Tiêu đề Labor-Canonical-Doctrines.pdf ✅

U.P LAW BOC abon3298 LABOR LAW Page 1 of 16 abon3298 LABOR LAW CANONICAL DOCTRINES FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TOPIC DOCTRINE CITED IN CITING Presumption of Inherent Inequality The presumption is that the employer and the employee are on unequal footing so the State has the responsibility to protect the employee. This presumption, however, must be taken on a case-to-case basis. Perfecto M. Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc. G.R. No. 191460 | Jan. 31, 2018 Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, Dec. 3, 2014; citing Jaculbe v. Silliman University, G.R. No. 156934, Mar. 16, 2007, citing Mercury Drug Co, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23357, Apr. 30, 1974; & Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988 RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT TOPIC DOCTRINE CITED IN CITING POEA- Standard Employment Contract integrated in every employment contract As part of a seafarer's deployment for overseas work, he and the vessel owner or its representative local manning agency are required to execute the POEA-SEC. Containing the standard terms and conditions of seafarers' employment, the POEA- SEC is deemed included in their contracts of employment in foreign ocean-going vessels. Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, Jr. G.R. No. 206113 | Nov. 6, 2017 Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Tanawan, G.R. No. 160444, Aug. 29, 2012; citing Coastal Safeway Marine Services, Inc. v. Delgado, G.R. No. 168210, June 17, 2008; citing Pentagon International Shipping, Inc. v. Adelantar, G.R. No. 157373, July 27, 2004 Estafa vs. Illegal Recruitment It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa.The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum,while estafa is mala in se.In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under People v. Racho y Somera G.R. No. 227505 | Oct. 2, 2017 People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, Sept. 13, 2012; citing People v. Chua, G.R. No. 184058, Mar. 10, 2010; citing People v. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, Feb. 28, 2007; citing People v. Hernandez, G.R. No.


U.P LAW BOC abon3298 LABOR LAW Page 4 of 16 abon3298 "wages" not "salaries" only laboring men or women whose work is manual. Belonging to this class are the workers who usually look to the reward of a day's labor for immediate or present support. They, more than any other persons, are the ones in need of the exemption 27 which, needless to say, does not encompass any and all workers. Elements of Wage Distortion Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Company laid down the four elements of wage distortion, to wit: (1) an existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates; (2) a significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one; (3) the elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and (4) the existence of the distortion in the same region of the country. Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union v. Chevron Geothermal Phils. Holdings, Inc. G.R. No. 207252 | Jan. 24, 2018 Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 131247, Jan. 25, 1999 POST-EMPLOYMENT TOPIC DOCTRINE CITED IN CITING Test to determine employer- employee relationship The tests for determining employer- employee relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The last is called the "control test," the most important element. Tesoro v. Metro Manila Retreaders, Inc. G.R. No. 171482 | March 12, 2014 "Brotherhood" Labor Unity Movement v. Zamora, G.R. No. L- 48645, Jan. 7, 1987; citing Investment Planning Corp. of the Phil. v. SSS, G.R. No. L-19124, Nov. 18, 1967, Manfinco Trading Corp. v. Ople, G.R. No. L- 37790, Mar. 25, 1976 Determination of "regular" employee There are two separate instances whereby it can be determined that an employment is regular: (1) if the particular activity performed by the employee is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and, (2) if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year. Pangilinan v. General Milling Corp. G.R. No. 149329 | July 12, 2004 Viernes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108405, April 4, 2003; citing De Leon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 70705, Aug, 21, 1989 & Abasolo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118475, Nov. 29, 2000 Project Employee Attaining Status of Regular Employee; Requisites Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee. Freyssinet Filipinas Corp. v. Lapuz G.R. No. 226722 | March 18, 2019 Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120969, Jan. 22, 1998; citing PNCC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 85323, June 20, 1989 & Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. NLRC, G.R. No.