Let’s start with the lighter side of the syllabus, the fundamental principles.
(Edit September 2022: If you want to learn more, I have a tutorial program ongoing. It will be of great help in expanding my passion project. You can sign up at https://sophia.milesfajardo.com/1st-register/?fbclid=IwAR1hmuoneQgVNTOcA0B3ZgO1gYjZeDsQoH6J-kvfKPyKmiNODMyxMIBC-9A)
But before we do that, let’s first know what labor is.
Atty. Poquiz says it has two definitions.
The first is more focused on the act:
“Labor is the physical or mental exertion or effort, or both, towards the production of goods and services.”
While the second is more towards a collective force:
“But you have to consider that labor is intertwined with MANPOWER as defined in the Labor Code. Thus, labor in the concept of the Labor Code is manpower which is the portion of the population of the State that has actual or potential capability to produce goods and services.”
Now on to the syllabus.
A. Legal Basis
1987 Constitution
There are a lot:
Article II, Secs. 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20
Article III, Secs. 1, 4, 8, 10, 16, 18(2)
Article XIII, Secs. 1, 2, 3, 13, 14
Just check them out and let’s only focus on some.
These are the Protection-to-Labor Clauses:
Art. II, Sec. 18 and the dreaded Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
I bet your Labor professors also made you memorize Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
Article II Sec. 18:
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Article XIII Sec. 3:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
These 2 provisions are called PROTECTION-TO-LABOR CLAUSES because they specifically address protection to labor.
Article II Sec. 18 is usually cited whenever the SC rules in favor of labor.
To implement the policy of this provision, the Labor Code of the Philippines was enacted. You may wonder “but the Labor code was made in 1974, the Constitution in 1987, paano yan?” Well, there are also similar versions in the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions equivalent to Art. II, Sec. 18.
Article XIII Sec. 3 elaborates on Article II Sec. 18. It specifies who is protected, what rights are guaranteed, and what positive measures the state should take in order to enhance the welfare of labor.
It’s basically an improvement of the Declaration of Policy in the Labor Code:
ART. 3. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers.
The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
NOT PRESENT IN THE LABOR CODE:
-peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
-a living wage
-participation in policy and decision making
Ano ang importance na hindi present sa Labor Code? Wala lang. Fun fact.
SALIENT FEATURES OF ARTICLE XIII SEC. 3:
- Extent of Protection – Full protection to labor;
- Coverage of Protection – Local and overseas, organized and
unorganized; - Employment Policy – Full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all; - Guarantees (2nd paragraph)
It guarantees the following rights: (divided into 3: collective, individual, participation)
collective:
-self–organization
-collective bargaining and negotiations
-peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
individual:
-security of tenure
-humane work conditions
-a living wage
participation in policy making:
-participation in policy and decision making. - Shared Responsibility
- Share in Fruits of Production – Recognition of right of labor to its just
share in fruits of production. - Capital’s rights
NOTES:
Principle of Co-Determination vs Principle of Shared Responsibility
Co-Determination:
based on the right to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits
Shared Responsibility:
based on the provision prescribing the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation (and also mediation, voluntary arbitration)
The right to participate does not include co-management of the business!!!
They should only participate in policies affecting their RIGHT and BENEFITS
The right to participate includes participating in State decisions, not just management decisions.
Full employment
-does NOT mean that everybody should be employed
-It means that the worker can find work at the prevailing rates of pay without undue difficulty
-In other words, there are more job openings than job applicants
Living wage
-NOT minimum wage
-Minimum wage as defined by the SC, is a rock-bottom protection to the workers by providing a demarcation line so that wages may not fall below it.
-The purpose is to prohibit the diminution of benefits from the minimum
-A living wage is not a mere subsistence wage but a wage where the worker and his family can LIVE IN REASONABLE COMFORT or in other words, A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING
The big question now is this. Can Art. XIII, Sec. 3 be used as a basis to file a case?
