LABOR JURISPRUDENCE

1. Joeb M. Aliviado, et al. vs. Procter and Gamble Phils., G.R. No. 160506, June 6, 2011. – On Award
of Moral and Exemplary damages.

“Moral and exemplary damages are recoverable where the dismissal of an employee was attended
by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor or were done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy. In the present case, P&G dismissed its employees in a
manner oppressive to labor. The sudden and peremptory barring of petitioners from work, and from
admission to the work place, after just a one-day verbal notice, and for no valid cause, constitutes
oppression and utter disregard of the right to due process of the concerned petitioners. Hence, the
Supreme Court held that an award of moral damages is called for under the circumstances.”

2. Siemens Philippines vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 150488, July 28, 2008 – On the award of moral and
exemplary damages.

3. San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. vs. Gucaban, G.R. No. 153982, 18 July 2011 – On the
award of moral and exemplary damages.

“A final word. Moral damages are awarded in termination cases where the employee’s dismissal
was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or
where it was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In Gucaban’s
case, the said bases indeed obtain when she was fraudulently induced to resign and accede to a
quitclaim upon the false representation of an impending and genuine reorganization as well as on
the pretext that such option would be the most beneficial. This, coupled with the subsequent
oppression that immediately preceded her involuntary resignation, deserves an award of moral
damages consistent with the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Accordingly, Gucaban is likewise entitled to
exemplary damages as decreed by the Court of Appeals.”

4. Coca Cola Botters, Phils., Inc., et al. vs. Jose S. Roque, G.R. No. 118985, 14 June 1999 – on the
award of exemplary damages.

“As regards exemplary damages, “there can be no question that the entitlement to moral damages
having been established, exemplary damages may be awarded…even though not so expressly
pleaded in the complaint nor proved.” Pursuant to Art. 2208, Civil Code of the Philippines,
attorney’s fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded.”

5. Jaka Food Processing Corp. vs. Pacot, G.R. No. 151379, March 28, 2005 – On Termination
Without Due Process. – worker’s termination without due process warranted the stiffer penalty of
Php50,000.00

6. San Antonio vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 100829, 28 November 1995 – on procedural due process in
termination

“The rudiments of due process cannot be lightly ignored. Proper compliance with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be validly
effected. Elucidating, the Court, in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRC, (210 SCRA 277, 286)
explained: “The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed
with two (2) written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) Notice
which apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought;
and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss
him (Sec. 13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code as amended). Failure to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This
procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which, any judgment reached by management is void
and inexistent.” The second notice must be given the employee after due hearing. The hearing
requirement is not to be considered a mere technicality but one of substance to which every
employee is entitled in order to at all times assure that the employer’s prerogative to dismiss or lay-
 off is not abused or exercised in an arbitrary manner. Consultations and conferences may not be
valid substitutes for actual observance of notice and hearing. Any procedural shortcut, that
effectively allows an employer to assume the roles of both accuser and judge at the same time,
should not be countenanced. Not excluded from the rule are confidential and managerial
employees; they themselves cannot be arbitrarily dismissed without such just causes as must be
reasonably established in appropriate investigations. Shortly after petitioner, in compliance with the
company’s directive, had explained why he should not be disciplinarily dealt, he received forthwith
the company’s “decision” dismissing him from employment. No hearing, or a semblance thereof,
was conducted apparently because the company believed that the case was res ipsa loquitor in
character.”

7. Judric Canning Corp. vs. Inciong, G.R. No. L-51494, 19 August 1982 – On the difficulty of finding
employment

“Moreover, there was no reason at all and none has been suggested by the petitioner, for the
private respondents to abandon their work. No employee with a family to support, like the private
respondents, would abandon their work knowing fully well of the acute unemployment and
underemployment problem and the difficulty of looking for a means of livelihood. As the Solicitor
General stated: "To get a job is difficult; to run from it is foolhardy."

8. DUP Sound Phils., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168317, 2 November 2011 – On
employer’s offer to return to work

“The Court also agrees with private respondent that petitioners' earnestness in offering re-
employment to the former is suspect. It was only after two months following the filing of the
complaint for illegal dismissal that it occurred to petitioners, in a belated gesture of goodwill during
one of the hearings conducted before the NLRC, to invite private respondent back to work. If
petitioners were indeed sincere, they should have made their offer much sooner. Under
circumstances established in the instant case, the Court doubts that petitioners' offer would have
been made if private respondent had not filed a complaint against them.”

9. Ledesma Jr. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 174585, 19 October 2007 – On the Burden of Proving
Illegal Dismissal.

“While this Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, the employer bears
the burden of proof to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the case at
bar, however, the facts and the evidence did not establish a prima facie case that the petitioner was
dismissed from employment. Before the private respondent must bear the burden of proving the
dismissal was legal, petitioner must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal
from service. Logically, if there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or
illegality thereof.”

10. Machica vs. Roosevelt Services Center, Inc., G.R. No. 168664, 4 May 2006 – On the Burden of
Proving Illegal Dismissal.

“The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were
burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment. It must
be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule
that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here
because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.”

11. MZR Industries, et al. vs. Majen Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, August 28, 2013 citing Philippine
Rural Reconstruction Movement vs. Pulgar, G.R. No. 169227, July 5, 2010 – When no dismissal
but no abandonment.
 “If there is no evidence of dismissal and likewise no evidence that employee abandoned his work,
the appropriate remedy is reinstatement but without backwages”

12. Macasero vs. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, 30 January 2009 – On the
Burden of Proving Illegal Dimissal.

“In illegal dismissal cases, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or, if
dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer, failure to discharge which
would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore, illegal.”

13. Ma. Finina Vicente vs. CA and Cinderella Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 175988, August 24, 2007 – On
the Burden of Proving Illegal Dismissal.

“Petitioner argues that the employer bears the burden of proof that the resignation is voluntary and
not the product of coercion or intimidation. We agree that in termination cases, burden of proof
rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal. In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v.
Ompad, the Court ruled that should an employer interpose the defense of resignation, as in the
present case, it is still incumbent upon respondent company to prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned.”

14. San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. vs. Gwendellyn Gucaban, G.R. No. 153982, July 18, 2011 –
On the Burden of Proving Illegal Dismissal.

“In illegal dismissal cases, fundamental is the rule that when an employer interposes the defense of
resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily
resigned. Guided by these principles, we agree with the Court of Appeals that with the availing
evidence, SMPI was unable to discharge this burden.

15. Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 180972, 20 January 2014 – On
the Burden of Proving Illegal Dismissal

“The burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for valid cause. Unsubstantiated
accusations or baseless conclusions of the employer are insufficient legal justifications to dismiss
an employee. ‘The unflinching rule in illegal dismissal cases is that the employer bears the burden
of proof.’

16. Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation and Precilla A. Garmaje vs. Edgardo Concepcion, G.R.
No. 172349, 13 June 2012 – On burden of proving valid dismissal

“Petitioners failed to show any valid or authorized cause under the Labor Code which allowed it to
terminate the services of respondent. Neither was it shown that respondent was given ample
opportunity to contest the legality of his dismissal. No notice of termination was given to him.
Clearly, respondent was not afforded due process. Having failed to establish compliance with the
requirements of termination of employment under the Labor Code, the dismissal of respondent was
tainted with illegality.

17. Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. vs. Ronald Valderama, G.R. No. 186614, February
23, 2011 – On the Employer’s Defense of Resignation.

“In Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad and Mora v. Avesco Marketing Corp., we ruled
that should the employer interpose the defense of resignation, it is incumbent upon the employer to
prove that the employee voluntarily resigned. On this point, petitioner failed to discharge the
burden.
 Petitioner was also firm in asserting that respondent voluntarily resigned. Oddly, it failed to present
the alleged resignation letter of respondent.”

18. Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol, Comia and Estrella, G.R. No. 164774, 12 April 2006. – On the
filing of resignation letter for the release of their 13 th month pay.

19. E.G. Construction Corp., vs. Ananias P. Sato, et al., G.R. No. 182070, February 16, 2011. – On the
employee’s non-possession of daily time records and payrolls

“We sustain the ruling of the CA on respondents’ money claims. As a rule, one who pleads
payment has the burden of proving it. Even as the employee must allege non-payment, the general
rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee to
prove non-payment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records,
remittances, and other similar documents – which will show that overtime, differentials, service
incentive leave, and other claims of the worker have been paid – are not in the possession of the
worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.”

20. Exodus International Construction Corporation et al. vs. Guillermo Biscocho et al., G.R No.
166109, 23 February 2011 – On the employer’s possession of daily time records and payrolls

“Respondents are also entitled to their money claims such as the payment of holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay, and 13 th month pay. Petitioners as the employer of respondents and having
complete control over the records of the company could have easily rebutted the monetary claims
against it. All that they had to do was to present the vouchers or payrolls showing payment of the
same. However, they decided not to provide the said documentary evidence. Our conclusion
therefore is that they never pad said benefits and therefore they must be ordered to settle their
obligation with the respondents.

21. Fernandito P. De Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 167701,
December 12, 2007 – On the employer’s burden of proving payment

“Third. Petitioner reiterates his entitlement to unpaid overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and
rest day, service incentive leave pay and moral and exemplary damages. The NLRC and the CA
have been remiss in not ruling on this issue even if petitioner consistently raised the same in his
pleadings as an employee’s entitlement to labor standard benefits is a separate and distinct
concept from payment of separation pay arising from illegal dismissal, and is governed by different
provisions of the Labor Code.

It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in his complaint, position paper,
affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged
that the employer failed to pay him, it becomes the employer’s burden to prove that it has paid
these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the
employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to
prove payment, rather than n the plaintiff to prove nonpayment.”

22. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Clarita Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010 –
On the tempering of penalties.

“In the instant case, petitioner alleged that under its rules and regulations, respondent’s submission
of fraudulent items of expense is punishable by dismissal. However, petitioner’s rules cannot
preclude the State from inquiring whether the strict and rigid application or interpretation thereof
would be harsh to the employee. Even when an employee is found to have transgresses the
employer’s rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration
must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his
employ.”
23. PLDT vs. Joey Teves, G.R. No. 143511, 15 November 2010 – On the tempering of penalties.

“The NLRC found that respondent’s failure to verify whether his message for petitioner through a
co-employee that his (respondent) two daughters were sick and confined at a nearby clinic was
duly delivered constituted a neglect of duty. However, the NLRC took into consideration
respondent’s reason for such absence and stated that certain leniency should have been accorded
respondent and that his suspension for 45 days was too harsh for the said offense.

While the NLRC found the reason offered by respondent for his absences from February 11 to 19,
1992 unacceptable and unreasonable, respondent should have only been penalized accordingly.
The NLRC found that respondent’s dismissal from service was illegal, since he had been heavily
punished for each and every offense imputed to him and that in his eleven years of service, this
was the first time that he was falsely charged.”

“While management has the prerogative to discipline its erring employees and to impose
appropriate penalties on erring workers, pursuant to company rules and regulations, however, such
management prerogatives must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under
special laws and valid agreements. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its
own interest to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such
prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its
implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should
bear in mind that, in the execution of said prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employee’s
position, but his very livelihood, his very breadbasket.

Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. Even where a worker has
committed an infraction, a penalty less punitive may suffice, whatever missteps may be committed
by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. This is not only the law’s concern
for the workingman. There is, in addition, his or her family to consider. Unemployment brings untold
hardships and sorrows upon those dependent on the wage-earner.”

