Transcript
Justice Teresita Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (200 (200882015) RECRUITMENT AN PLACEMENT ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT To To prove illegal recruitment, recruitment, it must e s!o"n t!at appellant gave complainants t!e distinct impression t!at s!e !ad t!e po"er or ailit# to send complainants aroad $or "or% suc! t!at t!e latter "ere convinced to part "it! t!eir mone# in order to e emplo#ed& 'll eig!t private complainants consistentl# declared declared t!at c!oa promised t!em emplo#ment emplo#ment overseas a$ter t!e# sumit sumit t!eir t!eir io-data, io-data, irt! irt! certicat certicates, es, People le of the the pass passpo port rts s and and pa#m pa#men entt $or $or plac placem emen entt and and medi medica call $ees $ees&& - Peop Philippines vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. !!#$, A%&%st , $'
O(ER)EA) EMPLO E MPLO*MENT *MENT T!e suse*uentl# suse*uentl# e+ecuted side side agreement o$ an overseas contract contract "or%er "it! !er $oreig $oreign n emplo# emplo#er er "!ic! "!ic! reduc reduced ed !is salar salar# # elo" elo" t!e amount amount appr approve oved d # t!e ' is void ecause it is against our e+isting la"s, morals and pulic polic#& T!e said said side side agre agreeme ement nt canno cannott supers supersed ede e t!e t!e terms terms o$ t!e standa standard rd emplo# emplo#men mentt contract approved # t!e '& Conse*uentl#, t!e solidar# liailit# o$ respondent "it! petitioner.s $oreign emplo#er $or t!e mone# claims continues alt!oug! s!e "as $orced $orced to sign sign anot!e anot!err contr contract act&& /t is t!e terms terms o$ t!e origi original nal ''-app appro roved ved emplo# emplo#men mentt contr contract act t!at t!at s!all s!all gover govern n t!e relat relation ions! s!ip ip o$ petiti petitione onerr "it! "it! t!e t!e respondent recruitment agenc# and t!e $oreign emplo#er& - )antosa +. at%-an vs. irst Cos-opol Cos-opolitan itan Manpo/e Manpo/er r an0 Pro-otion Pro-otion )ervices )ervices,, Inc., G.R. No. 12'$#, Nove-3er 4, $''5
LA+OR )TANAR) 6AGE) 7Non8i-in%tion of +ene9ts: /t is a urisprudential rule t!at "!ere t!ere is an estalis!ed emplo#er practice o$ regul egular arl# l#,, %no" %no"in ingl gl# # and and volu volunt ntar aril il# # gran granti ting ng ene enet ts s to empl emplo# o#ee ees s over over a signicant period o$ time, despite t!e lac% o$ a legal or contractual contractual oligation on t!e part o$ t!e emplo#er to do so, t!e grant o$ suc! enets ripens into a vested rig!t o$ t!e emplo# emplo#ees ees and can no longer longer e unila unilater terall all# # reduc reduced ed or "it!dr "it!dra"n a"n # t!e Metropol polita itan n +an; +an; an0 Tr%st r%st Co-pan Co-pan< < vs. Natio National nal La3or La3or emp emplo#e lo#err& - Metro Relations Co--ission, elipe E. Pata& an0 +ienveni0o C. lora, G.R. No. 1$#$5, =%ne 5, $''#
I)A+ILIT* +ENEIT) espo espond nden ent. t.s s disa disai ili lit# t# can can onl# onl# e asse assess ssed ed # t!e t!e comp compan an##-de desi sign gnat ated ed p!#sician& /$ t!e compan#-designated p!#sician declares !im t to "or%, t!en t!e seaman is ound # suc! declaration& /n order to claim disailit# enets under t!e tandard mplo#ment Contract, it is t!e compan#-designated p!#sician "!o must proclaim t!at t!e seaman su3ered a permanent disailit#, "!et!er total or partial, age o$ '
