19. JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v.

Court of Appeals trained or had undertaken continuing education courses as a requirement for renewal of their
G.R. No. 120095 | August 5, 1996 licenses. It is not claimed that these requirements pose an unwarranted deprivation of a
property right under the due process clause. So long as Professionals and other workers meet
FACTS: Due to the abuse experienced by Filipinas working abroad (as entertainers or as reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.
domestic helpers), Pres. Cory Aquino ordered a total ban against deploying performing artists (2) WON singling out entertainers under the assailed DOs constituting class legislation which
overseas. Later on, in order to lift this ban, but still curtail these incidents, the Secretary of violates the equal protection clause:
DOLE issued Department Order (DO) No. 28, which created the Entertainment Industry
Advisory Council (EIAC). The EIAC was tasked with issuing guidelines on the training, NO. The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or
certification, and deployment of performing artists abroad. class privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which
it is directed or by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality,
Under the EIAC’s recommendation, the Secretary of Labor issued DO No. 3, which established but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges
various procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new system of conferred and liabilities imposed. Note, the equal protection clause of the does not forbid
training, testing, certification and deployment. Those who pass the test/training/certification classification for so long as such classification is based on real and substantial differences
requirements were to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), which was a necessary having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. If classification is
prerequisite to processing of any contract of employment. The Secretary of Labor also issued germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to
DO Nos. 3-A to 3-F, in order to supplement or implement DO No. 3. present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal protection
guarantee. In the case at bar, the challenged DO clearly applies to all performing artists and
The Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP) filed a class suit entertainers destined for jobs abroad.
assailing the above Department Orders. JMM Promotion Management, Inc. and Kary
International, Inc. filed a Motion for Intervention, which was granted by the RTC. They all claim WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision sought to be reviewed, petition is
that the DOs deprived artists of their licenses without due process of law and that the ARB was hereby DENIED.
discriminatory and was in gross violation to the Constitutional right to life, liberty, and
property. VIRGILIO CALLANTA (CALLANTA) V. CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC. (CARNATION) AND NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)
ISSUE: WON the Department Orders and the ARB requirement are unconstitutional? G.R. NO. 70615, 28 OCTOBER 1986
FERNAN, J.
HELD: NO. They are valid. Right to Due Process and Right to Labor as Property
Prepared by: Elinzano, Andrei
(1) WON artists are deprived of their licenses without due process of law:
DOCTRINE: AN ACTION FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL IS AN ACTION PREDICATED UPON AN INQUIRY TO THE RIGHTS OF THE
NO. A profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional PLAINTIFF, AS CONTEMPLTED UNDER ARTICLE 1146 OF THE NCC, WHICH MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN 4 YEARS.
guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a living because
these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally FACTS: (READ THE TITLE ↑ BEFORE PROCEEDING)
constitutes an actionable wrong. Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation 1. Callanta was employed by Carnation as Salesman in the Agusan del Sur area.
of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a 2. Five years later, Carnation filed before the Regional Office no. X of the Ministry of Labor
valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects either and Employment (MOLE) an application for clearance to terminate Callanta’s
the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, the public employment on the ground of serious misconduct and misappropriation of company
health and welfare and public morals. According to the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non funds amounting to P12,000.00, more or less.
laedas, it must of course be within the legitimate range of legislative action to define the mode 3. The clearance application was approved and Callanta was terminated from employment
and manner in which every one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to himself effective 1 June 1979.
or others. In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property, the 4. Then, Callanta filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the MOLE.1
permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider. To pretend that licensing or 5. Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be without cause and ordered Carnation to reinstate
accreditation requirements violates the due process clause is to ignore the settled practice, Callanta with backwages.
under the mantle of the police power, of regulating entry to the practice of various trades or 6. NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruled that the complaint for illegal
professions. Locally, the Professional Regulation Commission has begun to require previously dismissal has already prescribed, having been filed beyond 3 years.
licensed doctors and other professionals to furnish documentary proof that they had either re-

1
Same region
ISSUE: Does the action for illegal dismissal filed by Callanta prescribe in three (3) years, as Wenphil Corporation vs. NLRC
provided under the Labor Code, OR in four (4) years, as provided under the New Civil Code? G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989
Facts:
HELD AND RULING:  Robert Mallare was hired by Wenphil Corporation as a crew member at its Cubao
IT PRESCRIBES IN 4 YEARS. Although the Labor Code provides that Offenses penalized Branch and thereafter became the assistant head of the Backroom department of
under the Code and Money Claims shall prescribe in three (3) years, a dismissal without just the same branch.
cause DOES NOT amount to an "offense" as understood under Article 291 of the Labor Code.  Mallare had an altercation with a co-employee, Job Barrameda, as a result of which
In its broad sense, an offense is an illegal act which does not amount to a crime as defined in he and Barrameda were suspended on the following morning and in the afternoon
the penal law, but which by statute carries with it a penalty similar to those imposed by law of the same day a memorandum was issued by the Operations Manager advising
for the punishment of a crime. Mallare of his dismissal from the service in accordance with their Personnel Manual.
The notice of dismissal was served on Mallare.
The confusion arises over the use of the term "illegal dismissal" which creates the  Thus Mallare filed a complaint against Wenphil Corporation for unfair labor practice,
impression that termination of an employment without just cause constitutes an offense. It illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. After submitting their respective position
must be noted, however that unlike in cases of commission of any of the probihited activities papers to the Labor Arbiter and as the hearing could not be conducted due to
during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor practices and illegal recruitment activities, among repeated absence of counsel for respondent, the case was submitted for resolution.
others, which the Code itself declares to be unlawful, termination of an employment without Thereafter a decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint
just or valid cause is not categorized as an unlawful practice. for lack of merit.
 Mallare appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) wherein in due
It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-recognized in course a decision was rendered setting aside the appealed decision and ordering the
this jurisdiction that one's employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and reinstatement of Mallare to his former position without loss of seniority and other
the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be related benefits and one (1) year backwages without qualification and deduction.
property within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law. Clearly then, Issues:
when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action 1. Whether or not Mallare waived his right to investigation? No.
instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, 2. Whether or not an employee dismissed for just cause but without due process be
an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as contemplated under reinstated to work? No.
Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four [4] years.
Held:
In the instant case, the action for illegal dismissal was filed by petitioners on July 5, 1. The defiant attitude of private respondent immediately after the incident amounted to
1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month and five [5] days after the alleged effectivity date of his insubordination. Nevertheless his refusal to explain his side under the circumstances cannot
dismissal on June 1, 1979 which is well within the four [4]-year prescriptive period under Article be considered as a waiver of his right to an investigation. Although in the Personnel Manual of
1146 of the New Civil Code. Thus, given that the NCC applies, the action prescribes in 4 years the petitioner, it states that an erring employee must request for an investigation it does not
and not 3 years. thereby mean that petitioner is thereby relieved of the duty to conduct an investigation before
dismissing private respondent. Indeed the provision of the Personnel Manual of petitioner
DISPOSITION: Carnation ordered to pay backwages. Reinstatement impossible because FILIPRO, which may effectively deprive its employees of the right to due process is clearly against the
Inc. already took over Carnation. law and hence null and void. The security of tenure of a laborer or employee is enshrined in
the Constitution, the Labor Code and other related laws.

Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code, it is provided
that "No worker shall be dismissed except for just or authorized cause provided by law and
after due process." Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the same rules require that before an employer
may dismiss an employee the latter must be given a written notice stating the particular act or
omission constituting the grounds thereof; that the employee may answer the allegations
within a reasonable period; that the employer shall afford him ample opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; and that it is
only then that the employer may dismiss the employee by notifying him of the decision in
writing stating clearly the reasons therefor. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the right of
the employee to contest its validity in the Regional Branch of the NLRC.
2. The failure of petitioner to give private respondent the benefit of a hearing before he was JENNY M. AGABON and VIRGILIO C. AGABON vs.
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of law and COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. and VICENTE ANGELES
equal protection of the laws. The standards of due process in judicial as well as administrative Topic: Right to Due Process and Right to Labor as Property
proceedings have long been established. In its bare minimum due process of law simply means Facts:
giving notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.  Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. employed petitioners Virgilio
Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2,
However, it is a matter of fact that when the Mallare filed a complaint against petitioner he 19922 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.
was afforded the right to an investigation by the labor arbiter. He presented his position paper Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims.
as did the petitioner. If no hearing was had, it was the fault of Mallare as his counsel failed to  The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Agabons. Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed the
appear at the scheduled hearings. The labor arbiter concluded that the dismissal of private decision because it found that the petitioners abandoned their work. The petitioners
respondent was for just cause. He was found guilty of grave misconduct and insubordination. then filed a motion for certiorari with the CA. The CA upheld the finding of the NLRC
This is borne by the sworn statements of witnesses. The Court is bound by this finding of the that indeed, the petitioners did abandon their work but nevertheless, are still
labor arbiter. entitled to their money claims.
 Petitioners claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements
By the same token, the conclusion of the public respondent NLRC on appeal that private of notice and hearing.
respondent was not afforded due process before he was dismissed is binding on this Court.  Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that petitioners were not
Indeed, it is well taken and supported by the records. However, it can not justify a ruling that dismissed but had abandoned their work. In fact, private respondent sent two letters
private respondent should be reinstated with back wages as the public respondent NLRC so to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work.
decreed. Although belatedly, private respondent was afforded due process before the labor Private respondent's manager even talked to petitioner Virgilio Agabon by telephone
arbiter wherein the just cause of his dismissal bad been established. With such finding, it would sometime in June 1999 to tell him about the new assignment at Pacific Plaza Towers
be arbitrary and unfair to order his reinstatement with back wages. involving 40,000 square meters of cornice installation work. However, petitioners
did not report for work because they had subcontracted to perform installation work
Petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend to private respondent his for another company.
right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is explicit as above discussed. Issues:
The dismissal of an employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process. 1. Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed [NO];
Petitioner committed an infraction of the second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a 2. Whether Rivera violated the requirements of notice and hearing. [YES]
sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an investigation as required by law
before dismissing petitioner from employment. Considering the circumstances of this case Held:
petitioner must indemnify Mallare the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award To dismiss an employee, the law requires not only the existence of a just and valid cause but
depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. also enjoins the employer to give the employee the opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.

1) Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer.
This includes the gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties which necessarily
includes abandonment.

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his

employment. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more
determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the
employees has no more intention to work.

In February 1999, petitioners were frequently absent having subcontracted for an installation
work for another company. Subcontracting for another company clearly showed the intention
to sever the employer-employee relationship with private respondent. Moreover, this was not
the first time they did this. In January 1996, they did not report for work because they were
working for another company. Private respondent at that time warned petitioners that they
would be dismissed if this happened again.
2. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be GR No. 81958, June 30, 1988
substantially observed: PETITIONER: Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc. (PASEI)
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Franklin Drilon, as DOLE Sec. and Tomas Achacoso, as Admin of POEA
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code: TOPIC: Full Employment
(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination,
and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; FACTS: PASEI, a firm engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and
female, for overseas placement, challenges the validity of DOLE’s Department Order No.1
(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of (1988), “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic
counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his and Household Workers.
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
PASEI is assailing the Guidelines of being:
(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due 1. Discriminatory against males or females,
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his 2. Inapplicable to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar
termination. skills;
3. Violative of the Right to Travel;
In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee’s last known 4. Passed without prior consultation; and
address. 5. In violation of the Charter’s non-impairment clause, to the great and irreparable injury of
the PASEI members.
In this case, Riviera failed to notify the Agabons of their termination to their last known
addresses. Hence, they violated the procedural requirement laid down by the law in the On March 25, 1988, the Solicitor-General filed a Comment informing the Court that the Labor
termination of employees. Secretary lifted the deployment bain in the states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong,
United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland; and invoked the police power of the
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must Philippines State.
give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested
by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice specifying the grounds for ISSUE: Whether or not the Department Order No.1 prescribes a total ban on overseas
which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or deployment thus impairing the right to full employment.
opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is based on
authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the DECISION: It is evident that such a total ban has not been contemplated. Department Order
Department of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to “afford
separation. protection to labor.”

From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for a just The reliance of the petitioner on the Constitutional Provision Art II, Sec 9, which provides, “The
cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article 283, or for State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas organized and unorganized, and
health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all,” must submit to
just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is without just or the demands and necessities of the State’s power of regulation.
authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the dismissal is for just or authorized
cause but due process was not observed. [DOCTIRNE]"Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What
concerns the Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent,
The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld just, and humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to
because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another strange lands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. Under these
company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have
instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless adequate protection, personally and economically, while away from home.
because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private respondent,
this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice requirements to the The Court finds furthermore that the Government has not indiscriminately made use of its
employee’s last known address. The dismissal is valid, but Riviera should pay nominal authority. It is not contested that it has in fact removed the prohibition with respect to certain
damages to the Agabons in vindication of the latter for violating their right to notice and countries as manifested by the Solicitor General. The non-impairment clause of the
hearing. The penalty is in the nature of a penalty or indemnification, the amount Constitution, invoked by the petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targetted by the
dependent on the facts of each case, including the nature of gravity of offense of the Government. Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other freedoms, is not free from
employer. restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a
controlling economic way of life. ASIA BREWERY v TUNAY NA PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ASIA
GR No. 171974-96
This Court understands the grave implications the questioned Order has on the business of September 18, 2013
recruitment. The concern of the Government, however, is not necessarily to maintain profits FACTS:
of business firms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it is profits that suffer as a result of After 18 sessions of negotiations, it still resulted to a deadlock. After the union filed a notice
Government regulation. The interest of the State is to provide a decent living to its citizens. of strike with the NCMB, still they did not come to terms.
The Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its intent. We do not find the
impugned Order to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary When union conducted a strike vote with a768/840 voted in favor of holding a strike, the
relief prayed for. corporation then petitioned the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the parties’
labor dispute, invoking Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. Union opposed the assumption of
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. jurisdiction, reasoning therein that the business of petitioner corporation is not in dispensable
to the national interest. The public respondent, through Undersecretary/Acting Secretary
issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute between the Respondent union
and petitioner corporation. It then resolved the deadlock and granted arbitral awards.

Upon appeal to the CA, it ordered that the assailed Decision of the respondent Secretary with
respect to the issue on salary increases is remanded to her office for a definite resolution using
as basis the externally audited financial statements to be submitted by corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the order of the CA remanding the issue on salary increase to the
Secretary of Labor is proper.

RULING:
Yes. The remand of this case to the Secretary of Labor as to the issue of wage increase was
proper. The Supreme Court has recognized the Secretary of Labor’s distinct expertise in the
study and settlement of labor disputes falling under his power of compulsory arbitration. It is
also well-settled that factual findings of labor administrative officials, if supported by
substantial evidence, are entitled not only to great respect but even to finality. But at the same
time, the Court also recognize the possibility that abuse of discretion may attend the exercise
of the Secretary’s arbitral functions; his findings in an arbitration case are usually based on
position papers and their supporting documents (as they are in the present case), and not on
the thorough examination of the parties’ contending claims that may be present in a court trial
and in the face-to-face adversarial process that better insures the proper presentation and
appreciation of evidence, etc.

The SC held that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused her discretion when she relied on the
unaudited financial statements of the corporation in determining the wage award because
such evidence is self-serving and inadmissible. Not only did this violate the Order of the
Secretary of Labor herself to petitioner corporation to submit its complete audited financial
statements, but this may have resulted to a wage award that is based on an inaccurate and
biased picture of petitioner corporation’s capacity to pay — one of the more significant factors
in making a wage award. The appellate court, thus, correctly remanded this case to the
Secretary of Labor for the proper determination of the wage award which should utilize,
among others, the audited financial statements of petitioner corporation.
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000
Topic: International Law The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of just and favorable conditions of work, which ensure, in particular:
Facts: Private respondent International School, Inc. is a domestic educational institution
established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary a. Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
residents. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve i. Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
its standard of instruction, the School employs its own teaching and management personnel without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of
selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities. work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
x x x.
Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty,
classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School employs four The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal
tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local truism of “equal pay for equal work.” Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications,
hire. skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. This rule
applies to the School, its “international character” notwithstanding.
The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. These include
housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires The employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why
are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the employee is treated unfairly.
the difference on two “significant economic disadvantages” foreign-hires have to endure,
namely: (a) the dislocation factor and (b) limited tenure. The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that
When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local- hires. Both groups
petitioner International School Alliance of Educators, “a legitimate labor union and the have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working
collective bargaining representative of all faculty members” of the School, contested the conditions.
difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of
whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused The School cannot invoke the need to entice foreign- hires to leave their domicile to rationalize
a deadlock between the parties. the distinction in salary rates without violating the principle of equal work for equal pay.

The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to bring the parties to a We find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the
compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification.
jurisdiction over the dispute. On June 10, 1996, the DOLE issued an Order in favor of the School. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-
Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing subsequently denied petitioner’s motion for hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes
reconsideration in an Order dated March 19, 1997. Petitioner now seeks relief in this Court. public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court.

Issue: W/N the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination and 2. No.
the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos. W/N the We agree, however, that foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-
foreign-hires should be included in the bargaining unit. hires.

Ruling: A bargaining unit is “a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than
1. YES. all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the
International law, which springs from general principles of law, likewise proscribes best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective
discrimination. General principles of law include principles of equity, i.e., the general principles bargaining provisions of the law.”
of fairness and justice, based on the test of what is reasonable.
The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are:
The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace·the factory, the office or the (2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and
field·but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests
Rule);
Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, supra, in Article (3) prior collective bargaining history; and
7 thereof, provides: (4) similarity of employment status.
The basic test of an asserted bargaining unitÊs acceptability is whether or not it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.

It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together
with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the
School also shows that these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have
limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar
functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded
certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These benefits, such as housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are reasonably related to their status
as foreign- hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To include foreign-
hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their
respective collective bargaining rights.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED
IN PART. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March
19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of
respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local- hires.
SO ORDERED.