Eclevia Ballares Ybañez & Evangelista - EBY & E Law Office

20/06/2025

The (SC) has affirmed a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling finding that Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) did not sufficiently prove payment of salaries and 13th month pay to its former pilots. To prove salary payment through banks, the Court held that employers must show that the payroll was submitted to and received by the bank.

In a Decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) the labor claims of 18 former PAL pilots, to determine the exact amount and to make a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due to them.

It found that the Payroll Listing and 13th Month Pay Payroll Register presented by PAL were not sufficient proof of payment, as they did not provide proof of actual receipt of payment by the employees.

The case stemmed from a 1998 strike by 49 PAL pilots, who later filed a complaint with the NLRC against PAL alleging illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and non-payment of various monetary benefits such as salaries, allowances, and bonuses.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the claims of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. As for the monetary claims, PAL presented payroll documents to prove payment, which were accepted by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

The CA, however, reversed the NLRC. stating that the documents presented by PAL were not sufficient proof of payment.

The SC affirmed the CA, emphasizing that payroll records and vouchers can only be considered strong proof of payment if they clearly show that the employees actually received the money and when the payment was made.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/ac5kehbk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/c4dpa3sj.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

20/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that when a Filipino asks a Philippine court to recognize a foreign divorce, they only need to prove the law of the country where the divorce was obtained – not the law of their foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/ympmypuz.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

06/01/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that a Certificate of Registration from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) does not automatically mean a manpower agency is engaged in lawful job contracting.

The Labor Code differentiates between two types of contracting: legal job contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting.

In job contracting, the contractor supplies another business or company with workers, along with the necessary tools and equipment for their tasks. The contractor is responsible for controlling and supervising the workers as their employer.

Labor-only contracting involves the contractor supplying only workers without the necessary tools or equipment. In this arrangement, the business or company manages these workers and is considered their true employer.

The SC emphasized that determining whether a manpower agency is engaged in legitimate job contracting or labor-only contracting requires looking at all the facts and circumstances. A DOLE Certificate of Registration may help prevent assumptions of labor-only contracting, but it does not serve as conclusive proof of legality.

There is labor-only contracting when (1) a contractor who supplies workers to an employer does not have substantial capital in the form of tools, equipment, work premises, etc., and (2) the workers perform tasks that are directly related to the employer’s principal business. Under this arrangement, the contractor is a mere agent of the employer who is ultimately responsible to the workers as if the employer directly employed them.

In the present case, the SC held that manpower agency Nozomi Fortune Services, Inc. engaged in labor-only contracting when it hired workers and assigned them to Samsung Electro-Mechanics Phils. as production operators without the necessary tools and equipment. Their tasks as production operators were essential to Samsung’s production of microchips. Samsung’s supervisors also directed their work, demonstrating that Samsung managed and controlled their employment.

Thus, despite holding a DOLE Certificate of Registration, Nozomi was found by the SC to have engaged in labor-only contracting.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court’s Third Division written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao.

Read the full text of the press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dole-registration-certificate-alone-does-not-prove-legal-job-contracting/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/221043-nozomi-fortune-services-inc-vs-celestino-a-naredo/



Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/

02/08/2024

24/06/2024

Happy birthday to our amazing golden girl, small but mighty!
Jaya Rhys Ybañez

08/06/2024

Happy 1st Anniversary, Eclevia Ballares Ybañez & Evangelista - EBY & E Law Office ! 🎉

07/05/2024

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), grants protection to women-victims not only from men, but also from women, with whom they are in an intimate relationship.

READ: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-that-anti-vawc-act-also-applies-to-lesbian-relationships/

26/04/2024

LOOK: The Supreme Court issues a Circular re Guidelines on Submission on Electronic Copies of Pleadings and other Court Submissions being filed before the Lower Courts pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.

09/04/2024