Labor Law PDF

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Over-all Chairperson Mary Cyriell C. Sumanqui
Chairperson for Academics Erica Mae C. Vista
Chairperson for Hotel Operations Ben Rei E. Barbero
Vice Chairperson for Secretariat Jhelsea Louise B. Dimaano
Vice Chairperson for Operations Earl Justin M. Yambao
Vice Chairperson for Finance Ma. Angelica B. De Leon
Vice Chairperson for Audit Arra Olmaya J. Badangan
Vice Chairperson for EDP Jordan N. Chavez
Vice Chairperson for Logistics Hanz Darryl D.Tiu
Vice Chairperson for Membership Dohn Alfred E. Aquilizan
SUBJECT COMMITTEE
Subject Chair for Political Law Cherish Kim B. Ferrer
Subject Chair for Labor Law Kristina D. Cabugao
Subject Chair for Civil Law Ma. Cristina D. Arroyo
Subject Chair for Taxation Law Maria Carissa C. Guinto
Subject Chair for Mercantile Law Dentzen S. Villegas
Subject Chair for Criminal Law Maria Regina C. Gameng
Subject Chair for Remedial Law Raymond F. Ramos
Subject Chair for Legal Ethics Rhev Xandra Acuña
LAYOUT AND CONTENT EDITORS

Roger P. Cuaresma Camille Victoria D. Dela Cruz
Gabrielle Anne S. Endona Nior Ditching
Joelle Mae J. Garcia Paulo O. Hernandez
Micah Regina A. Gonzales Zennia S. Turrecha
Nestor J. Porlucas, Jr.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

ADMINISTRATION
Dean Atty. Marciano G. Delson
Vice Dean Atty. Risel G. Castillo-Taleon
Prefect of Student Affairs Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel
Administrative Officer Atty. Francesca Lourdes M. Señga
Legal Aid Bureau Director Atty. Peter-Joey B. Usita
2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CORE GROUP

Mary Camille Asi Castillo, Joanna Garcia Sarah C. Barcena, Edgar Paolo G. Gaid, Nior Ditching , Camille Victoria D. Dela
Cruz, Paulo O. Hernandez, Nestor J. Porlucas, Jr., Zennia S. Turrecha, Arcturus Viktor R. Palos, Jezzryl Blas P. Sualibio, Aiden
Cyrus S. Tinoco, Josiah C. Jimenez, Patricia Camille P. Sitchon, Giorgio Luigi T. Juaño, Zayrra Bernice L. Malto, Erin T.
Galvez, Marion Patricia L. Rodriguez, Christian Ernest C. Biagtan, Elizabeth Marino, Kenneth Aldwin M. Quejada, Aira
Marielle Geronimo, Ma. Consolada V. Ben, Raph Kevin L. Santos, Christine Grace S. Panahon, Cheyenne Hope Dumlao,
Corina R. Tampus, Marielle Cielo B. Belgira, Jericho L. Jamig, Katherine F. Dimayacyac, Lex Angelo A. Rosario, Alissa Marie
DC. Delos Santos, Angelee C. Inovejas, Antonio Jun-Jun C. Manaligod IV, Aifa Regine G. Pangilinan, Roger P. Cuaresma,
Gabrielle Anne S. Endona, Joelle Mae J. Garcia, Micah Regina A. Gonzales, Cayenne Mae G. Teodoro, Arvy Keith Chung,
Lorenzo Thaddeus Ruel D. Galandines, Eric Winson F. Cea, Mark Benedict S. Francisco, Paola Beatriz A. Escobar, Ronalyn
A. Gacula, Juan Iñigo S. Miguel, Christopher Angelo Y. Vaquilar
KRISTINA D. CABUGAO
Subject Chair
VICTOR KENNER S. GALANG

Assistant Subject Chair
MISHAEL R. OCCIANO
Subject Electronic Data Processing
SUBJECT HEADS
Labor Standards NATHANAEL A. QUIJANO
Labor Relations BEA PATRICIA G. DANGAZO
Jurisdiction and Special Laws JUZMEND FRANCEZ THERESE M.
ABRIAM
SUBJECT MEMBERS
JOHN BENEDICT M. RIVERA JOANNA PATRICIA R. PADRID
CHRISTIAN MARIE LYNN P. SOLIS STEPHANIE NICOLE M. ILACAD
ADVISERS
Atty. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO
Atty. MARLON J. MANUEL
Atty. PETER-JOEY B. USITA
THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.
THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION,

MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION
OF ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Page
Number
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Basic policy on labor ......................................................................................................................... 1
B. Construction in favor of labor ............................................................................................................ 1
C. Constitutional and Civil Code provisions relating to Labor Law ........................................................ 1
II. PRE-EMPLOYMENT
A. Recruitment and placement of local and migrant workers
(Labor Code and RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022) ................................................................... 2
B. Employment of non-resident aliens .................................................................................................. 7
III. LABOR STANDARDS
A. Conditions of employment................................................................................................................. 7
B. Wages ............................................................................................................................................... 10
C. Leaves............................................................................................................................................... 12
D. Special groups of employees ............................................................................................................ 14
IV. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION
A. SSS Law (RA 8282) .......................................................................................................................... 18
B. GSIS Law (RA 8291) ........................................................................................................................ 21
C. Disability and death benefits ............................................................................................................. 23
V. LABOR RELATIONS
A. Right to self-organization .................................................................................................................. 27
B. Bargaining unit .................................................................................................................................. 29
C. Bargaining representative ................................................................................................................. 29
D. Rights of labor organizations ............................................................................................................ 31
E. Unfair Labor Practices....................................................................................................................... 32
F. Peaceful concerted activities ............................................................................................................ 35
VI. POST-EMPLOYMENT
A. Employer-employee relationship ....................................................................................................... 39
B. Termination by employer................................................................................................................... 44
C. Termination by employee .................................................................................................................. 49
D. Preventive Suspension ..................................................................................................................... 50
E. Reliefs from illegal dismissal ............................................................................................................. 50
F. Money claims arising from employer-employee relationship ............................................................ 51
G. Retirement......................................................................................................................................... 52
VII. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
A. Discipline ........................................................................................................................................... 53
B. Transfer of employees ...................................................................................................................... 53
C. Productivity standard......................................................................................................................... 54
D. Bonus ................................................................................................................................................ 54
E. Change of working hours ................................................................................................................. 54
F. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification .............................................................................................. 54
G. Post-employment restrictions ............................................................................................................ 55
VIII. JURISDICTION AND RELIEFS
A. Labor Arbiter/ National Labor Relations Commission ....................................................................... 55
B. Judicial review of labor rulings .......................................................................................................... 59
C. Bureau of Labor Relations ................................................................................................................ 60
D. National Conciliation and Mediation Board ....................................................................................... 61
E. DOLE Regional Directors .................................................................................................................. 61
F. DOLE Secretary ................................................................................................................................ 61
G. Grievance machinery ........................................................................................................................ 63
H. Voluntary arbitration .......................................................................................................................... 63
I. Prescription of actions ....................................................................................................................... 64
| iv
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
1. REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT
What is the basic policy on labor?
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORTheSALE.
StateDO
shallNOT COLLEGE
afford protection OF LAW.
to labor, NOT
promote fullFOR SALE. DO
employment, NOTwork opportunities
equal COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
regardless of FOR SALE. DO
sex, race
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY or creed
OF SAN BEDA and regulate the relations between
REPRODUCE. workersOF
PROPERTY and employers.
SAN BEDA The StateREPRODUCE.
shall assure thePROPERTY
rights OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEof
OFworkers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work
LAW. NOT FOR
(LABOR CODE, Art. 3).
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
2. N Manufacturing hired O as a shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six (6) months.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFBefore
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE in
the end of the probationary period, O received a memorandum terminating his employment OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
view of his failure to meet performance
standards set by the company but without
OFindicating
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
the
UNIVERSITY
particular acts or instances showing O’s poor performance. To contest the dismissal, O filed a
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
complaint for illegalCOLLEGE OFNLAW.
dismissal. NOT FORargued
Manufacturing SALE. DO
thatNOT COLLEGE
O, being a OF LAW. NOT
mere probationary FOR SALE. DO NOT
employee,
may be
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA validly dismissed when he failed to qualify
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAreasonable standards and that employers should
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
be given leeway in the application of his right to choose efficient workers. If you were the judge, how
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
will you rule on the given argument?
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
If I were the judge, I will not sustain the argument of N Manufacturing. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
that DO NOT
all doubts COLLEGE OFand
in the implementation LAW. NOT FORofSALE.
interpretation DO NOTof the COLLEGE
the provisions Labor CodeOF LAW.
shall NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
be resolved
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY inOFfavor
SANofBEDA
labor. Thus, in REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the interpretation OF SANtoBEDA
of the protection REPRODUCE.
labor and social PROPERTY
justice provisions of the OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Constitution
LAW. NOT FOR and the labor laws and rules
UNIVERSITY and regulations
COLLEGE implementing
OF LAW. NOT FOR the UNIVERSITY
constitutional COLLEGE
mandate, the OF LAW. NOT FOR
Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights. While the
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
right of an employer to freely SALE.
select orOF DO
SANNOT
discharge hisREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
employees same isSALE.
PROPERTY
is recognized, the OF DO
subjectSANto NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
regulation
by theDO
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. State
NOTin the exercise
COLLEGE of itsOF
paramount
LAW. NOT police
FORpower.
SALE.InDO
this NOT
case, N Manufacturing
COLLEGE OFfailed to substantiate
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
its claim that O was indeed inefficient and failed to meet its performance standards (Euro-Linea v. NLRC, G.R.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF No.
SAN75782,
BEDADecember 1, REPRODUCE.
1987). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT 3. A was employed by X Company
REPRODUCE. SALE. as aNOT
DO sales assistant. M, the store manager,SALE.
REPRODUCE. accused A of stealing
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
money from the cashier box and thereafter dismissed A. In the illegal dismissal case filed by A before UNIVERSITY
the Labor
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Arbiter, ACOLLEGE
DO NOT denied theOFallegations.
LAW. NOTInFOR ruling in favor
SALE. of A, the Labor
DO NOT Arbiter
COLLEGE OF held
LAW.that
NOTtheFOR
soleSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF testimony
SAN BEDAof B was doubtful and thus
REPRODUCE. applied Article
PROPERTY OF SAN 4 of the Labor Code
BEDA in the appreciation
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYof the
OF SAN BEDA
evidence in favor of A as a laborer. On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
reversed when it was UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
held that Article OF LAW.
4 cannot NOT ifFOR
be applied UNIVERSITY
the doubt relates to the COLLEGE
evidence. OF
NLRCLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT explained that Article 4 applies
REPRODUCE. SALE.only
DO when
NOT the doubt involves the “implementation
REPRODUCE. SALE.and
DOinterpretation”
NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
of the Labor Code provisions. Is the NLRC correct?
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, the NLRC is not correct.
BEDA Article 4 ofPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. the Labor Code provides
OF SAN BEDAthat all doubtsREPRODUCE.
in the implementation
PROPERTY and OF SAN BEDA
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor. The rule enunciated in
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Article
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
4 of the Labor Code has been consistently applied in the appreciation of evidence in labor proceedings.
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Thus,
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYthe consistent rule is that SALE.
if doubt DO NOT
exists REPRODUCE.
between
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the evidence presented SALE.
OF DO
by the employer
PROPERTY NOT
and
SAN thatREPRODUCE.
BEDA by
UNIVERSITY
the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. In the case at bar, M failed to establish
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT with substantial
his accusation COLLEGE evidence.
OF LAW. As NOT FOR SALE.
between DOallegation
the bare NOT ofCOLLEGE
M and theOF LAW.
clear NOT
denial of FOR
A, theSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF scales
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of justice shall be PROPERTY
tilted in favor of OF SAN
A (Dreamland Hotel BEDA REPRODUCE.
Resort v. Johnson, PROPERTY
G.R. No. 191455, March 12,OF SAN BEDA
2014).
SALE. DO
OPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
4. What provisions
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in the 1987 Constitution are relevant
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to Labor Law? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
The following are the constitutional provisions relevant to Labor Law: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN a. State Policies (CONST.,
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
Art.DO
PROPERTY NOT
II, Secs.
OF SANREPRODUCE.
9, 10, 18, and
BEDA 20)
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
i. Sec. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOand
NOTindependence
COLLEGE OF nation
of the LAW. and
NOTfree FORtheSALE. DOfrom
people NOTpovertyCOLLEGE OF LAW.
through policies that NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
provide
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA adequate social services, promote full employment,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA a rising standard of living, and an improved
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORquality of life UNIVERSITY
for all; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
ii. Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development;
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA iii. Sec. 18. The
State affirmsOF DO
SANNOT
labor as
BEDAaREPRODUCE.
primary social economic force.
UNIVERSITY It shallSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
protect
SAN NOT
the REPRODUCE.
rights
BEDA of
UNIVERSITY
workers and promote their welfare; and
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOiv.NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Sec. 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA enterprise,REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and provides incentives to needed investments. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
1
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA b.
UNIVERSITY
Bill of Rights (CONST.,PROPERTY OF SAN
Art. III, Sections 4, 8,BEDA UNIVERSITY
10, 16, and 18(2)) PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
i. Sec.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 4. No law shall be passed abridging the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT freedom of speech, of expression,
COLLEGE OF or ofLAW.
the press,
NOT FOR SALE. DO N
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.ii.NOT
Sec.FOR
8. The rightUNIVERSITY
of the people,COLLEGE OF LAW.
including those NOTinFOR
employed UNIVERSITY
the public and COLLEGE
private sectors, to form OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. unions, associations, orSALE.
societies
DO for
NOTpurposes not contrary to law, shall not beSALE.
REPRODUCE. abridged;
iii. Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed; PROPERTY NOT
DO OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORiv. Sec.
SALE. DO16.NOT
All persons shall have
COLLEGE OFthe right NOT
LAW. to a speedy disposition
FOR SALE. DO NOT of their cases beforeOF
COLLEGE all LAW.
judicial,NOT FOR SALE. D
quasi-judicial,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA or administrative bodies; and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
v. Sec. 18 (2). No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.whereof
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
the party shall have been duly convicted. LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
c. Social Justice (CONST., Art. XIII, Sections 2, 3, 13, and 14)
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
i. DOSec.NOT COLLEGE of
2. The promotion OFsocial
LAW. justice
NOT FOR shallSALE. DOthe
include NOT COLLEGE
commitment OF LAW.
to create NOT FOR SALE. DO N
economic
opportunities
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA based on freedom of initiative and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA self-reliance; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.ii.NOT
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
negotiations, OF LAW.
and peaceful NOT activities,
concerted FOR SALE. DO NOT
including the right COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
to strike in accordance FOR SALE. DO NOT
with law.
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA They shall beREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
entitled to security OFhumane
of tenure, SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
conditions of work, and a livingPROPERTY
wage. TheyOF SAN BEDA
shall also participate
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY in policy and decision-making
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTprocesses
FOR affecting their rights
UNIVERSITY and benefits
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
as may be provided by law.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
TheNOT
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO State shall promote OF
COLLEGE theLAW.
principle
NOTof FOR
shared responsibility
SALE. DO NOT between workersOF
COLLEGE and employers
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
enforce their mutual compliancePROPERTY
therewith to OF SAN
foster BEDA peace. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
industrial
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right REPRODUCE.
of
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTon investments, and to
COLLEGE OFexpansion
LAW. NOT andFOR
growth;
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
iii. Sec. 13. The state shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation,
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
self-development COLLEGEand
and self-reliance OFtheir
LAW. NOT FOR
integration UNIVERSITY
into the mainstream COLLEGE
of society; and OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. iv. Sec. 14. The State shall
SALE. DO protect
NOT working women by providing safe SALE.
REPRODUCE. and healthful
DO NOT working
REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
will enhance OF LAW.
their welfare NOT them
and enable FOR SALE. DOtheir
to realize NOT COLLEGE
full potential OF LAW.
in the service NOT
of the FOR SALE. DO NOT
nation.
5. What Civil Code provisions are relevant to Labor Law?
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
The following
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY are the Civil Code SALE. DO
provisionsNOT REPRODUCE.
relevant to Labor
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Law: SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTwith public
impressed COLLEGE
interestOF LAW.
that laborNOT FOR SALE.
contracts DO NOT
must yield COLLEGE
to the common good. OF LAW. NOT
Therefore, suchFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANcontracts
BEDA are subjectREPRODUCE.
to the special laws on laborOF
PROPERTY unions,
SAN collective
BEDA bargaining, strikes and PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. lockouts, OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. closed
NOT FORshop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
b. Article 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other or impair the interest or
convenience of the
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY public.
PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
c. Article 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the safety and decent living of the laborer.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANd. BEDA
Article 1703. NoREPRODUCE.
contract whichPROPERTY
practicallyOF SAN BEDA
amounts to involuntary REPRODUCE.
servitude, underPROPERTY
any guiseOF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwhatsoever,
FOR shall be valid. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
ROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
6. While in Iloilo, V introduced herself to L, M, N and O as a recruiter of workers for Malaysia and showed
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
them a job order and calling card. Believing such representations, L, M, N and O submitted COLLEGE
theirOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA applications and paid PhP10,000
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE. V.DO
toOF SAN NOT
After
BEDAREPRODUCE.
about a month, V informed them
UNIVERSITY SALE.
that
PROPERTY OF DO
they NOT
cannot
SAN REPRODUCE.
be
BEDA UNIVERSITY
deployed and that the fees collected cannot be returned anymore. V explained that the visa or the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR medical
SALE. DO NOT
certificates COLLEGE
had alreadyOF LAW. Suspicious
expired. NOT FOR SALE.on theDO NOT they later
matter, COLLEGE OF LAW.
discovered NOT
upon FOR SALE. DO NOT
inquiry
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
that BEDA
V did REPRODUCE.
not have authority to recruit.PROPERTY OFany
Is V guilty of SAN BEDA
crime? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
2
Yes, V is guilty of illegalPROPERTY
recruitmentOFinSAN
largeBEDA
scale.UNIVERSITY
Article 38 of the LaborPROPERTY OF SAN
Code provides BEDA UNIVERSITY
that any
recruitment
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTactivity to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holders
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of authority shall be deemed illegal and
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
punishable. Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, also provides that illegal recruitment includes the failure
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYtoOF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
and processing for OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFpurposes
LAW. NOT FOR
of deployment in UNIVERSITY
cases where theCOLLEGE OF does
deployment LAW.not NOT FORtake place
actually UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
without the worker's OF LAW. NOT FOR
fault.
SALE. DO NOT In either case, such illegal recruitment
REPRODUCE. SALE.is DO
deemed
NOT committed in large scale if committed against
REPRODUCE. SALE. three
DO or more
NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
persons individually or as a group. In the present case, A was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTrecruit
FOR workers
SALE. DOfor NOT
deploymentCOLLEGE
abroad; she
OFoffered
LAW. or promised
NOT employment
FOR SALE. DO NOT abroad to more thanOF
COLLEGE three private
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
complainants;
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA she received monies from said complainants purportedly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA as placement or processing fees and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
complainants were not actually deployed to Malaysia (People of the Philippines v. Gilda Abellanosa, G.R. No.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE214340,
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
July 19, 2017, Covered Case). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
7. H was introduced to M as a person who can facilitate papers for workers. During a meeting, H explained
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
theSALE. DO NOTfor working
requirements COLLEGEas aOF LAW. NOT
teaching FOR SALE.
personnel in UK.DO NOTshowed
H also COLLEGE
picturesOFof LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
other people
she had supposedly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA helped to get employment. With such
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA representations, M agreed to apply for
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY work OF SAN BEDA
in the UK. M paid PhP150,000 for which H promised to personally process the visa application. After
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFrepeated
but vain follow-ups, M discovered that H did not have any license or authority to recruit. In
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
the case for illegal recruitment,
H did DOdispute
OFnot
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
her lack of license or authority
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to conduct
PROPERTY DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
recruitment
OF SAN UNIVERSITY
activities, but she maintained that the transaction was only for securing a visa which did not qualify as
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT activity”.
a "recruitment COLLEGE
Is theOF LAW. NOT
argument of HFOR SALE. DO NOT
tenable? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
The FOR
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT argument is not tenable. Illegal
UNIVERSITY recruitment
COLLEGE is committed
OF LAW. NOT FOR by personsUNIVERSITY
who, without COLLEGE
authority from
OF the
LAW. NOT FOR
government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDANon-license
UNIVERSITYholders are liableSALE.
by the
PROPERTY DOsimple
NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
act of engaging
BEDA SALE. DO
in recruitment and placement
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
activities.
OF SAN Under
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Article
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.13(b)
DO ofNOT
Presidential Decree OF
COLLEGE No.LAW.
442, as amended,
NOT FOR SALE.also DO
knownNOT as the Labor
COLLEGECode OFof the
LAW.Philippines,
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
recruitment and placement refers to "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY orOFprocuring
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
workers, and includes referrals, PROPERTY OF SAN
contact services, BEDA or advertising
promising REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
for employment, locally OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF or abroad,
LAW. NOTwhether
FOR for profit or not. It is the
UNIVERSITY absenceOF
COLLEGE of the necessary
LAW. NOT FOR license or authority
UNIVERSITYto recruit and deploy
SALE. workers that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
complainants
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTabroadCOLLEGE
in a manner
OFthat theyNOT
LAW. wereFOR
convinced
SALE.toDO
partNOT
with their COLLEGE
money for that end (People
OF LAW. of theSALE. DO NOT
NOT FOR
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Philippines
SAN BEDAv. Erlinda A.REPRODUCE.
Sison “Margarita S. Aguilar”, G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017, Covered Case).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
8. LAW.
X isNOT FOR
the President of UNIVERSITY
ABC Company, COLLEGE OF LAW.recruitment
a duly registered NOT FOR agencyUNIVERSITY
whose licenseCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
is temporarily
SALE. DO NOT suspended. During the period
REPRODUCE. of suspension,
SALE. DO NOT X promised employment abroadSALE.
REPRODUCE. to A, DO
B, C,NOT
D, and E in
REPRODUCE.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
consideration of placement fees. X failed to deploy A, B, C, D, and E, and no reimbursements were
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
madeDOon NOT COLLEGE
their placement fees.OFIn aLAW. NOT FOR
prosecution forSALE.
illegalDO NOT inCOLLEGE
recruitment OFXLAW.
large scale, NOT
claimed FOR
that sheSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF could not have committed
SAN BEDA the saidPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. crime because
OF SAN ABC Company’s license
BEDA was only
REPRODUCE. temporarily
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
suspended. Is X liable for illegal recruitment in large scale?
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.Yes, X
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYis liable for illegal SALE. DO
recruitment NOT
in REPRODUCE.
large scale. Under
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Sec. 6 of R.A. No. SALE.
8042, DO NOT
as amended,
PROPERTY the
OF SANREPRODUCE.
failure
BEDA UNIVERSITY
to reimburse expenses, in cases where deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault, is
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOasNOT
considered COLLEGEX’s
illegal recruitment. OFcontention
LAW. NOT FOR
that sheSALE.
was aDO NOT
holder COLLEGE
of a license OF LAW.
to operate NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
as a recruiter
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY during theBEDA
OF SAN period when theREPRODUCE.
crimes were committed
PROPERTY doesOFnot matter
SAN BEDAbecause she REPRODUCE.
was still performing an act OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
considered
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORto be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the expenses incurred by the complainants.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Therefore, X is liable for illegal recruitment (People v. Molina, G.R. No. 207811, June 1, 2016, Covered Case).
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
9. What are the other prohibited activities under Art. 34, and considered as illegal recruitment under R.A.
8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022?
The FOR
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT following actsUNIVERSITY
are the prohibited activities
COLLEGE OF under
LAW. Art.
NOT 34,FOR
and considered as illegal COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY recruitmentOF
under
LAW. NOT FOR
Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 8042 (as amended by R.A. No. 10022):
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
• Illegal exaction – To charge greater amount than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.•DOFalse
NOT information
COLLEGE – ToOF
furnish
LAW.anyNOTfalse information
FOR SALE. DOin relation
NOT to recruitment
COLLEGE OF or employment;
• False
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA statements – To give any false notice,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA testimony, etc. or commit any act
REPRODUCE. of misrepresentation
to secure a license or authority;
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
• Obstruct inspection – To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Labor SecretaryOF
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE or LAW.
his NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. authorized representatives;
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
• Unjustified non-deployment – Failure to deploy a contracted worker without a valid reason as
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.determined
DO NOT by theCOLLEGE
DOLE; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Non-reimbursement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA upon failure
REPRODUCE. – FailureOF
PROPERTY to SAN
reimburse
BEDAexpenses REPRODUCE.
incurred by thePROPERTY
worker in OF SAN BEDA
connection
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR with the documentation
UNIVERSITY and processing
COLLEGE OF LAW.for purposes
NOT FOR of deployment, in cases
UNIVERSITY where the
deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault;
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA • Delegation toPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY an alienSALE.
–OFToDO
SAN NOT
allow REPRODUCE.
BEDAa UNIVERSITY
non-Filipino citizen to head or SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
manage aNOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
licensed
BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOrecruitment/manning
NOT COLLEGEagency;
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Withholding travel documents – To withhold travel documents from applicant workers before
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
departure for unauthorized monetary considerations;BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
3
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA •UNIVERSITY
Influencing not to employPROPERTY OF SANorBEDA
– To influence UNIVERSITY
attempt to influence any personPROPERTY
or entity notOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
to employ
any worker
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT who has not applied for employment through
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT his agency; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
• Travel agency officer recruiting – To become an officer or member of the board of any corporation
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
engaged in the management of a travel agency;
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
• Harmful UNIVERSITY
jobs – To engage COLLEGE OF
in the recruitment LAW. NOTofFOR
or placement jobs harmfulUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to public health, morality OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT or to the dignity of the Philippines;
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
•
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT
SALE. DO OF SANREPRODUCE.
Alteration of contracts – To substitute or alter employment contracts without the approval of the
BEDA UNIVERS
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORLabor
SALE.Secretary;
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY• OF
Failure
SAN to comply with rules
BEDA and regulations
REPRODUCE. – To fail
PROPERTY OF to file BEDA
SAN reports on the status of employment,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
placement, etc. and such other matters as may be required by the Labor Secretary;
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
• Pirating – To induce or attempt to induce a worker to quit his job in lieu of another offer unless it is
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA designed to liberate the
UNIVERSITY worker SALE.
PROPERTY from DO
SANNOT
OFoppressive
BEDAREPRODUCE.
terms of employment.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
10. OF LAW.
K was NOT FOR
employed UNIVERSITY
with R Agency COLLEGE
as a cashier. OFdirection
Under LAW. NOT FORemployer,UNIVERSITY
of her K recruited COLLEGE
A, B, C, D OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT and E for overseas employment and assured them that R Agency can deploy them to Taiwan as factory
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
workers. Being the cashier, K received the payments of the said applicants and transmitted the same
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to the company
SALE. DO NOT treasurer. However,
COLLEGE the applicants
OF LAW. NOT FOR were
SALE.never deployed.COLLEGE
DO NOT When they OFfound
LAW.outNOT that
FORK SALE. DO NOT
did not have any license or authority to recruit, they filed a criminal complaint for illegal recruitment in
large scale against K. In her defense, K contended that she cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
because she did not benefit from the transaction and that only her employer should beCOLLEGE
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY OFIsLAW. NOT FOR
held liable.
SALE. DO NOT the contention
REPRODUCE. correct? SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR No,
SALE.theDO NOT is not
contention COLLEGE
correct. OF
ForLAW.
illegal NOT FOR SALE.
recruitment DOscale
in large NOTto prosper,
COLLEGE OF LAW. has
the prosecution NOTtoFOR SALE. DO NO
prove three
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA essential elements: (1) the accused undertook
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA a recruitment activity under Article 13(b)
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY or any OF SAN BEDA
prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority
to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegalCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA activity against three or more
persons DO
SANNOT
individually
OF orREPRODUCE.
BEDA asUNIVERSITY
a group. In this case, all PROPERTY SALE.
the elements areDO
OF NOT
present.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
K UNIVERSITY
cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of R Agency. Section 6 of RA
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 8042,
SALE.asDO NOT is equivocal
amended, COLLEGEthatOF illegal
LAW.recruitment
NOT FOR SALE.
may orDO
mayNOT
not be forCOLLEGE
profit. It is OF LAW. NOT
immaterial FOR SALE. DO NOT
therefore
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
whether REPRODUCE.
K remitted the placement fee toPROPERTY
the agency OF SAN BEDA
treasurer or appropriated REPRODUCE.
them. Even if KPROPERTY
was a mereOF SAN BEDA
cashier,
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTsuch
FOR fact did not make her any
UNIVERSITY less an employee
COLLEGE OF LAW.toNOTbe held
FORliable for UNIVERSITY
illegal recruitment as principal
by direct participation, together with the employer, as it was shown that she actively and consciously
participated in the recruitment
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
process OF
PROPERTY NOT
(People REPRODUCE.
SAN v.BEDA
Chua,UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. 184058, MarchPROPERTY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
10, 2010). OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
IVERSITY COLLEGE11.
OF LAW.
WhenNOT FOR recruitment
is illegal UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
considered OFofLAW.
a crime NOT FOR
economic UNIVERSITY
sabotage? Explain COLLEGE
briefly. OF LAW. NOT FOR
(2002, 2007,
SALE. DO NOT 2015 Bar)
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Under
SALE. Section
DO NOT 6 of RACOLLEGE
8042, as amended,
OF LAW.illegal
NOTrecruitment
FOR SALE.isDO considered
NOT a crime of economic
COLLEGE OF LAW.sabotage
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
when committed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by a syndicate or in large scale. Illegal
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY if OF SAN BEDA
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
outLAW. NOT FOR
any unlawful UNIVERSITY
or illegal transaction, COLLEGE
enterprise OF LAW.
or scheme NOT
which FOR
is an UNIVERSITY
act of illegal recruitment. COLLEGE
Meanwhile,OF LAW. NOT FO
illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3)SALE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
individually or as a group.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANpersons
or more
DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
12. Differentiate illegal recruitment and estafa.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR The following are the differences between illegal recruitment and estafa:
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• As to nature: Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where criminal intent is not necessary, whereas
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
estafa is malum in PROPERTY
se where criminal intent is OF SAN BEDA
necessary; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.•NOT AsFOR
to governing law: Illegal COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY recruitmentOFis LAW.
penalized
NOTunder
FOR the Labor Code, whereas
UNIVERSITY estafa
COLLEGE OFisLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. penalized under the Revised Penal
SALE. DO NOT Code;
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
As to scope: Illegal recruitment is limited to acts related to recruitment activities, whereas estafa is
wider
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOinNOT
scope covering
COLLEGEdeceits
OFwhether related
LAW. NOT FORto recruitment
SALE. DO NOTactivities orCOLLEGE
not. OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
4
13. X,OF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY a seafarer,
SAN BEDA signed a POEA-approved
REPRODUCE.contract
PROPERTYof employment
OF SAN BEDAwith RV Company, with a duration
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYof OF SAN BEDA
nine (9) months. The employment contract provides that the employer-employee relationship shall
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFcommence
LAW. NOTonly FORupon theUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
seafarer’s actual OF LAW.
departure fromNOT FORin the point
the port UNIVERSITY
of hire in COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Manila. Five
days before the
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY departure from SALE.
Manila DO
to NOT REPRODUCE.
Canada, the company
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYinformed X that he SALE.
would notDO
beNOT REPRODUCE.
allowed
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
to leave for Canada because the company feared that he might jump ship. X filed a complaint for illegal
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTdismissal,
FOR SALE. DO NOT
overtime COLLEGE
pay, damages OFattorney’s
and LAW. NOT FOR
fees SALE.
with DO NOT
the Labor COLLEGE
Arbiter against RV OF LAW. NOT
Company. In FOR SALE. DO
its defense,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANRV Company argued
BEDA that the jurisdiction
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYofOF theSAN
Labor Arbiter is limited
BEDA to claims arising
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEout
OFof an employer-employee
LAW. NOT FOR relationshipCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY and sinceOF
such relationship
LAW. NOT FORdid not commence
UNIVERSITY without the OF LAW. NOT F
COLLEGE
seafarer’s actual departure, it moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Is the
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
motion
BEDA to dismiss proper?PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, the motion to dismiss is not proper. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (as amended) provides that the Labor
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYArbiter
OF SAN BEDA
shall REPRODUCE.
have the original and exclusivePROPERTY OFhear
jurisdiction to SAN BEDA
and REPRODUCE.
decide claims arising out of an PROPERTY
employer- OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFemployee
LAW. NOT relationship
FOR or by virtue of anyCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY law or contract
OF LAW.involving
NOTFilipino
FOR workers for overseasCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY deployment
OF LAW. NOT FOR
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damage. In Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Management, the Supreme PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN
Court made BEDAREPRODUCE.
a distinction UNIVERSITY
between the perfection ofPROPERTY
SALE. DO
OF SAN
the employment
NOT
BEDA
contract
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
and
the commencement
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the employer-employee
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTrelationship.
FOR SALE.The DO perfection
NOT ofCOLLEGE
the employment
OF LAW. contract
NOT occurs
FOR SALE. DO NOT
when the parties agree on the object and cause, as well as the rest of the terms and conditions therein. On the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF other
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.relationship
hand, the employer-employee PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
commences when the workerREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
is actually deployed OF SAN BEDA
from the
point FOR Thus, even
of hire. UNIVERSITY
before the COLLEGE
start of theOF LAW. NOT FOR relationship,
employer-employee UNIVERSITY COLLEGEwith
contemporaneous OF the
LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT perfection of the employment SALE.
REPRODUCE. contract
DO is NOT
the birth of certain right and obligations, the breach
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOof which
NOT may give
REPRODUCE.
rise to a cause of action against the erring party. Applying to the case at bar, the claim is based on the
employment
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO contract
NOT entered into OF
COLLEGE between
LAW.XNOT and FOR
RV Company
SALE. DOforNOT
overseasCOLLEGE
employment. Therefore,
OF LAW. NOTX’s
FOR SALE. DO NOT
claims are
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA cognizable by the Labor Arbiter (Santiago v. CF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Sharp Crew Management, Inc., G.R. No. 162419,
July 10, 2007).
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
14. SALE. DO NOT
In 2012, H filed a COLLEGE
complaint OFforLAW. NOT FOR
permanent totalSALE. DO NOT
disability against XCOLLEGE
ManningOF LAW. NOT
Agency FOR
and B, theSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF company
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
president. H alleged that he fell on deck while lifting heavy loads of lube oil drum, with his OF SAN BEDA
left arm
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORhitting the floor. The incident resulted in his
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR being permanently unfit for further sea service.
While the LA and NLRC held that there was no permanent disability, X Manning Agency and B were
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
held solidarily liable for SALE.
PROPERTY DO
payment of NOT REPRODUCE.
OFtemporary
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
disability SALE.
PROPERTY
benefits. B contended DO
that heOF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
cannot be heldUNIVERSITY
liableDO
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. without
NOT showing that heOF
COLLEGE acted
LAW.beyond
NOT theFORscope
SALE.ofDO
hisNOT
authority COLLEGE
or with malice.
OF LAW.Is theNOT
argument
FOR SALE. DO NOT
of B correct?
No, B’s argument UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is incorrect. Section OF 8042,
10 of RA LAW.asNOT FOR expressly
amended, UNIVERSITY
provides forCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
joint and solidary
SALE. DO NOT liability of corporate directorsSALE.
REPRODUCE. and officers
DO NOT with the recruitment/placement agency SALE.
REPRODUCE. for all DO
moneyNOT claims or
REPRODUCE.
damages that may be awarded to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). While a corporate director, trustee, or
officer
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. whoDOentered
NOT into contracts
COLLEGEinOFbehalf
LAW.of the
NOTcorporation
FOR SALE.generally
DO NOT cannot be held personally
COLLEGE OF LAW. liableNOT
for the
FOR SALE. DO NOT
liabilities of the latter, in deference to the separate and distinct legal personality of a corporation from the
persons composing it, personal liability of such corporate director, trustee, or officer, along (although not
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF necessarily)
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
with the corporation, COLLEGE
may validly attachOF LAW.
when he isNOT FOR
made UNIVERSITY
by a specific COLLEGE
provision of law OF LAW. NOT FOR
personally
SALE. DO NOT answerable for his corporate action,
REPRODUCE. asDO
SALE. in NOT
this case (Gargallo v. Dohle Seafront Crewing
REPRODUCE. SALE. etDOal., NOT
G.R. REPRODUCE.
No.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
215551, August 17, 2016).
15. S, a local recruitment agency, deployed D to Hongkong under a 12-month contract as a domestic helper
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA for the foreign employer,
UNIVERSITY Y.SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
Unknown SAN REPRODUCE.
to the localUNIVERSITY
BEDA agency, D and Y agreed SALE. DO
to extend
PROPERTY the NOT
OF REPRODUCE.
employment
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for two
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOmore
NOTyears COLLEGE
under a second
OF LAW.contract. WhenSALE.
NOT FOR D returned
DO NOTto the Philippines,
COLLEGE OF sheLAW.
filed aNOT
complaint
FOR SALE. DO NOT
against S for underpayment of salaries and refund of tax payments under such second contract. In its
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF defense,
SAN BEDAS argued thatREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
it cannot be held OF SAN
liable under BEDA contract
the extended REPRODUCE.
which it had PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
no knowledge
of. NOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. Meanwhile,
FOR D insists that S, asCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY local recruitment
OF LAW.agency, is solidarilyUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR liable because he is charged
with knowledge of the extended contract under the theory of imputed knowledge. Is the argument of D
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAvalid?