24. Pulp and Paper, Inc. vs. NLRC and Epifania Antonio, G.R. No. 116593, 24 September 1997 – On
payment of minimum wage of piece-rate workers

“In the absence of wage rates based on time and motion studies determined by the labor secretary
or submitted by the employer to the labor secretary for his approval, wage rates of piece-rate
workers must be based on the applicable daily minimum wage determined by the Regional
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Commission. To ensure the payment of fair and reasonable wage
rates, Article 101 of the Labor Code provides that ‘the Secretary of Labor hall regulate the payment
of wages by results, including pakyao, piecework and other non-time work.”

25. PLDT vs. Ylagan, G.R. No. 155645, 24 November 2006 – On employment contracts for project
basis when they were already hired as regulars.

“Here, respondent worked in PLDT’s accounting department from November 1992 to July
1995 without any project employment contract. Her employment was continuous until she was
constrained to sign up with CESI in May 1996. It was almost a year later when she was no longer
allowed to report for work in PLDT due to the alleged expiration of her contract with CESI.

PLDT asserts that even if respondent rendered continuous service for a year or so, she
could not be deemed a regular employee because the services performed were not necessary or
desirable to the usual trade or business of the company. On this, we agree with the CA:

It is absurd to argue that services rendered by the [respondent] as an accounting clerk to the
accounting and auditing department of PLDT in relation to its PEPS project (computerization of
employees[‘] payroll system) is not necessary or desirable to the company’s business. There won’t
 be any business without any workforce xxx. Employees render their services for a certain payment
or compensation. Thus, [respondent’s] job pertaining to effective payroll system is part and parcel
[of] the usual business of PLDT.

Further, [the CA] is reminded of the jurisprudence that “the character of employment is determined
not by stipulations in the contract, but by the nature of the work performed and that “an employee is
regular because of the nature of the work and the length of service, not because of the mode or
even the reason for hiring them.” Thus, the scheme of PLDT in adopting the “Project Employment
Agreement” where the [respondent] was made to sign and the design of referring [respondent] to
an employment agency undoubtedly bolster its intention of stripping from [respondent] the
privileges earned by the status of her [regular] employment.” (citations omitted)

26. MRZ Industries, et al., vs. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, 28 August 2013 , - on abandonment:

“To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and

27. Ang vs. Joaquin et al., G.R. No. 185549, 7 August 2013 – on the employee arguing with the
employer:

“This is not to say that respondents’ behavior toward Ang should be condoned; indeed it is
deplorable that an employee should shout invectives against his employer or that he
should show up in the workplace in an intoxicated state. However, this only characterizes
the extent to which their employer-employee relationship had degenerated, owing to
vindictive and oppressive acts perpetrated by the employer. Indeed, it is inconceivable that
respondents would suddenly take such a belligerent stance toward petitioner for no reason
at all; more so if it indeed is true that Ang provided the land and housing of San Joaquin.
Certainly, San Joaquin would not sacrifice his blessings and dare go against Ang – his
cousin and provider of employment and shelter – unless he is pushed to the wall by the
latter. Yet while gross and abusive conduct on the part of respondents is not tolerated, the
Court notes that petitioner’s treatment of respondents is equally unacceptable, and is
tantamount to constructive dismissal.”

28. Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd., et al. vs. Ibanez et al., G.R. No. 170181, 26
June 2008 citing Abesco Construction and Development Corporation et al. vs. Alberto Ramirez et
al., G.R. No. 141168, 10 April 2006. – on project vs regular employees

“In Abesco Construction and Development Corporation vs. Ramirez which also invoked a
construction company and its workers, this Court considered it crucial that employees
were informed of their status as project employees:

The principal test for determining whether employees are “project employees” or
“regular employees” is whether they are assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time are engaged for that
project. Such duration, as well as the particular work/service to be performed, is defined in
an employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at the time of hiring.

In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of agreement with respondents.
Neither did they inform respondents of the nature of the latters’ work at the time of hiring.
 Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were project
employees, we are constrained to declare them as regular employees.”

29. Abesco Construction and Development Corp. vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 141168, 10 April 2006 – on
requirements for project employment.

