Progressive Worker's Union vs. Aguas

G.R. No. L-59711-12

May 29, 1987

FACTS:

Petitioner Progressive Workers' Union is the local chapter of the Federation of Free Workers [FFW] in respondent company, Solid Mills, Inc. In the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] entered into by and between Solid Mills, Inc. and the FFW as the certified bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees, respondent company agreed to grant across-the-board wage increases to covered bargaining unit employees.

Respondent company implemented the CBA stipulation by giving the union members a retroactive pay for the first year wage increase, without further including wage increase into the basic wage rate of the rank-and-file employees. Contending that the wage increase for a particular period should be included in the basic wage rate, the individual petitioners, presented a grievance to respondent company demanding strict and faithful compliance with said CBA provision. Grievance meetings thereafter held between the representatives of the Union and the respondent company proved to be unavailing. Hence, the Union filed with the Conciliation Division, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor & Employment [MOLE], Manila, a notice of strike for unfair labor practice, violation of CBA, violation of SS law, job evaluation and failure to restate work week.

The union went on strike and on the same day, respondent company filed with the NLRC, MOLE, petitions praying in the main that the strike staged by the union be declared illegal and the participating officers and members thereof be declared to have lost their employment status. Respondent company likewise prayed for a preliminary injunction/restraining order commanding the union, its members, agents, representatives and sympathizers to lift their picket lines and allow free and unobstructed ingress to and egress from the company and to refrain from committing coercion, threats and other illegal acts.

The union filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on the ground that under B.P. 130, the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints or the nature of the actions.

ISSUES:

WON the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition and complaint or the nature of action or suit filed by the petitioners.

HELD:

The Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the case. Declaring a strike or lockout to be illegal requires the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial authority, which in this instance is located in the National Labor Relations Commission. Under Article 217 of the labor Code, as amended, Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over, among other disputes, "all other claims arising from employer- employee relations," and the Commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. This statement of jurisdiction is intended to cover all disputes between employers and employees arising from their relationship as such, including those involving the legality of concerted actions.

Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Anastacio D. Abad

G.R. No. 158045

February 28, 2005

FACTS: 

Anastacio D. Abad was the senior Assistant Manager (Sales Head) of petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCI Bank now Equitable PCI Bank)], when he was dismissed from his work. Abad received a Memorandum from petitioner Bank concerning the irregular clearing of PNB-Naval Check of Sixtu Chu, the Bank’s valued client. Abad submitted his Answer, categorically denying that he instructed his subordinates to validate the out-of-town checks of Sixtu Chu presented for deposit or encashment as local clearing checks. During the actual investigation conducted by petitioner Bank, several transactions violative of the Bank’s Policies and Rules and Regulations were uncovered by the Fact-Finding Committee. Consequently, the Fact-Finding Officer of petitioner Bank issued another Memorandum to Abad asking the latter to explain the newly discovered irregularities. Not satisfied with the explanations of Abad, petitioner Bank served another Memorandum, terminating his employment effective immediately upon receipt of the same. Thus, Abad instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not awarding of separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month’s pay for every year of service to respondent is gross, the same being contrary to law and jurisprudence.

HELD:

The award of separation pay is required for dismissals due to causes specified under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as for illegal dismissals in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. On the other hand, an employee dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not, as a rule, entitled to separation pay.

As an exception, allowing the grant of separation pay or some other financial assistance to an employee dismissed for just causes is based on equity. The Court has granted separation pay as a measure of social justice even when an employee has been validly dismissed, as long as the dismissal was not due to serious misconduct or reflective of personal integrity or morality.

Royal Crowne International vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 78085

October 16, 1989

FACTS: 

Petitioner, a duly licensed private employment agency, recruited and deployed private respondent Virgilio for employment with ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. Service agreement was executed by private respondent and ZAMEL whereby the former was to receive per month a salary of US$500.00 plus US$100.00 as allowance for a period of one year commencing from the date of his arrival in Saudi Arabia. However, ZAMEL terminated the employment of private respondent on the ground that his performance was below par. For three successive days thereafter, he was detained at his quarters and was not allowed to report to work until his exit papers were ready. On February 16, 1984, he was made to board a plane bound for the Philippines. Private respondent then filed a complaint for illegal termination against Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale and ZAMEL with the POEA. 

Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Labor Code, or the omnibus rules implementing the same, which either provides for the "third-party liability" of an employment agency or recruiting entity for violations of an employment agreement performed abroad, or designates it as the agent of the foreign-based employer for purposes of enforcing against the latter claims arising out of anemployment agreement. Therefore, petitioner concludes, it cannot be held jointly and severally liable with ZAMEL for violations, if any, of private respondent's service agreement. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not petitioner as a private employment agencymay be held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any claim which may arise in connection with the implementation of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and deployed abroad. 

HELD: 

Yes, Petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment Services. In applying for its license to operate a private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement, petitioner was required to submit, among others, a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the contracts of employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment. It was also required to file with the Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based employer in its favor to recruit and hire personnel for the former, which contained a provisionempowering it to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. Petitioner was required as well to post such cash and surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment as appropriate. 

These contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding petitioner, and other private employment or recruitment agencies, liable jointly and severally with its principal, the foreign-based employer, for all claims filed by recruited workers which may arise in connection with the implementation of the service agreements or employment contracts.