1. Escario v NLRC GR No.

124055
2. Lim v NLRC GR No 124630
3. Phil Bank od Communications v NLRC GR No. L 66598
4. Babas v Lorenzo Shipping GR No. 186091
5. Rosewood v. NLRC GR No. 116476
6. GSIS v NLRC GR No 180045
7. Eparwa v LDCU GR No. 150402
8. Digital Telecommunications v Digitel Employees Union GR No. 184903 – 04
9. Norkis Trading v Buenavista GR No. 182018
10. Coca Cola Bottlers v Agito GR No. 179546Lingnam Restaurant v Skill and Talent GR No. 214667,
2018
11. People v. Sadiosa GR 107084
12. People v. Ortiz MiyaKe GR No. 115338-39
13. People vs Cagalingan GR No. 198664
14. People vs. Mateo GR No. 198012
15. EDI-Staffbuilders vs. NLRC GR No. 144558
16. Posseidon Interaction vs. Tamala GR No. 186475
17. Skippers Limited Pacific vs. NLRC GR No. 148893
18. Sameer vs. Cabiles GR No. 170139
19. Millares vs. NLRC GR No. 110524
20. Santiago vs. CF Sharp Crew Management GR No. 162419
21. Rada v NLRC, GR No 96078
22. Unison Labor v Union Phil 215 SCRA 554
23. Durabuilt v NLRC GR No. L -76746, July 27, 1987
24. Arica v NLRC GR No. G.R. No. 78210 February 28, 1989
25. Engineering v Ministry of Labor G.R. No. L-64967 September 23, 1985
26. Mercader v Manila Polo, G.R. No. L-8373
27. Meralco Workers Union v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. L-19785, January 30, 1967
28. Labor Congress v NLRC, G.R.
29. Lambo v NLRC,
30. Reyes v NLRC
31. Philippine Duplicators Inc v NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, February 15, 1995
32. GAA v CA G.R. No. L-44169 December 3, 1985
33. Vda de Racho v. Ilagan, G.R. No. L-23542, January 2, 1968
34. Mayon Hotel v Adana, G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005
35. Equitable Banking Corp v Sadac,
 People vs Cagalingan
GR No. 198664
November 23, 2016
The following are the case doctrines:
a. Illegal recruitment is a crime committed by a person who, not having the valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers, undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
mentioned in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code,  or any of the prohibited practices enumerated in
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers' Act),  against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.

b. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: 

(a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; 
(b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and, 
(c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group.

Brief Facts:
Owen Marcelo Cagalingan and Beatriz B. Cagalingan (accused spouses) were charged with Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale before the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City which was initiated by Reynalyn,
Roselle, Laarni, Naorma all surnamed Cagalingan and Arcele Bacorro. Accused spouses were likewise
charged with three (3) counts of Estafa by Reynalyn, Roselle and Arcele. The Accused Spouses, without
the required license or authority, allegedly represented themselves to have the capacity to hire and
transport Filipino workers for employment in Macau, China and that for a fee, they recruited and
promised job placement to the complainants. The RTC ruled in favor of the complainants which held the
accused spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt which was then affirmed by CA and SC.

Issue:
Whether or not accused spouses were guilty of Illegal Recruitment.
Ruling:
In the case at bench, all three (3) elements were established during trial. First, it was proved by
private complaints that accused spouses were not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment
activities. This fact was substantiated by POEA's Certifications and as testified to by the Officer-in-Charge
of the POEA who issued the same. Second, private complainants testified and proved that indeed
accused spouses undertook acts constituting recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13 (b)
of the Labor Code. They testified that they were induced, offered and promised by accused spouses
employment in Macau, China for two (2) years for a fee. They were made to believe that accused
spouses were authorized to hire them and capable of sending them to Macau for work with higher pays.
They paid accused spouses for documentation and processing fees, yet, they were unable to go abroad.
These testimonies, as well as the documentary evidence they submitted consisting of the receipts issued
to them by accused spouses, all proved that the latter were engaged in recruitment and placement
activities. And third, there are five (5) complainants against whom accused spouses are alleged to have
recruited.
The SC Affirmed the decision of the RTC and CA with slight modifications in the penalties.

People vs. Mateo

GR No. 198012
April 22, 2015
The following are the case doctrines:

a. The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused
did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and,
(3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.
b. Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of
"illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."
c. The mere participation of one of the accused serving as runner and even just keeping the money
entrusted by the complainants connotes that she was an indispensable participant and effective
collaborator of illegal recruitment.

Brief Facts:
Angel Mateo y Jacinto (Mateo) and VIcenta Lapiz y Medina (Lapiz) were charged with illegal
recruitment in large scale by the five private complainants. Mateo represented himself to have a tie-up
with some Japanese firms, promised the complainant employment in Japan for a fee. Mateo and Lapiz ,
without the proper license to recruit for overseas employment, also promised that they could facilitate
private complainants' employment as direct hires and assured their departure within three weeks.
However, after payment by the complainants, no employment was secured and their money was not
returned to them. Hence, complainants filed the case of illegal recruitment and estafa to the court.

Issue:
Whether or not Mateo and Lapiz are guilty of Illegal Recruitment.

Ruling:
Yes. The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not
have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused
committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. These elements are
obtaining in this case. First, the RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment activity when
they promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee. This factual finding was affirmed by
the CA. "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness
stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge." And when his findings have been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme
Court. Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither have a
license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Notably, appellants never assailed
this Certification. Third, it was established that there were five complainants. Clearly, the existence of
the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution.
Appellants' argument that there was no proof that they received money from the private complainants
deserves no credence. Suffice it to say that money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment
considering that the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for
profit or not." Besides, even if there is no receipt for the money given by the private complainants to
appellants, the former's respective testimonies and affidavits clearly narrate the latter's involvement in
the prohibited recruitment.

EDI-Staffbuilders vs. NLRC

GR No. 144558
October 26, 2007
These are the case doctrines:
a. In cases arising before the effectivity of R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act) on August 25, 1995, that when the contract is for a fixed term and the employees are
dismissed without just cause, they are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to
the unexpired portion of their contract. On the other hand, for cases arising after the effectivity
of R.A. No. 8042, when the termination of employment is without just, valid or authorized cause
as defined by law or contract, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his
placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term whichever is less.

b. In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and between the OFW, the local
recruiter/agent, and the foreign employer/principal are governed by the employment contract. 

c. International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption – a foreign

law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the
same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before
the court.

d. Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be
protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the
requirement of notice under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the employer shall furnish the
worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement
of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with
company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of
Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the
right of the workers to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with
the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. (ART. 277.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [b])

e. For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the following twin elements must
concur: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a
wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,
 made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to
discharge.
f.  Prieto Ruling – "[i]t is presumed that before their deployment, the petitioners were subjected
to trade tests required by law to be conducted by the recruiting agency to insure employment of
only technically qualified workers for the foreign principal.

g. (1) If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must 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 which
dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or 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 Department
of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.

h. Twin notice requirement, the employees must be given two (2) notices before their employment
could be terminated: (1) a first notice to apprise the employees of their fault, and (2) a second
notice to communicate to the employees that their employment is being terminated. In
between the first and second notice, the employees should be given a hearing or opportunity to
defend themselves personally or by counsel of their choice.

i. Quit Claims and Waivers under Philippine Laws should contain the Following:
1. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;

2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the
employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount;

3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee in English,
Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees—that by signing the waiver or
quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits which
are due them under the law; and

4. A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and
had fully understood the contents of the document and that their consent was freely
given without any threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on
their person.

It is advisable that the stipulations be made in English and Tagalog or in the dialect
known to the employee. There should be two (2) witnesses to the execution of the
quitclaim who must also sign the quitclaim. The document should be subscribed and
sworn to under oath preferably before any administering official of the Department of
Labor and Employment or its regional office, the Bureau of Labor Relations, the NLRC or
a labor attaché in a foreign country. Such official shall assist the parties regarding the
execution of the quitclaim and waiver.

j. Any compromise settlement voluntarily agreed upon with the assistance of the Bureau of Labor
Relations or the regional office of the DOLE, shall be final and binding upon the parties and the
NLRC or any court "shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of
 non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained
through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion. (Article 227, Labor Code)

Brief Facts:
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc., is a corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of
OFWs and ESI is another recruitment agency which collaborate with EDI to process documentation and
deployment of private respondent, Gran, to work for OAB in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Upon working there,
Gran questioned the discrepancy in his salary and later on after working for five months, his
employment was terminated. He then received his final pay from OAB.
After his arrival in the Philippines, Gran instituted a complaint for underpayment of
wages/salaries and illegal dismissal.

Issue:
Whether or not the binding law in the recruitment and placement contract is the Philippine Law.

Ruling:
Yes. In cases involving OFWs, the rights among and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent
and the foreign employer/principal are governed by the employment contract.
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor
Laws will govern matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination,
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the
contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the employment of
Gran.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly
pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is
presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for EDI, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the
International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play.
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before
us.

Poseidon International Maritime Services, Inc., vs. Tito R. Tamala et., al.,
GR No. 186475
June 26, 2013
These are the Case Doctrines:

a. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of
the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the [Department of Labor
and Employment] at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.  x x x In case of
retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of
 establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the
separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be
considered as one (1) whole year. (Article 283, Labor Code)

b. Management has the right to regulate the business and control its every aspect. Included in this
management right is the freedom to close or cease its operations for any reason, as long as it is
done in good faith and the employer faithfully complies with the substantive and procedural
requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence.

c. Requisites for recognition of validity of the cessation of the business operations as a valid
ground for termination of overseas employment:
1. The decision to close or cease operations must be bona fide in character;
2. Service of written notice on the affected employees and on the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) at least one (1) month prior to the effectivity of the
termination; and
3. Payment to the affected employees of termination or separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher.
d. A waiver/quitclaim, to be valid, must meet the following requirements:
1. That they voluntarily signed the document (that there was no fraud or deceit on the
part of any of the parties);
2. The settlement pay is reasonable under the circumstance (that the consideration for
the quitclaim is sufficient and reasonable); and
3. The contents of the waiver/quitclaim are clear, unequivocal and uncomplicated
(that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law).

Brief Facts:
Poseidon International Maritime Services (petitioners) hired Tamala et., al., (respondents) in
behalf of Van Doorn, to man the fishing vessels of Van Doorn and those of its partners. However, the
fishing operations for which the respondents were hired were abruptly stopped and did not resume.
Before the respondents disembarked from the vessels, the respondents’ immediate employer and the
respondents themselves executed an agreement which provides that the respondents would get the full
100% of their unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of their pre-terminated contract in accordance
with Philippine Laws. This was not realized, instead, petitioners entered into another agreement  (letter
of acceptance) reducing the previously agreed amount to 50% of the respondents’ unpaid
salaries (settlement pay) for the unexpired portion of their contract. When the respondents arrived in
Manila, they received the settlement pay under their letter of acceptance.  The respondents then signed
a waiver and quitclaim and the corresponding cash vouchers. Later on, the respondents filed a
complaint in the Arbitration Branch of NLRC for illegal termination of employment with prayer for the
payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contracts; and for non-payment of salaries,
overtime pay and vacation leave pay. The respondents also prayed for moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the Respondents are entitled for the unpaid portions of their salaries.
 2. Whether or not the cessation of the business operations is a valid ground for termination of
overseas employment;

Ruling:
1. No. The application of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 presumes a finding of illegal dismissal. 
The pertinent portion of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 reads:

SEC. 10. MONEY CLAIMS. — x x x

xxxx

In case of termination of overseas employment  without  just, valid or authorized cause as

defined by law or contract.

A plain reading of this provision readily shows that it applies only to cases of illegal
dismissal or dismissal without any just, authorized or valid cause and finds no application
in cases where the overseas Filipino worker was not illegally dismissed.  We found the
occasion to apply this rule in International Management Services v. Logarta, where we held
that Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 applies only to an illegally dismissed overseas contract
worker or a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause.

Whether the respondents in the present case were illegally dismissed is a question we
resolve in the negative for three reasons. First, the respondents’ references to illegal
dismissal in their several pleadings were mere cursory declarations rather than a definitive
demand for redress.  The LA’s May 2006 Decision clearly enunciated this point when she
dismissed the respondents’ claim of illegal dismissal "as complainants themselves have lost
interest to pursue the same." Second, the respondents, in their motion for reconsideration
filed before the NLRC, positively argued that the fishing operations for which they were
hired ceased as a result of the business decision of Van Doorn and of its partners; thus,
negating by omission any claim for illegal dismissal. Third, the CA, in its assailed decision,
likewise made the very same inference – that the fishing operations ceased as a result of
a business decision of Van Doorn and of its partners.  In other words, the manner of
dismissal was not a contested issue; the records clearly showed that the respondents’
employment was terminated because Van Doorn and its partners simply  decided to stop
their fishing operations  in the exercise of their management prerogative, which prerogative
even our labor laws recognize.

2. Yes. This legal reality is reiterated under Section 18-B, paragraph 2, in relation with Section
23 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) (which is deemed written into
every overseas employment contract) which recognizes the validity of the cessation of the
business operations as a valid ground for the termination of an overseas employment.   This
recognition is subject to compliance with the following requisites: (1) The decision to close
or cease operations must be bona fide in character; (2) Service of written notice on the
affected employees and on the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one
(1) month prior to the effectivity of the termination; and (3) Payment to the affected
employees of termination or separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
The SC is sufficiently convinced, based on the records, that Van Doorn’s termination of the
respondents’ employment arising from the cessation of its fishing operations complied with the
above requisites and is thus valid.