labor cases aug14

8/11/2019 Labor Cases Aug14

1/30

Pan American World Airways System vs. Pan American Employees Association

1 SCRA 527

FACTS:Petitioner herein claims that the one hour meal period should not be considered as overtime work,because the evidence showed that complainants could rest completely, and were not in any mannerunder the control of the company during that period. The court below found, on the contrary, that duringthe so-called meal period, the mechanics were required to stand by for emergency work; that if theyhappened not to be available when called, they were reprimanded by the lead man; that as in fact ithappened on many occasions, the mechanics had been called from their meals or told to hurry up eatingto perform work during this period.

ISSUE:Whether or not the hour meal period of the mechanics is considered working time.

HEL:!es. The "ndustrial #ourt$s order for permanent adoption of a straight %-hour shift including the meal

period was but a consequence of its finding that the meal hour was not one of complete rest but wasactually a work hour, since for its duration, the laborers had to be on ready call.


2/30

PHILIPPI!E AI"LI!ES vs. !L"C et al

#.". !o. $%&'()

Fe*. &+ $,,,

FACTS:Private respondent &r. 'abros was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company. (e wasassigned at the P)* +edical #linic and was on duty from in the afternoon until / midnight.

0n 'eb.1, 22, at around 1 in the evening, &r. ')bros left the clinic to have his dinner at hisresidence, which was abou t3-minute drive away. ) few minutes later, the clinic received an emergencycall from the P)* #argo 4ervices. 0ne of its employeeshad suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty,+r. 5usebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at theclinic at 13 in the evening and +r. 5usebio immediately rushed him to the hospital. When &r. 'abros

reached the clinic at around 13 in the evening, +r. 5usebio had already left with the patient to thehospital. The patient died the following day.

6pon learning about the incident, P)* +edical &irector ordered the #hief 'light 4urgeon to conduct aninvestigation. "n his e7planation, &r. 'abros asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break;that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by +r. 5usebio about the emergency and hearrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that +r. 5usebio panicked and brought the patient to the hospitalwithout waiting for him.

'inding private respondent$s e7planation unacceptable, the management charged private respondent withabandonment of post while on duty. (e denied that he abandoned his post on 'ebruary 1, 22. (e saidthat he only left the clinic to have his dinner at home. "n fact, he returned to the clinic at 13 in theevening upon being informed of the emergency.

)fter evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private respondent, he was given a suspension forthree months effective &ecember 8, 22.

Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.

0n 9uly 8, 228, the *abor )rbiter rendered a decision declaring the suspension of private respondentillegal. "t also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount equivalent to all the benefits heshould have received during his period of suspension plus P3,. moral damages.

Petitioner appealed to the :*#.

The :*#, however, dismissed the appeal after finding that the decision of the *abor )rbiter is supportedby the facts on record and the law on the matter. The :*# likewise denied petitioner$s motion forreconsideration.

(ence, this petition.

ISSUE:

. W0: the nullifying of the


3/30

/. W0: the awarding of moral damages is proper.

HEL: The petition is P)T")**! =):T5&. The portion of the assailed decision awarding moraldamages to private respondent is &5*5T5&. )ll other aspects of the decision are )''"+5&

. The legality of private respondent$s suspension &r. 'abros left the clinic that night only to have his

dinner at his house, which was only a few minutes$ drive away from the clinic. (is whereabouts wereknown to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in case of emergency. 6pon beinginformed of +r. )costa$s condition, private respondent immediately left his home and returned to theclinic. These facts belie petitioner$s claim of abandonment. Petitioner argues that being a full-timeemployee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight >%? hours.(ence, he may not leave the company premises during such time, even to take his meals. We are notimpressed. )rt. %< and %3 of the *abor #ode read )rt. %%? hours a day. (ealth personnel in cities and municipalitieswith a population of at least one million >,,? or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of atleast one hundred >? shall hold regular office hours for eight >%? hours a day, for five >3? days a week,e7clusive of time for meals, e7cept where the e7igencies of the service require that such personnel workfor si7 >8? days or forty-eight >%? hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensationof at least thirty per cent >


4/30

-anila Terminal Company Inc.+ v. CI"

Cester Ca*al/a recommends is visitors to please read te ori0inal 1 23ll te4t o2 te case cited.5ie 4ie6

G.R. No. L-4148 July 16, 1952

-A!ILA TE"-I!AL C7-PA!8+ I!C.+ petitioner+vs.THE C7U"T 7F I!UST"IAL "ELATI7!S and -A!ILA TE"-I!AL "ELIEF A! -UTUAL AIASS7CIATI7!+respondents.

Facts:

+anila Terminal #ompany, "nc. hereinafter to be referred as to the petitioner, undertook the arrastreservice in some of the piers in +anilaFs Port )rea at the request and under the control of the 6nited 4tates

)rmy. The petitioner hired some thirty men as watchmen on twelve-hour shifts at a compensation of P/? They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein;


7/30

B>


8/30

)4") P)#"'"# #()T5":= >P("*4.? ":#. v. +)") *":&) . ')0*)://?, T("&&"G"4"0: >#arpio +orales, 9.?The termination of a managerial employee on the ground of Mloss of confidenceN should have a basis andthe determination of the same cannot be left entirely to the employer.Petitioner )sia Pacific #hartering >Phils.? "nc. >)sia? is tasked with the selling of passenger and cargospacesfor 4candinavian )irlines 4ystem. Petitioner )sia, through its Gice President #atalino Eondoc>Eondoc?,offered espondent +aria *inda . 'arolan >'arolan? the sales manager position to which'arolan accepted.6pon Gice President EondocOs request, 'arolan submitted a detailed report attributingthe drop of salesrevenue to market forces beyond her control. #onsequently, )sia directed obertooHobrado >oHobrado?to implement solutions. oHobrado informally took over 'arolanOs marketing andsales responsibilities butshe continued to receive her salary. )sia claims that the increase in salesrevenue was due to oHobradoOsmanagement. )sia then sent a letter of termination to 'arolan on theground of loss of confidence

, forcing 'arolan tofile a complaint for illegal dismissal. The *abor )rbiter found that the dismissal wasillegal for lack of Dustcause, however, such decision was reversed by the :ational *abor elations#ommission >:*#? stating that the termination of employment due to loss of confidence is withinmanagement prerogative. 0n appeal,the #ourt of )ppeals upheld the labor arbiterOs decision. (ence, the

filing of this petition."4465Whether or not espondent 'arolanOs dismissal was illegal/(5*&) statement of the requisites for a valid dismissal of an employee is thus in order, to wit >a? theemployeemust be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given opportunity to be heard and to defendhimself; and >b?dismissal must be for a valid cause. The manner by which espondent 'arolan wasdismissed violated thebasic precepts of fairness and due process - espondent 'arolan was dismissed,without being afforded theopportunity to be heard and to present evidence in her defense. 4he was nevergiven a written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for her dismissal as

required by law. With respect to rank and file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for validdismissal requiresproof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroboratedassertions andaccusations by the employer will not be sufficient. Eut as regards a managerial employee,mere e7istence of abasis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer wouldsuffice for his dismissal.*oss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employeeOs dismissalmust be based on awillfulbreachand foundedon clearly established facts. ) breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly andpurposely, without

Dustifiable e7cuse."t is not disputed that 'arolanOs Dob description, and the terms and conditions of heremployment, with thee7ception of her salary and allowances, were never reduced to writing. 5ven

assuming, however, that 'arolan was a managerial employee, the stated ground >in the letter oftermination? for her dismissal, loss of confidence,

should have a basis and determination thereof cannot be left entirely to the employer.E)#0*0&-T)*"4)! 5)*T! ):& &5G5*0P+5:T #0P0)T"0:, et al. v. 0+50&5*) #6 3%14#) /2?, 45#0:& &"G"4"0: >#arpio +orales, 9.?The twin notice requirement provided by law should be observed in order for a dismissal to be vali


9/30

Samson vs !L"C

*eave a comment

#" !o. $$%$99+ Fe*r3ary $+ $,,9

FACTSPetitioner had been working for respondent )tlantic =ulf and Pacific #o. +anila for appro7imately /%years and his proDect-to-proDect employment was renewed several times. (is successive contracts ofemployment required him to perform virtually the same kind of work throughout his period of employment.Petitioner would be re-hired immediately, some for a gap of one day to one week from the last proDect tothe succeeding one.

