Click this link! Check out our Updated List of Local Full-Time Jobs, Part-Time Jobs and Online Jobs.

Case Digest on Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 313 SCRA 597, 3 September 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission, 313 SCRA 597, 3 September 1999- Labor Law

Q: In a case of illegal dismissal against the petitioner, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal of P was illegal and awarded Read more

Case Digest on Masagana Concrete Products v. NLRC, 313 SCRA 576, 3 September 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Masagana Concrete Products v. NLRC, 313 SCRA 576, 3 September 1999- Labor Law

Q: L was employed by NAPCO-Luzmart, which was managed by petitioner Garcia. A mauling incident occurred Read more

Case Digest on MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v. CA, 311 SCRA 784, August 5, 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v. CA, 311 SCRA 784, August 5, 1999- Labor Law

 

Q: M was employed by petitioner as a truck driver. One day, he was accused of tampering with the “vale” sheet Read more

Case Digest on Bernardo v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 186, July 12, 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Bernardo v. NLRC, 310 SCRA 186, July 12, 1999- Labor Law

Q: A labor dispute arose between Company Y and Union A, which caused the union to file a notice of stricke with the NCMB charging the company with ULP for union-busting and violations of the CBA.  This was followed by picketing and the holding of assemblies by the union outside the gate of Company P’s plant.  The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration.  During the pendency of the labor dispute, Company Y agreed to sell it’s plant and equipment to Company Z.  The union was informed of the purchase of the plant.  Company Z asked the union to desist from picketing outside its plant. The Union refused petitioner’s request, and Company Z filed a compalint for injunction.  The Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court and that Company Z was an alter ego of Company Y and not merely an “innocent by-stander.”

 

A: An “innocent by-stander,” who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court that its interests are totally foreign to the context of the labor dispute.  It must appear that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitutes an invasion of their rights.  In this case, Company Z clearly has a connection with the labor dispute as the sale between Company Y and Company Z reveals a legal relation between them that cannot be ignored.

 

Case Digest on Semirara Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 309 SCRA 292, June 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Semirara Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 309 SCRA 292, June 1999- Labor Law

Q: Complainants are deaf-mutes hired by Company F as money sorters and counters through an agreement called, Read more

Case Digest on Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, 309 SCRA 233, June 1999- Labor Law.

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative v. NLRC, 309 SCRA 233, June 1999- Labor Law.

 

Q: RA 6715 was passed creating a new classification of employee, the supervisory employee, as not being a member Read more

Case Digest on Ultra Villa Food Haus v. Geniston, 309 SCRA 17, June 1999- Labor Law.

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Ultra Villa Food Haus v. Geniston, 309 SCRA 17, June 1999- Labor Law.

 

Q, a former employee of SURNECO, sent letters to the company management requesting separation benefits for her 9 years of faithful service to the company.  Nearly four months later, E, then Personnel Officer of SURNECO, followed up and made a review of Q’s case.  Subsequently, Q filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, based largely on the report of E acting in favor of Q.  The complaint was barred by prescription, but because of what had happened, E was terminated for having provided Q with the “weapons and ammunition” to wage a war against the cooperative.  Furthermore, the Board of SURNECO concluded that advancing the interest of Q instead of the company, especially since she divulged the contents of her internal memorandum to Q, were inimical to the company and merited dismissal.  Was E illegally dismissed?

 

A: YES.  E was a Personnel Officer, holding a managerial position that is considered vested with a certain amount of discretion and independent judgement.  She was simply doing her job when she reviewed Quinto’s case, and she is not proscribed from taking the side of labor when she makes recommendations as to what must be done in each situation.  Also, there is no evidence that Quinto got the copy of the internal memorandum directly from Esculano – she could have acquired it from other sources.  As such, E’s actions do not qualify as breach of confidence or serious misconduct.

 

Case Digest on National Sugar Refineries Corp. v. NLRC, 308 SCRA 599, June 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on National Sugar Refineries Corp. v. NLRC, 308 SCRA 599, June 1999- Labor Law

 

Q: R worked as the driver of T, the owner of Ultra Villa Food Haus.  During the May 1992 elections, he acted as a poll watcher Read more

Case Digest on Barles v. Bitonio, 308 SCRA 288, June 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Barles v. Bitonio, 308 SCRA 288, June 1999- Labor Law

 

Q: Q and L were supervisors whose jobs involved the overseeing of the withdrawal and sorting of sacks of sugar. Read more

Case Digest on Libres v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 674, May 28, 1999- Labor Law

April 12, 2011

Case Digest on Libres v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 674, May 28, 1999- Labor Law

 

Q: In an intra-union dispute involving the examination of union accounts of a Local Chapter, the parties submitted Read more

« Previous PageNext Page »