of Appeals struck down the strike staged by YSSEU for being illegal.

ISSUE

whether or not the retrenched employees should be excluded from the coverage of the return-to-work-order

HELD

YSSEU maintains that once a labor dispute is certified to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, the employer should readily admit all striking employees under the status quo ante. It argues that the strike was conducted to protest the implementation of the retrenchment program, which clearly discriminated against union officers and members since 8 out of the 11 were union members. YSS Laboratories, argued that they separated from service

3

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)due to a valid retrenchment and should not be readmitted back to work anymore.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The Secretary of Labor, certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, and enjoining YSSEU to return to work and YSS Laboratories to admit them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike, were issued pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.

Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code have been enacted pursuant to the police power of the State. The grant of these plenary powers to the Secretary of Labor was for fair and just solution to the differences between the employer and the employees. The assumption or certification order shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. The striking workers shall immediately return to work, and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.22

YSS Laboratories’ insistence on the exclusion of the retrenched employees from the return-to-work seriously impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the national economy.

The Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. Thus, his certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to interfere with the management’s rights but to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code was meant to make both the Secretary (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions.

Article 263(g) of the Labor Code on the settlement of labor disputes -- that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties, even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. Its compulsory character is mandated to serve the greater interest of society by maintaining the economic equilibrium.

The certification attests to the urgency of the matter, affecting as it does an industry indispensable to the national interest. The order is issued in the exercise of the court’s compulsory power of arbitration, and therefore must be obeyed until set aside. x x x. (Philippine Airlines Employees Association v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.)

The return-to-work order does not interfere with the management’s prerogative, but merely regulates it when, in the exercise of such right, national interests will be affected. The rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute. They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily.

3 NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CA, November 11,

2008

NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. CANovember 11, 2008

DOCTRINE: Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code defines a strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

FACTS: The Union is the certified bargaining agent of the regular rank-and-

file employees of Dusit Hotel Nikko (Hotel). On October 24, 2000, the Union submitted its Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel. As negotiations ensued, the parties failed to arrive at mutually acceptable terms and conditions. Due to the bargaining deadlock, the Union, filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of the bargaining deadlock.

The Union held a general assembly at its office located in the Hotels basement, where some members sported closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads. The next day, more male Union members came to work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel prevented

4

Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts.x x x x

(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.   The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. (Emphasis supplied.)

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)these workers from entering the premises claiming that they violated the Hotels Grooming Standards.

In view of the Hotels action, the Union staged a picket outside the Hotel premises.  For this reason the Hotel experienced a severe lack of manpower which forced them to temporarily cease operations in three restaurants.

Subsequently, on January 20, 2002, the Hotel issued notices to Union members, preventively suspending them and charging them with the following offenses: (1) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; (2) illegal picket; (3) unfair labor practice; (4) violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards; (5) illegal strike; and (6) commission of illegal acts during the illegal strike.

The DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.

NLRC: held that the concerted action was an illegal strike in which illegal acts were committed by the Union.

CA: affirmed the rulings of the NLRC.ISSUE: Whether or not the union, the union officers and members may be adjudged guilty of staging an illegal strike despite respondent’s admission that they prevented said officers and members from reporting for work for alleged violation of the hotels grooming standards.

HELD:YES. The Union is liable for conducting an illegal strike for the

following reasons: 

First, the Unions violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the Hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. Second, the Unions concerted action which disrupted the Hotels operations clearly violated the CBAs No Strike, No Lockout provision. Third, the Union officers and members concerted action to shave their heads and crop their hair not only violated the Hotels Grooming Standards but also violated the Unions duty and responsibility to bargain in good faith. Fourth, the Union failed to observe the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban before it conducted the strike. Last, the Union committed illegal acts in the conduct of its strike.

Regarding the Union officers and members liabilities for their participation in the illegal picket and strike, Art. 264(a), paragraph 3 of the Labor Code provides that [a]ny union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly

participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status x x x. The law makes a distinction between union officers and mere union members. Union officers may be validly terminated from employment for their participation in an illegal strike, while union members have to participate in and commit illegal acts for them to lose their employment status.

4 Jackbilt Industries Inc., v. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-

KMU, March 20, 2009

G.R. Nos. 171618-19JACKBILT INDUSTRIES, INC.,  Petitioner, vs JACKBILT EMPLOYEESWORKERS UNION-NAFLU-KMU,Respondent. 

Facts: Due to economic crisis, Petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks. Respondent 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. 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. Petitioner filed a petition for injunction in the NLRC. The NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioners property. But the respondents continued their strike. Eventually, petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members and barred them from entering its premises.

Aggrieved, respondent filed for illegal dismissal. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that because respondent conducted a strike without observing the procedural requirements provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code The Labor Arbiter decided that because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal before terminating respondents officers and employees, it was found guilty of illegal dismissal the NLRC, on appeal, modified the decision of the labor arbiter. It held that only petitioner should be liable for monetary awards granted to respondents officers and members. The CA modified the decision Because most of affected employees were union members, the CA held that the temporary shutdown was moved by anti-union sentiments. Petitioner was therefore guilty of unfair labor practice.

5

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Issue: whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua nonfor the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike.

Ruling:

No, 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 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 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.

Consequently, we uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondents officers and employees. Article 264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. Petitioner clearly had the legal right to terminate respondents officers and employees

5 NCMB primer on strikes and lockouts

6 APAP v. PAL, June 6, 2011

Airlines Pilots Association of the Philippines vs. Philippine Airlines

G.R. No. 168382; June 6, 2011

FACTS:

Claiming that PAL committed unfair labor practice, ALPAP filed with the DOLE a notice of strike against PAL. DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ruled that all strikes and lockouts at the Philippine Airlines, Inc. are prohibited. Despite such, ALPAP went on strike on June 5, 1998. DOLE Sec. issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998. However, it was only on June 26, 1998

when ALPAP officers and members reported back to work as shown in a logbook signed by each of them. PAL refused to accept the returning pilots for their failure to comply with the order. ALPAP filed with labor arbiter a complaint for illegal lockout against PAL. The LA and the NLRC consolidated the illegal lockout case with the strike case. DOLE Sec. declared the strike as illegal and dismissed the complaint for illegal lockout. ALPAP filed a Petition for certiorari. CA affirmed DOLE resolution. ALPAP sought a review of the CA decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to show that CA committed grace advise if discretion. The decision attained finality on August 29, 2002. ALPAP the filed a motion to request to conduct a proceeding to determine who among its officers and members should be reinstated or sender to have lost their employment. DOLE Sec. ruled that by reason of the final ruling of the Supreme Court, the agreements and motions of ALPAP are merely noted. CA dismissed the Petition saying that said issues could no longer be reviewed. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

W/N a proceeding to determine who actually participated in the illegal strike may still be conducted.

