CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND BASIS

ARTCLE 2 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE

POLICIES
Section 9. 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.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and
protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.

ARTICLE 13 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
Section 3. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities
based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

CASES:

SIME DARBY VS NLRC

GR NO. 119205, APRIL 15, 1998
FACTS:
1. Darby Pilipinas Inc. is a manufacturer of rubber products.
2. Salaried Employees Association is composed Darby’s salaried employees who are factory-
based.
3. This case emanated from the memorandum promulgated by the management of Darby
changing the work schedule of those factory-based employees while retaining the schedule of
those warehouse and QA employees.
4. Originally, before the implementation of the said memorandum, the working schedule of the
employees was from 7:45 AM to 3:45 PM with a 30-min paid “on call” lunch break.
5. However, it was changed to 7:45 AM to 4:45 PM with one hour noon break (12-1).
 6. The 30-min paid “on call” lunch break was likewise removed.
7. This prompted the employees to file a case before the Labor Arbiter alleging unfair labor
practices, discrimination, and evasion of liability. The employees invoked the ruling on Darby
International vs NLRC.
8. Darby Pilipinas, on the other hand, argued that the said management action is done in good
faith in order to increase the productivity of its employees.

ISSUE:
Whether the change in the work schedule and the discontinuance of the 30-min paid “on call”
lunch break constitute unfair labor practice.

RULING:

LABOR ARBITER:

No, this does not constitute unfair labor practice because this is a valid exercise of management
prerogative. The change in the work schedule and the discontinuance of the 30-min paid “on
call” did not diminish the benefits of the employees because the revised working schedule did
not exceed 8 hours.

It likewise ruled that if the employees were to be paid for the 30-min lunch break even in fact
they are not required to work constitutes unjust enrichment. With regard to the applicability of
the case of Darby International in this case, it ruled that such case is not applicable here
because in that case, the issue was that it involved discrimination of certain employees who
were not paid for their 30-minute lunch break while the rest of the factory workers were paid.

NLRC:
Originally, the NLRC sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

However, upon motion of reconsideration and change in the composition of the

commissioners, it reversed its original decision.

SC:
No, the change in the work schedule and the discontinuance of the 30-min paid “on call” do
not constitute unfair labor practice.

Jurisprudence provides that the right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests
principally on their employer. While the Constitution and existing laws are committed to
the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be
supposed that every dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. It must also
protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. It
refers to the freedom of the management to regulate, according to its own discretion and
judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of
workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay off of workers
and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.

In the instant case, the change in the work schedule does not violate the requirement of 8
working hour under the Labor Code. The discontinuance of the 30-min paid “on call” lunch
break is likewise fair because in the revised work schedule, employees are no longer required
to work during their lunch break.
 For these reasons, the change in the work schedule and the discontinuance of the 30-min paid
“on call” does not constitute unfair labor practice.
GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE VS. NLRC
GR NO. 82511, MARCH 03, 1993
FACTS:
1. Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (“GMCR”) was the employer of Delfin Salazar
(“Delfin”) and Imelda Salazar (“Imelda”): Delfin was a manager, while Imelda was a general
system analyst.
2. Imelda and Delfin are roommates.
3. In 1984, some of the equipment of GMCR and its spare parts went missing.
4. This prompted GMCR to conduct investigation.
5. An internal auditor conducted the examination, and based on his reports, Delfin entered into
some-sort of partnership with the supplier of GMCR. Accordingly, it was found out that one of
the witnesses in the Articles of Partnership was Imelda. It was likewise discovered that in the
apartment where Imelda and Delfin was residing, an air-conditioning unit was installed, and it
was one of the missing equipment of GMCR.
6. Because of these, it was alleged that Imelda has full knowledge of what was happening, yet she
did not informed the management.
7. Thereafter, the management placed Imelda into a one-month suspension, or a preventive
suspension, and required her to make an explanation.
8. However, instead of filing an explanation letter, Imelda went directly to the Labor Arbiter and
filed a complaint for illegal suspension, which later on turned to be illegal dismissal after
GMCR dismissed her for failure to refute the findings of the internal auditor.

ISSUE:
Whether Imelda was illegally dismissed of her position.

RULING:

LABOR ARBITER:

Yes, Imelda was illegally dismissed. She must be reinstated of to her former or equivalent
position and to pay her full back-wages and other benefits she would have received were it not
for the illegal dismissal plus 50k damages.

NLCR:

It affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with respect to the reinstatement of private
respondent, but limited the back-wages to a period of two (2) years and deleted the award for
moral damages.

SC:

On the matter of preventive suspension, the SC held that GMRC did not violate due process
because of the following:
1. Imelda was given the opportunity to explain her side, but instead, she directly went to the
Labor Arbiter.
2. The preventive suspension is not illegal because it is a proper remedy of the company to
protect its assets against employees’ misfeasance and malfeasance.
On the matter of Salazar’s subsequent dismissal:

Yes, Imelda was illegally dismissed.

Article 279 (now 294) of the Labor Code discussed about Security of tenure, and it provides
that “In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an
employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights
and other privileges and to his full back-wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.” This provision was likewise bolstered in
the Labor Code’s IRR.

In fact, the present Constitution, the 1987 Constitution, even went further compared to the
1973 charter in according protection to labor, by inserting a whole new Article on Social
Justice and Human Rights (Article 13).

In the instant case, the SC did not find any just or authorized reason for the dismissal of
Imelda; thus, she is entitled to reinstatement and full back-wages. The SC even clarified that