LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P.

LAW BOC

LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL

LEGISLATION
“Among the most important duties of employers, the principal one is to give every worker
what is justly due him... (N)o laws, either
human or divine, permit them for their own profit
to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another’s want.”
– Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, 1891

Q1: What are the characteristics of the assumption power of the SOLE?
A1: It is discretionary and plenary. The SOLE may assume jurisdiction over the dispute to either decide
such dispute or certify the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration when there exists a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest. [Art. 278,
LC]

The authority of the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute includes and extends to all
questions and controversies arising from such labor dispute. The power is plenary and discretionary
in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the dispute. [Philcom Employees Union v.
Philippine Global Communications, 495 SCRA 214 (2006)]

The powers of the Secretary in "national interest" cases are not set by metes and bounds. Rather, the
Secretary is given wide latitude to adopt appropriate means to finally resolve the labor dispute. When
the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted "great breadth of discretion" in order to find a
solution to a labor dispute.1âwphi1[SACORU v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200499
(2017)]

It is preemptive and extraordinary. The effects of the assumption of jurisdiction are the following:
1. the enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting, and
2. an order for the workers to return to work immediately and for the employer to readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout, or the
return-to-work order.

The powers given to the DOLE Secretary under Article 263 (g) is an exercise of police power with
the aim of promoting public good. In fact, the scope of the powers is limited to an industry
indispensable to the national interest as determined by the DOLE Secretary. Industries that are
indispensable to the national interest are those essential industries such as the generation or
distribution of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries.
[SACORU v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., supra]

Q2: When is there a wage distortion?

A2: There is wage distortion where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or
severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among
employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such
wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of differentiation. [Art. 124,
LC]. A mere disparity in wages between employees holding similar positions but in different regions
does not constitute wage distortion as contemplated by law.

Wage distortion arises when these four elements concur:

1. An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates;

PAGE 1
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

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. [Prubankers Assn. v.
Prudential Bank and Co., G.R. No. 131247 (1999)] 


Q3: Can wage distortion be caused by management prerogative?

A3: No. A wage distortion can only exist where the wage adjustment is brought about by a wage order,
not by management prerogative. If the compulsory mandate under Article 124 to correct "wage
distortion" is applied to voluntary and unilateral increases by the employer in fixing hiring rates which
is inherently a business judgment prerogative, then the hands of the employer would be completely
tied even in cases where an increase in wages of a particular group is justified due to a re-evaluation
of the high productivity of a particular group, or as in the present case, the need to increase the
competitiveness of the company’s hiring rate. [Bankards Employees' Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 140689
(2004)]

Q4: How do you resolve wage distortion?

A4:
Organized Establishment
1. Employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distortions

2. Disputes shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under the CBA

3. If it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration

Unorganized Establishment
1. Employer and employees shall endeavor to correct such distortions. 

2. Disputes shall be settled through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board 

3. If still unresolved after 10 calendar days of conciliation, it shall be referred to the appropriate
branch of the NLRC – compulsory arbitration 
Both the employer and employee cannot use

economic weapons. 

4. Employer cannot declare a lock-out; Employee 
cannot declare a strike because the law has

provided for a procedure for settling 

5. The salary or wage differential does not need to be maintained. [National Federation of Labor v.

NLRC, G.R. No. 103586 (1994)] 


Q5: What are the two methods of wage-fixing?

A5:
1. Floor Wage Method- fixing a determinate amount to be added to the prevailing statutory
minimum wage rates (e.g. setting P25 increase for min. wage rates)
2. Salary-Ceiling Method- Wage adjustment to be applied to EEs receiving a certain
denominated salary or workers being paid more than existing min. wage (e.g. WO granting
P25 increase to those earning up to P250)

PAGE 2
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q6: Who are exempted from Wage Orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards?
A6: Per the Rules on Exemption, the following categories of establishments may be exempted upon
application with and as determined by the Board:
1. Distressed establishment
2. New business enterprises
3. Retail/service establishments employing not more than 10 workers
4. Establishments adversely affected by natural calamities

The Boards may also exempt establishments other than those enumerated above only if they are in
accord with the rationale for exemption stated in the Rules on Exemption and upon strong justifiable
reasons.

Q7: Differentiate the jurisdiction of labor arbiters under Art. 224, visitorial and enforcement
powers of the SOLE under Art. 128, and the adjudicatory power of DOLE Regional Directors
under Art. 129
A7:
Art. 224 Art. 128 Art. 129
Officers Labor Arbiter SOLE or his/her RD or any authorized
Designated authorized representative hearing officer of DOLE
Nature of Adjudicatory power Visitorial and enforcement Adjudicatory power on
Power power exercised through matter involving recovery
routine inspections of of wages
establishment
Subject Unfair labor Labor Legislation in Labor standards (money
practices, general claims)
termination
disputes

Monetary claims
below 5k arising
from terms and
conditions of
employment, if it is
with a claim for
reinstatement
Issues regarding
strikes and lockouts
as per art. 279
Claims exceeding 5k,
whether or not it is
with a claim for
reinstatement,
except those
involving SSS,
Medicare and
maternity benefits
Existence of Past or present EER Requires existence of EER not necessary since it
EER. EER* should not include a claim
for reinstatement

PAGE 3
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

How Initiated Sworn complaint Enforcement power is an Sworn complaint filed by

filed by any offshoot of visitorial power any interested party
interested party
Limits to Generally no limit. The power of the SOLE to Monetary claims below
Claim But if the claim is order and enforce P5,000.00 without a claim
below P5,000.00, it compliance with labor for reinstatement
must be standard laws can be
accompanied by a exercised even where the
claim for individual claim exceeds
reinstatement. P5,000.00 [Cireneo
Bowling Plaza, Inc. v.
Sensing]
Appeal Appeal to the NLRC Appeal to Secretary of Appeal to NLRC within 5
Labor within 10 calendar calendar days
days