HELD:

There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Sto. Tomas and Imson (DOLE Sec.) in merely noting ALPAP's twin motion in due deference to a final and immutable judgement by the Supreme Court. There is no necessity to conduct a proceeding to determine the participants in illegal strike or those who refused to heed the return-to-work order because the ambiguity can be cured by reference to the body of the decision and the pleadings filed. The records of the case or the logbook unveil the names of each of the returning pilots who refused to comply with the order. Petition is denied.

7 Olisa et. al. v. Escario Et. al. (Art. 264 in rel to 279)

6

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)G.R. No. 160302               September 27, 2010 BERSAMIN, J.:

JAILE OLISA, et al, AND MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOODS, Petitioners, vs. DANILO ESCARIO, et al, NLRC (THIRD DIVISION), PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION, DR. SY LIAN TIN, AND DOMINGO TAN, Respondents.

Doctrine: Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor, employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not

entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not

commit any illegal act during the strike.

Olisa et al walked out of PINA’s premises and went to the barangay to support Juanito Cañete, an officer of the Union charged with oral defamation by PINA. Because of the walkout, PINA terminated the Union officers. PINA filed a Complaint for UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (ULP) AND DAMAGES because of the ILLEGAL WALKOUT. The Labor Arbiter held there was an illegal walkout constituting ULP; and that all the Union’s officers had thereby lost their employment. The Union held a strike, claiming that PINA was guilty of union busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers. PINA filed a Complaint charging Olisa et al with ULP AND ABANDONMENT OF WORK, stating that they had VIOLATED PROVISIONS ON STRIKE of the CBA. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the subject strike to be illegal. The NLRC sustained the LA finding that the strike was illegal, but reversed the LA ruling that there was abandonment of employment. PINA was directed to reinstate Olisa et al but without backwages, and to pay separation pay at ½ month per year of service, in the event that reinstatement is not feasible. The CA affirmed the NLRC. Olisa et al filed a Petition before the SC.

ISSUE

W/N Jaile Olisa et al are entitled to full backwages due to the finding of no abandonment pursuant to Art. 279 [NO]

HELD

(1) Art. 264 and not Art. 279 is the law applicable to this case. Art. 279 refers to a dismissal that is unjustly done, that is, the employer dismisses the employee without observing due process, either substantive or procedural. In contrast, the third paragraph of Art. 264(a) contemplates two causes for the dismissal of an employee, that is: (a) unlawful lockout; and (b) participation in an illegal strike.

The petitioners were ordered reinstated because they were union members merely instigated or induced to participate in the illegal strike under Art. 264 and not because they were unjustly dismissed for failure to observe due process under Art. 279.

(2) As a general rule, backwages are granted to indemnify an unjustly/illegally dismissed employee for his loss of earnings during the whole period that he is out of his job under Art. 279. Considering that an unjustly/illegally dismissed employee is not deemed to have left his employment, he is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him from the employment. But the case at bar falls under Art. 264 where a worker in a strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment. Thus, considering Art. 264, their reinstatement sans backwages is in order.

The principle of a "fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor" remains as the basic factor in determining the award of backwages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. For this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal, a situation that does not obtain in this case.

The petitioners do not deny their participation in the strike. As such, they did not suffer any loss of earnings during their absence from work. Under the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor, the petitioners were not entitled to the wages during the period of the strike (even if the strike might be legal), because they performed no work during the strike. Petition DENIED.

7

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)8 VCMC v. Yballe, January 15, 2014

9 Tavangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell,

April 7, 2014.  

G.R. No. 170007 April 7, 2014TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

Facts: In anticipation of the expiration on April 30, 2004 of the 2001-2004 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the petitioner and the respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, the parties started negotiations for a new CBA. After several meetings on, the union proposed a 20% annual across-the-board basic salary increase for the next three years that would be covered by the new CBA. In lieu of the annual salary increases, the company made a counter-proposal to grant all covered employees a lump sum amount of P80,000.00 yearly for the three-year period of the new CBA.The union requested the company to present its counter-proposal in full detail, similar to the presentation by the union of its economic proposal. The company explained that the lump sum amount was based on its affordability for the corporation, the then current salary levels of the members of the union relative to the industry, and the then current total pay and benefits package of the employees. Not satisfied with the company’s explanation, the union asked for further justification of the lump sum amount offered by the company. When the company refused to acknowledge any obligation to give further justification, the union rejected the company’s counter-proposal and maintained its proposal for a 20% annual increase in basic pay for the next three years.On the 39th meeting of the parties the union lowered its proposal to 12% annual across-the-board increase for the next three years. For its part, the company increased its counter-proposal to a yearly lump sum payment of P88,000.00 for the next three years. The union requested financial data for the manufacturing class of business in the Philippines. It also requested justification for the company’s counter-offer. The company reiterated that its counter-offer is based on its affordability for the company, comparison with the then existing wage levels of allied industry, and the then existing total pay and benefits package of the employees. The company subsequently provided the union with a copy of the company’s audited financial statements.However, the union remained unconvinced and asked for additional documents to justify the company’s counter-offer. The union thereafter requested for a copy of 

the comparison of the salaries of its members and those from allied industries. The company denied the request on the ground that the requested information was entrusted to the company under a confidential agreement. Alleging failure on the part of the company to justify its offer, the union manifested that the company was bargaining in bad faith. The company, in turn, expressed its disagreement with the union’s manifestation.On the parties’ 41st meeting the company proposed the declaration of a deadlock and recommended that the help of a third party be sought. The union replied that they would formally answer the proposal of the company a day after the signing of the official minutes of the meeting. On that same day, however, the union filed a Notice of Strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), alleging bad faith bargaining on the part of the company. The NCMB immediately summoned the parties for the mandatory conciliation-mediation proceedings but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.During the cooling off period, the union conducted the necessary strike vote. The members of the union, who participated in the voting, unanimously voted for the holding of a strike. Upon being aware of this development, the company filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The petition was filed pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Secretary of Labor and Employment, Patricia Sto. Tomas, granted the petition of the company. The Secretary of Labor and Employment took notice of the Notice of Strike filed by the union in the NCMB which charged the company with unfair labor practice consisting of bad faith in bargaining negotiations. Thus, the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute of the parties. Court of AppealsThe union thereafter filed a petition for certiorari. The union alleged in its petition that the Secretary of Labor and Employment acted with grave abuse of discretion in grossly misappreciating the facts and issue of the case. It contended that the issue is the unfair labor practice of the company in the form of bad faith bargaining and not the CBA deadlock. The Court of Appeals found the position of the union untenable. Applying St. Scholastica’s College, the Court of Appeals found that the 2004 CBA Official Minutes of the Meetings show that the union and the company were already discussing the economic issues when the union accused the company of bargaining in bad faith. As such, the Secretary of Labor and Employment had the authority to take cognizance of the economic issues, which issues were the necessary consequence of the alleged bad faith.Given the above reasons, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari of the union. 

