Laws and Found

Villuga v. National Labor Relations Commission Petitioner Villuga was employed by Private Respondent Zapanta (of Broad St. Tailoring) as a cutter.  He was also tasked to distribute work to other tailors and sewers when the shop manager or assistant is not around and makes sure that the work conform to the pattern given. The other petitioners  were ironers,  repairmen and sewers who were paid on piecerate basis.  The petitioners did not fill in any time record since they did not work on fixed hours,  they also work at home when job orders increased.  Villuga got ill and was not able to report to work for a few days but has notified the employer.  Subsequently,  he was considered to have abandoned his job.  This prompted Villuga to file a complaint on the ground that he was refused back to work due to an alleged participation to a union organized by the tailors.  The other petitioners claimed that they were dismissed due to union part...

Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation  Facts: The petitioner disfavored the fact that the private respondent employees have formed a union. When the union became the collective bargaining representative in the certification election, the petitioner refused to sit down to negotiate a CBA. Moreover, the respondents were not given work for a month amounting to unjustified dismissal. As a result, the complainants staged a strike to protest but was settled through a memorandum of agreement which contained a list of those considered as regular employees for the payroll. The NLRC held that there was illegal dismissal and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Issue: W/N the employees are regular workers RULING: Yes, they are regular and not seasonal employees. For them to be excluded as regulars, it is not enough that they perform work that  is seasonal in nature but they also are employed for the duration of one season. The evidence only proved the first but ...

Mercado v. NLRC  Facts: 1. Petitioners were agricultural workers of the private respondent's sugar land who were dismissed. They had worked in all agriculture phases for several years in the said sugar land. The respondent denied that petitioners were regular employees alleging that their services were engaged through 'mandarols' or supply workers to do a  particular phase of the agricultural work. 2. As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that the petitioners were not regular employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling.  Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers RULING: No, they are project/seasonal employees. A project employee is one whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion has been determined at the time of engagement, or where work or service is seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the season. As such, t...

Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot  Facts: The petitioner company provided arrastre services at Pier 8 and employs stevedores for loading and unloading of cargoes from vessels. Private respondent Baclot was hires as a stevedore. When PPA took over PASSI, it absorbed its workers as well as the relievers. Baclot then filed a complaint alleging that he should be considered as a regular since he rendered a total of 1 year work to the company. On the other hand, the petitioner alleged that he was merely hired as a reliever stevedore and could not become regular. Issue: W/N the private respondent is a regular employee RULING: Yes, he is a regular employee but on a different basis. The standards in determining whether one is a regular or a casual or project employee is laid down in Art. 280 of the Labor Code. It is provided therein a regular employee is one who performs activities necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer except project or seaso...

International Harvester v. IAC Facts:  1. Private respondent Diosdado Joson was first employed as assistant attorney by the petitioner and was thereafter promoted to various positions until he became the GRO for Government Sales Department with a salary of P2,500. 2. After 17 years, the private respondent was informed of his transfer to Fleet Account Sales on the ground of redundancy caused by the phase out of his department. It was a lesser position with less salary and without allowances although there is commission. The petitioner refused to transfer which resulted to his termination. He then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner. Lower Court: Found the dismissal illegal and ordered the payment of damages Court of Appeals: Affirmed the decision. 3. Hence this appeal. Issue: W/N there was a valid ground for the reduction of personnel (due to redundancy) RULING: Yes, it is part of management prerogative to determine the need for ht exi...

PLDT v. Paguio Facts: 1. Telecoms company PLDT (Petitioner) has 27 exchanges and respondent Paguio was the head of the Garnet Exchange. The petitioner conducted a performance evaluation which was criticized by the respondent due to an alleged unfair criteria used. Despite this, Garnet exchange obtained the top rating. Subsequently,  Paguio was transferred to another center based on a finding of insubordination. Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was later amended to one for illegal demotion. Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint and upheld the validity of the transfer NLRC: Reversed the LA decision and held that the transfer is unlawful CA: Affirmed. 2. Hence this petition. Petitioner contended that the transfer was not a demotion. Issue: W/N there was a valid transfer RULING: No, the transfer constitutes a demotion. The exercise of management prerogative has its limits. It cannot be utilized to circumvent the laws and p...