Q8: May the DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-
employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers?
A8: Yes. If a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions
of the Labor Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an
existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
NLRC. The findings of the DOLE, however may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court [...] The DOLE's labor inspection program can now proceed
without being sidetracked by unscrupulous employers who could render nugatory the "expanded
visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE granted by RA 7730 . . . by the simple expedient of
disputing the employer-employee relationship [and] force the referral of the matter to the NLRC.
[People's Broadcasting Service v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652 (2012
Resolution)]

Q9: Who are exempted from securing an alien employment permit?

A9:
1. All members of the diplomatic service and foreign government officials accredited by and with
reciprocity arrangement with the Philippine government; 

2. Officers and staff of international organizations of which the Philippine government is a
member, and their legitimate spouses desiring to work in the Philippines; 

3. Owners and representatives of foreign principals whose companies are accredited by 
the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), who come to the Philippines for
a limited period and solely for the purpose of interviewing Filipino applicants for employment
abroad;
4. Foreign national who come to the Philippines to teach, present and/or conduct research
studies in universities and colleges as visiting, exchange or adjunct professors under formal
agreements between the universities or colleges in the Philippines and foreign universities or
colleges; or between the Philippine government and foreign government: provided that the
exemption is on a reciprocal basis; 

5. Permanent resident foreign nationals, probationary or temporary resident visa holders under
Sec. 13 (a-f) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and Section 3 of the Alien Social
Integration Act of 1995 (RA 7917); 


PAGE 4
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

6. Refugees and stateless persons recognized by DOJ pursuant to Article 17 of the UN

Convention and Protocol Relating to status of Refugees and Stateless Persons; and 

7. All foreign nationals granted exemption by law. [Sec. 2, D.O. No. 186-17]

Q10: Who are excluded from securing an alien employment permit?

A10:
1. Members of the governing board with voting 
rights only and do not intervene in the
management of the corporation or in the day to day operation of the enterprise. 

2. President and Treasurer, who are part-owner of the company. 

3. Those providing consultancy services who do not have employers in the Philippines. 

4. Intra corporate transferee who is a manager, executive or specialist as defined below in
accordance with Trade Agreements and an employee of the foreign service supplier for at least
one (1) year continuous employment prior to deployment to a branch, subsidiary, affiliate, or
representative office in the Philippines.
a. an Executive: a natural person within the organization who primarily directs the
management of the organization and exercises wide latitude in decision making and
receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board
of directors, or stockholders of the business; an executive would not directly perform
tasks related to the actual provision of the service or services of the organization; 

b. a Manager: a natural person w/in the organisation who primarily directs the
organisation/department/subdivision and exercises supervisory and control functions
over other supervisory, managerial or professional staff; does not include first line
supervisors unless employees supervised are professionals; does not include employees
who primarily perform tasks necessary for the provision of the service; or 

c. a Specialist: a natural person within the organisation who possesses knowledge at an
advanced level of expertise essential to the establishment/provision of the service
and/or possesses proprietary knowledge of the organisation’s service, research
equipment, techniques or management; may include, but is not limited to, members
of a licensed profession. 


All other intra-corporate transferees not within these categories as defined above are required to secure
an AEP prior to their employment in the Philippines.

5. Contractual service supplier who is a manager, executive, or specialist and an employee of a

foreign service supplier which has no commercial presence in the Philippines
a. Who enters the Philippines temporarily to supply a service pursuant to a contract
between his/her employer and a service consumer in the Philippines 

b. Must possess the appropriate educational and professional qualifications; and 

c. Must be employed by the foreign service supplier for at least one year prior to the
supply of service in the Philippines.
6. Representative of the Foreign Principal/Employer assigned in the Office of Licensed Manning
Agency (OLMA) in accordance with the POEA law, rules and regulations. [Sec. 3, D.O. No.
186-17]

Q11: What constitutes abandonment?

A11: As defined under established jurisprudence, abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal
of an employee to resume his employment. It constitutes neglect of duty and is a just cause for
tem1ination of employment under paragraph (b) of Article 282 [now Article 296] of the Labor Code.

PAGE 5
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

To constitute abandonment, however, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's
employment without any intention of returning.

In this regard, two elements must concur: (1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or
justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the
second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Otherwise
stated, absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee
simply does not want to work anymore. It has been ruled that the employer has the burden of proof
to show a deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any
intention of returning. [Tan Brothers v. Escudero, G.R. No. 188711 (2013)]

Q12: Is abandonment compatible with constructive dismissal?

A12: No. Constructive dismissal exist when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain on
the part of the employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to
forego continued employment. On the other hand, abandonment, as a just and valid cause for
termination, requires a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his work, coupled
with a clear absence of any intention of returning to his or her work. Abandonment is incompatible
with constructive dismissal. [Veterans Security Agency v. Vargas, G.R. No. 159293 (2005)]

Q13: Dan hired Miko as a cook in his restaurant on a probationary basis. During the course
of his employment, Dan noticed Miko’s habitual tardiness and non-obervance of the proper
dress code. Five months later, Dan informed Miko that he failed to meet the regularization
standards for the said position. Miko filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He claimed that
he should have already been considered as a regular and not a probationary employee given
Dan’s failure to inform him of the reasonable standards for her regularization upon his
engagement. Will Miko’s complaint prosper?
A13: No, Miko’s complaint will not prosper. A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys
security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized
causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor Code, i.e., the
probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time
of the engagement.