ISSUEW0: petitioner is a regular employee

HEL)rticle /% of the *abor #ode pertinently prescribes that the provisions of written agreement to thecontrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall bedeemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usuallynecessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

Where from the circumstances it appeared that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition oftenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, goodcustoms, or public order. There can be no escape from the conclusion that the employee is a regularemployee of the respondent.
http://mycasedigests.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/samson-vs-nlrc/#respondhttp://mycasedigests.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/samson-vs-nlrc/#respond


10/30


11/30

W(55'05, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby +0&"'"5&. The divisor to be used in

computing holiday pay shall be /3 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be computed from

0ctober /


12/30

SALA=A" S. !L"C

#.". !o $(,&$(

AP"IL $;+ $,,9

FACTS: 0n 1 )pril 22, private respondent #arlos #onstruction, at a monthly salary of P,3.,employed 4alaHar as constructionLproDect engineer for the construction of a building in #ubao. )llegedly,by virtue of an oral contract, petitioner would also receive a share in the profits after completion of theproDect and that petitioner$s services in e7cess of % ours on regular days and services rendered onweekends and legal holidays shall be compensable overtime.

0n 8 )pril 22, petitioner received a memorandum issued by private respondent$s proDect managerinforming him of the termination of his services effective on %( April $,,$.

0n < 4eptember 22, 4alaHar filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal dismissal, unfair

labor practice, illegal deduction, non-payment of wages, overtime rendered, service incentive leave pay,commission, allowances, profit-sharing and separation pay with the :*#-:# )rbitration Eranch,+anila.

The *abor )rbiter rendered a decision dismissing the instant case for lack of merit. Petitioner appealed tothe :*#, where it affirmed in toto the decision of the *abor )rbiter. (is + was likewise dismissed.(ence the instant petition.

ISSUE

? W0: petitioner is entitled to overtime pay, premium pay for services rendered on rest days andholidays and service incentive leave pay

/? W0: petitioner is entitled to a share in the profits of the construction proDect;.


13/30

That petitioner was paid overtime benefits does not automatically and necessarily denote that petitioner isentitled to such benefits

. :0. petitioner insists that private respondent promised him a share in the profits after completion ofthe construction proDect. "t is because of this oral agreement, petitioner elucidates, that he agreed to amonthly salary of P,3., an amount which he claims is too low for a professional civil engineer likehim with the rank of proDect engineer.

We cannot accede to petitioner$s demand. :owhere in the disbursement vouchers can we find even theremotest hint of a profit-sharing agreement between petitioner and private respondent. Petitioner$srationaliHation stretches the imagination way too far.

)lso, as said by the *abor )rbiter

)s to the issue of profit sharing, we simply cannot grant the same on the mere basis of complainant$sallegation that respondent verbally promised him that he is entitled to a share in the profits derive>d? fromthe proDects. Eenefits or privileges of this nature >are? usually in writing, besides complainant failed to>establish? that said benefits or privileges >have? been given to any of respondent>s? employees as amatter of practice or policy.


14/30

employee and he acts for and in behalf of private respondent. (ence, the inclusion of petitioner in thecomplaint for unDust ve7ation, which was work-related, is equivalent to inclusion of private respondentitself.

3. :0. 0n the last issue, we rule that petitioner is a proDect employee and, therefore, not entitled toseparation pay.

The applicable provision is )rticle /% of the *abor #ode which defines the term BproDect employee,C thus

)rt. /%. egular and #asual 5mployment. @ The provisions of written agreement to the contrarynotwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed tobe regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary ordesirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, ex!e&t /here the e"&loy"e#t has bee# f$xed fora s&e!$f$! &er$od or u#derta0$#' the !o"&let$o# or ter"$#at$o# of /h$!h has bee# deter"$#ed at the t$"eof the e#'a'e"e#t of the e"&loyee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in natureand the employment is for the duration of the season. >5mphasis ours.?