8

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Neither the union nor the company appealed the Decision dated June 8, 2005 of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Thus, the said Decision attained finality.Issue: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion according to Article 263 of the Labor CodeHeld: NOArticle 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to address an extraordinary situation - a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. This grant is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. As the term "assume jurisdiction" connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. Everything considered, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment committed no abuse of discretion when she assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute of the union and the company.

9 Asia Brewery Inc. v. TPMA, September 18m, 2013.   G.R. Nos. 171594-96, September 18, 2013ASIA BREWERY, INC., Petitioner, v. TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA (TPMA), Respondent.DEL CASTILLO, J.:

DOCTRINE:In cases of compulsory arbitration before the Secretary of labor pursuant to Article 263(g) of the labor Code, the financial statements of the employer must be properly audited by an external and independent auditor in order to be admissible in evidence for purposes of determining the proper wage award.

FACTS:

Respondent union, Tunay Na Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia (TPMA), is a legitimate labor organization, certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) of all regular rank and file employees of petitioner corporation, Asia Brewery, Incorporated (ABI).

In 2003 respondent union and petitioner corporation had been negotiating for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for the years 2003-2006 since the old CBA expired last July 2003. However, after about 18 sessions or negotiations, the parties were still unable to reconcile their differences concerning wages and other economic benefits, and so, the respondent union declared a deadlock and filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The parties did not come to terms even before the NCMB.

The petitioner corporation then petitioned the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the parties’ labor dispute. DOLE assumed jurisdiction over the subject labor dispute pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code by its order issued on December 19, 2003 --- which ENJOINED any strike or lockout in the Company, whether actual or impending, and directed the parties to cease and desist from taking any action that might exacerbate the situation.

In resolving the deadlock between the parties, the Secretary of DOLE issued its January 19, 2004 decision granting the following arbitral awards:

1) Wage Increasea) P18.00 increase on the 1st yearb) P15.00 increase on the 2nd yearc) P12.00 increase on the 3rd year

FOR A TOTAL OF P45.00 WAGE INCREASE2) Health Care (HMO) @ P1,300 premium to be shouldered by Asia

Brewery, Inc., for each covered employee and P1,800 contribution for each Union member-dependent.

Thereafter, on February 9, 2004, the parties executed and signed the Collective Bargaining Agreement with a term from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2006.

Subsequently, on April 1, 2004, respondent union filed another petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the arbitral award and imputing grave abuse of discretion upon the public respondent (DOLE).

COURT OF APPEALS RULING: (modified further on Feb. 17, 2006)

9

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)1) The assailed order dated December 19, 2003 of DOLE is AFFIRMED.

The petitions for injunction and certiorari are denied and accordingly DISMISSED.

2) The assailed decision dated January 19, 2004 of the public respondent are MODIFIED to read as follows:

a) The present CBA is declared effective as of August 1, 2003; The effectivity of the CBA should be August 1, 2003 because

this is the date agreed upon by the parties and not January 1, 2004 as decreed by the Secretary of Labor;

b) Consequently, the employees are entitled to the arbitral awards or benefits from August 1, 2003 on top of the P2,500.00 signing bonus;(signing bonus was DELETED by CA when it modified its decision upon motion of the petitioner corporation)

c) The computation of the wage increase is REMANDED to the public respondent;

The computation of wage increase should be remanded to the Secretary of Labor because the computation was based on petitioner corporation’s unaudited financial statements, which have no probative value pursuant to the ruling in Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, and was done in contravention of DOLE Advisory No. 1, Series of 2004, which contained the guidelines in resolving bargaining deadlocks

d) The health benefit of the employees shall be P1,390.00. The health benefits should be P1,390.00 per covered employee

because petitioner corporation had already agreed to this amount and the same cannot be altered or reduced by the Secretary of Labor.

From this Amended Decision, only petitioner corporation appealed to the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the case must be dismissed pursuant to lack of legal authority by the one who instituted it.

2) Whether or not the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when she relied on the unaudited financial statements of petitioner corporation in determining the wage award.

3) Whether the CA erred when it awarded P1,390.00 as premium payment for each covered employee

HELD: The Petition is DENIED. The February 17, 2006 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

RULING:

1) The authority of Rodrigo Perez (Perez) to file the petition before the CA was not sufficiently refuted.

Petitioner corporation claims that Perez, the person who verified the Petition in Court of Appeals questioning the propriety of the arbitral award issued by the Secretary of Labor, was without authority to represent respondent union as there was no showing that the union president, Jose Manuel Miranda (Miranda), called for and presided over the meeting when the said resolution was adopted as required by the union’s constitution and by-laws.

Perez was properly chosen and authorized to file said petition as evident by the Secretary’s Certificate they attached in the said petition. Miranda, the union president who allegedly did not call for and preside over the said meeting, did not come out to contest the validity of the aforesaid resolution or Secretary’s Certificate.

Regarding petitioner corporation’s claim that the aforesaid resolution was still ineffective at the time of the filing of the subject Petition, the court held that “the continuing silence of the union, from the time of its adoption to the filing of the Petition with the CA and up to this point in these proceedings, would indicate that such defect, if at all present, in the authority of Perez to file the subject Petition, was impliedly ratified by respondent union itself.”

As to the two labor cases allegedly divesting Perez of the authority to file the subject Petition --- The first labor case involved the move of

10

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Perez and other union members to amend the union’s Constitution and By-Laws in order to include a provision on recall elections. The second labor case involved the strike staged by Perez and other union members on October 4, 2004 whereby the NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal and, as a consequence, Perez and the other union members were declared to have lost their employment status.