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the argument of D is not valid. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY toOFthe
SAN BEDA
principal-foreign REPRODUCE.
employer, and notPROPERTY OF SAN
the other way BEDA
around. The knowledge REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of the principal-foreign
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF employer
LAW. NOT FOR therefore,
Y cannot, UNIVERSITY
be imputedCOLLEGE OFS.LAW.
to its agent ThereNOT FOR
being UNIVERSITY
no substantial proof that SCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
knew of and
SALE. consented to be bound under the 2-year employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
As such, it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of D’s claims arising from the 2-year UNIVERSITY
employment COLLEGE
extension (SunaceOF LAW. NOTManagement
International FOR SALE. Service
DO NOT COLLEGE
v. NLRC, G.R. No.OF LAW. NOT
161757, FOR
January 25,SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF 2006).
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
5
Note: Section 10
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of Republic Act No. 8042 provides that unlawfully
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT dismissed overseas
COLLEGEworkers are entitled
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
to the reimbursement of his or her placement fee with an interest rate of 12% per annum. BSP Circular No.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
799 which revised the interest rate for forbearance from 12% to 6% in the absence of stipulation is not PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
applicable whenFOR UNIVERSITY
there is a law COLLEGE However,
that states otherwise. OF LAW.awards
NOT FOR of salary forUNIVERSITY
the unexpiredCOLLEGE
portion of OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT the employment contract under Republic
REPRODUCE. SALE.Act
DONo. 8042
NOT are covered by Circular No. 799 because
REPRODUCE. the law doesREPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT
SALE. DO OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
not provide for a specific interest rate that should apply (R.A. No. 8042, as amended; Sameer Overseas
Placement
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT v. Cabilles,
FOR SALE. DO NOT August 5, 2014). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
COLLEGE COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW.16. X Agency
NOT FOR SALE.hired P as an assistant
DO NOT COLLEGE cook
OF onboard
LAW. NOT Royale,
FOR aSALE.
cruise
DOship belonging
NOT to a foreign
COLLEGE principal,
Z Cruise Lines. He signed a one-year contract where he was mainly tasked to assist the chief cook in
preparing meals. Sometime during his 3rd month, C began harassing P while at work. In dire need of
income, P tolerated the acts of the chief cook until he was suddenly told that his servicesCOLLEGE
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY would be OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT terminated as soon as the cruise ship arrives at the next port, in Thailand. P had to spendDOhis own
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
money to go back home. Upon arriving in the Philippines, P filed a money claim with the NLRC, whichUNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ruled
SALE.that
DO there
NOT was illegal
COLLEGE OF LAW.
dismissal. NOTthe
Thus, FOR SALE.
NLRC DO NOT
awarded COLLEGE OFofLAW.
full reimbursement NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
his placement
fee with
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA interest at 12% per annum and the payment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of his salaries for the unexpired portion
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY of theOF SAN BEDA
contract. X Agency and Z Cruise Lines argued that pursuant to R.A. 8042, as amended by R.A. 10022,
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
P shall FOR
only be entitledUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to three months OF LAW.
for every NOT
year of the FOR UNIVERSITY
unexpired term, since it isCOLLEGE
less thanOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT unexpired term of the contract.
REPRODUCE. Is the
SALE. DOcontention
NOT of X Agency and Z Cruise LinesSALE.
REPRODUCE. tenable?
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR No,
SALE.theDO NOT is COLLEGE
contention not tenable.OFSection
LAW. 10 NOT of FOR
R.A. SALE. DO as
No. 8042, NOT COLLEGE
amended, providesOF LAW.
that NOTofFOR SALE. DO NO
in case
termination
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAof overseas employment without just, valid or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA authorized cause as defined by law or contract,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY the OF SAN BEDA
worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every
OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA year of the unexpired term,
whichever is DO
OF SANNOT
less. In REPRODUCE.
the
BEDA case MaritimeSALE.
of Serrano v. GallantPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY OF DO
Services NOT
SANInc.,
BEDA REPRODUCE.
the UNIVERSITY
Court has declared the clause “or for three (3) month for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less”
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR asSALE. DO NOT for COLLEGE
unconstitutional OFequal
violating the LAW.protection
NOT FORclause
SALE.and
DOsubstantive
NOT COLLEGE OFAccordingly,
due process. LAW. NOT P FOR
is SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus hisOF SAN BEDA
salaries
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT forFOR
the unexpired portion the contract
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (R.A.
OFNo. 8042,
LAW. NOTas FOR
amended; Sameer Overseas
UNIVERSITY Placement
COLLEGE OFv.LAW. NOT FOR
Cabilles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014).
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
17. What is the rule on direct hiring of migrant workers?
SALE. DO NOT Article 18 of the Labor CodeSALE.
REPRODUCE. provides
DO that
NOT no REPRODUCE.
employer may hire a Filipino worker forSALE.
overseas
DOemployment
NOT REPRODUCE.
except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Thus, no employer shall directly
hire an DO NOT
Overseas COLLEGE
Filipino Worker OF LAW.employment
for overseas NOT FOR (LABOR
SALE. DO NOTArt. 18;COLLEGE
CODE, OF LAW.
Revised POEA Rules NOT
andFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYRegulations Governing the Recruitment
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. and Employment
PROPERTY OFof Landbased
SAN BEDAOFW, Sec. 123).
However, the rule is not absolute. The 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations state that the following
are exempted
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY from the ban on SALE.
direct DO
hiring: NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
a. Members of the diplomatic corps;
b. International organizations;
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANc. BEDA REPRODUCE.
Heads of state and PROPERTY
government officials OF rank
with the SANofBEDA
at least deputy REPRODUCE.
minister; or PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.d.NOT
Other
FORemployersUNIVERSITY
as may be allowed by the
COLLEGE OFSecretary
LAW. NOTof Labor
FOR and Employment,
UNIVERSITY suchCOLLEGE
as: OF LAW. NOT FOR
i. Those provided in (a), (b) and (c) who bear a lesser rank, if endorsed by the POLO, or Head of
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA SALE.ofDO
UNIVERSITYMission in thePROPERTY
absence the NOT
OF SAN
POLO;REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
ii. NOT
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO Professionals and skilled
COLLEGE workers
OF LAW. NOT with
FORduly executed/authenticated
SALE. DO NOT contracts
COLLEGE OF containing
LAW. NOTterms
FOR SALE. DO NOT
and conditions over and above the standards set by the POEA. The number of professional and
skilled Overseas PROPERTY
Filipino Workers OF
hired for theSAN
first BEDA REPRODUCE.
time by the employer PROPERTY
shall not exceed five (5).OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORFor the purpose of determining
UNIVERSITY the number,
COLLEGE OF LAW. workers
NOT hired
FOR as a group shall be counted
UNIVERSITY as one;
COLLEGE OForLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. iii. Workers hired by a relative/family
SALE. DO NOT member
REPRODUCE. who is a permanent resident of the host
SALE. DO NOT country
REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
(Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Landbased
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT OFW, Sec. 124).
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
6
18. A, a non-resident
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Chinese, went to your office asking for
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR legal advice because he intendsCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY to work for
OF LAW. NOT FOR
a local telecommunications company. What advice will you tell him so that he may lawfully engage in
gainfulUNIVERSITY
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA SALE. DO
employment in the Philippines.
PROPERTY NOT
Discuss REPRODUCE.
OF SANfully.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
I will explain to A that as a general rule, all foreign nationals who intend to engage in gainful employment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
in theOF SAN BEDA
Philippines shall apply forREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
an Alien Employment PermitOF
or SAN BEDA1, D.O. No. REPRODUCE.
AEP (Sec. 146-15). PROPERTY OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
However, he may be exempted from securing an AEP if he falls under any of the following categories of
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
aliens: PROPERTY SALE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
• AllDO
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. members
NOT of COLLEGE
the diplomatic service
OF LAW. NOTandFOR
foreign
SALE.government
DO NOT officials accredited
COLLEGE by and
OF LAW. with
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
reciprocity agreement with the Philippine government;
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF•SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Officers and staff of international organizations of which the Philippine government is a member and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
their legitimate spouses; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT • Owners and representatives of foreign principals whose companies are accredited by the
DOPOEA who
OPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
come to the Philippines for a limited period and solely for interviewing Filipino applicants for
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOemployment
NOT COLLEGE
abroad; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Foreign
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA nationals who come to the Philippines
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to teach, present and/or conduct research
REPRODUCE. studiesOF
PROPERTY in SAN BEDA
universities and colleges;
• Permanent resident foreign nationals, and probationary or temporary resident visa holders;
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN • Refugees and Stateless
PROPERTYDO NOT
personsOF REPRODUCE.
recognized
SAN by DOJ;
BEDA and
BEDA UNIVERSITY
• Foreign
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTnationals granted exemption
COLLEGE OF LAW. by lawFOR
NOT (D.O. No. 186-17,
SALE. DO NOT Sec. 2). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA if he falls under

Meanwhile, REPRODUCE.
any of thePROPERTY OF SANwho
following categories BEDA are excludedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
from securing an AEP, he OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF may
LAW.instead secure a Certificate
NOT FOR of Exclusion
UNIVERSITY from the
COLLEGE OF Regional
LAW. NOT Office:
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. • Members of the governing board with voting rights only and do not intervene inSALE.
the management of
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
the corporation or in the day to day operations of the enterprise; PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.•DOCorporate
NOT officers
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN• BEDA
President and REPRODUCE.
Treasurer, who PROPERTY
are part-owner
OFofSAN
the company;
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
• Those providing consultancy services who do not have employers in the Philippines;
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR corporate
• Intra UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
transferee who OF LAW.
is a manager, NOT FOR
executive, or specialistUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and an employee OF LAW. NOT FOR
of the foreign
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
service supplierPROPERTY DO NOT
for at leastOFone
SAN REPRODUCE.
year continuous
BEDA employment priorPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
to deployment NOT REPRODUCE.
to a BEDA
OF SAN branch,UNIVERSITY
subsidiary affiliate or representative office in the Philippines;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.•DOContractual
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
service supplier who NOT FOR SALE.
is a manager, DO NOT
executive, COLLEGE
or specialist OF LAW.
of a foreign NOTsupplier
service FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
which has no commercial PROPERTY
presence in the OF SAN BEDA
Philippines: (i) who entersREPRODUCE.
the PhilippinesPROPERTY
temporarily OFto SAN BEDA
supply
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a service pursuant to a contract between
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his/her employer and a service consumer in the
Philippines; (ii) must possess the appropriate educational and professional qualifications; and (iii) must
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
be employed by thePROPERTY DO NOT
OF SAN
foreign service REPRODUCE.
BEDA
supplier UNIVERSITY
for at least one year prior to the SALE.
PROPERTY
supplyDOof NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
service inBEDA
the UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Philippines;
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Representative of the Foreign Principal/Employer assigned in the Office of Licensed Manning Agency
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN(OLMA)
BEDA (D.O. No. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
186-17, Sec. 3-4). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
19. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Who DO
are covered
NOT byCOLLEGE
the LaborOFCode
LAW.provisions
NOT FOR onSALE.
WorkingDO Conditions
NOT and Rest OF
COLLEGE Periods?
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANThe BEDA
Labor Code REPRODUCE.
provisions on PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Working Conditions REPRODUCE.
and Rest Periods PROPERTY
apply to employees in OF
all SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and undertaking
establishments UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
whether OForLAW.
for profit NOT
not, but notFOR
to: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. • Government employees;SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Managerial employees including members of the managerial staff; PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Field personnel COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Members
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the family of the employer who are
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA dependent on him for support
• Domestic helpers
• Persons in the personal service of another;
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA • Workers paid by
UNIVERSITY SALE.
result (LABOR
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
CODE,
SAN REPRODUCE.
Art.
BEDA 82).
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
7
20. What is the normal hours of work?
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Article 83 of the Labor Code provides that the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
eight (8) hours a day. Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million
(1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall PROPERTY OF SAN B
hold regular office
hours
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFfor eightNOT
LAW. (8) hours
FOR a day, for five (5) daysCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY a week, exclusive
OF LAW. of time
NOTfor meals (LABOR
FOR CODE, Art.
UNIVERSITY 83).
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
21. O was employed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA as a bank teller in K Bank. She was required
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to work daily for a period of eight PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. straight OF SAN BEDA
hours.
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
a. Is this schedule allowed by
law?DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
b. In case O was only given a meal break of 15 minutes, can he claim compensation for the shorter
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
meal period?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.a.NOT
As a general rule, the schedule is not allowed. Article 85 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN regular meals (LABOR
CODE,DO
PROPERTY Art.NOT
OF85).
SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR b.
SALE. DOheNOT
Yes, can claim COLLEGE OF LAW.
compensation. A mealNOT FOR
period SALE.
of less DOtwenty
than NOT (20) minutes
COLLEGE mayOF
beLAW. NOT
given by theFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA provided that
employer REPRODUCE.
such shorterPROPERTY
meal periodOF is SAN BEDA
credited REPRODUCE.
as compensable PROPERTY
hours worked of the OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. employee
NOT FORin the following cases: COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
i. Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.
ii. Where the establishment OF DO
SANNOT
regularly BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
operates hours aSALE.
PROPERTY
not less than sixteen (16) OF DO
day; SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
iii. NOT
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO In case of actual orOFimpending
COLLEGE LAW. NOT emergencies
FOR SALE.orDOthereNOTis urgent work to
COLLEGE OFbeLAW.
performed
NOT FORon SALE. DO NOT
machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA suffer; and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
iv.FORWhere the UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
work is necessary OF LAW.
to prevent seriousNOT
loss FOR
of perishableUNIVERSITY
goods (IRR OFCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
THE LABOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. CODE, Sec. 7, Rule I). DO NOT REPRODUCE.
SALE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
22. X works in
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a call center which operates twenty-four (24)
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR hours a day. His shift starts at COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY 4:00 P.M. until
OF LAW. NOT FOR
1:00 A.M. of the following day. Is he entitled to any additional compensation for work performed during
thisUNIVERSITY
shift?
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Yes, X is entitled to a night differential pay. Under Article 86 of the Labor Code, every employee shall be
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
paid a night shift differential of not less than ten percent (10%) of his regular wage REPRODUCE.
for each hourPROPERTY
of work OF SAN BEDA
performed FOR 10:00 o’clock
between UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
in the evening to sixOF LAW.
o’clock in NOT FOR In theUNIVERSITY
the morning. COLLEGE
case of X, he is entitled toOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT night shift differential for work performed
REPRODUCE. SALE. from
DO 10:00
NOT pm until 1:00 am of the day following (LABOR
REPRODUCE. CODE, Art.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
86). (LABOR CODE, Art. 86). PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
IVERSITY COLLEGE23.
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
DEF Foundation is a non-profit organization dependent for its existence on contributions andLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA donations from well-wishers.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
B, an office
SAN REPRODUCE.
clerk therein,
BEDA renders work from 7:00
UNIVERSITY SALE.
A.M
PROPERTY DO
OF00NOT
to 8: REPRODUCE.
P.M.BEDA
SAN from UNIVERSITY
Monday to Friday. While admitting that it does not fall under the exceptions, DEF Foundation argued
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR that
SALE. DO not
it had NOTgiven overtime
COLLEGEpay
OFbecause
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
it should DO NOT
be exempt COLLEGE
as a charitable OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
institution.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.a.NOT Is FOR
B entitled toUNIVERSITY
overtime pay?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
b. What is the rate of additional compensation for overtime pay?
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a. Yes, B is entitled to overtime pay. Article 82 of the Labor Code that the provisions on Working
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Conditions and Rest Periods shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAor not, subject
for profit REPRODUCE.
only to certainPROPERTY
exceptionsOF SAN BEDA
mentioned REPRODUCE.
therein. Thus, the PROPERTY
provisions are equally OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. applicable
NOT FORto non-profit institutionsCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY (LABOR CODE, Art. NOT
OF LAW. 82). FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. Article 87 of the PROPERTY
SALE.
Labor Code OF
DO
SANNOT
provides BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
that work may be performed beyondPROPERTY SALE. DO
SANNOT
OFhours
eight (8)
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
a day UNIVERSITY
provided
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT that the employee
COLLEGE OF isLAW.
paid NOT
for theFOR
overtime
SALE.work, an additional
DO NOT compensation
COLLEGE OF LAW.equivalent
NOT FOR to SALE. DO NOT
his regular wage plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours
8
on a holiday or restPROPERTY
day shall beOF SAN
paid an BEDA UNIVERSITY
additional PROPERTY
compensation equivalent OFofSAN
to the rate BEDA UNIVERSITY
the first
eight hours
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT on a holiday or rest day plus at least thirty
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT percent (30%) thereof (LABOR CODE, Art. 87).
Note: Undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime REPRODUCE.
work on any PROPERTY
other day OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.(LABOR
NOT FOR CODE, Art.UNIVERSITY
88). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
BEDA UNIVERSIT
24. U, anOF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY employee of KKD Corporation,
SAN BEDA works from
REPRODUCE. 8:00 A.M.
PROPERTY OFtoSAN
5:00BEDA
P.M. on Monday to Friday. OnPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. June OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE12,
OFshe worked from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. What are the additional compensations she is entitled to?
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
Discuss each entitlement and the respective rates applicable.
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
U is entitled to holiday pay and overtime pay. For holiday pay, the rule is that work performed on a regular
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
holiday DO NOT
merits COLLEGE
at least twice (200%) OFthe LAW. NOTofFOR
wage rate SALE. DO Meanwhile,
the employee. NOT COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
with respect NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
the overtime
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYpay,
OF work
SAN inBEDA
excess of eight REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
(8) hours performed OF SAN
on a regular BEDA
holiday REPRODUCE.
shall be paid an PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
additional compensation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFequivalent
LAW. NOT to the
FORrate of theUNIVERSITY
first eight hours on a holiday
COLLEGE plus atNOT
OF LAW. least FOR
30% thereof.UNIVERSITY
Thus, the following formula
is applicable: Compensation = [(Hourly rate of basic daily wage x 200% x 130% x number of hours work) +
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
(Basic wage rate x 200%)]
UNIVERSITY (LABOR
PROPERTY SALE.
CODE,DOArt.
OF SAN NOT87;REPRODUCE.
BEDA Art. 94(b)).
UNIVERSITY
25. Distinguish facilities from supplements.
Facilities
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR are itemsUNIVERSITY
of expense necessary
COLLEGEfor OFthe laborer's
LAW. NOTandFORhis family's existence and
UNIVERSITY subsistence
COLLEGE so
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT that
REPRODUCE. by express provision of law. On the
SALE. DO NOTother hand, supplements
REPRODUCE. constitute extra remuneration
SALE. DO NOT or special
REPRODUCE.
privileges, or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages.
Facilities
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO formNOT
part of the wage and
COLLEGE OF are
LAW.deductible
NOT FOR therefrom
SALE. DOwhen
NOTfurnished by the employer,
COLLEGE OF LAW. whereas
supplements do not form part of the wage and are therefore not deductible (SLL International Cables Specialist
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY et.
OFal.SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 172161, March 2, 2011).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
26. SALE.
X andDO NOT to COLLEGE
Y decided put up an OF LAW.They
IT firm. NOTagreed
FOR SALE.
to hireDO
20 NOT
employees COLLEGE OF positions
for various LAW. NOT FORasSALE. DO NOT
such
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF software
developers and engineers, marketing officers and administrative assistants. Being optimistic OF SAN BEDA
on the growth
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the company, X and Y wanted to operate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR daily. In the proposed employment contract,
the employees are required to report for work from Mondays to Sundays. X and Y sought your advice
PROPERTY OF
on the legality of the employment DO NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
contract. What UNIVERSITY
advice will you give them? SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
I will advise X and Y to include in the employment contract a weekly rest period for the employees. Article
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF 91
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of the Labor Code provides that it shall be the duty of every employer, whether PROPERTY
operating for OF SAN BEDA
profit or not,
to provide each of his UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
employees a rest OFnotLAW.
period of NOTtwenty-four
less than FOR UNIVERSITY
(24) consecutiveCOLLEGE
hours afterOF LAW. NOT FOR
every
SALE. DO NOT six (6) consecutive normal work
REPRODUCE. days.
SALE. DO The employer
NOT shall determine and schedule the
REPRODUCE. weekly
SALE. DO rest
NOT day of his
REPRODUCE.
employees, subject to collective bargaining agreement and to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of
Labor
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR andDO
SALE. Employment
NOT may provide.OF
COLLEGE AsLAW.
an exception,
NOT FOR theSALE.
employer
DOshall
NOTrespectCOLLEGE
the preference of employees
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
as to weekly rest day when such preference is based on religious grounds (LABOR CODE, Art. 91).
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
27. Mr. X is engaged in the business of selling various household and food products. He has a medium-
sizedDO NOT storeCOLLEGE
grocery located inOF
theLAW.
townNOT FOR
center SALE.
mainly DO NOT
catering COLLEGEofOF
to the residents LAW.
the town.NOT
The FOR
storeSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF isSAN BEDA
open daily from 8AM REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
to 9PM, including OF SAN
weekends BEDA Due to REPRODUCE.
and holidays. high volume ofPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
sales, he had
to employ
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ten (10) persons to assist
UNIVERSITY in the daily
COLLEGE storeNOT
OF LAW. operations.
FOR All 10UNIVERSITY
employees are given aOF
COLLEGE fixed
LAW. NOT FOR
and regular schedule with a rest day per week. One of his employees, Y, acts as cashier. During her
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
years of employment,PROPERTYSALE.
Y had DO
OF NOT
worked SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
as scheduled, SALE.on
without objection, PROPERTY
including DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OFholidays.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The
dispute
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOarose
NOT whenCOLLEGE
Y demanded holiday
OF LAW. NOTpayFORfrom Mr.DO
SALE. X. NOT
In his defense, Mr. X
COLLEGE OFclaimed
LAW. NOT that FOR
he isSALE. DO NOT
exempted from paying holiday pay because he is regularly employing 10 workers only. Is the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF contention
SAN BEDAcorrect? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.No, the contention of Mr.SALE.
X is not
DOcorrect.
NOT As general rule, holiday pay benefit applies
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOto all
NOTemployees.
REPRODUCE.
However, one of the exceptions therein are retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
workers.
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR In other
SALE. DO NOTwords, COLLEGE
exemptionsOFfrom holiday
LAW. NOTpay
FORapply onlyDO
SALE. to establishments
NOT employing
COLLEGE “less than
OF LAW. NOTten”
FOR SALE. DO NOT
employees or workers, meaning one to nine. Otherwise, if the number of employees equal to ten or more, such
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY employer
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
is no longer covered by the exception. Accordingly, Mr. X is obliged to pay holiday pay to his
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF employees,
LAW. NOT including
Y (IRR of the Labor Code, Sec. 1, Rule IV, Book III). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
9
PROPERTY OF SAN
28. BEDA
C, a UNIVERSITY
worker at XYZ Center, was PROPERTY
on leaveOF SAN BEDA
without pay onUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
April 17, 2019. He did not OFwork
report for SANonBEDA UNIVERSITY
April 18 and
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT19, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, respectively.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Is C entitled to holiday pay
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for the FOR SALE. DO N
two successive holidays? Explain.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
No, CNOT
is notFOR UNIVERSITY
entitled to holiday pay for COLLEGE OF LAW.holidays.
the two successive NOT FOR Where thereUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
are two (2) successive
SALE. DO NOT regular holidays, like Maundy Thursday
REPRODUCE. SALE.andDOGood
NOT Friday, an employee may not be paid for
REPRODUCE. bothDOholidays ifREPRODUCE.
SALE. OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
he/she absents himself/herself from work on the day immediately preceding the first holiday, unless he/she
works
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT on SALE.
FOR the firstDO
holiday,
NOT in which case he/she
COLLEGE is entitled
OF LAW. NOTtoFOR
his/her holiday
SALE. DO pay
NOTon the second
COLLEGEholiday (IRR of
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
the Labor Code,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Sec. 10, Rule IV, Book III).
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW.29. How should service charges be distributed?
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF All SAN BEDA employees
rank-and-file REPRODUCE.
of employers PROPERTY OF SAN
and contractors BEDA
collecting REPRODUCE.
service charges are entitled PROPERTY
to equal OF SAN BEDA
share
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.in the
NOT85%
FOR of the totalUNIVERSITY
of such charges. The remaining
COLLEGE OF LAW. 15%
NOTmay FORbe retained to cover for
UNIVERSITY loss and OF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
breakages and for distribution to managerial employees, at the discretion of the management in the latter case.
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
In restaurants or similar establishments
SALE.
OF DO no
SAN
where
NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
service charge is collected butPROPERTY
SALE.
OF SAN
there is a policy
DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
or practice UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ofSALE.
pooling
DOtips,
NOT such pooled tips shall
COLLEGE OFbe distributed
LAW. in theSALE.
NOT FOR same manner
DO NOT(2018 Handbook
COLLEGEon OFWorker’s Statutory
Monetary Benefits, p. 25). The shares referred to herein shall be distributed and paid to the employees not
less thanBEDA REPRODUCE.
once every two (2) PROPERTY
weeks or twice a month atOF SAN BEDA
intervals REPRODUCE.
not exceeding sixteen PROPERTY
(16) days (IRR OF THEOF SAN BEDA
LABOR NOT FOR Sec. 4, Rule
CODE, UNIVERSITY
VI). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
30. What is the rule in case the service charge is abolished?
In the event that the company stopped collecting service charges, the share of the covered employees
shall be considered as integrated in their wages. The basis of the amount to be integrated shall be the average
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. share
monthly NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
of each employee COLLEGE
for the last OF immediately
12 months LAW. NOT preceding
FOR theUNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOF LAW. NOT FO
abolition of withdrawal
SALE. such charges (IRR OF THE LABOR CODE, Sec. 5, Rule VI).
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
31. W is real estate
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR agent engaged in selling condominium
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR units. In her employment
UNIVERSITY contract with OF
COLLEGE XYZLAW. NOT FOR
Builders, she is paid on a purely commission basis at the rate of 10% of the total purchase price of the
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY sold.SALE.
condominium units she PROPERTY After DO
OF NOT
two SAN REPRODUCE.
yearsBEDA UNIVERSITY
with the 13 th SALE.
company, W claimedPROPERTY monthDOpayNOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
fromBEDA
XYZ UNIVERSITY
th
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Builders.
SALE. DOIsNOT
XYZ Builders required
COLLEGE OF to pay NOT
LAW. 13 month pay toDO
FOR SALE. W?NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
th OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
No, XYZ Builders is not required to pay 13 month pay because it falls within the exception asPROPERTY
an employerOF SAN BEDA
of those
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwhoFORare paid on a purely commission
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEbasis. The following
OF LAW. NOT FORare not covered by PD 851,
UNIVERSITY 13thLAW. NOT FOR
or theOF
COLLEGE
SALE. DO NOT Month
REPRODUCE. Pay Law: SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
The government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled BEDA UNIVERSITY
corporations,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT except COLLEGEthose OFcorporations
LAW. NOToperating
FOR SALE. essentially
DO NOT as private subsidiaries
COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOTtheFOR SALE. DO NO
government;
• Employers who are already paying their employees thirteenth- month pay or more in a calendar year
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. or
NOT FOR
its equivalent UNIVERSITY
at the time of the COLLEGE
issuance ofOFPDLAW.
851; NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT •
REPRODUCE.
Persons
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY in the personal SALE.
service DO
of NOT
another REPRODUCE.
in
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYrelation to such workers; and
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
• Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary or task basis, and those who are
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
paidNOT COLLEGE
a fixed amount OF LAW.specific
for performing NOT FOR
work,SALE. DO NOT
irrespective COLLEGE
of the time OF
consumed in LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the performance
thereof (except those PROPERTY
workers who OFpiece-rate
are paid on SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
basis, in which PROPERTY
case their employer shallOF SAN BEDA
grant
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthem thirteenth-month
UNIVERSITYpay) (2018 Handbook
COLLEGE OF LAW.on Workers’
NOT FOR Statutory Monetary Benefits,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE p. 40).
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
32. Distinguish wage from salary.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Wage
SALE.applies
DO NOT to the compensation
COLLEGE OF forLAW.
skilledNOT
or unskilled manual
FOR SALE. DOlabor
NOTwhile salary denotes
COLLEGE OFcompensation
for a higher grade or supervisor level of employment (Equitable Banking Corp. v. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF8,SAN
June BEDA
2006 citing Gaa v. CA,REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
G.R. No. L-44169, December OF 3,
SAN BEDA
1985). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
33. What is the required form of payment of wages?
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.As a
DOgeneral
NOT rule, wages
COLLEGEshallOF
be paid
LAW. in legal
NOTtender; use ofDO
FOR SALE. promissory
NOT notes and other
COLLEGE OFforms
LAW.is prohibited
even when expressly requested by employee (IRR of the Labor Code, Sec. 1, Rule VIII, Book III). The only
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
exceptions in which the law allows payment by check are when:
10
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
a. Such manner is customary upon OF SAN BEDA
effectivity of the UNIVERSITY
Labor Code, or PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. Stipulated
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT in a CBA, or
c. The following conditions are met:
i. There is a bank or facility for encashment within a radius of 1 km REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ii. Employer UNIVERSITY
does COLLEGE
not receive any pecuniaryOFbenefit
LAW. from
NOTthe
arrangement
SALE. DO NOT iii. Employees are givenSALE.
REPRODUCE. reasonable
DO NOTtime during banking hours to withdraw, SALE.
REPRODUCE. such time shall REPRODUCE.
DO NOT be
considered as working hours PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
iv. Written
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT consent of employees
COLLEGE OFconcerned
LAW. NOTif there
FOR isSALE.
no CBA
DO(Sec.
NOT2, RuleCOLLEGE
VIII, BookOF
III, LAW.
IRR of NOT
the FOR SALE. DO
Labor
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Code). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
34. When is payment to a person other than the employee himself authorized under the law? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Wages shall be paid directly to the employee, except when:
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
a. Payment COLLEGE
to a member of theOF LAW.
family NOT FOR inSALE.
is authorized DO
writing byNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
the employee
b. Payment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to another is authorized by law (such as
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA payment for insurance premiums and union
REPRODUCE. dues
c. In case of death, payment to heirs of the deceased employees without need of intestate proceedings
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
(IRR of the Labor Code, Sec. 5, Rule VIII, Book III).
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY35.OF What
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
are the prohibitions regarding PROPERTY
wages? OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT The following are the prohibitions
REPRODUCE. SALE.regarding
DO NOT wages:
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Non-interference in disposal of wages – No employer shall interfere with the employee’s freedom
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDOdispose
NOT of his wages nor
COLLEGE OF shall
LAW.force,
NOT compel,
FOR SALE. or oblige
DO NOTemployees to purchase
COLLEGE merchandise,
commodities or other property from the employer or from any other person, or otherwise make use of
any store or services of such employer or any other person (LABOR CODE, Art. 112);
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
• No wage deduction – No employer shall make any deductions from the employee’s COLLEGE
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY OF LAW. NOT FOR
wages except
SALE. when authorized to do so (LABOR CODE, Art. 113);
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
• No deposits for loss or damage – No employer shall require the worker to make deposits from which
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdeductions
NOT COLLEGE
shall OF for
be made LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
reimbursement of lossDO NOT
of or damageCOLLEGE OF LAW.orNOT
to tools, materials, FOR SALE. DO NOT
equipment
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAsupplied by the employer except
REPRODUCE. when the
PROPERTY OFemployer
SAN BEDA is engaged inREPRODUCE.
such business PROPERTY
requiring such
OF SAN BEDA
deposits
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR as determined by the Secretary of Labor
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (LABOR CODE, Art. 114);
• Limitations on deductions from deposits for loss or damage – No employer shall make any
deduction fromPROPERTY DO
the employee’s NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
deposits
BEDAforUNIVERSITY
the actual amount of the SALE.
loss
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
or damage REPRODUCE.
unless
SAN BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOemployee
NOT has been heard
COLLEGE OF thereon
LAW. NOTand his
FOR responsibility
SALE. DO NOT has been clearly
COLLEGEshownOF(LABOR
LAW. NOTCODE,FORArt.SALE. DO NOT
115);
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN• BEDA
Withholding of REPRODUCE. PROPERTYprohibited
wages and kickbacks OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
– No employer shall withhold any PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
amount from
the
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR wages unless authorized to do so or induce
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the employee to give up any part of his
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.wages by NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. force, stealth, intimidation,
SALE. threat
DO or
NOT dismissal
REPRODUCE.or by any other means without his
SALE. (consent
DO NOT (LABOR
REPRODUCE.
CODE, Art. 116); PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
• No
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdeduction
NOT to ensure employment
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT – No
FOR employer shallNOT
SALE. DO make deductions
COLLEGE as OF
consideration
LAW. NOTofFOR a SALE. DO NOT
promise of employment or retention of employment (LABOR CODE, Art. 117);
• No retaliatory measures – No employer shall refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits or
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR discharge
otherwise UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the employee OFfiled
who has LAW.
any NOT FOR under this
complaint UNIVERSITY
Title, or hasCOLLEGE
testified orOF
is LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. about to testify in such proceedings
SALE. DO (LABOR
NOT CODE, Art. 118); and
• No false reporting – No employer shall make any statement, report or record knowing such
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOstatement,
NOT COLLEGE
report OF LAW.
or record NOTinFOR
to be false any SALE. DO
material NOT (LABOR
respect COLLEGE
CODE,OF
Art.LAW.
119). NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
36. D Manufacturing is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of household appliances. The
supervisors
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand foremen
COLLEGE ofOF
theLAW.
company wereSALE.
NOT FOR then DO
receiving
NOT a daily wageOF
COLLEGE of LAW.
P320 NOT
and FOR
P300,SALE. DO NOT
respectively. Sometime in 2005, a new law was passed increasing the statutory minimum wage and
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF salary
rates in the private sector by P25 per day but only for those receiving the minimum wage and
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
up to P300. Did the wage increase result in wage distortion? Explain. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Yes, the wage increase resulted in wage distortion. Wage distortion means a situation where an increase
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
in SALE. DO NOT
prescribed wage ratesCOLLEGE OF elimination
results in the LAW. NOTorFOR SALE.
severe DO NOTof intentional
contraction COLLEGE OF LAW.
quantitative NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
differences
in wage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAor salary rates between and among employee groups
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 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
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF differentiation.
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
In other words, wage distortion means the disappearance or virtual disappearance COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
of pay
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA differentials between lower
and higher DO
SANNOT
OFpositions inREPRODUCE.
BEDAanUNIVERSITY
enterprise because of compliance
PROPERTY SALE.
withOF DO
SANNOT
a wage REPRODUCE.
order.
BEDA In
UNIVERSITY
the case at bar, only the daily wages of foremen were increased from P300 to P325, resulting in a situation
whereDO
theNOT
foremen COLLEGE OF LAW.
would receive more NOT
than FOR SALE.
that of DO NOT
the supervisors. COLLEGE
Thus, wage OF LAW. resulted
distortion NOT FOR(PISALE. DO NOT
11
Manufacturing PROPERTY
v. PI Manufacturing OF SAN
Supervisors andBEDA UNIVERSITY
Foreman Association, G.R. No.PROPERTY OF SAN 4,
167217, February BEDA UNIVERSITY
2008).
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
37. X Bank classifies its employees according to five (5) levels. Sometime in 2010, REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the Board of Directors
approved a new FOR UNIVERSITY
salary scale wherein theCOLLEGE OF LAW.
hiring rates of newNOT FOR were UNIVERSITY
employees increased byCOLLEGE
PhP1,000 OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT for those falling under Levels 1-3,
REPRODUCE. and DO
SALE. by PhP2,000
NOT for those classified under Levels
REPRODUCE. 4-5.DOOnly theREPRODUCE.
SALE. OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
salaries of those who fell below the new minimum rates were adjusted. The union demanded for an
across-the-board
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOincrease
NOT forCOLLEGE
old employees.
OF LAW.X Bank
NOT refused andDO
FOR SALE. maintained
NOT that it was not
COLLEGE OF obliged
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
to do so. In its
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA complaint, the union contended that the adjusted
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA salary scale resulted in a wage
distortion using the classification based on new and old employees and thus necessitated a correction
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or adjustment. Did the said change in salary scale result in wage distortion? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the change did not result in wage distortion. Jurisprudence laid down the four elements of wage
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDO
distortion, wit: NOT COLLEGE
(1) an existing OFofLAW.
hierarchy NOTwith
positions FOR SALE. DO NOT
corresponding COLLEGE
salary rates; OF LAW.
(2) a significant NOT FOR SALE. DO N
change
in the salary
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA increase in the salary rate of a higher one;
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY (3) the OF SAN BEDA
elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and (4) the existence of the distortion in the same region
of the country. In the case at bar, the first element is wanting. While seniority may be a factor in determining
OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
wages, it cannot be the sole
basis whenOF DO
theSAN NOT
nature of REPRODUCE.
BEDA their work differs. Moreover,PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
for purposes DO NOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
of determining
OF SAN UNIVERSITY
the existence of wage distortion, employees cannot create their own independent classification as this is a
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR matter
SALE. ofDO NOT
management COLLEGE OF discretion
judgment and LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
(Bankard DO NOT
Employees COLLEGE
Union-Workers OF LAW.
Alliance Trade NOT FOR
Unions v. SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANG.R.
