Villuga v. NLRC Digest

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 participation.  The Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaint,  the NLRC affirmed the dismissal.

Issue:   W/N petitioner Villuga is a managerial employee

RULING:   No.  Villuga's  primary work is to cut or prepare patterns and not to lay down management policies since there is already a manager/assistant in-charge of this exact responsibility.   Note that he only distributes or assigns work occasionally and does not take part in policy-making activities.
The test of 'supervisory' or managerial status depends on whether a person possesses the authority that is not merely routinary/clerical in nature but one that requires the use of independent judgement.  Note that your functions are not managerial if you only execute approved and established policies.

Requirements to be considered one to be part of the managerial staff is laid down in Rule 1,  Sec. 2(c)  Book III),  as follows:
1) Performance of work directly related to management policies.
2)  Customarily/regularly exercise discretion and independent judgement in the performance of his functions.
3)  Regularly/directly assists in managing the establishment.
4)  Does not devote 20% of his time to work other than those described above.

Finally,  there was no abandonment of work by Villuga,  1) to be considered as such, his act must be deliberate and an unjustified refusal and accompanied by overt acts,  mere absence is not a sufficient ground.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ
Labor Law Digests

About the Blogger
*She holds a postgraduate in Industrial Relations major in Human Resource Management from University of the Philippines (UP) School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) and is currently on-leave from her law studies.

Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation Digest

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 not the second requirement.

The ruling in Mercado v. NLRC is not applicable since in that case, the workers were merely required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time, after which, their services are available to other employers. The management's sudden change of assignment reeks of bad faith, it is likewise guilty of ULP.

Mercado v. NLRC Digest

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, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal dismissal. The petitioners are free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.

Pier 8 Arrastre (PASSI) v. Baclot Digest

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 seasonal employees. 

Moreover, Art. 281 considers a regular employee as one who is allowed to work after a probationary period. The respondent is similar to that of a project/seasonal employee but on a daily basis. Finally, he is deemed as a casual under the 2nd par. of Art. 280, also under the CBA provisions between PASSI and the workers' union, where a union shop was adopted, it was provided that the petitioner shall agree to convert to regular status all incumbent probationary or casual employees of PASSI who served it for not less than 6 months from the date of hiring.

International Harvester v. IAC Digest

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 existence of a department and thereby order the reduction of its personnel when necessary. The employer has therefore the right to demote or dismiss an employee provided it is not tainted with unfair labor practice or ULP. Herein, there was not bad faith in the part of the petitioner since it notified the employees of the management's decision to phase out the department.

PLDT v. Paguio Digest

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 public policy on labor and social justice. It must be exercised with fair play and justice. The employer must show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. Not does it involve a demotion in the rank or diminution of salaries or other benefits.