Labor Law

Basic
principles
Atty. Donna Bernardo
 Philippine Population 114 Million (2022 estimate of Philippine Information Agency)
Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)
[Filipinos of employable age or 15 • 66.1%
years old and above; excluding
OFWs]
Employment Rate (June 2023) • 95.5 % (48.84 million of the LFPR)
• Wage and salary workers – 61.5%
• Self employed persons (without any employees) – 27.1%
• Unpaid family workers – 9.5%
• Employers – 1.9%
Underemployment Rate • 12.0% [5.87 million of the employed persons]
• (those who wished to have additional hours, or additional job, or new
job with longer hours)
Unemployment Rate • 4.5 % [2.33 million unemployed persons]
Sectors • Services (58.2%)
• Agriculture (23.8%)
• Industry (18.1%)
OFWs • Number of OFWs who worked abroad at any time during the period April to
September 2021 was estimated at 1.83 million
• Male – 39.8% (730,000)
• Female – 60.2% (1.10 million)
• 43.2% OFWs belonged to elementary occupations
• 16.5% worked as service and sales workers
• 13.6% OFWs plant and machine operators and assemblers
• 8.7% technicians and associate professionals
• 8.5 percent professionals
• 8.1 % craft and related trade workers
• 151.33 billion pesos in remittances. The total remittances sent by OFWs during the
period April to September 2021 reached. This includes cash sent (127.13 billion
pesos), cash brought home (20.17 billion pesos), and in kind (4.03 billion pesos).
Elementary occupations involve the performance of simple and routine tasks which may require the use of
hand-held tools and considerable physical effort. It includes: cleaning, restocking supplies and performing
basic maintenance in apartments, houses, kitchens, hotels, offices and other buildings; washing of cars and
windows; helping in kitchens and performing simple tasks in food preparations; delivering messages or
goods; carrying luggages and handling baggage,etc.
Employment
life cycle
• Application
• Hiring
• Onboarding
• Development
- Training
- Evaluation
- Workplace concerns
- Internal movement
(recognition, promotion,
transfer, demotion, etc.)
• Separation
(resignation, retirement, or
dismissal)
 • Statutes, regulations, and jurisprudence
governing the relations between capital and
labor, by providing for certain employment
What is labor standards and a legal framework for
negotiating, adjusting, and administering
law? those standards and other incidents of
employment. (Azucena)
What are the two branches of Labor law and how are they defined?

Labor Standards

That part of the labor law which prescribes minimum terms and conditions of employment which the
employer is required to grant to employees.

Labor Relations

That part of labor law which deals with the relations between employer and employee, unionism,
collective bargaining, grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration, strikes, picketing, lockout, etc.

*The two are complementary; the usual reason for the exercise of the right to strike (labor relations) is
a matter relating to labor standards (better wages, benefits, work hours).
 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
CONSTRUCTION regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
IN FAVOR OF
LABOR 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
Labor contracts are imbued with
public interest

NEW CIVIL CODE

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.
What is social
legislation?
• Those laws that provide particular
kinds of protection or benefits to
society or segments thereof in
furtherance of social justice.
(Azucena)
Calalang v. Williams, G.R. No.
47800, December 2, 1940

• 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.
 Manila Water Co. v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 188747, [January 29,
2014], 725 PHIL 513-525
• The employee was dismissed for theft which he admitted and asked
forgiveness. The LA dismissed complaint for illegal dismissal for lack
of merit; but awarded separation pay considering 21 years of service
and no derogatory record
• The NLRC dismissed the appeal. The CA affirmed.
• SC – “Misplaced compassion.” As a general rule, an employee who
has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under
SOCIAL Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay.
• In exceptional cases, however, the Court has granted separation
JUSTICE pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of "social justice" or
on "equitable grounds." In both instances, it is required that the
dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect
on the moral character of the employee.
• The award of separation pay or any other kind of financial
assistance to Del Rosario, under the nomenclature of
compassionate justice, is not warranted in the instant case. A
contrary rule would have the effect of rewarding rather than
punishing an erring employee, disturbing the noble concept of social
justice.
What is the state’s policy on labor?

1987 CONSTITUTION
ART. XIII
• SECTION 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.
LABOR CODE
ARTICLE 3. Declaration of Basic Policy
• 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.
What are the basic 1. Equal work opportunities for all

rights of workers? 2.
3.
Security of tenure
Wages and wage related benefits
4. Work days and work hours
5. Weekly rest day
6. Safe working conditions
7. Right to self organization and collective
bargaining
8. Employees’ compensation benefits for work-
related contingencies
9. Protection and enforcement of rights for
special workers – disabled workers, child
workers, women workers, etc.
10. Post employment stage – the right to a
livable pension and comfortable retirement
Test of employer-employee
relationship

FOUR FOLD TEST

• the selection and engagement of the employee;
• the payment of wages;
• the power of dismissal; and
• the power to control the employee's conduct - the
employer's power to control the employee on the means
and methods by which the work is accomplished.
Ditiangkin v. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 246892, (September 21, 2022)

• When the control test is insufficient, the economic realities of the employment are
considered to get a comprehensive assessment of the true classification of the
worker. In Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court explained the import
of this test:
• Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee
depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the
extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer's
business; (2) the extent of the worker's investment in equipment and facilities; (3) the
nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the worker's opportunity
for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required
for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and
duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the
degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued
employment in that line of business.
• The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is
dependent on the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of
business.
Petitioners satisfy both the four-fold and economic dependence tests.
• Here, the four factors are present. First, petitioners are directly employed by
respondent Lazada as evidenced by the Contracts they signed. Petitioner's former employer,
RGSERVE, Inc., is not a party to the Contract with respondent Lazada. Second, as indicated in the
Contract, petitioners receive their salaries from respondent Lazada. Petitioners are paid by
respondent Lazada the amount of P1,200.00 for each day of service. Third, respondent Lazada has
the power to dismiss petitioners. In their contract, respondents can immediately terminate the
agreement if there is a breach of material provisions of the Contract. Lastly, respondent Lazada has
control over the means and methods of the performance of petitioners' work.
• This is explicit in their agreement which states:
•2. Duties. Contractor, as an Independent Contractor, agrees to provide and to make itself
available to provide, services ("Services") as a logistics and delivery services provider to the
Company during such reasonable hours and at such times as the Company may from time
to time request. The method by which Contractor is to perform such Services shall be as
instructed by, and within the discretion and control of the Company. In performing Services
under this agreement, Contractor agrees that it shall use diligent efforts and professional
skills and judgment.
• The services performed by petitioners are integral to respondents' business. The delivery of
items is clearly integrated in the services offered by respondents.
• In carrying out their business, they are not merely a platform where parties can transact;
they also offer the delivery of the items from the sellers to the buyers. The delivery is an integral
part of respondent Lazada's business.
• Further, respondent Lazada admitted that it has different route managers to supervise the
delivery of the products from the sellers to the buyers. Thus, it has taken steps to facilitate not
only the transaction of the seller and buyer in the online platform but also the delivery of the
items.
• Further, petitioners have invested in equipment to be engaged by respondents, they are
required by respondents to use their own motor vehicles and other equipment and supplies in
the delivery of the items. Moreover, petitioners had no control over their own profit or loss
because they were paid a set daily wage. Petitioners also had no control over their own time
and they cannot offer their service to other companies as respondents can demand their
presence from time to time.
• More importantly, petitioners are dependent on respondents for their continued
employment in this line of business. As the facts reveal, petitioners have been previously
engaged by a third-party contractor to provide services for respondents. This time, petitioners
were directly hired by respondents. This demonstrates that petitioners have been economically
dependent on respondents for their livelihood
SECURITY OF TENURE
LABOR CODE
• ARTICLE 294. [279] Security of Tenure. — 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. 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
1987 Constitution,
Article III

• SECTION 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
 Alhambra Industries, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No.
106771, November 18, 1994],
308 PHIL 249-257
• Employment has now leveled
off with property rights which
no one may be deprived of
without due process of law.
Philippine Movie • The right to labor is a constitutional as
well as a statutory right. Every man has
Pictures Workers' a natural right to the fruits of his own
Association v. industry. A man who has been
employed to undertake certain labor
Premiere Productions, and has put into it his time and effort is
Inc., G.R. No. L-5621, entitled to be protected. The right of a
[March 25, 1953], 92 person to his labor is deemed to be
property within the meaning of
PHIL 843-850) constitutional guarantees. That is his
means of livelihood. He cannot be
deprived of his labor or work without
due process of law
 DUE PROCESS

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by Employer.— An ARTICLE 298. [283] Closure of Establishment and
employer may terminate an employment for any of the Reduction of Personnel.— The employer may
following causes: also terminate the employment of any employee
due to the
• (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience
by the employee of the lawful orders of his • installation of labor-saving devices,
employer or representative in connection with • redundancy,
his work;
• (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the • retrenchment to prevent losses o
employee of his duties; • closing or cessation of operation of the
• (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of establishment or undertaking unless the closing
the trust reposed in him by his employer or is for the purpose of circumventing the
duly authorized representative; SEDICa provisions of this Title

• (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the

employee against the person of his employer
or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representatives; and
• (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Two-notice rule [D.O. 147-15]
Amending the IRR of Book VI
of the Labor Code

Procedural due process in

dismissal due to JUST CAUSES
• First notice [Notice to Explain]
Opportunity to be heard or submit
written explanation with supporting
evidence; the employee may request
for an administrative hearing where
he/she can attend with the assistance
of a representative or counsel
• Second notice [Notice of Dismissal or
Termination of employment]
Two-notice rule [D.O. 147-15]

Procedural due process in dismissal due to

AUTHORIZED CAUSES
• Notice 1 – workers affected
• Notice 2 – DOLE
• 1 month before the intended date of dismissal
• Payment of separation pay
• Installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy - equivalent
to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher.
• Retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or
cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not
due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the
separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one
(1) whole year
 • The employees were deemed to have abandoned
Agabon v. National their work. However, the Court also found that there
was no notice and hearing. The dismissal with just
Labor Relations cause but employer did not follow procedural due
Commission, G.R. No. process.
• Art. 279, Labor Code on security of tenure;
158693, [November 17, constitutional due process and statutory due
process; the constitutional policy to provide full
2004] protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to
oppress employers; an employee who is clearly
guilty of conduct violative of Article 282 should not be
protected by the Social Justice Clause of
the Constitution. Social justice, as the term suggests,
should be used only to correct an injustice; clarified
previous inconsistent rulings and held that when the
employee was dismissed for just cause but the
employee failed to comply with procedural due
process, the dismissal is still valid but sanctions may
be imposed on the employer (nominal damages).
 Abbott Laboratories, Phils. v. Alcaraz,
G.R. No. 192571, [July 23, 2013], 714
PHIL 510-574
• Probationary employees also enjoy security of tenure and may be
terminated only for just cause; they must be informed of the
requirements for regularization.
• Aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional
ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the
probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the
time of the engagement.
• Where no standards are made known to the employee at that
time, he shall be deemed a regular employee.
• A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary
employee; the usual two-notice rule does not govern. The Labor
Code IRR states that "[i]f the termination is brought about by the .
. . failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer
in case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a
written notice is served the employee, within a reasonable time
from the effective date of termination.
 St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees Association - AFW v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 162053, [March 7, 2007]
(X-ray technicians required to pass new licensure exam)
While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed
Workers’ right to by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health,
security of morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general
welfare of the people. Consequently, persons who desire to
tenure v. Police engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or
technical knowledge may be required to take an examination
power 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
 Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corp. v. Alcon, G.R. No.
194884, October 22, 2014
(sexual intercourse in company premises is serious
misconduct)
In protecting the rights of the workers, the law, however, does not
authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The
constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be
Security of tenure understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be
decided in favor of labor. The constitutional and legal protection
v. equally recognize the employer's right and prerogative to manage its
Management operation according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play.
Accordingly, except as limited by special law, an employer is free to
prerogative regulate, according to his own judgment and discretion, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods,
time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be
followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of
employees, worker supervision, layoff of workers and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers. As a general proposition, an
employer has free reign over every aspect of its business, including
the dismissal of his employees as long as the exercise of
its management prerogative is done reasonably, in good faith, and in
a manner not otherwise intended to defeat or circumvent the rights of
workers.
 Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket Corp., GR 198534, July 3, 2013
(reassignment – Category Buyer to Provincial Coordinator)
• The employer's prerogative to regulate all aspects of employment
relating to the employees' work assignment, the working methods
and the place and manner of work. Indeed, labor laws discourage
Management interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business.
• Under the doctrine of management prerogative, every employer has the
Prerogative inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment,
all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working
methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer
of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of
employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are
those imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial
justice.
• While the law imposes many obligations upon the employer,
nonetheless, it also protects the employer's right to expect from its
employees not only good performance, adequate work, and diligence,
but also good conduct and loyalty. In fact, the Labor Code does not
excuse employees from complying with valid company policies and
reasonable regulations for their governance and guidance.
 Opinaldo v. Ravina, G.R. No. 196573, October 16, 2013
(security guard with hypertension required to submit medical
certificate)
Jurisprudence is replete with cases recognizing the right of the
employer to have free reign and enjoy sufficient discretion to regulate
all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill
discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including

Management dismissal, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative

where the free will of management to conduct its own affairs to
achieve its purpose takes form. Even labor laws discourage
Prerogative interference with the exercise of such prerogative and the Court often
declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of
employers. However, the exercise of management prerogative is not
unlimited. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided
by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of
fair play and justice. Hence, in the exercise of its management
prerogative, an employer must ensure that the policies, rules and
regulations on work-related activities of the employees must
always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties,
when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to
the degree of the infraction.
 • 1987 Constitution Article III, Section 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.

No involuntary • Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees

Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI
servitude Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010

An individual employee can, at any time, in a

consensual and in personam employment contract, walk
away from it, subject only to the adjustment of the
obligations he has incurred under the contractual
relationship that binds him; a contrary rule would violate
the involuntary service provision of the Constitution.
EQUAL WORK 1987 CONSTITUTION
ART. XIII
OPPORTUNITIES • SECTION 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.

LABOR CODE
ARTICLE 3. Declaration of Basic Policy
• 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
LABOR CODE PROVISIONS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION
• ARTICLE 133. [135] Discrimination Prohibited.—
It shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and
conditions of employment solely on account of her sex.
The following are acts of discrimination:
(a) Payment of a lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of remuneration and fringe
benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee, for work of equal value; and
(b) Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study
and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes.
Criminal liability for the willful commission of any unlawful act as provided in this article or any violation of the
rules and regulations issued pursuant to Section 2 hereof shall be penalized as provided in Articles 288 and
289 of this Code: Provided, That the institution of any criminal action under this provision shall not bar the
aggrieved employee from filing an entirely separate and distinct action for money claims, which may include
claims for damages and other affirmative reliefs. The actions hereby authorized shall proceed independently
of each other.
ARTICLE 134. [136] Stipulation against Marriage.— It shall be unlawful for an employer to require
as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get
married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be
deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise
prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.
ARTICLE 135. [137] Prohibited Acts.— It shall be unlawful for any employer:
• (1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in this Chapter or to discharge any
woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing her from enjoying any of the benefits
provided under this Code;
• (2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement
due to her pregnancy;
• (3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for fear that
she may again be pregnant.
SPECIAL LAWS

The Magna Carta of Women, Republic Act No. 9710

SECTION 4 (D)
• "Discrimination Against Women" refers to any gender-based distinction,
exclusion, or restriction which has the effect or purpose of impairing or
nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of
their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural,
civil, or any other field.
ARTICLE 137. [139] Minimum Employable Age

(a) No child below fifteen (15) years of age shall be employed, except when he works
directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or guardian, and his employment does
not in any way interfere with his schooling.
(b) Any person between fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years of age may be employed for
such number of hours and such periods of the day as determined by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in appropriate regulations.
(c) The foregoing provisions shall in no case allow the employment of a person below
eighteen (18) years of age in an undertaking which is hazardous or deleterious in nature as
determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
ARTICLE 138. [140] Prohibition against Child Discrimination.— No employer shall
discriminate against any person in respect to terms and conditions of employment on
account of his age.
Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Republic Act No. 10911, (July 21, 2016)

SECTION 5. Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on Account of Age. — (a) It shall be

unlawful for an employer to:
(1) Print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, in any form of media, including the
internet, any notice of advertisement relating to employment suggesting preferences,
limitations, specifications, and discrimination based on age;
(2) Require the declaration of age or birth date during the application process;
(3) Decline any employment application because of the individual's age;
(4) Discriminate against an individual in terms of compensation, terms and conditions or
privileges of employment on account of such individual's age;
(5) Deny any employee's or worker's promotion or opportunity for training because of age;
(6) Forcibly lay off an employee or worker because of old age; or
(7) Impose early retirement on the basis of such employee's or worker's age.
SECTION 6. Exceptions. — It shall not be unlawful for an employer to set age limitations in
employment if:
(a) Age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary in the normal operation
of a particular business or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other
than age;
(b) The intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system that is not intended to
evade the purpose of this Act;
(c) The intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide employee retirement or a voluntary early
retirement plan consistent with the purpose of this Act: Provided, That such retirement or
voluntary retirement plan is in accordance with the Labor Code, as amended, and other
related laws; or
(d) The action is duly certified by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in accordance with
the purpose of this Act.
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, Republic Act No. 7277, March
24, 1992

SECTION 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment. —

No disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable
employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges,
benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-
bodied person
SECTION 32. Discrimination on Employment. — No entity, whether public or private, shall discriminate
against a qualified disabled person by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures, the
hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment. The following constitute acts of discrimination:
a) Limiting, segregating or classifying a disabled job applicant in such a manner that adversely affects his
work opportunities;
b) Using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to
screen out a disabled person unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job-
related for the position in question and are consistent with business necessity;
c) Utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that:
1) have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or
2) perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control.
d) Providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits,
to a qualified disabled employee, by reason of his disability, than the amount to which a non-
disabledperson performing the same work is entitled;
e) Favoring a non-disabled employee over a qualified disabled employee with respect to promotion,
training opportunities, study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the latter's disability;
f) Re-assigning or transferring a disabled employee to a job or position he cannot perform by reason of
his disability;
g) Dismissing or terminating the services of a disabled employee by reason of his disability unless the
employer can prove that he impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice
of the business entity: Provided, however, That the employer first sought to provide reasonable
accommodations for disabled persons; cda
h) Failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately
reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the disabled applicant or employee that such tests purports
to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee,
if any; and
i) Excluding disabled persons from membership in labor unions or similar organizations.
Philippine HIV and AIDS Policy Act, Republic Act No. 11166,
[December 20, 2018]

SECTION 49. Discriminatory Acts and Practices. — The following

discriminatory acts and practices shall be prohibited:
Discrimination in the Workplace. — The rejection of job application,
termination of employment, or other discriminatory policies in hiring,
provision of employment and other related benefits, promotion or assignment
of an individual solely or partially on the basis of actual, perceived, or
suspected HIV status;xxx
The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, Republic Act No.
8371, (October 29, 1997)

• SECTION 23. Freedom from Discrimination and Right to Equal Opportunity

and Treatment. — It shall be the right of the ICCs/IPs to be free from any
form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of
employment, such that they may enjoy equal opportunities for admission to
employment, medical and social assistance, safety as well as other
occupationally-related benefits, informed of their rights under existing labor
legislation and of means available to them for redress, not subject to any
coercive recruitment systems, including bonded labor and other forms of
debt servitude; and equal treatment in employment for men and women,
including the protection from sexual harassment.
No vaccine, no work
policy - illegal
COVID-19 Vaccination Program Act of 2021, Republic Act No.
11525, [February 26, 2021]
The issuance of a vaccine card is intended to be digital, but
shall remain accessible through other means such as printed
cards. The DOH, through the Department of Information and
Communications Technology, shall develop the LGU-based
digital systems and applications that will meet the objectives
of the COVID-19 Vaccination Program while maintaining
quality, safety, ease of use, and accessibility for all
Filipinos: Provided,That the DOH shall maintain a central
database of vaccinations, and mandate a uniform format for
the vaccine card, the contents of which shall be updated
accordingly to always conform with globally accepted
standards: Provided, further, That the vaccine cards shall not
be considered as an additional mandatory requirement for
educational, employment and other similar government
transaction purposes.
DOLE LABOR ADVISORY NO. 3 [March 12, 2021]
GUIDELINES ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF COVID-19
VACCINES IN WORKPLACES

• II . VACCINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

• Covered establishments and employers shall adopt and
implement the appropriate vaccination policy in the workplace
as part of their occupational safety and health program,
consistent with the guidelines issued by the DOH and IATF in
accordance with existing laws, rules, and regulations.
• Covered establishments and employers may procure COVID-19
vaccines, supplies, and other services. They may also seek the
support of the appropriate government agencies in the
procurement, storage, transport, deployment, and
administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
• No cost of vaccination in the workplace shall be charged
against or passed on, directly or indirectly, to the employees.
DOLE LABOR ADVISORY NO. 3 [March 12, 2021]
GUIDELINES ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF COVID-
19 VACCINES IN WORKPLACES
NO DISCRIMINATION OR TERMINATION
• Covered establishments and employers shall endeavor
to encourage their employees to get vaccinated.
However, any employee who refuses or fails to be
vaccinated shall not be discriminated against in terms
of tenure, promotion, training, pay, and other
benefits, among others, or terminated from
employment. No vaccine, no work policy shall not be
allowed.
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118978, [May
23, 1997], 338 PHIL 1093-1112

• Company policy on not accepting married women for employment

• In the case at bar, petitioner's policy of not accepting or considering as
disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul
of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women
workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution. Contrary to
petitioner's assertion that it dismissed private respondent from employment
on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her ties with
the company were dissolved principally because of the company's policy
that married women are not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not
merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo
Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994
(Resolution), [September 17, 2004]

• Position – husband - medical representative for Glaxo / wife - Branch Coordinator, supervising
district managers and med reps in her area for competitor company Astra
• Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and
other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra
are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
• The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the
assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a
competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, [October
17, 2008], 590 PHIL 490-524

• Imposition of weight standards for flight attendants is valid considering

the business of PAL in air transportation; the obesity of petitioner,
when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant, becomes
an analogous cause under Article 282 (e) of the Labor Code that
justifies his dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be
unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary; Employment in particular
jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or
national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or
national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The
qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
 • In British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v.
The British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union
(BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called
Bona fide "Meiorin Test" in determining whether an employment policy is justified.
Under this test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard

occupational for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the
employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the
accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must
qualification establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to
accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose.
[BFOQ] • Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, this Court held that in
order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation
of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all
or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to
properly perform the duties of the job.
• In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used
because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid "provided it reflects an
inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job
performance.
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R.
No. 128845, [June 1, 2000], 388 PHIL 661-678

• Difference in salary and benefits of foreign and local employees;

• Discrimination, equal work opportunities regardless of gender, race, or
creed
RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
1987 CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE III
SECTION 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.

