Scribd
Upload
5 views3 pages

Labor Case Digest For Writing

In the case of SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. CABILES, the Supreme Court ruled that Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed due to the agency's failure to provide just cause and due process. In the case of HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION vs. ABAN, the court affirmed the existence of an employer-employee relationship and ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. Lastly, in Abella v. NLRC, the court held that farm workers Quitco & Dionele were entitled to separation pay despite the expiration of the lease agreement, emphasizing the protection of workers' welfare.

Uploaded by

KWINNY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views3 pages

Labor Case Digest For Writing

In the case of SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. CABILES, the Supreme Court ruled that Joy Cabiles was illegally dismissed due to the agency's failure to provide just cause and due process. In the case of HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION vs. ABAN, the court affirmed the existence of an employer-employee relationship and ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. Lastly, in Abella v. NLRC, the court held that farm workers Quitco & Dionele were entitled to separation pay despite the expiration of the lease agreement, emphasizing the protection of workers' welfare.

Uploaded by

KWINNY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., vs.

CABILES

G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

FACTS:

Respondent Joy Cabiles was hired by Wacoal Taiwan, Inc., through petitioner agency Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency as a cutter. Subsequently, Cabiles was informed that her services are already
terminated and that she must report to their head office for her immediate repatriation. Because of this,
Cabiles filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Sameer and Wacoal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor
of Sameer and held that there was no illegal dismissal that took place because the termination of the
services of Cabiles was for a just cause. It gave credence to the contention of Sameer that Cabiles was
terminated from service because of her inefficiency. On appeal, the NLRC ruled in favor of Cabiles and
held that she is illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of NLRC. Hence, the current
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Cabiles was illegally dismissed.

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ruled that the respondent was
illegally dismissed. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for
causing Joy’s dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law. While the law
acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it does not “authorize the oppression or self-
destruction of the employer.” Management prerogative is recognized in law and in our jurisprudence.

There was also no showing that Cabiles was sufficiently informed of the standards against which her
work efficiency and performance were judged. The parties’ conflict as to the position held by respondent
showed that even the matter as basic as the job title was not clear. The bare allegations of petitioner are
not sufficient to support a claim that there is just cause for termination. There is no proof that
respondent was legally terminated.

A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal. The
employer is required to give the charged employee at least two written notices before termination. One
of the written notices must inform the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her
dismissal. The other notice must “inform the employee of the employer’s decision.” Aside from the
notice requirement, the employee must also be given “an opportunity to be heard.” Sameer failed to
comply with the twin notices and hearing requirements.

HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LABOR ARBITER ADRIAN N.


PAGALILAUAN AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PUBLIC RESPONDENTS, AND
ROGELIO A. AB G.R. No. 62909, April 18, 1989

AN, PRIVATE RESPONDENT.


On October 24, 1978, petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its "Legal Assistant."
He received a basic monthly salary of P1,500.00 plus an initial living allowance of P50.00 which gradually
increased to P320.00. On September 4, 1980, Aban received a letter from the corporation informing him
that he would be considered terminated effective October 4,1980 because of his alleged failure to
perform his duties well. On October 6, 1980, Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal
dismissal.

The labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. This ruling was affirmed by the NLRC on
appeal. Hence, this present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner corporation and
Aban?

Ruling: YES there is an employer-employee relationship in the case at bar. A lawyer, like any other
professional, may very well be an employee of a private corporation or even of the government.

Aban was employed by the petitioner to be its Legal Assistant as evidenced by his appointment paper
(Exhibit "A"). The petitioner paid him a basic salary plus living allowance. Thereafter, Aban was
dismissed on his alleged failure to perform his duties well. (Exhibit "B")

Aban worked solely for the petitioner and dealt only with legal matters involving the said corporation
and its employees. He also assisted the Personnel Officer in processing appointment papers of
employees. This latter duty is not an act of a lawyer in the exercise of his profession but rather a duty for
the benefit of the corporation.

Abella v. National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. No. 71812, July 20, 1987

Facts:

Abella leased a farm land known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of ten (10) years,
renewable, at her option, for another ten (10) years. After 10 yrs, she opted to extend the lease contract
for another ten (10) years. She employed Quitco & Dionele as farm workers. When her leasehold rights
expired, she dismissed the two and turned over the hacienda to the land owners.

Quitco & Dionele filed a complaint against Abella for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and
reinstatement with backwages. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the cessation
of business, but granted the private respondents separation pay. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the
decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Abella claimed that since her lease agreement had
already expired, she is not liable for payment of separation pay.

Issue:

WoN the respondents are entitled to separation pay.

Ruling:
Yes. It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor
Code and its implementing regulations, the working man's welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration.

Under Article 4 of the New Labor Code, "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." Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy