Lex Fori Philippines

Law, lawyering and everything in between.

  • Pages

  • Subscribe

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 129 other followers

  • DISCLAIMER

    Any opinion, information or remark made on this site, including any response to queries or comments posted, should not be regarded as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. There is no warranty as to the completeness or accuracy of the information and the authors will not be liable for any loss or damage relating to the use or reliance thereon. A grain of salt is recommended. No recipient of any information or content from this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of such information or content. Consult your favorite legal representative. Use of this website does not and will not create any legal relationship between the authors and the receiver/user/reader and any lawyer-client privilege will not apply.

Archive for the ‘Labor Law’ Category

Who Should Perform Drug-Testing?

Posted by lexforiphilippines on September 28, 2010

In Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (G.R. No. 172589; 8 August 2010), the Supreme Court considered as doubtful basis for termination of employment, the results of a dangerous drug test performed by a medical clinic which was not accredited by the Department of Health.  The High Court cited Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) which provides that drug tests should be performed only by any government forensic laboratories or any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the Department of Health, to safeguard the quality of test results.

To know more about the case and the Court’s ruling, click on Digested Cases under Tools.

Posted in Cases, Labor Law, Law School | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Promotion Only in Nomenclature

Posted by lexforiphilippines on September 16, 2010

When an employee’s position is converted to a higher job grade level but he is not given additional functions or responsibilities, can he be considered as “promoted” and claim conversion and promotion increase?

In SCA Hygiene Products Corporation Employees Association-FFW vs. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation (G.R. No. 182877; 9 August 2010), the Supreme Court held that of primordial consideration is not the nomenclature or title given to the employee, but the nature of his functions.  In this case, the employees concerned, although given a higher job grade level following a company-wide job evaluation, continued to occupy the same positions they were occupying before the job evaluation.  Their job titles remained the same and they were not given additional duties and responsibilities.  Like their previous job grade level, their new job grade level was also categorized as rank-and-file.  What transpired, said the High Court, was only a promotion in nomenclature, and the employees were not entitled to conversion or promotion increase.

For a digest of the case, click on Digested Cases under Tools.

Posted in Cases, Labor Law, Law School | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

When Preventive Suspension Will Give Rise to Constructive Dismissal

Posted by lexforiphilippines on August 11, 2010

The Supreme Court, in the case of Mandapat vs. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. and Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 180285; 6 July 2010), stated that constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego his continued employment. 

In the same case, the High Court explained that preventive suspension may be legally imposed on employee whose alleged violation is the subject of an investigation.  The purpose of his suspension is to prevent him from causing harm or injury to the company as well as to his fellow employees (Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997).  No preventive suspension shall last longer than 30 days and the employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker (Section 9, Rule XXIII, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997).  When preventive suspension exceeds the maximum period allowed without reinstating the employee either by actual or payroll reinstatement or when preventive suspension is for an indefinite period, only then will constructive dismissal set in.

Click on Digested Cases under Tools for a digest of Mandapat vs. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc. and Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 180285; 6 July 2010).

Posted in Cases, Labor Law, Law School | Tagged: , , | 9 Comments »

Separation Pay in lieu of Reinstatement

Posted by lexforiphilippines on July 12, 2010

An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement.  The two reliefs are separate and distinct.  When reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative.  The payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.  In effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages.  Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact and must be supported by substantial evidence showing that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy. So said the Supreme Court in the case of Golden Ace Builders and Arnold Azul vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200; 5 May 2010.

(For a digest of the case of Golden Ace Builders and Arnold Azul vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200; 5 May 2010, click on Digested Cases under Tools.)

Posted in Cases, Labor Law | Leave a Comment »

Philippine Holidays For the Year 2010

Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 19, 2010

Proclamation No. 1841 dated July 24, 2008 listed the holidays and special non-working holidays for the year.

A. Regular Holidays

January 1 – New Year

April 1 – Maundy Thursday

April 2 – Good Friday

April 9 – Araw ng Kagitingan

May 1 – Labor Day

June 14 – Independence Day (in lieu of June 12)

August 30 – National Heroes day

November 29 – Bonifacio Day (in lieu of November 30)

December 25 – Christmas Day

December 27 – Rizal Day (in lieu of December 30)

B. Special Non Working Holiday

August 23 – Ninoy Aquino Day (in lieu of August 21)

November 1 – All Saints Day

December 24 – Additional Special Non-working holiday

December 31 – Last day of the year

Still to be announced is the national holiday for the observance of Eid’l Fitr.

Posted in Labor Law, Law School, Others | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »