Week 1 Coverage Table
The table below mirrors the workbook's assigned cases for Week 1 and links each item to its digest page.
Class. records how the case actually stands to the subtopic it was assigned under — DIRECT (the Court squarely applies the doctrine), ANALOGOUS (it decides the point under a different provision or doctrine), REJECTED (the Court found the doctrine not established), INCIDENTAL (the doctrine is mentioned but the disposition rests elsewhere). Reciting a REJECTED case as if it were DIRECT inverts the holding.
| # | Assigned Case | Topic/Subtopic | Class. | Digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Milan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 202961, February 4, 2015 | A.2 — Construction in favor of Labor | REJECTED | |
| 2 | Anucension v. National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-26097, November 29, 1977 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | DIRECT | |
| 3 | Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | DIRECT | |
| 4 | Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro A. Tecson v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | DIRECT | |
| 5 | Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | DIRECT | |
| 6 | Manuel v. N. C. Construction Supply, G.R. No. 127553, November 28, 1997 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | DIRECT | |
| 7 | Labor as a contract: Leyte Geothermal v. PNOC-EDC, G.R. No. 170351, March 30, 2011 | A.3 — Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to labor laws | ANALOGOUS | |
| 8 | PNCC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 248401, June 23, 2021 | A.5 — Applicability of the Labor Code | DIRECT | |
| 9 | Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 186091, December 15, 2010 | B.2 — Concept of legitimate job contracting (Art. 106, Labor Code; Sec. 8, Rule VIII, IRR; D.O. No. 174, s. 2017) | REJECTED | |
| 10 | Capital requirement and relation to job: Alaska Milk Corporation v. Paez, G.R. No. 237277, November 27, 2019 | B.2 — Concept of legitimate job contracting (Art. 106, Labor Code; Sec. 8, Rule VIII, IRR; D.O. No. 174, s. 2017) | DIRECT | |
| 11 | Individual contractors: Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004 | B.2 — Concept of legitimate job contracting (Art. 106, Labor Code; Sec. 8, Rule VIII, IRR; D.O. No. 174, s. 2017) | DIRECT | |
| 12 | Allied Banking Corporation v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 219435, January 17, 2018 | B.3 — Labor-only contracting (Sec. 9, Rule VIII, IRR) | DIRECT | |
| 13 | Baguio v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79004-08, October 4, 1991 | B.3 — Labor-only contracting (Sec. 9, Rule VIII, IRR) | REJECTED | |
| 14 | Servflex v. Urera, G.R. No. 246369, March 29, 2022 | B.3 — Labor-only contracting (Sec. 9, Rule VIII, IRR) | DIRECT | |
| 15 | Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon v. PLDT, G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294, February 14, 2024 | B.3 — Labor-only contracting (Sec. 9, Rule VIII, IRR) | DIRECT | |
| 16 | People v. Panis, G.R. No. L-58674-77, July 11, 1986 | B.4.a — Recruitment and placement: definition (Art. 13[b], Labor Code) | DIRECT | |
| 17 | Suliman v. People, G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | DIRECT | |
| 18 | People v. Jimmy Ang, G.R. No. 181245, August 6, 2008 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | DIRECT | |
| 19 | Syndicated: People v. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | DIRECT | |
| 20 | Large scale: People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 141221-36, March 7, 2002 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | REJECTED | |
| 21 | Mere promise: People v. Laogo, G.R. No. 176264, January 10, 2011 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | DIRECT | |
| 22 | Relevance of license: People v. Ballesteros, G.R. Nos. 116905-908, August 6, 2002 | B.4.b — Illegal recruitment: elements and types (Art. 38, Labor Code; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended) | DIRECT | |
| 23 | People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 185277, March 18, 2010 | B.4.c — Illegal recruitment vis-à-vis estafa (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended; Art. 315[2][a], RPC) | DIRECT | |
| 24 | Sunace v. NLRC, G.R. No. 161757, January 25, 2006 | B.4.c — Illegal recruitment vis-à-vis estafa (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042 as amended; Art. 315[2][a], RPC) | INCIDENTAL |
Citation defects in the workbook list. The table above carries the verified citations; raise these in class rather than transcribing the workbook. Item 9 — Babas was decided December 15, 2010, not 1991. Item 10 — Alaska Milk v. Paez is G.R. No. 237277, consolidated with G.R. No. 237317, not "G.R. No. 23722." Item 15 — Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon (workbook spelling: "Kominkasyon") is G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294, decided February 14, 2024, not 2004. Item 18 — the workbook reads "Augus 6, 2008." Item 4 — the respondent is Glaxo Wellcome, not "Glaxo Welcome." Item 2 — the workbook repeats the date twice.
On item 24. Sunace is slotted under "Illegal recruitment vis-à-vis estafa," but the decision says nothing about estafa. It is the Theory of Imputed Knowledge case, which is syllabus item B.5 (Liability for illegal recruitment, R.A. No. 8042 sec. 10) — the item directly below the one it was filed under. Recite it there.
On the B-list numbering. The workbook leaves "Concept of Legitimate Job Contracting" unnumbered while numbering the item that follows it "3," so the outline codes in the Topic/Subtopic column above treat it as B.2, which is how the rest of the list reads.
Recitation Map
One line per case — what it is for, and the categorical holding.
| Case | What it is for | Categorical holding |
|---|---|---|
| Milan v. NLRC | The outer limit of Art. 4 construction in favor of labor | Art. 4 bites only where there is actual doubt; terminal pay may be withheld against an unreturned company accountability |
| Anucension v. National Labor Union | Non-impairment yielding to police power and free exercise; Art. 1700 | R.A. No. 3350 constitutional; religious objectors exempt from a closed-shop clause |
| Serrano v. Gallant | Equal protection and substantive due process as a check on labor legislation | The "three months for every year of the unexpired term" cap is unconstitutional; full unexpired portion awarded |
| Duncan v. Glaxo | The Bill of Rights against private conduct; freedom of contract (Arts. 1306, 1159) | No-conflict-of-interest policy is a valid BFOQ; reassignment is not constructive dismissal |
| Yrasuegui v. PAL | BFOQ and social justice measured against a private employer's standard | Cabin-crew weight standard valid; dismissal legal, but separation pay granted on equity |
| Manuel v. N. C. Construction Supply | Art. III, Sec. 12 as a limit on State action only | Right to counsel does not reach a private employer's investigation; the admission stands as substantial evidence |
| Leyte Geothermal v. PNOC-EDC | Labor contracts on a "higher plane" — status fixed by law, not by label | Valid project employment; termination on completion lawful; repeated rehiring does not regularize |
| PNCC v. NLRC | Which law governs a non-chartered GOCC | Labor Code applies, not the Civil Service Law — but R.A. No. 10149 approval overrides Art. 100 non-diminution |
| Babas v. Lorenzo Shipping | The three criteria of legitimate job contracting | Criteria not met — labor-only; the workers are regular employees of the principal |
| Alaska Milk v. Paez | Substantial capital as an alternative to investment in tools, not cumulative | One cooperative legitimate (capital proved), the other labor-only |
| Sonza v. ABS-CBN | The control test applied to a uniquely skilled individual | Independent contractor — the network controlled the result, not the means |
| Allied Banking v. Calumpang | Who bears the burden once labor-only status is presumed | Labor-only; the bank is the employer; dismissal valid on the merits but without due process |
| Baguio v. NLRC | "Directly related to the principal's business" as the dividing line | Legitimate job contracting, not labor-only — but the principal is still solidarily liable under Art. 109 |
| Servflex v. Urera | The evidentiary weight of a DOLE Certificate of Registration | Registration only defeats the presumption; labor-only where the principal actually controls |
| Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon v. PLDT | The quantum of proof behind a labor-only finding | Regularization only for the installation, repair and maintenance workers; sampling was not substantial evidence for the rest |
| People v. Panis | The Art. 13(b) definition of recruitment and placement | The number of persons recruited is not an element; the proviso is only a rebuttable presumption |
| Suliman v. People | Illegal recruitment by prohibited act, and the liability of officers | Failure to deploy or reimburse is punishable regardless of license; the managing officer answers with the entity |
