Motion to Dismiss contending that they
are juridical entities with distinct and
1. Rosa was granted vacation leave by her
employer to spend three weeks in Africa
with her family. Prior to her departure,
the General Manager of the company
requested her to visit the plant of a client
of the company in Zimbabwe in order to
derive best manufacturing practices
useful to the company. She accepted the
request because the errand would be
important to the company and Zimbabwe
was anyway in her itinerary. It appears
that she contracted the disease during
the trip. Upon her return, she filed a
claim for compensation, insisting that
she had contracted the disease while
serving the interest of her employer.
Under the Labor Code, the sickness or
death of an employee to be compensable,
must have resulted from an illness either
definitely accepted as an occupational
disease by the Employees’ Compensation
Commission, or caused by employment
subject to proof that the risk of
contracting the same is increased by
working conditions.
Is the serious disease Rosa contracted
during her trip to Africa compensable?
Explain your answer.
2. X was one of more than one hundred
(100) employees who were terminated
from employment due to the closure of
Construction Corporation A. The Cruz
family owned Construction Company A.
Upon the closure of Construction
Company A, the Cruzes established
Construction Company B. Both
corporations had the same president, the
same board of directors, the same
corporate officers, and all the same
subscribers. From the General
Information Sheet filed by both
companies, it also showed that they
shared the same address and/or
premises. Both companies also hired the
same accountant who prepared the
books for both companies.
X and his co-employees amended their
Complaint with the Labor Arbiter to hold
Construction Corporation B joint and
severally liable with Construction
Company A for illegal dismissal,
backwages and separation pay.
Construction Company B interposed a
separate personalities from
Construction Corporation A and
therefore, they cannot be held jointly
and severally liable for the money claims
of workers who are not their employees.
Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it
be granted or denied? Why?
3. Juicy Bar and Night Club allowed by
tolerance fifty (50) Guest Relations
Officers (GROs) to work without
compensation in its establishment under
the direct supervision of its Manager
from 8:00 P.M. To 4:00 A.M. every day,
including Sundays and holidays. The
GROs, however, were free to ply their
trade elsewhere at any time, but once
they enter the premises of the night
club, they Were required to stay up to
closing time. The GROs earned their
keep exclusively from commissions for
food and drinks, and tips from generous
customers. In time, the GROs formed the
Solar Ugnayan ng mga Kababaihang
lnaapi (SUKI), a labor union duly
registered with DOLE. Subsequently,
SUKI filed a petition for Certification
Election in order to be recognized as the
exclusive bargaining agent of its
members. Juicy Bar and Night Club
opposed the petition for Certification
Election on the singular ground of
absence of employer-employee
relationship between the GROs on one
hand and the night club on the other
hand. May the GROs form SUKI as a labor
organization for purposes of collective
bargaining? Explain briefly.
4. Mam-manu Aviation Company (Mam-
manu) is a new airline company
recruiting flight attendants for its
domestic flights. It requires that the
applicant be single, not more than 24
years old, attractive, and familiar with
three (3) dialects, viz: llonggo, Cebuano
and Kapampangan. lngga, 23 years old,
was accepted as she possesses all the
qualifications. After passing the
probationary period, lngga disclosed
that she got married when she was 18
years old but the marriage was already in
the process of being annulled on the
ground that her husband was afflicted
with a sexually transmissible disease at
the time of the celebration of their
 marriage. As a result of this revelation,
lngga was not hired as a regular flight
attendant. Consequently, she filed a
complaint against Mam-manu alleging
that the pre-employment qualifications
violate relevant provisions of the Labor
Code and are against public policy. Is the
contention of lngga tenable? Why?
5. Gregorio was hired as an insurance
underwriter by the Guaranteed
Insurance Corporation (Guaranteed). He
does not receive any salary but solely
relies on commissions earned for every
insurance policy approved by the
company. He hires and pays his own
secretary but is provided free office
space in the office of the company. He is,
however, required to meet a monthly
quota of twenty (20) insurance policies,
otherwise, he may be terminated. He was
made to agree to a Code of Conduct for
underwriters and is supervised by a Unit
Manager.
[a] Is Gregorio an employee of
Guaranteed? Explain.
[b] Suppose Gregorio is appointed as
Unit Manager and assigned to supervise
several underwriters. He holds office in
the company premises, receives an
overriding commission on the
commissions of his underwriters, as well
as a monthly allowance from the
company, and is supervised by a branch
manager. He is governed by the Code of
Conduct for Unit Managers. Is he an
employee of Guaranteed? Explain.
6. Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing
Factory, became pregnant. Because of
morning sickness, she frequently
absented herself from work and often
came to the factory only four (4) days a
week. After two (2) months, the
personnel manager told her that her
habitual absences rendered her
practically useless to the company and,
thus, asked her to resign. She begged to
be retained, citing her pregnancy as
reason for her absences. Tess asked for
leave of absence but her request was
denied. She went on leave nevertheless.
As a result, she was thus dismissed for
going on leave without permission of
management.
Tess filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The company's defense: she
was legally dismissed because of her
numerous absences without leave and
not because of her pregnancy. On the
other hand, Tess argues that her
dismissal was an act of discrimination,
based as it was on her pregnancy which
the company treated as a disease. Whose
position is meritorious-the company's or
Tess'? Explain.
7. Empire Brands (Empire) contracted the
services of Style Corporation (Style) for
the marketing and promotion of its
clothing line. Under the contract, Style
provided Empire with Trade
Merchandising Representatives (TMRs)
whose services began on September 15,
2004 and ended on June 6, 2007, when
Empire terminated the promotions
contract with Style.
Empire then entered into an agreement
for manpower supply with Wave Human
Resources (Wave). Wave owns its condo
office, owns equipment for the use by
the TMRs, and has assets amounting to
Pl,000,000.00. Wave provided the
supervisors who supervised the TMRs,
who, in tum, received orders from the
Marketing Director of Empire. In their
agreement, the parties stipulated that
Wave shall be liable for the wages and
salaries of its employees or workers,
including benefits, and protection due
them, as well as remittance to the proper
government entities of all withholding
taxes, Social Security Service, and
Philhealth premiums, in accordance with
relevant laws.
As the TMRs wanted to continue working
at Empire, they submitted job
applications as TMRs with Wave.
Consequently, Wave hired them for a
term of five (5) months, or from June 7,
2007 to November 6, 2007, specifically
to promote Empire's products.
When the TMRs' 5-month contracts with
Wave were about to expire, they sought
renewal thereof, but were refused. Their
contracts with Wave were no longer
renewed as Empire hired another
agency. This prompted them to file
complaints for illegal dismissal,
regularization, non-payment of service
incentive leave and 13th month pay
against Empire and Wave.
[a] Are the TMRs employees of Empire?

[b] Were the TMRs illegally dismissed by

Wave?