ASG Law

Tag: Labor Law

  • Social Media Speech and Employment: Defining the Boundaries of ‘Loss of Trust’ in Termination Cases

    In Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc. v. Rebecca F. Simbillo, the Supreme Court held that an employee’s Facebook post, though critical of the company, did not constitute a valid ground for termination based on loss of trust and confidence. The Court emphasized that for such a ground to be valid, the breach of trust must be willful and intentional, which was not proven in this case. This decision clarifies the boundaries of permissible employee expression on social media and its impact on employment security, highlighting the need for employers to establish a clear connection between the employee’s actions and a tangible breach of trust.

    From Finance Manager to Facebook Critic: When Does Online Opinion Justify Dismissal?

    Rebecca F. Simbillo, a Finance and Accounting Manager at Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc., faced termination after posting a message on her Facebook account that the company interpreted as critical of its dealings with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Interadent argued that this post, along with a prior alleged infraction, constituted a breach of trust, justifying her dismissal. Simbillo, however, contended that the post was a general expression of opinion and did not disclose any confidential company information. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Simbillo’s Facebook post provided sufficient grounds for her termination based on a loss of trust and confidence.

    The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the principle that while employers have the right to dismiss employees for valid reasons, including loss of trust and confidence, this right is not absolute. The Court emphasized that for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it must be based on a willful breach of trust, meaning the act must be intentional, knowing, and purposeful, without justifiable excuse. This standard differentiates between actions taken deliberately to harm the employer and those resulting from mere carelessness or oversight. As the Court explained:

    It bears emphasizing that the right of an employer to dismiss its employees on the ground of loss of trust and confidence must not be exercised arbitrarily. For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal, it must be substantial and founded on clearly established facts. Loss of confidence must not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or unjustified; it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith. x x

    The Court then scrutinized the content of Simbillo’s Facebook post to determine whether it met the criteria for a willful breach of trust. The post in question read:

    Sana maisip din nila na ang kompanya kailangan ng mga taong di tulad nila, nagtatrabaho at di puro #$,*% ang pinaggagagawa, na kapag super demotivated na yung tao nayun baka iwan narin nya ang kawawang kumpanya na pinagpepyestahan ng mga b_i_r_. Wala na ngang credibility wala pang conscience, portraying so respectable and so religious pa. Hay naku talaga, nakakasuka, puro nalang animus lucrandi ang laman ng isip.

    Interadent argued that this post implied the company was involved in irregular transactions with the BIR, thereby compromising its reputation. However, the Court sided with the Court of Appeals’ observation that the Facebook entry did not contain any corporate record or confidential information. Moreover, it was a vague expression of feelings or opinion towards a person or entity, which was not even identified with certainty. The Supreme Court underscored that there was no actual leakage of information; Simbillo did not divulge any company information or corporate records. In other words, the connection between the post and any tangible harm to Interadent was speculative at best.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to demonstrate that the employee’s dismissal was for a valid cause. As such, the employer’s case must stand on the strength of its evidence, not on the perceived weaknesses of the employee’s defense. This allocation of the burden of proof reflects the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the employee in cases of doubt. Even if Simbillo failed to conclusively prove that her post was about a friend’s situation or that “b_i_r_” meant “bwitre” (vulture), Interadent still had to prove that her post constituted a willful breach of trust.

    The Supreme Court further addressed Interadent’s argument that Simbillo had a prior offense of divulging confidential company information. The Court found no concrete evidence to support this claim. In fact, the Court pointed out that Simbillo’s subsequent promotion to Finance and Accounting Manager and election as Treasurer contradicted the notion that she was untrustworthy. Additionally, the salary and merit increases she received during the period covering June 2009-May 2010 served as an indication of her satisfactory performance. Therefore, the Court concluded that Simbillo’s dismissal was unjustified, and the Court found that a lighter penalty would have sufficed for Simbillo’s actions, and the dismissal was a drastic measure.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an employee’s Facebook post, critical of the company but not disclosing confidential information, constituted a valid ground for termination based on loss of trust and confidence.
    What is “willful breach of trust”? Willful breach of trust refers to an act that is intentional, knowing, and purposeful, without justifiable excuse. It is a necessary element for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for employee dismissal.
    Who has the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases? In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that the employee’s dismissal was for a valid cause.
    Did Simbillo disclose confidential information in her Facebook post? The Supreme Court found that Simbillo’s Facebook post did not contain any corporate record or confidential information. It was a vague expression of opinion without specific details.
    Was there evidence of a prior offense by Simbillo? The Court found no concrete evidence to support Interadent’s claim that Simbillo had a prior offense of divulging confidential company information.
    How did the Court view Simbillo’s subsequent promotion? The Court noted that Simbillo’s promotion to Finance and Accounting Manager and election as Treasurer contradicted the notion that she was untrustworthy.
    What was the final ruling in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that Simbillo’s dismissal was illegal because the allegation of loss of trust and confidence was not supported by substantial evidence.
    Can employers monitor employees’ social media activity? While employers can monitor public social media activity, using it as a basis for termination requires a clear link between the employee’s actions and a tangible breach of trust or harm to the company.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling clarifies the boundaries of permissible employee expression on social media and its impact on employment security. It highlights the need for employers to establish a clear connection between an employee’s actions and a tangible breach of trust before terminating their employment.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Interadent v. Simbillo provides important guidance on the application of “loss of trust and confidence” as a ground for employee termination in the context of social media. It underscores the need for employers to exercise caution and ensure that any such termination is based on clearly established facts demonstrating a willful breach of trust, rather than mere speculation or disapproval of an employee’s opinions. The decision serves as a reminder that employees have a right to express themselves, even critically, without fear of losing their jobs, provided that their expressions do not cross the line into disclosing confidential information or causing tangible harm to the employer’s business.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc. v. Rebecca F. Simbillo, G.R. No. 207315, November 23, 2016

  • Company Time is Not Playtime: Dismissal Upheld for Gambling on Duty

    In Universal Canning Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of employees caught gambling during work hours, reinforcing the principle that engaging in prohibited activities during company time constitutes a serious offense. The decision clarified that such conduct, even if claimed to occur during breaks, is a valid ground for termination due to the misuse of company time and violation of company rules. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to workplace regulations and respecting the employer’s right to maintain order and productivity.

    When Card Games Cost More Than Just Money: Examining Workplace Conduct

    Universal Canning Inc. dismissed several employees, including Dante Sarosal, Francisco Dumagal Jr., Nelson E. Francisco, Elmer C. Saromines, and Samuel D. Coronel, after they were caught playing cards on company premises during work hours. The company cited violations of its rules against gambling and loss of trust as grounds for termination. The employees contested their dismissal, arguing that the card game took place during their lunch break and did not involve any money, therefore not constituting gambling. Initially, the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sided with the company, but the Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

    The central legal issue revolved around whether the employees’ actions constituted a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code. The petitioners argued that the act of playing cards during work hours, regardless of whether money was involved, was a violation of company rules and a form of theft of company time. They emphasized that their actions compromised productivity and went against established company policies. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that their activity was harmless, occurred during a break, and did not warrant such a severe penalty as dismissal. This disagreement highlighted the tension between an employer’s right to enforce workplace rules and an employee’s right to job security.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis began by referencing Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, which provides that an employer may terminate employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience. The court defined misconduct as “an improper or wrong conduct,” emphasizing that it must be serious, related to the employee’s duties, and performed with wrongful intent. The court stated:

    ARTICLE 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

    • Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

    In this case, the Court found that the employees’ actions met the criteria for serious misconduct. While the respondents argued that no money was involved and the game took place during a break, the Court found that the use of company time and premises for gambling activities was a grave offense. It equated this to a theft of the company’s time and a violation of company rules designed to maintain order and productivity. This ruling underscores the principle that an employer has the right to expect employees to dedicate their working hours to company business, free from unauthorized activities.

    The Court highlighted the importance of upholding reasonable company rules and regulations, stating that “an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company’s business.” It recognized the employer’s prerogative to manage its business and maintain discipline among its employees. This prerogative includes the right to set standards for employee conduct and to enforce those standards through disciplinary actions, including termination when warranted. The Court noted:

    Suffice it to state that an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company’s business. It is the recognized prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business.

    The decision also addressed the argument that the employees’ length of service should be considered a mitigating factor. The NLRC had previously stated that their length of service should not excuse their disloyalty and lack of concern for the company’s interests. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that employees owe their employers a duty of loyalty and diligence, regardless of their tenure. This underscores the idea that long-term employment does not grant immunity from disciplinary action for misconduct.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that it is not a trier of facts and that it gives great weight to the factual findings of labor tribunals. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had found that the employees were guilty of misconduct, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn these findings. This deference to the expertise of labor tribunals reflects a policy of respecting their role in resolving labor disputes and ensuring consistent application of labor laws. The Court’s decision reinforced the idea that administrative bodies, such as the NLRC, are best positioned to evaluate evidence and make factual determinations in labor cases.

    The practical implications of this case are significant for both employers and employees. For employers, the ruling affirms their right to enforce reasonable workplace rules and to take disciplinary action against employees who violate those rules. It provides a clear precedent for terminating employees who engage in unauthorized activities, such as gambling, during work hours. This helps employers maintain order, productivity, and a professional work environment. The decision offers guidance on the types of conduct that constitute just cause for dismissal and the importance of conducting fair investigations before taking disciplinary action. For employees, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to workplace rules and respecting the employer’s right to manage its business. It highlights the potential consequences of engaging in unauthorized activities during work hours, even if those activities seem harmless or occur during breaks. This encourages employees to be mindful of their conduct and to prioritize their responsibilities to their employer.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the dismissal of employees for playing cards during work hours constituted a just cause for termination under the Labor Code.
    What did the company rules say about gambling? The company rules explicitly prohibited taking part in betting, gambling, or any unauthorized game of chance inside the company premises while on duty, considering it against public morals.
    Did the employees deny playing cards? No, the employees admitted to playing cards but argued that it occurred during their noon break and did not involve any money, so it should not be considered gambling.
    What does the Labor Code say about serious misconduct? Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer.
    Why did the Supreme Court side with the company? The Supreme Court sided with the company because the employees’ actions constituted a violation of company rules and a form of theft of company time, which is considered serious misconduct.
    Does length of service excuse misconduct? The Court ruled that length of service does not excuse misconduct, and employees owe their employers a duty of loyalty and diligence regardless of their tenure.
    What is the role of the NLRC in this case? The NLRC initially affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, supporting the company’s position that there was a valid ground for dismissing the employees. The Supreme Court gave weight to the factual findings of the NLRC.
    Can a company enforce its workplace rules? Yes, the Court affirmed that a company has the right to enforce reasonable workplace rules and to take disciplinary action against employees who violate those rules.

    The Universal Canning Inc. v. Court of Appeals decision clarifies the scope of an employer’s right to enforce workplace rules and the responsibilities of employees to adhere to those rules. It serves as a reminder that engaging in unauthorized activities during work hours can have serious consequences, regardless of whether those activities seem harmless or occur during breaks. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining a professional and productive work environment.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Universal Canning Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215047, November 23, 2016

  • Work-Related Stroke: Upholding Employees’ Compensation Claims in the Philippines

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that employees suffering from stroke can claim compensation if their working conditions increased the risk of the illness. This decision underscores the importance of considering an employee’s actual job responsibilities, not just their job title, when evaluating compensation claims. It also reinforces the principle that in compensation proceedings, the test of proof is probability, not absolute certainty, favoring the employee’s welfare.

    Beyond the Job Title: When Work Stress Leads to Stroke Compensation

    In Jesus B. Villamor v. Employees’ Compensation Commission [ECC] and Social Security System, the central question revolved around whether a stroke suffered by an employee was work-related, thus entitling him to Employees’ Compensation (EC) Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits. The petitioner, Jesus B. Villamor, sought to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had denied his claim. The denial was based on the premise that Villamor’s stroke was not causally linked to his job as a clerk. The Supreme Court, however, found that the lower courts had erred in their assessment of Villamor’s actual duties and the stress associated with his work, ultimately ruling in his favor.

    Villamor was employed by Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. (VVCCI). He was initially a waiter, then moved to the Sports Department, eventually becoming the Sports Area In-Charge. After being hospitalized due to a stroke, he sought EC TTD benefits, which were initially denied by the Social Security System (SSS) and later by the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC). Both agencies argued that there was no causal relationship between his illness and his working conditions. The ECC further noted that Villamor’s smoking history and drinking habits increased his risk of developing the illness.

    The Supreme Court took exception to the lower courts’ findings, emphasizing that Villamor was not a mere clerk. His responsibilities as Sports Area In-Charge were more demanding than simply issuing vouchers and receipts. His job description included ensuring adherence to club rules, managing court schedules, handling member complaints, and coordinating with other departments. As such, Villamor’s duties involved both physical activity and mental pressure, requiring him to interact with diverse personalities and address their concerns. Moreover, his role as the President of the VVCCI Employees Union added another layer of stress, as he had filed several cases against VVCCI, leading to workplace harassment.

    The Court referenced Section 1 (b), Rule III, of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, stating that for an illness to be compensable, it must either be an occupational disease listed in Annex ‘A’ of the rules, with the conditions satisfied, or proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. Stroke and hypertension are listed as occupational diseases under Nos. 19 and 29, respectively, of Annex “A” of the said rules.

    CEREBRO-VASCULAR ACCIDENTS. Any of the following conditions:

    a. There must be proof that the acute stroke must have developed as a result of the stressful nature of work and pressures inherent in an occupation.

    The Court cited Government Service Insurance System v. Baul, which affirmed that cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are considered occupational diseases. It’s important to note that while these conditions are listed occupational diseases, their compensability requires compliance with specific conditions. Substantial evidence is needed to validate the concurrence of these conditions. This requires a reasonable work-connection, not a direct causal relation.

    Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that Villamor was entitled to compensation. His medical reports documented his hypertension and stroke, and he demonstrated that his work and union position caused him physical and mental strain. The Court acknowledged that there was a probability that his work increased his risk of suffering a stroke. The Court underscored that direct evidence of causation is unnecessary and that the test of proof in compensation proceedings is probability, not absolute certainty.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the respondents’ argument that Villamor’s smoking and drinking habits should bar his claim. Citing Government Service Insurance System v. De Castro, the Court emphasized that these factors should not be the sole determinants of compensability. Other factors, such as age, gender, and the nature of the job, must also be considered.

    We find it strange that both the ECC and the GSIS singled out the presence of smoking and drinking as the factors that rendered De Castro’s ailments, otherwise listed as occupational, to be non-compensable… However, they are not the sole causes of CAD and hypertension and, at least, not under the circumstances of the present case.

    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Villamor, ordering the Social Security System and Employees’ Compensation Commission to pay him Employees’ Compensation Temporary Total Disability benefits. The decision underscores the importance of considering the totality of an employee’s work environment and the potential for work-related stress to contribute to illnesses. It also reinforces the principle that compensation claims should be viewed with a bias toward protecting the employee’s welfare.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the stroke suffered by Jesus Villamor was work-related, entitling him to Employees’ Compensation (EC) Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits. The court assessed whether his job duties and work environment contributed to his illness.
    Why did the SSS and ECC initially deny Villamor’s claim? The SSS and ECC denied Villamor’s claim because they found no causal relationship between his illness and his working conditions. They considered him a mere clerk and cited his smoking and drinking habits as contributing factors.
    What evidence did Villamor present to support his claim? Villamor presented his job description, which showed he was not a mere clerk but a Sports Area In-Charge with demanding responsibilities. He also showed that his union activities caused him significant stress.
    What is the legal test for determining compensability in this type of case? The legal test is whether there is a reasonable work-connection, not a direct causal relation, between the employee’s illness and their job. The test of proof is probability, not absolute certainty.
    How did the Court address the issue of Villamor’s smoking and drinking habits? The Court ruled that smoking and drinking habits should not be the sole determinants of compensability. Other factors, such as the nature of the job and potential for work-related stress, must also be considered.
    What is the significance of the Government Service Insurance System v. Baul case? The Baul case established that cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are considered occupational diseases, and their compensability requires compliance with specific conditions. It emphasizes the need for substantial evidence and a reasonable work-connection.
    What is the significance of the Government Service Insurance System v. De Castro case? The De Castro case clarifies that personal habits like smoking and drinking should not automatically disqualify an employee from compensation. Other factors, like the nature of the job, must also be considered.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Villamor, ordering the Social Security System and Employees’ Compensation Commission to pay him Employees’ Compensation Temporary Total Disability benefits. The Court emphasized that the totality of his work environment and stress contributed to his illness.

    This case highlights the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of an employee’s work environment when assessing compensation claims. It underscores the need to consider the actual duties performed and the stress associated with the job, rather than relying solely on job titles or personal habits. This ruling reinforces the pro-employee stance of Philippine labor laws, ensuring that workers receive the benefits they are entitled to under the Employees’ Compensation Act.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jesus B. Villamor v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 204422, November 21, 2016

  • Piercing the Corporate Veil: Protecting Workers’ Rights in Certification Elections

    In Erson Ang Lee v. Samahang Manggagawa, the Supreme Court upheld the right of workers to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, preventing employers from using separate corporate entities to frustrate this right. The Court allowed a certification election to proceed among the employees of three related companies, treating them as a single bargaining unit. This decision ensures that businesses cannot use corporate structures to undermine workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain, reinforcing the protection afforded to labor under Philippine law.

    Lamination Layers: When Shared Resources Obscure Workers’ Rights?

    Erson Ang Lee, doing business as “Super Lamination Services,” challenged a Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) decision allowing a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination Services, Inc., and Express Coat Enterprises, Inc. Lee argued that these were separate entities, and thus, employees of one could not vote in the certification election of another. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should apply to treat these ostensibly separate companies as a single employer for purposes of collective bargaining.

    The case began with three separate unions—Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), Express Lamination Workers’ Union, and Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Express Coat Enterprises, Inc.—filing petitions for certification elections in their respective companies. Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat, all under the representation of one counsel, opposed the petitions, claiming a lack of employer-employee relationship between the establishments and the union members. They argued that employees listed in one company’s roster were actually employed by another, leading to the denial of all three petitions by DOLE’s National Capital Region (NCR) Med-Arbiters.

    The unions appealed to the Office of the DOLE Secretary, which consolidated the appeals. They argued that the companies were unorganized and under the same management’s control and supervision. DOLE sided with the unions, finding that the companies had a common human resource department and rotated their workers, indicating a work-pooling scheme. This, according to DOLE, justified treating the companies as one entity for determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a certification election. DOLE applied the concept of multi-employer bargaining under Department Order 40-03, Series of 2003, and ordered a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of all three companies.

    Lee appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed DOLE’s decision, agreeing that the companies were sister companies adopting a work-pooling scheme. The CA held that DOLE correctly applied the concept of multi-employer bargaining. Lee then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single bargaining unit.

    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court tackled the issue of whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was warranted. While acknowledging that separate corporations generally have distinct juridical personalities, the Court emphasized that this principle is not absolute. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil allows the courts to disregard this separation when it is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. The Court cited several instances where it had disregarded separate juridical personalities to protect the rights of third parties, particularly laborers.

    The Court outlined a settled formulation of the doctrine, stating that “when two business enterprises are owned, conducted, and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same.” It emphasized that this formulation has been applied to cases where laborers are disadvantaged due to the separate juridical personalities of their employers, citing examples where corporations were held jointly and severally liable for back wages or found guilty of illegal dismissal.

    In this case, the Court found that Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were under the control and management of petitioner Ang Lee. It enumerated several key facts that supported this conclusion: (1) the companies were engaged in the same business; (2) they operated and hired employees through a common human resource department; (3) workers were constantly rotated among the three companies; (4) the common human resource department imposed disciplinary sanctions and directed the daily performance of employees; (5) Super Lamination included employees of the other companies in its payroll and SSS registration; (6) Super Lamination issued and signed identification cards for employees working for the other companies; and (7) all three companies were represented by the same counsel, who presented the same arguments.

    The Court also found an attempt to frustrate the workers’ right to collectively bargain. The companies alternately referred to one another as the employer of the union members, resulting in the dismissal of the certification election petitions and confusion among the employees. To safeguard the workers’ right to collective bargaining, the Court held that the corporate veil of Express Lamination and Express Coat must be pierced, and the three companies treated as one for the purpose of holding a certification election.

    The Court distinguished this case from Diatagon Labor Federation Local v. Ople and Indophil Textile Mill Worker Union v. Calica, where it had refused to treat separate corporations as a single bargaining unit. In those cases, the corporations were found to be completely independent or were not involved in any act that frustrated the laborers’ rights. The Court emphasized that, in this case, not only were the companies found to be under the control of the petitioner, but there was also a discernible attempt to disregard the workers’ and unions’ right to collective bargaining.

    The Court also addressed the argument that the rank-and-file employees of the three companies could not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit due to their different geographical locations. The Court reiterated that the basic test for determining an appropriate bargaining unit is whether the employees have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. While geographical location is a factor, it can be disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed.

    In this case, the Court found that the employees had a communal interest based on their constant rotation among the three companies and the performance of the same or similar duties. Their employment status and working conditions were substantially similar, justifying the conclusion that they shared a community of interest. This finding aligns with the policy favoring a single-employer unit, as it strengthens the employees’ bargaining capacity. As the Court correctly observed, the work-pooling scheme should not be used to defeat the workers’ right to collective bargaining, which is essential for promoting harmonious labor-management relations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be applied to treat three related companies as a single employer for the purpose of a certification election.
    What is a certification election? A certification election is a process where employees vote to determine which union, if any, will represent them in collective bargaining with their employer. This ensures fair representation and negotiation.
    What does it mean to “pierce the corporate veil”? Piercing the corporate veil is a legal doctrine that allows a court to disregard the separate legal personality of a corporation. This is typically done when the corporation is used to commit fraud, injustice, or circumvent the law.
    Why did the Supreme Court decide to pierce the corporate veil in this case? The Court pierced the corporate veil because the three companies were found to be under the control of the same person and were using their separate corporate identities to frustrate the workers’ right to collective bargaining.
    What is a bargaining unit? A bargaining unit is a group of employees who share a community of interest and are represented by a union for collective bargaining purposes. The appropriate bargaining unit is key to ensuring fair representation.
    What is multi-employer bargaining? Multi-employer bargaining involves several employers negotiating collectively with a union that represents their employees. While optional under Department Order No. 40-03, it demonstrates the State’s policy to promote free and responsible collective bargaining.
    What factors determine an appropriate bargaining unit? The main factor is whether the employees share substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. Geographical location is considered, but is secondary to the communal interests of the employees.
    What is the significance of a work-pooling scheme in this case? The work-pooling scheme, where employees were constantly rotated among the three companies, demonstrated that the companies were not truly separate and that the employees shared a community of interest, strengthening the case for piercing the corporate veil.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Erson Ang Lee v. Samahang Manggagawa reaffirms the importance of protecting workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. By applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the Court ensured that employers cannot use separate corporate entities to undermine these rights. This ruling serves as a reminder that labor laws are designed to promote fairness and equity in the workplace, and that the courts will not hesitate to disregard corporate structures when they are used to circumvent these laws.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Erson Ang Lee v. Samahang Manggagawa, G.R. No. 193816, November 21, 2016

  • Dismissal Based on Weak Evidence: Employer’s Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal Cases

    The Supreme Court in Oasis Park Hotel v. Navaluna reiterated the principle that employers bear the burden of proving that an employee’s dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and with due process. The Court found that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the termination of several employees, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence and procedural compliance in dismissal cases. This decision reinforces the security of tenure for employees and underscores the need for employers to adhere strictly to labor laws and procedural requirements when terminating employment.

    Oasis Park Hotel: Did Labor Law Violations Lead to Retaliatory Dismissals?

    In the case of Oasis Park Hotel vs. Leslee G. Navaluna, et al., the central issue revolved around whether the dismissal of several hotel employees was legal or a retaliatory measure following their complaint against the hotel for labor standard violations. The employees, working as food attendants, cashiers, and front desk clerks, claimed illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and denial of labor standard benefits. The hotel countered that the employees were terminated for serious misconduct and willful breach of trust, citing instances of poor customer service and fostering discontent among coworkers.

    The legal framework governing this case is rooted in Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, which safeguards an employee’s right to security of tenure. This provision emphasizes that dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause, with the employer bearing the burden of proof. The process must also adhere to due process requirements, including a written notice stating the grounds for termination and affording the employee an opportunity to be heard.

    “(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. x x x.”

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially sided with the hotel, finding that the employees’ actions constituted serious misconduct justifying their dismissal. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, highlighting the hotel’s failure to present substantial evidence supporting the accusations at the time of the dismissal. The NLRC pointed out that affidavits from other employees were belatedly executed, nearly a year after the alleged infractions, suggesting they were an afterthought rather than a basis for the initial termination decision.

    The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s decision, dismissing the hotel’s petition for certiorari due to procedural infirmities, primarily the failure to state material dates in the petition. While the CA identified several procedural lapses, the most critical was the omission of the date when the hotel received the NLRC Decision, a requirement for determining the timeliness of the petition.

    The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly the requirement to state material dates in a petition for certiorari. The Court referenced Blue Eagle Management, Inc. v. Naval, which underscored the necessity of stating the date of receipt of the assailed judgment to determine the timeliness of the petition. Failure to comply with this requirement is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

    Furthermore, the SC found no reason to relax the procedural rules in the interest of substantive justice, as the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal was supported by the evidence on record. The Court reiterated that the employer bears the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal, and in this case, the hotel failed to provide substantial evidence of serious misconduct or willful breach of trust.

    The Court also noted the close proximity between the employees’ filing of a complaint before the DOLE and their subsequent dismissal, suggesting a retaliatory motive on the part of the hotel. This temporal connection further weakened the hotel’s claim that the dismissal was based on legitimate grounds.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in termination cases. Self-serving allegations and unsubstantiated claims are insufficient to justify the dismissal of an employee. The evidence must be credible, objective, and contemporaneous with the alleged misconduct.

    The Court also addressed several procedural issues raised by the Court of Appeals. While the CA initially cited multiple procedural infirmities, the Supreme Court clarified that some of these were either without basis or not fatal to the petition. For instance, the Court noted that the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping were accompanied by competent evidence of identity, and the failure to implead the complete names of all respondents in the caption was not a ground for dismissal, provided the parties were identified in the body of the petition.

    In analyzing this case, it’s important to consider the practical implications for both employers and employees. For employers, this decision serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for validly terminating an employee. Employers must ensure that they have substantial evidence of just cause, that they follow due process requirements, and that they comply with procedural rules when seeking judicial review of labor decisions.

    The consequences of failing to meet these requirements can be significant, including orders for reinstatement, backwages, and other monetary awards. This ruling underscores the importance of documenting employee misconduct, conducting thorough investigations, and adhering to legal procedures when contemplating termination.

    For employees, this decision reinforces their right to security of tenure and provides a legal basis for challenging dismissals that are not supported by substantial evidence or due process. It highlights the importance of documenting instances of unfair labor practices and seeking legal counsel when facing potential termination.

    The Oasis Park Hotel case serves as a crucial reminder of the employer’s burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking judicial review of labor decisions. It reaffirms the constitutional right of employees to security of tenure and the need for employers to act fairly and in accordance with the law when terminating employment.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the dismissal of the hotel employees was legal, or a retaliatory measure following their complaint against the hotel for labor standard violations. The court examined whether the hotel provided sufficient evidence of just cause for the terminations.
    What is the employer’s burden of proof in dismissal cases? The employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and with due process. Failure to meet this burden results in a finding of illegal dismissal.
    What constitutes substantial evidence in termination cases? Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must be more than mere allegations or self-serving statements.
    What are the material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari? The material dates include the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, the date when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed, and the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.
    What happens if the employer fails to state the material dates? Failure to state the material dates in a petition for certiorari is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. This is because it prevents the court from determining whether the petition was timely filed.
    What is the significance of Article 277(b) of the Labor Code? Article 277(b) of the Labor Code guarantees the right of an employee to security of tenure. It requires that dismissal be for a just or authorized cause, with due process, and places the burden of proof on the employer.
    What remedies are available to an employee who is illegally dismissed? An employee who is illegally dismissed may be entitled to reinstatement to their former position without loss of seniority rights, full backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to actual reinstatement, and other monetary awards.
    Can an employer rely on newly discovered evidence to justify a dismissal? The court is less likely to consider “newly discovered evidence” as a basis for dismissal if it was obtained long after the termination occurred. Such evidence may be seen as an afterthought rather than a legitimate basis for the decision.

    The Oasis Park Hotel case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that employers adhere to the principles of due process and just cause when terminating employment. The ruling serves as a guide for employers in navigating the complexities of labor law and underscores the importance of building a strong evidentiary record before making termination decisions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: OASIS PARK HOTEL VS. LESLEE G. NAVALUNA, ET AL., G.R. No. 197191, November 21, 2016

  • Theft by Deceit: Overseas Job Scams and the Law on Illegal Recruitment in the Philippines

    In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Fe Torres Solina, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ma. Fe Torres Solina for illegal recruitment in large scale and multiple counts of estafa. The Court underscored that individuals who deceive others into believing they can secure overseas employment, collecting fees without the proper licenses or authority, will face severe penalties, including life imprisonment and substantial fines. This decision serves as a stern warning against those who exploit the dreams of Filipinos seeking work abroad, reinforcing the importance of legal and ethical practices in recruitment.

    Dreams for Sale: How False Promises Led to Conviction in Illegal Recruitment and Estafa

    This case revolves around Ma. Fe Torres Solina, who was found guilty of promising overseas jobs to several individuals, collecting fees from them, and failing to deliver on her promises. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted her, a decision that was later affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court (SC) ultimately upheld the CA’s decision, providing clarity on the elements of illegal recruitment and estafa in the context of overseas employment scams. The narrative of this case highlights the vulnerability of job seekers and the legal safeguards in place to protect them.