SC says these two labor cases had no bearing on the legal capacity of Perez to represent the union because (1) they did not nullify the authority granted to Perez in the March 23, 2004 resolution of the union’s board of directors to file the subject Petition, and (2) the material facts of these cases occurred and the Decisions thereon were rendered after the subject Petition was already filed with the CA on April 1, 2004.

2) YES, the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when she relied on the unaudited financial statements of petitioner corporation in determining the wage award because such evidence is self-serving and inadmissible.

Petitioner corporation contends that these financial statements have also been allegedly submitted to various government agencies and should, thus, be considered official and public documents. Moreso, respondent union did not object to the subject financial statements in the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor and even used the same in formulating its (the union’s) arguments in said proceedings. Thus, the same should be considered substantial compliance with the order of the Secretary of Labor to produce the petitioner corporation’s complete audited financial statements for the past five years.

SC cited several previous rulings on the same matter ---

In Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, several employees filed a case for illegal dismissal after the employer closed its restaurant business. The employer sought to justify the closure through unaudited financial statements showing the alleged losses of the business. We ruled that such financial statements are mere self-serving declarations and inadmissible in evidence even if the employees did not object to their presentation before the Labor Arbiter.

Similarly, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission, the services of several employees were terminated on the ground of retrenchment due to alleged serious business losses suffered by the

employer. We ruled that by submitting unaudited financial statements, the employer failed to prove the alleged business losses.

The Statement of Profit and Losses submitted by Crispa, Inc. to prove its alleged losses, without the accompanying signature of a certified public accountant or audited by an independent auditor, are nothing but self-serving documents which ought to be treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any probative value.

3) The modification of the arbitral award on health benefits from P1,300.00 to P1,390.00 was proper. 

The CA held that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when the latter awarded P1,300.00 as premium payment for each covered employee because the minutes of the October 17, 2003 collective bargaining negotiations between the parties showed that they had previously agreed to a higher P1,390.00 premium payment for each covered employee as evidenced by the minutes of the meeting carefully reviewed by the Supreme Court.

10 Escario Et. al. v NLRC 2010 case (Art. 264 in rel to 279) (repeating

case..refer to Olisa V Escario)

11 University of San Augustin Employees Union v. CA, (2006 cases)

UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES’ UNION-FFW (USAEU-FFW vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN

G.R. No. 169632 March 28, 2006

DOCTRINE: The phrase "immediately return to work" under Art 263 of the Labor Code indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly served.

FACTS:Respondent is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution which offers both basic and higher education courses. Petitioner is the duly recognized collective bargaining unit for teaching and non-teaching rank-and-file personnel of respondent. They entered into a 5-year CBA providing economic provisions shall have a period of three (3) years. After series of negotiations, petitioner declared a bargaining deadlock grounded on the failure to agree on the manner of computing the Tuition Incremental

11

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Proceeds (TIP). After having previously enjoined by SOLE, petitioner persisted to stage a strike, receiving afterwards an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) from the sheriffs. Respondent filed a petition to declare illegal strike and loss of employment status at the NLRC, which was later on requested to be consolidated with the case pending before the SOLE.

SOLE - Directed the parties to conclude a memorandum of agreement embodying the dispositions to be appended to the current CBA. The petition to declare the strike illegal was DISMISSED for want of legal and factual basis.CA - Partially granting respondent’s petition. Affirmed the rest of the SOLE’s decision on the economic and reversed the SOLE’s ruling as to the legality of the strike.

ISSUES:Whether or not the strike was illegal and the Union Officers deemed to have lost their employment status on their failure to return to work immediately upon the service of AJO issued by the SOLE. [YES]

HELD:

The SC ruled that ART. 263 of the Labor Code provides: ."..Such assumption or certification (of the SOLE) shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout." The phrase "immediately return to work" indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly served. Therefore, petitioner’s act of striking is in violation of Art. 263 of the Labor Code.

12 Phil Diamond Hotel and Resort Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, 494 SCRA 336

Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. (Manila Diamond Hotel) vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees UnionG.R. No. 158075; June 30, 2006

FACTS:

Manila   Diamond   Hotel   Employee’s   Union   (the   union)   filed   a Petition for Certification with the DOLE-NCR seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of its members. It was denied on the ground that it failed to comply with the legal requirements. Francis Mendoza ,one of the hotel’s outlet cashier was suspended for one week for failing to remit to the hotel the amount of P71,692.50.   Jose Leonardo Kimpo,  the union president,  notified petitioner  of   its intention to negotiate by Notice to Bargain, a CBA for its members. It was refused by the Hotel because it was not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining agent.It filed a Notice of Strike w NCMB due to ULP. On November 29, 1997, the union went on strike, hotel supervisors Vicente Agustin, Rowena Junio and Mary Grace   de   Leon   seen   participating   in   and   supporting   the   strike.   They   were terminated from service.The three filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. For its part, petitioner filed a petition to declare the strike illegal,

LA : Isuued an order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and directing the Hotel to reinstate the strikers to its payroll.

NLRC: Declared the strike  illegal  and the union officers and members who were reinstated to the Hotel’s payroll were deemed to have lost their employment status and dismissed the complaint of the three as well as the union’s complaint for ULP.

CA: Affirmed the NLRC Resolution. The Hotel is directed to reinstate the members with backwages .It also found that the petitioner failed to establish by convincing and substantial evidence that the union members who participated in the illegal strike committed illegal acts.

ISSUE: WON the strike is illegal.

HELD: Yes. The Union is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner, hence it could not demand from petitioner, the right to  bargain collectively   in  their  behalf.  As  the appellate  court  correctly  held,   the union officers should be dismissed for staging and participating in the illegal strike, following paragraph 3, Article 264(a) of the Labor Code which provides that ". . . [a]ny union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates  in the commission of  illegal  acts during strike may be declared to have lost his employment status . . ."

An ordinary striking worker cannot, thus be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike, unlike a union officer who may be dismissed by mere knowingly participating in an illegal strike and/or committing an illegal act during a strike.  The appellate court found no convincing and substantial proof, however, that the strikers-members of 

12

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)respondent who participated in the illegal strike committed illegal acts. Hence, case is, REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter, through the NLRC, which is hereby directed to, identify said members and to thereafter order petitioner to reinstate them, without backwages or, in the alternative, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, that they be given separation pay at the rate of One (1) Month pay for every year of service.

13 Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. CA, 495 SCRA 336

G.R. No. 150437             July 17, 2006SUKHOTHAI CUISINE and RESTAURANT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, et al respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents are employees of the petitioner organized as a union. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB on the ground of ULP. In a conciliation conference, the representatives of petitioner guaranteed that there will be no dismissal of private respondents during the pendency of the case, with reservation of the management prerogative to issue memos to employees incase of violation of company policies. A Strike Vote was conducted and supervised by NCMB personnel. Petitioner and the Union entered into a Submission Agreement, agreeing to submit the issue of ULP – subj. matter of the Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote – for voluntary arbitration. Pending the voluntary arb. proceedings, petitioner dismissed a union member, due to an alleged quarrel with a co-employee because of this Union filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. Thereafter a complaint for illegal strike filed by petitioner3 against private respondents due to an alleged "wildcat strike" and other concerted action staged in the company premises on June 24, 25 and 26, 1999.

LA

Declared respondents staged an illegal strike, and the employment of union officers and all individual respondents are deemed validly terminated. Notice of Strike as well as the Strike Vote submitted for voluntary arbitration cannot apply to the strike staged 6mos. Later. Union failed to comply with the mandatory requisites for a lawful strike.

NLRC

vacated and set-aside LA’s decision. Complaint of illegal strike is dismissed.

Ordered all employees to return to work, if the same is no longer possible, separation pay must be paid to them.

CA

Affirmed NLRC’s decision. Hence the petition

ISSUES

1. WON there was an illegal strike [YES]2. Whether private respondents are deemed to have lost their

employment status by participating in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. [YES]

HELD

1. YES. At the time the strike was staged, voluntary arbitration between the parties was ongoing by virtue of the Submission Agreement. Issue to be resolved thereto pertained to the very same issues stated in the Notice of Strike: the commission of ULP (such as acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting through coercion and interference with union affairs). Article 264 of the Labor Code provides: No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. Strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are illegal. Once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.

The dismissals of the 2 union members, which triggered the wildcat strike, are not sufficient grounds to justify the radical recourse made by the private respondents. They should have availed of the appropriate remedies under the Labor Code instead of resorting to a drastic and unlawful measure, specifically, the holding a wildcat strike.

In case of alleged union busting, the 3 requirements – notice, strike vote, and seven-day report period – cannot be dispensed with. ART. 264, par (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall:

a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or

b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or

13

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)c) obstruct public thoroughfares.

2. In the determination of the liabilities of the respondents, ART. 264(a) provides Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.

The effects of such illegal strikes make a distinction between workers and union officers who participate therein: an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation, there must be proof that he or she committed illegal acts during a strike. A union officer, however, may be terminated from work when he knowingly participates in an illegal strike and when he commits an illegal act during a strike.In all cases, the striker must be identified. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, substantial evidence justifying the dismissal, may suffice.

14 Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Unions v. Filflex Industrial Manufacturing

Corporation, 511 SCRA 247

Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Unions v. Filflex Industrial Manufacturing Corporation

G.R. No. 155679December 19, 2006

DOCTRINE : The legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities but also by the means by which it is carried out.

FACTS:

Petitioners Biflex and Filflex Labor Unions are the respective collective bargaining agents of the employees of respondent corporations (Biflex and Filflex).

On October 24, 1990, the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest the accelerating prices of oil. On even date, petitioner-unions, led by their officers staged a work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting respondents to file a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

LA : held that the strike was illegal. Respondents thereupon terminated the employment of petitioner-union members.

NLRC: reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, holding that there was no strike to speak of as no labor or industrial dispute existed between the parties.

CA : reversed that of the NLRC and reinstated that of the Labor Arbiter. It discredited petitioners’ claim of having been illegally locked out, given their failure to even file a letter of protest or complaint with the management, and their failure to comply with the legal requirements of a valid strike.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA is correct in declaring that petitioners were guilty of holding an illegal strike.

HELD:

YES. Petitioners, being union officers, should thus bear the consequences of their acts of knowingly participating in an illegal strike, conformably with the third paragraph of Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code which provides:

. . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike   and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.

Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.

15 Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee’s Union v. Coca-cola Bottlers

Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437

Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee’s Union v. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., 512 SCRA 437

Facts:

14

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union (Union) is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the regular daily paid workers and the monthly paid non-commission-earning employees of the Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Company) in its Sta. Rosa, Laguna plant.

Upon the expiration of the CBA, the Union informed the Company of its desire to renegotiate its terms. The CBA meetings commenced on July 26, 1999, where the Union and the Company discussed the ground rules of the negotiations. The Union insisted that representatives from the Alyansa ng mga Unyon sa Coca-Cola be allowed to sit down as observers in the CBA meetings. The Union officers and members also insisted that their wages be based on their work shift rates. For its part, the Company was of the view that the members of the Alyansa were not members of the bargaining unit. The Alyansa was a mere aggregate of employees of the Company in its various plants; and is not a registered labor organization. Thus, an impasse ensued.

On August 30, 1999, the Union, its officers, directors and six shop stewards filed a “Notice of Strike” with the NCMB.

The Union decided to participate in a mass action organized by the Alyansa in front of the Company’s premises. Thus, the Union officers and members held a picket along the front perimeter of the plant on September 21, 1999. As a result, all of the 14 personnel of the Engineering Section of the Company did not report for work, and 71 production personnel were also absent. As a result, only one of the three bottling lines operated during the day shift. All the three lines were operated during the night shift with cumulative downtime of five (5) hours due to lack of manning, complement and skills requirement. The volume of production for the day was short by 60,000 physical cases versus budget.

On October 13, 1999, the Company filed a “Petition to Declare Strike Illegal”According to the Labor Arbiter, the strike conducted by the Union was illegal since there was no showing that the Union conducted a strike vote, observed the prescribed cooling-off period, much less, submitted a strike vote to the DOLE within the required time. Consequently, for knowingly participating in the illegal strike, the individual petitioners were considered to have lost their employment status

The NLRC and CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Issue: Whether or not the strike is illegal.

Ruling: Yes. Since strikes cause disparity effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but also on the general peace and progress of society, the law has provided limitations on the right to strike. For a strike to be valid, the following procedural requisites provided by Art. 263 of the Labor Code must be observed: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose, (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal.[39] It is clear in this case that petitioners totally ignored the statutory requirements and embarked on their illegal strike.

16 Manila Hotel Employee’ Association v. Manila Hotel Corporation 517

SCRA 349

Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Corporation

G.R. No. 154591; March 5, 2007

FACTS:

On November 11, 1999, the MHEA filed a notice of strike with the NCMB against Manila Hotel on the grounds of ingat it labor practices. The Secretary of Labor and Employment enjoined any strike or lockout and ordered the parties to cease and desist from committing any acts that may exacerbate the situation. Despite the clear terms of the order issued by the SOLE on November 24, 1999, MHEA conducted a strike. Manila Hotel filed a complaint alleging that MHEA conducted an illegal strike, blocked all ingress and egress of the hotel premises, harassed and intimidated company officers, non-striking employees, customers and suppliers. It also sought a declaration that the strike was illegal and that the striking employees lost their employment. NLRC issued an order directing striking workers to return to work immediately and the hotel to accept them back under the same terms and conditions of employment. Only six complied. NLRC ruled that the strike held by MHEA was illegal for its defiance of the return to work order. CA affirmed the decision of NLRC. MHEA filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision of the CA.

15

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)

ISSUE:

W/N defiance of a return to work order by a striking employee is an illegal act and is a valid ground for loss of employment status.

HELD:

Defiance of the assumption order or a return to work order by a striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act and, therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status. The assumption of jurisdiction by the SOLE over the labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a police power measure. Petition is denied

17 G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante, 533 SCRA 289

G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. TITO S. INFANTE, MELOR BORBO, and DANILO

CASTAÑEDA, respondents.G.R. No. 160303. September 13, 2007

Petitioner   was   the   exclusive   coupon   taxi   concessionaire   at   the   Ninoy   Aquino International Airport (NAIA) from 1 February 1989 to 31 January 1994 by virtue of a five-year   concession   contract   awarded   by   the   Manila   International   Airport Authority.  Under   the   terms  of   the   contract,   the   coupon   taxi   units   assigned   to service arriving plane passengers would be dispatched from the garage located at the   Duty   Free   Compound   opposite   NAIA,   whereas   units   assigned   to   service departing   plane   passengers   would   be   given   their   assignment   by   the   garage dispatcher via a two-way radio system on their way back to the garage after taking arriving passengers to their destination.DS

At the time of their dismissal, they were assigned at the Domestic Airport. On 5 May 1990,   petitioner   claimed   to   have   received   from   the  NAIA   Airport   Taxi   Service Employees Union-TUPAS (Union) a  letter-memorandum demanding the dismissal from employment  of  Ricardo  Gonzales   (Gonzales)  and  Ephraim Alzaga   (Alzaga), both drivers of petitioner on the ground that they were found guilty of committing acts of disloyalty, conduct unbecoming of a union member and acts inimical to the 

interest   of   the  Union.   The  Union   based   its   action   on   a   petition   filed   by   said employees calling for a  local  election. On 9 May 1990, the two employees were terminated by petitioner. 

Upon learning of the incident, several drivers of petitioner stopped driving their taxi cabs apparently in sympathy with their dismissed colleagues. Petitioner alleged that the work stoppage constituted an illegal strike at the work premises. Furthermore, petitioner   averred   that   various   illegal   acts,   such   as   stopping,   barring   and intimidating other employees wishing to enter the work premises, were committed by   the   said   drivers   that   resulted   in   the   paralyzation   of   petitioner's   business operation. 

Petitioner ordered the striking workers to return to work but some of the drivers, including respondents, refused to do so. On 22 May 1990, petitioner filed an action for illegal strike before the Labor Arbiter against thirty-seven (37) drivers. Two days later, said drivers filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner. CTDHSE

The   Labor   Arbiter   declared   that   respondents   Daramayo,   Borbo,   Infante   and Castañeda, though found to have participated in the illegal strike, were not meted out the penalty of dismissal; instead, petitioner was ordered to pay them separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but without backwages.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.

On 27 June 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the findings of the Executive Labor Arbiter.

RULING

Respondents'  dismissal   from work  could  not  be  any  clearer   than  the  refusal  of petitioner to admit them back as they signified their intention to go back to work. In fact, this very act of petitioner precipitated respondents' filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement. SCHcaT

With respect to backwages, the principle of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining the award thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. While it was found that 

16

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)respondents expressed their intention to report back to work, the latter exception cannot   apply   in   this   case.   In Philippine Marine Officers' Guild v. Compañia Maritima, 38 as affirmed in Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, 39 the Court stressed that for this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar.

Under the circumstances, respondents' reinstatement without backwages suffices for the appropriate relief. If reinstatement is no longer possible, given the lapse of considerable time from the occurrence of the strike, the award of separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, is in order. 

It   is   of   no  moment   that   petitioner's   concession  was   no   longer   exclusive.   No evidence exists that the employment of respondents was in any way conditioned on petitioner's obstention of an exclusive contract from NAIA. The fact remains that petitioner still  operates a taxi  concession  in NAIA and that  logically requires the service of taxi drivers, the same position held by respondents back in 1990. 

The above-quoted rule enunciates reinstatement as the standard relief. However, in this   case,   seventeen   (17)   years   have   elapsed   since   respondents   were   illegally dismissed. In Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines v. NLRC, 44 where more than eight (8) years have passed since the petitioners therein staged an illegal strike and were found to have been unlawfully terminated, an award of separation pay   equivalent   to   one   (1)   month   pay   for   every   year   of   service,   in   lieu   of reinstatement,  was   deemed  more   practical   and   appropriate   to   all   the   parties concerned. We adopt the same tack in this case.

In sum, the resolution and order of the NLRC, which adopted the findings of the Labor  Arbiter,  are   in  accordance with   law and  jurisprudence.  Consequently,   the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents' petition for certiorari, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.

18 Steel Corporation of the Phils. v. SCP Employees Union National Federation of Labor Unions, 551 SCRA 595

19 Chris Garments Case (January 2009)

Chris Garments Corporation v. Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO

G.R. No. 167426 | January 12, 2009

FACTS: 

1st PCE: Chris Garments Workers Union-PTGWO Local Chapter No. 832 (Union) filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to represent the rank and file employees of Chris Garments Corporation (Company) not covered by its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Chris Garments Corporation

Solidarity  of  Union   in   the  Philippines   for   Empowerment   and  Reforms   (SMCGC-SUPER), the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees. 

Med-Arbiter dismissed. There was no ER-EE relationship between the parties since the union itself admitted that its members are agency employees. And assuming they are EE, the petition for certification election will still fail due to the contract bar rule (no petition for certification election shall be filed prior to the 60-day freedom period) under Article 232 of the Labor Code. 

O Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) affirmed. 

2nd PCE: Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by a prior judgment. 

o SOLE affirmed. 

