LABOR LAW DOCTRINES
In labor law, doctrines provide key legal principles or guidelines that help in the interpretation and application of labor statutes, regulations, and case law. These doctrines are crucial in settling labor disputes and in shaping the relationship between employers and employees.
​
These doctrines, along with others in labor jurisprudence, play a critical role in shaping the balance between the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers in the Philippines. They help ensure that the employment relationship remains fair, just, and respectful of the rights of all parties involved.
OVERVIEW
1. Management Prerogative Doctrine
This doctrine provides that employers have the inherent right to regulate and manage their business, including decisions on hiring, work assignments, employee discipline, and termination of employment. However, this prerogative is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to employee rights.
Example: An employer can reorganize or streamline its operations for economic reasons, but the termination of employees due to redundancy must comply with labor standards and statutory requirements, such as payment of separation pay.
2. Security of Tenure Doctrine
Under the security of tenure principle, employees cannot be dismissed without just or authorized causes as provided by law and without following due process. Any dismissal in violation of these requirements is considered illegal.
Example: An employee who has been dismissed without just cause or proper procedure can be reinstated with back wages.
3. Four-Fold Test (Employer-Employee Relationship)
The four-fold test determines the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The elements are:
​
1. The selection and engagement of the employee
2. The payment of wages
3. The power of dismissal
4. The power to control the employee’s conduct in the performance of the work (control test).
Example: If an individual performs work under the control and supervision of a company, the relationship is likely that of employer-employee, not independent contractor.
An independent contractor is an individual or entity hired to perform specific tasks or services under a contract but is not considered an employee. Independent contractors are distinct from regular employees in that they have more control over how, when, and where the work is done. They are generally not entitled to benefits provided to regular employees, such as overtime pay, health insurance, and social security contributions, unless otherwise specified in their agreement. The main characteristic of an independent contractor is that they maintain autonomy over the means and methods of performing the work.
Example:
A graphic designer hired by a company to create a logo on a per-project basis would be considered an independent contractor. The company would specify the deadline and the scope of the logo, but the designer decides how to complete the work, using their tools and methods, and is paid a fixed fee upon completion of the project. The designer does not receive regular benefits or employment perks from the company.
In labor cases, the quantum of evidence required to support a finding is substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is lower than the preponderance of evidence required in civil cases.
Example: In cases of dismissal due to serious misconduct, the employer needs to present substantial evidence proving that the employee’s actions warranted the termination.
6. Doctrine of Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s acts are such that they render continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, thus forcing the employee to resign. This can include cases of demotion, undue reduction in pay, or harassment.
Example: An employee who is demoted without just cause or subjected to hostile working conditions may claim constructive dismissal and seek remedies such as reinstatement or separation pay.
In cases of termination for just cause, the employee is entitled to two written notices:
1. The first notice must inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions that constitute the grounds for dismissal.
2. The second notice serves as a notice of termination after the employee has been given the opportunity to respond to the charges.
Example: If an employer fails to provide both notices, the dismissal is procedurally defective and considered illegal.
8. Doctrine of Strained Relations
This doctrine applies when the relationship between the employer and the employee has become so severely damaged that reinstatement is no longer feasible or beneficial. In such cases, separation pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
Example: In cases where hostility and mistrust between the parties have escalated during litigation, the court may grant separation pay instead of ordering the employee’s reinstatement.
The Globe Doctrine allows the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit based on the will of the employees, considering their interests, desires, and community of interests.
Example: In a company with multiple departments, employees from different departments may form a bargaining unit if they have similar job classifications and interests, even if the employer argues that they should be in separate units.
10. Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits
Once a benefit is given by the employer to employees, whether through company policy or practice, the benefit cannot be reduced, discontinued, or eliminated without violating the doctrine of non-diminution of benefits.
Example: If an employer has consistently granted 13th-month pay over and above the statutory requirement, it cannot unilaterally remove or reduce that benefit.
The principle of social justice underpins labor law, ensuring that laws are interpreted in favor of labor when doubts or conflicts arise. It seeks to afford protection to labor and promote fair treatment of workers.
Example: When ambiguities exist in interpreting employment contracts or labor laws, courts tend to rule in favor of the worker.
12. Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work Doctrine
This doctrine asserts that an employee is entitled to fair compensation for the work rendered, and conversely, the employer has the right to expect that an employee will deliver fair work for the wages they receive.
Example: An employer cannot refuse to pay wages for work performed by an employee on the ground of dissatisfaction with the work, unless valid disciplinary procedures have been followed.
Management Prerogative
The doctrine of management prerogative refers to the employer’s inherent right to regulate, direct, and control the operations of the business, as well as to manage its workforce, within the bounds of the law and with respect to employee rights. This doctrine is based on the principle that employers, being the owners or managers of the business, have the discretion to make decisions that affect their operations, including hiring, scheduling, work assignments, disciplinary measures, promotions, and even terminations.
Legal Basis and Scope
Management prerogative is grounded in the principle of free enterprise, which allows employers to make decisions that they deem beneficial to the business’s success, provided that these decisions comply with the applicable labor laws, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fairness and justice. Article 283 (now Article 298) of the Labor Code of the Philippines recognizes an employer’s right to terminate employees for just causes, such as serious misconduct or habitual neglect of duty (Labor Code of the Philippines, 2015).
However, management prerogative is not absolute. It is limited by the law, the provisions of existing contracts, and the duty to act in good faith and with fairness towards employees (C.A. Azucena, 2018). The exercise of management prerogative must not be used as a tool for oppression or abuse, and it must respect the workers’ rights to due process, equal protection, and humane conditions of work.
Jurisprudence on Management Prerogative
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle of management prerogative in various rulings, affirming that employers are entitled to manage their business as they see fit, so long as their actions do not violate the rights of employees or any statutory laws.
Right to Transfer
​
For instance, in San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union v. Ople (GR No. L-53515, 1984), the Court ruled that employers have the right to transfer employees in the interest of business efficiency, provided that the transfer is not done in bad faith or as a form of retaliation against the employee. The Court emphasized that this right to transfer is part of the broader concept of management prerogative (Azucena, 2018).
​
San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union v. Ople
GR No. L-53515, February 8, 1984
Facts:
San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (the union) filed a case against San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for alleged unfair labor practice. The union claimed that the company unjustly transferred certain employees to other positions, which it viewed as a violation of their rights and an act of retaliation due to union activities. The union asserted that the transfers were arbitrary and an abuse of management prerogative.
SMC, on the other hand, defended the transfers, stating that these were necessary for business efficiency and did not constitute unfair labor practices. It emphasized that the management has the inherent right to manage its business, including the discretion to transfer employees based on legitimate business considerations.
The case was brought before the Minister of Labor, Blas Ople, who initially ruled in favor of SMC, affirming that the transfer of employees was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative.
Issue:
Whether or not SMC’s transfer of its employees constituted an abuse of management prerogative and amounted to unfair labor practice.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Minister of Labor and ruled in favor of San Miguel Corporation. The Court held that the transfer of employees was within the scope of management prerogative, as long as the transfer is not used as a retaliatory measure or a means to discriminate against employees for engaging in union activities.
The Court explained that management prerogative includes the right to transfer employees to different positions or locations within the organization, especially if it is done in the interest of promoting business efficiency. The employer has the right to determine where employees will be most productive, provided the transfer is made in good faith, without violating labor laws, and with no ill motive to undermine the rights of the employees.
Doctrines/Key Points:
​
1. Management Prerogative: Employers have the inherent right to regulate all aspects of their business operations, which includes the right to transfer employees. This prerogative is essential to maintaining efficiency and ensuring the smooth functioning of the business.
2. Limitations on Management Prerogative: While employers have the right to transfer employees, this prerogative is not absolute. Transfers should not be done in bad faith, or as a form of punishment or retaliation against employees who engage in union activities or exercise their labor rights.
3. Fair and Legitimate Exercise: The Court emphasized that management prerogative must always be exercised in good faith. The employer’s decision must be based on valid business reasons, and the transfer should not result in undue hardship or be used to circumvent labor laws and employee rights.
Importance:
This case reaffirmed the doctrine of management prerogative in labor law. It highlights that while employers have broad discretion in managing their businesses, including transferring employees, this discretion is subject to limitations, particularly when it involves labor rights and the protection of workers from unfair treatment.
Conclusion:
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized management prerogative as an essential right of employers. However, it also established that this right must be exercised in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, balancing the employer’s right to manage the business and the employees’ right to fair treatment and protection from unfair labor practices.
​
Right to Discipline Employees
​
Additionally, in Abbott Laboratories Philippines v. Alcaraz (GR No. 192571, 2013), the Court recognized the employer’s right to discipline employees for valid reasons. However, it underscored the importance of due process, noting that any disciplinary action must be based on valid grounds and conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
​
Prerogative to Reorganize and Transfer Duties to Other Employees
​
Lugawe v. Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc.
G.R. No. 236161, January 25, 2023
Alma C. Lugawe was employed by Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc. (PCRI) as its Human Resources (HR) Manager. Lugawe alleged that PCRI committed acts that led to her constructive dismissal, such as removing certain HR functions from her office and transferring them to other departments. Lugawe claimed these actions were part of a scheme to force her to resign, which eventually led her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
PCRI, on the other hand, argued that Lugawe voluntarily resigned from her position and, after taking a sick leave, she failed to return to work. The company maintained that there was no constructive dismissal as Lugawe’s duties were merely reorganized as part of the company’s management prerogative, and her employment was not adversely affected.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Lugawe, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Lugawe then brought the case to the Supreme Court, asserting that her resignation was not voluntary but was the result of PCRI’s acts, which constituted constructive dismissal.
Issues:
​
1. Whether Lugawe was constructively dismissed by Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc.
​
2. Whether PCRI’s reorganization of Lugawe’s duties was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc. and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found that Lugawe was not constructively dismissed but instead voluntarily resigned from her position.
Doctrines/Key Points:
​
1. Management Prerogative in Reorganization:
The Court reiterated that an employer has the management prerogative to reorganize or transfer certain functions or duties of employees, provided that it is done in good faith, and there is no demotion in rank or diminution of pay or benefits. This prerogative includes making decisions that are in the best interest of the business, such as restructuring departments or reallocating responsibilities.
2. Constructive Dismissal:
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee is compelled to resign due to unjust or unreasonable actions by the employer, effectively making continued employment unbearable. The burden of proving constructive dismissal rests on the employee. In this case, Lugawe failed to present sufficient evidence that PCRI’s actions constituted constructive dismissal. The reorganization of duties, by itself, did not indicate bad faith or create an intolerable working condition.
3. Voluntary Resignation:
The Court ruled that Lugawe voluntarily resigned from her position and did not return to work after her approved sick leave. Her failure to return to work and lack of further communication with PCRI indicated abandonment, not constructive dismissal.
4. Employee’s Right vs. Employer’s Prerogative:
While employees have the right to security of tenure, this must be balanced against the employer’s right to exercise management prerogative. Employers are allowed to reorganize their workforce as long as such actions are not done in bad faith and do not result in unfair treatment of employees. Lugawe’s reassignment of duties did not amount to a violation of her rights as an employee.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Pacific Cebu Resort International, Inc.‘s reorganization of Lugawe’s duties was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Lugawe failed to prove constructive dismissal and instead demonstrated a case of voluntary resignation and job abandonment. Therefore, the CA’s decision in favor of PCRI was affirmed, and Lugawe’s petition was dismissed.
