Security Guards on Floating Status

In the recent case of Exocet Security and Allied Services Corp. and/or Ma. Teresa Marcelo vs. Armando D. Serrano (G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014) the Supreme Court clarified some of the rules concerning security guards on floating status. I have taken the liberty of summarising these rules, but I have more or less followed the exact words of the Supreme Court in the decision.

1. The “floating status” or temporary “off-detail” of security guards employed by private security agencies is a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off. The concept has been defined as that period of time when security guards are in between assignments or when they are made to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. It takes place when the security agency’s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be placed on temporary “off-detail” if there are no available posts under the agency’s existing contracts. Continue reading “Security Guards on Floating Status”

Time Cards and Dismissal

Can an employee be dismissed if he punches in not only his time card but also the time cards of his co-employees? The answer to this question may be found in the case of SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO B. DELEN, FELIPE P. MERCADO, ROGELIO Z. MISOLAS, HENRY S. LOGAN & EFREN M. QUERUBIN (G.R. No. 82467 June 29, 1989). Continue reading “Time Cards and Dismissal”

USLS & UNOR 2009 Bar Passers

Congratulations to the new lawyers from USLS and UNO-R!

From USLS (thanks to Atty. Ralph Sarmiento for the info):

1. CRISTALES, Inban Q.
2. DEPASUCAT, Hope Marey B.
3. ENRILE, Christy Irene D.
4. GENTUGAYA, Norman Vincent O.
5. GUANZON, Kathlyn Joy M.
6. JAVELLANA, Gerardo B.
7. KATALBAS, Jubert P.
8. LIM, Elnathan C.
9. MOHAMETANO, Gift S.
10. ORTEGA, Sarah T.
11. PLOTEÑA, Vivian T.
12. PRADAS, Liza D.
13. SACRAMENTO, Allan M.
14. VILLASTER, Michael Hanz D.

From UNO-R (Thanks to Atty. Jan Anthony Saril for the info):

Romella Amarilla, Edward Joseph Cuansing,
Auxilliador Avitus Dofelix, Jufran Gamboa, Elnora Orola-Abaygar, Nelsie
Patalita-Arcolas, Anabelle Palic and April Joan Pico-Elumba.

NOTE: the info above was simply copied from Facebook and pasted here.

Labor Law: Cashiers Beware!

The case EATS-CETERA FOOD SERVICES OUTLET and/or SERAFIN RAMIREZ, versus MYRNA B. LETRAN and MARY GRACE ESPADERO, (G.R. No. 179507, October 2, 2009) involves a cashier whose time card was punched in by someone else. She failed to report this incident to her supervisor, for which reason she was eventually dismissed. One wonders whether such a minor matter could be a just cause for dismissal, but so it is! And the crucial factor here is her position as cashier. Continue reading “Labor Law: Cashiers Beware!”

Labor Law – Loss of Trust and Confidence

The Supreme Court had the opportunity of reiterating some well-known guidelines pertaining to dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence in the very recent case of M+W ZANDER PHILIPPINES, INC. and ROLF WILTSCHEK, versus TRINIDAD M. ENRIQUEZ, (G.R. No. 169173) promulgated just last week, i.e., June 5, 2009. You can read the facts of the case HERE. The central guidelines on loss of confidence as enunciated in this case are as follows:

Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. [28]  Certain guidelines must be observed for the employer to terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence.  We held in General Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals,[29] viz.:
[L]oss of confidence should not be simulated. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified. Loss of confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.[30]
The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence.
There are two classes of positions of trust: managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees.
Managerial employees are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions.[31] They refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.[32] Officers and members of the managerial staff perform work directly related to management policies of their employer and customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment.[33]
The second class or fiduciary rank-and-file employees consist of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc., or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property.[34] These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.
The second requisite of terminating an employee for loss of trust and confidence is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.[38] To be a valid cause for dismissal, the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.[39]

Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence. Certain guidelines must be observed for the employer to terminate an employee for loss of trust and confidence.  We held in General Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, viz.:

[L]oss of confidence should not be simulated. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified. Loss of confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.

The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence.

There are two classes of positions of trust: managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees.

Managerial employees are defined as those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or effectively recommend such managerial actions. They refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. Officers and members of the managerial staff perform work directly related to management policies of their employer and customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment.

The second class or fiduciary rank-and-file employees consist of cashiers, auditors, property custodians, etc., or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence….

The second requisite of terminating an employee for loss of trust and confidence is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.  To be a valid cause for dismissal, the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts.

The case also includes a discussion of when and when not to grant moral damages in labor cases, and when is a General Manager personally liable for an illegally dismissed employee’s labor claims. You can read the whole thing HERE.

House Resolution 1109

Atty. Fred Pamaos has posted the full text of House Resolution 1109 (re: Constitutional Amendment or Revision) at Philippine e-Legal Forum.

Here’s the bottomline:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT ITS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS.

Impact of Social Media on Legal System

Bringing Twitter, Facebook to justice – Winnipeg Free Press.

Indeed, the impact of social media on all parts of the legal system is becoming more and more apparent, and the need to address it more urgent.

New technology makes some of the old concerns — the intrusiveness of old TV cameras, the inability to mask the identity of witnesses who require anonymity — truly obsolete.

Click HERE.