NLRC, BEDA
No. 140689, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
February 17, 2004). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
38. How should a wage distortion be settled? (2006, 1997, 2009 Bar)
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Where the application
SALE. DO NOT of any prescribed
COLLEGE OF LAW. wage
NOT increases
FOR SALE.by virtue
DO NOTof a law orCOLLEGE
wage order OFissued
LAW.by anyFOR SALE. DO NO
NOT
Regional Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment, the employer and the union
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFnegotiate
shall SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
to correct the distortions. PROPERTY
Any dispute OFfrom
arising SAN BEDA
wage distortion shallREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
be resolved through the OF SAN BEDA
grievance
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTprocedure
FOR as provided in the applicable
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE collective
OF LAW. bargaining
NOT FOR agreement and, if the dispute
UNIVERSITY remainsOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
SALE. unresolved, then through voluntary SALE.
arbitration.NOT
In cases where there are no collective bargaining agreements
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
or recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall endeavor to correct such wage distortions. Any
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR dispute
SALE. DOarising
NOTtherefrom shall beOF
COLLEGE settled
LAW.through the SALE.
NOT FOR NationalDOConciliation
NOT and Mediation
COLLEGE BoardNOT
OF LAW. and, FOR
if it SALE. DO NOT
remains unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, the issue of wage distortion shall be referred
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
to the appropriate branch of the NLRC (LABOR CODE, Art. 124, par. 5).
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT39.
FOR WSALE. DO NOT
Company is engagedCOLLEGE OF LAW.
in a business NOT FOR
involving SALE. DO
integrated NOTto serve
circuits COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
communications FOR SALE. DO NOT
and data
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAindustries. REPRODUCE.
processing PROPERTY
Through negotiations byOFtheSAN BEDA
union, the company REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
agreed to increase theOF SAN BEDA
salaries/wages
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of its employees within a four-year period.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR After a year of implementing the agreement,
the company discovered an error in the automated payroll which caused overpayment of
salaries/wages
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYto employees. SALE. DO NOT
Accordingly,
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
the company
OF SAN SALE.
notified the employeesPROPERTY
BEDA UNIVERSITY DO
that the NOT REPRODUCE.
overpayment
will SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR be deducted
DO NOTon a staggered
COLLEGE OF basis.
LAW. The union
NOT FORopposed
SALE. DOtheNOTdeduction and thereafter
COLLEGE OF LAW.filed
NOTaFOR SALE. DO NO
complaint against the company for violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code on non-diminution of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANWill
benefits. BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the action prosper? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT No, the action will not prosper.
REPRODUCE. Diminution
SALE. DO of benefits
NOT is the unilateral withdrawal by
REPRODUCE. the employer
SALE. of
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
benefits already enjoyed by the employees. There is diminution of benefits when it is shown that: (1) the grant
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR or benefit
SALE. DOis NOT
founded onCOLLEGE
a policy orOF
hasLAW.
ripened
NOTintoFOR
a practice
SALE. over a long period;
DO NOT (2) the practice
COLLEGE OF LAW. is consistent
and deliberate; (3) the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law; and (4) the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer. In this case, the
third requisite is absent. An erroneously granted benefit may be withdrawn without violatingCOLLEGE
the prohibition
SALE. DO against non-diminution of benefits because no vested right may be said to have arisen nor any diminution of
SAN BEDA
benefit may have resulted (TSPIC Corp v. TSPIC Employees Union, G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008). UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
40. FOR
As aSALE. DOrule,
general NOTevery employee
COLLEGE who OF LAW. NOT FORatSALE.
has rendered DO NOT
least one COLLEGE
year of service shall OF LAW. NOT
be entitled to aFOR SALE. DO NO
yearly service
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA incentive leave of five (5) days with pay.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Who are excluded from the benefit?
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
The following are not entitled to service incentive leave: LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA • Government employees
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
UNIVERSITY
• Managerial employees and officers or members of the managerial staff
• Persons in the personal service of another
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN• Field personnel and those whose time and performance is unsupervisedREPRODUCE.
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
by the employer
12
• Those already enjoying OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
the benefit PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
• Those
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTenjoying vacation leave with pay of at least
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTfive (5) days COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF•SAN Those employed in establishments regularly employing less than 10 employees (2018 Handbook on
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, p. 26).
SALE. DO 41.REPRODUCE.
NOT X worked as a bus driver for ABSALE.
Trans.
DO His daily
NOT route is from Lipa City, BatangasSALE.
REPRODUCE. to Cubao, Quezon
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
City. For every trip, he is required to report on time to ensure prompt departure and arrival. Bus
BEDA UNIVERSIT
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTinspectors
FOR SALE.also
DO board
NOT the COLLEGE OF LAW.
bus for general NOT FOR
inspection SALE.
while onDO
theNOTway fromCOLLEGE
the pointOFof LAW.
originNOT
to FOR SALE. DO
destination.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANDuring
BEDA his five (5)REPRODUCE.
years of employment,
PROPERTY he OF
did SAN
not use
BEDAhis service incentive leave. PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. When OF SAN BED
he was dismissed, he sued his employer for non-payment of commutable service incentive. AB Trans
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEargued
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
that X was not entitled to service incentive leave because he is considered as a field personnel OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
paid
BEDA on a commission basis
and thus OF DO
SANNOT
excluded from
BEDAREPRODUCE.
the benefit. Will the actionPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
of X prosper? NOT
Explain.
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOaction
Yes, the NOTof X will
COLLEGE
prosper. OF LAW.
Section NOT
1(D), FOR
Rule SALE.IIIDO
V, Book NOT
of the COLLEGE
Implementing RulesOF
andLAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Regulations
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYofOFtheSAN
LaborBEDA
Code excludesREPRODUCE.
field personnel PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and other employees whose performanceREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
is unsupervised by the OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFemployer
LAW. NOT including
FOR those UNIVERSITY
who are engaged
COLLEGEon purely
OF LAW. commission
NOT FORbasis. However,
UNIVERSITYthe phrase
COLLEGE"other
OF LAW. NOT FOR
employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer" must not be understood as a separate
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
classification but must be
UNIVERSITY taken asSALE.
PROPERTY anOF DO NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
amplification ofUNIVERSITY
the definition of field personnel. SALE.
Here,
PROPERTY DO
while
OF X isNOT
SAN paidREPRODUCE.
BEDA on
UNIVERSITY
a commission basis, his work is supervised by his employer. Not being considered as field personnel, X is
entitled to service incentive leave (Auto Bus v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005).
Note:
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT D.O.
FORNo. 118-12UNIVERSITY
expressly provides that public
COLLEGE OF LAW.utilityNOT
bus FOR
drivers and conductors
UNIVERSITYare COLLEGE
now entitledOF
to LAW.
be NOT FOR
paid service incentive leave of five (5) days for every year of service.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
42. What are the conditions for entitlement to the maternity leave benefit?
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA To be entitled to thePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
maternity OF DO
leave NOT
benefit,
SAN BEDA aREPRODUCE.
female employee should bePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
an SSS member NOT REPRODUCE.
employed
SAN BEDA at
UNIVERSITY
the time of her delivery or miscarriage; she must have given the required notification to the SSS through her
employer; COLLEGE
and her employer OFhave
must LAW. NOT
paid FORthree
at least SALE.monthly
DO NOT COLLEGE
contributions to the OF
SSSLAW.
withinNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the twelve-
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF month period immediately
SAN BEDA before the date
REPRODUCE. of the contingency
PROPERTY (i.e., childbirth orREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA miscarriage) (2018 Handbook
on Workers’
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Statutory Monetary Benefits, p. 28).
43. UNIVERSITY
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA SALE.
A, a female employee,PROPERTY DO NOT
who is living-in REPRODUCE.
withBEDA
OF SAN B, is pregnant
UNIVERSITYwith her fourthPROPERTY SALE.
child. PriorDO NOT
to her
OF SANdueREPRODUCE.
date,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
she filed for maternity leave, but the employer refused the application because she is not married. Is
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the refusal of the employer justified?
No, the
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR refusal of the employer is not justified. The
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR law does not discriminate based onCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY the civil status of
OF LAW. NOT FOR
a female employee. Accordingly, this benefit applies to all female employees, whether married or unmarried.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAAsUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
long as the female employee
DO NOT
OFatSAN
has paid
REPRODUCE.
leastBEDA
three UNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
(3) monthly contributions in
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANperiod
the twelve-month BEDA UNIVERSITY
immediately
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOpreceding
NOT the semesterOF
COLLEGE of her
LAW.childbirth,
NOT FOR she SALE.
can avail
DOofNOT
the maternity benefitsOF
COLLEGE by LAW.
complying
NOTwith
FOR SALE. DO NOT
the requirements on notification. Hence, even if A is not married, she is still entitled to the maternal leave,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY regardless
OF SAN BEDAof civil status or the legitimacy of her child (2018 Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Benefits,
LAW. NOT FOR
p. 28). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY 44.OF What are the conditions
SAN BEDA for entitlement
REPRODUCE. of paternity
PROPERTY leaveBEDA
OF SAN benefit? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
A legally married male employee in the private and public sector shall be entitled to a seven-day paternity
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA leave benefit provided that
UNIVERSITY heSALE.
has met
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFthe REPRODUCE.
following
SAN BEDA conditions:
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.a.
DOHe is an employee at the time of the delivery of his child;
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. He is cohabiting with his spouse at the time that she gives birth or suffers a miscarriage;
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANc.BEDA
He has applied REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
for paternity leave OFemployer
with his SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
within a reasonable period ofPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
time from the
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT expected
FOR date of delivery by
UNIVERSITY his pregnant
COLLEGE OF LAW.spouse,
NOTorFOR
within such UNIVERSITY
period as may be provided
COLLEGE by
OF LAW. NOT FOR
company rules and regulations, or by collective bargaining agreement; and
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
d. His wife, to whom he SALE.
PROPERTY DOmarried,
is legally NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA
has UNIVERSITY
given SALE.(2018
PROPERTY
birth or suffered a miscarriage DO NOT
OF REPRODUCE.
SAN
HandbookBEDA
on UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Workers’
DO NOTStatutory Monetary
COLLEGE OFBenefits,
LAW. NOTp. 30).
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
13
45. A isOF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY married to B and they have
SAN BEDA three minorPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. children. Later on, B
OF SAN was convictedREPRODUCE.
BEDA for the crime of theft
and meted the penalty of imprisonment for two years. B was then arrested and jailed to serve the
sentence. Is A FOR UNIVERSITY
considered as COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a solo parent? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
BEDA UNIVERS
Yes, A is considered as a solo parent because she was left with the responsibility of parenthood due to
the criminal DO NOT
conviction resulting COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
to the imprisonment FOR SALE.
her spouse for atDO NOT
least COLLEGE
a year. Section 3 (a)OF LAW.
of R.A. No.NOT FOR SALE. D
8972 provides
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANthat
BEDAa solo parent is:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF• LAW.
A woman
NOTwho FORgives birth as a result of
UNIVERSITY rape andOF
COLLEGE other crimes
LAW. NOTagainst
FOR chastityUNIVERSITY
provided sheCOLLEGE
keeps OF LAW. NOT
and raises the child
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
•UNIVERSITY
Parent left solo or alone with theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
responsibility ofREPRODUCE.
BEDA parenthood
UNIVERSITY due to: PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Death
o DO NOTof the spouse
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
o Spouse is detained of serving sentence for criminal conviction for at least a year
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
o BEDA
Due to physical orREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
mental incapacity of spouseOF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Due
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.oNOT to legal separation
FOR or de facto
UNIVERSITY separation
COLLEGE from spouse
OF LAW. for at least 1 UNIVERSITY
NOT FOR year so long asCOLLEGE
entrusted OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT with custody of the child
UNIVERSITY o PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
Due to declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage as long as in custody of the children UNIVERSITY
Due to abandonment
o NOT
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO COLLEGE OF of spouse for atFOR
LAW. NOT leastSALE.
1 year.DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Unmarried mother or father who preferred to keep and rear his or her children
o Any other person who solely provides parental care and support to a child.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
o Any family member who assumes the responsibility of head of family as a result COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
of death,
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. abandonment, disappearance
SALE. DO NOTor prolonged absence
REPRODUCE. of the parent (R.A. No. 8972, Sec.
SALE. DO NOT 3).REPRODUCE.
46. OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE A LAW.
was employed
NOT FORby BKY Company
UNIVERSITY on June 10, 2010.
COLLEGE Sometime
OF LAW. NOTinFOR
2018, she suffered from COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY intraductalOF LAW. NOT FO
papilloma. Her doctor advised her that she needs to undergo the procedure of excision of the
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
lactiferous duct fistula. As SALE.
a result, OF DO
she SAN NOT
filed BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
a leave under the special leavePROPERTYSALE.
benefits DO
SANNOT
OFwomen.
for Is REPRODUCE.
BEDA A UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR entitled
SALE. DOto such
NOT benefit?
Yes, A is entitled to the special leave benefit for women. Section 18 of R.A. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
No. 9710 provides that aOF SAN BEDA
woman NOT FOR havingUNIVERSITY
employee COLLEGE
rendered continuous OF LAW.
aggregate NOT FORservice ofUNIVERSITY
employment at least six (6)COLLEGE
months forOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT last twelve (12) months shall beSALE.
REPRODUCE. entitled
DOto NOT
a special leave benefit of two (2) months with
REPRODUCE. full pay
SALE. DO based
NOT on her
REPRODUCE.
gross monthly compensation following surgery caused by gynecological disorders (R.A. No. 9710, Sec. 18).
47. OF
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY B, SAN
a female
BEDAemployee, filed charges against
REPRODUCE. her live-in
PROPERTY OF SANpartner
BEDAunder R.A.REPRODUCE.
No. 9262 or Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act. After suffering trauma, she filed for a leave. However, her
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT did
employer FORnot approve
UNIVERSITY
the sameCOLLEGE OF LAW.
claiming that NOT FOR
she already used up allUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
her sick leave. OF LAW. NOT FOR
Is B entitled
SALE. DO NOT to file for a leave?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Yes,
SALE.B DO NOT to a leave
is entitled COLLEGE
underOF LAW.
R.A. NOT FOR
No. 9262. UnderSALE. DO43NOT
Section of R.A. No.COLLEGE OF LAW.
9262, victims NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
of violence
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYagainst women
OF SAN BEDAand their children shall be entitled
REPRODUCE. to take OF
PROPERTY a paid
SANleave of absence upREPRODUCE.
BEDA to 10 days in addition
PROPERTY to OF SAN BEDA
other paid leaves under the Labor Code extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the protection
order. Hence, even if B already used up all her sick leaves, she is still entitled to take a leave under R.A. No.
9262 (R.A.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY No. 9262, Sec. 43). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY48. OF SANare
What BEDA REPRODUCE.
the acts of discrimination PROPERTY
prohibited OFthe
under SAN BEDA
Labor Code? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT Article 133 of the Labor Code
REPRODUCE. provides
SALE. DO NOTthat REPRODUCE.
it shall be unlawful for any employer SALE.
to discriminate
DO NOT against
REPRODUCE.
any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex. BEDA UNIVERSITY
Specifically,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO theNOT
following are acts of discrimination:
a. Payment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of lesser compensation, including wage,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA salary or other form of REPRODUCE.
remuneration and fringe
benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value; and
b. Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes (LABOR CODE, Art. 133).
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
14
49. POF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Airlines is an airline company
SAN BEDA cateringPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. domestic flights
OF SAN in the
BEDAcountry. Z was hired as a stewardess
in May 2000. Sometime in March 2015, P Airlines fired Z on the ground that she had gotten married.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFThe
LAW. NOT FOR
dismissal was pursuantUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to a company policyOF LAW. NOT
requiring that aFOR UNIVERSITY
female employee must beCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
single and
SALE. DO NOT shall not marry during her employment.
REPRODUCE. SALE. P Airlines
DO NOT justified its company policy based
REPRODUCE. on Art.
SALE. DO 130
NOTof the
REPRODUCE.
Labor Code which states that an employer can determine appropriate standards for retirement or
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTtermination
FOR SALE.inDO NOT occupations
special COLLEGE OFas
such LAW. NOT
those FOR attendants
of flight SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
and the like. OF LAW.
Did P Airlines NOT FOR SALE. DO
violate
the Labor
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Code?
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFYes,
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
P Airlines violated Article 134 of the Labor Code which specifically provides that it shall be unlawful
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
forUNIVERSITY
BEDA an employer to require as PROPERTY SALE.
a condition ofOF DO
SANNOT
employment
BEDAREPRODUCE.
or UNIVERSITY
continuation of employment SALE.
that a woman
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFemployee
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.resigned
deemed DO NOT COLLEGE
or separated, or to OF LAW.dismiss,
actually NOT FOR SALE. discriminate
discharge, DO NOT or otherwise
COLLEGEprejudice
OF LAW.a woman
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYemployee
OF SAN merely
BEDA by reason REPRODUCE.
of her marriage.PROPERTY
In the case OF SAN
at bar, theBEDA REPRODUCE.
stipulation requiring PROPERTY
a female employee to OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFbe single
LAW. violates
NOT FORthe prohibition on stipulations
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE against marriage.
OF LAW. NOTArticle
FOR 134 provides protection
UNIVERSITY for women
that is broader and more powerful than the regulation provided under Article 130 (Zialcita v. PAL, Case No.
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
RO4-3-3398-76, February
UNIVERSITY SALE.
20, 1977).
PROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
50. GG Airlines hired and recruited A, B and C as flight attendants. They continued their employment until
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF they
SAN were
BEDAseparated REPRODUCE.
from service on PROPERTY OF SAN
various dates. BEDA
Later, A, B and C REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
brought an action OF SAN BEDA
for illegal
dismissal
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORagainst GG Airlines. According
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEtoOFthem,
LAW.theNOTtermination
FOR of UNIVERSITY
their employment was OF
COLLEGE illegal
LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT because the same was made
REPRODUCE. solely
SALE. on the
DO NOT ground that they became pregnant.
REPRODUCE. In DO
SALE. its NOT
defense, GG
REPRODUCE.
Airlines invoked the Employment Contract which provides that the employment of a flight attendant
who
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR becomes
SALE. DO NOTpregnantCOLLEGE
at any time
OFduring
LAW. the NOT term
FORof SALE.
the contract
DO NOT shall render such contract
COLLEGE OF LAW.void
NOTandFOR SALE. DO NOT
shall be cause for termination for lack of medical fitness. Decide the case.
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.A, NOT
B andFOR UNIVERSITY
C were illegally dismissed.COLLEGE
It is illegalOF
andLAW. NOT
unlawful to FOR
terminate theUNIVERSITY
employment of COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
any woman
SALE. by reason of pregnancy. Section 135 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be unlawful for any employer to
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
discharge a woman on account of her pregnancy. While pregnancy does present physical limitations that mayUNIVERSITY
renderDO NOT the performance
difficult COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of functions FOR SALE.
associated with DO NOT
being COLLEGEit would
a flight attendant, OF LAW. NOT FORbeSALE. DO NOT
nevertheless
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF the
SANheight
BEDAof iniquity toREPRODUCE.
view pregnancy as a disability
PROPERTY so permanent
OF SAN BEDA and immutable that, it PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. must entail the
OF SAN BEDA
termination of one's employment. It is clear that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to
exigencies UNIVERSITY
that limit the performanceCOLLEGE OF but
of functions, LAW. NOT FOR
pregnancy could not be UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
such an impairing OF LAW. NOT FOR
occurrence
that it
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYleaves no other SALE.
recourse but DO
the NOT REPRODUCE.
complete termination
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY of the means through SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA aUNIVERSITY
which a woman earns
living (LABOR CODE, Art. 135; Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio et al., G.R. No. 198587, January 14,
2015).DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF SAN51.
BEDAAUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
is a female employee working
DO NOT
as anOF
REPRODUCE.
SANclerk
office BEDA UNIVERSITY
under
SALE.
PROPERTY
the supervision of B,
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
the office manager. On UNIVERSITY
several
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.occasions,
DO NOT B called A asking
COLLEGE her toNOT
OF LAW. come to his
FOR office.
SALE. At one time,
DO NOT while inside
COLLEGE the office,
OF LAW. NOT FORB SALE. DO NOT
touched her shoulder and part of her neck. He also tickled her ears. A filed a complaint for sexual
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY harassment.
B argued that his acts do not constitute sexual harassment because A did not allege in
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF her
LAW. NOT FOR
complaint that there UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
was a demand, request,OF LAW. NOT FOR
or requirement UNIVERSITY
of a sexual favor COLLEGE
as a condition OF LAW. NOT FOR
for her
SALE. DO NOT continued employment or for her
REPRODUCE. promotion
SALE. DO NOT to a higher position. Is B guilty of sexual
REPRODUCE. SALE. harassment?
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Explain. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA B is guilty of sexual harassment. It is true
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877
REPRODUCE. calls forOF
PROPERTY a SAN BEDA
“demand, request or requirements of a sexual favor”. However, it is not essential that the demand, request or
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORbe made as
requirement UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
a condition for continued OF LAW. NOTorFOR
employment for promotionUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to a higher position. OF LAW. NOT FOR
It is enough
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
that the respondent’s acts result
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
in creating
SANan REPRODUCE.
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment
PROPERTY NOT
for the
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
employee.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
In the case at bar, the acts committed by B generated an intimidating and hostile environment for A (Domingo
v. Rayala, COLLEGE
G.R. No. 155831, OF LAW.
February 18, NOT
2008).FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAR,UNIVERSITY
52. a 17-year-old girl, signed
SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
a contract OF
REPRODUCE.
withSAN
MG BEDA UNIVERSITY
Company
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
to work as a model promoting
NOT
theOF
REPRODUCE.
SAN
new BEDA UNIVERSITY
flavors
of SALE.
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Crazy DO
Vodka,
NOTits premier alcoholic
COLLEGE product.
OF LAW. NOTIt FOR
was stipulated
SALE. DO inNOTthe contract that since
COLLEGE R is aNOT
OF LAW. minor,
FOR SALE. DO NOT
she will only work for eight (8) hours per day during the shooting and will not work beyond 10:00 P.M.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY until
OF SAN
6:00BEDA REPRODUCE.
A.M. the next morning. Did MGPROPERTY OF SANany
Company violate BEDA
law? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. Yes, MG Company violated R.A. No. 9231. Under D.O. No. 65-04, the rules and regulations implementing
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
R.A. No. 9231, as amended, no child below 18 years of age shall be employed as a model in any advertisement
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOorNOT
directly COLLEGEalcoholic
indirectly promoting OF LAW.beverages,
NOT FORintoxicating
SALE. DO drinks,
NOT tobacco
COLLEGE
and itsOF LAW. NOT
byproducts, FOR SALE. DO NOT
gambling
15
or any PROPERTY
form of violence or pornography. OF MG
Thus, SANCompany
clearly violated the prohibition when OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
it engaged
R in advertising
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT an alcoholic beverage. (D.O. No. 65-04, Sec. 6).
SALE. DO NOT
53. REPRODUCE.
D is employed
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY by A Company to SALE.
performDO NOT
laundry REPRODUCE.
services at its
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY staff house. One SALE.while
morning, DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
D was
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
performing her assigned task and hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORThe
stone. SALE. DO NOT
accident preventedCOLLEGE
her fromOF LAW. NOT
working. She FOR
was SALE. DO NOT
permitted COLLEGE
to go on leave OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
for medication.
After a OF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY month,
SANABEDA
Company offered her PhP5,000
REPRODUCE. to persuade
PROPERTY OFher to BEDA
SAN quit her job instead. D refusedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. and OF SAN B
informed
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.A Company
NOT FORthat she UNIVERSITY
preferred to return to work.
COLLEGE A wasNOT
OF LAW. not permitted
FOR to UNIVERSITY
work again and was
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
thereafter dismissed. Hence, D filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Arbiter awarded salary differential,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY13SALE.
th
OF DO
month NOT
pay
SAN REPRODUCE.
differential
BEDA and separation pay.
UNIVERSITY NLRCSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
affirmed
SAN NOT
and REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
held that D was a regular employee and thus entitled to such benefits. In its defense, A Company
insisted that D is a mere domestic helper and not a regular employee. Is D a kasambahay? Explain.
No, DNOT
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. is notFOR
a kasambahay. Under Section
UNIVERSITY 4(d) of
COLLEGE OFR.A.
LAW.No.NOT
10361,
FORa domesticUNIVERSITY
worker or kasambahay
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship. Domestic or household
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
service shall mean servicePROPERTY
SALE. DO
OF SAN
in the employer’s
NOT
BEDA
home
REPRODUCE.
whichUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is usually necessary or desirable
SALE. DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OFmaintenance
for the SAN UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and enjoyment
SALE. DO NOTthereofCOLLEGE
and includes
OFministering
LAW. NOTtoFOR the personal
SALE. DO comfort
NOT and convenience
COLLEGE OFof LAW.
the members
NOT FOR of SALE. DO NOT
the employer’s household. The criterion is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF theSAN
homeBEDA REPRODUCE.
of said employer. PROPERTY
The definition cannot beOF SAN BEDA
interpreted REPRODUCE.
to include househelper PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
or laundrywomen
working in FOR
staff houses UNIVERSITY
of a company.COLLEGE
Hence, DOF LAW.beNOT
cannot FOR as a UNIVERSITY
considered COLLEGE
kasambahay (Apex OFv.LAW. NOT FOR
Mining
SALE. DO NOT NLRC,
REPRODUCE. G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991).
54. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT WhatSALE.
are the
DOrights
NOT and benefits
COLLEGE of OF
a kasambahay
LAW. NOT granted under
FOR SALE. DORANOT 10361 or Batas Kasambahay?
The following are the rights of a kasambahay:
a. Minimum wage; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. b. Other mandatory benefits, such as the daily and weekly rest periods;
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c.
PROPERTY SALE.
Service Incentive Leave;
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
d. DO NOT
13th COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
month pay; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANe. BEDA
Freedom from employers’ interference
REPRODUCE. in the disposal
PROPERTY OF SAN of wages;
f. Coverage under the SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG laws;
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.g.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Standard of treatment;
h. Board, lodging and
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.attendance;
medical
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
i. Right to privacy;
j. Access to outside communication;
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANk. BEDA REPRODUCE.
Access to education and training;PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
l. Right
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to form, join, or assist labor
UNIVERSITY organization;
m. Right to be provided a copy of the employment contract;
n. Right to certificate of PROPERTY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
employment;OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR o. Right
SALE. DOtoNOT
terminate COLLEGE
the employment;
OF LAW.andNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
p. Right to exercise their own religious beliefs and cultural practices.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
55. Who is an industrial homeworker?
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN An BEDA
industrial homeworker can be defined
REPRODUCE. as any
PROPERTY OFperson
SAN BEDA engaged in industrial homework.
REPRODUCE. IndustrialOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
homework
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORmeans a system of production
UNIVERSITY where
COLLEGE OFwork forNOT
LAW. an employer
FOR or contractor
UNIVERSITY is carried
COLLEGE out by
OF aLAW. NOT FOR
homeworker in or about his/her home. In such case, the materials may or may not be furnished by the employer
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA or contractor. (IRR OF THE
UNIVERSITY SALE.CODE,
LABOR
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
Sec.BEDA
SAN 2). UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT56.
FOR When
SALE.isDO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
homework not allowed?
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.NoNOThomework
FOR shall UNIVERSITY
be performed on the following:
COLLEGE (1) explosives,
OF LAW. NOT FORfireworksUNIVERSITY
and articles ofCOLLEGE
like character;
OF LAW. NOT FOR
(2) drugs and poisons; and (3) other articles, the processing of which requires exposure to toxic substances
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
(IRRUNIVERSITY SALE.
OF THE LABOR CODE, PROPERTY
Sec. DO NOT
13). OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
57. M is a construction worker whose work day is from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. the following day. While atOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. work, he suddenly experienced back pain. Due to the incident, he requested his employer to allow him
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA
to undergo health assessment and get advice on how to reduce his back pain during work. The
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR employer
SALE. DOrefused
NOT andCOLLEGE OF LAW.
claimed that NOT
M is not FOR SALE.
covered DOlaw
by the NOT COLLEGE
governing OF LAW.
nightworkers NOTsame
as the FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF only
SANapplies
BEDAto women. REPRODUCE.
Is the contention correct? OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
16
No, the contention is not OF SAN
correct. Under BEDA2 UNIVERSITY
Section of D.O. No. 119-12, thePROPERTY
implementing OFrules
SAN and
BEDA UNIVERSITY
regulations of
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT R.A. No. 10151, a night worker is any employed
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT person whose work
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT10FOR SALE. DO NO
covers the period from
in the evening to 6 o'clock the next morning provided that the worker performs no less than 7 consecutive
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYhours
OF SAN BEDA
of work. The law doesREPRODUCE.
not distinguishPROPERTY OF the
as to what sex SANemployee
BEDA should be. REPRODUCE.
Accordingly, allPROPERTY
workers OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFwhose
LAW. schedule
NOT FORfalls withinUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the said schedule OF LAW.
are deemed nightNOT FORand mayUNIVERSITY
workers COLLEGE
avail of the right OF LAW. NOT FOR
to request
SALE. DO NOT health assessment without charge.SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
58. BLC
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Hotel and
OF LAW. NOTRestaurant
FOR offers apprenticeship
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEprogram as approved
OF LAW. NOT FORby the Secretary of Labor.
UNIVERSITY Under OF LAW. NOT F
COLLEGE
the apprenticeship program, students may be accepted for a six-month training without compensation.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
A, UNIVERSITY
BEDA an HRM student, submitted SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
her application
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
pursuant
BEDA to her school’s internship
UNIVERSITY SALE.
program.
PROPERTY DO
OFAs
SAN NOT
part of REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
the requirements for graduation, she is required to complete 200 hours of on-the-job training work. A
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
insisted that she should receive compensation as a matter of right. Is A correct?
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.No,NOT
A is not
FORcorrect. Article 72 of the COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY Labor CodeOFprovides that the
LAW. NOT FORSecretary UNIVERSITY
of Labor may authorize
COLLEGEthe OF LAW. NOT FOR
hiring of apprentices without compensation whose training on the job is required by the school or training
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
program curriculum or asPROPERTY SALE.
a requisiteOF
DO
forSAN
NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
graduation UNIVERSITY
or board examination. InPROPERTY
SALE.
this case, AOF
DO NOT
SAN
cannot BEDAREPRODUCE.
insist UNIVERSITY
on
receiving
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. compensation
DO NOT as a matter
COLLEGE of right
OF LAW. NOTsince
FORtheSALE.
reason
DOwhy
NOTshe applied to BLCOF
COLLEGE is LAW.
to comply
NOTwith
FORtheSALE. DO NOT
school requirement for which she is not entitled to a compensation.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
59. POF
is SAN BEDA engineer in
a software REPRODUCE.
an advertisingPROPERTY OF SANinBEDA
firm. Sometime REPRODUCE.
2015, she figured PROPERTY
into an accident which OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF resulted
LAW. NOT to the
FORloss of her ability to use
UNIVERSITY her legs.OF
COLLEGE Nevertheless,
LAW. NOT FORthe performance and productivity
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOFP LAW. NOT FOR
remained the same. When the advertising firm had a change of management, P noticed that her wage
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
became 25% lower than PROPERTY SALE.
the minimumOF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
wage.
REPRODUCE.
When UNIVERSITY
P asked management PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
as to the suddenSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
diminution
of her
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOwage,
NOTthe management
COLLEGE OF said
LAW.thatNOT
handicapped
FOR SALE.workers
DO NOT may beCOLLEGE
paid not less than NOT
OF LAW. 75% of FORtheSALE. DO NOT
minimum wage. Is the employer correct?
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORemployer UNIVERSITY
No, the COLLEGE
is not correct. Under OF 5LAW.
Section NOT
of R.A. No. FOR UNIVERSITY
7277, as amended by R.A. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
10524, a qualified
SALE. DO NOT disabled employee shall be subject
REPRODUCE. SALE. to
DOtheNOT
same terms and conditions and the same compensation,
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT privileges,
REPRODUCE.
benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person. A qualified disabled
personDOis NOT COLLEGE
an employee who canOF LAW.with
perform, NOTorFOR SALE.
without DO NOT
reasonable COLLEGE OF
accommodations, the LAW. NOT
essential FOR SALE. DO NOT
functions
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF of her BEDA
SAN employment. In this case, P is a qualified
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY disabled person.
OF SAN There was no allegation
BEDA REPRODUCE.that P PROPERTY
cannot perform
OF SAN BEDA
the essential functions of her employment. The employer should not have had her wage cut below minimum
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
wageNOTandFOR UNIVERSITY
should have provided theCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
same compensation FORby able-bodied
received UNIVERSITY
softwareCOLLEGE
engineersOF LAW. NOT FOR
in the
firm.
60. X, the owner
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of JM Foods Corporation, informed you about
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his plan to expand his business
UNIVERSITY and put OF
COLLEGE up LAW. NOT FOR
a new brand of food chain in the Philippines. He told you that he intends to hire at least 200 crews for
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
his initial opening. How
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
will you convince XBEDA
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
to hire PROPERTY
persons with disabilities?
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
I will advise X to hire persons with disabilities and emphasize to him the incentives provided under the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Magna
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Carta for Disabled PROPERTY
Persons. Section 8(b) of OF
R.A.SAN
No. BEDA
7277, as amendedREPRODUCE.
by R.A. 10524, PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
provides that
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTentities
private FOR that employ
UNIVERSITY
disabled COLLEGE
persons whoOFmeet
LAW. theNOT FORskills or qualifications,
required UNIVERSITY either
as a regular
SALE. DO employee, apprentice or learner,SALE. shall be entitled to an additional deduction, from their gross REPRODUCE.
income,
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
equivalent to 25% of the total amount paid as salaries and wages to disabled persons: Provided, however, that
such DO
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. entities
NOTpresentCOLLEGE
proof as certified
OF LAW. by NOT
the DOLE
FOR that
SALE.disabled
DO NOTpersons COLLEGE
are under their employ.
OF LAW. NOTProvided
FOR SALE. DO NOT
further,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that the disabled employee is accredited
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA with DOLE and DOH as
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYand
to his disability, skills OF SAN BEDA
qualifications.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
17
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Compulsory Coverage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
a. Employees OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE i. OFAll LAW.
privateNOT
sector
FORemployees,UNIVERSITY
whether permanent,
COLLEGEtemporary,
OF LAW.or provisional,
NOT FOR who areUNIVERSITY
not over 60 years of
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
age (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 9);
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
ii. Household PROPERTY
Helper who is not
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
over 60 years
NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
of age withUNIVERSITY
a monthly income of not PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
less than P1,000SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
(R.A. UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORNo. 8282,
SALE. DOSec.
NOT9, par. (a)) and hasOF
COLLEGE rendered at least
LAW. NOT FOR1 month
SALE.ofDO
service
NOT(R.A. No. 10361, OF
COLLEGE Sec.LAW.
30); NOT FOR SALE. DO N
iii. A Filipino seafarer, upon signing of the standard employment contract and actual deployment by the
manning agency and the foreign principal, who are considered as the employers (SSS Guidebook (2017),
p. 4); and FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT iv. All employees of a Foreign government, international organization, or their wholly owned instrumentality
which entered into an agreement with the Philippine government for the inclusion of such employees inUNIVERSITY
theDO
SSSNOT
(R.A. No. COLLEGE
8282, Sec.OF LAW.
8, par. (j)).NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. Employers
i. Any person who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking, COLLEGE
and usesOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN services of another person,SALE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY exceptDO
PROPERTY theNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
Government
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par. (c));
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
ii. Social, civic, professional, charitable, and other non-profit organizations which hire the services of
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR employees
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
are considered OF LAW.
“employers” (SSSNOT FOR SALE.
Guidebook DOp.NOT
(2017), 4); COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
iii. Any foreign
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Government, international organization, or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA their wholly owned instrumentality
REPRODUCE. whichPROPERTY
entered OF SAN BEDA
into an agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino employees (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par. (j));
and
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA iv. A household EmployerPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
who engages DO
OFand
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
controls
BEDA the services of a domestic worker
UNIVERSITY SALE.
(R.A.
PROPERTY OF DO
No. SANNOT
10361, REPRODUCE.
Sec.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
3, par. (e)).
Voluntary CoverageBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
i. Non-working
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR spouses who devote full time to managing
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe household and family affairs who isCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY legally married
OF LAW. NOT FOR
to a member (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 9(b));
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDAii. UNIVERSITY
Self–employed (SE), who PROPERTY
SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN
realizes no income
REPRODUCE.
forBEDA UNIVERSITY
a certain
SALE.
month (R.A. No. 8282, PROPERTY
Sec. 1);
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
iii. Overseas-based
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Filipinos (OFW) OF
COLLEGE being recruited
LAW. by foreign-based
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTemployersCOLLEGE
for employment
OF LAW. abroad
NOT(R.A.
FOR SALE. DO NOT
No. 8282, Sec. 9 par. (c)); and
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
iv. Voluntary Member or a person previously covered as an SSS member who has at least 1 posted contribution
OF SAN BEDA
and isNOT FOR workingUNIVERSITY
no longer COLLEGE
as either employee, OF LAW. NOT
self-employed, FOR(R.A. No.UNIVERSITY
or OFWs COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
8282, Sec. 11).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
61. X is an employee of Falcon Shop earning P4,000.00/month. Due to his struggle to make ends meet, he
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
requested his NOT
employer COLLEGE OF LAW.from
to stop deducting NOThis
FOR SALE.
salary hisDO NOT
SSS monthlyCOLLEGE OF LAW.
contribution sayingNOT
thatFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYhe’s
OFalready
SAN BEDA waiving his social security PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. coverage. IfOF
you were
SAN the employer,
BEDA would you grant
REPRODUCE. X’s
request?
No, X’s
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY request should not SALE.
be DO
granted. NOT
As REPRODUCE.
X’s employer,
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY I am duty bound SALE.
OF DO
to promptly
PROPERTY NOT
remit
SAN REPRODUCE.
SSS
BEDA UNIVERSITY
contributions. Sections 8 & 9 of R.A. 8282 or the SSS law require the compulsory coverage of employers, who
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR carries
SALE. DO
on inNOT COLLEGE
the Philippines OF LAW.
any trade, NOTindustry,
business, FOR SALE.
andDOusesNOT COLLEGE
the services OF LAW.
of another, NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
and employees,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF whoSAN
areBEDA
not over 60 yearsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
old. Non-remittance OF SAN BEDA
of contribution is a violation ofREPRODUCE.
the law on thePROPERTY
part of theOF SAN BEDA
employer.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. (R.A. No. 8282,
NOT FOR Sec. 22). If ICOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY will grant X’s
OFrequest, I can be
LAW. NOT FORheld liable UNIVERSITY
under the SSSCOLLEGE
law. Therefore,
OF LAW. NOT FOR
I should not grant X’s request to stop deducting his SSS contributions.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT62.
FOR On the basis of the provision of package of welfare benefits far superior than those provided by the
SSS, Golden Corporation filed a petition with the SSS for exemption from coverage. The welfare plan
is funded REPRODUCE.
solely by the company without PROPERTY OF SAN
contributions fromBEDA
its employees,REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
and is admittedly, the bestOF SAN BEDA
welfare
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT plan in the Philippines.
FOR Will the
UNIVERSITY petitionOF
COLLEGE forLAW.
exemption
NOT FOR prosper? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
No, the petition for exemption
DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
will not prosper. BEDA
The UNIVERSITY
provision
SALE.
PROPERTY
of private benefit plans,
DO NOT
OF
as provided
REPRODUCE.
in SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Section
9 (a)SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of theDO
SSSNOT law, shallCOLLEGE
not operate
OFtoLAW.
exemptNOTanyFOR
employer
SALE.from
DO its
NOTcompulsory coverage.
COLLEGE OF IfLAW.
the private
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may be integrated with the SSS plan. Here, the private benefit plan
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANCorporation
of Golden BEDA REPRODUCE.
is not exempt from thePROPERTY
coverage of OF
the SAN BEDA it may beREPRODUCE.
SSS although integrated withPROPERTY
the SSS OF SAN BEDA
plan. NOT FOR
Therefore, UNIVERSITY
the petition for COLLEGE
exemption will OF (Philippine
not prosper LAW. NOTBlooming
FOR Mills UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Co., Inc. v. Social SecurityOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. System, G.R. No. L-21223, August SALE. 31, 1966). NOT REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
18
The following
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANare excluded
BEDA from SSS coverage: PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a. Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or business of the employer;
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEb.OFServices
LAW. NOT FOR on or UNIVERSITY
performed COLLEGE
in connection with OFVessel
an Alien LAW. by
NOT
an FOR UNIVERSITY
employee if he is employedCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
when such
vessel is outside
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the Philippines; SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
c. Services performed by temporary employees, which may be excluded by regulation of the Commission.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTEmployees
FOR SALE.of DObonaNOT COLLEGE
fide independent OF LAW.shall
contractors NOTnot
FOR
be SALE.
deemed DOemployees
NOT ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the employer NOT FOR SALE. DO
engaging
the service
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANof said
BEDA contractors; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
d. Service
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.performed
NOT FOR in the employ of the Philippine
UNIVERSITY Government,
COLLEGE OF LAW.instrumentality
NOT FOR or agency thereof; and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
e. Service performed in the employ of a Foreign Government, international organization, or their wholly–owned
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
instrumentality
BEDA UNIVERSITY(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8SALE.
PROPERTY par.OF DO
SANNOT
(j)). BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
63. The owners of FALCON Factory, a company engaged in the assembling of automotive components,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYdecided
OF SANtoBEDA REPRODUCE.
have their building renovated.PROPERTY OF composed
Fifty persons SAN BEDAof engineers,
REPRODUCE.
architects, PROPERTY
and other OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFconstruction
LAW. NOT FOR workers, were hired forCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY the renovation
OF LAW.which
NOTisFOR
expected UNIVERSITY
to last for 3 COLLEGE
years. The
OF LAW. NOT FOR
employees contended that they should be subject to compulsory coverage under the SSS Law. Rule
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
on their contention. (2002 Bar)
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
The engineers, architects and other construction workers are not subject to compulsory coverage under
SAN BEDA
Social Security Law.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Employment which is purelyOF SANand
casual BEDA REPRODUCE.
not for the purpose PROPERTY
of occupation or businessOF SAN BEDA
of the FOR is excluded
employer UNIVERSITY
from theCOLLEGE
coverage OF LAW.
of the SSSNOTLaw FOR UNIVERSITY
(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8 par.COLLEGE
(j)). In thisOF LAW. NOT FOR
case,
SALE. DO NOT the renovation to be done bySALE.
REPRODUCE. the engineers,
DO NOT architects,
REPRODUCE. and other construction workers
SALE.is DO
not NOT
related to the
REPRODUCE.
FALCON Factory’s business of assembling of automotive components. Therefore, their employment is BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR excluded fromNOT
SALE. DO the scopeCOLLEGE
of the SSSOF
Law.
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
TheREPRODUCE.
BEDAfollowing are considered dependents:
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Legal spouse entitled for support;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. Child, whether legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or illegitimate; and
RODUCE. PROPERTYc.OF Parents
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
dependent for support (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8 par. (e)). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
The following are the conditions for children to be considered as dependents:
OPERTY OF SAN BEDAa. UNIVERSITY
Unmarried;
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Not gainfully
DO NOT employed; and
c. Has not reached 21 years of age or if 21 years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF permanently
SAN BEDA incapacitated
and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par.
(e)). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
The following are beneficiaries:
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTa.FOR SALE.beneficiaries:
Primary DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY i.OF SAN
The dependent
BEDA SpouseREPRODUCE.until he or shePROPERTY
remarries; and
ii. Dependent legitimate/ legitimated or legally adopted and illegitimate children.
NIVERSITY COLLEGE b.OF Secondary
LAW. NOTbeneficiaries
FOR UNIVERSITY
(in the absenceCOLLEGE
of primary OF LAW. NOT FOR
beneficiaries): UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
i. In
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the absence of the primary SALE. DO NOT
beneficiaries, REPRODUCE.
the
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY dependent parents; or SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
ii. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the covered employee (R.A. No. 8282,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Sec.
DO 8NOT
par. (k)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
64.LAW.
ERSITY COLLEGE OF X and
NOTYFOR
were married in 1992. Y,COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY member of OFSSS,
LAW.designated
NOT FOR his wife,UNIVERSITY
X, and theirCOLLEGE
children OF
as his
LAW. NOT FOR
beneficiaries. In 2005, Y died. Thereafter, X filed a claim for death benefits with the SSS as the wife of
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA the deceased-member.PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
It appeared, NOT REPRODUCE.
OFhowever,
SAN BEDA thatUNIVERSITY set ofSALE.
Y submitted a different PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
beneficiaries REPRODUCE.
SANand that
BEDA UNIVERSITY
he was previously married to another woman. Consequently, X’s claim was denied. She insisted that
she was the legitimate wife of Y and filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC). The
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SSC
SANdismissed
BEDA REPRODUCE.
the petition PROPERTY
for lack of OFground
merit on the SAN BEDA
that X failed toREPRODUCE.
prove that herPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
marriage with
Y was
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT valid.
FOR On appeal, CA reversed
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEtheOF SSC’s
LAW.decision.
NOT FORIt held UNIVERSITY
that SSC could not make
COLLEGE a
OF LAW. NOT FOR
determination of the validity or invalidity of X and Y’s marriage. Does SSC have the authority to
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAdetermine
UNIVERSITY SALE.Y’sDO
the validity of XPROPERTY
and NOT
OF SAN
marriage?REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Yes, SSC has the authority to determine the validity of the marriage in this case. Although the SSC is not
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY intrinsically
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
empowered to determine PROPERTY
the validity OF SANit BEDA
of marriages, is required by Sec.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
4 (b) (7) of R.A. 8282 to OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF examine
LAW. NOT FOR statistical
available UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and economic data to OF LAW.
ensure NOT
that the FOR UNIVERSITY
benefits fall into the rightful COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
beneficiaries.
SALE. The investigations conducted by SSS are appropriate in order to ensure that the benefits provided under the
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SS law are received by the rightful beneficiaries. It is not hard to see that such measure is necessary for the
system’s
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO proper
NOT administration,
COLLEGE OF otherwise, it will be
LAW. NOT FORswamped withNOT
SALE. DO bogus claims that willOF
COLLEGE pointlessly
LAW. NOT deplete
FORitsSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF funds. Such scenario will certainly frustrate the purpose of the law which is to provide covered employees and
their families protection against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death, with a view to promoting
19
their UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
well-being in the spirit of social justice OF SANSecurity
(Social BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Commission v. Azote, G.R. OFApril
No. 209741, SAN15,BEDA UNIVERSITY
2015).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYMonthly Contribution SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Benefit Remarks/Other Conditions required to avail the benefits
Paid
a. He has reached the age of 60 years and is already separated
from employment or has ceased to be self-employed; or
b. He has reached the age of 65 years (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 12–B);
SALE. At least 120 monthly or
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
Retirement
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
contribution prior to the c. He is a surface or underground mineworker whose date of actual
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTBenefits
FOR SALE. DOsemester
NOT of retirement
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT is
retirement FORnotSALE.
earlierDO NOT
than April 27,COLLEGE
2016 (SSSOFGuidebook
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (2017), at 70); or
d. A total disability pensioner who has recovered from disability and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is at least 60 years old (SSS Guidebook (2017), at 70).COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
In SAN
order BEDA REPRODUCE.
for the beneficiary of an employee
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to be entitled
PROPERTY OF SANDO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
to death UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTAt least 36 monthly
COLLEGE benefits
OF LAW. NOTunder
FORthe SSS,DO
SALE. theNOT
cause of death of the OF
COLLEGE employee must be
Death Benefits contribution prior to the a sickness listed as an occupational disease by ECC; or any other
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA semesterREPRODUCE.
of death PROPERTY
illness causedOFbySAN BEDA
employment, subjectREPRODUCE.
to proof that PROPERTY
the risk of OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR contracting
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFthe sameNOT
LAW. is increased
FOR by theUNIVERSITY
working conditions.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYAt least 36 monthly
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN
Disability Benefits contributions prior to the None
BEDA UNIVERSITY
semester ofCOLLEGE
disability OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
a. Member mustOF SAN
have BEDA
been REPRODUCE.
reported for coverage PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
by his employer
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR even if noOF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE contribution
LAW. NOT paid;
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
Funeral Benefits 1 monthly contribution b. Self-employed member/OFW/non-working spouse/voluntary
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
member
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
who PROPERTY SALE.
had at least 1 monthly contribution OF DO
SANNOT
payment BEDA
(R.A.
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. No.NOT8282,
FORSec.
SALE.13B).
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.a.PROPERTY
Unable toOFwork dueBEDA
SAN to sickness or injury and confined
REPRODUCE. either in OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
a hospital or at home for at least 4 days;
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
b. Has paid at leastNOT FOR of contributions
3 months UNIVERSITYwithinCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
the 12-month
At least 3 monthly
ROPERTY OF SAN Sickness
Benefits contributionPROPERTY
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
period immediately
preceding OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
before the semester ofSALE. DO
sickness NOT
or REPRODUCE.
injury;
c. Has used up all current company sick leaves with pay; and
the semester
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of sickness
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTnotified
FOR SALE. DO NOTor directly
COLLEGE OFif separated
d. Has the employer, the SSS, from
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTYemployment,OF SAN BEDAmember orREPRODUCE.
voluntary self-employedPROPERTY
regarding OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE his/her
OFsickness
LAW. NOTor injury
FOR(SSS Guidebook, 2017, COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY p. 40). OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. a.
DO Notify
NOT the SSS
REPRODUCE. thru her employer of pregnancy
SALE. and
DO probable
NOT REPRODUCE.
date of her childbirth; PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OFb.LAW.
Full NOT
payment
FORshall be advanced
SALE. DO NOT by theCOLLEGE
employerOF within
LAW.30 days
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
from the filing of the maternity leave application;
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. i.PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Payment of daily maternity benefits shall be a bar to the
OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
recovery NOT FOR
of sickness UNIVERSITY
benefits under the SSS lawCOLLEGE
for the OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. same period for which daily maternity benefits have beenREPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
received;
PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT At least COLLEGE OF LAW. ii.
3 monthly NOT FORshall
SSS SALE. DO NOT reimburse
immediately COLLEGE the OF LAW. NOT
employer FOR SALE. DO NOT
of the
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAcontribution immediately amount of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA maternity benefits advanced to the employee by
Maternity Leave
preceding the semester the employer upon receipt of satisfactory proof of such
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF Benefits
LAW. NOT FOR of childbirth
UNIVERSITY
or COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
payment and legality thereof; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
miscarriage
PROPERTY c. NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
Maternity
BEDA benefits
UNIVERSITY SALE.
shall be paid only PROPERTY
for the DO
first 4
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
deliveries
SAN BEDA or UNIVERSITY
miscarriages; and
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
d. In FORanSALE.
case DO NOT
employee member COLLEGE OF birth
should give LAW.orNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
suffer
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA miscarriage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF without
SAN BEDA the required contributions
REPRODUCE.having been OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR remitted
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE for herNOT
OF LAW. by her
FORemployer, UNIVERSITY
or without theCOLLEGE
latter having
OF LAW. NOT FOR
previously notified the SSS, the employer shall pay to the SSS
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF REPRODUCE.
damages
SAN equivalent
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.said
to the benefits which
PROPERTY DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
employee BEDA UNIVERSITY
member would otherwise have been entitled to (R.A. No. 8282,
Sec. 14-A).
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
65. OF
A,LAW.
single,NOT
has FOR UNIVERSITY
been an active member ofCOLLEGE OF the
the SSS for LAW. NOT
past FOR She UNIVERSITY
20 months. COLLEGE
became pregnant out ofOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. wedlock and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that she would have to deliver the baby
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
through caesarean section because of some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes,
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR how many
SALE. DO days
NOT can she go on maternity
COLLEGE OF LAW. leave? (2010
NOT FOR Bar)DO NOT
SALE. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
20
Yes, A can claim maternity PROPERTY OF SAN14-A
benefits. Section BEDA UNIVERSITY
of the PROPERTY
SSS law does not provide OF SANasBEDA
any qualification to UNIVERSITY
the civil status
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the claimant for maternity benefits so long
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT as the said female employee has paid at least 3
months contributions within the 12-month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYmiscarriage.
OF SAN BEDA In this case, A is entitled to maternity benefits because she has paid herREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY
contributions for the past OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF20
LAW. NOTTherefore,
months. FOR A isUNIVERSITY
be paid a dailyCOLLEGE
maternityOF LAW.equivalent
benefit NOT FORto 100% UNIVERSITY
of her averageCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
daily salary
SALE. DO NOT credit for 78 days in case of caesarian
REPRODUCE. SALE.delivery.
DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW.66.NOTSeveral employees
FOR SALE. DO NOT of ABC corporation,
COLLEGE OFanLAW.employer
NOT registered
FOR SALE.with
DOthe
NOTSSS, filed separate
COLLEGE OFcomplaints
against ABC
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfor non-remittance of their SSS contributions.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAUpon investigation, it was discovered that
ABC corporation indeed failed to remit the SSS contributions of its employees from 1997-2000. Is ABC
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEcorporation
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
liable for the non-remittance of the SSS contributions of its employees? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Yes, ABC Corporation is liable. Prompt remittance of SSS contributions under Section 22 (a) of RA 8282
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
is mandatory. COLLEGE
Any divergence from OF
this LAW. NOT FOR
rule subjects the SALE. DOnot
employer NOT COLLEGEsanctions,
only to monetary OF LAW. i.e.,
NOTtheFOR SALE. DO NO
payment of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA penalty of three percent (3%) per month, but
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA also to criminal prosecution if the employer
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY fails to: OF SAN BEDA
(a) register its employees with the SSS; (b) deduct monthly contributions from the salaries/wages of its
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFemployees;
LAW. NOTorFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
(c) remit to the SSS its employees' SSS contributions and/or loan payments after deducting the
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
same from their respective
salaries/wages.
OF SAN Here,REPRODUCE.
BEDA ABC failed to remit the PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
contribution DO
fromSAN
OF NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
1997-2000. UNIVERSITY
Therefore, ABC is liable for the non-remittance of the SSS contribution of its employees (Jorge B. Navarra vs.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOofNOT
People COLLEGE
the Philippines, OF LAW.
G.R. No. NOT
224943, FOR
March 20,SALE.
2017,DO NOT COLLEGE
Perlas-Bernabe, J.). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
All government REPRODUCE.
personnel, whether PROPERTYirrespective
elective or appointive, OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of status of appointment, PROPERTY
provided they are OF SAN BEDA
receiving
NIVERSITY COLLEGE fixed monthly
OF LAW. NOT FOR compensation and have not
UNIVERSITY reached the
COLLEGE OF mandatory
LAW. NOTretirement
FOR age UNIVERSITY
of 65 years, areCOLLEGE
compulsorily
OF LAW. NOT FOR
covered as members of the GSIS and shall be required to pay contributions (R.A. 8291, Sec. 3).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTNote:
FOR An employee
SALE. DO NOT who is already
COLLEGEbeyond
OF the
LAW.mandatory
NOT FOR retirement ageNOT
SALE. DO of 65 shallCOLLEGE
be compulsorily
OF LAW. covered
NOTand FORbeSALE. DO NOT
required to pay both the life and retirement premiums under the following situations:
RODUCE. PROPERTYa.OF An SAN BEDAofficial who REPRODUCE.
elective PROPERTY
at the time of election OF office
to public SAN BEDA
is below 65 yearsREPRODUCE.
of age and willPROPERTY
be 65 years OF
or SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.moreNOT FORend of hisUNIVERSITY
at the term of office,COLLEGE OFperiod/s
including the LAW. NOTof hisFOR UNIVERSITY
re-election to public office COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
thereafter without
SALE. DO NOT interruption.
b. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Appointive officials who, before reaching the mandatory age of 65, are appointed to government position by
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand shall
the President COLLEGE OFgovernment
remain in LAW. NOTservice
FOR SALE.
at age DO NOT65 (IRRCOLLEGE
beyond OF8291,
of R.A. No. LAW.RULE
NOTII,FOR
Sec.SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF 2.2).
ERSITY COLLEGE OF Contractual
LAW. NOTemployees
FOR UNIVERSITY
including casualsCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
and other employees FOR
with an UNIVERSITYagency
employee-government COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
relationship
are also compulsorily
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY covered, SALE.
provided DO
they NOT
are REPRODUCE.
receiving fixed
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYmonthly compensation andSALE. DO
renderingNOT
the REPRODUCE.
required
number of working hours for the month (IRR of R.A. 8291, RULE II, Sec. 2.3).
The following are excluded from the compulsory coverage:
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), subject to the condition that they must settle first their
financial
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOobligation
NOT with the GSIS;
b. Members
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA subject to the condition that they mustPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. settle first their
OF SAN BEDA
financial obligation with the GSIS;
ERSITY COLLEGE OF c.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Contractuals who have no employer-employee relationship with the agencies they serve; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO d. Uniformed personnel of the Bureau
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. of
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFFire
SAN REPRODUCE.
Protection
BEDA (BFP);
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. Uniformed personnel of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP);
GE OF LAW. NOT FORf. SALE. DO NOT
Barangay COLLEGE
and Sanggunian OF LAW.
Officials NOT
who are not FOR SALE.
receiving DOmonthly
fixed NOT compensation;
RODUCE. PROPERTYg.OF Employees
SAN BEDAwho do not REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
have monthly regular OFwork
hours of SANandBEDA REPRODUCE.
are not receiving fixed monthlyPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
compensation
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.(IRR
NOTof R.A.
FORNo. 8291,UNIVERSITY
Rule II, Sec. 3).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN67.
BEDAJ,UNIVERSITY
a former director of DOLE,SALE.
wasDO
PROPERTY NOT
hired REPRODUCE.
OFtoSAN
work on a UNIVERSITY
BEDA DOLE-ILO project on work SALE. DOShe
safety.
PROPERTY NOT
OFwasREPRODUCE.
SAN hired
BEDA UNIVERSITY
as a consultant and is required to deliver outputs for such project, report on a regular basis, and
present for DOLE during ILO workshops and consultations. For this, J demanded that she be reported
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY byOFDOLE
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
again as an employee and thatPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
her GSIS membership REPRODUCE.
be renewed. Rule PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
on J’s contention.
J’s contention is wrong. Under Section 3 of the IRR of R.A. 8291, contractuals who have no employer-
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
employee relationship with
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
the government
NOT
BEDA
agency
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
they PROPERTY
serve are excluded from
SALE.
OFofDO
the coverage SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
the GSIS. UNIVERSITY
In
this case,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. J’s engagement
DO NOT as a consultant
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTis contractual
FOR SALE.in nature because she
DO NOT was hired
COLLEGE OFforLAW.
a specific
NOTproject
FOR SALE. DO NOT
only. As a contractual with no employer-employee relationship with the government, J’s GSIS membership
21
cannot PROPERTY
be renewed. Therefore, OF SAN
DOLE is not BEDA
required UNIVERSITY
to report J as an employeePROPERTY OFofSAN
for purposes BEDA UNIVERSITY
GSIS
coverage.
The following areNOT FOR
dependents: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT
a. REPRODUCE.
The legitimate
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY spouse dependent SALE.
for DO
support NOT
upon REPRODUCE.
the member or
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYpensioner; SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
b. The legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted child, including the illegitimate child who is:
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT i. FOR SALE. not
unmarried, DOgainfully
NOT employed,COLLEGEnotOF LAW.
over NOT
the age of FOR SALE.
majority; or DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
ii. Is over
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY the age
OF SAN BEDA of majority but incapacitatedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. and incapable
OFofSAN self-support
BEDA due to aREPRODUCE.
mental or physical
PROPERTY OF SAN B
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF defect
LAW. acquired prior to age of
NOT FOR majority;
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
c. Parents dependent upon the member for support (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 2 (f)).
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
UNIVERSITY
The following are the beneficiaries:
a. Primary Beneficiary includes the legal dependent spouse until he/she remarries and the dependent COLLEGE
children OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 2 (g)).
UNIVERSITY
b. PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
Secondary Beneficiary includes the dependent parents and, subject to the restrictions on the dependent UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR children,
SALE. DOtheNOT
legitimateCOLLEGE OF(R.A.
descendants LAW.No.
NOT FOR
8291, SALE.
Sec. DO NOT
2 (h)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Benefits Conditions to avail the benefits
a. If the member resigns or separates from service, he has rendered at least 3 years of
service but less than 15 years; or
Separation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Benefits
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
b. If the member resigns or separates from service, he has rendered at least 15 years of OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. service and is below 60 years of age (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 11).
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTa. Has rendered at least 15 years of service;
b. At least 60 years of age at the time of retirement; and
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA c. Not receiving
a monthly pension benefit from permanent total REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
disability (R.A. No. 8291, OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGERetirement
OF LAW. Benefits
NOT FOR Sec. 13-A).
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Note: Retirement SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
is compulsory UNIVERSITY
upon reaching
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
65 years of age with at least 15OF
NOT REPRODUCE.
SANofBEDA
years UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTservice.COLLEGE
But if he has rendered
OF LAW. NOTless
FORthanSALE.
15 years
DO of service, he
NOT may be allowed
COLLEGE OF LAW. to NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
complete the said period (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 13).
a. In service at the time of disability;
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR b. If heUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is separated from OFhas
service, LAW.paidNOT FOR
at least 36 monthlyUNIVERSITY
contributionsCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
within 5 years
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY immediately SALE.
beforeDO
theNOT REPRODUCE.
disability, or has
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY paid a total of at least 180 SALE.
monthlyDO NOT REPRODUCE.
contributions
prior to the disability;
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT c. Member COLLEGE
cannot enjoyOF LAW.
monthlyNOT FOR benefit
income SALE. and
DO the
NOTold-ageCOLLEGE
retirement OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
simultaneously
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (R. A. No.REPRODUCE.
8291, Sec. 16PROPERTY
(a)); and OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Permanent Total
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. d.
NOT FOR Not due to his grave misconduct, notorious
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR negligence, habitual intoxication,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEor willful OF LAW. NOT FO
Disability Benefits
intention to kill himself or another (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 15).
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNote: If member does not satisfy the conditions above, but has rendered at least 3 years of
service at the time of disability, he is still entitled to cash payment equivalent his average
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA monthly compensation
REPRODUCE.forPROPERTY
each year OF SAN BEDA
of service REPRODUCE.
but not less than PROPERTY
P12,000 (R.A. No. 8291, OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Sec. 16 UNIVERSITY
(b)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO a. Not exceedSALE.
120 days in oneREPRODUCE.
calendar year;
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO
b. OF NOT
SAN BEDA
Exhausted all his sick leave benefits; UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTc. In COLLEGE OFtime
service at the LAW. NOT
of his FOR SALE. DO NOT
disability; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA d. If separated, rendered at least
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 3 years of service and paid 6 REPRODUCE.
monthly contributions in the OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
12-month period immediately preceding the disability;
IVERSITY COLLEGE Temporary
OF LAW. NOT Total
FOR e. UNIVERSITY
Cannot COLLEGE
enjoy temporary total OF LAW.benefit
disability NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
and sick leave COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
pay simultaneously;
Disability Benefits
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY f. SALE.
If disabilityPROPERTY
requires DO NOT
treatment
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
that lastsUNIVERSITY
BEDA beyond 120 days, the paymentSALE.ofDO
PROPERTY the NOT REPRODUCE.
temporary
total disability benefit may not exceed 240 days;
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
g. Such benefit shall not be less than P70 a day (R. A. No. 8291, Sec. 18); and OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAh. Not due to his grave misconduct,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA notorious negligence, habitual intoxication, or willful
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR intentionUNIVERSITY
to kill himselfCOLLEGE
or anotherOF (R.A. No. 8291,
LAW. NOT FORSec. 15). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. a. Deceased wasSALE.
in the service at REPRODUCE.
the time of his death; or
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY b.
Survivorship PROPERTY
If separated OF DO
from service,
NOT
SANhas
BEDA UNIVERSITY
at least PROPERTY
3 years of service at the
SALE. DO
time of his OF SAN
death
NOT REPRODUCE.
andBEDA
has UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FORBenefits
SALE. DO NOT paid 36 monthly
COLLEGE OFcontribution
LAW. NOTwithin
FOR 5-year
SALE. period
DO NOT immediately preceding
COLLEGE OFhis death,
LAW. NOTor has
FOR SALE. DO NOT
paid at least 180 monthly contribution prior to death (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 21 (a)).
22
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYCovered deaths:PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTa. ActiveCOLLEGE
member; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
FuneralOF SAN BEDAb. MemberREPRODUCE.
Benefits
who has been PROPERTY
separated fromOF service;
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
c. Pensioner; and
d. Retiree, COLLEGE
who at the time OF LAW.
of his retirement NOT
was FOR
of pensionable UNIVERSITY
age but opted toCOLLEGE
retire underOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. R.A. No. 16161 (R.A.DO
SALE. No.NOT
8291,REPRODUCE.
Sec. 23).
SALE. DO REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW.68.NOTDuring
FOR SALE. DO NOT leave,
his one-month COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
H, a policeman, was FOR
shot SALE. DO while
to death NOT trying COLLEGE OFtwo
to pacify LAW.
of NOT
his FOR SALE. DO
neighbors whoBEDA
are fighting. W,REPRODUCE.
her surviving PROPERTY OFhe
spouse whom SAN
hadBEDA
abandoned years REPRODUCE.
back, filed aPROPERTY
claim OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEforOFdeath
LAW.benefits
NOT FORbut was denied by the COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY GSIS contending
OF LAW.that
NOTH is not entitled
FOR to benefits since
UNIVERSITY he OF LAW. NOT F
COLLEGE
was on-leave when he died. Is the GSIS correct?
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, GSIS
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. is incorrect.
DO NOT Under the
COLLEGE OF24-hour
LAW. NOT duty FOR
doctrine,
SALE.members
DO NOTof the police by the
COLLEGE OFnature
LAW. ofNOTtheir
FOR SALE. DO NO
functions are technically 24 hours a day, except when they are on vacation leave. The exception is not
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYapplicable
OF SAN BEDA
where a policeman REPRODUCE.
responds to aPROPERTY
situation on OF SAN
which hisBEDA REPRODUCE.
services is necessary PROPERTY
in maintaining peace OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFand order.
LAW. NOTHere,
FORH’s act of UNIVERSITY
responding to his neighbor’s
COLLEGE OF situation
LAW. NOT mayFOR
be considered an extensionCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY of a police’s
OF LAW. NOT FOR
function. Therefore, H’s death is compensable (ECC v. CA, G.R. No. 115858, June 28, 1996).
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
69. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR After DO
44 years,
NOT X retired
COLLEGEas Chief StateNOT
OF LAW. Prosecutor of DOJ
FOR SALE. DO in 1992. HeCOLLEGE
NOT applied for
OFretirement
LAW. NOTbenefit
FOR SALE. DO NOT
under R.A. 910. The application was approved by GSIS. Thereafter, and for more than nine years, X
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF continuously
SAN BEDA receivedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
his retirement benefits, until 2001, when he failed to receive his monthly
pension. UNIVERSITY
X learned that COLLEGE
GSIS cancelled OF LAW.ofNOT
the payment his FOR UNIVERSITY
pension because the DBMCOLLEGE
informedOF LAW. NOT FOR
GSIS
SALE. DO NOT that
REPRODUCE. X was not qualified to retire under
SALE. DO NOT R.A. 910 which
REPRODUCE. provides for the retirement of justices
SALE. DO NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and its enforcement by the GSIS. Thus, GSIS stopped theBEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
payment NOT
of X’s monthlyCOLLEGE
pension. OF
DoesLAW. NOT FOR SALE.under
X’s disqualification DO NOT COLLEGEhim
R.A. 910 preclude OFfrom
LAW.receiving
any retirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA benefit under any other existing retirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA law? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
No, X’s disqualification from receiving retirement benefits under R.A. 910 does not preclude COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
him from
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA receiving
UNIVERSITY any retirement benefits
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
under SANNOT
any other
BEDA REPRODUCE.
existing retirement
UNIVERSITY law. Since X has SALE.
been
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
declared REPRODUCE.
ineligible
BEDA UNIVERSITY
to retire under R.A. 910, GSIS should simply apply the proper retirement law to X’s claim. In this way, GSIS
wouldDObe NOT COLLEGE
faithful to its mandateOF LAW. NOTretirement
to administer FOR SALE. DOin NOT
laws the spirit inCOLLEGE OFhave
which they LAW. NOT
been FOR SALE. DO NOT
enacted,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF i.e.,
SANtoBEDA
provide retirees the wherewithal PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. to live a life of
OFrelative comfort and security
SAN BEDA after years of
REPRODUCE. service to the
government (GSIS v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186560, November 17, 2010).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
70. X has been working with Lima Land for 20 years. Wanting to work in the public sector, X applied with
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF and
SANwas
offered a job at Livecor. Before accepting the offer, he wanted to consult with you whether
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.theNOT FOR that heUNIVERSITY
payments COLLEGE
and Lima Land OF LAW.
had made to the NOT FORbe transferred
SSS can UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
or credited to theOF LAW. NOT FOR
GSIS.
SALE. DO NOT What would you advise? (2014
REPRODUCE. Bar)
I will DO NOT
inform COLLEGE
X that his OF LAW.
contributions underNOTSSSFOR
maySALE. DO NOTor credited
be transferred COLLEGE
to GSIS OFfor
LAW. NOT FOR
purposes of SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY claiming
OF SANbenefits.
BEDA Under Section 3 of RA 7699
REPRODUCE. or the Limited
PROPERTY OF SAN Portability
BEDA Law, a covered worker who
REPRODUCE. transfers OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
employment from one sector to another shall have his contributions in both systems credited and shall be
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF totalized
LAW. NOT FORpurpose ofUNIVERSITY
for the COLLEGE
old-age, disability, OF LAW.
survivorship NOT
and FOR
other benefits in UNIVERSITY
case he does COLLEGE
not qualify OF
for LAW. NOT FOR
such benefits.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Here, X is planningSALE.
to DO
transferNOT REPRODUCE.
employment
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY from private to public sector. SALE.
If upon DO
his NOT REPRODUCE.
retirement
he did not qualify for the benefits, X can avail of the totalization under the limited portability law.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTCoverage
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
ERSITY COLLEGEThe
OF following
LAW. NOT are covered under
FOR the Employee’s
UNIVERSITY COLLEGECompensation:
SALE. DO NOT a. All
REPRODUCE. employers; SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
b. PROPERTY OF SAN
Employees not over 60 years old; BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTc.FOR
Employees
SALE. DOover 60 yearsCOLLEGE
NOT old and paying contributions
OF LAW. NOT FOR (LABOR
SALE. CODE,
DO NOT Art. 174);
d. Employees coverable by both the GSIS and the SSS; and
e. Filipino employees employed abroad subject to prescribed EC regulations (LABOR CODE, Art. 175; Amended
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Rules
LAW. onNOT FOR
Employees’ UNIVERSITY
Compensation, COLLEGE
Rule OF LAW. NOT FOR
I, Sec. 2). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
23
PROPERTY OFConditions
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for Compensability PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
For an injury
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFtoSAN
be compensable,
BEDA theREPRODUCE.
following requirements
PROPERTYmust concur:
a. The injury and the resulting disability must be the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment FORResolutionUNIVERSITY
(ECC No. 2799, JulyCOLLEGE OFand
25, 1984); LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOTb. REPRODUCE. SALE.
The sickness and the resulting disability
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY ofDO NOT
death REPRODUCE.
must SALE.listed
be the result of an occupational disease
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT
under
OF REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERS
the rules (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation (2014), RULE III, Sec. 1).
REPRODUCE.Theory of Increased
PROPERTY Risk
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Theory of Increased Risk is relevant when the ailment or sickness is not classified as an occupational disease,
SALE.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFthus, REPRODUCE.
BEDA
proof UNIVERSITY
must PROPERTY
be shown that the risk SALE.
OF DO
of contracting the NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
disease UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is increased by the working SALE. DO
SANNOT
OF(GSIS
conditions REPRODUCE.
BEDA
v. UNIVERSITY
Calumpiano,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR G.R.
SALE.No.
DO196102,
NOT November
COLLEGE 26, OF
2014).
LAW. Under
NOTthisFORtheory,
SALE.there must be a COLLEGE
DO NOT reasonableOF proof
LAW.thatNOT
the FOR SALE. DO N
employees’ working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, or that there is a connection between his
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
work and theOF SANofBEDA
cause REPRODUCE.
the disease (Castor-Garupa PROPERTY
v. ECC, G.R. No. OF158268,
SAN BEDA
April 12, 2006). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Only a reasonable proof OF SAN BEDA
of work-connection, FOR causal connection,
not direct UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is required OF LAW.compensability
to establish NOT FOR of a non-occupational
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEdisease OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO(GSIS
OF SAN NOT v. Cordero, G.R. No., 171378, March 17,
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
2009).
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT71.
FOR XSALE.
was employed
DO NOT at Nestlé Philippines
COLLEGE since
OF LAW. NOT1966 as SALE.
FOR a salesman
DO NOTand was COLLEGE
later promoted as Area
OF LAW. NOTSales
FOR SALE. DO NOT
Supervisor in 1977. In 1994, he was confined for a week in PGH because of joint pains. It was
discovered that he had BUN, creatinine, anemia, and chronic renal disease. He underwent a renal
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
transplant and was discharged thereafter. Subsequently, he filed a claim for compensation OF LAW. NOT FOR
benefits
SALE. DO NOT before
REPRODUCE. the SSS. However, the claim was denied
SALE. DO NOT on the ground
REPRODUCE. that X’s illness – end-stage renal
SALE. DO NOT disease
REPRODUCE.
secondary to uric acid nephropathy – had no causal relationship to his job as Area Sales Supervisor.
X promptly NOT to the
appealed COLLEGE
ECC. ECCOF affirmed
LAW. NOT theFOR SALE.ofDO
decision NOT
SSS. COLLEGE
Is X’s illness OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
compensable?
Yes, X’s illness is compensable. Under the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, for the sickness
and the resulting disability to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational COLLEGE
diseaseOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA listed under Annex A of these
UNIVERSITY RulesSALE.
PROPERTY with DO
OFthe
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise,
UNIVERSITY SALE.
proof
PROPERTY DO
must
OF beNOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
shown
BEDA UNIVERSITY
that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. Concededly, end-stage renal
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR disease
SALE. DO NOT to uric
secondary COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
acid nephropathy is notFOR SALE.
among the DO NOT
Occupational COLLEGEunder
Diseases OF LAW.
AnnexNOTA ofFOR
the SALE. DO NOT
Amended REPRODUCE.
Rules on Employees PROPERTY
Compensation. This, OF SAN BEDA
however, REPRODUCE.
would not automatically PROPERTY
bar petitioners claimOF SAN BEDA
for asNOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. long FOR
as he could prove that the COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY risk of contracting
OF LAW. theNOT
illness was increased
FOR by his working
UNIVERSITY conditions.
Here, considering the workload and areas of responsibility of petitioner in this case, it is not unlikely for him to
develop hypertension, which
in turn ledOF
PROPERTY NOT
to uremia.REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA It should SALE.
be stressed that in determining
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO
whether NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
a disease
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR isSALE.
compensable,
DO NOTit is enough that there
COLLEGE exists NOT
OF LAW. a reasonable workDO
FOR SALE. connection.
NOT Hence, X’s illness
COLLEGE is compensable
(Limbo v. ECC, G.R. No. 146891, July 30, 2002).
Proximate
IVERSITY COLLEGE Cause
OF LAW. NOT FORTheory UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Where primary injury is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows
COLLEGE OF LAW.from
NOT theFOR SALE.
injury DO NOT
likewise arises out COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of the employment, unlessFOR
it isSALE. DO NOT
the result COLLEGEintervening
of an independent OF LAW. cause
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
attributableOF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY to claimant’s
SAN BEDA own negligence or misconduct
REPRODUCE. (BelarminoOF
PROPERTY v. SAN
ECC,BEDA
G.R. No. 90204, REPRODUCE.
May 11, 1990). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
24-Hour Duty Doctrine
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
For the purpose of determining compensability of injury or death, soldiers and policemen and even firemen by the
nature of their work may be considered on duty round-the-clock. But this doctrine, while it relaxes the work-place factor,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFdispense
does not SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
with the work-connection PROPERTY
requisite (GSIS v.OF
CA,SAN
G.R.BEDA
No. 1288524, April REPRODUCE.
20, 1999). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO Continuing Act Rule
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FORTo be SALE. DO NOT the act
compensable, COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
of the employee FOR
going to,SALE. DO NOT
or coming from, the COLLEGE
workplace,OF LAW.
must NOT
have FOR
been a SALE. DO NOT
continuing act,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that is, he had not been diverted therefrom by any
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA other activity, and he had not departed from his usual
route to, or from, his workplace (ECC Board Resolution No. 3914-A, July 5, 1988).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
72. X is a security guard of ABCSALE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY bankDO
PROPERTY NOT
assignedREPRODUCE.
OF SAN to its main office. His regular duty
PROPERTY DO NOT
is from 2:00pm
OF SANREPRODUCE.
to
BEDA UNIVERSITY
10:00pm. One night, he rendered his regular duty, but as the security guard who was to relieve him
failed DO NOT
to arrive, COLLEGE
he rendered overtimeOFduty
LAW.upNOT FOR SALE.
to 5:00am in the DO NOT morning.
following COLLEGE OFway
On his LAW. NOTatFOR SALE. DO NO
home,
about 6:00
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA am, the passenger jeepney that X was riding
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA on turned turtle due to slippery road.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYAs a OF SAN BEDA
result, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, X filed a claim for disability benefits. His claim was denied by
the GSIS. X contends that the injuries he sustained due to the vehicular accident should be construed
OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA as “arising out of or in the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
court of
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
employment”
BEDAREPRODUCE.
and thus compensable. Is PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
X’s injury OF DO
SANNOT
compensable?
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Yes, X’s injury is compensable because such injury is considered as one arising out of and in the course
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF of the employment. Here, it can be seen that X left his station several hours after REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA his regular timePROPERTY
off, becauseOF SAN BEDA
24
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAtheUNIVERSITY
reliever did not arrive, andPROPERTY OF SAN
so X was asked to goBEDA UNIVERSITY
on overtime. After permission toPROPERTY OF SAN
leave was given, BEDA UNIVERSITY
he went
home. There
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT is no evidence on record that X deviated
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTfrom his usual, regular homeward route or that
interruptions occurred in the journey. Employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYreasonable
OF SAN BEDA margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and fromREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the place where PROPERTY
the work OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFisLAW.
to be NOT
done.FOR UNIVERSITY
If the employee be injured COLLEGE OF LAW.
while passing, NOT
with the FOR or implied
express UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
consent of the employer,OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT to or from his work by a way overSALE.
REPRODUCE. the employer's
DO NOT premises, or over those of another inSALE.
REPRODUCE. such proximity
DO NOT and
REPRODUCE.
relation as to be in practical effect a part of the employer's premises, the injury is one arising out of and in the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTcourse of the employment
FOR SALE. DO NOT asCOLLEGEmuch as though
OF LAW.it had
NOThappened whileDO
FOR SALE. the NOT
employee was engaged
COLLEGE OFinLAW.
his work
NOT FOR SALE. DO
at the place
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAof its performance. Hence, X’s injury is compensable
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (Lazo v. ECC, G.R. No. 78617, June 18,
1990).
SALE.
PROPERTY Personal
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA Comfort Doctrine PROPERTY
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Acts SALE. DO
performed by NOT
an employee COLLEGE
within theOF LAW.
time and NOT
spaceFOR
limitsSALE.
of the DO NOT to COLLEGE
employment minister to OF LAW.comfort,
personal NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
such as satisfaction of thirst, hunger REPRODUCE.
or any physical PROPERTY
demands, orOF SAN BEDA
to protect REPRODUCE.
oneself from excessive cold or PROPERTY
heat, shall OF SAN BEDA
be deemed
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. incidental
NOT FOR to employment and injuries
UNIVERSITY sufferedOF
COLLEGE in LAW.
the performance
NOT FOR of suchUNIVERSITY
acts shall beCOLLEGE
considered
OF LAW. NOT FOR
compensable and arising out of and in the course of employment (ECC Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068, August 5,
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
1993).UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Marked Men Rule
ERSITY COLLEGE OF This
LAW.rule governs a situation where because of serious peace and order problems of the country,COLLEGE
more particularly
SALE. DO NOT the insurgency
REPRODUCE. problems, it has become generally
SALE. DO NOT perceptible that
REPRODUCE. on account of the nature of their work,
SALE. DO NOT members of
REPRODUCE.
the AFP have become “marked men” insofar as insurgents and other lawless elements are concerned and are, BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR killed
therefore, SALE.byDOsuch NOTinsurgents
COLLEGE
at everyOFopportunity.
LAW. NOTThus,
FOR SALE. DOAFP
when an NOTmemberCOLLEGE
suffers aOF LAW. NOTit FOR
contingency, is SALE. DO NOT
presumed that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAit is because of the nature of his work (ECC Board Resolution
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA No. 3908, July 5, 1988).
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Presumptive Compensability
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
This provides that the moment a member of the Armed Forces suffers a contingency, the presumption is that it is
GE OF LAW. NOTbecause
of the nature of his work. However, In the following instances, the disability or death of a member of the military
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
is deemed not compensable: REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a. While
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe soldier is on furlough or on-leave, he or she
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is considered absent from military service;
b. While the soldier is on Sick, Convalescent, or Compassionate leave, except when the leave had been due to
work-connected illness or
SALE.
injuries; OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF NOT
SALE. DO REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FORc. SALE.
WhileDO
the NOT
soldier is on Maternity,OF
COLLEGE Paternity
LAW. NOTor Graduation
FOR SALE.leave;
DOandNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
d. When the soldier is considered on “AWOL” status (ECC Board Resolution No. 03-020014, February 01, 1993).
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
73.LAW. NOT FOR
Bernardo Alcaraz was UNIVERSITY
employed for COLLEGE
almost OF
29 LAW.
years NOT FORAide byUNIVERSITY
as Metro COLLEGE
the MMDA. Alcaraz wasOFlater
LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT found dead at the basement
REPRODUCE. SALE. of DO
the NOT
MMDA building. The autopsy concluded
REPRODUCE. that DO
SALE. Alcaraz
NOT died of
REPRODUCE.
Myocardial Infarction. The GSIS denied the claim for death benefits on the ground that myocardial
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOtheNOT
infarction, cause ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
Alcaraz’ death, was NOT FOR
directly SALE.toDO
related NOT which
diabetes COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
is not considered FOR SALE. DO NOT
a work-
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY connected
OF SAN BEDA illness; hence, its complications,
REPRODUCE. suchOF
PROPERTY asSAN
myocardial
BEDA infarction, are not work-related.
Decide the case.
SALE. DO NOT I will
REPRODUCE.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY rule in favor of Alcaraz. A heart
SALE. DO disease,
NOT such as
REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY myocardial infarction, can SALE.
PROPERTY be OF
considered
DO
SANNOT work-
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
related, with or without the complicating factors of other non-occupational illnesses. A heart disease is
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTif it was
compensable COLLEGE
known toOF LAW.
have beenNOT FOR during
present SALE. DO NOT
employment, COLLEGE
there must beOFproof
LAW.that
NOTan FOR
acuteSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF exacerbation
SAN BEDA was clearly precipitated by
REPRODUCE. the unusualOF
PROPERTY strain
SANbyBEDA
reason of the nature of his work.
REPRODUCE. The natureOF
PROPERTY of SAN BEDA
Alcaraz’ duties and the conditions under which he worked were such as to eventually cause the onset of his
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
myocardial infarction. The stresses, the strain, and the exposure to street pollution and to the elements that
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
Alcaraz had to bear for PROPERTY
almost DO
OF NOT
29 years REPRODUCE.
are allBEDA
SAN too real to be ignored. They cannot
UNIVERSITY SALE.
but
PROPERTY leadDOto aNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
deterioration
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
of health particularly with the contributing factors of diabetes and pulmonary disease. Hence, the claim for
deathDO NOTis proper
benefits COLLEGE OFAlcaraz,
(GSIS v. LAW. G.R.
NOT No.
FOR187474,
SALE. DO NOT 6, 2013).
February COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
ERSITY COLLEGEExclusions
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Disability or Death is not compensable if the injury is caused by:
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTa.FOR
Willful
SALE.intention
DO NOT to injure COLLEGE
or kill himself
OForLAW.
another;
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Note: Suicide, provoked death or attributable to one’s own aggression is not compensable. Suicide is
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY compensable
only when it results from insanity resulting from compensable work injury; or occurs during
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF delirium
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
resulting from compensable disease.COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. b. Intoxication;
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c.
PROPERTY
Notorious negligence; or
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
d. SALE. DO NOT
If otherwise excludedCOLLEGE OF LAW.
from coverage NOT
by law FOR CODE,
(LABOR SALE. DO
Art. NOT
178). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
25
PROPERTY OF SAN
74. BEDA
M wasUNIVERSITY
employed as an EngineerPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of 555 Shipping UNIVERSITY
Lines to work aboard the vessel PROPERTY OF SAN
M/V Princess. BEDA UNIVERSITY
While
the vessel was
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT docked, M boarded the ship, visibly drunk,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand challenged those present with an axe,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
injuring P, fellow seaman. A fight between P and M ensued leading to M’s eventual death. Is M’s death
compensable? BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT No, M’s death is not compensable.
REPRODUCE. Under
SALE. DO Article
NOT 178 of the Labor Code, death is not compensable
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOTwhenREPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
caused by a willful intention to injure or kill himself or another. Here, M’s death is attributable to his own
aggression,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. disregard
DO NOThis own personal
COLLEGE safety, and disobedience
OF LAW. of rules
NOT FOR SALE. DOevidenced
NOT byCOLLEGE
his act of boarding
OF LAW.theNOT FOR SALE. D
vessel visibly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAdrunk. Therefore, his death is not compensable.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW.75. X worked as an able seaman and his job required him to paint the ship’s pump room which had poor
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
ventilation thus exposing him to chemicals of the paint and thinner causing him to suffer shortness of
breath BEDApains. He was
and chest REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
able to complete OF SAN BEDA
his contract. REPRODUCE.
Thereafter, he was repatriated,PROPERTY
and he OF SAN BEDA
immediately
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT asked
FORfor his employer’s
UNIVERSITYreferral for a medical
COLLEGE OF LAW. examination,
NOT FOR but such request was
UNIVERSITY ignored. OF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
He consulted his own physician who diagnosed him with a cardiovascular disease and found him
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
disabled for work. Thereafter,
SALE. DO
OF aSAN
he filed
NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
for payment of permanentPROPERTY SALE.
disabilityOF
DO NOT
SAN BEDA
benefits.
REPRODUCE.
His UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR employer
SALE. DOcountered
NOT that X wasOF
COLLEGE repatriated
LAW. NOT notFOR
because
SALE. of
DOhisNOT
illness but because
COLLEGE OFhis
LAW.contract
NOT had
FOR SALE. DO NOT
ended. Is X entitled to permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC despite only being diagnosed
after BEDA of his employment
termination REPRODUCE.contract?
SALE. DO NOT Yes, X is entitled to permanent
REPRODUCE. SALE.disability
DO NOT benefits under the POEA-SEC. A reasonable
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOproof
NOTof REPRODUCE.
work-
connection is sufficient and a direct causal relation is not required. The fact that petitioner was able to pass his
PEME
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR without
SALE. DO anyNOTfinding COLLEGE
that he had OFa LAW.
pre-existing
NOT FORheartSALE.
ailment
DObefore
NOTboarding the vessel
COLLEGE and later
OF LAW. NOT onFOR SALE. DO NO
finding, after
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the termination of his contract that he has acquired
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the said heart ailment, one can conclude that
such illness developed while he was on board the same vessel. Thus, probability, not the ultimate degree of
certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings (Alfredo Mallari Magat v. Interorient COLLEGE
MaritimeOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 232892, April 4, 2018, Covered Case).
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT76.
FOR XSALE. DO NOT as an
was employed COLLEGE OF LAW.
able-bodied seamanNOTby FOR SALE. DO
Y crewing, Inc.,NOT
through ZCOLLEGE
manningOF LAW.for
agency, NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
a term
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF of SAN
9 months.
BEDAFour months later, X diedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. due to multiple organ
OF SAN failure secondary
BEDA to septicemia
REPRODUCE. or bloodOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
poisoning or infection. The employer paid X’s wife USD 1,000 for burial and for death benefits, and
offered USD40,000 for death benefits which was half of the amount provided by the CBA between Z
manning agency and the
seamen union,
PROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
to which
OF SAN X belonged. X’s wife demanded
PROPERTY DO
a full NOT
OFcopy REPRODUCE.
SAN of the UNIVERSITY
BEDA
CBA, but X refused. Consequently, X’s wife filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for money
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR claims.
LA sustained the claim that since the labor union of X was an affiliate of the International
Transport REPRODUCE.
Workers Federation PROPERTY
(ITF), the agreement OFofSAN BEDAprevail overREPRODUCE.
ITF must the CBA andPROPERTY
POEA-SEC.OF SAN BEDA
Was the CA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR correct in affirming the death benefits under
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the ITF agreement over the benefits
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE provided
OF LAW. NOT FOR
under the CBA and POEA-SEC?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR No, theDO
SALE. CA NOT
is incorrectCOLLEGE
in affirmingOFtheLAW.
deathNOT
benefits
FOR under
SALE.theDO
ITFNOT
agreement. The special
COLLEGE OFclauses
LAW. NOTin theFOR SALE. DO NO
CBA must prevail. A contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the more beneficial conditions
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFbe
must SAN BEDA in favor REPRODUCE.
endeavored PROPERTY
of the laborer. This OF SAN with
is in consonance BEDA REPRODUCE.
the avowed policy PROPERTY
of the State to give OF SAN BEDA
maximum aid
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORand full protection to labor as enshrined in
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution (Maersk-Filipinas
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT Crewing, Inc. and AP Moller Singapore
REPRODUCE. SALE.PTE
DO Ltd.
NOT v. Malicse, G.R. No. 200576, November 20,
REPRODUCE. 2017, Covered
SALE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Case). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
UNIVERSITY
77. In 2007, X was employed as GP2 Wiper. Sometime in January 2008, while engaged in the performance
of his duties, he felt a sudden crack on his back which was followed by a severe pain and numbness
of the left side of his body. Subsequently, he was referred to a physician and was given COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
medicine.
SALE. DO Initially, the medicine accorded some relief, but eventually his condition aggravated. Subsequently, X
SAN BEDA
complained of chest pain, and he was then referred to another physician. Upon examination, he was
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR diagnosed
with cervical OFand
neuralgia LAW. wasNOT FOR SALE.
declared unfit toDO NOT
work for fourCOLLEGE
days with OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
a recommendation
that should
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA his medical condition fail to improve,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAhe should be repatriated back. Thereafter,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY X wasOF SAN BEDA
repatriated. On June 17, 2008, X reported to the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, for medical
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
evaluation UNIVERSITY
who confirmed COLLEGE
the diagnosis of X.OF LAW. NOTphysical
X underwent FOR rehabilitation.
UNIVERSITY On COLLEGE
NovemberOF 14,LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN 2008,
BEDA Dr. Cruz assessed his
condition
asSAN
Grade
BEDA10 UNIVERSITY
disability. However, X didSALE.
not DO
PROPERTY NOT
agree, REPRODUCE.
OF and
SAN he
BEDA UNIVERSITY
demanded for the payment of maximum disability compensation. Is X entitled to permanent disability
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.when
benefits DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
the company-designated NOT issued
physician FOR SALE. DO NOT beyond
his assessment COLLEGE OF LAW.
the 120-day NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
period?
No, XNOT
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. is not
FORentitled to permanent
UNIVERSITYdisability
COLLEGEbenefits. The prevailing
OF LAW. NOT FOR rule as it now stands is that
UNIVERSITY the 120-OF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
day initial period may be extended for the purpose of determining the seafarer's grade of disability. The
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA company-designated physician
must OF DO
arriveSAN NOT
at and REPRODUCE.
issue
BEDA a definite assessment of the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
seafarer's
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
fitness REPRODUCE.
toBEDA
work UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR or permanent disability within the period of 120 days. If the company-designated physician fails to give his
assessment within the 120-day period but there is sufficient justification for the delay (e.g. the seafarer's
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
condition required further medical treatment or on-going rehabilitation), the 120-day period shallPROPERTY
be extendedOF SAN BEDA
26
to 240 days. In this case, the PROPERTY OF SAN
disability grading BEDAbyUNIVERSITY
was given PROPERTY
Dr. Cruz 150 days after X's OFevaluation
first medical SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
from repatriation.
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT It was well within the 240-day period. Therefore,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT X is not entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW.disability
to permanent NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
benefits. (Ricky B. Tulabing v. MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc., TSM International Ltd., and/or Capt. Del
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYCastillo,
OF SANG.R.BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
No. 202113, June 6, 2018, Covered Case). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO 78.REPRODUCE.
NOT X, a Filipino seafarer, while the vessel
SALE. was
DO approaching
NOT the port of Hong Kong, he accidentally
REPRODUCE. stepped
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
on the mooring line while preparing to heave the same, as a result he "twisted his right foot and heOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTimmediately
FOR SALE. fell
DOonNOTthe floor." He reported
COLLEGE to the
OF LAW. shipFOR
NOT doctor andDO
SALE. was declaredCOLLEGE
NOT fit to return
OFtoLAW.
work.NOT
A FOR SALE. DO
few months after,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA X alleged another incident. He narrated that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA while he was pulling on the tug line,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY it OF SAN BED
suddenly moved causing his hands to get pulled, hitting the bitts ballard. Thereafter, he was referred
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEtoOF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
a doctor for medical consultation. He was then repatriated back to the Philippines. Upon his arrival, OF LAW. NOT F
SALE. medical tests were conducted, and he was eventually diagnosed with "Right ankle SALE.sprain; Carpal
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDA
Tunnel Syndrome, Bilateral; and Osteochondral Defect Femoral Trochlea, Right Knee." He, thereafter,
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOsurgery
underwent NOT and COLLEGE
physicalOFtherapy.
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Eventually, DO treatment,
after NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
the company-designated
physician
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAdeclared him fit to work. Unsatisfied by the diagnosis,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA respondent consulted his own
REPRODUCE. medical OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
expert. His own doctor issued a medical report, stating that he is now permanently disabled and is
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFtherefore
now permanently unfit to resume his usual sea duties. In light of this, respondent insisted on
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY Does theSALE.
his disability benefits.PROPERTY DO
failure
OF SANto NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
refer toUNIVERSITY
a third doctor render the SALE.
findings
PROPERTY of DOcompany-
OFthe
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
designated physician as to the fitness to work final and binding?
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANYes,BEDA failure to referREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
to a third doctor renders theOFfindings
SAN BEDA
of the company REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
designated physician OF SAN BEDA
as to the
fitness
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTtoFORwork final and binding. It COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY is well settled
OF that
LAW. while
NOTit FOR
is the company-designated physician OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE whoLAW.
is NOT FOR
entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, during the term of the latter's employment, the
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAsame
UNIVERSITY SALE.
is not automatically final,
PROPERTY DO or
binding NOT REPRODUCE.
OFconclusive.
SAN BEDA Should the seafarer disagree
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
with the
assessment,
OF SAN he UNIVERSITY
BEDA
may
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR dispute
SALE. DOtheNOTsame byCOLLEGE
seasonably OFexercising
LAW. NOT his prerogative
FOR SALE.toDO seek
NOTa secondCOLLEGE
opinion and
OFconsult
LAW. aNOT doctorFOR SALE. DO NOT
of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY seafarer's
OF SAN BEDA
doctor of choice,REPRODUCE.
the employer and PROPERTY OFmay
the seafarer SANagree
BEDAjointly to refer
REPRODUCE.
the latter to a PROPERTY
third doctor OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF whose
LAW. NOTdecision
FORshall be final and binding
UNIVERSITY on them.
COLLEGE OFThis
LAW.ruling
NOTis also
FORexplicitlyUNIVERSITY
stated in Section 20 of the
SALE. POEA-SEC. Also, it was settled that the referral to a third doctor is mandatory, and should the seafarer fail to
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DOSANNOTBEDA
abide by this method, the assessment of the company designated physician shall be final and binding (Dohle
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Philman
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOManning
NOT Agency, Inc. Dohle
COLLEGE Limited,
OF LAW. NOTet.FOR
al. v.SALE.
JuliusDO
ReyNOT
Quinal Doble, G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF223730,
LAW. NOTOctober
FOR4,SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF 2017, Covered Case).
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
79.LAW. NOThired
X was FORas able UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
seaman on board OF LAW.
M/T Gulf Coral.NOTWhileFOR UNIVERSITY
on duty closing COLLEGE
the vessel’s OF LAW.
air valve, X NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT slipped and fell on his back.SALE.
REPRODUCE. SinceDO
he experienced
NOT REPRODUCE.pain in his abdomen and hadSALE.
difficulty
DO urinating,
NOT he
REPRODUCE.
was examined and thereafter diagnosed with acute lumbago. Accordingly, he was repatriated. Upon
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
arrival onNOT
February COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
8, 2010, a company-designated DO NOT
physician examined COLLEGE
him. After OF LAW.ofNOT
a series FOR SALE. DO NOT
treatment,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF on
SANJune
BEDA16, 2010 or after 126 days, PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. X was temporarily
OF SANdiagnosed
BEDA with lumbosacral
REPRODUCE. muscular spasm,
for which the company-designated physician gave a Grade 10 partial disability rating and scheduled
himNOT
to FOR
undergo a UNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOF
bone scan. Instead LAW. NOT
following theFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
said recommendation, X consultedOF LAW.
an NOT FOR
independent
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY doctor who SALE.
declaredDO NOT
him to REPRODUCE.
be unfit for sea
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY duty. He then filed SALE.
the DO
claim NOT
for REPRODUCE.
permanent
total disability benefits. Does the lapse of 120 days automatically entitle to total permanent disability?
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, mere
BEDAlapse of theREPRODUCE.
120-day periodPROPERTY
does not automatically
OF SAN BEDA warrant the payment of permanent
REPRODUCE. total OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
disability benefits.
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR An employee's disability becomes permanent
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and total only: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE the
1) when so declared by OF LAW. NOT FOR
company-designated physician; or 2) in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent
total disability, upon the
lapse of the
PROPERTY DO
OF 120- NOT
SAN or REPRODUCE.
240-day
BEDA treatment periods, while
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
the employee's
OF SAN disability
BEDA UNIVERSITY
continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated
physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee's fitness or disability. If the 120 days initial
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF period
SAN BEDA
is exceeded andREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
no such declaration is madeOF SAN BEDA
because REPRODUCE.
the seafarer requires PROPERTY
further medical OF SAN BEDA
attention,
then
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. the FOR
NOT temporary total disability period
UNIVERSITY may beOF
COLLEGE extended up toFOR
LAW. NOT a maximum UNIVERSITY
of 240 days, subject
COLLEGEto the
OFright
LAW. NOT FOR
of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists (C.F.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Sharp Crew Management,
SALE. DO
PROPERTY OFN.NOT
Inc. v. Noel SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA
Orbeta, UNIVERSITY
G.R.
SALE. DO
211111, September 25,PROPERTY
2017, Covered OF NOT
SAN
Case).
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Right
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OFto Self-Organization
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or
GE OF LAW. NOTeducational
FOR SALE.institutions,
DO NOT whether COLLEGE OFforLAW.
operating profitNOT FOR
or not, SALE.
shall haveDO
the NOT COLLEGE OFand
right to self-organization LAW. NOTjoin,
to form, FORorSALE. DO NOT
assistOF
RODUCE. PROPERTY labor
SANorganizations
BEDA of their own choosing
REPRODUCE. for purposes
PROPERTY OF SANof collective
BEDA bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYand OF SAN BEDA
27
PROPERTY OFitinerant
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
workers, self-employed people, PROPERTY OF SAN
rural workers and BEDA
those UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
without any definite employers may OFformSAN
laborBEDA UNIVERSITY
organizations for their
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT mutual aid and protection (LABOR CODE, Art.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 253). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Managerial Employee
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY is an employee SALE.
who is DO NOT
vested REPRODUCE.
with powers
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY or prerogatives to SALE.and
lay down
PROPERTY DOexecute
NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees (IRR of
COLLEGE OF LAW.
LABORNOT CODEFOR SALE.
Book DO NOT
V, Rule COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
I, Sec. 1(hh). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
UNIVERSITYConfidential
COLLEGE OFemployees
LAW. NOT are
FORthose who by reason of their
UNIVERSITY positionsOF
COLLEGE or LAW.
natureNOT
of work
FORare required to assist or act
UNIVERSITY in a
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records
SALE.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OF(Metrolab
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Industries,
UNIVERSITYInc. v. Roldan-Confesor,
PROPERTY SALE.
G.R. No.DO
OF NOT
108855,
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
February
UNIVERSITY28, 1996). The exclusion SALE.
from
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
bargaining
OF REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor
relations is the principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule” (Tunay na Pagkakaisa
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
ng Manggagawa OF SAN BEDA
sa Asia REPRODUCE.
Brewery v. Asia Brewery, G.R. PROPERTY
No. 162025,OFAugust
SAN BEDA
3, 2010). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Payroll master and employees who have access to salary and compensation data are NOT confidential employees.
SALE.
ROPERTY DOTheir
OF SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
positions PROPERTY
do not involve dealing
SALE. DOlabor
OF SAN
with confidential
NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
relations information. AlthoughPROPERTY
SALE. DO NOT
OF Labor
Art. 255 of the SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
Code UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOTlimits the SALE.
FOR ineligibility
DO to join, formCOLLEGE
NOT or assist labor organization
OF LAW. NOT FORto managerial
SALE. DOemployees,
NOT under the doctrine
COLLEGE OF LAW. of necessary
implication, confidential employees are likewise ineligible because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY
not be OF SAN of
assured BEDAtheir loyalty in REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
view of the evident OFinterests
conflict of SAN BEDA and the union REPRODUCE.
can also become PROPERTY
company-OF SAN BEDA
denominated FORpresenceUNIVERSITY
with their COLLEGE(San
in union membership OF LAW.
MiguelNOT FOR
Foods, Inc. v. SanUNIVERSITY
Miguel Corp.COLLEGE
SupervisorsOF&LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOTExempt Union,
REPRODUCE. G. R. No. 146206, August 1, 2011).
80. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT AA Faculty
SALE. DOUnion
NOTfiled a COLLEGE
petition forOF
certification
LAW. NOTelection seeking
FOR SALE. DO to represent
NOT a bargaining
COLLEGE unit NOT
OF LAW. in AAFOR SALE. DO NO
School consisting
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of forty (40) faculty members. AA School
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA opposed the petition, claiming that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY AA OF SAN BEDA
Faculty Union's members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather managerial employees.
AA School then filed a petition for cancellation of AA Faculty Union's certificate of registration on the OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. grounds of misrepresentation in registration and that AA Faculty Union is composed of managerial
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA
employees who are prohibited from organizing as a union. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order denying
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the
SALE. DO NOT
petition COLLEGE
for certification OF LAW.
election on theNOT FOR that
ground SALE.
AADO NOT faculty
School’s COLLEGE
members OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
are managerial
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF employees.
SAN BEDA Was AA School correct in filing
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYa petition
OF for
SANcancellation
BEDA of AAREPRODUCE.
Faculty Union's certificateOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
of registration?
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.Yes, AA School is correct
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
in filing aOF NOT
petition
SANfor REPRODUCE.
cancellation
BEDA of AA Faculty Union’s
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
certificate
of registration.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like AA
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR school
is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to
misrepresentation, REPRODUCE.
false statement PROPERTY
or fraud OF SAN BEDA
under the circumstances enumerated REPRODUCE.
in Art. 247 of thePROPERTY
Labor Code,OF SAN BEDA
as amended.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR AA School's sole ground for seeking cancellation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of AA Faculty Union’s certificate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE of registration
OF LAW. NOT FOR
- that its members are managerial employees and for this reason, its registration is thus a patent nullity for
beingUNIVERSITY SALE.
an absolute violation ofPROPERTY DO NOT
Art. 255 ofOF REPRODUCE.
theSAN BEDA
Labor CodeUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
which declares that managerial DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANare
employees BEDA UNIVERSITY
ineligible
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDO
joinNOT
any laborCOLLEGE
organization
OF--- is, inNOT
LAW. a sense, an accusation
FOR SALE. DO NOTthat AACOLLEGE
Faculty Union is guilty
OF LAW. NOTofFOR SALE. DO NO
misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not managerial employees. Therefore,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYAAOF SAN BEDA
School REPRODUCE.
was correct in filing a petition PROPERTY OF SANofBEDA
for the cancellation REPRODUCE.
the union’s registration (AsianPROPERTY
Institute OF SAN BEDA
Management
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR v AIM Faculty Association, G.R. No. 207971, January
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 23, 2017). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
81. Union A filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the bargaining unit consisting of
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR rank
SALE.and
DOfile
NOTprofessional
COLLEGEandOFtechnical employees
LAW. NOT including
FOR SALE. DO NOT the sales logistics
COLLEGE OFcoordinator
LAW. NOT and
FOR SALE. DO NOT
maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists of Company XYZ.
Company XYZ contends that the latter positions cannot be members of the bargaining unit of the rank
and file employees because they are supervisory employees and confidential employees COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
respectively
SALE. DO who are exposed to the internal business operations of the company. Can the sales logistics
SAN BEDA
coordinator and maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists be
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR members
SALE. DOofNOT COLLEGE
the bargaining unitOF LAW.and
of rank NOTfileFOR SALE. DO NOT
employees? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Yes, the sales logistics coordinator and maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
assurance specialists can be members of the bargaining unit of rank and file employees. Exposure OF LAW. NOT FOR
to internal
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN business
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.isDO
operations of the company
PROPERTY notNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
a ground
SAN for theUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
exclusion in the bargaining DO NOT
unit. Employees
who
BEDA UNIVERSITY
encounter or handle trade secrets and financial information are not automatically classified as confidential
employees. TheNOT COLLEGE
information OF isLAW.
they handle NOT
not the FOR
kind SALE. DO that
of information NOTis relevant
COLLEGE OF LAW.
to collective NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
bargaining
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYnegotiations
OF SAN BEDAand settlement ofREPRODUCE.
grievances as PROPERTY
would classifyOFthem
SANasBEDA
confidential employees. Even if they
REPRODUCE. have
access
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.toNOTinformation
FOR whichUNIVERSITY
are confidential from theOF
COLLEGE business
LAW. NOTstandpoint,
FOR the exercise of their right
UNIVERSITY to self-OF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
organization could not be defeated because their common functions do not show that there exists a confidential
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA relationship within the realm
of labor OF DO
SANNOT
relations thus REPRODUCE.
the
BEDA sales logistics coordinatorPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
and maintenance SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
foreman,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists can be members of the bargaining unit of rank and file
employees (Coca-Cola Bottlers PHL v. Ilocos Professional & Technical Employees Union, G.R. No. 193798,
September 8, 2015). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
28
Supervisory Employees; Right PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of Supervisory UNIVERSITY
Employees PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Supervisory
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Employee
OF SAN BEDAis an employee who, in the
REPRODUCE. interest ofOF
PROPERTY theSAN
employer,
BEDA effectivelyREPRODUCE.
recommends managerial
actions and the exercise of such authority is not routinary or clerical but requires the use of independent judgment (IRR
of LABOR CODE NOT FOR
Book V, Rule I UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
Sec. 1(xx)). Supervisory LAW. NOT
employees shallFOR UNIVERSITY
not be eligible COLLEGE
for membership OF LAW. NOT FOR
in the
SALE. DO collective
NOT bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
REPRODUCE. employees
SALE. DO NOT but may join, form, or assist separate collective
REPRODUCE. SALE. DObargaining
NOT REPRODUCE.
units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors’ union operating
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
within FOR SALE.
the same DO NOTmay join
establishment COLLEGE
the sameOF LAW. NOT
federation FOR SALE.
or national union DO
(Art.NOT
255, LaborCOLLEGE
Code). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
SAN82.
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Union A filed a petition forPROPERTY
SALE. DO
SANNOT
OFelection
certification BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
seeking to represent rank andPROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
file employees.
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
ABC UNIVERSITY
Company
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOfiled
NOTa petition seekingOF
COLLEGE to LAW.
cancel
NOTthe FOR
registration
SALE. DO of NOT
Union A COLLEGE
on the ground that NOT
OF LAW. it has
FOR SALE. DO NO
members who are foremen in the company. Will the union membership of the foremen warrant the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYcancellation
OF SAN BEDA of registrationREPRODUCE.
of Union A? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT No, the union membership of SALE.
the foremen will not warrant the cancellation of registration of DO
Union A. The
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for cancellation of
the registration
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of theCOLLEGE
union. Said OFemployees
LAW. NOT areFOR
automatically
SALE. DOdeemed
NOT removed COLLEGEfrom OFthe LAW.
list of membership
of said
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAunion. Foremen are considered to be supervising
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and instructing the employees under
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYthem, assessing
OF SAN BEDA
and evaluating their performance and making reports and recommending new systems in the company. Since
foremen are not rank and file employees but are rather considered extensions of the management, they are OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT deemed
REPRODUCE. removed from the list of membership
SALE. DO NOT of Union
REPRODUCE. A and the petition shall fail (Lepanto
SALE. DO NOT Consolidated
REPRODUCE.
Mining Company v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, G.R. No. 157086, February 18, 2013, Art. 256, Labor Code).
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. Bargaining unit is a group of employeesSALE.
sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit, SALE.
comprisedNOT
of allREPRODUCE.
or
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping
GE OF LAW. NOTwithin
FOR such
SALE.employer
DO NOT unit (D.O. No. 40-03,
COLLEGE OFRule
LAW. I, Sec.
NOT1).
Factors in Determining the Appropriate Bargaining Unit:
ERSITY COLLEGE OF a.LAW. NOT FORof Interest
Community UNIVERSITY
Doctrine or COLLEGE OF LAW.
Substantial Mutual NOT FOR Rule - UNIVERSITY
Interest COLLEGE
affinity and unity OF LAW. NOT FOR
of employees'
SALE. DO NOT interest, such as substantial similarity
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOof work
NOT and duties, or similarity of compensation
REPRODUCE. and working
SALE. DO NOT conditions
REPRODUCE.
(San Miguel Corp. Employees Union PTGWO v. Confessor, G.R. No 111262, Sept. 19, 1996);
GE OF LAW. NOT FORb. SALE.
GlobeDO NOT - based
Doctrine COLLEGE
on the OF LAW.willNOT
express FOR of
or desire SALE. DO NOT In defining
the employees. COLLEGE the OF LAW. NOT
appropriate FOR SALE. DO NOT
bargaining
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF unit
SANforBEDA
purposes of collective bargaining,
REPRODUCE. the determining
PROPERTY OF SANfactor
BEDAis the desireREPRODUCE.
of the workersPROPERTY
themselves OF
(2 SAN BEDA
AZUCENA, supra at 466-467);
ERSITY COLLEGE OF c.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Employment Status - such as temporary, seasonal, and probationary employee (Philippine Land Air Sea
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDALabor Union v. CIR, G.R. No.
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
L-14656, November
PROPERTY 29, 1960);
OF SAN BEDA and
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
d. Prior Collective Bargaining History - precedent history of collective bargaining between the proposed
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOunit
bargaining NOT and theCOLLEGE
employer.OF LAW.
(Sta. NOT
Lucia FORCommercial
East SALE. DO NOT
Corp. COLLEGE
v. Hon. OF LAW.
Secretary NOTand
of Labor FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Employment,
G.R. No. 162355, August 14,PROPERTY
2009). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTMethods
FOR SALE. DO NOT theCOLLEGE
of determining bargainingOFrepresentative:
RODUCE. PROPERTYa.OF Request
SAN BEDA for SEBA (D.O. No. 40-I-15, Rule
REPRODUCE. VII);
ERSITY COLLEGE OF b.
LAW.Certification election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule VIII);
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
c. Run-off election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule X);
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDAd. UNIVERSITY
Re-run election (D.O. No. SALE.Rule
40-I-15,
PROPERTY DO
OF I,NOT REPRODUCE.