The answer is NO:
“Thus, Section 3, Article XIII cannot be treated as a principal source of direct enforceable rights, for the violation of which the questioned clause may be declared unconstitutional. It may unwittingly risk opening the floodgates of litigation to every worker or union over every conceivable violation of so broad a concept as social justice for labor.
It must be stressed that Section 3, Article XIII does not directly bestow on the working class any actual enforceable right, but merely clothes it with the status of a sector for whom the Constitution urges protection through executive or legislative action and judicial recognition. Its utility is best limited to being an impetus not just for the executive and legislative departments, but for the judiciary as well, to protect the welfare of the working class. And it was in fact consistent with that constitutional agenda that the Court in Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, penned by then Associate Justice now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, formulated the judicial precept that when the challenge to a statute is premised on the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection — such as the working class or a section thereof — the Court may recognize the existence of a suspect classification and subject the same to strict judicial scrutiny.”
–Serrano v. Gallant, 2009
But it does not mean that Art. XIII, Sec. 3 is useless. It’s just that it can’t be used by persons to initiate a case.
Who can use it then? The state can use it. The legislative branch can use it to implement laws that reflect the intentions of Art. XIII, Sec. 3. The executive branch can use it in how they implement the laws. The judiciary can use it as a guide in deciding cases. That’s why this provision (along with Art. II, Sec. 18) is still often cited even if “not a principal source of direct enforceable rights.” So what is a principal source of enforceable rights then? These are the laws that are enacted like the Labor Code and other special laws on labor.
An example of how the judiciary can use the constitutional policy affording full protection to labor is in voiding quitclaims.
“Although there is nothing in the law which prevents the employer and the seafarer from entering into a quitclaim to avoid legal controversies, the same must be fair, reasonable, and properly explained to the seafarer. To frustrate the provisions of the POEA-SEC by forging erroneous and prejudicial quitclaims would defeat its expedient and systematic processes and lead to protracted litigation. The Court will not think twice in striking down invalid agreements in order to uphold the constitutional obligation of the State to give fullest aid and protection to labor.”
–Andres v. Diamond Marine Services and Shipping Agency, 2017
FYI on Quitclaims:
“To be valid, a Deed of Release, Waiver and/or Quitclaim must meet the following requirements:
(1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties;
(2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is sufficient and reasonable; and
(3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Courts have stepped in to invalidate questionable transactions, especially where there is clear proof that a waiver, for instance, was obtained from an unsuspecting or a gullible person, or where the agreement or settlement was unconscionable on its face.”
–Andres v. Diamond Marine Services and Shipping Agency, 2017
But does full protection to labor mean that labor will always win in a controversy? NO. The aim is the balancing of interests. It’s just that labor is inherently at a disadvantage against capital/employers, that’s why the Constitution sets policies in favor of labor to tip the scales. It’s just like how the laws against common carriers are very strict because those who avail of their services are already at a disadvantage from the start.
BALANCING OF INTERESTS
“It should NOT be deduced that the basic policy is in favour of labor to prejudice capital. The basic policy is to balance or to coordinate the rights and interests of both workers and employers.”
-Azucena
Art. II, Sec. 20 is the provision that recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector.
Art. II Sec 20:
The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
We can see here that employers are not the enemy.
Relevant to this is the Principle of Non-Oppression in the Civil Code.
Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.
-ART. 1701, New Civil Code
“The constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy management. The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the right, as in this case.”
–Capili vs NLRC, 1997
Let’s go to other provisions of the Constitution related to labor.
Due Process and Equal Protection clauses
Article III, Sec. 1:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
NOTES:
-Right to labor is a PROPERTY within the mantle of the Constitution
-This provision and these twin rights can NEVER be used by employees against their employers in cases of termination of their employment at the company plant level because this provision CAN ONLY BE INVOKED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
-For example, an order of the SOLE to ban the deployment of workers abroad may be invalidated using the due process clause. Another example is when the employee files an illegal dismissal case in the labor court and he is deprived of due process by a government functionary like the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC or the Court of Appeals or even by the Supreme Court.