3rd PCE: Med-Arbiter   dismissed   the   petition   on   the   grounds   that   no   ER-EE relationship exists between the parties and that the case was barred by a prior judgment. 

o BUT   on   appeal,   SOLE   granted   and   ordered   the   immediate   conduct   of   a certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Chris Garments Corporation with the ff. choices: (a) Chris Garments Workers Union  – PTGWO Local Chapter No. 832, (b) SMCGC-SUPER, and (c) No Union. 

A certification election was then conducted where SMCGC-SUPER emerged as the winning union. 

ISSUE 1: 

WON a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) is necessary before filing a petition for certiorari from the decision of the SOLE. 

NO. 

RATIO: 

17

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)The general rule is that a MR is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. However, this case falls under one of the exceptions, that is, when a MR would  be useless  under   the  circumstances.  The  company availed  of   the  proper remedy since Department Order No. 40-03 explicitly prohibits the filing of a MR with the SOLE. 

ISSUE 2:

WON the case is barred by res judicata. 

NO. [main] 

RATIO: 

Elements of Res Judicata: 1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final 2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties 3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits 4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action 

In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the presence of the first 3 elements of res judicata. The Resolution of SOLE on the 1st PCE became final and executory. 

BUT the 4th element is not present. 

o The SOLE dismissed the 1st PCE as it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period. At that time, the union has no cause of action since they are not yet legally allowed to   challenge  openly   and   formally   the   status   of   SMCGC-SUPER   as   the   exclusive bargaining representative of the bargaining unit. 

o Such dismissal however, has no bearing in the instant case since the 3rd PCE was filed  well  within   the  60-day   freedom period.   In  other  words,  a   cause  of  action already exists for the union as they are now legally allowed to challenge the status of SMCGC-SUPER as exclusive bargaining representative. 

ISSUE 3:

WON there is an ER-EE relationship between the company and the union members. 

YES. 

RATIO: 

The company failed to appeal this factual finding with the SOLE. Thus, the matter of ER-EE relationship has been resolved with finality by the SOLE

Art. 280

1 Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola, February 1, 2012

2 Sonza v. ABS CBN Broadcasting corp, June 10, 2004

JOSE Y. SONZA, petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, respondent

GR No.138051 June 10, 2004

Facts:

In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) signed an Agreement (Agreement) with the Mel and Jay Management and Development Corporation   (MJMDC). ABS-CBN  was   represented  by   its   corporate  officers  while MJMDC  was   represented   by   SONZA,   as   President   and   General  Manager,   and Carmela Tiangco (TIANGCO), as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as AGENT, MJMDC agreed to provide SONZAs services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. The Agreement listed the services SONZA would render to ABS-CBN, as follows:

a. Co-host for Mel & Jay radio program, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m., Mondays to Fridays;

b. Co-host for Mel & Jay television program, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., Sundays

ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZAs services a monthly talent fee of P310,000 for   the   first   year   and P317,000   for   the   second   and   third   year   of   the Agreement. ABS-CBN would  pay the  talent   fees  on the  10th and 25th days  of   the month.

However on April 1, 1996, Petitioner Sonza, through MJMDC, demanded the rescission of the contract between Sonza and ABS CBN. The letter was signed by petitioner as the Company’s President. In the letter, Sonza stated that he is waiving and renouncing recovery of the remaining amount stipulated in paragraph 7 of the 

18

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Agreement but reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits under said Agreement.

Later on, Sonza filed with the Dept. of Labor and Employment a complaint for the payment of wages, signing bonus, and other benefits. Respondent responded that the Labor Arbiter is without jurisdiction as there exist no employee-employer relationship between the parties.

ISSUE

Whether or not Petitioner Sonza is an employee of the Respondent ABS-CBN.

RULING:

The Court answered in the negative.

The  Supreme Court  upheld   the  decision  of   the  Court  of  Appeals  which   in   turn sustained the ruling of the NLRC and which in turn sustained the Labor Arbiter’s decision to dismiss the case because of lack of Jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter found that   there   exist   no   employee-employer   relationship   between   Petitioner   and Respondent.

The   Petitioner   is   clearly   an   independent   contractor.   The   employee-employer relationship is between Sonza and MJMDC, and not ABSCBN. MJMDC acted as the agent of Sonza between him and ABSCBN.

In determining whether there exist  an employee-employer  relationship between the  parties,   the  Court  determined   if   the  elements  are  present,  namely:   (a)   the selection and engagement  of   the  employee;   (b)   the  payment  of  wages;   (c)   the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished

It  was   found  that   the   selection  of  Sonza  was   indeed  based  on   the  decision  of ABSCBN. However,   it  was found that Wages paid to Sonza was by virtue of the contract entered into by and between MJMDC, the agent of Sonza and ABSCBN. This is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship.

On the third element, it was found by the Court that ABSCBN did not possess the power of dismissal. They are bound to pay the Wages of Sonza even during severe 

business losses during the life of the Agreement. Respondent could not retrench Sonza.

On the last element, which is the most important element, the Court found that Respondent had no control on how Sonza performs his duties as long as he does not attack the Respondent or its interest. The only control they have is to whether to air or not the show of Sonza, but even then the latter is still obliged to pay the Petitioner’s wages regardless. 

In sum, the Court ruled that based on the aforementioned elements, there is no employee-employer relation between Sonza and ABSCBN. Clearly, the present case does not call for an application of the Labor Code provisions but an interpretation and implementation of the May 1994 Agreement. In effect, SONZAs cause of action is   for  breach  of   contract  which   is   intrinsically   a   civil   dispute   cognizable  by   the regular courts.

Case is dismissed with costs against Petitioner.

3 Consolidated Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. Oberio June 8, 2007

G.R. No. 168424              June 8, 2007

CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., petitioner, vs. DANNY OBERIO, ELNA DE PEDRO, LUISITO VILLAMOR, WILMA SUGATON, RUFO DEITA, JR., EMILY DE GUZMAN, CAROLINE LADRILLO, JOSE ROBERTO REGALADO, ROSEBEL NARCISO & ANANITA TANGETE, respondents.

Facts: Respondents alleged that they were employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. Sometime in August 1998, petitioner reduced the number of its drama productions from 14 to 11, but was opposed by respondents. After the negotiations failed, the latter sought the intervention of the DOLE, which on November 12, 1998, conducted through its Regional Office, an inspection of DWYB station. The results thereof revealed that petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws. Petitioner contended that respondents are not its employees.