Corollary thereto, the Rules provide that if the employer fails to inform the probationary employee of
the reasonable standards upon which the regularization would be based on at the time of the
engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee. In other words, the employer
is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary employee: first, the
employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee; and second,
the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement.
If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary
employee.

The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case
of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers. Miko’s case falls under this exception. The rule on notifying
a probationary employee of the standards of regularization should not be used to exculpate an
employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which
there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met. In the same light, an employee’s failure to
perform the duties and responsibilities which have been clearly made known to him constitutes a

PAGE 6
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

justifiable basis for a probationary employee’s non-regularization. [Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz, G.R.
No. 192571 (2013)]

Q14: Does the presumption of work-related illness under the POEA SEC necessarily lead to
compensability?
A14: No. Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an
occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein
satisfied" is deemed to be a "work-related illness." On the other hand, Section 20 (A)(4) declares that
"[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work related."
The legal presumption of work-relatedness was borne out from the fact that the said list cannot
account for all known and unknown illnesses/diseases that may be associated with, caused or
aggravated by such working conditions, and that the presumption is made in the law to signify that
the non-inclusion in the list of occupational diseases does not translate to an absolute exclusion from
disability benefits.

Nonetheless, the presumption provided under Section 20 (B) (4) is only limited to the "work-
relatedness" of an illness. It does not cover and extend to compensability. In this sense, there exists a
fine line between the work-relatedness of an illness and the matter of compensability.

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following
conditions must be satisfied:
1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein;
2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks;
3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary
to contract it;
4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. [Sec. 32-A, POEA SEC]

As differentiated from the matter of work-relatedness, no legal presumption of compensability is

accorded in favor of the seafarer. As such, he bears the burden of proving that these conditions are
met. [Benedict Romana v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. 192442 (2017)]

Q15: When is a seafarer’s death compensable?

A15: For a seafarer’s death to be compensable, the claimant bears the burden to establish that:
That the seafarer died during the duration of his/her contract; and
That the seafarer’s illness was work-related.

Employing a liberal interpretation of the POEA SEC, however, the Court in Racelis v. United Philippine
Lines [G.R. No. 198408 (2014)] carved out an exception to the general rule that the seafarer’s death
should occur during his/her employment; that is, when the seafarer is repatriated for medical reasons
under the POEA SEC.

While it is true that a medical repatriation has the effect of terminating the seafarer’s contract of
employment, it is, however, enough that the work-related illness, which eventually becomes the
proximate cause of death, occurred while the contract was effective for recovery to be had.

In Canuel v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation [G.R. No. 190161 (2014)], the Court clarified that while the
general rule is that the seafarer’s death should occur during the term of his employment, the seafarer’s
death occurring after the termination of his employment due to his medical repatriation on account
of a work-related injury or illness constitutes an exception thereto. This is based on a liberal

PAGE 7
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

construction of the 2000 POEA-SEC as impelled by the plight of the bereaved heirs who stand to be
deprived of a just and reasonable compensation for the seafarer’s death, notwithstanding its evident
work-connection.

Q16: What is the third physician rule?

A16: If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment [of the company-designated
physician], a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third
doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. [Sec. 20, A.4, POEA-SEC]

Q17: What is the 120-240 day rule?

A17: The Labor Code provides that the seafarer is declared to be on temporary total disability during
the 120-day period within which the seafarer is unable to work. The significance of the 120-day period
as one when the seafarer is considered to be totally yet temporarily disabled, thus, entitling him to
sickness wages. This is also the period given to the employer to determine whether the seafarer is fit
for sea duty or permanently disabled and the degree of such disability. As a general rule, a temporary
total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days is considered as a total and permanent
disability. [C.F. Sharp v. Taok, G.R. No. 193679 (2012)]

The exception referred to above pertains to a situation when the sickness "still requires medical
attendance beyond the 120 days but not to exceed 240 days" in which case the temporary total
disability period is extended up to a maximum of 240 days. Note, however, that for the company-
designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he must first perform some significant
act to justify an extension (e.g., that the illness still requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120
days but not to exceed 240 days); otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to
be permanent and total.

Accordingly, the following guidelines shall be observed when a seafarer claims permanent and total
disability benefits:
1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days,
without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days
with a sufficient justification (e.g., seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient
justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended
period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of
any justification. [Talaroc v. Arpaphil Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 223731(2017)]

Q18: When is retirement due?

A18: Article 287 provides for two types of retirement:
1. Optional retirement - which may be availed of by an employee reaching the age of 60 years;

2. Compulsory retirement - which may be availed of by an employee upon reaching the age of
65 years. In both instances, the law imposes requirement establishment.

In both instances, the law imposes a minimum service of five years with the establishment.

PAGE 8
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q19: Are employees who are engaged on a task or contract basis or paid on purely commission
automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave?
A19: No. It is true that Section 1(D), Rule V provides that “field personnel and other employees
whose performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on a task or
contract basis, purely commission basis…” are exempt from SIL. However, it bears emphasis that the
SIL Law only excludes field personnel.

In Serrano v. Santos Transit, the Court held that the phrase "other employees whose performance is
unsupervised by the employer" must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to
which service incentive leave shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the
interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those "whose actual hours
of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty."

The same is true with respect to the phrase "those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely
commission basis." Said phrase should be related with "field personnel," applying the rule on ejusdem
generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they
follow. Hence, employees engaged on task or contract basis or paid on purely commission basis are
not automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave, unless, they fall under the
classification of field personnel.