-So when can due process be used against employers? Only when we talk about STATUTORY and CONTRACTUAL DUE PROCESS, not constitutional due process.
We’ll talk about statutory and contractual due process when we get to Labor Relations.
Let’s go to equal protection. I’m guessing we’re already familiar with this.
Classic examples of using the equal protection clause in relation to labor are the cases of Serrano v. Gallant which invalidated a provision in R.A. No. 8042 and Sameer v. Cabiles which also invalidated the same provision reinserted (wtf!) in R.A. No. 10022.
The said provision:
“Sec. 10. Money Claims. – x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.“
Excerpts on the case:
“Imbued with the same sense of ‘obligation to afford protection to labor,’ the Court in the present case also employs the standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in the subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs.
Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, OFWs at two levels:
First, OFWs with employment contracts of less than one year vis-à-vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more;
Second, among OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year; and
Third, OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed-period employment.
x x x x x
The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.”
–Serrano v. Gallant, 2009
Other Constitutional provisions
Article III Sec. 4:
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
NOTE:
This is only relevant when it comes to PICKETING and not STRIKE which has its basis on the dreaded Art. XIII Sec. 3.
Article III Sec. 8:
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
NOTE:
The Freedom of Association clause is the basis for the employees’ right to self-organization.
Article III Sec. 10:
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
NOTE:
Police power still prevails over the non-impairment clause.
The reason for this is that public welfare is superior to private rights.
Examples:
The POEA resolution and memorandum circular increasing and adjusting rates of compensation and other benefits in the POEA Standard Employment Contracts for seafarers, being a valid implementation of E.O. 797 which was enacted under the police power of the State, prevail over the non-impairment clause.
-Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA
Secretary Drilon issuing an order of deployment ban of Filipina workers going to Japan does not violate the non-impairment clause. The valid exercise of Police Power for the benefit of the general welfare outweighs private rights in contracts.
-PASEI vs Drilon
Article III Sec. 16:
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
NOTE:
This can be invoked in all proceedings in a labor case.
Factors to be considered:
(a) the length of the delay
(b) the reasons for the delay
(c) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused
(d) the prejudice caused by the delay
The right is violated if the delay is attended by:
- vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, or
- when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or
- when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient.
Article III Sec. 18(2):
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
NOTE:
This principle is only relevant in 3 SITUATIONS:
- RESIGNATION- An employee can resign anytime since he/she cannot be forced to work against his/her will
- RETURN-TO-WORK ORDER IN NATIONAL INTEREST CASES- This is not violative of the prohibition on involuntary servitude. A striker can be ordered to return to work even against his will if there is an on-going strike at the time the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was issued by the DOLE Secretary.
“It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker’s will. Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and promoting its interest. That is the real reason such return can be compelled. So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude, as this Court held in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills. The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties with the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike.”
–Sarmiento v. Tuico, 1988 - COMPULSORY FULFILMENT OF MILITARY OR CIVIC DUTY- This is also not violative of the prohibition. (Art II, Sec. 4)
That’s it for the Constitution. Let’s now go to the Civil Code.
Civil Code
There’s a whole chapter in the Civil Code entitled Work and Labor.
Important provisions:
1700– Public interest in labor contracts. Such contracts are subject to special laws (Labor Code etc.)
1701– Principle of Non-oppression
1702– In case of doubt in labor contracts and legislation, construction should be in favor of labor
1708– Wages (not salary) are not subject to execution
Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.
Article 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
It is notable to include here a similar Labor Code Provision.
ART. 4. Construction in Favor of Labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Rules of Construction according to Chan:
a. DOUBTS OR AMBIGUITIES IN LABOR CONTRACTS such as employment contract and collective bargaining agreement (CBA), rule in favor of labor
b. DOUBTS OR AMBIGUITIES IN EVIDENCE in labor cases, rule in favor of labor.