    At the heart of the legal matter is Republic Act No. 8042, also known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which aims to protect Filipino workers seeking employment abroad. The Act defines illegal recruitment broadly, encompassing any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers without the necessary license or authority. In Solina’s case, the prosecution successfully demonstrated that she engaged in these activities without the required license, thus violating the law. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this element, stating that:

    First off, the first element is admittedly present. Appellant had no license to recruit or engage in placement activities and she herself had admitted to her lack of authority to do so. The Certification dated 7 April 2006 issued by 1he POHA also undeniably establishes this fact.

    Building on this, the Court also considered Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which addresses estafa, or swindling, through false pretenses or fraudulent acts. To secure a conviction for estafa, the prosecution must prove that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit, resulting in damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation to the offended party. In this instance, Solina’s misrepresentation of her ability to secure overseas employment for the complainants, coupled with their subsequent financial loss, satisfied the elements of estafa.

    The convergence of illegal recruitment and estafa charges in this case is not coincidental. It reflects a pattern where unscrupulous individuals exploit the desire of Filipinos to work abroad, using false promises to extract money from them. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042 and estafa under the Revised Penal Code, recognizing that these are distinct offenses with different elements and purposes. As highlighted in People v. Gallemit:

    It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

    The accused-appellant argued that she was merely assisting the complainants and did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter. However, the Court found this defense unconvincing, giving greater weight to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are given more weight than the accused’s denial. This principle underscores the importance of witness credibility and the trial court’s role in assessing the demeanor and sincerity of those who testify. The RTC and CA found the testimonies of the complainants credible and consistent, further solidifying the prosecution’s case.

    The penalty imposed in this case reflects the gravity of the offenses committed. Illegal recruitment in large scale, defined as committed against three or more persons, is considered an offense involving economic sabotage under R.A. 8042. The penalty for this offense is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. The CA correctly modified the RTC’s decision to impose life imprisonment but initially erred in maintaining the lower fine of P200,000.00. The Supreme Court rectified this, increasing the fine to P500,000.00, in accordance with the law.

    Moreover, the accused-appellant was also ordered to return the amounts she had collected from the complainants, with legal interest. This aspect of the decision underscores the principle that victims of fraud are entitled to restitution for their losses. The Court’s imposition of legal interest from the finality of the judgment ensures that the complainants are fully compensated for the delay in receiving their money back. The decision in People v. Solina serves as a significant precedent, clarifying the elements of illegal recruitment and estafa in the context of overseas employment scams.

    This case underscores the importance of due diligence on the part of job seekers and the need for stricter regulation of recruitment agencies. It also highlights the crucial role of the judiciary in protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and fraud. By upholding the conviction of Ma. Fe Torres Solina, the Supreme Court sent a strong message that those who engage in illegal recruitment and estafa will be held accountable for their actions.

    FAQs

    What is illegal recruitment in large scale? Illegal recruitment in large scale involves recruiting three or more persons without a valid license or authority, considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
    What are the penalties for illegal recruitment in large scale? The penalties include life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00.
    What is estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code? Estafa is a form of fraud where a person defrauds another through deceit or abuse of confidence, causing damage or prejudice.
    Can a person be charged with both illegal recruitment and estafa? Yes, the Supreme Court has held that a person can be charged and convicted separately for both offenses.
    What is the significance of proving the absence of a license in illegal recruitment cases? Proving the absence of a valid license or authority is a crucial element in establishing illegal recruitment.
    What role does witness testimony play in these cases? Witness testimony is crucial, and the courts generally give more weight to the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
    What is the basis for awarding damages in estafa cases? Damages are awarded to compensate the victims for the financial losses they incurred as a result of the fraud.
    How does this case protect overseas Filipino workers (OFWs)? This case reinforces legal protections against illegal recruiters, ensuring they are held accountable for their actions.

    The People v. Solina case serves as a landmark decision, offering critical insights into the prosecution and punishment of illegal recruitment and estafa in the Philippines. It underscores the legal system’s commitment to protecting Filipinos from fraudulent schemes promising overseas employment, and by understanding these principles, individuals can better safeguard themselves against exploitation.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Solina, G.R. No. 196784, January 13, 2016

  • Illegal Dismissal and Employer Obligations: Understanding Employee Rights and Remedies

    This case clarifies the rights of employees who are illegally dismissed and the corresponding obligations of employers under Philippine labor law. The Supreme Court affirmed that an employee was illegally dismissed when the employer failed to prove just cause and did not follow due process. Even if a company closes down, it doesn’t erase the illegal dismissal, but it does change the remedy. Instead of getting their old jobs back (reinstatement), employees get separation pay. The decision underscores the importance of due process and the employer’s burden of proof in termination cases.

    From Room Attendant to Legal Battle: Determining Employer Responsibility in Termination Cases

    The case of Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Allan Lapastora and Irene Ubalubao, G.R. No. 187691, decided on January 13, 2016, revolves around a complaint filed by Allan Lapastora and Irene Ubalubao against Olympia Housing, Inc. (OHI) for illegal dismissal, backwages, and regularization of employment. Lapastora and Ubalubao, who worked as room attendants, claimed they were directly hired and controlled by OHI, while OHI argued they were employees of Fast Manpower, an independent contractor. This conflict highlights a common issue in labor law: determining the true employer-employee relationship and the responsibilities that come with it. The central question is whether OHI illegally dismissed Lapastora and whether the subsequent closure of OHI’s business affects the remedies available to him.

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Lapastora and Ubalubao, finding that OHI exercised control over them and that the contract with Fast Manpower was a mere ploy to circumvent labor laws. The LA ordered OHI to reinstate them and pay backwages and other benefits. OHI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the LA’s decision. The NLRC emphasized that Fast Manpower failed to prove its status as an independent contractor. OHI then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that a related case, Ocampo v. OHI, which upheld the validity of OHI’s closure of business, should apply under the principle of stare decisis. However, the CA dismissed OHI’s petition, stating that the two cases had different factual circumstances and issues.

    The Supreme Court (SC) had to determine the true nature of the employment relationship, the validity of the dismissal, and the effect of OHI’s subsequent closure of business. The Court underscored the significance of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment. This article states that an employee is deemed regular if they perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business, regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary.

    Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    Building on this principle, the Court found that Lapastora was a regular employee of OHI, given the continuous nature of his work and its necessity to OHI’s business. As such, he was entitled to security of tenure and could not be terminated without just cause and due process. The Court emphasized that employers bear the burden of proving that a dismissal was for a just cause and that due process was observed. OHI failed to meet this burden. The Court highlighted that OHI did not provide evidence of Lapastora being notified of the company’s dissatisfaction with his performance or given an opportunity to explain. Furthermore, OHI failed to observe the twin notice rule, which requires employers to provide two written notices to the employee: one specifying the grounds for termination and giving the employee an opportunity to explain, and another informing the employee of the decision to terminate.

    The Court also addressed OHI’s argument that the principle of stare decisis should apply based on the Ocampo v. OHI case. The principle of stare decisis, as the Court defined it, requires lower courts to adhere to doctrinal rules established by the Supreme Court in its final decisions. The Court cited Ting v. Velez-Ting, 601 Phil. 676(2009), in explaining this doctrine:

    The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code.

    However, the Court held that stare decisis did not apply because the two cases involved different sets of facts and issues. In Lapastora, the issue was illegal dismissal based on a lack of due process and just cause. Meanwhile, in Ocampo, the petitioners questioned the validity of OHI’s closure of business. Despite not applying stare decisis, the Supreme Court acknowledged that OHI’s closure of business was a supervening event that affected the remedies available to Lapastora. The Court noted that OHI had complied with the requirements for closure, including filing a notice with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and providing termination notices to employees. Therefore, reinstatement was no longer feasible.

    In light of the impossibility of reinstatement, the Court modified the award to include separation pay, calculated from the start of Lapastora’s employment until the closure of the business. Additionally, the Court upheld the award of backwages from the time of illegal dismissal until the date of closure. The Court also sustained the awards for service incentive leave pay, 13th-month pay, and attorney’s fees, as OHI failed to prove that these benefits had been paid. The decision clarifies the employer’s responsibility to comply with labor laws and the remedies available to illegally dismissed employees. While the closure of a business may affect the remedy of reinstatement, it does not negate the employer’s liability for illegal dismissal.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Olympia Housing, Inc. (OHI) illegally dismissed Allan Lapastora and, if so, what remedies were available to him, especially considering OHI’s subsequent closure of business.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that Lapastora was illegally dismissed because OHI failed to prove just cause and did not follow due process. However, due to OHI’s closure, reinstatement was no longer possible, and Lapastora was awarded separation pay and backwages until the date of closure.
    What is the "twin notice rule"? The twin notice rule requires employers to provide two written notices to an employee before termination: one stating the grounds for termination and giving the employee an opportunity to explain, and another informing the employee of the decision to terminate.
    What is the principle of stare decisis? Stare decisis is a legal principle that requires lower courts to follow established precedents set by higher courts in previous decisions. It promotes consistency and stability in the application of the law.
    How did the Court define regular employment? The Court referred to Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment as when an employee performs activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business, regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary.
    What is separation pay? Separation pay is a monetary benefit awarded to an employee who is terminated for authorized causes or, as in this case, when reinstatement is no longer possible due to the employer’s closure of business.
    What is the significance of OHI’s closure of business? OHI’s closure of business, while not excusing the illegal dismissal, made reinstatement impossible. As a result, the remedy was modified to include separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, along with backwages until the date of closure.
    What benefits was Lapastora entitled to? Lapastora was entitled to separation pay, backwages (until the company’s closure), service incentive leave pay, 13th-month pay, and attorney’s fees.

    In conclusion, the Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Lapastora case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to labor laws and respecting employee rights. Employers must ensure that terminations are based on just cause and that due process is followed. Even in cases of business closure, employers may still be liable for illegal dismissals and must provide appropriate remedies to affected employees.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Lapastora, G.R. No. 187691, January 13, 2016

  • Voiding Waivers: Seafarers’ Rights and Unconscionable Agreements in Maritime Law

    The Supreme Court held that agreements requiring seafarers to waive future claims in exchange for immediate payment, especially when those payments might be clawed back if the employer wins on appeal, are against public policy. This ruling safeguards seafarers’ rights, ensuring they receive fair compensation and are not coerced into disadvantageous settlements due to their vulnerable circumstances. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting labor rights and preventing employers from exploiting unequal bargaining positions.

    Sailing into a Trap? Conditional Payments and the Seafarer’s Plight

    Juan B. Hernandez, a seafarer, sought disability benefits from Crossworld Marine Services after being declared unfit for sea duty due to hypertension and diabetes. Though initially awarded compensation by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision. In the interim, Hernandez had received payment from the respondents but signed a Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment, Receipt of Payment, and Affidavit, stipulating that he would return the money if the CA ruled against him. This case examines whether such agreements, which seemingly provide immediate relief but impose potentially detrimental long-term conditions, are valid and enforceable under Philippine labor law. This analysis will delve into the implications of conditional settlements on seafarers’ rights and the extent to which courts will scrutinize agreements that appear to unduly favor employers.

    The Supreme Court began by scrutinizing the documents Hernandez signed, namely the Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment, Receipt of Payment, and Affidavit. The Court found these documents to be a “ploy to deprive petitioner of all his rights to claim indemnity from respondents under all possible causes of action and in all available fora, and effectively for nothing in return or exchange.” The Court emphasized that human life and the ability to secure basic necessities should not be expendable, especially when pitted against corporate capital. It recognized the inherent vulnerability of seafarers, whose livelihoods depend on their ability to work, making them susceptible to accepting disadvantageous terms.

    6. That I have no further claims whatsoever in any theory of law against the Owners of MV ‘NIKOMARIN’ because of the payment made to me. That I certify and warrant that I will not file any complaint or prosecute any suit or action in the Philippines, Panama, Japan or any other country against the shipowners and/or the released parties herein after receiving the payment of US$66,000.00 or its peso equivalent x x x.

    This case highlights the principle that labor contracts are imbued with public interest and must be interpreted in favor of the employee. The Court noted that the waiver exacted from Hernandez effectively barred him from pursuing any claims, even for interest that may accrue during the pendency of the case, thereby creating an unjust situation. This broad waiver, in exchange for a payment that could be reclaimed, was deemed unconscionable and against public policy.

    The Supreme Court referenced More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, reiterating the principle that agreements where workers receive less compensation than what they are legally entitled to are invalid.

    The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled. Quitclaims executed by the employees are thus commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers legal rights, considering the economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity.

    The Court emphasized that quitclaims and waivers must be carefully scrutinized, especially when there is a significant disparity in bargaining power between the employer and employee. This scrutiny ensures that workers are not exploited and that their rights are fully protected under the law.

    In analyzing the actions of the respondents, the Court condemned the imposition of conditions that had far-reaching consequences beyond simple compliance with labor regulations. The respondents’ counsel should have been aware of the Court’s previous stance against such agreements, as highlighted in Career Phils. Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus. This prior case set a precedent for invalidating conditional settlements that unduly prejudice the employee, demonstrating a consistent judicial approach to protecting workers from unfair labor practices.

    The Court also addressed the argument that Hernandez still retained the right to judicial recourse, clarifying that the critical issue was the potential for him to gain nothing while being barred from pursuing further claims. The appellate court’s reasoning was deemed a mere play on words, failing to recognize the substantive disadvantage imposed on the seafarer. This underscores the judiciary’s focus on the practical effects of agreements rather than their literal wording, ensuring that legal protections extend beyond mere formalities.