"n the case at bench, it was duly established that private respondent hired petitioner as proDect orconstruction engineer specifically for its +onte de Piedad building proDect. )ccordingly, as proDectemployee, petitioner$s services are deemed coterminous with the proDect, that is, petitioner$s services maybe terminated as soon as the proDect for which he was hired is completed. There can be no dispute thatpetitioner$s dismissal was due to the completion of the construction of the building.

!7TES:

. )lthough we agree with private respondent that appeals to the 4# from decisions of the :*# shouldbe in the form of a special civil action for certiorari under ule 83 of the evised ules of #ourt, this ruleis not infle7ible. "n a number of cases this #ourt has resolved to treat as special civil actions for certioraripetitions erroneously captioned as petitions for review on certiorari Bin the interest of Dustice.C

/. Policy "nstruction :o. / entitled B4tabiliHing 5mployer-5mployee elations in the #onstruction"ndustryC e7plicitly mandates that

777 777 777

ProDect employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completionof the proDect or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of proDects inwhich they have been employed by a particular construction company. +oreover, the company is notrequired to obtain a clearance from the 4ecretary of *abor in connection with such termination. What isrequired of the company is a report to the nearest Public 5mployment 0ffice for statistical purposes.


15/30

+5#"&) '"4(":= #0P0)T"0: represented by its President &0+":=0 E. :)G)*,petitioner,vs.:)T"0:)* *)E0 5*)T"0:4 #0++"44"0: and '5+": )=)0, 9.,respondentsL22%')#T4

'ermin )gao, a BbodegeroC >or para sosy, Bship$s quartermasterC? at +ercidar'ishing #orp.,filed complaint for illegal dismissal, violation of P& %3 and non-payment of 3-daysserviceincentive leave; he started work there in 2%% and claims to have been constructively dismissedin22 when his employer refused to give him assignments aboard the company$s boats

*) ordered )gao$s reinstatement with backwages and payment of Theprovisions of the Title on Working#onditions I est PeriodUaccording to par. of )rt. %/U

donot apply, among others, to f ield personnel.?#iting6nion of Pilipro 5mployees >6'5? v. Gicar,which sought to e7plain the meaning of

Jwhoseactual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certaintyJ, the #ourtsaidthat, in deciding whether or not an employeeFs actual working hours in the field can bedetermined with


16/30

reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not suchemployeeFs time and performance isconstantly supervised by the employer.

(ere, the nature of the work necessarily means that the fishing crew stays on board the vesselin thecourse of the fishing voyage. )lthough they perform non-agricultural work away frompetitionerFs businessoffices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work theyare under the effective control andsupervision of petitioner through the vesselFs patron ormaster as the :*# correctly held.

The #ourt also ruled that there was constructive dismissal of )gao. +edical certificate showshis fitness towork when he presented the same to his employer. Eeside, as alreadyestablished in Durisprudence, toconstitute abandonment of position, there must beconcurrence of the intention to abandonandsome overt acts from which it may be inferredthat the employee concerned has no more interest inworking. (ere, the filing of thecomplaint which asked for reinstatement plus backwages renders inconsistenttherespondentsF defense of abandonment.


17/30

)ntonio Eautista was employed by )uto Eus Transport 4ystems, "nc. in +ay 223. (e was assigned tothe "sabela-+anila route and he was paid by commission >1A of gross income per travel for twice amonth?.

"n 9anuary /, while he was driving his bus he bumped another bus owned by )uto Eus. (e claimedthat he bumped the he accidentally bumped the bus as he was so tired and that he has not slept for morethan / hours because )uto Eus required him to return to "sabela immediately after arriving at +anila.&amages were computed and d? 'ield personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer includingthose who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid in afi7ed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof; . . .

ISSUE:Whether or not Eautista is entitled to 4ervice "ncentive *eave. "f he is, Whether or not the three>


18/30

and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they are paid specific amountfor rendering specific service or performing specific work. f reu$red to be at s&e!$f$! &la!es at s&e!$f$!t$"es, e"&loyees $#!lud$#' dr$%ers !a##ot be sa$d to be f$eld &erso##el des&$te the fa!t that they are

&erfor"$#' /or0 a/ay fro" the &r$#!$&al off$!e of the e"&loyee.

#ertainly, Eautista is not a field employee. (e has a specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that is a

specific place that he needs to be at work. There are inspectors hired by )uto Eus to constantly checkhim. There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the passengers, the punched tickets, and the driver.Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away from the )uto Eus main office.


19/30

0n the other hand, the < year prescriptive period ran but Eautista was able to file his suit in time beforethe prescriptive period e7pired. "t was only upon his filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, one month

from the time of his dismissal, that Eautista demanded from his former employer commutation of hisaccumulated leave credits. (is cause of action to claim the payment of his accumulated service incentiveleave thus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulatedleave credits.

Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for service incentive leave pay onlycommenced from the time the employer failed to compensate his accumulated service incentive leavepay at the time of his dismissal. 4ince Eautista had filed his money claim after only one month from thetime of his dismissal, necessarily, his money claim was filed within the prescriptive period provided for by

)rticle /2 of the *abor #ode.

e2inition o2 Service Incentive Leave

4ervice incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served within / months,whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, including authoriHedabsences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practiceor policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than / months, in which case said periodshall be considered as one year. "t is also!o""utable to $ts "o#ey eu$%ale#t $f #ot used or exhausted atthe e#d of the year.# other /ords, a# e"&loyee /ho has ser%ed for o#e year $s e#t$tled to $t.3e "ay use$t as lea%e days or he "ay !olle!t $ts "o#etary %alue.


20/30

Facts:The petitioners were engaged in the business of marine coastwise transportation. They had a #E)with the #ebu 4eamen$s )ssociation. 0n 4eptember /, 23/, the respondent union filed a complaintagainst the petitioners alleging that the officers and men working on board the petitioners$ vessels havenot been paid their sick leave, vacation leave and overtime pay; that the petitioners$ threatened then to

accept the reduction of salaries, observed by other shipowners; that after the +inimum Wage *aw hadtaken effect, the petitioners required their employees on board their vessels, to pay the sum of P. forevery meal, while the masters and officers were required to pay their meals and that because the captainhad refused to yield to the general reduction of salaries, the petitioners dismissed the captain. Thepetitioner, on their defense, stated that they have suffered a financial losses in the operation of theirvessels and there is no law which provides for the payment of sick leave or vacation leave to employeesof private firms; that with regards to their overtime pay, they have always observed the 5ight-hour labor*aw and that overtime does not apply to those who provide means of transportation. The decision ruled infavor of the respondent union. (ence, this petition.

Iss3e: Whether or not the required meals which the petitioner company deducted from the salary of theemployees is considered as facilities, and not supplements.

Held: 4upplements constitute e7tra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received bythe laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. 'acilities, on the other hand, are items ofe7pense necessary for the laborer$s and his family$s e7istence and subsistence so that by e7pressprovisions of law, they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductibletherefrom, since if they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay them Dust the same. "t isargued that the food or meal given to the deck officers, marine engineers and unlicensed crew membersin question, were mere facilities which should be deducted from wages, and not supplements which,according to 4ection 2 of the +inimum Wage *aw, should not be deducted from such wages. "t wasfound out that the meals were freely given to crew members prior to the effectivity of the +inimum Wage*aw while they were on the high seas not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in themaintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew members during the voyage. The deductions thereinmade for the meals given after )ugust , 23, should be returned to them, and the operator of thecoastwise vessels should continue giving the benefits. Wherefore, the petition is dismissed, finding outthat the meals or food in question are not facilities but supplements.


21/30

25 CR 69 7 Labor La/ - Labor ta#dards 7 3ours of or0 7 : ay of a ro;e!t


22/30


23/30


24/30


25/30


26/30


27/30


28/30


29/30


30/30

labor cases aug14

Documents