Why include evidence when it is not mentioned in the provisions? Because the SC has consistently said so (I’m pretty sure this is already canon):
“However, we reiterate that doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor in line with the policy enshrined in the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Civil Code, to provide protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. This Court has consistently held that ‘if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.'”
–Toquero v. CMS, 2019, penned by Leonen
“When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the employee.”
–Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd., 2018, penned by Leonen
Article 1708. The laborer’s wages shall not be subject to execution or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance.
NOTE:
Wage is paid to laborers or to those that do manual labor. These are workers on the lower bracket.
Salary is paid to employees. Those on the upper bracket.
Thus, 1708 only applies to compensation for manual labor.
“The Court reiterates the rule in Gaa v. Court of Appeals that the exemption under Article 1708 of the Civil Code favors only laboring men or women whose work is manual. Belonging to this class are the workers who usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support. They, more than any other persons, are the ones in need of the exemption which, needless to say, does not encompass any and all workers. With more reason should it be said that any claim for exemption must be clearly established.”
–Balanoba v. Madriaga, 2005
Let’s now go to the Labor Code.
Labor Code
The Labor Code or Presidential Decree No. 442 is a decree instituting a Labor Code, thereby revising and consolidating labor and social laws to afford protection to labor, promote employment and human resources development and ensure industrial peace based on social justice. It is a charter of human rights and a bill of obligations for every working man.
Presidential Decree No. 442 was signed into law on May 1, 1974, and was to take effect six months after its promulgation. Therefore, the law took effect on November 1, 1974.
As we said before, the Labor Code has its own Declaration of Policy which was improved by Art. XIII, Sec. 3:
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
-Article 3, Labor Code
A good bar area, according to Poquiz in relation to the Labor Code, is its applicability.
ART. 6. Applicability. – All rights and benefits granted to workers under this Code shall, except as may otherwise be provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.
There are, of course, 7 EXCEPTIONS:
1. Government employees
2. Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations created by the special or original charter
3. from Foreign governments
4. from International agencies
NOTE: International organizations and intergovernmental bodies are not covered by the Philippines Labor Laws. The remedy of the aggrieved employee is to file a complaint before the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
-Duka, Labor Laws and Social legislation, A Barrister’s Companion, 2016, p. 1 RJ
5. Corporate officers/ intra-corporate disputes which fall under P.D. 902-A and now fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code.
6. from Local water districts except where the NLRC’s jurisdiction is invoked (estoppel).
7. As may otherwise be provided by the Labor Code.
No choice but to memorize this list.
Expansion of number 2 in the list:
LABOR CODE APPLICABILITY in GOCCs
When a GOCC is created by a special charter, its employees are subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Law. For GOCCs incorporated under the general Corporation Law, their employees are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code.
-PNOC-EDC v. Legardo
What about an employer-employee relationship? Is it required for the Labor Code to be applicable? NO.
Why? Because Art. 219 defines LABOR DISPUTE as one which “includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”
EXAMPLES:
1. In cases where there is an indirect employer-employee relationship between the workers of a legitimate job contractor and that of the principal
2. In illegal recruitment and misuse of POEA licenses.
Undersecretary JBJ said to look up San MIguel Employees Union-PTGWO vs Judge Bersamira (1990).
It’s a classic example of a labor dispute without an ER-EE relationship. In this case, employees of legitimate job contractors (Lipercon and D’Rite) were working for San Miguel. However, they want to join the Union of the regular employees because they’ve already worked in San Miguel for a long time. The contract workers went on strike. As expected, the dispute reached the courts. But San Miguel filed an Injunction case in the RTC and did not go through a labor tribunal. The RTC judge nevertheless ruled that this is not a labor dispute because there is no ER-EE relationship. As expected, the SC eventually ruled that labor disputes need not require ER-EE relationships.
Now, is the Labor Code applicable even to employment outside of the Philippines? YES!
