Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 224944 (Resolution), [May 5, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc.

 G.R. No. 224944 (Resolution), [May 5, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Suspension of employment; Burden of Proof for monetary claims and benefits 

For claims such as payment of salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th-month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. Conversely, for claims like overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is on the employee to prove actual performance of work beyond regular hours or on designated days.

 

Reggie Orbista Zonio, the petitioner, was employed as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by respondent Romulo Q. Par. Zonio worked alternately seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for a monthly wage of P8,500.00. Deductions of P120.00 were made from his wage every month. Zonio alleged that he was not paid for overtime work, holidays, rest days, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave, and night shift differential. He, along with some colleagues, received a memorandum suspending them for sleeping while on duty without formal investigation. Respondents refused to accept Zonio back after his suspension. 

 

Whether Zonio is entitled to various monetary claims, including overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay.

The petition is partly granted. In labor disputes, the burden of proof regarding monetary claims is shifted depending on the nature of the claim. For claims such as payment of salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th-month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. Conversely, for claims like overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is on the employee to prove actual performance of work beyond regular hours or on designated days. Zonio proved his entitlement to overtime pay and night shift differentials pay through the logbook entries, which were not rebutted by the respondents. Zonio's claim for holiday and rest day premiums was denied due to lack of factual basis. The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of Zonio's monetary award.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

DORELCO Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 240130 (Resolution), [March 15, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

DORELCO Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 240130 (Resolution), [March 15, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M. 

 

Timeliness of Appeal; CBA provision on Voluntary Arbitration; Mediation

 

The 10-day period in Article 276 of the Labor Code should be understood as the time within which the adverse party may move for reconsideration from the voluntary arbitrator's decision. This provides an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the voluntary arbitrator's decision to seek recourse before resorting to the court. After the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice, by a petition for Review under Rule 43, of the Rules of Court. 

 

In 2012, the DORELCO Employees Union-ALU TUCP (Union) and Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Company) submitted a dispute regarding salary adjustments under the collective bargaining agreement to arbitration before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). During this period, several employees retired, some of whom refused to sign quitclaims to receive their retirement benefits pending the arbitration's resolution. The voluntary arbitrator eventually ruled in favor of the employees, ordering the Company to pay salary increases for the years 2010 and 2011. The Company complied with the ruling and paid the retirement benefits, including salary differentials, to the retired employees who had not signed quitclaims. 

Later, the Union sought arbitration again to determine if the retired employees who had signed quitclaims were entitled to the same salary adjustments. The arbitrator ruled against them, stating that the quitclaims barred their claim for salary increases. Dissatisfied, the Union appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the petition, citing procedural grounds and the finality of the arbitrator's decision. The CA denied reconsideration, prompting the Union to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The main issue is the timeliness of the Union's appeal from the voluntary arbitrator's decision. Union argues that the proper period to appeal to the CA should be 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Company maintains that the period to appeal is only 10 days from notice.

 

Whether or not the proper period to appeal to the CA should be 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 

YES. The Supreme Court granted the Union's petition. The Court clarified that the 10-day period mentioned in Article 276 of the Labor Code allows aggrieved parties to file a motion for reconsideration before appealing to the CA within 15 days.  Thus, the proper period to appeal the voluntary arbitrator's decision to the CA is 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The 10-day period in Article 276 of the Labor Code should be understood as the time within which the adverse party may move for reconsideration. After the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice. This interpretation is in line with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and provides an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the voluntary arbitrator's decision to seek recourse before resorting to the court. The Union filed its appeal within the prescribed period. CA erred in dismissing the petition solely on procedural grounds. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CA for a proper resolution on the merits.

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

PAL Maritime Corp. v. Dalisay, G.R. Nos. 218115 & 218170, [January 27, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

PAL Maritime Corp. v. Dalisay

 G.R. Nos. 218115 & 218170, [January 27, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Sickness allowance; Concealment of Seafarer's Illness; Fit-to-work Order; Three-day mandatory reporting requirement 

A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC.

 

Darwin Dalisay applied for shipboard employment with PAL Maritime Corporation in 2012. As part of the employment process, he underwent a pre-employment medical examination (PEME) where he declared no history of ailments except for a past "Varicocoelectomy" operation in 2003. After passing the examination, Darwin was hired as an able seaman and deployed aboard the vessel M/V Ornella. While on duty, he experienced sharp lower back pain and was eventually diagnosed with "low back pain secondary to Disc Protusion L4-L5 and L5-S1." This led to his repatriation to the Philippines for medical treatment. Subsequently, PAL Maritime discovered Darwin's previous claim for permanent disability benefits from another employer, Phil Transmarine Carriers, Inc., for which he was awarded US $60,000. PAL Maritime discontinued Darwin's medical treatment, alleging malicious concealment of a pre-existing illness. The NLRC ruled in favor of Darwin, citing his honest belief that he was already healed from his previous illness and finding his current ailment work-related. The CA partially granted PAL Maritime's petition, acknowledging Darwin's concealment of a pre-existing illness, and disqualifying him from permanent disability benefits. 