“The duration of the project employment as well as the particular work out or service to be
performed should be defined in an employment agreement and must be made clear to the
employees at the time of hiring. Failure to do so would make them regular employees.”

30. Hanjin Heavy Industres and Construction Co. Ltd., Hak Kon Kim and/or Jhunie Adajar et al., G.R.
No. 170181, 26 June 2008 – on project employment

“In this case, were no other evidence was offered, the absence of an employment contract puts
into serious question whether the employees were properly informed at the onset of their
employment status as project employees.”

31. Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation and Precilla A. Garmaje vs. Edgardo Concepcion, G.R.
No. 172349, 13 June 2012 – on lack of just or authorized causes for termination

“Petitioners failed to show any valid or authorized cause under the Labor Code which allowed it to
terminate the services of respondent. Neither was it shown that respondent was given ample
opportunity to contest the legality of his dismissal. No notice of termination was given to him.
Clearly, respondent was not afforded due process. Having failed to establish compliance with the
requirements of termination of employment under the Labor Code, the dismissal of respondent
was tainted with illegality.”

32. Ras vs. Sua, 25 SCRA 153; Northern Cement Corp. vs. IAC, 158 SCRA 408; heirs of Celso
Amarante vs. CA, 185 SCRA 585 - It is settled that the court can grant the relief warranted by the
allegation and the proof even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party.

33. Judric CanningCorp. vs. Incion, 113 SCRA 887 (1982) – on the difficulty of getting a job

Moreover, there was no reason at all and none has been suggested by the petitioner, for
the private respondents to abandon their work. No employee with a family to support, like the
private respondents, would abandon their work knowing fully well of the acute unemployment and
underemployment problem and the difficulty of looking for a means of livelihood. As the Solicitor
General stated: "To get a job is difficult; to run from it is foolhardy."

34. Phil. Employ Services vs. Paramio, G.R. No. 144786, 15 April 2004, - on waivers, quitclaims and
releases

First, it is a rule that quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor and are
commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the measure
of a worker's legal rights.

35. Uy vs. Centro Ceramica Corp., et al., G.R. No. 174631, 19 October 2011 - Affidavits executed by
employees - As to the affidavits submitted by the respondents, these are at best self-serving having
been executed by employees beholden to their employer and which evidence by themselves did
not refute petitioners main cause of action -- the fact of his summary dismissal on February 19,
2002.

36. Wesleyan University-Philippines vs. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association,
G.r. No. 181806, 12 March 2014 - Affidavits of retired employees

In this case, respondent was able to present substantial evidence in the form of affidavits to
support its claim that there are two retirement plans. Based on the affidavits, petitioner has been
 giving two retirement benefits as early as 1997.44 Petitioner, on the other hand, failed to present
any evidence to refute the veracity of these affidavits. Petitioner’s contention that these affidavits
are self-serving holds no water. The retired employees of petitioner have nothing to lose or gain in
this case as they have already received their retirement benefits. Thus, they have no reason to
perjure themselves. Obviously, the only reason they executed those affidavits is to bring out the
truth. As we see it then, their affidavits, corroborated by the affidavits of incumbent employees, are
more than sufficient to show that the granting of two retirement benefits to retiring employees had
already ripened into a consistent and deliberate practice.

37. Panlilio vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117459, 17 October 1997 - On submission of evidence on
appeal with NLRC
Petitioner alleges that the NLRC erred in considering these affidavits which were introduced for the
first time on appeal. We rule that the NLRC acted correctly when it admitted the affidavits submitted
by FPS on appeal, for it cannot be disputed that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor
cases.[9] Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of
due process

38. Dup Sound Phils., et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 168317 21 November 2011 - On affidavits of
employees
The settled rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden of proving that the employee
was not dismissed, or, if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, and failure to discharge the
same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal. In the instant case, what
betrays petitioners' claim that private respondent was not dismissed from his employment but
instead abandoned his job is their failure to prove that the latter indeed stopped reporting for work
without any justifiable cause or a valid leave of absence. Petitioners merely presented the affidavits
of their office secretary which narrated their version of the facts. These affidavits, however, are not
only insufficient to prove their defense but also undeserving of credence because they are self-
serving.

39. IBP Phils. Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117221, 13 April 1999 citing Jarcia Machine Shop,
et al. vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA at 104 - Document’s not certified

“Indeed, the [DTRs] annexed to the present petition would tend to establish private
respondents’ neglectful attitude towards his work duties as shown by repeated and habitual
absences and tardiness and propensity for working undertime for the year 1992. But the problem
with these DTRs is that they are neither originals nor certified true copies. They are plain
photocopies of the originals, if the latter do exist. More importantly, they are not even signed by
private respondent nor by any of the employers representatives...”

“Neither were the print-outs certified or authenticated by any company official who could
properly attest that these came from IBMs computer system or that the data stored in the system
were not and/or could not have been tampered with before the same were printed out. It is
noteworthy that the computer unit and system in which the contents of the print-outs were stored
were in the exclusive possession and control of petitioners since after private respondent was
served his termination letter, he had no more access to his computer.”
40. Libcap, et al. vs. Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, 30 June 2014 - Pre-judging of a case no due process

By pre-judging respondent’s case, petitioners clearly violated her right to due process from the very
beginning, and from then on it could not be expected that she would obtain a fair resolution of her
case. In a democratic system, the infliction of punishment before trial is fundamentally abhorred.
What petitioners did was clearly illegal and improper.

41. Ramon Prieto, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 9369, 10 September 1993 – not assisted by
counsel in complaint form
 The private respondents point to the petitioners' allegation in their complaint that they were mere
assistant cooks and argue that this belies their representation that they did not apply for these
positions. The argument has no merit. The petitioners were not assisted by lawyers when they filed
their complaint and must have had in mind the positions stipulated in the second contract. In the
amended complaint, this statement was rectified. At any rate, the slight error must not be taken
against the petitioners. As we held in Cuadra v. NLRC,6 "our overseas workers are mostly ordinary
laborers not conversant with legal principles and with the manner they can assert and protect
rights. They have no compatriot lawyers to consult and no labor unions to support them in the
foreign land. . . . The claims of our overseas workers should therefore be received with sympathy
and allowed, if warranted, conformably to the constitutional mandate for the protection of the
working class."

42. Dee Jay’s Inn and Cage, et al. vs. Ma. Lorina RAÑeses, G.R. No. 191825, 5 Oct. 2016 –
Separation Pay instead of reinstatement

However, the Court recognized in Nightowl that when a considerable length of time had already
passed rendering it impossible for the employee to return to work, the award of separation pay is
proper. Considering that more than ten (10) years had passed since respondent stopped reporting
for work on February 5, 2005, up to the date of this judgment, it is no longer possible and
reasonable for the Court to direct respondent to return to work and order petitioners to accept her.
Under the circumstances, it is just and equitable for the Court instead to award respondent
separation pay in an amount equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service,
computed up to the time she stopped working, or until February 4, 2005.

43. Nancy S. Montinola vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 198656, 8 September 2014 – Constitutional
protection of workers

“The constitutional protection for workers elevates their work to the status of a vested right. It is a
vested right protected not only against state action but against the arbitrary acts of the employers
as well. This court in Philippine Movie Pictures Workers’ Association v. Premier Productions, Inc.63
categorically stated that "[t]he rightof a person to his labor is deemed to be property within the
meaning of constitutional guarantees."64 Moreover, it is of that species of vestedconstitutional right
that also affects an employee’s liberty and quality of life. Work not only contributes to defining the
individual, it also assists in determining one’spurpose. Work provides for the material basis of
human dignity.
Suspension from work is prima facie a deprivation of this right. Thus, termination and suspension
from workmust be reasonable to meet the constitutional requirement of due process of law. It will
be reasonable if it is based on just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code.”