1. The Labor Code of the Philippinesa. Brief History: began in 1968 under Blas Ople to address needs of economic

development and justice.b. Name of Decree (Art 1) Labor Code of the Philippines PD 442c. Date of Effectivity – (2) 6 mos. After promulgation which was on (May 1,

1974) therefore, Nov 1, 1974d. Declaration of Basic Policy – (3) Full employment, Equal work opportunity,

Security of Tenure, etc.e. Construction in Favor of Labor – (4) in favor of safety and decent living of the

laborer however, it must be noted that the management also has rights (management prerogatives) Reyes v. CA

Dr. Pedrito demanded PhilMalay for separation payment similar to its employees as well as for underpayment of salary, a new car, life insurance policy, office rentals and legal service costs he incurred. The LA claimed that the retrenchment of PhilM is valid. NLRC reduced the awards. His appeal was dismissed by CA for failure to attach position paper, decision by Labor Arbiter and Memorandul of Appeal.“Leniency should be applied. If the rules of procedure are applied very rigidly, justice would be defeated. Labor laws mandate speedy disposition of cases without sacrificing fundamental requisites of due process”

Salinas Jr. v.NLRCConstant renewals by AG&P of Salinas etc. contracts as cement workers etc. as project based employees but did not comply with department order which requires them to submit to DOLE the notice and reason of termination upon the end of the project. “It would be prejudicial and would run counter to the constitutional mandate on social justice and protection to labor”

f. Technical Rules not binding (221) – Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law as well as due process. Huntington Steel Products, Inc. v. NLRC

Complaint for illegal dismissal by Orbase and 11 other employees against Huntington Steel Products was dismissed due to the lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping required by Circular No. 28-91 with the petitioners commenting that the complaint was a mere scrap of paper. Labor cases must be supported by evidence. Disregarding technical rules of procedure will not sacrifice the fundamental requisites of due process ALSO the complaint form supplied by the LA were just filled up by them and therefore, respondents should not be faulted.CA ruled that “technical rules shall not be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man” REMEDIED BY A POSITION PAPER.

Industrial Timber Corp v. Ababon (2 petitions are consolidated as one)Industrial Plywood Group Corporation did not continue to lease the plant to ITC (herein petitioner) which led to ITC to close its operations. ITC posted a final notice of closure of business and asked its workers to collect the benefits due them. Ababon is one of the 387 workers laid off due to the plant’s shutdown and thus he and 96 of his co-workers filed a case of illegal dismissal. LA required (1/2 mo) separation pay, reinstatement etc. ITC filed with the NLRC who reinstated the LA’s decision. Ababon filed with the SC and was referred to the CA which ruled that retrenchment was valid because of proof on non-renewal of license HOWEVER, ITC did not properly notify its employees (1 month before) 50k as damages was awarded.ITC: they were 3 days late in filing the MoR and thus, CA cannot validly overturn NLRC’s decision. “Apply liberality in applying technical rules. Substantial Justice is best served by allowing the petition for relief despite the procedural defect of PETITIONERS of filing the motion for reconsideration 3 days late” INJUSTICE TO EMPLOYER.Art 218 (c), LC: it is within power of commission to… correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form…”

g. Rules and Regulations or Limitation (5)- Department of Labor and Employment shall promulgate necessary regulations which shall

have the force of law and is entitled to great respect + ANY OTHER (TO ADMINISTER, ENFORCE AND IMPLEMENT)

- EXCEPT if its in the excess of authority Kapisanan ng mga manggagawang Pinagyakap v. NLRC

The negotiated daily wage increase of P. 1.33 could be credited to and deducted from the P60/monthly living allowance which in effect, nullified the P 1. 33 increase. The LA ruled according to Sec 1(k) of the Labor department’s rules implementing PD 1123 (made to protect wages against inflation) which exempts those that have granted the 60-peso monthly allowance from paying for anything extra. ALL DOUBTS SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR.In the Philippine Apparel case, this paragraph was already declared void for contravening the statutory authority granted to the secretary of Labor., “Due to facts as well as the ruling with regard to dismissal for lack to serve a Memorandum of Agreement as being inconsistent with the requirement of social justice to terminate employee of his employment on a mere technicality, the petition is granted”

h. Applicability (6) All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as may otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural.

276: Government employees. The terms and conditions of employment of all governmentemployees…shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations…However, there shall be no reduction of …benefits and other terms and conditions of employment being enjoyed by them atthe time of the adoption of this Code.Consti Art IX- B Sec (2) 1: The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.

PNOC Energy Development Corp v. NLRCDanilo Mercado was dismissed for alleged acts of dishonesty (negotiating cost then pocketing the money)1. The decision was made when the 1987 constitution was in effect and not the 1973 constitution therefore it is already the Labor Code and not the Civil Service Decree that it in effect. The test is the manner of its creation, those under the civil service law, CS. Those created under the General Corporation Law, are under the Labor Code. ALSO case arose in 1973 but it was promulgated on July 1987, therefore under the 1987 constitution.2. Also, there was no evidence of the alleged violations, in fact the testimony as well as the explanations provided by Mercado’s affidavit is satisfactory for the Labor Arbiter.

i. Enforcement and sanctions217 a Labor Arbiter’s Jurisdiction128 Visitorial and enforcement power.129 Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits.288 Penalties.289 Who are liable when committed by other than natural person.290 Offenses.291 Money claims292 Institution of Money claimsArt III Constitution Sec 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.2. Work Relationship

a. Definition97 a: person- individual, partner etcB: employer – person acting directly or indirectly in interest of employer167 c: employee – employed by employerF: employer – employing employeeG: employee – compulsorily covered by GSISH: person - any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, corporation or legal representative thereof. 212 e: employer – acting in the interest of employerF: employee: in employ of employer even those whose work has ceased given unfair labor practices.