 

Whether Darwin Dalisay is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages despite his alleged fraudulent concealment of a pre-existing illness during the pre-employment medical examination. 

NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, emphasizing that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness during the PEME is disqualified from claiming any compensation and benefits under Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. Any finding that renders an issue on work-relatedness irrelevant since the premise which bars disability compensation is the fraudulent misrepresentation of a pre-existing disease and not the fact that it was pre-existing. The fact that Darwin passed the PEME cannot excuse his wilful concealment, nor can it preclude PAL Maritime from rejecting his claims. Taken together, Darwin is disqualified from all benefits including sickness allowance. Furthermore, attorney's fees were denied due to the lack of bad faith on PAL Maritime's part, as they were justified in rejecting Darwin's claims upon discovering his concealment.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr., G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. v. Gatchalian, Jr.

 G.R. No. 207507, [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illness; fit-to-work order; Disability benefits Denied despite Knee Injury 

Without a binding third-party doctor’s opinion, the findings of the company-designated physician shall prevail over the assessment made by the seafarer’s doctor.

 

Jose worked as Chief Cook for Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. (Doehle-Philman) and Doehle (IOM) Ltd. (Doehle) since 2002. He signed a nine-month contract to serve onboard M/V Independent Endeavor and experienced intense knee pain on December 4, 2006, due to an accident in August 2006. He underwent surgery and therapy, and by February 14, 2007, was declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor. In 2009, Jose filed a complaint for total disability benefits, citing a medical certificate diagnosing him with Traumatic Arthritis. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, which the NLRC affirmed. However, the CA granted Jose permanent total disability benefits, considering the work-relatedness of his condition and petitioners' failure to rehire him. 

 

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the finding of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that Jose was properly declared fit to work. 

YES. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The fit-to-work assessment by the company-designated doctor was timely and valid. Jose failed to contest it within the prescribed period or comply with the procedure for the appointment of a third doctor. The fit-to-work assessment made by the company-designated doctor should prevail over the assessment made by Jose's independent physician. The seafarer is bound by the findings of the company-designated doctor, who has the proper discernment, knowledge, experience, and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability. Thus, the company-designated doctor's assessment prevails. Moreover, Jose's failure to seek reemployment does not automatically entitle him to disability benefits. Non-reemployment of a seafarer does not automatically warrant the grant of total and permanent disability benefits. The seafarer must show that he sought employment but was turned down due to his disability. SC denied Jose's claim for permanent total disability benefits.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Blue Manila, Inc. v. Jamias, G.R. Nos. 230919 & 230932, [January 20, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Blue Manila, Inc. v. Jamias

 G.R. Nos. 230919 & 230932, [January 20, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Termination; Seafarer's Illness; Compensable medical repatriation; Three-day mandatory reporting requirement 

The employer's obligation under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC encompasses any illness complained of or diagnosed during the mandatory Post-Employment Medical Examination (PEME), even if it was not the immediate cause of repatriation. 

 

Petitioners Blue Manila, Inc. and/or Oceanwide Crew Manila, Inc. are the former and present manning agents of Wagenborg Crewmanagement BV (Wagenborg), owner of the vessel M/V Kwintebank. Seafarer Antonio R. Jamias worked for petitioners since 1998 and was rehired as Cook AB by Blue Manila in February 2011 under a 6-month contract covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and Wagenborg. Jamias alleged that while performing his duties on board the vessel in August 2011, he experienced abdominal and lower back pain, which eventually led to his medical repatriation and diagnosis of constipation, umbilical hernia, and degenerative disc disease. Jamias filed a claim for disability benefits. 

 

Whether the back ailment suffered by seafarer Antonio R. Jamias is compensable. 

YES. The Court held that the back ailment is compensable under the POEA-SEC. It emphasized that the mandatory post-employment medical examination (PEME) is not limited to the cause of repatriation and found that Jamias' lower back pain was neglected by the company-designated physician. The Court asserted that the employer's obligation under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC encompasses any illness discovered during the mandatory PEME, even if it was not the immediate cause of repatriation. It was found that while Jamias was medically repatriated due to umbilical hernia, the company-designated physician failed to address his lower back pain despite ordering an MRI of the lumbosacral spine shortly after his repatriation. The physician even issued a fit-to-work certification without a definite medical assessment. Therefore, the employer is liable for such illnesses under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC. 

Furthermore, the Court determined that Jamias' back ailment, specifically his degenerative disc disease, is listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A (21) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, as it was caused by his duties involving constant strenuous use of his lower spine. The failure of the company-designated physician to provide a complete and definite medical assessment for Jamias' back ailment led the Court to consider it as permanent and total disability, entitling Jamias to full disability benefits under the CBA.

 CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Laurente v. Helenar Construction, G.R. No. 243812, [July 7, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Laurente v. Helenar Construction

G.R. No. 243812, [July 7, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Illegal Dismissal; Security of tenure; Regular Employment; Strained Relationship test

The determination of regular employment is based on the nature of the job performed, not the employment contract.

 

Freddie B. Laurente, a painter, filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims against Helenar Construction and its owner Joel Argarin before the Labor Arbiter. Freddie claimed that he was a regular employee performing necessary and desirable work for the construction business of the respondents. He narrated that he had been continuously working as a painter for respondents' various projects since April 2012. However, on October 24, 2014, he was required to sign a labor contract for a period of three months, which he refused to sign. Subsequently, he was barred from entering the construction site.

Respondents argued that Freddie was not their regular employee but a subcontractor hired by William Bragais. They claimed that it is a common practice in the construction industry to hire subcontractors for specific works. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Freddie, declaring him as a regular employee and ordering respondents to pay him backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay. 

 

Whether Freddie is a regular employee of respondents. 

YES. The Court emphasized that the determination of regular employment is based on the nature of the job performed, not the employment contract. The test is the reasonable connection between the employee's activity and the usual business of the employer. In this case, Freddie's work as a painter was necessary and desirable for respondents' construction business, making him a regular employee.BThe Court rejected the argument that Freddie was a project employee, as there was no evidence that he was adequately informed of his status as a project employee at the time of his engagement. The labor contract presented by respondents was deemed an afterthought to deny Freddie the benefits of a regular employee. 

As a regular employee, Freddie can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes and with due process. The Court found that Freddie was illegally dismissed, and due to the strained relationship between the parties, awarded him separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Backwages, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay were also awarded to Freddie. The Court further granted attorney's fees and ordered the total monetary award to earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until it is fully paid.

 

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Salazar v. Simbajon, G.R. No. 202374, [June 30, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Salazar v. Simbajon

 G.R. No. 202374, [June 30, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.

 

Appeals in Labor cases; NLRC rules of procedure; Right to Appeal; Posting of Bond 

Compliance with the bond requirement for appeals involving monetary awards is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of the appeal and render the decision final and executory. However, the court acknowledges that in meritorious cases, the bond requirement may be relaxed if there is substantial compliance with the rules governing appeals.

 

Simbajon, et al. filed a Complaint against Q.S.O. Disco Pub & Restaurant and/or Abelardo Salazar, Quirino Ortega, and Lucia Bayang before the Labor Arbiter. They alleged unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, and non-payment of benefits. Simbajon, et al. claimed to have worked in various capacities for the restaurant for several years. They asserted that after forming a union, they were harassed by the management, leading to their alleged dismissal under the pretext of business closure due to bankruptcy. However, they disputed the financial stability of the restaurant. 

Abelardo denied any employment relationship with Simbajon, et al., claiming that Lucia and Quirino were the owners of the restaurant and he was merely the lessor of the building. The Labor Arbiter held Abelardo, Lucia, and Quirino liable for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. Abelardo appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and posted bonds to secure the appeal. The NLRC later exonerated Abelardo.  Simbajon, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that Abelardo's appeal was not perfected due to non-compliance with the bond requirement. 

 

Whether or not Abelardo Salazar's appeal to the NLRC was properly perfected.

YES. The Supreme Court held that Abelardo Salazar's appeal was properly perfected. It emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, subject to compliance with the requirements of the law. In labor cases, Article 223 of the Labor Code and NLRC rules mandate the posting of a cash or surety bond for appeals involving monetary awards. Compliance with this requirement is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. However, the Court recognized that the bond requirement may be relaxed in meritorious cases, provided there is substantial compliance with the rules. 

In this case, Abelardo substantially complied with the bond requirement by posting a total of P3,600,000.00 out of the total monetary award of P3,683,394.45, within the reglementary period. The Court also examined the employment relationship between Abelardo and Simbajon, et al. applying the four-fold test: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and power to control. It found no substantial evidence supporting an employment relationship between Abelardo and Simbajon, et al. Abelardo's evidence, including contracts, tax returns, and other documents, supported his claim of being the lessor of the restaurant rather than the employer. Therefore, the Court reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the NLRC's ruling, exonerating Abelardo Salazar from liability.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT