Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: Petitioner Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation HELD: Yes. As a general rule, the mere finding of the illegality
Employees Union (Union) was the duly recognized collective of the strike does not justify the termination of the strikers from
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of respondent their employment. To avoid rendering the recognition of the
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). HSBC workers' right to strike illusory, the responsibility for the illegal
announced its implementation of a Job Evaluation Program strike is individual instead of collective. The last paragraph of
(JEP) which consisted of a job designation per grade level with Article 264(a) of the Labor Code defines the norm for
the accompanying salary scale providing for the minimum and terminating the workers participating in an illegal strike: Any
maximum pay the employee could receive per salary level. The union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
Union demanded the suspension of the JEP, which it labeled as any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
an unfair labor practice (ULP) and subsequently informed HSBC commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
that it would exercise its right to concerted action. The Union have lost his employment status.
members started picketing during break time which persisted for
11 months, notwithstanding that both sides had meanwhile In conform with the said provision, the officers may be deemed
started the re-negotiation of the economic provisions of their terminated from their employment upon a finding of their
CBA. The continued concerted actions impelled HSBC to knowing participation in the illegal strike, but the members of the
suspend the negotiations. union shall suffer the same fate only if they are shown to have
knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during
The Union's officers and members walked out and gathered the strike. Article 264 expressly requires that the officer must
outside the premises of HSBC's offices which blocked the entry have "knowingly participated" in the illegal strike.
and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank
officers from entering and/or leaving the premises.
Meanwhile, the employer filed a complaint for theft against the Ricasata filed an action against Cargo Safeway and Evergreen
workers. On the other hand, the workers filed a case for illegal Marine claiming disability benefits for loss of hearing was due to
dismissal against the Construction Company and for his work in a noisy environment. As such, his illness is
nonpayment of their monetary benefits. compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) but
ISSUE:Whether or not the workers of the William Go Que the latter moved for dismissalon the ground that Ricasata's
Construction were illegally dismissed for non-payment of their employment was covered by a CBA between the Associated
monetary benefits? Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and the
National Chinese Seamen's Union.
HELD:No, the workers of the William Go Que Construction were
not illegally dismissed. The workers were validly dismissed as Respondents, on the other hand, countered that Ricasata is not
they stole from the construction company. The prosecutor found entitled to the benefits claimed because (1) he did not suffer any
probable cause for theft against the workers and that the latter illness, accident, or injury while on board the vessel; (2) he was
abandoned their employment after they were identified by their repatriated to the Philippines because of the expiration of his
former co-workers as the thieves. However, considering the contract; and (3) he did not report any illness, injury, or accident
Company’s failure to accord them procedural due process, the upon his arrival in the Philippines, and he did not request for
court held that the workers are entitled for nominal damages but referral to a company-designated physician.
not the monetary benefits given as separation pay for dismissed
employees/workers. ISSUE: Whether or not Ricasata is entitled to disability benefits?
HELD: No. It is a settled rule that for a seaman's disability claim Case #7
to prosper, it is mandatory that within three days from ROBINA FARMS CEBU vs. VILLA
repatriation, he is examined by a company-designated (GR No. 175869; 18 April 2016)
physician. His failure to do so will result to the forfeiture of his
right to claim for compensation and disability benefits. The FACTS: Villa averred that she had been employed by Robina
Audiogram, taken six days after his arrival, did not indicate that Farms as sales clerk and then applied to the offer of the
it was taken by a company-designated physician. It did not company’s special retirement program. Villa then received a
indicate that it came from Seamen's Hospital. It was not signed, memorandum from Lily Ngochua requiring her to explain her
and it did not contain an interpretation of the graph. It was failure to issue invoices for unhatched eggs in the months of
simply a printout from the audiometer. The private physician, January to February 2002. She explained that the delivery
who issued a medical certificate diagnosing Ricasata with receipts were delayed and overlooked, thus, the invoices were
severe hearing loss, was not a company-designated physician. not delivered on time. Despite explanation, Villa had been
suspended for 10 days. Upon reporting back to work, she was
advised to cease working because her application for retirement
had already been approved. Later on, she was informed that her
application had been disapproved, and had been advised to
tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance.
She prevented from returning to work, confiscated her gate pass
and had been replaced by another employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mina can file a case for illegal dismissal
and recovery of separation pay and other money claims?
FACTS: Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc. (MMC) is a private FACTS: Blue Eagle Management, Inc. (BEMI) and Ateneo De
educational institution. Mariano was MMC's Assistant Cashier Manila University (ADMU) entered into a contract whereby
and had been in service for 32 years. Part of her job was to BEMI was to manage and operate ADMU’s Sports Center, and
accept payments and issue receipts and deposit slips to MMC that the profits or losses from operation would be for the
students. Mariano went on a one-month authorized leave of account of the former. BEMI employed Jocelyn L. Naval as one
absence. When the she reported back to work, she received a of the maintenance staffs in the gymnasium.
Memorandum stating that in line with the streamlining activities
of MMC, Mariano would be transferred from the Cashier's Office According to the BEMI, Naval and four others, who have been
to the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) for Finance, her selected on the basis of their length of stay in the company
husband's office. Mariano alleged that the copies of the said being the shortest, would have to be retrenched because of the
memorandum had already been distributed to all concerned substantial loss suffered by the former. Naval et al. has been
immediately after the respondents signed it while she and her offered separation package, if they would instead resign
husband were still on vacation. Mariano went to MMC to file voluntarily. Thus, they resigned voluntarily, and in exchange,
another application for leave as she was not feeling well but this they received such separation package from petitioner.
was denied by the Human Resources. When her leave form
was returned, there was a note which reads: "Extension Naval, however, testified that she has been illegally dismissed
disapproved until further notice due to on-going audit." The as a result of an incident where she had been reported by a
Audit Report showed the Mariano improperly handled the cash customer in the gymnasium as being remiss of her duties.
accounts of MMC. The non-essential accounts contained the Thus, petitioner forced her to write a resignation letter in her
total amount of over 40 Million. Mariano was then dismissed. own handwriting upon the dictation of the BEMI’s HR Manager.
She filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal against MMC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Naval was illegal?
ISSUE: Whether or not Mariano's dismissal from employment
was illegal? HELD: No, the dismissal was not illegal. No fraud or deception
was employed upon Naval to resign because BEMI was indeed
HELD: Yes the dismissal of the Mariano was illegal. Mariano’s about to implement in good faith a retrenchment of its
dismissal is illegal for failure of MMC to prove lawful or just employees in order to advance its interest and not merely to
cause for the termination of her employment and for their failure defeat or circumvent the former's right to security of tenure.
to accord her due process. The System Review Report
prepared provided sufficient grounds for MMC to terminate the Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a
petitioner from employment for serious or gross dishonesty. situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be
However, despite such, the employee shall still have the right to sacrificed for the favor of employment, and opts to leave rather
due process. than stay employed. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the
office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to
relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the Case #11
acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation COCOPLANS, INC. vs. VILLAPANDO
must be considered in determining whether, he or she, in fact, (GR No. 183129; 30 May 2016)
intended to sever his or her employment.
FACTS: Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, began working as a
As borne out by the Financial Statements of BEMI, there was Financial Advisor for Cocoplans, Inc. She was eventually
ground for the company to implement a retrenchment of its promoted to Division Head/Senior Sales Manager. However, her
employees at the time respondent resigned. Retrenchment is employment was terminated on the alleged ground that she was
one of the authorized causes for termination of employment deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company
which the law accords an employer who is not making good in thereby breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to
its operations in order to cut back on expenses for salaries and her by Cocoplans. Consequently, Villapando filed an action for
wages by laying off some employees. The purpose of illegal dismissal alleging that she was dismissed without the just
retrenchment is to save a financially ailing business cause mandated by law and for non accordance of due process.
establishment from eventually collapsing.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally terminated?
HELD: YES. For labor-only contracting to exist, Section 5 of Respondents having performed tasks which are usually
D.O. No. 18-02 which requires any of two elements to be necessary and desirable in the air transportation business of
present: (i) The contractor or subcontractor does not PAL, they should be deemed its regular employees and
have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, Synergy as a labor-only contractor.
work or service to be performed and the employees recruited,
supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main
business of the principal; or, (ii) The contractor does not
exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of
the contractual employee.