Q20: What are the leave benefits solely available to women?

A20: Maternity Leave is a benefit which may be availed of by a woman-employee, married or
unmarried, to undergo and recuperate from childbirth or miscarriage during which she is allowed to
retain her rights and benefits flowing from such employment and is granted a maternity leave benefit
in the form of daily cash allowance during the period that she was not able to work due to such
childbirth or miscarriage.

To avail of maternity leave, the woman-employee must comply with the following requirements:
1. She must be an SSS member;
2. She has paid at least 3 monthly contributions within the 12 month period preceding the
semester of her childbirth or miscarriage;
3. She has given the required notification of her pregnancy through her employer if employed;
or submitted the maternity notification directly to the SSS if separated from employment, a
voluntary or self-employed member

Note that maternity leave is only available for the first four deliveries or miscarriages. [Sec. 14-A, R.A.
No. 8282]

Gynecological Leave is a leave entitlement of two (2) months with full pay from her employer based
on her gross monthly compensation following surgery caused by gynecological disorders, provided
that she has rendered continuous aggregate employment service of at least six (6) months for the last
12 months. [RA 9710]

Any female employee, regardless of age and civil status, shall be entitled to a special leave benefit,
provided she has complied with the following conditions:
1. She has rendered at least 6 months continuous aggregate employment service for the last 12
months prior to surgery; 


PAGE 9
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

2. She has filed an application for special leave; and


3. She has undergone surgery due to gynecological disorders as certified by a competent
physician. 
[Sec. 2, D.O. No. 112] 


Victim’s Leave – victims of any of the acts covered by VAWC shall be entitled to take a paid leave of
absence up to ten (10) days in addition to other paid leaves under the Labor Code and Civil Service
Rules and Regulations, extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the protection order [Sec.
43, RA 9262]

In order to be entitled to the leave benefit, the only requirement is for the victim-employee to present
to her employer a certification from the barangay chairman, barangay councilor or prosecutor or the
Clerk of Court, as the case may be, that an action relative to the matter is pending [Sec. 42, Rule VI,
IRR].

Q21: What are the types of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and R.A. N0. 8042
(Migrant Worker’s Act)
A21:
1. Simple Illegal Recruitment
a. Illegal recruitment for Local Workers
i. First type: Licensee/holder of authority [Art. 34, LC] 

ii. Second type: Non-licensee/non-holder of authority [Art. 38, LC] 

b. Illegal recruitment for Migrant Workers 

i. First type: Non-licensee/non-holder of authority [Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042]
ii. Second type: Licensee/non-licensee or holder of authority/non-holder of
authority [Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8042]
2. Illegal Recruitment Constituting Economic Sabotage
a. Syndicated [Art. 38 for local; Sec. 6, R.A. No. 
8042 for migrant] 

b. Large Scale [Art. 38 for local; Sec. 6, R.A. 
No. 8042 for migrant] 


Q22: Where to appeal the decisions of Regional Directors, Labor Arbiters and Voluntary
Arbitrators?
A22:
Appeal to the NLRC
1. All cases decided by the Labor Arbiters including contempt cases
2. Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or his duly authorized Hearing Officers
(under Article 129) involving recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits not
exceeding P5,000 and not accompanied by claim for reinstatement.

Appeal to the CA (Rule 43)

Since the office of a Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is considered a quasi-
judicial agency, this court concluded that a decision or award rendered by a Voluntary Arbitrator is
appealable before the Court of Appeals. The rule, therefore, is that a Voluntary Arbitrator’s award or
decision shall be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 10 days from receipt of the award or
decision.

PAGE 10
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q23: Lady G, who wanted to become a nun, sought admission in the RVM Congregation,
volunteering to assist as librarian and continued working as such even after she decided she
didn’t want to become a nun. The RVM sisters received various complaints from students
and teachers about Lady G’s difficult and callous personality allegedly causing the chief
librarian to resign. When she was informed of the negative reports about her, Lady G reacted
violently saying “Bahala kayo diyan mga pota!” and angrily offered to resign. Thereafter, she
stormed out of the office in discourteous disregard of authority. The RVM sisters sent at least
three persons to convince Lady G to settle the conflict amicably. Lady G, however, remained
adamant in her refusal to submit to authority. Later, the RVM sisters decided to dismiss Lady
G from employment. Lady G thereafter filed a case for illegal dismissal. The RVM sisters
argue that Lady G’s dismissal on the ground of her quarrelsome, bossy, unreasonable and
very difficult to deal with character is warranted. Decide.
A23: No, Lady G was rightfully dismissed. An evaluative review of this case supports a finding of a
just cause for termination. The reason for which Lady G’s services were terminated, namely, her
unreasonable behavior and unpleasant deportment in dealing with the people she closely works with
in the course of her employment and her "quarrelsome, bossy, unreasonable and very difficult to deal
with" character, is analogous to the other "just causes" enumerated under the Labor Code. Further,
the complaints about her objectionable behavior were confirmed by her reproachable actuations
during her meeting with the the RVM sisters when Lady G, upon being advised of the need to improve
her working relations with others, obstreperously reacted and unceremoniously walked out on her
superior, and arrogantly refused to subsequently clear up matters or to apologize therefor. To make
matters worse, she ignored the persons sent by petitioners on separate occasions to intervene in an
effort to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution. The conduct she exhibited on that occasion smacks
of sheer disrespect and defiance of authority and assumes the proportion of serious misconduct or
insubordination, any of which constitutes just cause for dismissal from employment. [See Cathedral
School v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101438(1992)].