 Petitioner allegedly pressured and intimidated respondents. Respondents Oberio and Delta were suspended for minor lapses, the payment of their salaries were delayed, later on, respondents were barred by petitioner from reporting for work; thus, the former claimed constructive dismissal.

19

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)Regional Director: issued an order directing petitioner to pay respondents a total of P318,986.74 representing non-payment/underpayment of the salary and benefits. However, RD reconsidered the order and certified the records of the case to the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch VI, for determination of employer-employee relationship. Respondents appealed to Sec. of Labor.

Respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-payment of wages and benefits plus damages against petitioner.

LA: dismissed the case without prejudice while waiting for the decision of the Secretary of Labor on the same issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents.

NLRC: respondents were regular employees of petitioner who were illegally dismissed by the latter.

Issues:

1) whether or not respondents were employees of petitioner (yes)

2) whether or not their dismissal was illegal (yes)

Held:

1) Respondents’ employment with petitioner passed the "four-fold test" on employer-employee relations, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee.

Note that under Policy Instruction No. 40, petitioner is obliged to execute the necessary contract specifying the nature of the work to be performed, rates of pay, and the programs in which they will work. Project or contractual employees are required to be apprised of the project they will undertake under a written contract. This was not complied with by the petitioner, justifying the reasonable conclusion that no such contracts exist and that respondents were in fact regular employees and NOT piece rate contractors who were paid by results.

 The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the

employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Thus, even assuming that respondents were initially hired as project/contractual employees who were paid per drama or per project/contract, the engagement of their services for 2 to 25 years justify their classification as regular employees, their services being deemed indispensable to the business of petitioner.

2)  In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. Petitioner merely contended that it was respondents who ceased to report to work, and never presented any substantial evidence to support said allegation.

4 Orozco v. CA, August 13, 2008

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 155207 August 13, 2008

FACTS:In March 1990, Wilhelmina Orozco was hired as a writer by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI). She was the columnist of “Feminist Reflections” under the Lifestyle section of the publication. She writes on a weekly basis and on a per article basis (P250-300/article).In   1991,   Leticia   Magsanoc   as   the   editor-in-chief   sought   to improve the Lifestyle section of the paper. She said there were too many Lifestyle writers and that it was time to reduce the number of writers. Orozco’s column was eventually dropped.

Orozco filed for a case for Illegal Dismissal against PDI and Magsanoc. Orozco won in the Labor Arbiter where the arbiter ruled that there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco. On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the LA’s decision. The case eventually reached the Court of Appeals where the CA ruled that there is no such relationship.

Orozco  insists   that  by applying the  four-fold  test,   it  can be seen that  she  is  an employee of PDI; Orozco insists that PDI had been exercising the power of control over her because:a) PDI provides the guidelines as to what her article content should be;b) PDI sets deadlines as to when Orozco must submit her article/s;c) PDI controls the number of articles to be submitted by Orozco;

20

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)d)   PDI   requires   a   certain   discipline   from   their  writers   so   as   to  maintain   their readership.

ISSUE/S: 1. Whether Orozco is an employee of the newspaper which publishes the 

column.2. Whether Orozco was illegally dismissed.  

HELD/RULING: 1. No. Applying the four-fold test, the Court held that PDI lacked control over 

the petitioner. Though PDI issued guidelines for the petitioner to follow in the course of writing her columns, careful  examination reveals that the factors enumerated by the petitioner are inherent conditions in running a newspaper. In other words, the so-called control as to time, space, and discipline are dictated by the very nature of the newspaper business itself. Aside   from   the   constraints   presented   by   the   space   allocation   of   her column, there were no restraints on her creativity; petitioner was free to write her column in the manner and style she was accustomed to and to use whatever research method she deemed suitable for her purpose. The apparent limitation that she had to write only on subjects that befitted the Lifestyle   section  did   not   translate   to   control,   but  was   simply   a   logical consequence of   the   fact   that  her  column appeared  in   that  section and therefore had to cater to the preference of the readers of that section.

2. No. Orozco in this case is considered as an independent contractor, one who often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise, or talent to  distinguish   them  from ordinary  employees.  Respondent  PDI  did  not supply   petitioner   with   the   tools   and   instrumentalities   she   needed   to perform her work. Petitioner only needed her talent and skill to come up with a column every week. As such, she had all the tools she needed to perform her work.  Hence,  since Orozco  is  not an employee of PDI,   the latter cannot be held guilty of illegally dismissing the petitioner. 

5 William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, March 10, 2010

6 DM Consunji Inc. v. Jamin April 18, 2012

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI, Petitioners, - versus - ESTELITO L. JAMIN, Respondent

FACTS: Petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) hired respondent Estelito L. Jamin as a laborer. Since his initial hiring, Jamins employment contract had been renewed a number of times. His work at DMCI was terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila project. This termination marked the end of his employment with DMCI as he was not rehired again.

Jamin filed a complaint[5] for illegal dismissal, with several money claims (including attorneys fees), against DMCI and its President/General Manager, David M. Consunji. Jamin alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just and authorized cause. He claimed that he rendered service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years.

DMCI denied liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-to-project basis, from the start of his engagement in 1968 until the completion of its SM Manila project where Jamin last worked.

LA: Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He sustained DMCIs position that Jamin was a project employee whose services had been terminated due to the completion of the project where he was assigned.

NLRC: the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the labor arbiters finding that Jamin was a project employee.

CA: reversed the compulsory arbitration rulings. It held that Jamin was a regular employee. It based its conclusion on: (1) Jamins repeated and successive rehiring in DMCIs various projects; and (2) the nature of his work in the projects he was performing activities necessary or desirable in DMCIs construction business. It opined that although Jamin started as a project employee, the circumstances of his employment made it regular or, at the very least, has ripened into a regular employment.

ISSUE: WON JAMIN IS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. 

HELD: YES. The Court held that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.Considering that for almost 31 years, DMCI had repeatedly, continuously and successively engaged Jamins services since he was hired on December 17, 1968 or for a total of 38 times 35 as shown by the schedule of projects submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter[38] and three more projects or engagements added by Jamin, which he claimed DMCI intentionally did not

21

LABOR RELATIONS : CASE SET 9 (1ST HALF)include in its schedule so as to make it appear that there were wide gaps in his engagements. In all the 38 projects where DMCI engaged Jamins services, the tasks he performed as a carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable in DMCIs construction business. His continuous rehiring and the nature of his work unmistakably made him a regular employee. Therefore, Jamin is a regular employee.

22