Why? There are two reasons:
1. Lex loci contractus- the law of the place where the contract is made
2. Courts will not enforce foreign claims contrary to public policy
“First, established is the rule that lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs in this jurisdiction. There is no question that the contract of employment in this case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other laws affecting labor apply in this case. Furthermore, settled is the rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy. Here in the Philippines, employment agreements are more than contractual in nature. The Constitution itself, in Article XIII, Section 3, guarantees the special protection of workers, to wit:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
. . . .
This public policy should be borne in mind in this case because to allow foreign employers to determine for and by themselves whether an overseas contract worker may be dismissed on the ground of illness would encourage illegal or arbitrary pre-termination of employment contracts.”
-Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, cited in Sameer v. Cabiles, 2014
Here are the other salient features of the Labor Code:
SALIENT FEATURES- POQUIZ lecture
1. Emancipation of labor relations—
In other words, Rules of Evidence are relaxed in labor proceedings (Art. 227)
2. Transformation of Workmen’s Compensation—
In other words, for the injuries of an employee, he/she need not file a case against the employer. The system absorbs the liability.
3. Placing of all GOCCs with regional charter under the Civil Service Law,
and those without under the Labor Code
4. Creation of overseas employment body: POEA.
5. Incorporation of agrarian reform -Art. 7
6. Updating all laws on labor
That’s enough of the legal basis. Let’s now go to the next part of the syllabus.
B. State policy towards labor
The state policies we’re going to see next are found in the legal bases we already discussed above. Let’s just dig a little deeper.
SECURITY OF TENURE
This is found in our favorite Art. XIII, Sec. III.
So what is security of tenure? Jurisprudence doesn’t really expand on its definition probably because it’s already pretty obvious.
Atty. Poquiz says that Security of Tenure is the right not to be removed from one’s job without valid cause and valid procedure. It extends to regular as well as non-regular employment.
This policy is implemented by the Labor Code:
In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title.
-Article 294
You may ask, what about the non-regular employees? Well, the rules on their security of tenure are different based on their classifications as employees. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have security of tenure.
“The fact that an employee is not a regular employee does not mean that he can be dismissed any time, even illegally, by his employer.”
–KIAMCO v. NLRC, 1999
Now, is security of tenure absolute? Or can it still be regulated by the State?
It’s not absolute. As expected, police power reigns supreme over security of tenure.
“While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. The most concrete example of this would be in the field of medicine, the practice of which in all its branches has been closely regulated by the State. It has long been recognized that the regulation of this field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. The same rationale applies in the regulation of the practice of radiologic and x-ray technology.”
–St. Lukes v. NLRC, 2007
TRIVIA:
What about regulation for the legal profession? Can the legislature enact laws to regulate that? Nope! The Constitution already imposed that job on the Supreme Court alone.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
The aim of Labor Law is social justice. As we said before, labor is inherently a disadvantaged class. The workers are left at the mercy of the employer from whom they depend to feed themselves and their families. Labor Law is there to tilt the scales and as much as possible put labor and capital on even footing.
Social justice is basically, the
-HUMANIZATION OF LAWS and the EQUALIZATION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FORCES
-PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF ALL THE PEOPLE
FULL DEFINITION IN CALALANG v. WILLIAMS
Social justice is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
AIM OF SOCIAL JUSTICE:
“protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities”
-Part of Article XIII Sec. 1
Limitations on Social Justice:
1. It does not champion the division of property or equality of economic status. It should not tolerate usurpation of property, public or private. (equity, not equality)
2. Social justice may only protect laborers who come to court with clean hands
3. Must never resort to injustice or oppression of the employer (principle of non-oppression)
4. It cannot be the refuge of scoundrels
-Collection of jurisprudence that I forgot to record before
What if Social Justice collides with the Equal Protection clause? Which one will prevail? (2003 Bar Question)
None. Social justice as a guiding principle in Labor Law can be implemented side by side with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In the implementation of the principle of social justice, the Constitution commands that the State shall afford protection to labor. Thus Labor Law may be pro-labor in the sense that labor is given certain benefits not given to management. But this is not necessarily violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because said clause allows reasonable classification. Thus, it is constitutionally possible to treat workers differently from employers.
-Don’t know the source of this. Probably a UPLC suggested answer. I think there are also other suggested answers here.
Examples of Social Justice applications:
1. Rejection of the “refund doctrine”
Should an employee declared to be illegally dismissed by the lower courts but was then declared legally dismissed by the SC reimburse the salary he received pending appeal?
In old cases, the answer was yes because it would be unjust enrichment.
But in 2009 in the case of Garcia vs PAL, the SC ruled that refund is not necessary.
“The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment espoused by Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. in his Separate Opinion. The constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise ‘unjust’ situation as a condition affording full protection to labor.
Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human experience, the ‘refund doctrine’ easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal, only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.
Advisably, the sum is better left unspent. It becomes more logical and practical for the employee to refuse payroll reinstatement and simply find work elsewhere in the interim, if any is available. Notably, the option of payroll reinstatement belongs to the employer, even if the employee is able and raring to return to work. Prior to Genuino, it is unthinkable for one to refuse payroll reinstatement. In the face of the grim possibilities, the rise of concerned employees declining payroll reinstatement is on the horizon.”
–Garcia v. PAL, 2009
2. Separation pay for employees dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character
“In this instance, the Supreme Court coined separation pay as financial assistance and allowed as a measure of social justice and based on exceptional circumstances. Hence, courts, in their discretion may grant separation pay based on compassionate justice taking into consideration the length of service of the employee, the amount involved, whether the act is the first offense, the performance of the employee, etc.
However, the Supreme Court sternly warned that separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. However, where the reason for the valid dismissal is habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, there is no need to invoke compassionate justice.
In view of the foregoing, an employee is not entitled to separation pay when he is terminated based on just causes. Pertinently, he is also not entitled to separation pay when he tenders his resignation. Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.”
–NDV Law Offices website
I think we’re good with social justice.
EQUAL WORK OPPORTUNITIES
And again, this policy is in our favorite Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and EQUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL [emphasis].
-the dreaded Article XIII Sec 3
It’s pretty self-explanatory. It basically means that companies cannot discriminate whether it be on account of sex, age, creed, race, or other non-work-related classifications.
“Male and female employees are entitled to equal compensation for work of equal value and to equal access to promotion and training opportunities. Discrimination against female employees is unlawful. It is also unlawful for an employer to require a condition of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that a woman employee shall be deemed dismissed upon marriage.
The minimum age of employment is 18 years for hazardous jobs, and 15 years for non-hazardous jobs. But a child below 15 maybe employed by parents or guardians in a non-hazardous job if the employment does not interfere with the child’s schooling.”
–DOLE, Bureau of Working Conditions
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
This will be a pain in the butt in Labor Relations later on. So we’ll just take it lightly in our discussion now.
What is the right to self-organization? It is found in Art. 257 of the Labor Code.
ART. 257. [246] Non-Abridgment of Right to Self-Organization.’” — It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code.
KEYWORDS:
-Form, Join, Assist
-Labor organizations
-Purpose of collective bargaining
-Purpose of mutual aid and protection
But take note that there are limitations to the right to self-organization:
“The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law. For instance, the Labor Code specifically disallows managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor union. Meanwhile, supervisory employees, while eligible for membership in labor organizations, are proscribed from joining the collective bargaining unit of the rank and file employees. Even government employees have the right to self-organization. It is not, however, regarded as existing or available for purposes of collective bargaining, but simply for the furtherance and protection of their interests.”
–Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. BLR, 2015
Thus, some workers can self-organize by reason of just one out of the two purposes (collective bargaining & mutual aid and protection).
What about self-employed people or those that don’t have definite employers? Can they self-organize?