SECTION 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.
ARTICLE XIII
SECTION 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
ARTICLE 253. [243] Coverage and
Employees' Right to Self-Organization.— All
persons employed in commercial,
industrial and agricultural enterprises
and in religious, charitable, medical, or
educational institutions, whether operating
for profit or not, shall have the right to self-
organization and to form, join, or assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for
purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant,
intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
employed people, rural workers and those
without any definite employers may form
labor organizations for their mutual aid and
protection.
ARTICLE 254. [244] Right of Employees in the
Public Service.— Employees of government
corporations established under the Corporation
Code shall have the right to organize and to
bargain collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees in the civil service
shall have the right to form associations for
purposes not contrary to law

ARTICLE 255. [245] Ineligibility of Managerial

Employees to Join Any Labor Organization; Right
of Supervisory Employees.— Managerial
employees are not eligible to join, assist or form
any labor organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in the
collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate
collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor
organizations of their own. The rank and file union
and the supervisors' union operating within the
same establishment may join the same federation
or national union
• ARTICLE 256. [245-A] Effect of Inclusion as
Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining
Unit. — The inclusion as union members of
employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be
a ground for the cancellation of the registration of
the union. Said employees are automatically
deemed removed from the list of membership of
said union.

• ARTICLE 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.
Executive Order No. 180 (1987) Providing Guidelines For The Exercise Of The
Right To Organize Of Government Employees, Creating A Public Sector Labor-
Management Council
• SECTION 2. All government employees can form, join or
assist employees' organizations of their own choosing for
the furtherance and protection of their interests. They
can also form, in conjunction with appropriate
government authorities, labor-management committees,
works councils and other forms of workers' participation
schemes to achieve the same objectives.
• SECTION 3. High-level employees whose functions are
normally considered as policy-making or managerial or
whose duties are of a highly confidential nature shall not
be eligible to join the organization of rank-and-file
government employees.
• SECTION 4. The Executive Order shall not apply to the
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
including police officers, policemen, firemen and jail
guards.
Right to negotiate of govt employees?
• SECTION 13. Terms and conditions of
employment or improvements thereof,
except those that are fixed by law, may
be the subject of negotiations between
duly recognized employees' organizations
and appropriate government authorities.
Social Security System Employees Association v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279, [July 28, 1989]

• While the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to whether or not
government employees may strike, they are prohibited from striking, by express
provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6 series of 1987 of the Civil Service
Commission and as implied in E.O. No. 180.
• Government employees may, therefore, through their unions or associations, either
petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment
which are within the ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate
government agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law.
• SSS employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service
Commission's memorandum prohibiting strikes.
• E.O. No. 180 which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of
government employees, allows negotiation where the terms and conditions of
employment involved are not among those fixed by law.
Quantum of evidence
required in labor cases

• Substantial evidence - that amount

of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
BURDEN JR Hauling Services v. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294,
[September 30, 2020])
OF PROOF It is a well-established rule that the party-litigant

AND
who alleges the existence of a fact or thing
necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden
of proving the same by the amount of evidence
QUANTUM required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is
substantial evidence, or "such relevant
OF evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." To be clear,
EVIDENCE in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, "proof beyond
reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level,
followed by clear and convincing evidence,
preponderance of evidence, and substantial
evidence, in that order." Thus, in the hierarchy of
evidence, it is the least demanding. "Corollarily, the
ground for the dismissal of an employee does not
require proof beyond reasonable doubt."
Process in • LABOR CODE
settlement • ARTICLE 227. [221] Technical Rules Not Binding and
Prior Resort to Amicable Settlement— In any
of labor proceeding before the Commission or any of the
disputes Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in
courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and
it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the
Commission and its members and the Labor
Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means
to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and
objectively, without regard to technicalities of law
or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
• The Labor Arbiter/NLRC shall exert all efforts
towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute
within his jurisdiction on or before the first hearing.
Burden to prove Javier v. Fly Ace Corp., G.R. No. 192558,
fact of employer- [February 15, 2012], (682 PHIL 359-376)
employee
relationship; In an illegal dismissal case, the onus
burden to prove probandi rests on the employer to prove
fact of dismissal; that its dismissal of an employee was for a
valid cause. However, before a case for
and burden to illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-
prove validity of employee relationship must first be
dismissal established by the employee
MZR Industries v. Colambot, G.R. No. 179001, [August 28, 2013], (716 PHIL
617-628)

While we recognize the rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer bears the
burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, in the
present case, however, the facts and the evidence do not establish a prima facie case
that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the employer must bear
the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is no
dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.|
End of presentation