Maternity Childrens Hospital vs.

Secretary of Labor
Facts:
Petitioner is a semi-government hospital, managed by the Board of Directors of the Cagayan
deOro Women's Club and Puericulture Center, headed by Mrs !ntera Dorado, as
holdover President "he hospital derives its finances from the club itself as #ell as from paying
patients,averaging $%& per month 't is also partly subsidi(ed by the Philippine Charity
)#eepsta*esOffice and the Cagayan De Oro City governmentPetitioner has forty-one +,$-
employees !side from salary and living allo#ances, theemployees are given food, but the
amount spent therefor is deducted from their respectivesalariesOn May .%, $/01, ten +$&-
employees of the petitioner employed in different capacities2positionsfiled a complaint #ith the
Office of the 3egional Director of 4abor and 5mployment, 3egion 6,for underpayment of their
salaries and 5CO4!), #hich #as doc*eted as 3O6 Case 7o CW-8$-01On 9une $1, $/01, the
3egional Director directed t#o of his 4abor )tandard and WelfareOfficers to inspect the records
of the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations in thecomplaints Based on their
inspection report and recommendation, the 3egional Director issuedan Order dated !ugust ,,
$/01, directing the payment of P8.%,000:0, representingunderpayment of #ages and 5CO4!s
to all the petitioner's employeesPetitioner appealed from this Order to the Minister of 4abor and
5mployment, ;on !ugusto ))anche(, #ho rendered a Decision on )eptember .,, $/01,
modifying the said Order in thatdeficiency #ages and 5CO4!s should be computed only from
May .%, $/0% to May .%, $/01,On October .,, $/01, the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration #hich #as denied by the)ecretary of 4abor in his Order dated May $%, $/08, for
lac* of merit
Issue:
Whether or not the 3egional Director had <urisdiction over the case and if so, the e=tent
of coverage of any a#ard that should be forthcoming, arising from his visitorial and
enforcementpo#ers under !rticle $.0 of the 4abor Code
Held:
"his is a labor standards case, and is governed by !rt $.0-b of the 4abor Code, as amendedby
5O 7o $$$ >nder the present rules, a 3egional Director e=ercises both visitorial
andenforcement po#er over labor standards cases, and is therefore empo#ered to
ad<udicatemoney claims, provided there still e=ists an employer-employee relationship, and the
findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned

4abor standards refer to the minimum re?uirements prescribed by e=isting la#s, rules,
andregulations relating to #ages, hours of #or*, cost of living allo#ance and other monetary
and#elfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health standards +)ection 8, 3ule ',
3uleson the Disposition of 4abor )tandards Cases in the 3egional Office, dated )eptember
$1,$/08-
Decision:
!CCO3D'7@4A, this petition should be dismissed, as it is hereby D')M'))5D, as regards
allpersons still employed in the ;ospital at the time of the filing of the complaint, but @3!7"5D
asregards those employees no longer employed at that time )O O3D535D
Calalang vs. illia!s
Facts:
! resolution by the 7ational "raffice Commission that animal dra#n vehicles be prohibited
frompassing along 3osario )treet e=tending from Pla(a Calderon de la Barca to DasmariBas
)treet,from 8C%& am to $.C%& pm and from $C%& pm to :C%& pmD and along 3i(al !venue
e=tendingfrom the railroad crossing at !ntipolo )treet to 5chague )treet, from 8 am to $$ pm,
for aperiod of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic #as
approvedand adopted by the )ecretary of Public Wor*s and Communications upon indorsement
by theDirector of Public Wor*s pursuant to Common#ealth !ct :,0 #ith modifications that
3osario)treet and 3i(al !venue be closed to traffic of animal-dra#n vehicles, bet#een the
points andduring the hours as indicated"he Mayor of Manila and the !cting Chief of Police of
Manila have enforced and caused to beenforced the rules and regulations thus adopted
Ma=imo Calalang, in his capacity as a privateciti(en and as a ta=payer of Manila, brought before
the )upreme Court the petition for a #rit of prohibition against ! D Williams, as Chairman of
the 7ational "raffic CommissionD EicenteFragante, as Director of Public Wor*sD )ergio Bayan,
as !cting )ecretary of Public Wor*s andCommunicationsD 5ulogio 3odrigue(, as Mayor of
the City of ManilaD and 9uan Domingue(, as!cting Chief of Police of Manila
Issue:
Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Wor*s infringe uponthe
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social <ustice to insure the #ell-being
andeconomic security of all the people
Held:
"he promotion of social <ustice is to be achieved not through a mista*en sympathy to#ards
anygiven group)ocial <ustice is Gneither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy,G but thehumani(ation of la#s and the e?uali(ation of social and economic forces by the
)tate so that <ustice in its rational and ob<ectively secular conception may at least
be appro=imated )ocial <ustice means the promotion of the #elfare of all the people, the
adoption by the @overnment of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society,through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
e?uilibrium in the interrelations of themembers of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally <ustifiable,or e=tra-constitutionally, through the e=ercise of po#ers
underlying the e=istence of allgovernments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est
suprema le=)ocial <ustice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity
of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that
shouldbe e?ually and evenly e=tended to all groups as a combined force in our social and
economiclife, consistent #ith the fundamental and paramount ob<ective of the state of
promoting the
health, comfort, and ?uiet of all persons, and of bringing about Gthe greatest good to thegreatest
numberG
Decision:
'7 E'5W OF ";5 FO35@O'7@, the Writ of Prohibition Prayed for is hereby denied, #ith
costsagainst the petitioner )o ordered
Avancea, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur
"hilippine #ssociation of Service $%pporters& Inc. vs. Drilon
Facts:
"he petitioner, Philippine !ssociation of )ervice 5=porters, 'nc +P!)5'-, a firmGengaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino #or*ers for overseas placement,G challengesthe
Constitutional validity of Department Order 7o $, )eries of $/00, of the Department of 4abor
and 5mployment, in the character of G@>'D54'75) @OE537'7@ ";5
"5MPO3!3A)>)P57)'O7 OF D5P4OAM57" OF F'4'P'7O DOM5)"'C !7D ;O>)5;O4D
WO3H53),Gand specifically assailed for Gdiscrimination against males or femalesDG
.
that it Gdoes not applyto all Filipino #or*ers but only to domestic helpers and females #ith
similar s*illsDG
%
and that it isviolative of the right to travel 't is held li*e#ise to be an invalid e=ercise of the
la#ma*ingpo#er, police po#er being legislative, and not e=ecutive, in characterOn May .:,
$/00, the )olicitor @eneral, on behalf of the respondents )ecretary of 4abor and !dministrator
of the Philippine Overseas 5mployment !dministration, filed a Commentinforming the Court that
on March 0, $/00, the respondent 4abor )ecretary lifted thedeployment ban in the states
of 'ra?, 9ordan, Iatar, Canada, ;ong*ong, >nited )tates, 'taly,7or#ay, !ustria, and
)#it(erland 'n submitting the validity of the challenged Gguidelines,G the)olicitor @eneral
invo*es the police po#er of the Philippine )tate
Issue:
Whether the challenged Department Order is a valid regulation in the nature of a police
po#er measure under the Constitution
Held:
"he concept of police po#er is #ell-established in this <urisdiction 't has been defined as
theGstate authority to enact legislation that may interfere #ith personal liberty or property in
order topromote the general #elfareG
:
!s defined, it consists of +$- an imposition of restraint uponliberty or property, +.- in order to
foster the common good 't is not capable of an e=act definitionbut has been, purposely, veiled
in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace'ts scope, ever-e=panding to
meet the e=igencies of the times, even to anticipate the future#here it could be done, provides
enough room for an efficient and fle=ible response toconditions and circumstances thus
assuring the greatest benefits't finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it
does not o#e its origin to theCharter !long #ith the ta=ing po#er and eminent domain, it is
inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty 't is a fundamental attribute of government
that has enabled it toperform the most vital functions of governance "he police po#er of
the )tate is a po#er coe=tensive #ith self- protection 't may be said to be that inherent and
plenary po#er in the)tate #hich enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
#elfare of society!s a general rule, official acts en<oy a presumed validity
$%
'n the absence of clear andconvincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption logically
stands

"he petitioner has sho#n no satisfactory reason #hy the contested measure should
be nullified"here is no ?uestion that Department Order 7o $ applies only to Gfemale contract
#or*ers,G
$,
but it does not thereby ma*e an undue discrimination bet#een the se=es 't is #ell-settled
thatGe?uality before the la#G under the Constitution
$:
does not import a perfect 'dentity of rightsamong all men and #omenGProtection to laborG does
not signify the promotion of employment alone What concerns theConstitution more
paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, <ust, andhumane >nder these
circumstances, the @overnment is duty-bound to insure that our toilinge=patriates have
ade?uate protection, personally and economically, #hile a#ay from home 'nthis case, the
@overnment has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lac* or
inade?uacy of such protection, and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered anindefinite ban
on deployment"his Court understands the grave implications the ?uestioned Order has on the
business of recruitment "he concern of the @overnment, ho#ever, is not necessarily to
maintain profits of business firms 'n the ordinary se?uence of events, it is profits that suffer as a
result of @overnment regulation "he interest of the )tate is to provide a decent living to its
citi(ens
Decision:
"he @overnment has convinced the Court in this case that this is its intent We do not find
theimpugned Order to be tainted #ith a grave abuse of discretion to #arrant the e=traordinary
relief prayed forW;535FO35, the petition is D')M'))5D 7o costs )O O3D535D
C'(C $!ployees )nion v. Clave
*.+. ,o. -./01
2anuary 3& 4.05
#rticle /: +ules and +egulations
Facts:
Petitioner Commercial Ban* and "rust Company 5mployees' >nion +CB"C- lodged a complaint #ith the Department
of 4abor, against private respondent ban* +Comtrust- for non-payment of the holiday pay benefits provided for under
!rticle /: +no# !rticle /,- of the 4abor Code Failing to arrive at an amicable settlement at conciliation level, the
parties opted to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration
On .. !pril $/81, the !rbitrator handed do#n an a#ard on the dispute in favor of petitioner union "he ne=t day, .%
!pril $/81, the Department of 4abor released Policy 'nstructions 7o /, a policy regarding the implementation of the
ten +$&- paid legal holidays
)aid ban* interposed an appeal to the 7ational 4abor 3elations Commission +743C-, contending that the !rbitrator
demonstrated gross incompetence and2or grave abuse of discretion #hen he failed to apply Policy 'nstructions 7o /
"his appeal #as dismissed on $1 !ugust $/81
Private respondent then appealed to the )ecretary of 4abor On %& 9une $/88, the !cting )ecretary of 4abor
reversed the 743C decision On the principal issue of holiday pay, the !cting )ecretary, guided by Policy 'nstructions
7o /, applied the same retrospectively, among other things
Issue:
Whether or not the monthly pay of the covered employees already includes #hat !rticle /, of the 4abor Code
re?uires as regular holiday pay benefit in the amount of his regular daily #age
+uling:
'n e=cluding the union members the benefits of the holiday pay la#, public respondent predicated his ruling on
)ection ., 3ule 'E, Boo* ''' of the 3ules to implement !rticle /, of the 4abor Code promulgated by the then )ecretary
of 4abor and Policy 'nstructions 7o /
'n 'nsular Ban* of !sia and !merica 5mployees' >nion +'B!!5>- vs 'nciong, this Court's )econd Division, spea*ing
through former 9ustice Ma*asiar, e=pressed the vie# and declared that the section and interpretative bulletin are null
and void, having been promulgated by the then )ecretary of 4abor in e=cess of his rule-ma*ing authority
"he ?uestioned )ection ., 3ule 'E, Boo* ''' of the 'ntegrated 3ules and the )ecretary's Policy 'nstruction 7o / add
another e=cluded group, namely, 'employees #ho are uniformly paid by the month' While the additional e=clusion is
only in the form of a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already been paid holiday pay, it constitutes a
ta*ing a#ay or a deprivation #hich must be in the la# if it is to be valid !n administrative interpretation #hich
diminishes the benefits of labor more than #hat the statute delimits or #ithholds is obviously ultra vires
3uled in favor of the petitioners Presidential 5=ecutive !ssistant and the !cting )ecretary of labor are set aside, and
the a#ard of the !rbitrator reinstated
People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Panis
GR No. L5867477, Jul !!, !""#
$%&'()
*n Janua+ ", !"8!, fou+ info+mation ,e+e file- in the in the &ou+t of $i+st .nstan/e 0&$.1 of 2am3ales an- *longapo &it alleging that
he+ein p+ivate +espon-ent (e+apio %3ug, 4,ithout fi+st se/u+ing a li/ense f+om the 5inist+ of La3o+ as a hol-e+ of autho+it to ope+ate a
fee6/ha+ging emploment agen/, -i- then an- the+e ,ilfull, unla,full an- /+iminall ope+ate a p+ivate fee /ha+ging emploment
agen/ 3 /ha+ging fees an- e7penses 0f+om1 an- p+omising emploment in (au-i %+a3ia4 to fou+ sepa+ate in-ivi-uals. %3ug file- a motion
to 8uash /onten-ing that he /annot 3e /ha+ge- fo+ illegal +e/+uitment 3e/ause a//o+-ing to him, %+ti/le !9031 of the La3o+ &o-e sas
the+e ,oul- 3e illegal +e/+uitment onl 4,heneve+ t,o o+ mo+e pe+sons a+e in an manne+ p+omise- o+ offe+e- an emploment fo+ a
fee.:
Denie- at fi+st, the motion to 8uash ,as +e/onsi-e+e- an- g+ante- 3 the '+ial &ou+t in its *+-e+s -ate- June ;4, !"8!, an- (eptem3e+
!7, !"8!. .n the instant /ase, the vie, of the p+ivate +espon-ents is that to /onstitute +e/+uitment an- pla/ement, all the a/ts mentione-
in this a+ti/le shoul- involve -ealings ,ith t,o o+ mo+e pe+sons as an in-ispensa3le +e8ui+ement. *n the othe+ han-, the petitione+ a+gues
that the +e8ui+ement of t,o o+ mo+e pe+sons is impose- onl ,he+e the +e/+uitment an- pla/ement /onsists of an offe+ o+ p+omise of
emploment to su/h pe+sons an- al,as in /onsi-e+ation of a fee.
.((<=)
>hethe+ o+ not %+ti/le !9031 of the La3o+ &o-e p+ovi-es fo+ the inno/en/e o+ guilt of the p+ivate +espon-ent of the /+ime of illegal
+e/+uitment
&*<R' R<L.NG)
'he (up+eme &ou+t +eve+se- the &$.?s *+-e+s an- +einstate- all fou+ info+mation file- against p+ivate +espon-ent.
'he %+ti/le !9031 of the La3o+ &o-e ,as me+el inten-e- to /+eate a p+esumption, an- not to impose a /on-ition on the 3asi/ +ule no+ to
p+ovi-e an e7/eption the+eto.
>he+e a fee is /olle/te- in /onsi-e+ation of a p+omise o+ offe+ of emploment to t,o o+ mo+e p+ospe/tive ,o+@e+s, the in-ivi-ual o+
entit -ealing ,ith them shall 3e -eeme- to 3e engage- in the a/t of +e/+uitment an- pla/ement. 'he ,o+-s 4shall 3e -eeme-4 /+eate
the sai- p+esumption.
Marsaman Manning Agency vs. NLRC
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie
Marsa!an Manning #gency vs. ,L+C
*.+. ,o. 4134./& #ugust 1/& 4...
+.#. 06-1 7Migrant or8ers #ct9
Facts:
Private respondent Wilfredo " Ca<eras #as hired by petitioner M!3)!M!7, the local manning agent of petitioner
D'!M!7"'D5), as Chief Coo* )te#ard on the ME Prigipos, o#ned and operated by D'!M!7"'D5), for a contract
period of ten +$&- months Ca<eras started #or* on 0 !ugust $//:, but less than t#o +.- months later, he #as
repatriated to the Philippines allegedly by Gmutual consentG
Private respondent Ca<eras filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioners #ith the 743C alleging that he
#as dismissed illegally, denying that his repatriation #as by mutual consent, and as*ing for his unpaid #ages,
overtime pay, damages, and attorney's fees
On ./ 9anuary $//1 4abor !rbiter resolved the dispute in favor of private respondent Ca<eras ruling that the latter's
discharge from the ME Prigipos allegedly by Gmutual consentG #as not proved by convincing evidence
Petitioners appealed to the 743C On $1 )eptember $//1 the 743C affirmed the appealed findings and conclusions
of the 4abor !rbiter Petitioners' motion for reconsideration #as denied by the 743C in its 3esolution dated $.
7ovember $//1
;ence, the petition contending that, among other things, the 743C committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a
monetary a#ard beyond the ma=imum of three +%- months' salary for every year of service set by 3! 0&,.
Issue:
Whether or not the 743C committed grave abuse of discretion
+uling:
On the amount of salaries due private respondent, the rule has al#ays been that an illegally dismissed #or*er #hose
employment is for a fi=ed period is entitled to payment of his salaries corresponding to the une=pired portion of his
employment On $: 9uly $//:, 3! 0&,. other#ise *no#n as the GMigrant Wor*ers and Overseas Filipinos !ct of
$//:G too* effect, )ec $& of #hich providesC
)ec $& 'n case of termination of overseas employment #ithout <ust, valid or authori(ed cause as defined by la# or
contract, the #or*er shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee #ith interest at t#elve percent
+$.J- per annum, plus his salaries for the une=pired portion of the employment contract or for three +%- months for
every year of the une=pired term #hichever is less
! plain reading of )ec $& clearly reveals that the choice of #hich amount to a#ard an illegally dismissed overseas
contract #or*er, ie, #hether his salaries for the une=pired portion of his employment contract or three +%- months'
salary for every year of the une=pired term, #hichever is less, comes into play only #hen the employment contract
concerned has a term of at least one +$- year or more
"o follo# petitioners' thin*ing that private respondent is entitled to three +%- months salary only simply because it is
the lesser amount is to completely disregard and overloo* some #ords used in the statute #hile giving effect to some
"his is contrary to the #ell-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should be ta*en
that every part or #ord thereof be given effect since the la#-ma*ing body is presumed to *no# the meaning of the
#ords employed in the statue and to have used them advisedly
"he ?uestioned Decision and 3esolution of public respondent 7ational 4abor 3elations Commission are !FF'3M5D