Sanchez v. Harry Lyons Construction Inc. et al

No. L-2779. October 18, 1950

P- Harry Lyons Construction Inc. et al

R- CFI Manila/ Daniel Sanchez et al

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·                   In Jan. 1947, Daniel Sanchez et al (other 10 workers) was employed by Harry Lyons as Carpenter Foreman, Warehousemen and Guards.
·         In Dec. 1947, they were dismissed by the Harry Lyons without one months' previous notice. They demanded payment of one month's salary, but the company refused.
·         The Municipal Court of Manila ruled in favor of the Sanchez et al, which was affirned by the CFI Manila.
·         On appeal to the CA, the petitioner argued that:

a.    In their contracts of employment, they agreed that their employment may be terminated at any time without previous notice; and that the use of the word "temporary" in their contracts of services show that their employment was with a term, and the term was "temporary, on a day to day basis.".

b.    They also executed an advance waiver on the benefit of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce and that of any other law, ruling, or custom which might require notice of discharge or payment of salary or wages after date of the termination of such employment.

Issues:

1.    WoN those paid on a monthly and daily basis, are entitled to the benefit granted in article 302 of the Code of Commerce.

2.    WoN, if they are so entitled, their waiver of such benefits was legal and valid.

Ruling:

1.    Yes, the law gives an added proviso that in the case of factors or shop clerks, these shall be entitled to salary during this one month of standing notice.

Under ART. 302- In cases in which no special time is fixed in the contracts of service, any one of the parties thereto may cancel it, advising the other party thereof one month in advance.  "The factor or shop clerk shall be entitled, in such case, to the salary due for said month."

The one-month notice must be given to them, because the two conditions concur: (a) that no special time is fixed in the contract of service, and (b) that said employee is a commercial employee. Consequently, when such notice is not given under these conditions, they are entitled to indemnity which may be one month's salary.

The word "temporary" as used in the contract does not mean the special time fixed in the contracts referred to in article 302 of the Code of Commerce. The daily basis therein stipulated is for the computation of pay, and is not necessarily the period of employment.

Thus, they are entitled to the payment of one month's salary.

2.    No, such a waiver made in advance is void as being contrary to public policy.

Public policy, with regard to labor, is clearly stated in article II, section 5, of the Philippine Constitution - "The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the concern of theState”; and article XIV, section 6 - "The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall regulate the relations between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. * * *".

Article 302 of the Code of Commerce must be applied in consonance with these provisions of our constitution.

In the matter of employment bargaining, there is no doubt that the employer stands on higher footing than the employee. First of all, there is greater supply than demand for labor. Secondly, the need for employment by labor comes from vital and even desperate, necessity. Consequently, the law must protect labor, at least, to the extent of raising him to equal footing in bargaining relations with capital and to shield him from abuses brought about by the necessity for survival. It is safe to presume therefore, that an employee or laborer who waives in advance any benefit granted him by law does so, certainly not in his interest or through generosity but under the forceful intimidation of urgent need, and hence, he could not have so acted freely and voluntarily.

Thus, the decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED.

Euro-Linea Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission

No. L-75782. December 1, 1987

P- Euro-Linea Phils., Inc.

R- NLRC/ Jimmy Pastoral.

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·                   Pastoral had been employed by FMC as shipping expediter for 1 year & 5 mos.
·         Then, Euro-Linea absorbed Pastoral as shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six months.
·         But before his probationary period ended, his employment was terminated for failure "to meet the performance standards set by the company."
·         Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
·         The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pastoral, ordering the reinstatement of complainant with six months backwages, which was affirmed by the NLRC.
·         The petitioner argued that the dismissal is with cause, since respondent during his period of employment failed to meet the performance standards set by the company; that employers should be given leeway in the application of his right to choose efficient workers; and that the determination of compliance with the standards is the prerogative of the employer as long as it is not whimsical; that it had terminated for cause the respondent before the expiration of the probationary employment

Issue:

            WoN the dismissal of Pastoral was justifiable.

Ruling:

            No, because the petitioner not only failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the cause of private respondent's dismissal, but likewise failed to cite particular acts or instances to show the latter's poor performance.

Furthermore, what makes the dismissal highly suspicious is the fact that while petitioner claims that respondent was inefficient, it retained his services until the last remaining two weeks of the six months probationary employment.

The prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position but also his means of livelihood. The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, more vital than the preservation of corporate profits.

Finally, in the interpretation of the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights (Article 4 of the New Labor Code).

            Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.

Acuña v. CA

G.R. No. 159832. May 5, 2006

P- Mercedita Acuña et al

R- Joint International Corp. and Elizabeth Alañon

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·         Acuña and the other 2 workers were deployed by the JIC as machine operators in Taiwan through an employment contract (salary is NTD15k + overtime pay) for 2 years.
·         After 7 days, they left their jobs and booked a flight home due to unbearable conditions.
·         They demanded from JIC the return of their placement fees and plane fare, and claimed their unpaid salary for the period of 5 days.
·         The JIC refused, but later offered settlement agreement. The petitioners signed a waiver for the said refund.
·         They filed a complaint before NLRC for illegal dismissal and non-payment of the benefits with moral & exemplary damages.
·         The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor declaring that they did not resign voluntarily from their jobs. Thus, JIC was ordered to pay jointly & severally the said claims.
·         On appeal, the NLRC ruled that there was constructive dismissal since working under said conditions was unbearable.
·         However, the CA ruled otherwise because there was no fraud or malice, or intention on the part of the principal to subject them to unhealthy conditions.

Issue:

            WoN petitioners were illegally dismissed, thus entitling them to benefits plus damages.

Ruling:

            No. The circumstances show that there was no constructive dismissal (CD = involuntary resignation when continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee).

            However, on the matter of overtime pay, the claim should not be disallowed just because the petitioners cannot substantiate them. GR- claims for overtime pay require documents to be subjected to rules of evidence and procedure. E2R- claim of overseas workers against foreign employers.

            Under LC Art.4, when controversies exist between a worker and his employer, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in favor of the worker.

            Thus, the respondents were solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners.

            As to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the Court holds it lacks legal basis because they failed to prove bad faith, fraud or ill motive on the part of the respondents.

            Thus, the petition is DENIED.

Abella v. National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. No. 71812, July 20, 1987

P- Rosalina Abella/ Hacianda Danao-Ramona

R- Romeo Quitco & Ricardo Dionele Sr.

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·         Abella leased a farm land known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of ten (10) years, renewable, at her option, for another ten (10) years.
·         After 10 yrs, she opted to extend the lease contract for another ten (10) years.
·         She employed Quitco & Dionele as farm workers.
·         When her leasehold rights expired, she dismissed the two and turned over the hacienda to the land owners.
·         Quitco & Dionele filed a complaint against Abella for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages.
·         The Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business, but granted the private respondents separation pay.
·         On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
·         Abella claimed that since her lease agreement had already expired, she is not liable for payment of separation pay.  She invoked Article 272 of the Labor Code, which pertains to the just causes of termination.
·         The Labor Arbiter does not argue the justification of the termination of employment but applied Article 284 as amended by BP 130, which provides for the rights of the employees under the circumstances of termination.
·         She contended that the provision quoted by the LA violates the constitutional guarantee against impairment of obligations and contracts, because when she leased Hacienda Danao-Ramona, neither she nor the lessor contemplated the creation of the obligation to pay separation pay to workers at the end of the lease.

Issue:

            WoN the respondents are entitled to separation pay.

Ruling:

            Yes. The purpose of Article 284 as amended is the protection of the workers whose employment is terminated because of the closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.

It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the working man's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.

Under Article 4 of the New Labor Code, "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor."

            Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.