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) due to eit!er inur# or illness, during t!e term o$ t!e latter.s emplo#ment& Ma&sa
or Conra0o N. ela Cr%? an0 O =ell Asa vs. =ai-e M. (elas@%e? an0 the onora3le Co%rt Of Appeals, G.R. No. !#5'$, Nove-3er 4, $''5
T!e petitioners are mista%en in t!eir notion t!at onl# t!e ' C s!ould e considered in resolving t!e issue involving a sea$arer& T!e applicailit# o$ t!e Laor Code provisions on permanent disailit#, particularl# 'rticle 142(c)(1), to sea$arers, is alread# a settled matter& ection 24 o$ t!e 144 ' tandard mplo#ment Contract itsel$ provides t!at 6all rig!ts and oligations o$ t!e parties to t!e Contract, including t!e anne+es t!ereo$, s!all e governed # t!e la"s o$ t!e epulic o$ t!e !ilippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants "!ere t!e !ilippines is a signator#&6 ven "it!out t!is provision, a contract o$ laor is so impressed "it! pulic interest t!at t!e 7e" Civil Code e+pressl# suects it to t!e 6special la"s on laor unions, collective argaining, stri%es and loc%outs, closed s!op, "ages, "or%ing conditions, !ours o$ laor and similar suects&6 - Philasia )hippin& A&enc< Corporation an0>or Inter-o0al )hippin&, Inc. vs. An0res G. To-acr%?, G.R. No. 55', A%&%st 1, $'$
T!e statement o$ Dr& ng "as not a categorical attestation as to t!e actual tness o$ edel to resume !is occupation as a sea$arer& lainl#, a$ter edel under"ent cranioplast# to repair t!e $racture in !is s%ull, it is not $ar$etc!ed to assume t!at !e still needed additional time $or !is "ound to !eal and to recuperate in order to restore !imsel$ to !is $ormer state o$ !ealt!& To our mind, t!e medical certicate o$ Dr& Lim and not o$ Dr& ng is t!e denitive declaration on t!e p!#sical condition o$ edel& 9n$ortunatel# $or petitioners, !o"ever, t!is declaration "as issued e#ond t!e 2:0-da# period pursuant to ection 2 in ule ; o$ t!e /mplementing ules o$ ence, edel !as rig!t to t!e disailit# enets& - air )hippin& Corp., an0>or Boh<% Marine Co., Lt0. vs. =oselito T. Me0el, G.R. No. !!#'!, A%&%st $#, $'$
T!e initial treatment period o$ 120 da#s "!ere t!e seaman is on temporar# total disailit# as !e is totall# unale to "or% ma%ing !im entitled to asic "age during t!is period until !e is declared t to "or% or !is temporar# disailit# is ac%no"ledged # t!e compan# to e permanent, eit!er partiall# or totall#, ma# e e+tended up to a ma+imum o$ 2:0 da#s under t!e conditions prescried # la", suect to t!e rig!t o$ t!e emplo#er to declare "it!in t!is period t!at a permanent partial or total disailit# alread# e+ists&
age $ o$ '
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) T!e provisions o$ t!e ' C, t!e Laor Code, and its implementing rules and regulations, are to e read !and in !and "!en determining t!e disailit# enets due a sea$arer& - Paci9c Ocean Mannin&, Inc. an0 Celtic Paci9c )hip Mana&e-ent Co., Lt0., vs. +ena-in . Penales, G.R. No. 2$5'#, )epte-3er 1, $'$