Limitations and Balancing with Employee Rights
While the employer’s right to exercise management prerogative is protected, it must always be balanced with the rights of employees. The Labor Code and the Constitution both protect workers’ rights to security of tenure, just compensation, and humane working conditions.
For instance, when it comes to termination or suspension, an employer must observe the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process (Labor Code, Article 297; Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz, 2013).
Moreover, management decisions must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. In the case of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC (GR No. L-74121, 1988), the Supreme Court ruled that while management prerogative allows employers to regulate working hours, the implementation of such policies must be reasonable and must not result in the undue deprivation of workers’ benefits or rights.
Conclusion
Management prerogative is a fundamental doctrine in Philippine labor law that allows employers to effectively run their businesses. However, its exercise must be within the parameters of the law, collective agreements, and principles of fairness. The balance between the prerogative of employers to manage and the rights of employees to fair treatment and due process remains a critical aspect of labor-management relations.
References
Azucena, C.A. (2018). The Labor Code with Comments and Cases. Rex Book Store.
Labor Code of the Philippines. (2015). Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended.
Security of Tenure
The doctrine of security of tenure is a fundamental principle in Philippine labor law, designed to protect employees from unjust or arbitrary dismissal. It ensures that workers cannot be dismissed from their employment except for just or authorized causes, as prescribed by law. This principle is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Labor Code of the Philippines, and reinforced by various judicial decisions.
Constitutional and Legal Basis:
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, under Article XIII, Section 3, explicitly guarantees the right of all workers to security of tenure, stating that workers shall not be removed from their positions without valid cause. Additionally, Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines states:
“In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by law.”
Doctrine of Security of Tenure:
The doctrine asserts that once an employee attains regular status, they enjoy security of tenure, which means they cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause, following the proper legal process. This concept distinguishes between regular employees, who have this protection, and other types of employees, such as probationary or casual employees, whose rights to tenure are more limited but still recognized within certain boundaries.
Just and Authorized Causes:
The Labor Code distinguishes between just causes for dismissal, which relate to the employee’s misconduct or performance, and authorized causes, which are based on the employer’s operational needs or financial situation. These are outlined in Articles 282-283 of the Labor Code.
​
1. Just Causes (Article 297 of the Labor Code) include:
​
• Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee.
• Gross and habitual neglect of duties.
• Fraud or willful breach of trust.
• Commission of a crime against the employer or their family.
​
2. Authorized Causes (Article 298-299) include:
​
• Installation of labor-saving devices.
• Redundancy.
• Retrenchment to prevent losses.
• Closure or cessation of operations.
​
Dumapis, et al. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (G.R. No. 204060, September 15, 2020)
​
Petitioners Moreno Dumapis, Francisco Liagao, and Elmo Tundagui, regular employees of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, were dismissed, which they claimed constituted illegal dismissal, as it was done without just or authorized cause.
Lepanto argued that the petitioners had abandoned their jobs by failing to report for work, justifying their dismissal as a valid form of neglect of duty under the Labor Code.
However, the petitioners denied the allegation of abandonment, insisting that their dismissal was without just cause and lacked due process. They asserted that their termination was arbitrary and lacked any valid reason, violating their right to security of tenure.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners—Moreno Dumapis, Francisco
Issue:
Whether the dismissed employees are entitled to backwages and other monetary claims, including salary increases and benefits that they would have received had they not been illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners—Moreno Dumapis, Francisco Liagao, and Elmo Tundagui—because the employer, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners had indeed abandoned their jobs. Abandonment as a just cause for dismissal requires the employer to show both the employee’s failure to report for work for an extended period and the clear intention to sever the employment relationship. Lepanto failed to meet this burden of proof.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners were not afforded due process in their dismissal, as they were terminated without proper notice and opportunity to explain their side. This lack of due process, combined with the absence of just cause for dismissal, led the Court to declare that the petitioners were illegally dismissed. The ruling emphasized the petitioners’ right to security of tenure, which protects employees from arbitrary or unjust termination. Consequently, the Court upheld the award of backwages and separation pay to the petitioners.
​
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to full backwages, separation pay, and other benefits, which included salary increases and benefits that would have accrued to them had they not been illegally dismissed.
Reasoning:
​
The Court emphasized the doctrine of security of tenure, which protects employees from being dismissed without just or authorized cause. It is a constitutional guarantee provided under Article 279 of the Labor Code. In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits.
The Court clarified that in computing backwages and other benefits, employees are entitled to the salary increases and benefits that are guaranteed under law, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), employment contracts, company policies, and other similar sources. These increases and benefits are considered part of the employee’s compensation and must be included in the computation of backwages.
However, the Court noted that merit-based increases, which depend on factors such as performance or management discretion, are not automatically included in the computation. These types of increases require actual performance to be evaluated, and since the dismissed employees did not have the opportunity to perform during their illegal dismissal, they are not entitled to merit-based increases.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the petitioners’ right to receive all salary increases and benefits that were guaranteed under law, CBA, and company policy from the time of their illegal dismissal until the finality of the decision.
These awards were also subject to legal interest. The Court underscored that security of tenure is a vital right of employees, and any dismissal without due cause entitles the employee to backwages and other monetary awards.
Pulong v. Super Manufacturing Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 247819, October 14, 2019
​
Alberto Pulong, a regular employee of Super Manufacturing Inc. (SMI), was dismissed after a dispute regarding the company’s policy on tardiness. Pulong, who had worked for the company for several years, was terminated due to alleged habitual tardiness and violation of company rules. He was issued a notice of termination on these grounds.
Pulong contested the dismissal, claiming it was without just cause and constituted illegal dismissal. He argued that while he was occasionally late, his tardiness was not habitual and did not reach a level justifying termination. He also claimed that the company failed to observe the due process required in dismissing an employee.
SMI, on the other hand, insisted that Pulong’s repeated tardiness and failure to comply with company policies on time management were valid causes for termination under the Labor Code, specifically for gross and habitual neglect of duties. They maintained that Pulong’s termination was justified and followed company policies.
Issue:
Whether or not Pulong’s dismissal was valid and whether it violated his right to security of tenure.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alberto Pulong and found that his dismissal was illegal.
Reasoning:
1. Security of Tenure: The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of security of tenure, which guarantees that a regular employee can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes, as outlined in the Labor Code. An employer cannot arbitrarily terminate an employee without sufficient grounds.
2. Lack of Just Cause: The Court ruled that SMI failed to establish “just cause” for Pulong’s dismissal. The alleged habitual tardiness was not sufficiently proven to justify termination. The Court noted that while Pulong was tardy on certain occasions, his tardiness was neither habitual nor serious enough to warrant dismissal. Under labor laws, habitual neglect of duty requires evidence of gross and continuous failure to perform work obligations, which was not demonstrated in this case.
3. Violation of Due Process: The Court also held that SMI failed to comply with the procedural requirements for dismissal. The law requires that employees be given notice and a chance to explain their side before being terminated. SMI did not provide Pulong with a proper opportunity to defend himself, thus violating his right to due process.
4. Illegal Dismissal and Award: Since the company was unable to justify Pulong’s termination, the Court declared the dismissal illegal and ordered SMI to pay him backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and other monetary benefits that he was entitled to under the law.
Key Takeaway:
The case reinforces the principle of security of tenure in Philippine labor law, which protects regular employees from being dismissed without just or authorized cause. An employer must prove that the termination is based on valid grounds and must also ensure that the proper procedures are followed before terminating an employee. Failure to do so renders the dismissal illegal, as was the case with Alberto Pulong.
​
Procedural Due Process:
Security of tenure also implies that employers must follow procedural due process before dismissing an employee. The Labor Code mandates a two-notice rule:
1. Notice of the specific charges: This must be served to the employee, informing them of the cause for their potential dismissal.
2. Notice of termination: This should be issued after the employee is given an opportunity to be heard and after the employer has determined that dismissal is justified.
Failure to observe due process in dismissal cases, even if the dismissal is valid, exposes the employer to liability for damages or compensation.
Importance of Security of Tenure:
The doctrine of security of tenure is critical in protecting employees’ rights and ensuring job stability. It prevents employers from arbitrarily terminating employees and fosters a sense of fairness and justice in employment relationships. It also reinforces the constitutional principle of social justice, which aims to reduce inequalities in wealth and power between employers and workers.
Security of tenure is not only a right for regular employees but also applies to other types of employment in specific ways.
For probationary employees, while they may be terminated if they fail to meet the reasonable standards set during their probationary period, the standards must be made known at the time of hiring (Labor Code, Article 281).
For project and seasonal workers, their employment is tied to the duration of a specific project or season, but they cannot be dismissed without cause during the agreed period (DOLE, 2021).
Summary:
The doctrine of security of tenure is a cornerstone of Philippine labor law, aimed at ensuring that employees cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause and adherence to due process. It underscores the importance of fair treatment in employment, thereby fostering a balanced relationship between employers and workers.
Failure to comply with this principle results in serious legal and financial consequences for employers, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized in its decisions.
​
Independent Contractor
In Philippine labor law, the classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors has significant implications for their rights and obligations under the Labor Code.
While employees are granted specific labor protections such as security of tenure, minimum wage, and social security benefits, independent contractors are generally not covered by these protections. Understanding the distinction between employees and independent contractors is important for both employers and workers.
Definition of Independent Contractors
An independent contractor is someone who is hired to perform a particular service or work for an agreed-upon fee but is not subject to the control and direction of the employer regarding the means or methods by which the work is to be done. Independent contractors operate under a contract for services, not a contract of employment.
Unlike regular employees, independent contractors enjoy more autonomy and independence over how, when, and where they perform their work. They also assume responsibility for their business-related expenses, unlike employees, whose work-related costs are typically borne by the employer.
Legal Framework
While the Labor Code does not directly define “independent contractor,” its provisions primarily cover employees and the employer-employee relationship. However, the distinction is made in various rulings by the Supreme Court, which determines whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee based on the following tests:
Distinguishing Characteristics:
1. Control Test – This is the most important criterion used to determine the relationship between the worker and the employer. If the employer has the authority to control not only the result of the work but also the means and methods by which it is done, then the worker is considered an employee. If, however, the worker exercises more control over the method, manner, and time of doing the work, he or she is more likely an independent contractor.
2. Economic Realities or Dependency Test – This test considers the degree of economic dependence of the worker on the employer. If the worker relies on the employer for financial support and the continuation of employment, then the worker is likely an employee. Independent contractors, on the other hand, often work for various clients and are not economically dependent on one employer.
3. Contractual Relationship – An independent contractor enters into a contract for services that specifies the work to be done and the agreed compensation. It is typically for a fixed period or project-based, as opposed to the continuous, indefinite nature of an employee-employer relationship.
4. Performance of Specific Tasks – Independent contractors typically perform a specific task or job (e.g., construction work, consultancy) as opposed to employees who are engaged in the usual business of the employer.
5. Freedom to Delegate – Independent contractors are generally free to delegate or subcontract the work to others, as opposed to employees who must personally perform their tasks unless otherwise permitted by the employer.
Rights and Benefits of Independent Contractors
Independent contractors are generally not entitled to the same rights and benefits under the Labor Code as employees. However, they are entitled to some rights under other laws, such as:
​
Protection from non-payment of agreed compensation: If an independent contractor is not paid for their services, they may file a civil suit for breach of contract.
Social Security Benefits: While independent contractors are not automatically entitled to SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG benefits like employees, they can voluntarily register and make contributions to avail of such benefits.
Taxation: Independent contractors are typically responsible for paying their taxes, as they are considered self-employed.
Labor Code Protections Not Available to Independent Contractors:
1. Security of Tenure – Independent contractors do not enjoy protection against arbitrary dismissal as employees do. They can terminate their contracts at any time, subject to the terms stipulated in their contracts.
2. Leaves and Benefits – Independent contractors are not entitled to paid sick leave, vacation leave, maternity leave, or other similar benefits.
3. Overtime Pay – Independent contractors are not entitled to overtime pay, as they are not bound by the working hours set by the employer.
Employer’s Liabilities
Even though independent contractors are not subject to the same labor law provisions as employees, employers can still be liable for certain acts or omissions that affect the contractor’s rights or the safety of the work environment.
Employers must be cautious and ensure that independent contractors are treated as such under the law, as misclassification may result in legal complications.
​
Summary:
The distinction between employees and independent contractors is significant under Philippine labor law, affecting the rights and benefits to which the worker is entitled. While independent contractors enjoy more autonomy in their work arrangements, they also bear greater responsibility for their financial affairs and are not afforded the same legal protections as employees under the Labor Code.
Employers must carefully classify their workers to avoid legal complications, while workers must ensure they understand their rights and obligations based on their classification. Misclassification of workers can lead to disputes and legal repercussions.
​
​
Escauriaga, et al. v. Fitness First, Phil., Inc.
G.R. No. 266552, January 22, 2024-01-22
Petitioners, a group of fitness trainers, filed a complaint against Fitness First Philippines for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages. They were engaged by the company as independent contractors under service agreements. Fitness First contended that the petitioners were not regular employees but were independent contractors, and therefore, the company was not liable for their claims.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners were employees of Fitness First, as they claimed, or independent contractors, as contended by the employer.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were indeed employees and not independent contractors, applying the Four-Fold Test and the Control Test. Although the petitioners were engaged under service agreements labeled as independent contracts, the Court determined that the actual working conditions showed that Fitness First exercised control over the petitioners’ work methods, schedules, and standards of performance.
The Court found that despite the labels used in their contracts, the petitioners were economically dependent on the company, receiving wages, being supervised, and having their work regulated by the employer.
The Court emphasized that the true nature of the relationship between the parties is determined by the factual circumstances of control and dependence, not the terms of the contract. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits and protections of employment law, including the right to security of tenure and protection from illegal dismissal.
Doctrine:
This case reaffirms the application of the Four-Fold Test in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The Court emphasizes that the labels used in contracts do not control the classification; rather, the actual work relationship—focusing on control and economic dependence—is the decisive factor.
​
Mendaros, et al. v. Lazada E-Services Phils., Inc.
G.R. No. 257821, August 19, 2024
​
The petitioners, a group of motorcycle riders, were hired by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. under Independent Contractor Agreements to deliver goods to customers. They were engaged as “independent contractors” by the company, but they filed a complaint alleging they were regular employees who had been unjustly dismissed without due process. They argued that they were entitled to the benefits and protections afforded to employees under Philippine labor laws, including reinstatement, backwages, and other employee benefits.
Lazada countered that the petitioners were independent contractors, not employees, and therefore, the company was not liable for their claims of illegal dismissal.
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners were employees of Lazada or independent contractors.
2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the rights and benefits of employees, including protection against illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that they were regular employees of Lazada and not independent contractors. The Court applied the Four-Fold Test (selection and engagement of the worker, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and control over the worker’s conduct) and the economic dependence test to determine the nature of the working relationship between the petitioners and Lazada.
The Court found that Lazada directly hired the petitioners, paid them a daily wage, had the power to dismiss them, and exercised significant control over their work, including how and when deliveries were to be made. Despite the use of “Independent Contractor Agreements,” the Court held that the petitioners were economically dependent on Lazada for their livelihood, and their work was essential to Lazada’s business operations.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioners were regular employees of Lazada, entitled to the protections of Philippine labor law, including security of tenure, and were wrongfully dismissed. Lazada was ordered to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions with full backwages, allowances, and other benefits.
Doctrine:
This case reaffirms that the true nature of the relationship between the parties is not determined by the contractual labels used (e.g., “independent contractor”), but by the actual working conditions.
The Four-Fold Test and the Economic Dependence Test are key in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. The Court emphasized that workers who are economically dependent on a company and under its control, even if initially hired under the guise of independent contracts, are entitled to the full protection of labor laws.
Globe Doctrine
The Globe Doctrine refers to a legal principle articulated in the case of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 95348, May 29, 1992). This doctrine establishes that an employee’s continuous service, despite a lapse of time or interruptions, should be recognized as part of their length of service for purposes of computation of benefits and entitlements under labor law, specifically when determining eligibility for regularization, seniority, and other benefits like retirement pay and severance pay.
Key Points of the Globe Doctrine:
1. Regularization of Employment:
The Globe Doctrine emphasizes that when an employee has been continuously performing the same tasks and has been under the control of the employer, they should be considered a regular employee, regardless of the nature of their employment contract (e.g., probationary or project-based).
This principle aims to prevent employers from arbitrarily designating employees as “contractual” or “temporary” to evade the obligations associated with regular employment.
2. Continuous Service:
The doctrine asserts that interruptions in the service of an employee, such as breaks between employment contracts or temporary layoffs, should not necessarily disrupt the continuity of their service.
The employee’s work experience should be accumulated, even if there are gaps in employment, as long as the employment relationship is not formally terminated, or the interruption is for a short duration.
3. Seniorities and Benefits:
The Globe Doctrine has implications for employees’ entitlements to benefits that are based on length of service, such as:
​
• Retirement benefits
• Severance pay
• Seniority rights
An employee who has worked continuously, even under different contracts or temporary arrangements, may still be entitled to these benefits if they satisfy the conditions for regular employment, even if there were breaks between contracts.
4. Protection of Workers’ Rights:
The doctrine protects workers from being arbitrarily classified as “non-regular” to deprive them of the benefits that regular employees are entitled to under the law. It serves to ensure that the nature of employment is not manipulated to circumvent employee rights.
Application of the Globe Doctrine:
• The Globe Doctrine applies in cases where employees have been working for the same employer over a prolonged period, doing the same kind of work and under the employer’s control, regardless of whether the employee’s contract was initially designated as temporary, project-based, or probationary.
• It helps to address the issue of “job-hopping” or “contractualization” where employers attempt to avoid the regularization process, which entitles employees to certain benefits, by engaging in the continuous rehiring of employees under new contracts instead of converting them into regular employees.
Example:
In a situation where an employee has been working under a series of project-based contracts for several years but has been doing the same work continuously for the employer, the Globe Doctrine could be invoked to argue that the employee should be deemed a regular employee. As such, they would be entitled to benefits based on their accumulated length of service, even if the contracts were renewed or interrupted intermittently.
Conclusion:
The Globe Doctrine is a significant protection for employees in the Philippines, as it reinforces the principle that workers should not be deprived of benefits and entitlements due to artificial interruptions in their service or employer attempts to categorize them as non-regular workers.
It emphasizes the substantive nature of the employer-employee relationship over formal classifications, ensuring that workers who have worked continuously for an employer enjoy the full benefits of regularization.
​
​
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC and Imelda Salazar
G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992
Imelda Salazar was hired by Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMCR) as a telephone operator under a series of fixed-term contracts. After several renewals of her contract, the company stopped renewing her contract, effectively ending her employment.
Salazar then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that she had been employed continuously for several years and had been doing the same tasks, making her a regular employee entitled to the benefits of regularization, such as security of tenure, separation pay, and other employment benefits.
Issue:
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not Salazar should be considered a regular employee despite being employed under successive fixed-term contracts, and whether her dismissal was legal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Imelda Salazar, stating that she was a regular employee of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation. The Court emphasized that the employment status of an individual is determined not by the label assigned to their contract but by the nature of their work and the duration of their service.
The Court cited the Globe Doctrine, which holds that employees who continuously perform the same work under the control and direction of the employer, even under successive contracts, are considered regular employees.
The Court concluded that Salazar’s employment relationship with GMCR was continuous, despite the fixed-term nature of her contracts. Her work, which was essential to the operation of the company, qualified her as a regular employee, as her duties were not temporary or seasonal. Therefore, the dismissal was illegal, and she was entitled to her benefits, such as reinstatement and back wages.
Doctrine:
​
1. Regular Employment: Employees who perform tasks that are necessary and desirable to the business of the employer, and whose services are continuous and uninterrupted, are regular employees, regardless of whether their contract is labeled as fixed-term or project-based.
2. Globe Doctrine: The case reiterates the Globe Doctrine, which dictates that employees engaged for tasks that are necessary for the business operation and who have rendered continuous service, even under successive contracts, are entitled to the rights and benefits of regular employees, including security of tenure and other employment benefits.
3. Continuous Service: A worker is considered a regular employee even if their employment was renewed several times on a fixed-term basis, provided that their job function and the employer’s control over their work remain consistent.
​
Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits
This doctrine is a fundamental principle designed to protect employees from the reduction or removal of benefits that are already provided or are mandated by law, collective bargaining agreements (CBA), or company policies. It ensures that once an employer voluntarily grants certain benefits, it cannot later reduce or take away those benefits, especially if such benefits have become established over time.
This doctrine is rooted in the concept that once an employer has conferred certain benefits to their employees, whether through policy, practice, or agreement, these benefits become part of the employees’ lawful expectations and are considered part of their compensation package. The right to these benefits is protected under the principle of contractual rights, and the employer cannot unilaterally diminish them without violating the law.
Legal Basis
The Labor Code of the Philippines does not explicitly contain a provision on the non-diminution of benefits, but the doctrine has been developed through jurisprudence and judicial interpretations. Key case law and decisions of the Supreme Court have solidified the principle, specifically regarding benefits granted by the employer to employees that are already in practice or that are required by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Principles of the Doctrine
1. Protection of Benefits: If an employer has granted benefits that are more favorable than those mandated by law or the CBA, these cannot be diminished or reduced unless the employee consents or unless there is a legal basis for the reduction (e.g., economic difficulties). The benefit is considered part of the employment contract, and any reduction without due process violates the employee’s rights.
2. Establishment of a Benefit: The benefit can either be established by law, CBA, company policy, or an established practice. Once it has been regularly granted and becomes part of the employee’s compensation package, it is presumed to be a right that cannot be reduced without a valid reason.
3. Precedents and Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has ruled several times in favor of the non-diminution of benefits, emphasizing that once benefits are provided by the employer—whether voluntarily or through agreement—they cannot be withdrawn or reduced without due process, and only in limited circumstances can they be altered (e.g., mutual agreement between the employer and the employee, or due to legal changes or dire economic necessity).
4. General Rule vs. Exception:
General Rule: Employers cannot reduce or diminish benefits that were previously given to employees.
Exception: Employers may alter or remove benefits in very specific circumstances, such as when they are clearly based on the employer’s discretion or if there is a mutual agreement, or if the law permits it. Additionally, economic reasons can sometimes justify the suspension or reduction of benefits but must be done with caution and legal compliance.
​​
Exceptions to the Doctrine
1. Mutual Agreement: If there is mutual consent between the employer and the employees, then benefits can be altered or reduced. This typically happens in the context of negotiations, such as during a collective bargaining process.
2. Legal or Regulatory Changes: If a law or government regulation mandates the reduction of benefits (e.g., changes in tax laws or labor laws), then the employer may adjust the benefits accordingly.
3. Economic Necessity: In cases of severe financial difficulty where the employer’s survival is at stake, benefits may be reduced temporarily. However, this must be done with due process, including consultation with employees or their representatives, and there must be clear evidence of the economic necessity of such actions.
Summary
​
The Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits serves to safeguard employees’ rights to the benefits they have been granted by their employer. This principle is crucial in ensuring that workers are not unfairly deprived of their rightful entitlements, especially those that have been provided through longstanding practice, contract, or agreement. It helps to maintain a sense of security and fairness in the workplace, promoting the stability of the employment relationship by preventing arbitrary or unjust actions by employers that would undermine employees’ benefits.
​
Limcoma Labor Organization (LLO)-PLAC v. Limcoma Multi-Purpose Coop. (Limcoma)
G.R. No. 239746, November 29, 2021
​
Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Limcoma) and its employees, represented by Limcoma Labor Organization (LLO)-PLAC, were involved in a dispute over the reduction of the employees’ benefits. The LLO-PLAC claimed that Limcoma had unlawfully reduced the employees’ benefits, specifically the “13th-month pay” and other monetary benefits, which had been granted as part of the established practice.
The employees argued that the benefits had become part of their contractual entitlement and that any reduction violated the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits, which protects employees from the arbitrary withdrawal or reduction of benefits that have been regularly provided.
Limcoma, on the other hand, contended that the reductions were due to financial difficulties the cooperative was facing, and it cited these as the reason for the modification of the benefits. Limcoma further argued that the cooperative had to adjust the benefits to survive and remain operational, asserting that the reductions were due to the economic realities faced by the organization.
Issue:
The central issue in this case was whether Limcoma could lawfully reduce the benefits provided to its employees despite the employees’ claim that these benefits had become a right under the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, upholding the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of employees to the benefits they had come to expect and rely on as part of their compensation package. The Court cited the rule that once a benefit has been granted regularly, it becomes part of the employees’ legitimate expectations and cannot be reduced or eliminated unilaterally by the employer, absent valid justification.
The Court also made it clear that the employer’s financial difficulty does not automatically provide sufficient grounds for reducing or eliminating benefits without due process.
While financial hardship could be a valid reason to review benefits, it cannot serve as a blanket justification for diminishing employees’ benefits without clear evidence and proper negotiation with the affected workers or their representatives. The employer must demonstrate that the reductions are necessary, reasonable, and done in good faith to ensure the cooperative’s survival without unfairly prejudicing the rights of the employees.
Additionally, the Court noted that the reduction of benefits without the consent of the employees or without proper consultation, and in the absence of compelling reasons, constitutes a violation of the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that Limcoma’s action to reduce the employees’ benefits was unlawful. The cooperative was ordered to restore the reduced benefits, emphasizing the principle that once benefits are granted and have been regularly provided, they cannot be arbitrarily diminished without valid justification. The decision reinforced the protection of employees’ rights to the benefits that have become established and guaranteed through practice, agreements, or company policies. The case serves as a reminder that financial difficulties do not automatically give employers the right to unilaterally reduce employee benefits.
​
Philippine Mining Development Corporation, et al. v. Aguinaldo, et al.
G.R. No. 245273, July 27, 2021
The case involved a dispute between the Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC) and its employees, represented by Aguinaldo et al. The employees claimed that the PMDC had reduced or failed to provide certain benefits that had been regularly granted to them under company policy and practice. Among these benefits were bonuses, allowances, and other incentives that had been part of the employees’ compensation package for years.
The PMDC argued that due to financial constraints, it was forced to reduce these benefits to maintain its operations. The company cited its economic difficulties and the need to streamline its expenses as the primary reason for the reduction of benefits.
The employees, however, contended that the benefits were already established as part of their regular compensation, and any reduction violated the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits. They argued that the benefits had been granted regularly and had become a part of their legitimate expectation, and therefore, could not be reduced without valid justification or due process.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was whether the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits was violated by the PMDC’s reduction of the employees’ benefits despite the employer’s claim of financial difficulties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees, applying the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits. The Court emphasized that once a benefit has been granted regularly, it becomes part of the employees’ legitimate expectations, and such benefits cannot be diminished or withheld unilaterally by the employer. The doctrine protects employees from arbitrary actions that would adversely affect their established compensation package.
The Court acknowledged the financial difficulties faced by the PMDC but clarified that the mere existence of economic challenges does not automatically justify the reduction or withholding of employee benefits. The employer must demonstrate that the reduction is necessary, reasonable, and done in good faith to address the financial issue, without depriving employees of the benefits that have been previously and regularly provided.
The Court further noted that the employer’s financial situation must not be used as an excuse to unilaterally cut benefits, particularly when those benefits have been established as part of the employees’ compensation through company practice or policy. It is not sufficient to simply claim financial difficulty; there must be concrete evidence of the necessity of such reductions, and proper consultation with the employees or their representatives must occur.
As the PMDC failed to establish the necessity and reasonableness of the benefit reductions and did not demonstrate that the reductions were done in good faith, the Court ruled that the Doctrine of Non-Diminution of Benefits was violated.
​
Doctrine of Strained Relations
This doctrine allows an employer to dismiss an employee even if there is no just cause for termination, when it is deemed that the continuation of the employer-employee relationship has become untenable due to the breakdown of trust and confidence between the two parties. This doctrine provides an exception to the general rule that dismissal must be based on a just or authorized cause under the Labor Code.
Key Points of the Doctrine of Strained Relations:
1. Purpose:
The doctrine is designed to address situations where the working relationship between the employer and employee has become so strained that it makes it impossible for the employee to continue performing effectively, even if no specific acts of misconduct have occurred. This can occur due to disagreements, personal conflicts, or loss of trust.
2. Nature of the Doctrine:
It is a recognition of the fact that an employer-employee relationship is built on trust and mutual respect. When this trust is eroded to the point that the employer believes they cannot continue to work with the employee effectively, it may justify dismissal even without a specific act of misconduct or failure to perform duties.
3. Applicability:
The doctrine is typically invoked in cases of employee misconduct or personal conflicts where the employer no longer believes the employee is capable of carrying out their duties due to a breakdown in the professional relationship. Examples may include instances of unresolved disputes between the parties or where a loss of confidence in the employee’s performance or behavior is evident.
4. Limitations:
While the doctrine allows for dismissal in cases where the relationship has become untenable, it is not a blanket rule. The employer must still observe due process in dismissing the employee, even under the doctrine of strained relations. This means the employer must provide the employee with the two-notice rule, which includes:
​
• A notice to explain the reasons for the intended dismissal.
• A hearing or opportunity for the employee to present a defense.
• A final notice of dismissal, if warranted.
5. Precedent:
This doctrine is often applied in cases where there is no clear just cause for termination (e.g., serious misconduct or neglect of duty) but the relationship has deteriorated to a point where it affects the work environment. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine in several cases to justify dismissal on grounds other than misconduct.
6. Security of Tenure:
Even though the doctrine of strained relations allows dismissal, the employee’s right to security of tenure is still protected by law. This means that the employer must not use strained relations as an excuse for arbitrary or unjust dismissals. The termination must still meet certain standards, ensuring fairness and justness in the process.
​​
G.R. No. 236020 | January 8, 2020
​
Josephine P. Katando was employed as a machine operator by Papertech, Inc. She was dismissed from her position after a series of disputes and a prior litigation between her and the company. Katando claimed that her dismissal was illegal, as it was not based on just or authorized causes under the Labor Code. In response, Papertech argued that her termination was valid and based on business exigency.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Katando, ordering her reinstatement with backwages. However, Papertech appealed, arguing that reinstating Katando was not possible due to the strained relationship between her and the company, which had been exacerbated by the previous disputes.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision for reinstatement but did not consider the strained relations doctrine. Papertech then brought the case before the Supreme Court, raising the issue of strained relations and requesting that separation pay be awarded instead of reinstatement.
Issue:
Whether the doctrine of strained relations can be invoked to deny reinstatement and instead grant separation pay in cases of illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Papertech, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstating the NLRC’s ruling to grant Katando separation pay instead of reinstatement.
The Court emphasized that while the right to reinstatement is a key protection under labor law, there are exceptions. One such exception is the doctrine of strained relations, which allows the denial of reinstatement when the employer and employee relationship has been irreparably damaged to the point where reinstatement is no longer feasible.
The Court clarified that this doctrine can be applied even if the employee does not occupy a position of trust and confidence. In this case, the protracted conflict and legal battles between Katando and Papertech were sufficient to invoke the strained relations doctrine.
While reinstatement is the general rule in illegal dismissal cases, the Court recognized that when the relationship between the employer and the employee has been significantly damaged, reinstatement may not be appropriate. Instead, the employee may be entitled to separation pay, which compensates the employee for the illegal termination while avoiding further tension between the parties.
Thus, the Court upheld the grant of separation pay to Katando, rather than reinstating her to her previous position.
Legal Principles:
1. Strained Relations Doctrine – The Court clarified that this doctrine can be invoked in cases of illegal dismissal even if the employee does not hold a position of trust. The existence of a prolonged conflict or litigation between the employer and employee may justify the denial of reinstatement and the award of separation pay instead.
2. Reinstatement and Separation Pay – The general rule is that an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement. However, when the strained relations between the employer and employee make reinstatement impractical, separation pay may be granted as an alternative.
3. Employee Rights in Illegal Dismissal – The case reaffirms the importance of upholding workers’ rights to be protected from unjust termination, while also recognizing that in certain cases, the strained relations doctrine may serve to prevent further complications for both parties.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that the strained relations doctrine was applicable in this case, given the protracted conflicts between Papertech and Katando. As a result, instead of reinstating Katando, the Court awarded her separation pay as compensation for her illegal dismissal. This decision highlights the flexibility of labor law, where the protection of workers’ rights is balanced with the realities of strained employer-employee relationships.
​​
Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Daguiso
G.R. No. 217970 | June 17, 2020
​
Marie Jean Daguiso was employed by Nippon Express Philippines Corporation (NEPC) until her dismissal in 2014. Daguiso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that her termination was not based on a just or authorized cause.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in her favor, but the company invoked the doctrine of strained relations to argue that reinstating her would be impossible due to the breakdown of trust between the employee and employer. As a result, the NLRC denied her reinstatement, though it granted backwages and other benefits.
Daguiso appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC’s decision and ordered her immediate reinstatement. The Court of Appeals found that the strained relations doctrine did not apply in this case, as NEPC had failed to show sufficient evidence to prove that the relationship had truly become untenable.
Issue:
Whether the doctrine of strained relations justifies the denial of reinstatement in cases of illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of Marie Jean Daguiso. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of strained relations may be invoked only in exceptional cases where there is credible evidence to prove that the relationship between the employee and employer has truly become untenable.
In this case, the Court found that NEPC’s argument of strained relations was not substantiated by sufficient proof. Therefore, the dismissal of Daguiso was deemed illegal, and the Court ordered her reinstatement to her previous position with full backwages and other benefits.
Legal Principles:
1. Strained Relations Doctrine – While the doctrine allows employers to dismiss employees in cases where continued employment would result in an irreparably damaged working relationship, it requires evidence to justify its application. The mere assertion of strained relations is not sufficient; the employer must provide substantial proof that the relationship has become untenable.
2. Reinstatement Despite Strained Relations – In the absence of sufficient evidence showing that the relationship is beyond repair, the employee is entitled to reinstatement, as per the provisions of the Labor Code regarding illegal dismissal. The employee’s right to security of tenure remains intact, and reinstatement is preferred unless there is a valid and substantiated claim for non-reinstatement under the doctrine of strained relations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which ordered the reinstatement of Daguiso to her former position, and the payment of backwages and benefits. The Court held that the employer’s claim of strained relations was insufficient to justify non-reinstatement, and it reiterated that the doctrine of strained relations must be proven with concrete evidence.
​
Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU v. Musahamat Farms, Inc.
G.R. No. 240184 | July 6, 2022
​
Musahamat Workers Labor Union-1-ALU (the Union) filed a complaint against Musahamat Farms, Inc. (the Company) for illegal dismissal of its members. The employees were dismissed after a labor dispute between the Union and the Company.
The employees claimed that their dismissal was based on union activities, thus violating their right to self-organization and leading to illegal dismissal. The Union also alleged that the dismissals were not based on just causes as required under the Labor Code.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the Union, finding that the dismissals were indeed illegal. The NLRC noted that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the dismissal was based on just causes. However, the Company invoked the doctrine of strained relations to justify the non-reinstatement of the dismissed employees.
The company claimed that the working relationship had been severely damaged and reinstating the employees would be detrimental to the company’s operations.
The NLRC ordered the payment of backwages and benefits but did not grant reinstatement based on the strained relations doctrine. The Union appealed, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the doctrine of strained relations justifies the denial of reinstatement in a case of illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Union and reversed the decision of the NLRC. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of strained relations should not be applied indiscriminately.
It clarified that the strained relations doctrine can only be invoked in exceptional cases where there is concrete evidence showing that the relationship between the employer and employee has been irreparably damaged to the point where reinstatement would no longer be viable.
In this case, the Court found that the Company failed to provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that the relationship had deteriorated to such a degree that reinstatement was no longer feasible. The mere existence of a labor dispute was not enough to invoke the strained relations doctrine.
The Court also reiterated that the right to security of tenure is a constitutional protection, and unless there is clear evidence of the impossibility of reinstatement due to irreparable damage to the relationship, employees should be reinstated to their previous positions.
The Court ruled that the employees were entitled to reinstatement, with full backwages, benefits, and allowances from the time of their dismissal until the finality of the decision.
Legal Principles:
1. Strained Relations Doctrine – The Court emphasized that the doctrine is an exception to the rule on reinstatement after illegal dismissal. It can only be invoked when there is sufficient proof that the relationship between the employer and employee has been irreparably damaged. Mere assertions by the employer are not enough to justify non-reinstatement.
2. Security of Tenure – The right to security of tenure is a fundamental constitutional right. Employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to reinstatement, unless there is valid and concrete evidence to justify the denial of reinstatement under the strained relations doctrine.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that the strained relations doctrine was not applicable in this case, as the employer failed to provide adequate evidence to show that the relationship with the dismissed employees had deteriorated irreparably.
The Court affirmed the right of the employees to be reinstated to their former positions, along with the payment of backwages and other benefits, reinforcing the importance of protecting workers’ rights to security of tenure.
​
​
Two-Notice Rule
The Two-Notice Rule in labor law is a legal principle that governs the procedural requirements for just and authorized causes of termination of employment in the Philippines. It ensures that an employee’s right to due process is upheld when facing dismissal. Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employer is required to follow this rule when dismissing an employee to ensure fairness and transparency in the process.
1. First Notice – Notice to Explain:
The first step in the two-notice process is the notice to explain (also known as the show-cause notice). This notice is given to the employee to inform them of the charges or allegations against them and to provide an opportunity to explain their side before any decision regarding termination is made.
Purpose: To notify the employee of the specific grounds or acts that are alleged to be the cause for dismissal, such as serious misconduct, willful disobedience, or other just causes under the Labor Code. This allows the employee to respond and defend themselves from the accusations.
Requirements:
​
1. The notice should specify the facts and grounds for dismissal.
​
2. The employee should be given sufficient time to respond (usually within five days from receipt of the notice).
​
3. The employee should be allowed to present evidence and provide an explanation in writing or in a hearing.
2. Second Notice – Decision Notice/Notice of Termination:
Once the employee has been given the opportunity to explain, the second notice is issued, which contains the employer’s final decision. This notice informs the employee whether they are being terminated or if other corrective actions will be taken.
Purpose: To formally inform the employee of the employer’s decision based on the explanation or defense provided in the first notice. The employer must specify in this notice whether the termination is final and the effective date of dismissal.
Requirements:
​
1. The employer’s decision should be made in writing, stating the grounds for dismissal and the decision to terminate.
​
2. The notice must be given to the employee, allowing them to acknowledge the decision.
Key Elements of the Two-Notice Rule:
1. Due Process: The two-notice rule is part of the employee’s constitutional right to due process, which is intended to ensure that the employee is treated fairly and given an opportunity to defend themselves against accusations.
2. Just and Authorized Causes: This rule applies to dismissals based on just causes (such as serious misconduct, dishonesty, or gross neglect of duty) and authorized causes (such as retrenchment or the closing of business).
3. Timeliness: The notices must be given in a reasonable time frame to ensure that the employee has adequate opportunity to respond and that the process remains fair and transparent.
Exceptions to the Two-Notice Rule:
Summary Dismissal: If an employee is dismissed for serious offenses like theft, violence, or gross misconduct, and immediate dismissal is warranted due to the severity of the misconduct, the employer may be able to skip the first notice and proceed directly to the second notice. However, the employee still has the right to contest the dismissal later through legal means.
Other Circumstances: In certain cases where the offense is clear and serious, and the employee is not given any opportunity to explain, the employer may be justified in proceeding with immediate dismissal. However, this must be supported by evidence, and the employee still has the right to seek remedies through the labor tribunal.
Importance of the Two-Notice Rule:
Protection of Employee Rights: This rule ensures that employees are not arbitrarily dismissed and that their right to be heard is safeguarded.
Employer Compliance: Employers must follow due process to avoid claims of illegal dismissal and potential liabilities for wrongful termination.
​
Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation, et al. v. Ballesteros
G.R. No. 217119, April 25, 2022
​
The petitioner, Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation (SPIDC), employed Ballesteros as a project coordinator. However, SPIDC decided to terminate his employment on the grounds of poor performance and lack of initiative in his work. Ballesteros filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that his termination was arbitrary and without just cause. He also claimed that the company did not follow the proper procedures for dismissal, particularly the Two-Notice Rule.
Issues:
1. Whether the employer followed the Two-Notice Rule in dismissing the employee.
2. Whether the dismissal was for a just cause, as alleged by the employer.
3. Whether the employee was illegally dismissed due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the Labor Code.
Ruling of the Court:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ballesteros, holding that the employer had failed to comply with the Two-Notice Rule and, consequently, dismissed the employee illegally. The Court made the following key points:
1. Violation of the Two-Notice Rule:
The Court emphasized the importance of the Two-Notice Rule under the Labor Code, which mandates that the employer must give two notices before dismissing an employee:
1. The first notice (Notice to Explain) must inform the employee of the specific charges or grounds for dismissal and give the employee an opportunity to explain.
2. The second notice (Decision Notice) must inform the employee of the employer’s final decision regarding their termination.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that SPIDC failed to comply with this procedural requirement. Specifically, the employer did not issue the required first notice or give Ballesteros sufficient opportunity to explain his side before the termination decision was made.
2. Failure to Observe Substantive Requirements:
The Court noted that while the employer alleged that Ballesteros’ dismissal was due to poor performance, the company failed to demonstrate that such performance issues were serious enough to justify his termination.
The Court also found that there was no written documentation or evidence to prove that the employee’s performance had been properly evaluated or that a warning was issued prior to the termination. This absence of clear documentation further supported the claim of illegal dismissal.
3. Illegal Dismissal and Compensation:
Since the employer failed to comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements for dismissal, the Supreme Court ruled that Ballesteros’ dismissal was illegal.
The Court ordered that Ballesteros be reinstated to his former position, with full back wages, and awarded him his monetary benefits and other entitlements.
The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for strict adherence to due process requirements, as enshrined in the Labor Code, to prevent arbitrary dismissals.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that SPIDC failed to observe the Two-Notice Rule, and as a result, the dismissal of Ballesteros was illegal. The Court emphasized the significance of due process in employment terminations and ordered the company to reinstate the employee with back wages and benefits.
Key Takeaway:
This case highlights the importance of procedural due process in the termination of employment. The Two-Notice Rule ensures that employees are given proper notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to defend themselves before dismissal. Non-compliance with this rule renders the termination illegal, regardless of the substantive grounds for dismissal.
Doctrine of Constructive Dismissal
Constructive dismissal refers to a situation in which an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s actions, even though the employer does not directly terminate the employee’s services. It occurs when the employer’s conduct makes the working conditions so intolerable or unreasonable that the employee has no choice but to resign. In such cases, the resignation is considered involuntary and is treated as a dismissal by law.
Legal Basis:
The Philippine Labor Code does not explicitly define constructive dismissal, but it is derived from the principle of “unjust dismissal,” which protects employees against arbitrary termination (Article 279, Labor Code). In constructive dismissal, although the employee resigns, the resignation is deemed involuntary due to the actions of the employer that created an environment forcing the employee to leave.
Key Elements of Constructive Dismissal:
1. Intolerable Working Conditions:
There must be a change in the employee’s working conditions or treatment that renders it impossible for the employee to continue working with the employer. This can include demotion, reduction in pay, significant alteration of duties, or discriminatory practices.
2. Employer’s Action or Omission:
The resignation must be triggered by the employer’s acts or omissions, such as arbitrary transfer, harassment, failure to provide the agreed-upon work conditions, or other actions that make the employee’s continued employment untenable.
3. Voluntary Resignation with No Option:
Even though the employee submits a resignation letter, it must be shown that the resignation was not due to personal choice but rather was the result of the employer’s actions, forcing the employee to resign.
4. Constructive Nature of the Dismissal:
Constructive dismissal happens when the employee’s working conditions are rendered so unbearable that resignation becomes the only reasonable option available to the employee.
Examples of Constructive Dismissal:
Change in Job Role: The employee is transferred to a position with substantially different duties that are below their qualifications or without their consent.
Reduction of Salary or Benefits: The employee’s pay is reduced without justifiable reason, or they are denied rightful benefits and allowances.
Harassment or Discrimination: Continuous verbal abuse, unfair treatment, or other forms of harassment by the employer or coworkers that create a hostile work environment.
Failure to Provide a Safe Work Environment: The employer fails to maintain a safe workplace, exposing the employee to harm or health risks.
Failure to Address Concerns: Ignoring the employee’s complaints or concerns that affect their work conditions and safety.
​
Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 227718, November 11, 2021
​
Peter Angelo N. Lagamayo was employed by Cullinan Group, Inc. and was terminated by the company. Lagamayo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that his termination was without just cause and was tantamount to constructive dismissal. The case was brought before the Court of Appeals, which initially found that Lagamayo had been constructively dismissed but that there was just cause for his termination.
Lagamayo’s employer argued that he voluntarily severed his ties with the company. The company contended that his dismissal was due to a legitimate cause, and the actions leading to his termination were proper.
​
The Supreme Court clarified that the concept of constructive dismissal inherently contradicts the presence of a just cause for termination. If there is just cause for dismissal, the employee’s resignation or departure cannot be classified as constructive dismissal, which is defined by unbearable working conditions that force an employee to leave.
In this case, the Court ruled that Lagamayo’s resignation was voluntary. The timing of his filing the complaint, after being informed of his impending dismissal, indicated that he did not undergo conditions that would compel him to resign involuntarily. The Court emphasized that constructive dismissal requires that the resignation is not voluntary but forced by intolerable circumstances created by the employer.
​
Legal Reasoning:
Constructive Dismissal: The Supreme Court ruled that constructive dismissal could not exist where there is just cause for termination. In this case, since there was just cause for Lagamayo’s termination, the concept of constructive dismissal was not applicable.
Voluntary Resignation: The Court found that Lagamayo voluntarily resigned from his post, as evidenced by the timing of his actions and the filing of his complaint after being informed of his dismissal. This voluntary act contradicted the claim of constructive dismissal.
Unpaid Wages and Benefits: While the claim of wrongful dismissal was rejected, the Supreme Court upheld the award for unpaid wages and other benefits due to Lagamayo, amounting to P96,000.00.
Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 254465, April 3, 2024
​
The petitioner, Bartolome, was employed as a service advisor at Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc. (the respondent) for several years. He was subsequently dismissed from his employment. Bartolome filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that he was constructively dismissed due to unjust and harsh working conditions imposed by the employer.
According to Bartolome, the company had made working conditions intolerable, such as unreasonable expectations regarding sales targets, excessive workload, and shifting policies that undermined his ability to perform his duties effectively.
Employer’s Argument:
The employer, Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., argued that Bartolome voluntarily resigned from his position and that his termination was not a case of constructive dismissal. The company further claimed that Bartolome was terminated due to poor performance and failure to meet sales targets, as well as his failure to comply with the company’s operational standards and work requirements.
Issue:
Whether Bartolome was constructively dismissed by the employer.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bartolome, recognizing that he was constructively dismissed. The Court found that while the employer argued that Bartolome’s performance issues and failure to meet targets led to his dismissal, the harsh working conditions and unrealistic expectations imposed on him contributed to a situation where he had no choice but to resign. The Court emphasized that constructive dismissal occurs when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s actions that make continued employment unbearable.
The Court highlighted that the employer’s actions, such as sudden changes in policies and increasing demands without clear justifications, amounted to unjust treatment of the employee, making the work environment intolerable. This was deemed to be the basis for constructive dismissal, and the Supreme Court ruled that Bartolome’s resignation was not voluntary but instead a result of the oppressive conditions he was subjected to at work.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that Bartolome was constructively dismissed and entitled to his claims for reinstatement, backwages, and other monetary benefits, since the employer’s actions rendered his continued employment untenable. The case reaffirmed the principle that constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make the work environment unbearable, forcing the employee to resign.
​
-------
Effects and Remedies for Constructive Dismissal:
When a constructive dismissal is established, the employee is entitled to the same benefits and remedies as those of an employee who has been dismissed without just cause. These include:
Reinstatement: If feasible, the employee should be reinstated to their original position without loss of seniority rights and privileges.
Backwages: The employee is entitled to back wages from the time the constructive dismissal occurred until the finality of the decision.
Separation Pay: If reinstatement is not possible (for example, if the employee no longer wishes to work for the employer), the employee may be entitled to separation pay, in addition to back wages.
Other Benefits: The employee may also be entitled to other benefits, including those due under the contract, collective bargaining agreement, or company policies.
The Burden of Proof:
In cases of constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is on the employee to establish that the resignation was not voluntary but forced by the employer’s actions. The employee must show that the resignation was a result of the intolerable working conditions created by the employer, and the employer must disprove the claim of constructive dismissal.
​
Four-fold Test (Employer-Employee Relationship)
The Four-fold Test is one of the most widely used legal standards in the Philippines to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This test considers four specific elements or factors to assess whether such a relationship exists.
It is crucial in cases involving labor disputes to establish rights, obligations, and remedies under labor laws, such as the entitlement to benefits, security of tenure, and protection from illegal dismissal. The test focuses on the control and relationship between the employer and the employee.
Four elements of the Four-fold Test:
1. Selection and Hiring of the Employee
This element examines whether the employer has the power to hire or select the worker. If the employer has the authority to choose the worker and control who gets hired, this indicates the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It suggests that the employer has control over the staffing process, which is a hallmark of an employment relationship.
2. Payment of Wages
The second factor focuses on who pays the worker’s wages or salary. An employer-employee relationship is indicated when the employer is responsible for directly paying the worker’s wages or compensation in exchange for services rendered. Payment of wages is an essential feature of employment and highlights the economic dependence of the worker on the employer.
3. Power to Control (Control Test)
The control test is considered the most important element in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It examines whether the employer has the right to control both the means and methods by which the worker performs the tasks or duties assigned to them. This control may involve instructions on how, when, and where the work is to be done. If the employer dictates the details of how the employee performs their work, this is a strong indicator of an employment relationship.
4. Power of Dismissal
The last element assesses whether the employer has the power to terminate or dismiss the worker. If the employer can unilaterally end the working relationship for cause, this demonstrates control over the worker’s continued employment. The existence of such power typically points to an employment relationship, as independent contractors generally cannot be dismissed in the same way employees can.
Application in Jurisprudence:
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, Philippine courts often rely on the Four-fold Test to decide whether labor laws are applicable, such as in claims for illegal dismissal, benefits, or wages. The most critical component is often the control test, where courts analyze how much freedom a worker has in performing tasks.
---------
​
Mendaros, et al. v. Lazada E-Services Phil., Inc. (G.R. No. 257821, August 19, 2024)
Petitioners Rogelio Garalde Mendaros et al. were motorcycle riders engaged by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. under Independent Contractor Agreements. They were dismissed by Lazada, and they filed a petition arguing that they were regular employees and that their termination was without just cause and without due process. They sought reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits. Lazada, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioners were independent contractors and not regular employees, thus not entitled to the rights of employees under the Labor Code.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners were regular employees of Lazada or independent contractors, and whether they were illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that they were regular employees of Lazada and that their dismissal was illegal. The Court applied the Four-fold Test and the Economic Dependence Test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
​
Four-fold Test:
​
1. Selection and Engagement of the Employee: Lazada hired the petitioners directly, which is indicative of an employer-employee relationship.
2. Payment of Wages: The petitioners were paid a daily wage by Lazada, a factor that supports the existence of employment.
3. Power to Dismiss: Lazada had the authority to dismiss the petitioners, which further establishes the relationship of employer and employee.
4. Control Over the Employee’s Conduct: Lazada exercised control over how the petitioners performed their tasks, including stipulating how they were to deliver packages, where to pick them up, and how to complete the deliveries.
The Court emphasized that control is the most essential factor in determining the employer-employee relationship. The mere imposition of rules for accomplishing the work does not necessarily equate to control, but Lazada’s oversight on how the petitioners completed their tasks indicated an employer-employee relationship.
Economic Dependence Test:
The Court also applied the economic dependence test, considering whether the petitioners were dependent on Lazada for their continued employment. Since the petitioners relied on Lazada for work and their compensation, they were deemed economically dependent on the company, further supporting their status as employees.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Lazada’s motorcycle riders were regular employees and not independent contractors. The Court ruled that their dismissal was illegal, as they had been terminated without just cause or due process. Consequently, the Court ordered Lazada to reinstate the petitioners with back wages and benefits. However, the Court denied the claim for moral and exemplary damages due to the lack of evidence showing bad faith or oppressive conduct by Lazada.
The decision emphasized the principle of stare decisis (respect for prior rulings), referencing earlier similar cases where Lazada riders were deemed regular employees. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the petitioners’ monetary claims.
Significance:
This ruling highlights the importance of the Four-fold Test and the Economic Dependence Test in determining whether an individual is a regular employee entitled to protections under Philippine labor law. The decision reiterates that the power of control is the most critical factor in determining an employer-employee relationship.
​
Substantial Evidence Rule
Substantial evidence rule is a standard of proof used by courts and quasi-judicial bodies to evaluate the evidence presented in resolving labor disputes. It is distinct from the higher standards of proof required in other types of cases, such as proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases or preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
Definition of Substantial Evidence
Under Philippine law, substantial evidence is defined as “such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
It is the lowest level of proof required in legal proceedings, but it must still be sufficient to establish the facts in issue. The rule reflects the need for efficiency in resolving labor disputes while ensuring that decisions are based on a solid foundation of credible and competent evidence.
Legal Basis
The Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442) does not specifically define “substantial evidence,” but the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and decisions of the Supreme Court clarify its application in labor proceedings.
Under Article 277(b) (formerly Article 282), the employer has the burden to prove that the termination of employment is based on a just or authorized cause. The standard to be applied in such cases is substantial evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence.
The Rules of Court, which are supplementary to labor law, also apply the substantial evidence rule in quasi-judicial bodies like the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and labor arbiters. Rule 43, Sec.10 of the Rules of Court states:
“The findings of fact of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals. (n)”
Application in Labor Cases
In labor cases, substantial evidence plays a crucial role in determining whether there was a just cause for the dismissal of an employee, whether there was constructive dismissal, or in other disputes involving employer-employee relations. It is the employer’s responsibility to prove that a valid cause existed for the action taken against the employee, such as termination or suspension, and that due process was followed.
1. Just Cause for Dismissal
Employers must show substantial evidence to justify an employee’s dismissal. The causes may include serious misconduct, willful disobedience of lawful orders, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud, breach of trust, or commission of a crime related to work. For instance, if an employee is dismissed due to theft, the employer must present credible evidence, such as documents, witness testimonies, or CCTV footage, to prove that the employee committed theft.
2. Due Process Requirement
Even when substantial evidence of a just cause exists, dismissal must also follow the due process requirements, which include the twin notice rule: the employee must be given a notice of charges and an opportunity to explain before a decision is made. The employer must also issue a notice of dismissal if the explanation is unsatisfactory. Failure to follow due process can render a dismissal invalid despite the existence of just cause.
3. Substantial Evidence in Illegal Dismissal Cases
In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee claims that they were dismissed without just cause or due process. Here, the burden shifts to the employer to prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was valid. If the employer fails to do so, the dismissal will be deemed illegal, and the employee may be entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
Importance of the Substantial Evidence Rule
The substantial evidence rule is critical to labor law for the following reasons:
1. Efficiency and Fairness:
It provides a balance between the need for a fair hearing for employees and the need for efficiency in labor dispute resolution. The standard ensures that cases are not dismissed based on flimsy or unsupported allegations, while at the same time recognizing that employers should not be required to meet the more stringent standards of proof required in criminal or civil cases.
2. Protection of Workers:
The rule serves as a safeguard for employees, ensuring that employers cannot dismiss or penalize workers without valid reasons. The burden of proof lies with the employer to show that there was a lawful basis for the adverse action taken against the employee.
3. Preserving Employer Rights:
At the same time, the rule recognizes the right of employers to discipline or dismiss employees based on valid causes. Employers are allowed to act within their management prerogative, but they must substantiate their actions with enough relevant and credible evidence.
Summary
​
The substantial evidence rule is a cornerstone of labor law proceedings in the Philippines, ensuring that labor disputes are resolved based on a reasonable amount of evidence.
It protects the rights of employees while allowing employers to exercise their prerogative in managing their workforce, as long as their actions are justified and in compliance with due process. The rule reflects a balance between efficiency, fairness, and the protection of constitutional and statutory rights in labor relations.
No substantial evidence and violation of the 2-Notice Rule
​
Abbott Laboratories Philippines v. Alcaraz
G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013
​
Patricia Alcaraz was employed by Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. as the Training and Compliance Manager. Following her probationary period, Alcaraz’s performance was evaluated as unsatisfactory, which eventually led to her termination. Abbott cited her poor performance as the reason for her dismissal. Alcaraz challenged the legality of her dismissal, arguing that her termination was unjust, not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the company failed to comply with the procedural due process required for dismissing employees.
Alcaraz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was initially decided in her favor by the Labor Arbiter and upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling, finding that her termination was valid. Alcaraz then brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether Patricia Alcaraz’s dismissal was supported by substantial evidence and complied with the required procedural due process.
Ruling:
​
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alcaraz, finding that her dismissal was illegal because Abbott Laboratories failed to substantiate the claim of poor performance with substantial evidence and did not comply with the required due process.
1. Substantial Evidence:
The Court stressed that substantial evidence is required to justify an employee’s dismissal. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Abbott Laboratories did not provide sufficient documentation or credible evaluations to prove Alcaraz’s alleged poor performance. The company’s evidence was found to be inadequate and unsupported, thus failing to meet the standard of substantial evidence necessary to justify her dismissal.
2. Due Process:
The Court also found that Abbott failed to comply with the procedural due process requirements under labor law. Employers are required to provide the employee with two notices: (1) a notice informing the employee of the specific cause for dismissal, and (2) a notice of termination if the cause is proven valid. In this case, the process was not properly followed, further invalidating the dismissal.
Legal Doctrines:
Substantial Evidence Rule: In labor cases, the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish that the dismissal was based on a valid and lawful cause. The evidence presented must be substantial, meaning it must be sufficient and credible.
Procedural Due Process: Employers must observe the twin-notice rule when terminating employees—providing both notice of the cause for dismissal and an opportunity for the employee to be heard before issuing a notice of termination.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that Abbott Laboratories failed to meet the requirement of substantial evidence in dismissing Patricia Alcaraz and did not comply with the procedural due process. As a result, Alcaraz’s dismissal was declared illegal, and the company was ordered to pay her backwages and separation pay. This case underscores the importance of both substantive and procedural requirements in the dismissal of employees.
​
Lamadrid v. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, et al.
G.R. No. 200658, June 23, 2021
Salvacion A. Lamadrid was a cabin crew member for Cathay Pacific Airways Limited for 17 years. She was dismissed by the company following an incident involving the alleged pilferage of company property. Cathay Pacific claimed that Lamadrid was involved in the unauthorized taking of their property, which led to her termination after an internal investigation.
Lamadrid filed a case for illegal dismissal and money claims against Cathay Pacific, contending that her termination was unjust and lacked due process. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in her favor, finding that her dismissal was without just cause. The decision ordered Cathay Pacific to pay Lamadrid full backwages, separation pay, and other benefits.
Cathay Pacific appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision, ruling that Lamadrid’s dismissal was valid and supported by substantial evidence. It held that the company followed due process.
Lamadrid then appealed the CA’s ruling to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Was Lamadrid’s dismissal from Cathay Pacific based on a just cause?
2. Was due process observed in her termination?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lamadrid and declared that her dismissal was illegal.
​
1. No substantial evidence:
The Court found that Cathay Pacific failed to provide substantial evidence to prove Lamadrid’s involvement in the pilferage incident. The allegations against her were based on mere suspicion, which did not meet the required standard to justify her dismissal. The company could not rely solely on an internal investigation without concrete proof of wrongdoing.
2. Due Process:
The Court ruled that Cathay Pacific violated the due process requirement for dismissing employees. The twin notice rule—requiring an employer to provide a written notice of the charges against the employee and an opportunity to explain—was not fully observed. Even if the company believed that pilferage had occurred, Lamadrid was not given the proper chance to defend herself in the manner required by law.
3. Consequences of Illegal Dismissal:
As a result of the illegal dismissal, Cathay Pacific was ordered to pay Lamadrid her full backwages and separation pay instead of reinstatement due to the strained relations between the parties. The Court determined that reinstatement was not feasible and thus awarded separation pay as compensation.
Doctrines:
Security of Tenure: The Supreme Court emphasized that employees are protected by the constitutional right to security of tenure, meaning they can only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, and only after due process has been followed.
Substantial Evidence: For dismissal to be valid, the employer must present substantial evidence to support the charges. Mere suspicion or unsubstantiated claims are insufficient.
Due Process: The employer must observe the twin notice requirement—providing the employee with a notice of the charges and an opportunity to explain—and must thoroughly investigate before making a final decision to dismiss.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and declared that Lamadrid’s dismissal was illegal. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited was ordered to pay full backwages and separation pay, reaffirming the importance of due process and sufficient evidence in dismissing employees.
​
Social Justice Doctrine
This doctrine is a foundational principle aimed at balancing the rights and interests of workers and employers, with an emphasis on ensuring the protection and welfare of workers, especially the disadvantaged or marginalized sectors. The principle is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and serves as the underlying framework for the country’s labor laws, policies, and practices.
Key Features of the Social Justice Doctrine in Philippine Labor Law:
1. Constitutional Basis:
The Social Justice Doctrine is explicitly mentioned in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that:
​
Article II, Section 9 states: “The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.”
Article XIII, Section 3 further provides that the State shall protect and promote the welfare of the workers and the labor sector by ensuring humane working conditions, providing just compensation, and promoting social security.
2. Promotion of Workers’ Rights:
The doctrine emphasizes that workers’ rights should be prioritized and that the State has a responsibility to safeguard those rights by enacting laws and policies that protect them. This includes ensuring that workers receive just compensation, benefits, and protection from exploitation and unjust working conditions. Labor laws in the Philippines, such as the Labor Code, Social Security Act, and Health Insurance Act, reflect the commitment to workers’ rights in the spirit of social justice.
3. Affirmative Duty of the State:
The government is tasked with intervening to ensure that workers’ rights are protected. This is done through social policies and labor laws that regulate wages, working hours, health and safety standards, benefits, and employment security. These policies are designed to level the playing field, especially for vulnerable and disadvantaged workers, such as contractual workers, women, children, and indigenous groups.
4. Welfare of the Working Class:
The Social Justice Doctrine emphasizes ensuring that workers are provided with adequate protection in the workplace. This includes not only fair wages but also provisions for social security, health insurance, workmen’s compensation, and other benefits that promote their overall well-being. The doctrine advocates for working conditions that promote the dignity of labor and workers’ security, both physically and economically.
5. Protection Against Unjust Dismissal and Exploitation:
Labor laws under the Social Justice Doctrine also aim to protect workers from unfair treatment, including illegal dismissal. The principle of security of tenure ensures that workers cannot be arbitrarily terminated without just cause and due process. This provision is enshrined in Article 279 of the Labor Code, which guarantees the protection of employees against unjust or illegal termination.
6. Balance Between Labor and Capital:
While the doctrine gives primacy to the protection of workers, it also calls for a fair and reasonable balance between labor and capital. This means that the State recognizes the importance of encouraging investments, economic growth, and entrepreneurship, which in turn create jobs and opportunities for workers. However, such objectives must not come at the expense of workers’ fundamental rights.
7. The Social Justice Doctrine and the Philippine Labor Code:
The Labor Code of the Philippines serves as the statutory manifestation of the Social Justice Doctrine. It seeks to provide justice for workers through various provisions, such as:
Minimum Wage Law: Ensures that workers are paid fair wages that meet the minimum standard for living.
Occupational Health and Safety Standards: Provides guidelines on ensuring safe and healthy working conditions.
Regularization of Employment: Prevents the practice of contractualization, ensuring that employees are granted permanent employment after serving the required probationary period.
Right to Self-Organization: Guarantees that workers have the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.
8. Application in Dispute Resolution:
The Social Justice Doctrine also guides the resolution of labor disputes. In cases of conflicting interests between workers and employers, the courts and administrative agencies (such as the National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC) are tasked with ensuring that the laws, which aim to protect workers’ rights, are upheld. The doctrine encourages fair treatment of workers, especially when it comes to the application of labor laws.
9. Labor Standards:
The doctrine informs the establishment of labor standards such as:
Wages and Allowances: Laws ensuring minimum wages and timely payment.
Working Hours: Laws on maximum working hours and overtime pay.
Health and Safety: Laws regarding safety protocols and workers’ right to a safe working environment.
Social Security: Laws that mandate social insurance to ensure workers’ well-being during illness, disability, retirement, or work-related injuries.
Significance of the Social Justice Doctrine:
The Social Justice Doctrine is essential for fostering a just and fair society. By prioritizing the welfare of the workers, the Philippine government recognizes the importance of a strong and healthy labor force for national progress. The doctrine is foundational to addressing the disparities between labor and capital, ensuring that workers, particularly those in vulnerable positions, are not exploited and are given the means to improve their lives.
It plays a critical role in ensuring that the Philippine labor law framework remains people-centered, compassionate, and responsive to the needs of the working class while promoting national growth. Through this doctrine, the State endeavors to achieve social equity, improve labor conditions, and provide opportunities for workers to thrive in a just and progressive society.
​
Wahing, et al. v. Dagui, et al.
G.R. No. 219755, April 18, 2022
​
Petitioners, Wahing and others, were employees of Dagui, a company involved in construction and various other services. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents, asserting that their employment was terminated without just cause and without due process. They argued that their termination was arbitrary and violated their rights to security of tenure.
Respondents contended that the petitioners were dismissed for just cause, citing issues related to the workers’ performance, violation of company rules, and non-compliance with certain work requirements. They claimed that the petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement or back wages, asserting that the workers were dismissed for a valid reason.
The labor tribunal initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering the company to reinstate them with back wages. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, ruling that there was just cause for dismissal and that the petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement.
Issue:
Whether the dismissal of the petitioners was illegal and if the social justice doctrine should be applied to protect the workers’ rights.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the Social Justice Doctrine as a guiding principle in Philippine labor law, particularly in protecting workers’ rights to security of tenure. The Court ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was indeed illegal and that their rights to due process were violated.
The Court observed that despite the respondents’ claim of just cause for dismissal, the petitioners were not afforded the necessary due process, particularly the two-notice rule, which requires that an employee be given notice of the specific charges against them and an opportunity to respond before a decision of dismissal is made. In this case, the Court found that the workers were not given the proper notices and were denied the opportunity to explain their side.
The Social Justice Doctrine was invoked to underscore the need for the State to ensure that workers’ rights are safeguarded, especially in cases of dismissal. The Court stressed that even in cases where an employer presents a valid reason for dismissal, workers’ rights to due process must be respected. This principle upholds the workers’ right to fair treatment and emphasizes the balance between labor rights and employers’ prerogatives.
The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioners with back wages. It also clarified that the Social Justice Doctrine would apply, ensuring that the rights of workers, particularly regarding security of tenure and due process, are upheld.
Doctrine:
The Court applied the Social Justice Doctrine to reinforce the workers’ right to security of tenure, which includes protection from arbitrary or illegal dismissal. This doctrine mandates that workers should be afforded not only just cause for dismissal but also the fundamental right to due process. The decision underscored that employers must adhere to legal procedures in the termination of employment, ensuring that workers are not deprived of their rights unfairly.
Significance:
This case highlights the importance of due process and security of tenure in labor disputes, emphasizing the Social Justice Doctrine. The ruling reaffirms the Court’s stance on protecting workers from unjust dismissal and ensuring that workers’ rights are safeguarded in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice under Philippine labor law.
The case also reiterates the necessity for employers to follow proper procedures and comply with the two-notice rule to avoid the possibility of illegal dismissal claims. The application of the Social Justice Doctrine affirms the state’s role in ensuring that the rights of workers are protected and balanced with the interests of employers, especially in terms of employment termination.
​
Sermona, et al. v. Hacienda Lumboy, et al.
G.R. No. 205524, January 18, 2023
​
The petitioners, a group of workers, were employed by Hacienda Lumboy, which is engaged in agricultural operations. The workers filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the company, alleging that they were terminated without just cause and without due process. They claimed that their termination was arbitrary and violated their rights to security of tenure under the Labor Code.
The company, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners were dismissed for valid reasons, citing issues such as poor performance, failure to meet work targets, and violations of company policies. Additionally, Hacienda Lumboy maintained that the workers were contractual employees whose employment was subject to the completion of specific tasks. The company contended that the petitioners’ dismissal was within their rights as employers, based on these alleged causes.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the workers, declaring that the dismissals were illegal and awarding them back wages, reinstatement, and other benefits. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that the dismissal of the workers was for just cause and that the company had complied with the proper procedures. The petitioners subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the workers’ dismissal was illegal and if the Social Justice Doctrine should be applied to uphold the workers’ rights.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and emphasized the application of the Social Justice Doctrine in labor relations. The Court reiterated that the doctrine seeks to protect the rights and welfare of workers, ensuring that they are not arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood and security of tenure.
In this case, the Court found that the dismissal of the workers was indeed illegal due to the lack of just cause and due process. It noted that although the company cited performance-related reasons for the dismissal, these reasons were not substantiated with concrete evidence that would justify termination. Furthermore, the workers were not provided with the necessary notices as required under the two-notice rule and were not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.
The Court also applied the Social Justice Doctrine to underscore the need to balance the rights of employers with the protection of workers, especially in terms of employment termination. The doctrine mandates that workers must not be dismissed without valid reasons and that they must be given the opportunity to defend themselves. The Court emphasized that security of tenure is a fundamental right of workers, and any termination that is not based on just causes or is not carried out in accordance with proper procedures violates this right.
As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. The Court also stressed that the principles of fairness, equity, and social justice must always guide decisions in labor disputes.
Doctrine:
The Social Justice Doctrine in Philippine labor law emphasizes the protection of workers’ rights, especially in matters of employment termination. The Court invoked this doctrine to ensure that workers are not deprived of their jobs without due process and just cause. This doctrine also requires that any employer-employee dispute be resolved with fairness and consideration for the workers’ well-being, particularly their right to security of tenure.
Significance:
This case reaffirms the importance of security of tenure and due process for workers under Philippine labor law. The ruling highlights the need for employers to justify terminations with valid and substantiated reasons and to follow proper procedures, including compliance with the two-notice rule.
By applying the Social Justice Doctrine, the Supreme Court reinforced its commitment to safeguarding workers’ rights, ensuring that any decision related to employment termination is grounded in fairness, legality, and respect for workers’ dignity. The decision serves as a reminder that labor laws are designed to promote justice and equity for workers, especially in cases of dismissal and job security.
Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work Doctrine
The Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine is a fundamental principle in Philippine labor law that underscores the idea that workers should be compensated justly for their labor. It promotes the notion that an employee is entitled to receive a fair wage in exchange for the work they perform, reflecting their contribution to the employer’s business.
Key Elements of the Doctrine:
1. Equality and Fairness in Compensation:
The doctrine asserts that employees should be compensated in accordance with the quality and quantity of their work. The wages or salary should be reflective of the work performed, ensuring that employees are paid justly based on the nature of the work, the skills required, the difficulty involved, and the time spent on the job.
2. Protection from Exploitation:
This principle protects workers from being exploited by employers who might otherwise underpay or withhold wages that are due. It is particularly important in ensuring that employees are not subjected to unfair wage practices, such as paying below the minimum wage or failing to provide adequate compensation for overtime, holidays, or special working conditions.
3. Minimum Wage Law:
The Fair Day’s Wage doctrine is closely linked with the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 6727), which sets the minimum amount an employee should earn for a day’s labor, ensuring workers receive wages that can support their basic needs. This law is essential in upholding the principles of fairness and economic justice.
4. Applicable to Various Forms of Employment:
The doctrine applies to all workers, whether employed under a fixed-term contract, regular employment, or casual engagements. It ensures that no matter the type of employment relationship, workers receive fair compensation for their work.
Legal Basis:
Article 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: This article establishes the general duty of an employer to provide fair compensation for the work rendered by the employee. It is often interpreted in line with the Fair Day’s Wage principle.
Labor Code of the Philippines: The Code, especially provisions under Book Three (Conditions of Employment), reflects the doctrine by addressing fair wages, setting forth minimum wage standards, and ensuring that employees are paid for all work performed.
Summary:
The Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine ensures that workers are not exploited and are compensated fairly in exchange for their labor. It emphasizes the importance of just wages in fostering an equitable and humane work environment. The principle upholds the rights of employees to receive compensation that corresponds to their efforts, skills, and working conditions, while aligning with Philippine laws such as the Minimum Wage Law.
​
Atienza v. TKC Heavy Industries Corporation, et al.
G.R. No. 217782, June 23, 2021
The petitioner, Atienza, was employed by TKC Heavy Industries Corporation (TKC) as a welder under a fixed-term contract. He claimed that he was underpaid for the work performed and that his wages did not comply with the minimum wage laws. Atienza also alleged that despite working for long hours, he was not compensated adequately for overtime work and that he was not receiving the proper benefits due to him.
Atienza filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), seeking the adjustment of his wages, payment for overtime, holiday pay, and other benefits. He contended that TKC was violating his right to a fair day’s wage for the work he rendered.
TKC, on the other hand, argued that Atienza’s wages were in accordance with the agreed terms in his contract and that the work he performed was within the scope of his employment agreement. The employer further asserted that the claims for overtime and benefits were not supported by the necessary evidence.
Issue:
Whether TKC Heavy Industries Corporation violated the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine by underpaying Atienza and failing to compensate him for overtime and other benefits.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atienza, applying the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine. The Court held that workers must be paid justly for their labor and that the wage paid must align with the work rendered. The Court found that the wages paid to Atienza did not meet the minimum wage requirements set by law, and he was not compensated for overtime work despite the extended hours of labor.
In analyzing the case, the Court reiterated that the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine is rooted in ensuring that workers are paid in a manner that reflects the quality, quantity, and difficulty of the work performed. The doctrine also mandates compliance with labor laws, particularly the Minimum Wage Law, ensuring that employees are not exploited and are provided with compensation that supports their basic needs.
The Court also highlighted the obligation of employers to provide not only a fair wage but also other mandated benefits such as overtime pay, holiday pay, and allowances, which were clearly due to Atienza based on the work he performed.
Thus, the Supreme Court ordered TKC to pay Atienza the appropriate amounts for underpaid wages, unpaid overtime, holiday pay, and other benefits due under the law. The Court emphasized that TKC violated the principle of providing a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, and it was liable for the full payment of the amounts owed to the employee.
Summary:
The Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine asserts that employees must be paid wages that correspond to the amount, nature, and quality of the work performed.
This principle is founded on the idea of justice and fairness, ensuring that the compensation provided is adequate to meet the basic needs of employees. Employers are obligated to comply with labor laws such as the Minimum Wage Law, and failure to provide proper compensation for overtime, holiday work, and other benefits constitutes a violation of this doctrine.
G.R. No. 199539, August 09, 2023
​
Sioland Development Corporation (Sioland), a corporation engaged in various distribution and warehousing services, entered into an agreement with Fair Distribution Center Corporation (Fair) to subcontract certain services. Employees were employed by Fair to perform warehouse tasks for Sioland. However, a wage dispute arose when Fair failed to pay workers for the services rendered, leading to the employees’ claims for unpaid wages.
The workers, who were employed by Fair, alleged that their wages were not fully paid in accordance with their actual working hours and the terms stipulated in their employment agreement. Sioland, in defense, argued that the workers’ claims for wages were not valid because their work had been completed outside of the expected working hours, and they were not entitled to full compensation under the agreed terms.
The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which ruled in favor of the workers, asserting their entitlement to fair wages as per labor standards. Sioland appealed the decision, maintaining that the payment of wages should reflect the number of hours actually worked and the terms agreed upon in the contract.
Issue:
The primary issue in this case was whether the workers were entitled to full wages for the labor they performed under the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine, despite the dispute regarding working hours and task completion.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the workers, upholding their right to fair compensation based on the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine.
1. Core Doctrine of Fair Compensation:
The Court emphasized that the Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine mandates that employers must pay workers a fair wage for the services they provide. It is not limited to just paying based on hourly work but ensures that workers are compensated for the full value of the work performed.
2. Entitlement to Wages:
The Court ruled that the workers’ entitlement to wages was not conditional on whether the work was completed within a specific time frame or during specific hours. Even though the work may have been outside the stipulated hours, the workers were entitled to full wages for their labor. The principle of fair compensation cannot be undermined by technicalities such as non-completion of tasks within agreed working hours.
3. Non-Detrimental to the Worker:
The Court also found that the actions of the employer in withholding wages were unjust and contrary to the basic principle of fairness and social justice in labor relations. The Court stated that withholding wages from employees, regardless of any argument about hours worked or specific work conditions, is a violation of the workers’ rights under the labor code.
4. Application of Social Justice in Labor Law:
In line with the social justice doctrine embedded in the Philippine Constitution and labor laws, the Court asserted that workers must be treated with fairness and dignity. Employers are obligated to respect the rights of employees to proper compensation for their work.
5. Clarification of Wage Standards:
The Court noted that the wage issue is not simply a matter of meeting contractual agreements but a reflection of the principle of fair compensation. Even if the work was completed outside the “expected hours,” the workers were entitled to wages based on the fairness of the compensation relative to the work done.
6. The Employer’s Obligation:
The Court also clarified that the employer, Sioland, failed to fulfill its obligation to ensure that Fair paid its workers. The failure of the employer to ensure that its workers were compensated for the work rendered constituted a breach of the employer’s duties.
Significance of the Doctrine in the Case:
1. Labor Protection:
The decision underscores the importance of protecting workers’ rights to just wages as part of the broader labor protection framework in the Philippines.
2. Employer Responsibility:
The Court highlights that even when work is not completed within designated hours, or when employers attempt to reduce payments based on technicalities, workers are entitled to the compensation that reflects the work they have done.
3. Equitable Treatment of Employees:
The Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work doctrine promotes fairness in labor compensation, ensuring that workers receive a just reward for their efforts, irrespective of time constraints or task conditions imposed by the employer.