Q24: What is the totality of infractions rule?

A24: The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of
employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee.
Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects
of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that
petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his
employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a
relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee's past
misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty.
[Merin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 171790 (2008)]

Q25: What is the twin-notice requirement in dismissal cases?

A25: The employer has the burden of proving that a dismissed worker has been served two notices:
1. First written notice: served on the employee 
specifying the ground or grounds for
termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.


2. Second written notice: served upon the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of
all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. 


PAGE 11
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

The first notice shall contain the following:

1. Contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and 

2. Contain a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written
explanation within a “reasonable period” or every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should
be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice 

3. Contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the
charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. [Unilever v.
Rivera, G.R. No. 201701 (2013)] 

4. Specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the
grounds under Art. 288 is being charged against the employees. [United Tourist Promotions v.
Kemplin, G.R. No. 205453 (2014)] 


The second notice shall contain the following:

1. Indicate all circumstances involving the charge against the employees considered; and 

2. Indicate grounds established to justify the severance of their employment [United Tourist
Promotions v. Kemplin, G.R. No. 205453 (2014)] 


Q26: Who are exempt from the twin-notice requirement?

A26: A different procedure is applied when terminating a probationary employee; the usual two-notice
rule does not govern. Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states
that "if the termination is brought about by the… failure of an employee to meet the standards of the
employer in case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the
employee, within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination."

The employer, however, must still observe due process of law in the form of:
1. informing the employee of the reasonable standards expected of him/her during his/her
probationary period at the time of his engagement; and
2. serving the employee with a written notice within a reasonable time from the effective date of
termination.

By the very nature of a probationary employment, the employee needs to know from the very start
that he/she will be under close observation and his performance of his/her assigned duties and
functions would be under continuous scrutiny by his/her superiors. It is in apprising him/her of the
standards against which his/her performance shall be continuously assessed where due process lies.
[Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay, Jr., G.R. No. 164532 (2007)]

Q27: When is there legitimate job contracting or subcontracting?

A27: Contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out
to a contractor the performance or completion of a specific job or work within a definite or
predetermined period, regardless of whether such job or work is to be performed or completed within
or outside the premises of the principal. [Sec. 3(c), D.O. No. 174-17]

Contracting or subcontracting shall only be allowed if all the following circumstances occur:
1. The contractor or subcontractor is engaged in a 
distinct and independent business and under-
takes to perform the job or work on its own responsibility, according to its own manner and
method; 


PAGE 12
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

2. The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital to carry out the job farmed out by the
principal on his account, manner and method, investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machinery and supervision; 

3. In performing the work farmed out, the con- tractor or subcontractor is free from the control
and/or direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work
except as to the result thereto; and 

4. The Service Agreement ensures compliance with all the rights and benefits for all the
employees of the contractor or subcontractor un-der the labor laws. [Sec. 8, D.O. No. 174-
17] 


Q28: When is there labor-only contracting?

A28: Labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where:
1. The contractor does not have substantial capital or investments in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the employees recruited and
placed are performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable to the operation of
the company, or directly related to the main business of the principal within a definite or
predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or
completed within or outside the premises of the principal; or
2. The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the
employee.

Labor-only contracting is not really contracting because it is just an arrangement to recruit people to
be employed, supervised, and paid by another. In such cases, the contractor shall be merely an agent
of the principal who is considered the direct employer of the workers; the employees supplied by said
contractor to the principal employer become regular employees of the latter. Having gained regular
status, the employees are entitled to security of tenure and can only be dismissed for just or authorized
causes and after they had been afforded due process. [Norkis Trading v. Buenavista, G.R. No. 182018
(2012)]

Q29: What happens when the Contractor fails to pay wages?

A29: In the event of any violation of any provision of the Labor Code, including the failure to pay
wages, there exists a solidary liability on the part of the principal and the contractor for purposes of
enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code and other social legislations, to the extent of the work
performed under the employment contract. [Sec. 9, D.O. No. 174-17]

PAGE 13
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q30: Mikay was employed to serve as Manager of Corporation ABC, an American company
which is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but whose function
then was to provide sales and marketing support for Corporation XYZ, another American
company which is registered with the SEC. Since Corporation ABC was unregistered but
doing business in the country, Mikay was included in the list of employees and payroll of
Corporation XYZ. Thereafter, Corporation 123 was established in the country, acquired
Corporation XYZ, and continued the latter’s business here. During his employment, Mikay
was supervised by Corporation 456, another foreign corporation which was then based in
Singapore. Mikay was promoted as Regional Manager of Corporation ABC. A month after his
promotion, Mikay was informed of a supposed company restructuring which rendered his
position as Regional Manager of Corporation ABC redundant. Mikay then filed a case for
illegal dismissal against all three Corporations. Corporation 123 argues that Mikay should
have only impleaded Corporation ABC, as it is with the latter that he entered into an
employment contract. Decide.
A29: We have this unique situation where Mikay was hired directly by Corporation ABC of America,
but was being paid his remuneration by a separate entity, Corporation 123 of the Philippines, and is
supervised and controlled Corporation 456 – in furtherance of Corporation ABC’s objective of doing
business here unfettered by government regulation.

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, four elements generally need to be

considered, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct. These elements or
indicators comprise the so-called 'four-fold' test of employment relationship.

In the present case, it would seem that all of the corporations are, for practical purposes, Mikay's
employers. He was selected and engaged by Company ABC. His salaries and benefits were paid by
Company 123. And he is under the supervision and control of Company 456. But of course, there is
no such thing in legitimate employment arrangements.