RETIREMENT +ENEIT) ' perusal o$ 'rticle ;/= o$ t!e C<' readil# s!o"s t!at retirement enets s!all e gran-ted onl# to t!ose emplo#ees "!o, a$ter rendering at least ten (10) #ears o$ continuous services, "ould retire upon reac!ing t!e mandator# retirement age, or "ould avail o$ optional voluntar# retirement& 7o"!ere can it e deduced $rom t!e C<' t!at t!ose emplo#ees "!ose emplo#ment "as terminated t!roug! one o$ t!e aut!ori?ed causes are entitled to retirement enets& /n $act, ection @ o$ t!e said article specicall# provides t!at retrenc!ed emplo#ees s!all e given t"o (2) mont!s pa# $or ever# #ear o$ service& ection @ s!o"s t!e intention o$ t!e parties to e+clude retrenc!ed emplo#ees, li%e !erein petitioners, $rom receiving retirement enets under t!e e+isting retirement plan as set $ort! in ection& - lavio ). )%are?, =r., Renato A. e Asis, rancisco G. A0ora3le, et al. vs. National )teel Corporation, G.R. No. 1'5', Octo3er !, $''5
TERMINATION O EMPLO*MENT EMPLO*ER8EMPLO*EE RELATION)IP T!e la" ma%es t!e principal responsile to t!e emplo#ees o$ t!e Alaor-onl# contractorB as i$ t!e principal itsel$ directl# !ired or emplo#ed t!e emplo#ees& Ili&an Ce-ent Corporation vs. Iliascor E-plo or ort%nato e Castro vs. Na&;ahi%san& Ma-%-%o sa Minter3o H)o%thern Philippines e0eration of La3or, et al., G.R. No. !4'', ece-3er 1, $'$ ,
/n all cases involving termination o$ emplo#ment, t!e urden o$ proving t!e e+istence o$ t!e ust causes rests upon t!e emplo#er& !at can e gat!ered $rom a t!oroug! revie" o$ t!e records o$ t!is case is t!at t!e inade*uacies o$ t!e respondent as a teac!er did not stem $rom a rec%less disregard o$ t!e "el$are o$ !er students or o$ t!e issues raised # t!e c!ool regarding !er teac!ing& Far $rom eing tainted "it! ad $ait!, respondent.s $ailings appeared to !ave resulted $rom !er lac% o$ necessar# s%ills, in-dept! %no"ledge, and e+pertise to teac! t!e Filipino language at t!e standards re*uired o$ !er # t!e c!ool& T!e Court nds t!at t!e petitioners !ad sucientl# proved t!e c!arge o$ gross inecienc#, "!ic! "arranted t!e dismissal o$ antos $rom t!e c!ool& - International )chool Manila an0>or +rian Mcca%le< vs. International )chool Alliance Of E0%cators 7I)AE: an0 Me-3ers represente0 3< Ra@%el avi0 Chin&, Presi0ent, Evan&eline )antos, =oselor Re< Gerar0o age 2 o$ '
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (20082015) +acarro, an0>or er0inan0 Cortes, an0>or Alfre0 Ma&allon, an0>or Aristotle Arce vs. Geral0ine (elasco, G.R. No. !!42!, March #, $' CON)TRUCTI(E I)MI))AL Constructive dismissal is an involuntar# resignation resorted to "!en continued emplo#ment ecomes impossile, unreasonale or unli%el# "!en t!ere is a demotion in ran% or a diminution in pa# or "!en a clear discrimination, insensiilit# or disdain # an emplo#er ecomes unearale to an emplo#ee& For aandonment to e a valid ground $or dismissal, t"o elements must t!en e satisedK (1) t!e $ailure to report $or "or% or asence "it!out valid or ustiale reason and (2) a clear intention to sever t!e emplo#er-emplo#ee relations!ip& (ir&inia )%&%e et. al. vs. Tri%-ph International 7Phils.:, Inc., G.R. No. 245'4>G.R. No. 24!54, =an%ar< ', $''#