    The practical implications of this decision are significant for seafarers and the maritime industry. Seafarers are now better protected from being coerced into accepting conditional settlements that waive their rights. Employers must ensure that any settlements offered are fair, reasonable, and without conditions that unduly prejudice the seafarer. This ruling reinforces the principle that labor laws are designed to protect workers and that courts will actively scrutinize agreements that appear to circumvent these protections. Furthermore, legal practitioners are cautioned against using standardized agreements that have been previously deemed unfair by the Supreme Court.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision prioritizes the protection of seafarers’ rights and reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair labor practices. By declaring the conditional agreements void, the Court has set a clear precedent against exploitative practices that take advantage of the unequal bargaining positions between seafarers and their employers. This ruling serves as a reminder that labor laws are not mere formalities but essential safeguards that protect the well-being and economic security of workers.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was the validity of a conditional satisfaction of judgment signed by a seafarer, which required him to return the settlement amount if the employer’s appeal was successful, while also waiving his right to pursue further claims. The court examined whether this agreement was unconscionable and contrary to public policy.
    What is a conditional satisfaction of judgment? A conditional satisfaction of judgment is an agreement where a party agrees to accept payment to satisfy a judgment, but the satisfaction is contingent upon certain conditions. In this case, the condition was that the seafarer would have to return the money if the appellate court reversed the NLRC’s decision.
    Why did the Supreme Court invalidate the agreement? The Supreme Court invalidated the agreement because it found the terms to be unfair and prejudicial to the seafarer. The Court emphasized that the agreement effectively deprived the seafarer of his rights without a guaranteed benefit, as he could be forced to return the money while being barred from pursuing further claims.
    What does this ruling mean for seafarers? This ruling protects seafarers from being coerced into accepting disadvantageous settlements that waive their rights in exchange for uncertain benefits. It ensures that settlements are fair, reasonable, and without conditions that unduly prejudice the seafarer.
    What is the significance of the Career Phils. Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus case? The Career Phils. Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus case set a precedent for invalidating conditional settlements that unduly prejudice employees. The Supreme Court referenced this case to emphasize the consistent judicial approach to protecting workers from unfair labor practices.
    What is the role of the courts in protecting labor rights? The courts play a crucial role in protecting labor rights by scrutinizing agreements between employers and employees to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation. This includes invalidating agreements that are found to be unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
    What should employers do to ensure compliance with this ruling? Employers should ensure that any settlements offered to seafarers are fair, reasonable, and without conditions that unduly prejudice the seafarer. They should avoid using standardized agreements that have been previously deemed unfair by the Supreme Court.
    Can a seafarer waive their rights in a settlement agreement? While settlement agreements are generally allowed, waivers of rights must be made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. Courts will closely examine such waivers to ensure they are not the result of coercion or unequal bargaining power.

    This Supreme Court decision reinforces the principle that labor contracts must be interpreted in favor of the employee, especially in situations where there is a clear disparity in bargaining power. It serves as a warning to employers to avoid imposing unfair conditions on settlement agreements and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of seafarers.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Juan B. Hernandez v. Crossworld Marine Services, Inc., G.R. No. 209098, November 14, 2016

  • Upholding Employer’s Rights: Misconduct and Loss of Trust as Just Cause for Dismissal

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that employees who actively participate in internal power struggles within a company, defying management directives and undermining company operations, can be validly dismissed for serious misconduct and loss of trust. This ruling underscores the importance of employee loyalty and adherence to company policies, especially during periods of internal conflict. It clarifies the extent to which employees can involve themselves in company disputes without jeopardizing their employment, providing a clear precedent for employers dealing with similar situations.

    Navigating Loyalty’s Labyrinth: When Internal Disputes Justify Dismissal

    The case revolves around a power struggle within ZAMECO II Electric Cooperative, Inc., where two factions vied for control. During this tumultuous period, several employees sided with one faction and were subsequently dismissed by the opposing management. These employees then filed a case for illegal dismissal, claiming they were merely caught in the crossfire of the internal dispute. The central legal question is whether their actions constituted serious misconduct and a breach of trust, thereby justifying their dismissal.

    The factual background involves a complaint filed with the National Electrification Administration (NEA) against the Board of Directors of ZAMECO II, leading to their removal. This decision was appealed, creating a division within the cooperative. The Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) also attempted to assert jurisdiction, further complicating the matter. Amidst this confusion, certain employees openly supported one faction, defying the orders of the existing management. As the Supreme Court emphasized in CASCONA v. Dominguez:

    In the case at bench, the respondents committed several acts which constituted indirect contempt. The CDA issued the September 1, 2009 Memorandum stating that it had jurisdiction over ZAMECO II and could reinstate the former members of the Board of Directors. The CDA officials also issued Resolution No. 262, S-2009 and Special Order 2009-304 to interfere with the management and control of ZAMECO II. Armed with these issuances, the other respondents even tried to physically takeover ZAMECO II on October 22,2009. These acts were evidently against the March 13, 2009 decision of this Court and, thus, constituted indirect contempt against the Court.

    The Court’s pronouncements highlight the importance of maintaining the status quo during legal disputes and refraining from actions that could preempt the final decision of the Court. In this case, the Interim Board of Directors of ZAMECO appointed by the NEA had the rightful jurisdiction and disciplinary authority over ZAMECO II. This authority extended to General Manager Engr. Farrales, enabling him to suspend and dismiss employees when justified.

    The Labor Code of the Philippines provides the legal framework for employee dismissal, emphasizing the importance of both substantive and procedural due process. Article 279 of the Labor Code guarantees security of tenure, stating that:

    Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause of when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

    Article 282 outlines the just causes for dismissing an employee, including serious misconduct and willful disobedience. The Court defined misconduct as:

    Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee s misconduct must be serious i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.

    In this case, the employees’ alignment with one faction, their defiance of management directives, and their participation in a civil action against the General Manager were deemed to be serious misconduct. They abandoned their duties as employees and actively worked against the interests of the cooperative.

    Furthermore, the Court considered the element of loss of trust and confidence. For managerial employees, such as Gutierrez, Jr. and Venzon, a greater degree of fidelity and trust is expected. Their actions, therefore, constituted a breach of this trust, justifying their dismissal. It is important to note that while loss of trust and confidence should be genuine, it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that there is some basis to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct. This principle balances the employee’s rights with the employer’s right to manage its operations effectively.

    The ruling emphasizes that procedural due process was also observed in the dismissal of the employees. They were given written memoranda informing them of the charges against them and notices of termination, in accordance with the Labor Code. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the employer, recognizing the right to manage its operations and maintain internal discipline. While the law protects workers’ rights, it does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that employees have a duty to remain loyal to their employer and to refrain from engaging in actions that could undermine the company’s operations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the employees’ actions during a power struggle within ZAMECO II constituted serious misconduct and a breach of trust, justifying their dismissal.
    What is considered serious misconduct? Serious misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct that is willful in character and implies wrongful intent. It must be of such grave and aggravated character as to not be trivial or unimportant.
    What is the legal basis for dismissing an employee for loss of trust and confidence? Article 296(c) of the Labor Code states that loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal, provided the employee holds a position of trust and there is an act that justifies the loss of trust.
    What is the difference between managerial and rank-and-file employees in terms of trust and confidence? Managerial employees, due to their higher level of responsibility, are expected to exhibit a greater degree of fidelity and trust compared to rank-and-file employees. A breach of this trust can be grounds for dismissal.
    What is procedural due process in employee dismissal? Procedural due process requires that employees are given written notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. This ensures fairness and transparency in the dismissal process.
    What role did the internal conflict within ZAMECO II play in the dismissal of the employees? The internal conflict created a situation where the employees actively sided with one faction, defying management directives and undermining company operations. This was a key factor in determining that their actions constituted serious misconduct.
    What does this case say about an employer’s right to manage its operations? The case reinforces the employer’s right to manage its operations according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play. This includes the right to maintain internal discipline and to dismiss employees who engage in serious misconduct.
    How does this ruling impact employees who find themselves in a similar situation? This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for employees who find themselves in the middle of internal company disputes. It highlights the importance of remaining neutral and adhering to management directives to avoid jeopardizing their employment.
    Does registering with the CDA oust the NEA of its supervisory jurisdiction? No, the NEA’s power of supervision applies whether an electric cooperative remains as a non-stock cooperative or opts to register with the CDA as a stock cooperative.

    In conclusion, this case underscores the delicate balance between protecting employees’ rights and upholding the employer’s right to manage its business effectively. Employees must exercise caution when navigating internal disputes, ensuring their actions do not constitute serious misconduct or a breach of trust. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a valuable precedent for employers dealing with similar situations, providing clear guidelines for disciplinary actions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: MARY ANN G. VENZON, ET AL. vs. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., G.R. No. 213934, November 9, 2016

  • Protecting Seafarers: The Supreme Court Upholds Disability Benefits Despite Procedural Lapses

    The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer is entitled to disability benefits, even if they did not strictly comply with the reporting requirements, as long as there is substantial evidence of an injury sustained during their employment. This decision emphasizes the importance of protecting seafarers’ rights and ensuring they receive just compensation for work-related injuries. It underscores that technicalities should not overshadow the fundamental right to medical assistance and disability benefits when a seafarer’s injury is clearly linked to their service.

    From Ship to Shore: Can a Seafarer’s Injury Claim Survive Without Strict Reporting?

    Elmer A. Apines, a bosun working on a ship, sought disability benefits after injuring his knee on board. The central question was whether Apines could receive these benefits despite not strictly following the mandatory reporting procedures. Specifically, the Court examined the circumstances surrounding his injury, his employer’s actions, and the medical evidence presented. This case highlights the challenges seafarers face in obtaining compensation for injuries sustained at sea, particularly when employers prioritize procedural compliance over the seafarers’ well-being.

    Apines claimed that he suffered an injury while working on board the ship, which led to persistent knee pain. Despite seeking medical attention in foreign ports, his requests for proper medical evaluation and treatment were allegedly unheeded by his employer, Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. Upon repatriation, Apines claimed he was denied medical assistance, leading him to consult his own doctors, who diagnosed him with a medial meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. Consequently, he filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits.

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed Apines’ complaint due to non-compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding Apines entitled to disability benefits and sickness allowance. The NLRC emphasized that Apines had consistently complained of knee pain, which was acknowledged by doctors during his employment. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reversed the NLRC’s decision, arguing that Apines failed to prove he suffered an injury on board and did not comply with post-employment medical examination requirements.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, addressed the conflicting factual assertions of the parties. The Court considered the occurrence of the accident, the circumstances of Apines’ repatriation, the medical findings, and the compliance with reporting requirements under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency’s Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC). The Court emphasized that while no formal report of the injury was made in the ship’s logbook, substantial evidence supported Apines’ claim of an accident.

    The Court noted that medical reports from doctors in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia indicated Apines complained of knee pain and swelling shortly after the alleged accident. The doctors recommended MRI scans, which were not facilitated by the employer. Furthermore, upon repatriation, Apines consistently reported the incident. These facts, combined with the medical records indicating a medial meniscal tear, provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The Court also addressed the significance of the fit-to-work assessments made by the doctors abroad. It clarified that these assessments were inconclusive pending the MRI scans, which the employer failed to provide.

    The Court then scrutinized the alleged failure of Apines to comply with the 72-hour reportorial requirement. The Supreme Court referred to Section 20(B)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC. This section outlines the process for medical examinations and disability claims for seafarers. Specifically, the second paragraph requires seafarers to submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon their return, or risk forfeiting their claim. However, this requirement is not absolute, and the court acknowledged instances where strict compliance may be excused.

    The Court found no substantial evidence that Apines was referred to a company-designated doctor. Apines’ immediate consultations with other doctors and the proximity of these consultations to his repatriation indicated he was denied medical assistance. Building on this, the Court referenced the Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Remo case, stating,

    “the absence of a post-employment medical examination cannot be used to defeat respondent’s claim since the failure to subject the seafarer to this requirement was not due to the seafarer’s fault but to the inadvertence or deliberate refusal of petitioners.”

    This principle underscores the employer’s responsibility to ensure the seafarer receives proper medical attention.

    Building on this principle, the Court clarified the rules regarding consultations with a third doctor, citing Island Overseas Transport Corporation/Pine Crest Shipping Corporation/Capt. Emmanuel L. Regio v. Armando M. Beja:

    “absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent.”

    Considering the lack of a company-designated physician’s assessment, the requirement to consult a third doctor was deemed superfluous.

    Having established Apines’ entitlement to disability benefits, the Court addressed the extent of these benefits. As Apines filed his complaint on June 6, 2008, 121 days after repatriation, and no disability rating was issued by the employer within the 120-day period, the Court invoked the rule that the failure to issue a disability rating within the prescribed timeframe leads to the presumption of total and permanent disability. The Court then analyzed the medical services rendered by Apines’ doctors. The employer argued that Dr. Leh’s assessment indicating Apines could return to work after 30 to 45 days should negate his disability claim. However, the Court deemed this assessment premature, considering Apines still needed to undergo surgery.

    The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the absence of a disability rating from Apines’ doctors invalidated his claim. It stated that due to the employer’s failure to issue a medical rating within 120 days, Apines’ disability was conclusively presumed to be total and permanent. The Court emphasized that what is important is that the seafarer was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days, which constitutes permanent total disability. This determination aligned with the purpose of disability benefits, which is to assist the employee when they are unable to work. This approach contrasts with a strict interpretation of procedural rules that could leave injured seafarers without recourse.

    Moreover, the court acknowledged the potential link between Apines’ medial meniscal tear and the onset of osteoarthritis, which could be considered an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC guidelines, as it involved injuries to the joint. In sum, the Court found that the medical records, Apines’ consistency in reporting his injury, and the employer’s failure to comply with medical assessment requirements outweighed the employer’s claims.

    Apines successfully demonstrated that he sustained an injury during his employment, sought medical attention, and was unable to return to work within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court, therefore, reinstated the NLRC’s decision awarding Apines total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees. By prioritizing the seafarer’s welfare over strict adherence to procedural technicalities, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of protecting the rights of Filipino seafarers who are injured in the line of duty. This ruling reinforces the principle that employers must fulfill their obligations to provide medical assistance and compensation to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer was entitled to disability benefits despite not strictly complying with the 72-hour reporting requirement after repatriation. The Supreme Court focused on whether there was substantial evidence of an injury sustained during employment.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the seafarer, Elmer A. Apines, stating that he was entitled to disability benefits, sickness allowance, and attorney’s fees. It reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the NLRC’s decision.
    What is the 72-hour reporting requirement? The 72-hour reporting requirement, as per the POEA-SEC, mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of repatriation. Failure to comply can result in forfeiture of benefits.
    Why was Apines not penalized for failing to comply with the 72-hour rule? The Supreme Court found that Apines’ failure to comply with the 72-hour rule was excusable because he was effectively denied medical assistance by his employer. The Court also noted that there was no substantial evidence he was properly referred to a company-designated physician.
    What constitutes total and permanent disability for a seafarer? Total and permanent disability occurs when a seafarer is unable to perform their customary work for more than 120 days. The failure of the employer to provide a disability assessment within the prescribed period also leads to a presumption of total and permanent disability.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician in disability claims? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition and issuing a disability rating. Their assessment is crucial in determining the extent of the seafarer’s disability benefits.
    What if the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician? If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision is final and binding on both parties.
    Can osteoarthritis be considered an occupational disease for seafarers? Yes, osteoarthritis can be considered an occupational disease if it is contracted in an occupation involving minor or major injuries to the joint. In Apines’ case, his medial meniscal tear could have triggered the onset of osteoarthritis, thus qualifying as work-related.
    What evidence supported Apines’ claim of injury? Apines’ claim was supported by consistent reports of knee pain and swelling after an accident on board, medical reports recommending MRI scans, his report to the company upon repatriation, and subsequent diagnosis of a medial meniscal tear.

    This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of seafarers, who often face challenging working conditions and potential risks to their health. It highlights the importance of employers fulfilling their responsibilities to provide adequate medical assistance and compensation to seafarers injured in the line of duty, even when procedural requirements are not strictly followed, provided that substantial evidence supports the claim of a work-related injury.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Elmer A. Apines vs. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 202114, November 09, 2016