It is conceded that Company ABC is Mikay's direct employer. However, this should not prevent Mikay
from recovering from all the corporations. For all purposes beneficial to Mikay, all the corporations
should be considered as his employers since they all benefited from his industry and used him in their
elaborate scheme and to further their aim. And from a labor standpoint, they are all guilty of violating
the Labor Code as a result of their concerted acts of fraud and misrepresentation upon the respondent,
using him and placing him in a precarious position without risk to themselves, and thus deliberately
disregarding their fundamental obligation to afford protection to labor and insure the safety of their
employees. [APCC v. Lim, G.R. No. 214219 (2018)]

Q31: Toni was employed by Kelly Philippines as a Metrics Solutions Analyst. He was
promoted several times over the years. Nine years later, Toni applied and got accepted for a
Financial Manager position at Kelly U.S.A. Toni then asked the process he needed to go
through regarding the benefits and clearances in Kelly Philippines. He also clarified whether
he will receive retirement benefits considering he will be in service for 10 years with Kelly
should he accept the offer of Kelly U.S.A. Kelly Philippines replied that he will not be eligible
to receive the retirement benefit not having reached 10 years of service by the time he moves
to U.S.A. Toni accepted the offer and permanently transferred to Kelly U.S.A. Seven months
later, Toni resigned. He then filed a complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits against
Kelly Philippines with the NLRC. Toni argues that his employment in Kelly U.S.A. was an

PAGE 14
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

extension of his employment with Kelly Philippines i.e., that he merely entered into a
secondment contract with Kelly U.S.A. Decide.
A31: The continuity, existence or termination of an employer-employee relationship in a typical
secondment contract is measured by the following yardsticks:
1. the selection and engagement of the employee;
2. the payment of wages;
3. the power of dismissal; and
4. the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct

As applied, all of the above benchmarks ceased upon Toni’s assumption of duties with Kelly U.S.A.
Kelly U.S.A. became the new employer. It provided Toni his compensation. Toni then became subject
to American labor laws, and necessarily, the rights appurtenant thereto, including the right of Kelly
U.S.A. to fire him on available grounds. Lastly, Kelly U.S.A. had control and supervision over him as
its new Finance Manager. Evidently, Kelly Philippines no longer had any control over him.

It is well-settled that no permanent transfer can take place unless the officer or employee is first
removed from the position held, and then appointed to another position. Undoubtedly, Toni’s
decision to move to Kelly U.S.A. required the abandonment of his permanent position with Kelly
Philippines in order for him to assume a position in an entirely different company. Clearly, the
"transfer" was more than just an assignment. It constituted a severance of Toni’s relationship with
Kelly Philippines, for the assumption of a position with a different employer, rank, compensation and
benefits. [Intel v. NLRC, G.R. No. 200575 (2014)]

Q32: Shay entered into a company contest and won for her performance as top salesperson
of the year which entitled her to additional compensation. Her company, however failed to
compensate her for the award. Shay then filed a complaint for money claims before the NLRC.
Does NLRC have jurisdiction?
A32: Yes, NLRC has jurisdiction because the money claims arose from an employer-employee
relationship [Art. 224, LC]. Shay would not have qualified for the award, much less won the prize, if
she was not an employee of the company at the time of the holding of the contest.

Q33: What is the rule on CBA creditability vs. Wage Orders?

A33: In determining an employee’s regular wage, the pertinent stipulations in the CBA are controlling,
provided the result is not less than the statutory requirement [Philippine National Bank v. PEMA, G.R.
No. L-30279 (1982)]

Q34: When do voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over labor cases?

A34: Voluntary arbitrators have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. [Art. 274,
LC]

Voluntary arbitrators may also have jurisdiction over labor disputes including ULPs and bargaining
deadlocks when the party so agrees by stipulation. [Art. 275, LC]

The jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators under Art. 262 [now Art. 275] must be voluntarily conferred
upon by both labor and management. The labor disputes referred to in the same Article 262 can
include all those disputes mentioned in Article 217 [now Art. 224] over which the Labor Arbiter has
original and exclusive jurisdiction. [UST Faculty Union v. UST, G.R. No. 180892 (2009)]

PAGE 15
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q35: What is a strike?

A35: A strike is a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. [Art. 219(o), Labor Code]: The term “strike” shall comprise not only
concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy
or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities. [Samahang Manggagawa v. Sulpicio Lines,
G.R. No. 140992 (2004)]

Q36: When can a strike/lockout be declared?

A36: A strike or lockout may be declared in cases of:
1. Bargaining deadlocks
2. Unfair Labor Practice [Art. 278, LC]

No lawful strike can be declared on the following grounds:

1. When the ground is an inter-union or intra-union dispute
2. Non-compliance with the procedural requirements
3. After assumption or certification by the SOLE [Art. 278(g)]
4. “No Strike, No Lockout” Clause (for Economic Strike or Lockout only)
5. Wage Distortion

Q37: What is a lockout?

A37: A lockout is a temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute. [Art. 219(p), Labor Code]

When no lawful lockout can be declared

1. Inter- and Intra-Union Disputes
2. During Assumption of jurisdiction by the President or SOLE or after certification or
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration
3. Violation of Injunction order
4. Without first having bargained collectively in good faith (e.g. Blue Sky or Surface Bargaining)
5. Non-compliance w/ Procedural Requirements
6. Violation of No strike/lockout provisions in the CBA

Q38: What are the procedural requirements for a valid strike/lockout?