“Yes, for their mutual aid and protection but not for collective bargaining purposes since they have no employers but themselves. BUT AS AND BY WAY OF DISTINCTION, THEIR LABOR ORGANIZATION IS CALLED “WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION.” This rule applies as well to ambulant, intermittent and other workers, rural workers and those without any definite employers. The reason for this rule is that these persons have no employers with whom they can collectively bargain.”
-Chan, 2019
We’re getting a little too deep. Let’s just stop here and continue when we get to Labor Relations.
CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR
We already touched on this earlier, but we’ll just reiterate.
Doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor in line with the policy enshrined in :
…the Constitution
-The dreaded Article XIII Sec 3. (Specifically, the full protection to labor part)
…the Labor Code
-ARTICLE 4. Construction in favor of labor. — All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
…and the Civil Code
-ARTICLE 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
Rules of Construction according to Chan:
a. DOUBTS OR AMBIGUITIES IN LABOR CONTRACTS such as employment contract and collective bargaining agreement (CBA), rule in favor of labor
b. DOUBTS OR AMBIGUITIES IN EVIDENCE in labor cases, rule in favor of labor.
Why include evidence when it is not mentioned in the provisions? Because the SC has consistently said so (I’m pretty sure this is already canon):
“However, we reiterate that doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor in line with the policy enshrined in the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Civil Code, to provide protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. This Court has consistently held that ‘if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.'”
–Toquero v. CMS, 2019, penned by Leonen
“When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the employee.”
–Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd., 2018, penned by Leonen
And let’s move on to the last topic.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
To revisit evidence, Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts.
Kung sa tagalog, kung sino yung dapat may patunayan.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN TERMINATION CASES
The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer
-Article 292 Labor Code
But note that before the employer can prove that the termination was valid, the employee has the burden of proving that there was termination in the first place:
“In illegal dismissal cases, an employee must first establish, by substantial evidence, the fact of dismissal before shifting to the employer the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal.”
-Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc., Eduardo P. Francisco and William How v. Wilfredo Galvez, 2014
BURDEN OF PROOF IN TRANSFER CASES
The Er must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the Ee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits. Should the Er fail to overcome this burden of proof, the Ee ‘s transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal.
-Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, 1999
BURDEN OF PROVING SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL/INVESTMENT
Burden of proof to prove that he/she/it has substantial capital or investment rests on the contractor himself.
-Guarin v. NLRC, 1989
BURDEN OF PROVING OVERTIME WORK
The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay rests on the employee because the benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business. Failure to prove such actual performance transgresses the principles of fair play and equity.
-Robina Farms v. Villa, 2016
Now, what about Quantum of Evidence? It’s the amount of evidence necessary to prove a particular fact/claim.
Kung sa tagalog, ano ba ang kailangan kong ipakita para mapatunayan pagmamahal ko sa yo? (Ignore this sorry)
In most labor cases, it is usually SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof (should be quantum of evidence) necessary is substantial evidence or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
-Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 2017
However, in termination cases, the quantum of evidence is upgraded.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN TERMINATION CASES: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
The Employer is burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its employee with clear and convincing evidence to give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure granted by the Constitution to Ees under the Labor Code.
-Duty Free Phils. Services, Inc. v. Tria, 2012
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL: CLEAR, POSITIVE, CONVINCING EVIDENCE
The employee who is complaining of constructive dismissal has the burden of proof “to prove that her resignation was not voluntary, but was actually a case of constructive dismissal, with clear, positive, and convincing evidence.”
-Hechanova v. Atty. Matorre, 2013
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE OF LOSSES IN CASE OF RETRENCHMENT: SUFFICIENT AND CONVINCING
Alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses, must be proved by SUFFICIENT AND CONVINCING evidence.
-Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Federation of Free Workers, 1990
Whew. Is that all of it? Yep that’s it. Recruitment and Placement time tomorrow!
You can leave a comment providing some corrections or additional info on this coverage. Let’s help each other, especially during these trying times.
The Bartender 