| People v. Jimmy Ang | Why license status is irrelevant to the Sec. 6 prohibited acts | Conviction affirmed — the acts charged are criminal whether or not the offender is licensed |
| People v. Lalli | The syndicated qualifier | Three or more conspirators suffice; the number of victims is irrelevant |
| People v. Hernandez | The large-scale qualifier and how it must be pleaded | Victims across separate informations cannot be cumulated — large scale not established; convicted of syndicated instead |
| People v. Laogo | Whether a mere promise is already recruitment | A promise coupled with the impression of deploying power suffices; actual deployment is not required |
| People v. Ballesteros | What the prosecution must prove about the license | No need to prove an express representation of being licensed; receipt of a fee is not an element |
| People v. Gallo | Illegal recruitment and estafa as separate offences | Both convictions stand — malum prohibitum and malum in se; no double jeopardy |
| Sunace v. NLRC | The theory of imputed knowledge and the reach of solidary liability | The agency is not liable for an extension privately negotiated between worker and foreign employer |
Study Notes
Two of this week's cases invert on recitation. Milan is assigned under "Construction in favor of Labor" and holds the rule inapplicable — Art. 4 operates only where the law or the contract is genuinely doubtful, and social justice "does not sanction wrongdoing." Hernandez is assigned under "Large Scale" and holds large scale not made out, because the eight informations each named a single victim and victims cannot be cumulated across separate cases; the conviction that survived was for syndicated illegal recruitment. Reciting either as an illustration of the label it sits under states the opposite of what the Court decided.
The Bill of Rights runs against the State, not the employer. Duncan, Yrasuegui, and Manuel all reach the same structural point from three different clauses — equal protection twice, and the right to counsel once. The employee's protection in a private workplace comes from the Labor Code and the Civil Code, not from Article III. What the Constitution does supply affirmatively is Art. XIII, Sec. 3 and Art. II, Sec. 18, which Serrano uses to strike down a statute and Yrasuegui uses to award separation pay to a validly dismissed employee.
Job contracting is decided on facts, never on the contract's label. Read items 9-15 as one sequence: Babas states the three criteria and finds them unmet; Alaska Milk clarifies that substantial capital and investment in tools are alternative, not cumulative; Servflex holds a DOLE Certificate of Registration merely defeats the presumption of labor-only status; and Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon imposes a real evidentiary standard the other way, refusing to extend a labor-only finding to groups of workers who were never sampled. Baguio is the counterweight — legitimate job contracting, yet the principal is still solidarily liable as an indirect employer under Art. 109, which is why "legitimate" is not a synonym for "not liable."
In illegal recruitment, count offenders and victims separately. Panis fixes the base rule: the number of persons recruited is not an element of the offence at all. Lalli qualifies the offence by counting offenders — three or more conspirators, even against a single victim. Hernandez qualifies it by counting victims — three or more, and they must be named in a single information. Ang and Ballesteros then remove license status from the picture: the Sec. 6 prohibited acts are punishable whether or not the offender holds a license, and the prosecution need not prove an express claim of being licensed.
Where Week 1 hands off. PNCC sets up the Book III coverage question that opens Week 2 — which employees, and which employers, the Labor Code actually reaches — and its Art. 100 holding is the first appearance of non-diminution, the doctrine Week 2 spends nine cases on. Milan returns in Week 2 as the standing exception to the Art. 116 prohibition against withholding wages.