A38:
1. Effort to Bargain - No labor organization shall declare a strike without first having bargained
collectively in good faith.
2. Filing and Service of Notice of Strike with the NCMB
3. Cooling- Off Period: Notice must be filed observing the following cooling-off periods:
4. Bargaining Deadlock – At least 30 days from the intended date of strike
5. ULP – At least 15 days from intended date of strike

Exception from Cooling Off Period, concurrence of:

1. Dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union CBL
which may constitute union busting (ULP), where the existence of the union is threatened
2. 24 Hour Notice of Strike Vote - In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the
regional branch of the Board the notice of meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at
least twenty-four (24) hours before such meetings (§10, Rule XXII, Book V)

PAGE 16
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

3. Strike Vote - Requisites for a Valid Stike Vote:

4. approval by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned
5. approval is obtained by secret ballot in a meeting/referendum called for the purpose
6. Strike Result - In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the Department
(NCMB) the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike or lockout, subject
to the cooling-off period herein provided. (278(f))
7. 7-Day Strike Ban — The 7-day Strike ban will be counted after the Cooling-Off Period (e.g.
37 days for a Bargaining Deadlock or 22 days for Unfair Labor Practices) [National Federation
of Sugar Workers v. Ovejera]. Should the dispute remain unsettled after the lapse of the requisite
number of days from the filing of the notice of strike or lockout and of the results of the
election, the labor union may strike and the NCMB shall continue mediating and conciliating

Q39: When is there unfair labor practice?

A39:
ULP Committed By Employer – IRCDET VPV
1. Interfere with, restrain, or coerce in the exercise of their right to self-organization
2. Require non-membership or withdrawal (Yellow dog contract)
3. Contracting out of services or functions (Note that contracting out may be a valid
management prerogative, thus intent must be clear to be anti-union, i.e. if it will interfere with
right to self-organization)
4. Initiate, dominate, or assist union formation, i.e. forming a Company union
5. Discrimination to encourage or discourage unionism (Note however that a union security
clause and agency fees are valid)
6. Retaliation for testimony by the Employee against the employer
a. Even if the testimony has nothing to do with right to self-organization or if the
testimony is for provisions under the Labor Code
7. Violate duty to bargain
8. Pay fees for settlement
9. Violate CBA (now qualified because only gross and economic violations are considered to be
ULP) [Art. 259, LC]

ULP Committed By Employees - RCBFAV

1. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. However,
a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership;
2. Cause or attempt to cause employer to discriminate
3. Violate or refuse to bargain collectively
4. Featherbedding (i.e. illegal exaction)
5. Ask or accept fees for settlement
6. Violate duty to bargain [Art. 260, LC]

Q40: When is there refusal to bargain?

A40: Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the
union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. Failing to comply with the mandatory
obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, the employer violated its duty to bargain
collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice. [General Milling Corporation v. CA, G.R. No.
146728 (2004)]

PAGE 17
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q41: Differentiate the two types of union security clauses i.e., closed-shop v. union shop
A41:
Closed-Shop Union Shop

The employer undertakes not to employ any
individual who is not a member of the union
and said individual, once employed, for the
duration of the agreement, must remain a
member in good standing as a condition for
continued employment.
Any person can be employed by the employer
but once employed, such employee must,
within a specific period, become a member of
the union and remain as such in good
standing for continued employment for the
duration of the CBA.

Q42: Who are exempted from union security clauses?

A42: The general rule is settled: all employees in the bargaining unit covered by the union security
clause are subject to its terms.

Exceptions:
1. Employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the
collective bargaining agreement may not be compelled by any union security clause to join any
union. [Art. 254 (e)] 

2. Employees already in service at the time the closed shop union security clause took effect.

A closed shop provision in a CBA is not to be given a retroactive effect as to preclude its being
applied to employees already in service. [Guijarno v. CIR, G.R. No. L-28791-93 (1973)] 


3. Any employee who at the time the union security clause took effect is a bona fide member of
religious organization which prohibits its members from joining labor unions on religious
grounds [Reyes v. Trajano, 209 SCRA 484 (1992)] 

4. Confidential employees who are excluded from the rank-and-file bargaining unit 


Q43: When is the freedom period for purposes of certification election?

A43: No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be
entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the DOLE outside of the sixty-day
period immediately before the date of the expiry of such five year term of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. [Art. 265]

Q44: What are the requisites and exceptions to the Contract Bar Rule?
A44: The Rule: BLR shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which
may disturb the administration of DULY REGISTERED existing collective bargaining agreements
affecting the parties. except under Arts. 264, 265, and 268 [(60-day freedom period)]. [Art. 238]

Requisites for Contract-Bar Rule

1. The CBA is existing (i.e., the parties have duly executed it in conformity with the necessary
formalities);
2. It encompasses the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit;
3. It was ratified by the union membership;
4. It is adequate for it contains substantial terms and conditions of employment;

PAGE 18
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

5. It was not prematurely extended, the CBA was not hastily entered into (Doctrine of Premature
Extension does not bar a certification election);
6. It is for a definite period;
7. No schism or mass disaffiliation affects the contracting union during the lifetime of the
agreement;
8. The contracting union is not defunct; and
9. The contracting union is not company-dominated
10. CBA must be registered; an unregistered CBA does not bar certification election. [Battad
Lecture]

Deviation from the contract-bar rule is justified only where the need for industrial stability is clearly
shown to be imperative. Subject to this singular exception, contracts where the identity of the
authorized representative of the workers is in doubt must be rejected in favor of a more certain
indication of the will of the workers. Any stability that does not establish the type of industrial peace
contemplated by the law must be subordinated to the employees' freedom to choose their real
representative. [PWUP v. Honorable Bactin, G.R. No. 94929-30 (1992)]

Q45: What are the cardinal labor rights in the 1987 Constitution?
A45:
1. Right to self-organization 

2. Right to collective bargaining and negotiation 

3. Right to peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike 

4. Right to security of tenure 

5. Right to humane conditions of work 

6. Right to a living wage 

7. Right to participate in policy and decision making [Sec. 3, Art. 13 1987 CONST]

Q46: Who are night workers?