)OCIAL 6ELARE LEGI)LATION ))) LA6 T!e degree o$ proo$ re*uired under &D& 2 is merel# sustantial evidence, "!ic! means suc! relevant evidence as a reasonale mind mig!t accept as ade*uate to support a conclusion& 'ccordingl#, t!e claimant must s!o", at least # sustantial evidence, t!at t!e development o$ t!e disease "as roug!t aout largel# # t!e conditions present in t!e nature o$ t!e o& !at t!e la" re*uires is a reasonale "or% connection, not a direct causal relation& >o"ever, $or !umanitarian reasons, as t!e petitioner pursued !is claim all t!e "a# to t!e Court as an indigent litigant, and due to !is advancing age, "!at !ad alread# een given !im s!ould no longer e ta%en a"a# $rom !im& - Alean0er +. Gat%s vs. )ocial )ec%rit< )/=/DC and as /C =iceEovernor o$ /locos 7orte cannot e credited ecause, aside $rom !aving een rendered parttime in said agencies, t!e said positions "ere "it!out compensation as dened in ection 2(i) o$ ' 7o& 8241& - )i-eon M. (al0e? vs. Govern-ent )ervice Ins%rance )ired '$ter roationar# tatus and egular mplo#ees >ired '$ter t!e erger& T!e# elong to t!e same argaining unit eing represented # t!e 9nion& T!e# ot! eno# enets t!at t!e 9nion "as ale to secure $or t!em under t!e C<'& !en t!e# ot! entered t!e emplo# o$ </, t!e C<' and t!e 9nion !op Clause t!erein "ere alread# in e3ect and neit!er o$ t!em !ad t!e opportunit# to e+press t!eir pre$erence $or unionism or not& - +an; of the Philippine Islan0s vs. +PI E-ploo"ever, a reading o$ ection 1 s!o"s t!at at t!e time t!e C<' "as signed t!ere "as alread# an e+isting group !ospitali?ation insurance plan and tandard C!artered "as committing under t!e C<' to continue t!e same& /n determining t!e coverage o$ t!e enets under t!e said plan, it is t!e provision o$ t!e plan itsel$ t!at govern& /n t!e said plan, t!e term dependent includes a memer.s spouse "!o is not more t!an 5 #ears o$ age& T!e plan $urt!er provides t!at unless dependents are e+cluded in an# particular /nsurance c!edule t!e term insured person s!all e deemed to include an# dependent insured under t!e olic#& /n ot!er "ords, dependents eno# t!e same enets as t!e insured person unless t!e# are e+pressl# e+cluded in t!e /nsurance c!edule o$ enets& T!e Court notes t!at t!ere is not!ing in t!e /nsurance c!edules or t!e plan itsel$ "!ic! e+cludes dependents $rom availing o$ t!e maternit# enets granted under t!e plan& )tan0ar0 Chartere0 +an; vs. )tan0ar0 Chartere0 +an; E-ploere, t!e negligence andGor ignorance o$ t!e rules o$ petitioners. $ormer counsel is not sucient ustication $or t!eir $ailure to compl# "it! t!e posting o$ t!e ond "it!in t!e reglementar# period& 7eit!er can petitioners suse*uent ut elated posting o$ t!e ond e considered as sustantial compliance "arranting t!e rela+ation o$ t!e rules in t!e interest o$ ustice& - Phil%, Inc. An0 Ma Bienle vs. National La3or Relations Co--ission an0 Patricia Peres, G.R. No. 1514, )epte-3er ', $''5 T!e 7LC s!all, in cases o$ per$ected appeals, limit itsel$ to revie"ing t!ose issues "!ic! are raised on appeal& 's a conse*uence t!ereo$, an# ot!er issues "!ic! "ere not included in t!e appeal s!all ecome nal and e+ecutor#& - Ro0olfo L%na vs. Alla0o Constr%ction Co., Inc., an0>or Ra-on Alla0o, G.R. No. !1$1, Ma< ', $' 'n appeal is onl# a statutor# privilege and it ma# onl# e e+ercised in t!e manner provided # la"& 7evert!eless, in certain cases, "e !ad occasion to declare t!at "!ile t!e rule treats t!e ling o$ a cas! or suret# ond in t!e amount e*uivalent to t!e monetar# a"ard in t!e udgment appealed $rom, as a urisdictional re*uirement to per$ect an appeal, t!e ond re*uirement on appeals involving monetar# a"ards is sometimes given a lieral interpretation in line "it! t!e desired oective o$ resolving controversies on t!e merits& - +anaha/ +roa0castin& Corporation vs. Ca
