LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

Labor law in the Philippine context

LABOR - is understood as physical toil although it does not necessarily exclude the application
of skill, thus there is skilled and unskilled labor.

LABOR LEGISLATION - consists of statutes, regulations and jurisprudence governing the

relations between capital and labor, by providing for certain employment standards and other
incidents of employment.

SOCIAL LEGISLATION - as those laws that provide particular kinds of protection or benefits
to society or segments thereof in furtherance of social justice.

LABOR LAW CLASSIFICATION

LABOR STANDARDS LAW - as that which provides the least terms and conditions of
employment that employers must comply with and to which employees are entitled as a matter of
legal right.

In the case of Maternity Children’s Hospital v Secretary of Labor, the Court held that
“labor standards are minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules and regulation
relating to wages, hours of work, cost-of-living allowance, and other monetary and welfare
benefits, including occupational, safety and health standards.

LABOR RELATIONS LAW - defines the status, rights and duties, and the institutional mechanisms
that govern the individual and collective interactions, of employers, employees or their representatives.

WELFARE LEGISLATION

Basic Policy On Labor

SOCIAL JUSTICE - is defined as “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy.”
But the humanization of laws and equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice
in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social Justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to
insure economic stability of all the component elements of society through the maintenance of proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionality,
through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all governments, on the time-honored principle of salus popili es
suprema lex.
 CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR

Union of Filipino Employees vs. Vivar Jr., 205 SCRA 2000

Facts:
This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the holiday pay
award and the change of the divisor in the computation of benefits from 251 to 261 days.

Keynotes:
 Article 4. All doubt in the implementation and interpretation of this Code,
including its implementing rules and regulation, shall be in favor of labor.
 251 days as its Divisor

Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople, G.R. No. 73681, June 30, 1988
Facts:
Before us is a Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the Order of
respondent Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE) directly certifying private respondent as
the recognized and duly-authorized collective bargaining agent for petitioner's sales force and
ordering the reinstatement of three employees of petitioner.

Keynotes:
 Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and
respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or
employers' side. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.
 As stated by Us in the case of San Miguel Brewery vs. National Labor Union,
"an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a
person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to
his interest."
 The Constitutional mandate that the State shall "assure the rights of the workers to
self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane
conditions of work," should be achieved under a system of law such as the
aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statutes.

a. CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO

LABOR LAW
i. LABOR CLAUSE:
Art. XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the
right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

ii. Other Constitutional Provisions on Labor

 The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purpose not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
 The right of self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. No officer or
employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be
provided by law.
 Regular farmworkers shall have the right to own directly or collectively the lands they
till. Other farmworkers shall receive a just share of the fruits of the land they till. The
state recognizes the right of farmworkers, along with other groups, to take part in the
planning, organization and management of the agrarian reform program. Landless
farmworkers may be resettled by the government in its own agricultural estates.
 The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the
private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make
available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and
homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate
employment opportunities to such citizens.
 The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and
opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential
in the service of the nation
 Along with other sectors, labor is entitled to seats allotted to party-list representatives for
three consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution.
 The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced
by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote
industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural
resources.
 Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as
instruments for social justice and economic development.
  At the earliest possible time, the Government shall increase the salary scales of the other
officials and employees of the National Government.
 Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a result of
the reorganization shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and
other benefits under existing laws. In lieu thereof, they may also be considered for
reemployment in the Government. Those whose resignations have been accepted in line
with the existing policy shall also have this right.
iii. SPECIFIC LABOR RIGHTS Art. XIII, Sec. 3
iv. Cases:
1. PASEI vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988
Facts:
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a
firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas
placement," 1 challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988,
of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING
THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Keynotes:
 The Constitution declares that:
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.

 "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, just, and humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons
and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at
home. Under these circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to insure that
our toiling expatriates have adequate protection, personally and economically,
while away from home. In this case, the Government has evidence, an evidence
the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such
protection, and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on
deployment.

 Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an
invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true that police power is the domain of
the legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully
delegated. As we have mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests the Department of
Labor and Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement whereof

2. Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635

3. Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, et al., G.R. No.
167614, March 24, 2009
4. Shell Philippines vs. Central Bank, 162 SCRA 628
 5. IBAAEU vs. Inciong, G.R. L-52415, October 23, 1984
b. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
i. Cases:
1. Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines, et al. vs.
Zamora, G.R. No. 48645, Jan. 7, 1987
2. Angelina Francisco vs. NLRC, Kasei Corp., etc., G.R. No. 170087,
Aug. 31, 2006
3. DaniloTabas, et al. vs. CMC, G.R. No. 80680, January 26, 1989
4. Lolita Lopez vs. Bodega City, G.R. No. 155731, Sept. 3, 2007
5. Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Pablo M. Race, G.R. No. 164820,
March 28, 2007
6. Goma vs. Pamplona Plantation, Inc. G.R. No. 160905, July 4, 2008
7. LVN Pictures Inc. v. Phil. Musicians Guild (110 Phil. 725)
8. DyKehBeng v. International Labor, 90 SCRA 161
9. Corporal v. NLRC (341 SCRA 658) [2000]
10. Maraguinot v. NLRC (284 SCRA 539)
11. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 138051,
June 10, 2004.
12. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v MarlynNazareno,
MerlouGerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Lerasan, G.R.
No. 164156, September 26, 2006
13. WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. et al. vs. Jocelyn M.
Galera/Jocelyn M. Galera vs. WPP Marketing Communications,
Inc. et al., G.R. No. 169207/G.R. No. 169239, March 25, 2010
14. Television And Production Exponents, Inc. v Servaña, (G.R. No.
167648, January 28, 2008)
15. What is the nature, kinds and effects of subcontracting? 106 – 107,
D.O. No. 18 –A series of 2011 / Labor Code, Department Orders
Nos. 10, s. 1997 and -02, s. 2002
16. Chavez vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 146530, January 17, 2005
17. Tan vs. Lagrama, G.R. No. 151228, August 15, 2002
18. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No.138051,
June 10, 2004
19. SSS vs. CA, G.R. No. 100388, December 14, 2000
20. Manila Electric Company vs. Buenamira, G.R. No. 145271, July
14, 2005
21. Manila Water Co. Inc. vs. Pena et al., G.R. No. 1582155, July 8,
2004
22. Neri vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 7171
23. Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 111501,
March 5, 1996
24. Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation vs. NLRC et al., 113347,
June 14, 1996
25. WackWack Golf and Country Club vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149793,
April 15, 2005
26. San Miguel Corporation vs. Maerc Integrated Services, Inc., G.R.
No. 144672, July 10, 2003
27. Abella vs. PLDT, G.R. No. 159489, June 8, 2005
28. Tabas vs. California Marketing Co. Inc. 169 SCRA 497
29. Escario vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124055, June 8, 2000