A46: A night worker is any employed person whose work covers the period from 10 o’clock in the
evening to 6 o’clock the following morning, provided that the worker performs no less than 7
consecutive hours of work. [Sec. 2, Rule XV , Book III, Rule XV , Sec. 2, IRR, through D.O. No.
119-12] Every employee shall be paid a night shift differential of not less than 10% of his regular wage
for each hour of work performed between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. [Art. 86, LC]

Exceptions
1. Those of the government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned
and/or controlled corporations;
2. Those of retail and service establishments regularly employing not more than five (5) workers;
3. Domestic helpers and persons in the personal service of another;
4. Managerial employees as defined in Book Three of this Code;
5. Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer including those
who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid a fixed
amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof.
[Sec. 1, Rule II]

Q47: When is there resignation?

A47: To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as such.
There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied by an act of

PAGE 19
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

relinquishment. The fact that the employee signified his desire to resume his work when he went back
to AZCOR after recuperating from his illness, and actively pursued his case for illegal dismissal before
the labor courts when he was refused admission by his employer, negated any intention on his part to
relinquish his job at AZCOR. [Azcor Manufacturing Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117963 (1999)]

“Well-entrenched is the rule that resignation is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal.” [Blue Angel Manpower and Security Services Inc. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161196 (2008)]

Q48: When is reinstatement proper and improper?

A48: Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or
separated. The person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal. [Asian
Terminals, Inc. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 143219 (2006)]

General Rule: Reinstatement with full backwages

Exceptions:
1. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
2. Closure of business [Retuya v. Hon. Dumarpa, G.R. 
No. 148848 (2003)] 

3. Economic business conditions [Union of Supervisors 
v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. L-39889
(1981)] 

4. Employee’s unsuitability [Divine Word High School v. 
NLRC, G.R. No. 72207 (1986)] 

5. Employee’s retirement/overage [New Philippine 
Skylanders, Inc. v. Dakila, G.R. No. 199547
(2012)] 

6. Antipathy and antagonism [Wensha Spa Center v. 
Yung, G.R. No. 185122 (2010)]
7. Job with a totally different nature [DUP Sound Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 168317 (2011)] 

8. Long passage of time 

9. Inimical to the employer's interest 

10. When supervening facts have transpired which 
make execution on that score unjust or
inequitable or, to an increasing extent [Emeritus Security & Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. Dailig, G.R.
No. 204761 (2014)] 



Q49: What is the extent of backwages in illegal dismissal cases?
A49: An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to full backwages.

Exceptions
1. The Court awarded limited backwages where the employee was illegally dismissed but the
employer was found to be in good faith. [San Miguel Corporation v. Javate, Jr., G.R. No. L-54244
(1992)]
2. Delay of the EE in filing the case for illegal dismissal [Mercury Drug Co., Inc. v. CIR] 


Q50: When is an illegally dismissed employee entitled to moral and exemplary damages?
A50: The employee is entitled to moral damages when the employer acted in bad faith or fraud; in a
manner oppressive to labor; or in a manner 
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy
[Montinola v. PAL, G.R. No. 198656 (2014).]

In labor cases, the court may award exemplary damages "if the dismissal was effected in a wanton,
oppressive or malevolent manner." [Garcia v. NLRC, GR. No. 110518 (1994)]

PAGE 20
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Q51: What are the elements of work-related sexual harassment?

A51:
1. The sexual favor is made as a condition
a. in the hiring or in the employment, re- employment or continued employment of said
individual or 

b. in granting said individual favorable 
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions,
or privileges, or
c. in the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the
EE which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
2. The above acts would either:

a. impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
b. result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

Q52: What is the interest rate for monetary awards?

A52: According to Nacar v. Gallery Frames, when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest .... shall be 6% per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
credit. [Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, (2013)]

Q53: Distinguish Apprentice from Learners

A53:
Apprentice Learners
Highly technical industries Semi-skilled industrial occupations

Practical training supplemented by related Practical training whether or not such practical
theoretical instruction training is supplemented by theoretical instructions

Apprenticeable occupations approved by the Non-apprenticeable occupations

SOLE
Written apprentice agreement ratified by the Learnership agreement
appropriate committees
More than 3 months, shall not exceed 6 months Shall not exceed 3 months

(1) The person is at least 15 years of age, (1) When no experienced workers are available;
provided those who are at least 15 years of age
but less than 18 may be eligible for (2) The employment of 
learners is necessary to
apprenticeship only in non-hazardous prevent curtailment of employment opportunities; and
occupation; 
 

(2) The person is physically fit for the (3) The employment does not create unfair
occupation in which he desires to be trained; 
 competition in terms of labor costs or impair or lower
(3) The person possesses 
vocational aptitude working standards. 

and capacity for the 
 particular occupation as
established through appropriate tests; and

(4) The person is able to comprehend and

follow oral and written instructions.

PAGE 21
 LAST MINUTE TIPS: LABOR U.P. LAW BOC

Wage rate shall begin at not less than 75% of Wage rate shall begin at not less than 75% of the
the minimum wage. No compensation if SOLE minimum wage.
authorizes, as OJT is required by the school
[Art. 72].

PAGE 22