Sec.BEDA
SAN 1(tt)); UNIVERSITY
and SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. Consent election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 10)
RODUCE. PROPERTY
SEBAOFCertification
SAN BEDA is the process REPRODUCE.
whereby thePROPERTY OF SAN aBEDA
DOLE recognizes REPRODUCE.
labor organization as the SolePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and Exclusive
ERSITY COLLEGEBargaining
OF LAW. Agent (SEBA) of theUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR employees inCOLLEGE
the appropriate bargaining
OF LAW. NOT FOR unit. This hasUNIVERSITY
replaced Voluntary Recognition
wherein it is the employer who recognizes the labor organization as the SEBA of the employees (D.O. No. 40-I-15).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Certification
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT election
FOR SALE. is the process
DO NOT of determining
COLLEGE OF LAW.through
NOT FORsecret ballotDO
SALE. theNOT
sole and exclusive
COLLEGErepresentative
OF LAW. NOT of the
FOR SALE. DO NOT
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation (D.O. No. 40-03, Sec.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
1(h). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. Consent election – when the two (2) or more contending unions voluntarily and mutually agree toSALE.
hold the certification
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
election among themselves, with or without the participation and supervision of the DOLE (D.O. No. 40-03, Sec. 1(h)). UNIVERSITY
29
PROPERTY OF SANRules
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Which Prevent the HoldingPROPERTY OF SAN
of a Certification BEDA UNIVERSITY
Election PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Certification
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Year Bar Rule - no petition for certification
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT election may be filed within
COLLEGEone (1)
OFyear
LAW.from the FOR SALE. DO N
NOT
date of a valid certification, consent, or run-off election or from the date of voluntary recognition. The same
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF banSAN BEDA
applies REPRODUCE.
if “no union” won PROPERTY
in the previous election (2OF SAN BEDA
AZUCENA, supra at 487).REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
b. LAW. NOT FOR
Contract-Bar UNIVERSITY
Rule - while a valid andCOLLEGE
registeredOF CBALAW.
of aNOT
fixed FOR UNIVERSITY
duration is subsisting, the COLLEGE
BLR is not OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT allowed to hold an election contesting
REPRODUCE. SALE. the NOT
DO majority status of the incumbent union during
REPRODUCE. its five (5) yearREPRODUCE.
term of representation except during the 60-day period immediately prior to the expiration of the five (5)
year SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR term. The
DOfive
NOT(5) years shall be reckoned
COLLEGE OF LAW.fromNOTtheFORdateSALE.
of effectivity
DO NOT of the CBA (IRR of OF
COLLEGE the LAW.
LABOR NOT FOR SALE. D
CODE, Book
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA V, Rule XVII, Sec. 7, as amended by D.O. No.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 40-03). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
c. Deadlock Bar Rule - a petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending
bargaining FOR submitted
deadlock UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to conciliation OF LAW.
or arbitration or hadNOT FORthe subject
become UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
of a valid notice of OF LAW. NOT
strike or lockout. The principal purpose
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OFisDO
SALE. to ensure
SAN NOT
BEDA stability in the relationship of the workers
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
management (NACUSIP-TUCP v. Dir. Trajano, G.R. No. 67485, April 10, 1992).
PROPERTY OFand
SALE. SANthe
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
d. Negotiation Bar Rule -COLLEGE
a petition OF LAW. NOTelection
for certification FOR SALE.
cannotDObeNOT COLLEGE
entertained if, beforeOF
theLAW. NOT
filing of the FOR SALE. DO N
petition
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfor certification election, the duly recognized or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA certified union has commenced negotiations with
the employer in accordance with Art. 261 of the Labor Code within the one (1) year period referred to in
Sec. 14(d) of D.O. No. 40-03, Rule VIII (certification year rule) (2 AZUCENA, supra at 486- 489).
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Employer as Bystander
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
In allSALE.
cases,DO NOTthe petition
whether COLLEGE OF LAW. election
for certification NOT FOR SALE.
is filed by DO NOT orCOLLEGE
an employer OFlabor
a legitimate LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
organization,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY theOF SAN BEDA
employer REPRODUCE.
shall not be considered a party PROPERTY
thereto with OF SAN BEDAright to oppose
a concomitant REPRODUCE.
a petition forPROPERTY
certificationOF SAN BEDA
election.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. TheNOTemployer’s
FOR participation
UNIVERSITYin such proceedings
COLLEGE OF LAW.shall be
NOTlimited
FORto: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a. Being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAb. UNIVERSITY SALE.during
Submitting the list of employees
OFtheSAN
pre-election SALE. DOact
conference should the Med-Arbiter
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
OFfavorably
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR on the petition
SALE. DO NOT (LABORCOLLEGE
CODE, Art. OF271).
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Run-off election BEDAto an election
– refers REPRODUCE.
between thePROPERTY
labor unionsOF SAN BEDA
receiving REPRODUCE.
the two (2) highest PROPERTY
number of votes in a OF SAN BEDA
certification
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE or consent
OF LAW. NOT election
FOR with three (3) or more
UNIVERSITY choices,OF
COLLEGE where such
LAW. a certified
NOT FOR or consent results in COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY none of theOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. three REPRODUCE.
(3) choices receiving the majority of theSALE.
valid votesNOT
cast;REPRODUCE.
provided that the total number of votes for allDO
contending
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF SANNOT
unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(ss), as amended BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
by D.O.
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FORNo. 40-03).
Re-run election – refers to an election conducted to break a tie between the contending unions, including between
IVERSITY COLLEGE
“NoOF LAW.and
Union” NOT
oneFOR UNIVERSITY
of the unions. COLLEGE
It shall likewise refer toOF
anLAW. NOT
election FOR after UNIVERSITY
conducted COLLEGE
a failure of election OF LAW. NOT FOR
has been
SALE. DO declared
NOT by the election officer and/or affirmed
REPRODUCE. SALE. by the
DO mediator-arbiter
NOT REPRODUCE. (D.O. No. 40-I-15, Rule I,SALE.
Sec. 1(tt)).
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
LEGE OF LAW. NOT83.
FOR On
SALE. DO10,
June NOT2015, a COLLEGE OFcertification
petition for LAW. NOT election
FOR SALE. wasDOfiled
NOTby Union
COLLEGE OF LAW.
A seeking NOT FOR
to represent a SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF bargaining
SAN BEDA unit consisting of rank andPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. file employees.
OF SANIt was
BEDAgranted on July 15, 2015. Previously,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY 20OF SAN BEDA
employees were hired on April 15, 2017. During the election, these 20 employees were questioned on
the ground UNIVERSITY
that they are not eligibleCOLLEGE OF LAW.
voters. Union NOT FORthat they UNIVERSITY
A contends COLLEGE
are eligible voters OF LAW. NOT FOR
because
they were already
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY employees SALE.
three DO NOT
months REPRODUCE.
prior to the
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY decision granting the SALE.
petition. DO NOT
Decide. REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR The
SALE.20 DO NOT are COLLEGE
employees ineligible toOF LAW.
vote NOT
during FOR SALE. election.
the certification DO NOTOnly employees
COLLEGEwho OF are
members
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYof OF
the appropriate
SAN BEDA bargainingREPRODUCE.
unit sought to be represented
PROPERTY OF3 SAN
months
BEDAprior to the filing of the petitionPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. shall be OF SAN BEDA
eligible to vote.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Since they have been employees only for a
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR period of less than two months prior to the filing of
the petition, they are not qualified to vote (D.O. No. 40-I-15, Sec. 6).
OF DOSANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT84.
FOR Union
SALE. ADO is the recognized bargaining agent of X Corporation. On April 15, 2010, they agreed upon a
CBA with a term of 5 years or until April 2015. On the third year of the agreement, the parties decided
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF to SAN BEDA
extend REPRODUCE.
the CBA for two more yearsPROPERTY OF2017.
or until April SAN OnBEDA REPRODUCE.
March 15, 2017, PROPERTY
Union B filed a petitionOF SAN BEDA
for certification
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR election. Should theCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY petition beOFgranted?
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
No, the petition shouldPROPERTY OF NOT
not be granted. SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA
Art. 265 UNIVERSITY
provides
SALE. DO
that any CBA that thePROPERTY
parties may OF
NOT
SAN
enter
REPRODUCE.
intoBEDA
shall, UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR insofar
SALE. as
DOtheNOTrepresentation
COLLEGEaspect
OFisLAW.
concerned,
NOT be
FORforSALE.
a termDOof 5NOT
years. No petition
COLLEGE questioning
OF LAW.theNOT majority
FOR SALE. DO NOT
status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF by SAN BEDAoutside of the
the DOLE REPRODUCE.
60-day period PROPERTY
immediatelyOFbefore
SAN BEDAthe date of expiryREPRODUCE.
of such 5-yearPROPERTY
term of theOF SAN BEDA
CBA.NOT
Here,FOR
the freedom UNIVERSITY
period was on COLLEGE
the year 2015OF because
LAW. NOT the FOR
representationUNIVERSITY
aspect has aCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
term of 5 years
SALE. DO NOT regardless
REPRODUCE. of the extension of the CBA itself.
SALE. DO NOT Since the petition
REPRODUCE. was filed outside the freedom period,
SALE. DO NOT the same
REPRODUCE.
must be denied. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
85. A, B, C, and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 10 other rank and file employees of X Corp.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA were members of YREPRODUCE.
Union, the recognized
bargaining agent. X Corp. and Y Union had a CBA which would expire on June 22, 2017. The president
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFof Y Union advised X Corp. to terminate A, B, C, and the other 10 employees for acts of disloyaltyOF LAW. NOT FO
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
SALE. especially for signing a petition SALE.
for certification election of Union B. It appears that the petition for
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
certification elections was filed on June 12, 2017. Y Union alleges that Article 264 of the Labor Code
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR applies
SALE. DO NOTprovides
which COLLEGE OF LAW.
that it shall be theNOT
dutyFOR SALE.
of both DO NOT
parties COLLEGE
to keep the OF and
status quo LAW. NOT FOR
continue in SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF fullSAN
force and effect the REPRODUCE.
BEDA terms and conditions
PROPERTYof the
OFexisting
SAN BEDAagreement during the 60-day PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. period priorOF SAN BEDA
30
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
its expiration date and/or until a new OFagreement
SAN BEDA is UNIVERSITY
reached by the parties. PROPERTY OF SAN
They claim that A, B,BEDA
C, UNIVERSITY
and 10 other
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT employees violated this provision when
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTthey campaigned for, supported, and signed
Union B’s petition for certification election. If you were the legal counsel of the said employees, how
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYwould
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
you counter the assertions of Y Union? OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT The employees cannot be dismissed.
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO Under
NOT Art. 268 of the Labor Code, while it is
REPRODUCE. incumbent
SALE. DO NOTfor REPRODUCE.
the
employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the BEDA UNIVERSIT
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTexpiration
FOR SALE. of the
DOfreedom
NOT period, they could
COLLEGE OF only
LAW. doNOT
so when
FORnoSALE.
petition
DOforNOT
certification election OF
COLLEGE wasLAW.
filed. The
NOT FOR SALE. DO
provision for
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA status quo is conditioned on the fact that no certification
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA election was filed
REPRODUCE.freedom
during the PROPERTY OF SAN BED
period. The petition for certification election was filed on June 12, 2017. Therefore, under Art. 268, at the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEexpiration
OF LAW.ofNOT FOR period,
the freedom UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
X Corp. no longer has OF LAW. NOT
the obligation to FOR UNIVERSITY
recognize Y Union COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
as the incumbent
bargaining agent when a petition for certification election was filed, as in this case. Moreover, the last DO
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF sentence
SALE.
of Art. 264, which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of the CBA and
UNIVERSITY
does DO NOT
not include COLLEGEaspect
representational OF LAW.
of theNOT
CBA.FOR SALE. DO
An existing CBANOT COLLEGEa bar
cannot constitute OF LAW. NOT
to a filing of FOR
a SALE. DO NO
petition for
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA certification election during the freedom period.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA When there is a representational issue, the status
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFquo
LAW.provision insofar as the need to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply (Picop Resources v.
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Dequilla, G.R. No. 172666, December 7, 2011).
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
OF SANDO NOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
86. There are 600 eligible voters in the bargaining unit sought to be represented. A certification election
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT andCOLLEGE
was conducted OFfollowing
yielded the LAW. NOT FOR What
results. SALE.are
DOthe
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
legal effects?
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITYUnion A
COLLEGE OF LAW.140NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Union B 105
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTYDO NOT REPRODUCE.
Union COF SAN BEDA120 UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT No OF
COLLEGE Union
LAW. NOT FOR 75SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Spoiled Ballots
Abstain
PROPERTY 30OF SAN BEDA
30
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
TOTAL VOTES OF 500 NOT FOR
LAW. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
A valid certification election was conducted. The double majority rule was observed. To have a valid
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO atNOT
election, COLLEGE
least a majority OF LAW.
of ALL NOT FORVOTERS
THE ELIGIBLE SALE. DO NOT MAJORITY)
(FIRST COLLEGE OFunit
in the LAW. NOT
must FOR
have castSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF their
SAN vote.
BEDASince there REPRODUCE.
are 600 eligiblePROPERTY
voters, majority
OF SANof which
BEDA(301) should have casted PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. their vote. 500
OF SAN BEDA
employees casted their vote; thus, the election is valid. The labor union receiving the majority of the VALID
VOTES CAST (SECOND MAJORITY) shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in
the unit. The total number
PROPERTY DO
of the validOF NOT
votes REPRODUCE.
SANcast is 470.
BEDA validSALE.
Spoiled ballots are notPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO
OF NOT
votes cast REPRODUCE.
because
SAN BEDAthey
UNIVERSITY
are torn, defaced or left unfilled in such a manner as to create doubt or confusion or to identify the voter. Thus,
the majority is 236. There is no winner in the certification election. A run-off election between the labor unions
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF receiving
SAN BEDA the 2 highest REPRODUCE.
number of votesPROPERTY OF SANwhen
shall be conducted BEDA REPRODUCE.
an election which provides for PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
three or more
CHOICES
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR results in no choice receiving majority of the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR valid votes cast provided that the total number of votes
for ALL CONTENDING UNIONS is at least 50% of the TOTAL OF VOTES CAST. Since there are four (4)
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAchoices
UNIVERSITY
and the total number SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFthe
of votes of SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
contending SALE.
unions exceeds 50% ofPROPERTY DOcast,
the votes NOT aREPRODUCE.
run-off
election
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.shall be conducted.
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
87. Unions A, B, and C agreed to hold an election without the DOLE intervention to REPRODUCE.
determine thePROPERTY
exclusive OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
bargaining agent. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
During the elections, Union A got majority of the UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
valid votes cast; thus, OF LAW. NOT FOR
it was
SALE. DO NOT recognized
REPRODUCE. as the bargaining agent.
SALE. What
DO is
NOT the effect of
REPRODUCE. DOLE’s non-intervention in the
SALE. election?
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.TheDOconsent
NOT election
COLLEGEis valid;
OF however,
LAW. NOT theFOR
results thereof
SALE. DO shall
NOTnot constitute
COLLEGE a bar
OF to the holding
LAW. NOT FOR of aSALE. DO NOT
certification
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA election for 1 year from the holding of such
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA consent election (IRR of LABOR CODE, Book V Rule
VIII, Sec. 24).
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
ERSITY COLLEGECheck-Off
is a method of deducting from an employee’s pay at prescribed period the amounts due OF LAW.
to the union for NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
fees,
OF SAN finesUNIVERSITY
BEDA or assessments (2 AZUCENA SALE.
PROPERTY DOatNOT
supra OF REPRODUCE.
236).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT
88. FOR SALE.
When is DO NOT
an individual COLLEGE
written OF LAW. NOT
authorization FOR SALE.
for check-off DO NOT
required? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation
fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA individual written authorization
duly OF DO
SANNOT
signed theREPRODUCE.
byBEDA employee.
UNIVERSITYThe authorization shouldSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
specify theNOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
amount,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction (LABOR CODE, Art. 250(o)).
31
89. BCD
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFUnion
SAN is a registered union
BEDA which had
REPRODUCE. a 5-year CBA
PROPERTY with BEDA
OF SAN XYZ Corp. The 60-day freedomPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. period OF SAN BEDA
of the CBA passed without a challenge to BCD Union’s status as bargaining agent. Three of its
members wroteFOR
to the DOLEUNIVERSITY
informing itCOLLEGE OF LAW.
that majority NOT FORintends UNIVERSITY
of its members to disaffiliate COLLEGE
from their OF LAW. NOT FO
mother federation
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY to form another SALE.
union.DO
BCD NOT REPRODUCE.
Union questioned
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the disaffiliation. SALE.
Pending DO NOT
PROPERTYdispute,
the OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
XYZ Corp. stopped the remittance to BCD Union of the union dues that had been checked off from the
worker’s DOand
salaries NOT COLLEGE
recognized the newOFunion.
LAW. Does
NOT the
FORfailure
SALE.toDO NOT
remit COLLEGE
union dues amountOFtoLAW.
ULP?NOT FOR SALE. D
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFYes, the failure
LAW. NOT FOR to remit union dues amounted
UNIVERSITY to ULP.
COLLEGE OFIt LAW.
is a violation
NOT FOR of the duty to bargain collectively
which is a form ULP. Since no petition for certification election challenging the majority status of BCD Union
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
was
BEDA filed during the freedom period,
OF DO
it remained
SAN NOT
the REPRODUCE.
exclusive
BEDA bargaining agent of the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
employees
PROPERTY OF DO
and NOT
XYZ
SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Corporation’s refusal to bargain collectively constitutes ULP. The failure to remit union dues and the voluntary
recognition of the new union were indications of interference with the employee’s right to self-organization
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFconstitutes
which SAN BEDAULP (Ren Transport
REPRODUCE.
Corp. v.PROPERTY
NLRC, G.R.OF No.SAN BEDAJune 27, 2016).
188020, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
90. Union A has a 5-year CBA with X Corp. On the second year of the CBA, Union A submitted its proposal
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
to increase the salaries ofPROPERTY SALE. DOXNOT
OF but
the workers, SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Corp. UNIVERSITY
did not reply. PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
a. DO
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Is there
NOT a violation of the
COLLEGE OFduty
LAW.to bargain
NOT FOR collectively?
b. Will your answer be the same if X Corporation refused to reply on the proposal if the same was
given on the third PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
year of the CBA? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT a. There is no violation ofSALE.
REPRODUCE. the duty
DOtoNOTbargain collectively. Art. 265 provides thatSALE.
REPRODUCE. all other
DOprovisions
NOT of
REPRODUCE.
the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. The mandatory period of
renegotiation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT has not yet arrived.
COLLEGE Therefore,
OF LAW. NOTXFORCorp.’s failure
SALE. DOtoNOT
reply doesCOLLEGE
not constitution
OF LAW.a violation
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
of the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA duty to bargain collectively.
b. No, the answer will not be the same if X Corporation refused to reply on the proposal when COLLEGE
given onOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. the third year of the CBA. Since X Corp. refused to reply on the mandatory period of renegotiation,
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
the same constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain collectively which is a ground for ULP. The CBA
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT by the
proposed COLLEGE
union mayOFbeLAW. NOTlock,
imposed FORstock,
SALE.andDObarrel
NOTon employer
COLLEGE
who OF LAW.to NOT
refused FOR SALE. DO NOT
negotiate
a CBA. The employer
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA which violates
REPRODUCE. the duty
PROPERTY to bargain
OF SAN BEDA collectively,REPRODUCE.
loses its statutory right toOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union. Hence, the
proposals of the union may be adopted as the CBA and consequently, imposed on the employer, lock,
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE.
stock, and barrel PROPERTY
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY DO
(Kiok Loy vs.OF NOT
NLRC, REPRODUCE.
SANG.R.
BEDANo.UNIVERSITY
L- 54334, January 22, 1986). SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Recovery of civil
FOR SALE. DO liability
NOT in theCOLLEGE
administrative proceedings
OF LAW. NOT FOR shallSALE.
bar recovery
DO NOTunder the Civil Code.
COLLEGE No criminal
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
prosecution may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been
first obtained in the administrative proceedings. The final judgement in the administrative proceeding shall not be PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
binding in the criminal
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORmerely as proof of compliance of the requirements
(Art. 258, Labor Code).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT91.
FOR Union
SALE. ADO
informed
NOT X, COLLEGE
its member,
OFthat theNOT
LAW. union wasSALE.
FOR not able
DO to fully deduct
NOT the union
COLLEGE duesNOT
OF LAW. fromFOR
his SALE. DO NOT
salary and that his failure to pay the same would result to sanctions upon him. For failure to pay union
dues, X was suspended. X appealed but it was not acted upon. For two (2) more occasions, X failed to
pay union dues causing his further suspension and finally, his expulsion. His appeals were COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
unheeded
SALE. DO prompting him to file a complaint against Union A for unfair labor practice (ULP). Is the suspension an
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
act of ULP?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the suspension is an act of ULP. All the prohibited
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA acts constituting ULP in essencePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. relate to theOF SAN BEDA
worker’s right to self-organization. Because Union A did not act on X’s appeals, X was unceremoniously
suspended, disqualified UNIVERSITY
and deprived COLLEGE
of his rightOF LAW.
to run for NOT FOR in the union,
a position UNIVERSITY
as well asCOLLEGE
expelledOFandLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN forced to join another union, ForSALE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY these,DO
PROPERTY NOT
Union
OF ASANREPRODUCE.
is guilty of unfair labor practices underSALE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY ArticleDO
PROPERTY 260NOT REPRODUCE.
(a) and
OF SAN (b)
BEDA UNIVERSITY
– that is, violation of petitioner’s right to self-organization, unlawful discrimination, and illegal termination of his
unionSALE. DO NOT
membership (MendozaCOLLEGE
v. MWEU, OFG.R.
LAW. NOT
No. FOR January
201595, SALE. DO25,NOT
2016). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
Unfair labor practices are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to UNIVERSITY
bargain
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FORcollectively
SALE. DOand
NOT otherwise deal withOF
COLLEGE each other
LAW. in anFOR
NOT atmosphere
SALE. DOof freedom
NOT and mutual respect.
COLLEGE OF LAW. It disrupts
NOT FORthe SALE. DO NOT
industrial peace and violated the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization. It does not only
32
violate civilUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
rights alone but also constitute OFoffenses
criminal SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
against the State (Bankard v. PROPERTY
NLRC, G.R. OF
No.SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
171664,
March 6, 2013).
92. SUE-KMU is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of respondent
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMilkyway
LAW. NOT FORAs the existing
Corp. UNIVERSITY COLLEGEMilkyway
CBA between OF LAW.Corp.
NOT FOR
and SUE-KMU UNIVERSITY
was aboutCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
to end, the
SALE. DO NOT President of SUE-KMU informed
REPRODUCE. Milkyway
SALE. DO Corp.
NOT of their intent to open new negotiation
REPRODUCE. SALE. for NOT
DO the year
REPRODUCE.
2015-2018. In response thereto, Milkyway Corp., through a letter, stated that "unilateral grants are by
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTtheir
FORvery nature
SALE. not properCOLLEGE
DO NOT subjects of
OFCBA
LAW.negotiations
NOT FOR SALE.and therefore
DO NOTshall be excludedOF
COLLEGE therefrom."
SUE-KMU contends
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that Milkyway Corp. is guilty of unfair
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor practice due its refusal to
REPRODUCE. bargain on
PROPERTY OF SAN BED
an economic provision, and that Milkyway Corp. set as a precondition for the holding of collective
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEbargaining
negotiations the non-inclusion of the issue of Retirement Plan. Did Milkyway Corp. commit OF LAW. NOT F
unfair labor practice when it considered some economic benefits as unilateral grantsSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
excluded them from CBA negotiations?
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYand OFtherefore
DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, Milkyway
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Corp. is not guilty of unfair labor practice.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA For a charge of unfair labor practice to PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. prosper, it OF SAN BEDA
must be shown that Milkyway Corp. was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFdone
LAW.in NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and that social humiliation, wounded
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
feelings, or grave anxiety
resulted OF DO NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
in disclaiming unilateral
UNIVERSITY grants as proper SALE.
subjects
PROPERTY in DO collective
OFtheir
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
bargaining negotiations. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain
collectively with eachCOLLEGE
other, suchOF LAW. NOT
compulsion FOR
does notSALE.
includeDO
theNOT
commitmentCOLLEGE OF LAW.
to precipitately NOT
accept or FOR
agreeSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF to
SAN
the BEDA
proposals of the REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
other. Herein, the OF bases
union merely SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
its claim of refusal to bargain onPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a letter written
by NOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. Milkyway
FORCorp. However, in the said
UNIVERSITY letter, Milkyway
COLLEGE OF LAW.Corp.
NOTnever
FORrefused to bargain collectively
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE withOFSUE-
LAW. NOT FOR
KMU. The corporation simply wanted to exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDACBA
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
negotiations, on the postulation
PROPERTY NOT
that
OFsuch
SANREPRODUCE.
was
BEDAin the SALE. DO
nature of a unilaterallyPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY granted NOT
benefit
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
(Union of UNIVERSITY
BEDA
Filipro
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Employees-DFA-KMU
DO NOT v. Nestlé
COLLEGE OF Philippines,
LAW. NOTInc.,
FORG.R.
SALE.Nos.
DO158930-31
NOT &COLLEGE
158944-45,
OFMarch
LAW.3,NOT
2008).
FOR SALE. DO NOT
93. SBC BankBEDA REPRODUCE.
and SBC-Employees PROPERTY
Union signed OF SAN
a five-year BEDA bargainingREPRODUCE.
collective PROPERTY
agreement (CBA) with a OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF provision
LAW. NOTtoFOR renegotiate the terms COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY thereof onOFthe third
LAW. year.
NOT FORBefore the commencement
UNIVERSITY of the
SALE. negotiation, the union suggested to the bank, that the bank lawyers should be excluded from the
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
negotiating team. The bank acceded. Meanwhile, the bank’s head negotiator suggested to the union,
that the
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO President
NOT of the federation
COLLEGE OF LAW. to NOT
whichFOR
the SALE.
union DO
wasNOT
affiliated,COLLEGE
be excluded from the
OF LAW. NOTunion’s
FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF negotiating
SAN BEDA panel. The union and the bank failed to agree on the remaining economic provisions of the
CBA. The union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike before the National Conciliation and
OF SAN BEDA
Mediation UNIVERSITY
Board (NCMB). COLLEGE
The union OFthat
alleged LAW.theNOT
bankFOR
committed UNIVERSITY
unfair labor COLLEGE OF LAW.
practice when it NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT interfered with the union’sSALE.
REPRODUCE. choice
DO of
NOTnegotiator.
REPRODUCE.Is the interference in the SALE.
choiceDO ofNOT
the REPRODUCE.
union's
bargaining panel by the bank, tantamount to unfair labor practice? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, the interference
BEDA in the choice of
REPRODUCE. the union'sOF
PROPERTY bargaining
SAN BEDA panel by the bank is not tantamount
REPRODUCE. to unfair
labor practice. Article 259(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer
interferes, restrains orUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
coerces employees in theOF LAW. NOT
exercise FOR
of their UNIVERSITYorCOLLEGE
right to self-organization OFform
the right to LAW. NOT FOR
association.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY The right to SALE. DO NOT
self-organization REPRODUCE.
necessarily
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY includes the right SALE.
to DO
collectiveNOT REPRODUCE.
bargaining.
Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the union to exclude from
itsSALE.
panel DO NOT
of negotiators aCOLLEGE OF LAW.
representative of theNOT FOR
union, andSALE. DObeNOT
if it can COLLEGE
inferred that OF LAW.
the employer NOTthe
adopted FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY said act to
OF SAN yield adverse REPRODUCE.
BEDA effects on the exercise
PROPERTY to right
OF SANto self-organization
BEDA orREPRODUCE.
on the right to collective OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF bargaining,
LAW. NOTULP FORunder Article 259(a) in connection
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE with ArticleNOT
OF LAW. 253 of
FORthe Labor Code is committed.
UNIVERSITY However,
the suggestion made by the bank’s head negotiator should be construed as part of the normal relations and
innocent communications,
which areOF
PROPERTY DO
all SAN NOT
part of REPRODUCE.
the friendly
BEDA relations between PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
the union and DO
OFbank NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN(Standard
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004).
RODUCE. PROPERTY 94.OF On
SAN2002,
BEDA REPRODUCE.
Union A, then the exclusivePROPERTY
bargainingOF SAN BEDA of UR Co.'s
representative REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
rank-and-file employees,OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.entered into a CBA effective
NOT FOR until COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY DecemberOF31,LAW.
2006.NOT
DaysFOR
after the CBA was signed,
UNIVERSITY a certification
election was conducted. Union B won and replaced Union A as the exclusive bargaining representative.
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
UR Co. consistently refused
DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SANa BEDA
to negotiate UNIVERSITY
new collective
SALE.
PROPERTY
bargaining agreement
DO
OF NOT
SAN
with Union
REPRODUCE.
B, BEDA
despiteUNIVERSITY
several
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdemands
NOT from union, OF
COLLEGE allegedly
LAW. NOT due to the SALE.
FOR existing
DOCBA,
NOTwhichCOLLEGE
it signed with UnionNOT
OF LAW. A. Did
FOR URSALE. DO NOT
Co. commit unfair labor practice?
Yes,FOR UNIVERSITY
UR Co. is guilty of unfair laborCOLLEGE
practice.OF LAW.
Under NOT259(g)
Article FOR of the Labor
UNIVERSITY
Code, an COLLEGE
employer isOF LAW. NOT FOR
guilty
SALE. DO NOT of unfair
REPRODUCE. labor practice when it fails in its
SALE. DO NOT duty to bargain in
REPRODUCE. good faith. An employer who refuses to
SALE. DO NOT bargain with
REPRODUCE.
the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an
employer
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOhasNOT
not bargained in goodOF
COLLEGE faith,
LAW.the totality
NOT FOR of allSALE.
the acts
DOofNOT
the employer at the time
COLLEGE of negotiations
must be
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAtaken into account. The 2002 CBA was done
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAonly days before the certification election. When
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Union OF SAN BEDA
A and UR Co. entered into the CBA, they had been aware that a certification election was going to be conducted
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF in
LAW.
a fewNOT
days.FOR UNIVERSITY
In pushing through COLLEGE OF
with negotiations LAW.
instead of NOT
waitingFOR UNIVERSITY
for the outcome COLLEGE
of the election, OF LAW. NOT FOR
UR Co.
SALE. risked needing to renegotiate with a new union if Union A loses. It cannot, thus, invoke the hastily concluded
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA
CBA as an excuse not to bargain with petitioners. If respondent had truly intended to bargain in good faith, it
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
couldDO NOT
have COLLEGE
easily waited OF LAW.
a few more days NOT FOR
to know theSALE.
result DO NOT
of the COLLEGE
certification electionOF LAW. NOT
(SONEDCO FOR SALE. DO NOT
Workers
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Free
SANLabor
BEDAUnion v. Universal Robina Corp.,
REPRODUCE. G.R. No.
PROPERTY OF220383,
SAN BEDA October 5, 2016).
33
95. Tipsy Beer suffered
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT an economic crisis. To curve this, it
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTimplemented an early
COLLEGE OF program.
retirement LAW. NOT A FOR SALE. DO N
number of employees of the Paranaque Tipsy Beer Plant availed of such program which resulted in
several BEDA being created.
vacancies REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
This prompted OF SAN Tipsy
the Paranaque BEDABeer Worker’s
Union to negotiate
with NOT FORfor the filling
the company UNIVERSITY COLLEGENoOF
up of vacancies. LAW. NOT
resolution FOR
was reached onUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
the matter. Paranaque
SALE. DO NOT Tipsy Beer thereafter, engaged theSALE.
REPRODUCE. services
DO of JLN
NOT Co. to provide manpower services.
REPRODUCE. The Union filedREPRODUCE.
SALE. DO OF SAN
a Notice of Strike based on the ground of ULP for contracting out services regularly performed by BEDA UNIVERS
members.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Was DO
FOR SALE. the NOT
ground valid?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
No, the ground for the notice of strike is not valid. JLN Co. was engaged by Paranaque Tipsy Beer to meet
business exigencies created by the economic crisis which resulted in several vacancies being created. COLLEGE
The OF LAW. NOT
company’s action to contract-out services and DO
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF functions
SANNOTBEDAperformed by the Union members did SALE.
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY not constitute
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
unfair labor practice as this was not directed at the member’s right to self-organization. Hence, there was no
ULP and theDO NOTcited by
ground COLLEGE
the UnionOFisLAW.
invalidNOT FOR Santos
(General SALE. DO NOT Plant
Coca-Cola COLLEGE OF LAW.
Free Worker’s NOT
Union v. FOR SALE. DO N
Coca-Cola Bottlers
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PHL Inc., G.R. No. 178647, February 13,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 2009). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
3 3
LEGE OF LAW. NOTUnder
FORArticle
SALE.259
DOofNOTthe LaborCOLLEGE
Code, theOFunfair
LAW.labor
NOTpractices
FOR SALE. of employers
DO NOT are the following:
COLLEGE (RAF-C
OF LAW. D ) FOR SALE. DO NOT
NOT
1. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Right to self-organization;
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY 2. OF
ToSAN BEDA
pay negotiation REPRODUCE.
or Attorney’s PROPERTY
fees to the union or itsOF SAN or
officers BEDA REPRODUCE.
agents as part of the settlementPROPERTY
of any issueOF SAN BEDA
in collective UNIVERSITY
bargaining or COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
any other dispute; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT 3. To initiate, dominate, assist or
REPRODUCE. otherwise
SALE. DO NOT interfere with the Formation or administration
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOofNOTany REPRODUCE.
labor
organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters; BEDA UNIVERSITY
4. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT To require
SALE. as
DOa NOT
Condition COLLEGE
of employment that a NOT
OF LAW. person
FORor an employee
SALE. DO NOTshall not COLLEGE
join a laborOF
organization
LAW. NOTorFOR SALE. DO NO
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs (Yellow-Dog Contract);
5. To Contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. 6. To grossly violate a Collective bargaining agreement;
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
7.
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
To Discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR encourage
SALE. DO or NOT COLLEGE
discourage OF LAW.
membership in anyNOT
laborFOR SALE. DO
organization. NOT in thisCOLLEGE
Nothing Code or inOF LAW.
any otherNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
law shall
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF stop theBEDA
SAN parties from requiring membership
REPRODUCE. in a recognized
PROPERTY OF SAN collective
BEDA bargaining agent as a PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. condition forOF SAN BEDA
employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of
the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the
recognized collective bargaining
PROPERTY DO
agentOF
mayNOT REPRODUCE.
be BEDA
SAN assessed a reasonable fee equivalent
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to the DO
PROPERTY dues
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
andBEDA
SAN other UNIVERSITY
fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR benefits
SALE. DO NOT
under COLLEGE
the collective OF LAW.
bargaining NOT FOR
agreement: SALE. that
Provided, DO NOT COLLEGE
the individual OF LAW.
authorization NOTunder
required FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN242,
Article BEDA paragraph (o) REPRODUCE.
of this CodePROPERTY OF SAN
shall not apply BEDA
to the non-members REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of the recognized collectiveOF SAN BEDA
bargaining
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORagent; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
8. To Dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being
about
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA SALE.
to give testimony underPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
this Code; orOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT 9. FOR
To violate
SALE.the
DODuty
NOTto bargain collectively
COLLEGE as prescribed
OF LAW. NOT FOR by the Labor
SALE. DOCode
NOT(LABOR CODE, Art.
COLLEGE OF 259).
Totality of Conduct Doctrine - the culpability of employer’s remarks is to be evaluated not only on the basis PROPERTY
of their OF SAN BEDA
implications, but is
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR appraised against the background of and in conjunction
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR with collateral circumstances (The Insular
SALE. DO Life Assurance
NOT REPRODUCE.Co., Ltd, Employees Assoc.—NATU
SALE. v. The
DO NOTInsular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No.SALE.
REPRODUCE. L-25291, January
30, 1971). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Under Art. 260 of the Labor Code, the unfair labor practices of labor organizations are the following:
SALE. DO
SAN(GRADE-V)
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
1. To (Grossly) violate a collective bargaining agreement.
2. To DO NOT
Restrain or coerceCOLLEGE
employeesOF in
LAW.
the NOT FORofSALE.
exercise their DO
rightNOT COLLEGE OFHowever,
to self-organization. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
a labor
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAshall have the
organization REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
right to prescribe OFrules
its own SANwithBEDA REPRODUCE.
respect to the acquisition orPROPERTY
retention ofOF SAN BEDA
membership;
3. To Ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN collective
bargaining or any other
PROPERTY DO NOT
dispute; OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
4. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT To cause
SALE.orDOattempt
NOT to cause an employer
COLLEGE OF LAW. to NOT
Discriminate
FOR SALE.against
DO an
NOT employee, including
COLLEGE OFdiscrimination
against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY anOF SAN BEDA
employee REPRODUCE.
on any ground other PROPERTY
than the usual terms andOF SAN BEDA
conditions REPRODUCE.
under which membership PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
or continuation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFof LAW.
membership
NOT FORis made available to other members;
SALE. 5.REPRODUCE.
To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
things of value, in the nature of an Exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR including
SALE. DOtheNOT
demand for fee for union
COLLEGE negotiations;
OF LAW. NOT FOR or SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
6. To Violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
employees (LABOR CODE, Art. 260).
34
Strikes
SALE. DO NOT
SANisBEDA
Strike UNIVERSITY
the temporary
SALE.
stoppage of workPROPERTY
DO NOT
OF SAN
by the concerted
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
action UNIVERSITY
of the
SALE.
PROPERTY
employees as a result of
DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
a labor or industrial BEDA UNIVERSIT
dispute
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT (IRR
FORof SALE.
LABORDOCODE
NOTBook V,COLLEGE
Rule I, Sec.
OF1(vv)).
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
REPRODUCE.Picketing
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
Picketing is a device used by the union to bolster their strike. It refers to outside patrolling or marching to and
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF SANfro
DO NOT
the strikers at the company’s premises usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known
of REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW.the
NOT FOR
facts SALE.inDO
involved NOTdisputeCOLLEGE
a labor OF LAW.
(IBM v. NLRC, G.R.NOT FOR SALE.
No. 91980, DO1991).
June 27, NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Lockouts
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
Lockout is the temporary refusal
of an employer to NOT
furnish work as a result of a labor
UNIVERSITY SALE.
or industrial
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFdispute
SAN (IRRREPRODUCE.
BEDA of
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTLABOR CODE Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(gg)).
Requisites REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
for a Valid Strike REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT Substantive Requirement
a. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
It must be based on serious and substantial grounds involving a bargaining deadlock and/or unfair labor
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR practice; and NOT
SALE. DO COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. These have
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA not been brought to voluntary or compulsory
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA arbitration. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Procedural Requirement: (GF-SARC-7) COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO 1.
SANNOT A strike
REPRODUCE.
BEDA must
UNIVERSITY be based on a valid
PROPERTY and factual
SALE.
OF DO Ground;
SANNOT a strike
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITYor lockout must be based
PROPERTY on either:
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Collective Bargaining Deadlock (economic); or
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
b. SALE.
UnfairDO NOTPractice
Labor COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
(political). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY
2. AOF SANofBEDA
notice REPRODUCE.
strike or lockout must be FiledPROPERTY
with NCMB-DOLE:OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a. At least
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 30 days from the intended date thereof, if
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the issues involved arose from a collective
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEbargaining
OF LAW. NOT FOR
deadlock; or
OPERTY OF SAN BEDAb. UNIVERSITY
At least 15 days from the
SALE.
PROPERTY DO
intended OF
NOT
SAN
date,
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
if the issuesUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
raised are in the nature
DO NOT
OF SAN
of unfair labor
REPRODUCE.
BEDAorUNIVERSITY
practices;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Immediately,
c. SALE. DO NOTin caseCOLLEGE
of dismissal
OFfrom
LAW. NOT FORofSALE.
employment their officers
DO NOT duly elected in accordance
COLLEGE OF LAW.withNOT
the union’s
FOR SALE. DO NOT
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened.
3. A notice must be Served to the NCMB-DOLE at least 24 hours prior to the taking of strike or lockout vote by
ERSITY COLLEGE OF secret
LAW. balloting,
NOT FORinformingUNIVERSITY
said office ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the decision NOTaFOR
to conduct UNIVERSITY
strike or lockout COLLEGE
vote, and the date,OF LAW. NOT FOR
place
and time thereof
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY (IRR of the SALE.
LABOR DO
CODE, NOT REPRODUCE.
Book V, Rule
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYXXII, Sec. 10, as amended SALE.
by DO
D.O. NOT
No. REPRODUCE.
40-03)
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA ; UNIVERSITY
4. The decision to strike must be Approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTconcerned
FOR SALE. DO NOT
obtained COLLEGE
by secret OFtheLAW.
ballot; and NOTtoFOR
decision SALE.
declare DO NOT
a lockout must be COLLEGE
approved by OFa LAW. NOT
majority FOR SALE. DO NOT
of the
boardOF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY of SAN
directors
BEDA of the employer corporation or
REPRODUCE. associationOF
PROPERTY or SAN
of theBEDA
partners in a partnership
REPRODUCE.obtained by secret OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
NIVERSITY COLLEGE ballot in a meeting
OF LAW. NOT FORcalled for the purpose. A report
UNIVERSITY of theOF
COLLEGE strike or lockout
LAW. vote must beUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR filed with the NCMB
COLLEGEat least
OF LAW. NOT FOR
7 days before the intended strike or lockout;
SALE. DO NOT
5. A UNIVERSITY
strike or lockout vote Report SALE.
should OF
PROPERTY DO NOT
be submitted REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDAtoUNIVERSITY
the NCMB-DOLE at least SALE.
seven (7)OF
PROPERTY DO
days
SAN NOT
before REPRODUCE.
BEDAtheUNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FORintended dateNOT
SALE. DO of strike or lockout; subject
COLLEGE OF LAW. to the
NOTcooling-off
FOR SALE. period;
6. Except in cases of union busting, the Cooling off period prescribed by law should be fully observed; and
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
7. The sevenBEDA
(7) day waitingREPRODUCE.
period or strikePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ban after submission REPRODUCE.
of strike or lockout vote to thePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
NCMB-DOLE
ERSITY COLLEGE OF should
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
be fully observed in ALL cases, including union busting (NCMB Primer on Strike, Picketing, and OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO Lockout).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTAFOR SALE.
“wildcat DOisNOT
strike” COLLEGE
a strike which OF LAW.byNOT
is one declared FORofSALE.
a group DOwithout
workers NOT formal
COLLEGE OF LAW.
union approval NOT FOR
(Violation of Art.SALE. DO NOT
278 of the Labor
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Code). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGEWhen
OF LAW. NOT FOR
is Strike Illegal UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Noted authority in labor law, Ludwig Teller, lists 6 categories of an illegal strike, viz:
a. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY functions;
NIVERSITY COLLEGE b.OF When
LAW. itNOT
violates
FORa specificUNIVERSITY
requirement of law suchOF
COLLEGE as Art.
LAW. 278NOT
of the Labor CodeUNIVERSITY
FOR on the requisites of a valid
strike;
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDAc. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
When it is declared for an
SALE. OF DO
unlawful purpose,SANNOT
BEDA
such
REPRODUCE.
as UNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
inducing the employer to commit OF DO
an unfair SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
labor BEDA UNIVERSITY
practice
against
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOnon-union
NOT employees;
d. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers;
RODUCE. PROPERTYe.OF When
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
it is declared in violation of an existing injunction or BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
35
PROPERTY OF SANf. BEDA
WhenUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
it is contrary to an existing agreement,OF SAN
such as aBEDA UNIVERSITY
no-strike PROPERTY
clause or conclusive arbitration OF(Toyota
clause SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Motors PHL
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTWorkers Assn. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT October 19, 2007).
Legal Strike vs. Illegal Strike
Basis of
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Legal Strike Illegal Strike
Distinction
One called for a valid purpose and One staged for a purpose not recognized by law
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
As to Nature OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
conducted through means authorized by or if for a valid purpose, it is conductedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
through
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.law. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE means OF LAW. NOT FOR
not sanctioned by law. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
As NOT
SAN its REPRODUCE.
toBEDA effects Officers are not liable
UNIVERSITY SALE.
for resulting
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFdamages.
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Officers are liable for resulting
UNIVERSITY SALE.
damages.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFThose REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
on the union They will not lose employment by reason who knowingly participates in an illegal strike may
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. thereof.
officers DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
lose DO NOTby reason
employment COLLEGE
thereof.OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANThey
As to its effects BEDAare not civillyREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
liable for participating OF SAN
in They BEDAliable for personally
are civilly REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
participating in OF SAN BEDA
to the OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE members a valid
LAW. NOT FORstrike. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF unlawful LAW. NOT actsFORduring the strike and they COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY may lose OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. of the union
DO NOT employment by reason thereof. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT96.
FOR ASALE. DO NOT are union
and company COLLEGE OF LAW.
members NOTUnion.
of XYZ FOR SALE.
They DO NOT
participated inCOLLEGE
a lawful OF LAW.
strike NOT EJK
against FOR SALE. DO NOT
Corp. Since
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA there was stoppage of work and EJK cannot
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA stop its productions, it hired replacements
for A and company. After a few days, a memo was sent by XYZ to A and company dismissing them
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
from work. Was XYZ’s act of dismissing A and company correct? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
No XYZ’s act of dismissing A and company is not correct. A union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strikeDO NOT to COLLEGE
is deemed have lost hisOFemployment
LAW. NOTstatus,
FOR SALE.
but a DO NOT
union member COLLEGE OF LAW.
who is merely NOTorFOR SALE. DO NO
instigated
induced to
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA participate in the illegal strike is more benignly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA treated. Part of the explanation for the benign
consideration for the union member is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who are misled into
supporting illegal strikes, absent any finding that such workers committed illegal acts during the period of the
illegal strikes. Since there PROPERTY
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY is no proofSALE.
that DO
OFtheSAN NOT REPRODUCE.
employee-members
BEDA UNIVERSITY committed illegal SALE.
acts during
PROPERTY theDO
OF NOT
strike,
SAN REPRODUCE.
their
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR dismissal
SALE. DOisNOT
illegal (Malayang Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Balanced Foods v. NLRC, G.R No. 160302,
September 27, 2010).
97. X Union was
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the recognized bargaining agent of rank
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and file employees of A Corp.
UNIVERSITY The latter
announced the implementation of a job evaluation program. X Union demanded the suspension of the
said program contending
SALE.
OF SAN ULP.
that it constitutes BEDAIt UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
also informed A Corp. that
DO NOT
OF SAN
it will exercise
REPRODUCE.
itsBEDA
right UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to concerted
SALE. DO NOT action. COLLEGE
X Union members
OF LAW. picketed
NOT FORduring
SALE. their
DO NOTbreak time. The union
COLLEGE members
OF LAW. NOTalso
FOR SALE. DO NOT
conducted a strike by blocking the entry and exit points of the company premises preventing other
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF employees from entering and leaving the same. A Corp. filed a complaint questioning the validity ofOF SAN BEDA
the strike. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
It issues a return-to-work OF striking
order to the LAW. NOT FOR but only
employees UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
10 complied OF LAW. NOT FOR
prompting
SALE. DO NOT the corporation to dismiss the
REPRODUCE. employees
SALE. DO NOTwho continued the concerted action. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a. Is the
SALE. DO strike
NOT illegal?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that the REPRODUCE.
b. Assuming strike is illegal, was the dismissal
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAof everyone who participatedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. therein OF SAN BEDA
justified?
SALE. DO NOT a. Yes, the strike is illegal. The
REPRODUCE. strikeDO
SALE. staged
NOT by the union did not comply with Art. 278.
REPRODUCE. TheyDO
SALE. didNOT
not (a)
REPRODUCE.
file a notice of strike with the DOLE, (b) observe the cooling-off period, and (c) submit the result of the
strike COLLEGEthey
vote. Moreover, OF obstructed
LAW. NOTthe FOR SALE.toDO
ingress andNOT
egress from COLLEGE OF LAW.
its offices. Thus, NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the strike
commenced
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by the union is illegally conducted.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.b.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
No, the dismissal of those who participated is not justified. There is a need to distinguish between the
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA officers and the members
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTYof theDO
OF NOT
union
SANwhoREPRODUCE.
participated
BEDA SALE. may
in an illegal strike. PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY The officers DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
be deemed
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
dismissed from their employment upon a finding that they have knowingly participated in the illegal
strike, COLLEGEofOF
but the members theLAW. NOTsuffer
union shall FOR SALE.
the sameDOfate
NOT COLLEGE
only if they are shownOFtoLAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
have knowingly
participated in theREPRODUCE.
commission ofPROPERTY
illegal acts OF SANtheBEDA
during REPRODUCE.
strike. Since it was not proven PROPERTY
that all thoseOF SAN BEDA
who
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT were dismissed
FOR committed
UNIVERSITY illegal acts
COLLEGE OFduring
LAW.theNOTstrike,
FOR the termination of their employment
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF wasLAW. NOT FOR
unjustified and illegal (HSBC Employees Union v. NLRC, G. R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
98. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Union A and
SALE. DO XNOTCorp. entered
COLLEGEintoOFa LAW.
CBA with
NOTaFOR“noSALE.
strike,
DOnoNOT
lockout”COLLEGE
rule. WhenOFthey
LAW.started
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
renegotiations of the CBA, they were not able to arrive at an agreement thus resulting into a bargaining
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN This
deadlock. BEDAprompted Union REPRODUCE.
A to filePROPERTY
a notice ofOF SAN and
strike BEDAto undergo REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
all the procedures for OF SAN BEDA
conducting
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTa valid
FOR strike. XUNIVERSITY
Corp. questioned the strike
COLLEGE on the
OF LAW. ground
NOT FOR that it violated the “no
UNIVERSITY strike, noOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
lockout” rule. Is the strike valid?
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. No,DOthe NOT
strike is notCOLLEGE
valid. A strike may be
OF LAW. regarded
NOT as invalid
FOR SALE. DO although
NOT theCOLLEGE
labor union
OFcomplied
LAW. NOT withFOR
the SALE. DO NOT
strict requirements for staging one as provided in Art. 278 when the same is held contrary to an existing
agreement, such as the no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. No law or public policy prohibits the
OF SAN BEDA
36
Union and the Company form PROPERTY OF SAN
mutually waiving theBEDA
strike UNIVERSITY
and lockout option availablePROPERTY
to them toOF SAN
give wayBEDA
to UNIVERSITY
voluntary arbitration.
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Since the strike was committed in violation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the no strike, no lockout rule, the same is
illegal (C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 155109, March 14, 2012).
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
99. OFXLAW.
UnionNOT
filedFOR
a notice of UNIVERSITY
strike againstCOLLEGE OFillegal
A Corp. for LAW.dismissal
NOT FORand suspension.
Subsequently, A LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT Corp. informed the SOLE of its SALE.
REPRODUCE. plan toDO
retrench
NOT one hundred seventy-one employees.
REPRODUCE. SALE. OnDOaccount
NOT of
REPRODUCE.
this action of A Corp, X union immediately filed a notice of strike and subsequently conducted a strike
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwith
FORallSALE.
the requirements
DO NOT provided
COLLEGEbyOFlaw on the
LAW. NOTground that they
FOR SALE. believed in
DO NOT good faith
COLLEGE that their
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
employer was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA performing acts which constitutes unfair
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor practice. A Corp.
REPRODUCE. action
filed an PROPERTY OF SAN BED
questioning the validity of the strike. It was later found that no ULP was being committed rendering
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEthe
OFstrike
LAW.illegal
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
for not having COLLEGE
a valid cause. Are theOF LAW.
union NOT FOR
officers UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
considered dismissed?
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, the union officers are not considered dismissed. A Corp. enforced its retrenchment program at a time
when DOwas
there NOT COLLEGE
an ongoing disputeOF LAW. NOT
between it andFOR
the SALE.
union DO NOT the dismissal
regarding COLLEGEandOF suspension
LAW. NOT ofFOR SALE. DO NO
employees.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA This engendered an honest belief on the part
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the union that A Corp.
REPRODUCE. committing
was indeed PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ULP which impelled them to stage a strike to protect their basic rights. Their strike was justified by belief in
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFgood
LAW.faith
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
that the employer was committing ULP. Good faith saves the strike from being declared illegal and
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
the strikers from being declared
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY toSALE.
have DOtheir
lost
OF SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
employment
UNIVERSITY status. PROPERTYSALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Note:DO NOT claim
A union’s COLLEGE OF LAW.
of good faith is notNOT FOR
a valid SALE.toDO
excuse NOT with COLLEGE
dispense OF LAW.
the procedural steps NOT
for a FOR
lawfulSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF strike.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
People’s Industrial PROPERTY
and Commercial OF SAN
Employees BEDA Organization
& Workers REPRODUCE.
v. PICC did PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
not rule that
procedural
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR requirements can be dispensed
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEwith,OF
even if the
LAW. Union
NOT believed inUNIVERSITY
FOR good faith that ULP wasOF
COLLEGE being
LAW. NOT FOR
committed. The good faith defense invoked in Philippine Metal Foundries v. CIR had been decided in 1979.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAWith
UNIVERSITY SALE.
the enactment of R.A. PROPERTY
No. DOcompliance
6715, NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN with the
BEDA SALE.
for the DO
procedural requirementsPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NOT
validity ofREPRODUCE.
OF SAN a strike
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORis SALE.
now mandatory
DO NOT (Grand Boulevard
COLLEGE OF Hotel
LAW.v.NOTGenuine Labor DO
FOR SALE. Organizations
NOT in Hotel Restaurant
COLLEGE OF LAW. &NOT Allied
FOR SALE. DO NOT
Industries, G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003).
NIVERSITY COLLEGE100.
OF Union
LAW. NOTA filed a notice of
FOR strike and notice
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEfor OF
the LAW.
conduct
NOT ofFOR
strike vote UNIVERSITY
on April 8. On April 10,OF
COLLEGE it LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. conducted a strike vote and submitted its result on the same day. Union A conducted a strike on May
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
8. Is the strike valid?
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes, the strike is valid. It is possible that the union may conduct a strike vote and to report the results of
SANsame
within the statutory cooling-off period. What is important is that there be compliance with the two
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT the
periods, FORcooling-offUNIVERSITY
period and the COLLEGE OF ban
7-day strike LAW. NOTv.FOR
(NFSW UNIVERSITY
Ovejera, G.R. COLLEGE
No. L- 59743, May 31, OF LAW. NOT FOR
1982).
Note: In the event the results of the strike or lockout vote is filed within the cooling-off period, the 7-day
requirement shall be COLLEGE OFthe
counted from LAW.
day NOT FORthe
following SALE. DO NOT
expiration COLLEGE
of the cooling OF (NFSW
off period LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
v. Ovejera,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF G.R.
SANNo. L- 59743, MayREPRODUCE.
BEDA 31, 1982). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
101. NOT FOR
A “Welga ng Bayan”UNIVERSITY
was staged COLLEGE
to protest OF
the LAW. NOT FOR
accelerating UNIVERSITY
price of rice. Union A led COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
by its officers
staged a work
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY stoppage SALE.
which DO
lasted NOT
for REPRODUCE.
several days
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYwhich prompted the SALE.
company DO
theyNOT
are REPRODUCE.
working
for to file a petition to declare the stoppage illegal. Was the stoppage of work illegal?
No, the stoppage of work REPRODUCE.
is not illegal. PROPERTY OFtemporary
A strike is any SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
stoppage of work PROPERTY
by the concerted action OF SAN BEDA
of employees
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR as a result of a labor or industrial dispute.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR In this case, there exists no
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE the
labor dispute between OF LAW. NOT FOR
employer and the employees therefore their concerted action cannot be considered as a strike. However, in
BIFLEX PHL, Inc. LaborPROPERTY
Union (NAFLU) DO NOT
v. FILFLEX
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA Industrial
UNIVERSITY & Manufacturing PROPERTY SALE. DO
Corp, the Supreme
OF SAN NOT
Court
BEDAREPRODUCE.
held
UNIVERSITY
that the stoppage of work due to “Welga ng Bayan” is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy
strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF their
SANterms
BEDAand conditionsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of employment. EmployeesOFwho
SANhave
BEDA REPRODUCE.
no labor dispute PROPERTY
with their employer OF SAN BEDA
but who,
on NOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. a day FOR
they are scheduled to work,COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY refuse to work and instead
OF LAW. join a welga UNIVERSITY
NOT FOR ng bayan commit an illegal
COLLEGE OFwork
LAW. NOT FOR
stoppage (G.R. No. 155679, December 19, 2006).
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
102. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR MalouDOWang
NOTGarments Inc. temporarily
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT stopped its operations
FOR SALE. DO NOT because of adverse
COLLEGE OF LAW.effects
NOT ofFORtheSALE. DO NOT
economic crisis in the country. The union in the factory immediately protested the temporary
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF shutdown.
SAN BEDABecause its REPRODUCE.
CBA with MalouPROPERTY
Wang wasOF expiring
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
during the period PROPERTY
of shutdown, OF SAN BEDA
the union
claimed UNIVERSITY
the Malou Wang halted itsCOLLEGE OFtoLAW.
operations avoidNOT FORto bargain
its duty UNIVERSITY
collectively.COLLEGE
The unionOF LAW. NOT FOR
went
SALE. DO NOT on strike and picketed the main
REPRODUCE. gates
SALE. and deliberately
DO NOT REPRODUCE. prevented persons and vehicles
SALE. DOfrom
NOTgoing into
REPRODUCE.
and out of the compound of Malou Wang Garments. The latter filed a petition for injunction with a BEDA UNIVERSITY
prayer
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.forDO
TRO
NOTin the NLRC. The OF
COLLEGE NLRC
LAW.directed the union
NOT FOR SALE.toDOrefrain
NOTfrom preventing
COLLEGE OF access
LAW.toNOT
Malou
FOR SALE. DO NOT
Wang’s property.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA The union violated such order. The officers
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and members were then dismissed. Upon
complaint of the union, the LA found Malou Wang guilty of illegal dismissal because the it did not file
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF aLAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
petition to declare the strike illegal. Was the Labor Arbiter correct? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the Labor Arbiter is not correct. Article 279(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO from
picketing NOTobstructing
COLLEGE OF ingress
the free LAW. NOT FOR
to and SALE.
egress DOtheNOT
from employer’sCOLLEGE OFSince
premises. LAW.theNOT FOR
union wasSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF found by the NLRC to have
SAN BEDA prevented PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. the free entryOF
into andBEDA
SAN exit of vehicles from Malou Wang’s
REPRODUCE. compound,
37
the union’s officers and employeesPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
clearly committed UNIVERSITY
illegal acts PROPERTY
in the course of the strike. The use ofOFunlawful
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
means in the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTcourse of a strike renders such strike illegal.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Therefore, the strike was ipso facto illegal.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT The filing FOR SALE. DO N
of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. Hence, the LA was wong in finding that it was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANforBEDA
necessary REPRODUCE.
Malou Wang Garments to first PROPERTY
file a petitionOF SAN BEDA
to declare the strike illegalREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
before terminating the OF SAN BEDA
union’s NOT and
officers FORmembersUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
(Jackbilt Industries Inc. v.OF LAW.Employees
Jackbilt NOT FORWorkers Union, UNIVERSITY
G.R. Nos.COLLEGE
171618-OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT 19, March 20, 2009).
SALE. DO OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
The Secretary
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. of Labor
NOT may
FORassume UNIVERSITY
jurisdiction over a strike when
COLLEGE there NOT
OF LAW. existsFOR
a labor dispute causing or is
UNIVERSITY likely
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. The power of assumption of jurisdiction
SALE.
PROPERTY OForDO
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
certification by the Secretary of LaborPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OFifDO
is in the nature NOT
a police
SAN REPRODUCE.
power
BEDA measure (Philtread Workers
UNIVERSITY SALE.
Union
PROPERTY v.OF DO
SANNOT
Secretary REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, March 12, 1997).
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto the National
Industries Indispensable REPRODUCE.
Interest: PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
1. OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Hospital
LAW.sector;
2. Electrical power supply;
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
3. UNIVERSITY
Water supply services, to PROPERTY
SALE.
exclude smallOF
DOsupply
SAN
water
NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
services PROPERTY
such as bottling and
SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN
refilling stations; BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
4. Air
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR traffic
SALE. DO control;
NOT and COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
5. Such other industries as may be recommended by the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC)
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo.
(D.O. BEDA REPRODUCE.
40-H-13, Rule XXII, Sec. 16). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOTConditions
REPRODUCE. for a Valid Exercise of theSALE.
Assumption
DO NOTof REPRODUCE.
Jurisdiction Authority: SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
a. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute; or
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTb. FOR
AfterSALE.
a conference
DO NOTcalled COLLEGE
by the Secretary of Labor
OF LAW. NOT onFOR theSALE.
propriety of the issuance
DO NOT of theOF
COLLEGE Assumption
LAW. NOTorFOR SALE. DO NO
Certification
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Order, motu proprio or upon request or petition
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by either party to the labor dispute
REPRODUCE. (Operational
Guidelines of D.O. No. 40-G-03, March 29, 2010, as amended by D.O. 40-H-13, Sec. 1).
Effects of Defiance of Assumption or Certification OrderREPRODUCE.
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
the DOLE Secretary or NLRC:
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO BEDAorUNIVERSITY
SANNOT Return-to-work Order pursuantSALE.
PROPERTY thereto
OF DOissue
SAN NOT by
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a. ItSALE. DO NOTan illegal
is considered COLLEGE OF LAW.
act committed NOT
in the FORofSALE.
course DOorNOT
the strike lockout; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY b. OF
TheSANstrikers
BEDA may be subject to immediatePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. disciplinary action,
OF SAN including
BEDA dismissal REPRODUCE.
or loss of employment statusOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
and even to criminal prosecution (San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of
Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc., G.R. No. 143341, May 28, 2004);
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDAc. UNIVERSITY
The locking-out employerPROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
shall pay backwages, REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA damages and other affirmative
UNIVERSITY SALE.
relief
PROPERTY andDO NOT
even
OF REPRODUCE.
SANcriminal
BEDA UNIVERSITY
prosecution (Art. 278, Labor Code); and
d. The strike becomes illegal (Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle PHL, G.R. No. 88710-13, December 19,
1990). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
103. TT, a public transportation company, retrenched 21 of its employees due to serious losses.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA SALE.
UNIVERSITYthe companyPROPERTY
Consequently, DO
union, ABC NOT REPRODUCE.
OFUnion
SAN BEDA
filed aUNIVERSITY SALE.claiming
PROPERTY
Notice of Strike with DOLE, DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF that
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
TT
engaged
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.inDOUnfair
NOT Labor Practices
COLLEGE OF (ULP).
LAW. NOT Unable
FOR to settle
SALE. DO their
NOT differences
COLLEGE at OF
theLAW.
scheduled
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
preliminary conference held before Conciliator–Mediator of the NCMB, the case was thereafter referred
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
to the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE. Acting DOLE Secretary issued a Decision ordering the OF SAN BEDA
reinstatement
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the union officers to their former positions,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR without loss of seniority rights,
SALE. DO NOT preservation of the status quo, continuous
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO implementation
NOT REPRODUCE.of the existing CBA, andSALE.
remittanceNOT
of the
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
withheld union dues to ABC union without unnecessary delay. TT filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR while
SALE.ABC union submitted
DO NOT COLLEGEa “Partial
OF LAW. Appeal.”
NOT FORThe Secretary
SALE. DO of Labor declined
NOT COLLEGE to OF
ruleLAW.
on TTs Motion
for Reconsideration and TTs “Partial Appeal”, citing a DOLE regulation which provided that voluntary
arbitrators’ decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of motions for
reconsideration. Decide on the case.COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) may assume jurisdiction in an impending strike
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR concerning
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OFcompany.
a public transportation LAW. NOT By FOR SALE.
referring theDO NOT
case COLLEGE
to the SOLE, OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the Conciliator–Mediator
conceded
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that the case fell within the coverage of Art.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 278 of the Labor Code; the
REPRODUCE.strike
impending in TT, aOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
public transportation company whose business is imbued with public interest, required that the SOLE assume
jurisdiction UNIVERSITY
over the case, COLLEGE
which he in fact OF the
did. When LAW. NOT FOR
Secretary UNIVERSITY
of Labor assumes COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT FOR
over a labor
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN caseUNIVERSITY
BEDA in an industry indispensable SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
to national REPRODUCE.
OF interest,
SAN BEDA“he UNIVERSITY SALE.
exercises great breadth ofPROPERTY DO NOT
discretion” REPRODUCE.
in finding
OF SAN a
BEDA UNIVERSITY
solution to the parties’ dispute. “The authority of the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing
or likely DO NOT
to cause a strike orCOLLEGE
lockout in OF LAW. NOT
an industry FOR SALE.
indispensable DO NOTinterestCOLLEGE
to national OF extends
includes and LAW. NOT
to allFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY questions
OF SANand controversies REPRODUCE.
BEDA arising therefrom. (Philtranco
PROPERTY OFservice enterprises, Inc.REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA Vs. PhiltrancoPROPERTY
Workers OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFUnion–Association
LAW. NOT FORof Genuine Labor Organizations
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE(PWU–AGLO),
OF LAW. NOT G.R. NO. 180962,
FOR February 26,
UNIVERSITY 2014). OF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
104.REPRODUCE.
BEDA A Union staged a strike PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY due to theSALE.
OF DO
illegal
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
dismissal
BEDA of its members. The Secretary
of OF DO
Labor NOT
assumed
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR jurisdiction and settled the issue with regard to the validity of the termination of the said members.
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
a. Was the act of the Secretary valid? OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
38
b. What are the issues PROPERTY OF SAN of
that the Secretary BEDA
LaborUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
can resolve when he assumes OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
jurisdiction?
a. Yes, the act of the Secretary is valid, provided that it is one of the issues submitted to be resolved by
him. Under Art. 263 of the Labor Code, the Labor Secretary's authority to resolve PROPERTY
a labor dispute within OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORfrom theUNIVERSITY
30 days COLLEGE
date of assumption OF LAW. NOT
of jurisdiction FOR
encompasses onlyUNIVERSITY
the issues inCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
the dispute
SALE. DO NOT (Philippine Airlines Inc. v Secretary
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO ofNOT
Labor, G.R. No. 88210, January 23, 1991).SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE.
b. SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR The issues
DO NOT that the Secretary
COLLEGEofOF Labor canNOT
LAW. resolve
FORare:
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
i. Issues
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA submitted to
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFby
the Secretary to be resolved himBEDA
SAN (Philippine Airlines Inc. v Secretary
REPRODUCE. of
PROPERTY OF SAN BED
Labor, G.R. No. 88210, January 23, 1991);
ii. Issues submitted to the Secretary for resolution and such issues involved in the labor dispute OF LAW. NOT F
itself (St. Scholastica’s College
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OFv.
SALE. DOTorres,
SANNOT
BEDAG.R. No. 100158, June 2, 1992);
REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
iii. It may subsume pending labor cases before the LA which are involved in the dispute and decide
UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOeven
NOTissues COLLEGE OFthe
falling under LAW. NOT and
exclusive FORoriginal
SALE. DO NOT of LA
jurisdiction COLLEGE
such as OF
the LAW. NOTofFOR SALE. DO NO
declaration
legality
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA or illegality of strike (International Pharmaceuticals,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Inc. v Secretary of Labor, G.R.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY No. OF SAN BEDA
92981-83, January 9,1992)
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
105. Makabagong Pagkakaisa
ng Manggagawa DO NOT
OF SAN ng
BEDA REPRODUCE.
Coco Factory (Union) and Coco
UNIVERSITY SALE.
Factory
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
(Company)
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
had
UNIVERSITY
a CBA that expired. Union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation. The
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTreached
negotiations COLLEGE OF LAW.
a deadlock, NOT
leading to aFOR SALE.
Notice DO NOT
of Strike. The NCMBCOLLEGE OFefforts
exerted LAW.butNOT FORtoSALE. DO NOT
failed
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF resolve
SAN BEDAthe deadlock. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
The company filed a NoticeOF SAN BEDA
of Lock-out REPRODUCE.
for unfair labor practice duePROPERTY
to the unionsOF SAN BEDA
alleged
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORwork slowdown. The union
UNIVERSITY went OF
COLLEGE on LAW.
strike NOT
3 days
FORlater. The DOLE Secretary
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE assumed
OF LAW. NOT FOR
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. What is the effect of such assumption?
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
The DO
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. LaborNOTSecretary's assumption
COLLEGE of jurisdiction
OF LAW. NOT FORover the DO
SALE. dispute
NOTor its COLLEGE
certificationOF
to LAW.
the NLRC
NOT forFOR SALE. DO NOT
compulsory arbitration shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY lockout
OF SANand BEDA
all striking or REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
locked out employees shallOF SAN BEDAreturn to work
immediately REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
and the employer shall OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF immediately
LAW. NOT FOR resume operations and readmit
UNIVERSITY all workers
COLLEGE under NOT
OF LAW. the same
FORterms andUNIVERSITY
conditions before the strike
SALE. or lockout (Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of Labor & Employment,
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010). OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
106. Union A is conducting a valid strike against Company X. In the conduct thereof, the members of the
union picketed around
PROPERTY DO
the company NOT REPRODUCE.
premised
OF SAN BEDAholding posters containing
UNIVERSITY SALE.
their
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
demands REPRODUCE.
SANfrom
BEDA the
UNIVERSITY
employer. They also placed barb wires outside the gates of the company premises which prevented
the trucks delivering the company products from entering and exiting the company premises. It
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF likewise
SAN BEDA prevented theREPRODUCE.
other employeesPROPERTY OF SAN
from entering or BEDA REPRODUCE.
leaving the place. Company X PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
filed a petition
for the issuance
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of a writ of injunction against Union
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR A before the NLRC. Union A contends that the
same cannot be issued. Decide.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
The injunction
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT powerCOLLEGE of the NLRC shall be
OF LAW. NOTlimited
FORto SALE.
the prohibited
DO NOTactivities conducted
COLLEGE OFduring
LAW.the strike
and not against the strike itself. The law prohibits the obstruction of the free ingress to or egress from the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY employer’s
OF SAN BEDApremises for lawful purposes or obstruct public thoroughfares. Since the members of the union OF SAN BEDA
obstructed the
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR gates of theUNIVERSITY
company premises,
COLLEGE the OF
NLRCLAW.can NOT
issueFOR
an injunctionUNIVERSITY
against their prohibited
COLLEGEactsOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT and not
REPRODUCE. on the strike itself (IRR of LABOR
SALE. DO CODE,
NOT Book V,
REPRODUCE.Rule XXII, Sec. 14). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF What
107. SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
are the tests to determine PROPERTY OF SAN
employer-employee BEDA
relationship? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.a. Four-fold test (Atok Big Wedge
SALE. DO Company
NOT Inc. v. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August
REPRODUCE. SALE.8,DO
2011).
NOT REPRODUCE.
b. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Two-tiered test (Francisco v. NLRC, G.R 170087, August 31, 2006). OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
108. What is
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the four-fold test?
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ItLAW.
is a test used to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship by consideringCOLLEGE
the following
SALE. factors: (SPDC)
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITYa.
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Selection and engagement of the employee;
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.b.DOPayment
NOT of COLLEGE
wages; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANc.BEDA
Power of Dismissal; and
39
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA d.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Power to Control the employee OFrespect
with SAN BEDAto theUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
means and methods by which OFisSAN
the work BEDA UNIVERSITY
to be
accomplished
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT (Atok Big Wedge Company Inc. v. Gison,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT supra). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
109. What is the two-tiered test?
Under theNOT FOR test, theUNIVERSITY
two-tiered COLLEGE
following determines the OF LAW. NOT
existence of an FOR UNIVERSITY
employer-employee COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
relationship:
SALE. DO NOT a. The putative employer’s power
REPRODUCE. to DO
SALE. control
NOT theREPRODUCE.
employee with respect to the meansSALE.
and methods byREPRODUCE.
which the work is to be accomplished; and PROPERTY NOT
DO OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
b. The
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR underlying
SALE. DO NOTeconomic realities OF
COLLEGE of the activity
LAW. NOT or FOR
relationship (Francisco
SALE. DO NOT v. NLRC,
COLLEGEsupra).
The “control test” is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
or absence FOR UNIVERSITY
an employer-employee COLLEGE
relationship. OF control
Under the LAW. NOT FOR
test, an UNIVERSITY
employer-employee COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
relationship
exists where the person for whom the services areNOT
performed reserves the right to control notSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYonly OFthe
DO end
SAN
achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end (Chevron PHL, Inc. v. Galit, G.R.
NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No. 186114, NOT7, 2015).
October COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
110. ABC Corporation is engaged in providing janitorial services to its clients. A, one of its employees, was
sent by ABC Corporation to be one of XYZ Corporation’s janitors. However, after years of providing
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
janitorial services with XYZ,
they decided
OF SANtoNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
terminate the service contract PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
between them. DOa NOT
OF As
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
result UNIVERSITY
of the contract’s termination, ABC dismissed 30 of its employees and A was among those employees.
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ASALE. DOthat
alleged NOTbeing aCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
regular employee, ABC FOR SALE. DO
Corporation NOT just dismiss
cannot COLLEGE OFhence
him, LAW. anNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
illegal
dismissal case was filedREPRODUCE.
by A. On the PROPERTY OF claimed
contrary, ABC SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
that A was just PROPERTY
a project employee andOF SAN BEDA
that his
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT employment
FOR isUNIVERSITY
dependent on the service
COLLEGE contract
OF LAW. NOTof FOR
its employerUNIVERSITY
with their client. Was there
illegal dismissal? Decide on the case.
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Yes,
SALE.there was illegal
DO NOT dismissal.
COLLEGE OFThe
LAW. primary
NOT FORstandard
SALE.inDOdetermining
NOT regular
COLLEGE employment
OF LAW. isNOTtheFOR SALE. DO NO
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the employer's business
or trade. BEDA
Guided REPRODUCE.
by this test, A’s PROPERTY
work as a janitor, OF SAN
service crew, andBEDA REPRODUCE.
sanitation aide are necessary or PROPERTY
desirable OF SAN BEDA
to LAW.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ABC Corporation’s
NOT FOR business of providingCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY janitorial and manpower
OF LAW. NOTservices
FOR to its UNIVERSITY
clients as an independent
SALE. contractor. Hence, A is a regular employee and his employment did not depend on the service contract entered
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
by ABC with its client (Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, January 15, 2014).
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
IVERSITY COLLEGE111.
What are the kinds of employment?
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The following are the kinds of employment:
a. Regular employees: employees who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable PROPERTY
in the usual OFtrade
business or SANofBEDA REPRODUCE.
the employer (LABOR PROPERTY
CODE, Art. 295); OF SAN BEDA
b. Casual
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR employees: employees who are not regular,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR project, or seasonal employees (LABOR CODE,
Art. 295), and as a general rule, those performing activities not usually necessary or desirable in the
PROPERTY
employer’s usual business DO NOT
OF SAN
or trade REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
are casual employees (GMA Network SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
OFG.R.
v. Pabriga, REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No.
176419,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNovember 27, 2013);OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
COLLEGE COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
c. Probationary employees: employees whose employment does not exceed six (6) months from the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANdate the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeshipREPRODUCE.
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY
agreement stipulating a OF SAN BEDA
longer
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORperiod (LABOR CODE, Art. 296);
SALE. DO NOT d. Project employees: employees
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOwhose
NOT employment
REPRODUCE. has been fixed for a specific
SALE. project REPRODUCE.
or
SANNOTBEDA UNIVERSITY
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOengagement
NOT ofCOLLEGE
the employee (Gapayao
OF LAW. NOTv.FOR
Fulo,SALE.
G.R. No.
DO 193493,
NOT July 13, 2013);
e. Seasonal employees: employees who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and
the employment is for the duration of the season (LABOR CODE, Art. 295);
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.f.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Fixed-term employees: employees whose employment contract specifies that the same COLLEGE
will last OF
onlyLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO for a definite period (Brent School v. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990);
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
g.
SALE. DO
PROPERTY OF NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Security guards: any person who offers or renders personal service to watch or secure a residence,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT establishment,
business COLLEGE OF LAW.compound,
building, NOT FOR any SALE. DOarea
other NOTor property;
COLLEGE OF LAW.
or inspects, NOT FOR
monitors, or SALE. DO NOT
performs
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA body checks or searches of individuals
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA or baggage and other forms of security inspection
(D.O. No. 150-16, Sec. 2(h));
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.h.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Floating status: means an indefinite period of time when employees do not receive COLLEGE OForLAW. NOT FOR
any salary
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
financial benefit provided
PROPERTY DO(Agro
by law NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
Commercial SALE.
Security Services Agency,PROPERTY
BEDA UNIVERSITY Inc. DO NOT
v. NLRC,
OFG.R.REPRODUCE.
Nos.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
82823-24. July 31, 1989).
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF Project
SAN employees
BEDA may become regular employees
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYwhen one isBEDA
OF SAN employed outside the scope of the
REPRODUCE. project
or LAW.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF when there
NOT isFOR
continuous UNIVERSITY
rehiring by the COLLEGE
same employer for theNOT
OF LAW. tasks or same nature
FOR of tasks even
UNIVERSITY after theOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
cessation of a project and such task performed were vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA or trade of the employer (Maraguinot
v.OF DO
SANNOT
NLRC, G.R.
BEDA REPRODUCE.
No.UNIVERSITY
120969, January 22, 1998).
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
40
PROPERTY OF SAN112.
BEDA
B UNIVERSITY
was hired by XYZ CompanyPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
in connection with aUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
telecommunication project OF SANwas
the company BEDA UNIVERSITY
contracted to
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT provide for a foreign telecommunications
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT firm. B contends that the provision
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT in his
FOR SALE. DO NO
contract which provides that his position is "project-based and as such is co-terminus to the project”
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYneither
OF SAN determined nor made known him, at the time of hiring, when the said project would end, be OF SAN BEDA
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFterminated,
LAW. NOTor FOR UNIVERSITY
be completed. He arguesCOLLEGE
that sinceOF
hisLAW. NOTfailed
contract FORto provide
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the duration and scopeOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT of the project which should have
REPRODUCE. beenDO
SALE. specified
NOT at the time they were engaged forSALE.
REPRODUCE. the same,
DO he has
NOT REPRODUCE.
now become a regular employee. Is his contention correct? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYNo, OF B’s
SANcontention
BEDA is not correct. For an employee
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY to be
OFconsidered
SAN BEDAproject-based, the employerPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. must OF SAN BED
show compliance with two (2) requisites, namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEproject
or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged OF LAW. NOT F
for such project. As regards the second requisite, the REPRODUCE.
law and jurisprudence dictate that ‘theSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYduration
OF DO
SANofNOT
the REPRODUCE.
BEDA
undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The phrase ‘determinable times’ simply
UNIVERSITY
means DO NOT
capable of being COLLEGE
determinedOF or LAW.
fixed."NOT FOR
In this SALE.
case, XYZDO NOT substantially
Company COLLEGEcomplied
OF LAW.withNOT FOR SALE. DO NO
this
requisite when
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA it expressly indicated in petitioners’ employment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA contracts that their positions were "co-terminus
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFwith
LAW.the project." To the mind of the Court, this caveat sufficiently apprised petitioners that their security of
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
tenure with XYZ Company would only last as long as the project was subsisting (Gadia v. Skyes Asia, G.R.
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE. 2015). SALE.
No. 209499, January 28,PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
113. SALE. DO NOT
Min was COLLEGE
hired by NCB Co., a OF LAW. NOT
corporation FOR SALE.
engaged DO
in the NOT
constructionCOLLEGE
business,OF asLAW. NOTfor
a laborer FOR
theSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF structural
SAN BEDAphase andREPRODUCE.
as a mason PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
for the architectural phase of Avi REPRODUCE.
Condominium.PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Later, upon
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.reviewing
NOT FORMin’s employment
UNIVERSITYrecord, NCB Co.
COLLEGE OFfound
LAW. that
NOTMinFORwas lacking in appointment
UNIVERSITY paper
COLLEGE OFand
LAW. NOT FOR
thus did not rehire him again. Min filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, he alleged that his work as a
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAlaborer
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
and mason was necessary
PROPERTY andNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
desirable
SAN to the
BEDA business of the employer
UNIVERSITY SALE.
andDO
PROPERTY thatNOT REPRODUCE.
hisSAN
OF rehiring
BEDA UNIVERSITY
which
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.resulted
DO NOT to his working
COLLEGEforOFmoreLAW.than one
NOT FORyear makes
SALE. DOhim
NOTa regular employee.
COLLEGE On the
OF LAW. other
hand, NCB Co. averred that Min was hired as a project employee for the two different phases and that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY his
OF tasks
SAN BEDA
were completelyREPRODUCE.
different fromPROPERTY OFIsSAN
each project. MinBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a regular employee?
SALE. No, Min is not a regular employee. The NOT
repeated rehiring of Min did not make him aSALE.
regular employee of
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
NCB Co. It is not uncommon for a construction firm to hire project employees to perform work necessary and
vital for
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOitsNOT
business.COLLEGE
The Supreme CourtNOT
OF LAW. has FOR
acknowledged
SALE. DOthe
NOT unique COLLEGE
characteristic
OF of the construction
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF industry
SAN and emphasized that the laborer's performance of work that is necessary and vital to the employer's
construction business, and the former's repeated rehiring, do not automatically lead to regularization.
OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe employee's
Additionally, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
tenure "is OF LAW.
not permanent NOT FOR with the
but coterminous UNIVERSITY
work to whichCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
he is assigned."
SALE. DO NOT Consequently, it would be extremely
REPRODUCE. SALE. burdensome
DO NOT for the employer, who depends on the
REPRODUCE. availability
SALE. DO NOT of projects,
REPRODUCE.
to carry the employee on a permanent status and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
on. An NOT cannot
employer COLLEGE OF to
be forced LAW. NOTthe
maintain FOR SALE. DO
employees in NOT
the payroll,COLLEGE
even afterOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
completion of theSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF project.
SAN BEDAAccordingly, itREPRODUCE.
is all too apparent that the
PROPERTY OFemployee's
SAN BEDAlength of service and repeated
REPRODUCE. re-hiring
constitutes an unfair yardstick for determining regular employment in the construction industry (Reyman
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT v.
Minsola FOR UNIVERSITY
New City Builders COLLEGE
Inc. and OF LAW.
Engr. Ernel NOT
Fajardo, FOR
G.R. No. 207613,UNIVERSITY
January 31, COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
2018, Covered
Case).
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT
114.FOR
ACSALE.
TechDO NOT
a company COLLEGE
based OFUS,
in the LAW. NOT
hired IKSIFOR SALE. DO
to review NOTlitigation
various COLLEGE OF LAW.
documents. DueNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
to the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY nature
OF SAN ofBEDA
the job, AC Tech required IKSIPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. to hire lawyers,
OF SANor at least, law graduates,
BEDA to review
REPRODUCE. various OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF litigation
LAW. NOT documents.
FOR For this purpose,
UNIVERSITY IKSI engaged
COLLEGE OF LAW. theNOT
services
FOR of X and Y, as senior
UNIVERSITY and junior
reviewers with a contract duration of five (5) years. Two years thereafter, X and Y received a Notice of
Forced Leave from IKSI
informingOF
PROPERTY DO
them NOT
SANthat REPRODUCE.
theyUNIVERSITY
BEDA shall be placed on indefinite SALE.
forcedOF
PROPERTY DO
leave NOT REPRODUCE.
SANeffective
BEDA UNIVERSITY
that same day due to changes in business conditions and eventually, their contracts would have to be
terminated. X and Y thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. IKSI countered that the X and Y are
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF project
SAN BEDAemployees and REPRODUCE.
the durationPROPERTY OF was
of the project SAN reasonably
BEDA REPRODUCE.
determinable at thePROPERTY
time X andOFY SAN BEDA
were
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOThired.
FORIs the contention
UNIVERSITY of IKSI correct?OF LAW. NOT FOR
COLLEGE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
No, the contention ofPROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SANProject
IKSI is not correct. BEDA UNIVERSITY
employment
SALE. DO
and fixed-term PROPERTY
employment OF
NOT
are SAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
not the UNIVERSITY
same.
WhileDO
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. theNOT
former requires
COLLEGEa particular
OF LAW. project,
NOTthe FOR duration
SALE. ofDOa NOT
fixed-term COLLEGE
employment OFagreed
LAW. upon
NOT by
FORtheSALE. DO NOT
parties may be any day certain, which is understood to be “that which must necessarily come although it may
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF not
SANbeBEDA REPRODUCE.
known when.” The PROPERTY
decisive determinant OF SAN employment
in fixed-term BEDA is notREPRODUCE.
the activity thatPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the employee
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT upon
is called FOR to perform
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
but the day certain OF upon
agreed LAW.byNOT FOR for the UNIVERSITY
the parties commencement COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
and termination
SALE. DO NOT of the employment relationship
REPRODUCE. (Innodata
SALE. Knowledge
DO NOT Services, Inc. v. Socorro Inting,SALE.
REPRODUCE. et al., DO
G.R.NOT
No. 211892,
REPRODUCE.
December 6, 2017, Covered Case). OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
115. ABC Security
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Service hired Padilla as a security guard.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA He was relieved from his post PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. at City AV OF SAN BEDA
Corporation and was advised to wait for his reassignment order. Pending reassignment, he was told
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF that
LAW.ABC
NOT FOR Service
Security UNIVERSITY
was havingCOLLEGE OFfinding
a hard time LAW. NOT FOR
an assignment forUNIVERSITY
him since heCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
was already
SALE. over 38 years old and subsequently advised him to resign which he refused. He reported to the office
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
to collect his 13th month pay and was again persuaded to hand a resignation letter. When he was still
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT or reassigned
not deployed COLLEGE for
OF more
LAW.than
NOTaFOR
year,SALE. DO aNOT
he filed COLLEGE
Complaint OF dismissal.
for illegal LAW. NOTPadilla
FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF alleged that he was constructively
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.dismissed
PROPERTYonOFtheSAN
ground
BEDAthat he wasREPRODUCE.
placed on a floating
PROPERTYstatus.
OF SAN BEDA
41
ABCUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Security Service countered OF was
that Padilla SANrelieved
BEDA UNIVERSITY
from his post on account PROPERTY OFrequest.
of a client’s SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Was Padilla constructively
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT dismissed?
Yes, Padilla was constructively dismissed. Temporary displacement or temporary REPRODUCE.
off-detail of PROPERTY
security OF SAN BEDA
guard NOT FORallowed inUNIVERSITY
is, generally, COLLEGE
a situation where OF LAW.
a security NOTclient
agency’s FORdecided not
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to renew their service OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT contract with the agency and no post
REPRODUCE. is available
SALE. DO NOT for the relieved security guard. Such situation
REPRODUCE. does notREPRODUCE.
normally result in a constructive dismissal. Nonetheless, when the floating status lasts for more than six (6)
months,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the employee
SALE. DO NOTmay beCOLLEGE
considered
OFtoLAW.
haveNOTbeenFOR
constructively
SALE. DO dismissed
NOT (Macario S.OFPadilla
COLLEGE LAW.v.NOT FOR SALE. D
Airborne Security
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Service, Inc. and/or Catalina Solis, G.R. No. 210080,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA November 22, 2017, Covered
REPRODUCE. Case).
PROPERTY OF SAN B
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Elements
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFisSAN
116. What BEDA or Subcontracting?
Contracting REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT Contracting or Subcontracting isSALE.
an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out to aDO
contractor
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
the performance or completion of a specific job or work within a definite or predetermined period, regardless
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ofSALE.
whether
DO such
NOT job orCOLLEGE
work is to OF
be LAW.
performed
NOTorFOR
completed
SALE. DOwithin
NOTor outside the premises
COLLEGE of theNOT
OF LAW. principal
FOR SALE. DO NOT
(D.O. 174,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA series of 2017, Sec. 3(c)).
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGEoccur:
To be permissible, contracting or subcontracting shall only be allowed if ALL the following circumstances OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT a.
REPRODUCE. The contractor or subcontractor is
SALE. DO NOT engaged in a distinct
REPRODUCE. and independent business and undertakes
SALE. DO NOT to
REPRODUCE.
perform the job or work on its own responsibility, according to its own manner and method;
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR b.
SALE.
TheDO NOT or subcontractor
contractor COLLEGE OFhas LAW. NOT FOR
substantial SALE.
capital DO NOT
to carry out the jobCOLLEGE
farmed outOF
by LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
the principal
on his
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA account, manner and method, investment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in the form of tools, equipment, machinery
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY and OF SAN BEDA
supervision;
c. In performing the work farmed out, the contractor or subcontractor is free from the control and/or
OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA direction of the principal
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY inSALE.
all OF DO
SANNOT
matters REPRODUCE.
connected
BEDA with the performance of
UNIVERSITY SALE.
the work
PROPERTY OF DO
except NOT
as
SAN REPRODUCE.
to the
BEDA UNIVERSITY
result thereto; and
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.d. DO
TheNOT COLLEGE ensures
Service Agreement OF LAW. NOT FORwith
compliance SALE. DOrights
all the NOT and benefits
COLLEGE OFthe
for all LAW. NOT FOR
employees of SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
the contractor or subcontractor under the labor laws (D.O. 174, series of 2017, Sec. 8). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
“Substantial Capital” – refers to paid-up capital stock/shares at least Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) in
PROPERTY
case of corporations, partnerships DO
andOF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDAinUNIVERSITY
cooperatives; SALE.
PROPERTY
case of single proprietorship, DO
OF NOT
a net worthSAN REPRODUCE.
of atBEDA
least UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Five Million
SALE. Pesos (P5,000,000.00)
DO NOT COLLEGE OF(D.O. LAW. No.NOT
174-17).
117. What is Labor-Only Contracting? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT Labor-Only Contracting shall refer
REPRODUCE. to an
SALE. DOarrangement
NOT where:
a. PROPERTY OF SAN
The contractor or subcontractor BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
• DO
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Does
NOTnot haveCOLLEGE
substantial
OFcapital;
LAW.orNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
• Does
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA not have investments
REPRODUCE. in PROPERTY
the form of OF
tools,
SANequipment,
BEDA machineries, supervision,
REPRODUCE. work
premises, among others; and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. •NOTTheir
FORemployees UNIVERSITY
recruited andCOLLEGE
placed areOFperforming
LAW. NOT FOR whichUNIVERSITY
activities COLLEGE
are directly related to theOF LAW. NOT FO
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY main business SALE.
operation of DO
the NOT REPRODUCE.
principal; or
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA NOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
b. The contractor or subcontractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the
work COLLEGE
of the employee OF174,
(D.O. LAW. NOTofFOR
series 2017,SALE. DO NOT
Sec. 5). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE118. Legarda
OF LAW. NOTPlace
FOR Dormitory (LPD) entered
UNIVERSITY into OF
COLLEGE a Contract
LAW. NOT of FOR
Services with Ward Janitorial
UNIVERSITY Services
(Ward). Under the contract, WJS, as an independent contractor, will assign workers, X, Y, and Z, to
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY TheySALE.
perform services at LPD.PROPERTY
workedDO
OF6NOT REPRODUCE.
daysBEDA
SAN a week and ZSALE.
filed aDO
for 8 hours daily. X, Y, PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NOT REPRODUCE.
Complaint
OF SAN BEDAfor UNIVERSITY
th
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Regularization,
SALE. DO NOTand illegal dismissal, underpayment of 13 month pay, and payment of attorney’s fees
and CBA benefits against LPD and Ward. They alleged that they asked LPD to consider them as regular
workers REPRODUCE.
within the appropriate PROPERTY
bargaining OF SAN BEDA
unit established in the collectiveREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
bargaining agreement byOF SAN BEDA
LPD NOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. and its
FORunion, theUNIVERSITY
LPD Workers Union (LPD
COLLEGE Union).
OF LAW. NOT LPD
FORrefused the request since
UNIVERSITY they were
employed by Ward. X, Y, and Z later joined the LPD Union and came to you for advice. May they, as
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
employees
SALE. DObecome
PROPERTY
of a labor-only contractor,
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA employees
regular UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY
of the principal?
REPRODUCE.
Yes, they may become regular employees of the principal. They are regular employees of LPD because
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF isSAN
Ward BEDA contractor.
a labor-only REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Failure to register OF SAN BEDA
as a contractor, REPRODUCE.
a presumption arises that one is PROPERTY
engaged OF SAN BEDA
in LAW. NOTcontracting
labor-only FOR UNIVERSITY
unless COLLEGE
the contractor OF LAW.
overcomes NOT of
the burden FORproving thatUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
it has substantial capital,OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. investment, tools, and the like. In this case, however, LPD failed to adduce evidence to prove that Ward had
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
substantial capital, investment, or assets to perform the work contracted for. Thus, the presumption that Ward UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR isSALE.
a labor-only
DO NOTcontractor stands.OF
COLLEGE Consequently,
LAW. NOT FORLPD SALE.
is deemed the employer
DO NOT of respondents.
COLLEGE OF LAW.Hence, as SALE. DO NOT
NOT FOR
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF regular
SAN employees
BEDA of LPD, respondentsPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. are entitledOF
to SAN
their BEDA
claims for wagesREPRODUCE.
and other benefits (ManilaOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Lluz, G.R. No. 208451, February 3, 2016).
42
Effects of Termination OF SAN BEDA
of Employment UNIVERSITY
in Relation PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
to Service Agreements
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN When
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN Effect BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Prior to the expiration
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the Governed by Articles 297 (282),
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 298 (283), and 299 (284) of the Labor
UNIVERSITY Code. OF LAW. NOT FOR
COLLEGE
Service Agreement
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Pre-termination of the Service The party at fault shall be liable to unpaid wages and other unpaid benefits
Agreement
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR notSALE.
due to
DOauthorized
NOT including
COLLEGEunremitted
OF LAW.legal
NOTmandatory
FOR SALE. contributions
DO NOT (SSS, PhilHealth,
COLLEGE OFPag-IBIG,
causes under Article 298 (283) ECC), without prejudice to the solidary liability of the parties to the Service
Agreement.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
Expiration of the Service The employee may opt to wait for re-employment within three (3) months to
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Agreement UNIVERSITY
or Completion of the PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO NOT
SANto
resign and transfer BEDAREPRODUCE.
anotherUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
contractor-employer. Failure
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
of the contractorBEDA
to
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
phaseFOR
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT of the job,DO
SALE. work or service
NOT provideOF
COLLEGE newLAW.
employment
NOT FOR for the employee
SALE. DO NOT shall entitle the latter
COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
the payment
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
for which the employee is of separation benefits as may be provided by Law or Service Agreement,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
employed
whichever is higher, without prejudice to his/ her entitlement to the completion
bonuses or other emoluments, including retirement benefitsCOLLEGE
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY wheneverOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT applicable.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT(D.O.
FORNo. 174-17,
SALE. Sec. 13). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Trilateral relationship
Trilateral relationship refers to the relationship
SALE. DOinNOT
a contracting
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAorUNIVERSITY
REPRODUCE.subcontracting arrangement whereDO
SALE.
PROPERTY there
OFisSAN
NOT aREPRODUCE.
service
BEDA UNIVERSITY
contract for a specific job, work or service between the principal and the contractor, and a contract of employment
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe
between SALE. DO NOT
contractor COLLEGE
and its workers OF LAW.
(Manila NOTPark
Memorial FORCemetery,
SALE. DOInc.
NOT COLLEGE
v. Lluz, G.R. OF LAW.
No. 208451, NOT FOR
February 3, SALE. DO NOT
2016).
Solidary liability
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR In the
SALE.event
DOofNOT
violation of any provision
COLLEGE of theNOT
OF LAW. LaborFOR
Code, including
SALE. DO NOT the failureCOLLEGE
to pay theOFwages,
LAW.there
NOTexists
FOR aSALE. DO NOT
solidary liability on the part of the principal and the contractor for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code
and other BEDA
social REPRODUCE.
legislations, to the extent of the PROPERTY OF SAN
work performed underBEDA
the employment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
contract (D.O. No. OF SAN BEDA
174-17, Sec
ERSITY COLLEGE9).
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Job Contracting v. Labor-Only Contracting
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAJob Contracting REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDALabor-Only REPRODUCE. Contracting PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to the Nature of
UNIVERSITY Relationship
COLLEGE with NOT
OF LAW. the Employer/Principal
SALE. DO NOT The employer
REPRODUCE. or principal is considered only
SALE. an
DO indirect
NOT The employer/
REPRODUCE. principal is treated as directDO
SALE. employer
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
employer (PCI Automation Center, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. contractor’s employees in all instances (contractor is BEDA UNIVERSITY
No. 115920,
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT January
FOR SALE. 29, 1996). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
DO NOT merely
FOR an agent
SALE. DO of NOT
the employer) (ManilaOF
COLLEGE Water
LAW.Company
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA v. Peña, G.R.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA No. 158255, July 8, 2004).
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to the Existence of Er-Ee
UNIVERSITY Relationship
COLLEGE OF LAW.with Employer/Principal
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO The
NOT law creates an Er-Ee relationshipSALE.
REPRODUCE. for a DO
limited
NOT The statute creates an Er-Ee relationship
REPRODUCE. SALE. for REPRODUCE.
a
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
purpose, (i.e. to ensure that the employees are paid comprehensive purpose, (i.e. to prevent a circumvention of
GE OF LAW. NOT their
FORwages)
SALE. (SMC v. MAERC
DO NOT IntegratedOF
COLLEGE Services,
LAW. NOTInc., FOR
laborSALE.
laws)DO (SMC
NOTv. MAERC Integrated
COLLEGE OF LAW. Services,
NOT FORInc., SALE. DO NOT
G.R. No. 144672, July 10, 2003). supra).
As to the Liability of the Principal
The principal becomes solidarily liable with the The principal becomes solidarily liable with the contractor
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
contractor
SALE.
PROPERTY
in the event the latter
DO NOT
fails toOFpay
REPRODUCE.
SANtheBEDAnot UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
only for unpaid wages butPROPERTY
NOT
OFrightful
also for all the
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
claimsUNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT employees’
FOR SALE. wages
DO NOT and for violation
COLLEGEof OF labor standard
LAW. of the
NOT FOR employees
SALE. DO NOTunder the Labor Code
COLLEGE OF and
LAW.ancillary
NOT FOR laws SALE. DO NOT
laws. The liability, however, does not extend to the (SMC v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., supra).
payment of BEDA
back wages and/or REPRODUCE.
separation PROPERTY
pay of OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
employees whoFOR are illegallyUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
dismissed (Rosewood UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT Processing v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116476-84,
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOMayNOT21,REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
1998). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
119. A, B, C,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and D were security guards hired by XYZ Security
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Services to work for SB Colleges,PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. Inc. They OF SAN BEDA
filed a complaint against the latter for non-compliance with the current minimum wage order. XYZ
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Security
Services alleged that SB Colleges, Inc. should exclusively be liable for the payment of wage
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA increases. Is SB Colleges,
UNIVERSITY Inc. SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
solidarily
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
liable?
BEDA IfUNIVERSITY SALE.
yes, can it seek any reimbursement?
PROPERTY OF DO
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Yes,
DO SB
NOT COLLEGE
Colleges OFliable.
is solidarily LAW.The
NOT FOR SALE.
principal DO NOT
is solidarily liable withCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the contractor for anyNOT FORofSALE. DO NOT
violation
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF any
SANprovision
BEDA of the Labor REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Code, including the failure to pay wages. In case the principal pays the unpaid OF SAN BEDA
43
wages, PROPERTY from
it may validly claim reimbursement OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
the contractor PROPERTY
(Alpha Investigation and OF SAN
Security Agency, BEDA UNIVERSITY
Inc.
v. NLRC, G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 111722, May 27, 1997).
BEDA UNIVERS
The following are the just causes for termination of employment as provided by D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 5.2:
UNIVERSITYSerious
Misconduct; Requisites UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY SAN1.
OF DO NOT There
BEDA
2.
must be misconduct;
REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
The misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character; and
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
3. FOR
ThereSALE. DOshowing
must be NOT thatCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the employee becomesNOT FOR
unfit SALE. DO
to continue NOT for the
working COLLEGE
employer.OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Willful Disobedience or Insubordination; Requisites
1. There must be disobedience or insubordination; OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
OF SAN 2. REPRODUCE.
The disobedience or insubordination must DO
OF SAN NOT
be willful
BEDAor REPRODUCE.
intentional characterized PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
by a wrongful DOperverse
OFand
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
attitude;
3. The DOviolated
order NOT mustCOLLEGE OF LAW.
be reasonable, NOT
lawful, andFOR SALE.
made DOtoNOT
known COLLEGE
the employee; and OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY 4. OF SAN
The BEDA
order must pertain toREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the duties which OFengaged
he has been SAN BEDA
to discharge. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties; Requisites
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN1.BEDA
There
must be neglect of duty;PROPERTY
and OF SANREPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
2. The negligence must be both gross and habitual in character.
Fraud or Willful BEDAof Trust; Requisites
Breach REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE1. OF
There
LAW.must
NOTbe FOR
an act, omission, or concealment;
2. The act, omission or concealment involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed;
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
3. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
It must be committed against
SALE.
OF DO
the employer SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
or his/her UNIVERSITY and
representative; PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
4. ItSALE.
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR must be
DOinNOT
connection with the employee’s
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT work.FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Loss ofOF SAN BEDARequisitesREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Confidence; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF
1. LAW.
ThereNOT
mustFOR UNIVERSITY
be an act, omission COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or concealment; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT 2. The act, omission or concealment
REPRODUCE. justifies the loss of trust and confidence;
3. PROPERTY OF NOT
SALE. DO REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence;
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
4. The lossDO NOTand confidence
of trust COLLEGEshould
OF LAW. NOT
not be FOR SALE. DO NOT
simulated; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
It should not be used as aREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA subterfuge for PROPERTY
causes whichOF
areSAN
improper,
BEDAillegal or unjustified;
REPRODUCE.and PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
6. It must be genuine and not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.
Commission of a
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Crime or Offense; SALE. DO
Requisites NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
1. There must be an act or omission punishable/prohibited by law; and
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
2. FOR
The SALE. DO NOTwas committed
act or omission COLLEGEbyOF theLAW. NOTagainst
employee FOR SALE. DO NOT
the person COLLEGE
of employer, OF LAW.
any immediate NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
member
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY of his/her
OF SANfamily,
BEDAor his/her duly authorized representative.
Analogous Cases; Requisites
SALE. DO NOT1.REPRODUCE.
There must
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY be act or omission SALE.
similar to DO
those NOT REPRODUCE.
specified
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY just causes; and PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
2. The act or omission must be voluntary and/or willful on the part of the employees.
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY
120. OF SAN the
During BEDA REPRODUCE.
Christmas Party PROPERTY
of XYZ Company, A, anOF SAN BEDA
employee REPRODUCE.
and a union officer, PROPERTY
berated and malignedOF SAN BEDA
the company’s
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR managing director by
UNIVERSITY throwingOF
COLLEGE foul andNOT
LAW. offensive
FOR words at him, such as
UNIVERSITY "putangOF
COLLEGE inaLAW. NOT FOR
mo ka, gago ka!" A's tirade included the company and it officers. Moreover, the incident happened in
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
front of the company's employees, OF NOT
SAN
their
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
families, asUNIVERSITY
well as company clients
SALE. DO
PROPERTY OF ANOT
and guests. SAN REPRODUCE.
wasBEDA
later UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR dismissed
SALE. DO on the ground
NOT of serious
COLLEGE misconduct.
OF LAW. NOT FOR A claimed
SALE. DOthatNOT
his acts do not warrant
COLLEGE OF dismissal
LAW. NOTsince FOR SALE. DO NOT
misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to
constitute just cause forREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
his separation. OF SANcorrect?
Is his contention BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT No, A’s contention is erroneous.
REPRODUCE. SALE.A’s
DOdisplay
NOT of insolent and disrespectful behavior, in
REPRODUCE. utter DO
SALE. disregard
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
time and place of its occurrence, had very much to do with his work. He set a bad example as a union officer.
His actuations
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOduring
NOT the company's
COLLEGEChristmas
OF LAW.Party
NOTcould
FOR have
SALE.had
DOnegative
NOT repercussions
COLLEGE OF for his
LAW.employer
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
had he been allowed to stay on the job. His standing before those clients who witnessed the incident and those
who would hear of it would surely be diminished, to the detriment of the company (Benitez v. Santa Fe, G.R.
No. 208163, April 20, 2015). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Note: The case is to be distinguished from Samson v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121035, April 12, 2000, wherein the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR offensive
SALE. DO NOT ofCOLLEGE
utterances OF against
the employee LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
the general DO were
manager NOTnot considered
COLLEGEasOF LAW.misconduct
serious NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
44
since PROPERTY
the utterances were made in a mereOF SANget-together
casual BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
of employees, and in the OF
absence of theSAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
general
manager.
121. A was employed in XYZ School, a catholic and sectarian educational institution, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
as an assistant to the OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFXYZ’s
LAW.Director.
NOT FORWithout having
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
any legal OF LAW.
impediments to NOT
marryFOR
one another,UNIVERSITY
A and her COLLEGE
boyfriend OFB LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT conceived a child out of wedlock.
REPRODUCE. XYZDO
SALE. learned
NOT of A’s pregnancy, and advised A to SALE.
REPRODUCE. resignDO
in view
NOT of a
REPRODUCE.
provision in the school’s handbook following the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT(MRPS) on the
FOR SALE. DOcauses
NOT for COLLEGE
termination
OFofLAW.
employments;
NOT FOR SALE.that Section
DO NOT 94(e) ofCOLLEGE
the 1992OFMRPS
LAW.cites
NOT FOR SALE. DO
"disgraceful
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAor immoral conduct" as a ground for dismissal
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in addition to the just causes for
termination of employment provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. XYZ maintains that pre-
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEmarital
sexual relations, even if between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry, is OF LAW. NOT F
SALE. considered a disgraceful and immoral conduct or REPRODUCE.
a serious misconduct, which are grounds forNOT
the REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
OF DO
termination of employment under the 1992 MRPS and the Labor Code. That XYZ, as a Catholic
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
institution of NOT
learning, COLLEGE OF LAW.
has the right NOT the
to uphold FORteaching
SALE. DO of NOT COLLEGE
the Catholic ChurchOF
andLAW. NOTitsFOR SALE. DO NO
expect
employees
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to abide by the same. May A be dismissed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA on the ground of disgraceful or immoral
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFconduct?
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
No, A may not be dismissed
on OF DO NOT
the SAN
ground
BEDA REPRODUCE.
of disgraceful
UNIVERSITYor immoral conduct. SALE.
The morality
PROPERTY DO NOT
referred
OF SAN BEDAtoREPRODUCE.
in
UNIVERSITY
the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious. The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful
or immoral involves aCOLLEGE OF LAW.first,
two-step process: NOT FOR SALE. DO
a consideration NOT
of the totality COLLEGE OF LAW. surrounding
of the circumstances NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
SANconduct;
BEDA and second, REPRODUCE.
an assessmentPROPERTY
of the saidOF SAN BEDA vis-à-vis the
circumstances REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
prevailing norms OF SAN BEDA
of conduct,
i.e.,NOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. whatFOR
the society generally considers
UNIVERSITY moral OF
COLLEGE andLAW.
respectable.
NOT FOR The fact of the petitioner’sCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY pregnancyOF
outLAW.
of NOT FOR
wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the petitioner’s conduct as disgraceful or immoral. That
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY SALE.
petitioner was employedPROPERTY
by DO NOT
a Catholic
OF REPRODUCE.
educational
SAN BEDAinstitution SALE. determine
per se does not absolutely
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
whether
herSALE.
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR pregnancy
DO NOT out of wedlock
COLLEGEis disgraceful
OF LAW.orNOT immoral. There DO
FOR SALE. is still
NOT a necessity to determine
COLLEGE whether
OF LAW. NOTthe
FOR SALE. DO NOT
petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY norms
OF SAN BEDA Furthermore,
of conduct. REPRODUCE.
there was PROPERTY
no substantialOFevidence
SAN BEDA to prove that aREPRODUCE.
pregnancy outPROPERTY
of wedlock OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF will
LAW. cause
NOTgrave
FORscandal UNIVERSITY
to the school and its students.
COLLEGE It is NOT
OF LAW. the burden
FOR of employer to show COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY such damage
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. (Leus v. St. Scholastica, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015).
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
122. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR XYZ Company
DO NOT hiredCOLLEGE
Atty. B as
OFan Assistant
LAW. ViceSALE.
NOT FOR President for legal COLLEGE
DO NOT services. B
OFwas dismissed
LAW. NOT FOR forSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF willful
SAN breach of trust by mishandling of a case assigned to him. B allegedly belatedly drafted a
haphazard answer to a complaint which he incorrectly titled "Answer with Cross Party Complaint"
OF SAN BEDA
instead of "Answer UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
with Cross Claim". OF LAW. NOT
Consequently, theFOR UNIVERSITY
other company lawyersCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
had to prepare
SALE. DO NOT another answer that was eventually
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOfiled
NOTin court. In his defense, B said that he SALE.
REPRODUCE. was given
DO only one
NOT day
REPRODUCE.
within which to finish the draft. B then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In the course of the
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTXYZ Company
proceedings, COLLEGEfailed
OF LAW. NOT FOR
to adduce SALE. DOhaphazardly
the supposed NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.Will
drafted answer. NOTtheFOR
caseSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF prosper?
Yes,FOR
the case willUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
prosper. To be OF LAW.
a valid cause NOT FOR
for dismissal, the loss ofUNIVERSITY
trust must be COLLEGE
based on aOF LAW. NOT FOR
willful
breach of
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYsuch trust and SALE.
founded on DO NOT
clearly REPRODUCE.
established facts.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY The charge is that the SALE. DO NOT
draft-answer B REPRODUCE.
prepared
Asia was so haphazardly done that the lawyers assigned to handle them had to prepare another answer that
was DO NOT
eventually COLLEGE
filed in court. OF LAW.
Yet, XYZ NOTdidFOR
Company not SALE.
botherDO NOT the COLLEGE
to present OFBLAW.
draft-answer preparedNOTandFOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY demonstrate
OF SAN BEDA why it regarded the same as haphazardly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY done.
OF SAN Besides,
BEDAas Atty. B said, he was given
REPRODUCE. only one OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF day
LAW.within
NOTwhich
FORto finish the draft-answer
UNIVERSITY and XYZ OF
COLLEGE Company
LAW. did
NOT notFOR
contest this UNIVERSITY
fact. Consequently,
COLLEGE he could
OF LAW. NOT FOR
not be expected to do more than an adequate pleading. Settled is the rule that under Article 297(c) of the Labor
Code, the breach of trust
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
must be willful.
Ordinary
OF SAN BEDAbreach will not be enough. PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
A breach is OF DO
willful
SAN NOT
if itBEDA REPRODUCE.
is done
UNIVERSITY
intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly or inadvertently. Willful breach was not shown by the facts (Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Plans,
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
G.R. No. 181852, PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
October 9, 2013). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
123. Jeff was employed as DCP’s company driver. In 2010, Jeff received a notice informing him that he was
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.suspension
PROPERTY
being placed under preventive
DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for thirty
SALE. DO
days because he PROPERTY
was one ofOF
NOT
theSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
employees UNIVERSITY
suspected
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTof having participated
COLLEGE in theNOT
OF LAW. theftFOR
of the electrical
SALE. DO NOT productsCOLLEGE
of DCP. Jeff aver that
OF LAW. NOTheFOR
wasSALE. DO NOT
not given the opportunity to explain his side before he was suspended and that after the lapse of his
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF 30-day
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
suspension, he PROPERTY
was no longer allowed OF SAN BEDA
to return REPRODUCE.
to work without PROPERTY
any justification OF SAN BEDA
for such
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR DCP on
disallowance. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the other hand OF LAW.
explained that NOT FORJeff andUNIVERSITY
only the the companyCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
warehouseman
SALE. DO NOT were the only ones who had
REPRODUCE. complete
SALE. access
DO NOT to the warehouse where the stolen
REPRODUCE. items
SALE. DOwere
NOT located,
REPRODUCE.
and that the termination of Jeff’s employment was based on their loss of trust and confidence in him.
Was
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR JeffDO
SALE. illegally
NOT dismissed?
Yes, Jeff was illegally dismissed. Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal under Article
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF 282
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
(c) of the Labor Code, which provides that an employer may terminate an employment for "fraudCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or willful
SALE. breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." In order
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
to properly invoke the ground of loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal, two conditions must
be satisfied: COLLEGE
(1) the employer OFshow
must LAW.that
NOTthe FOR SALE.concerned
employee DO NOTholds COLLEGE OF
a position of LAW.
trust and NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
confidence;
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF and
SAN(2)BEDA
the employer must establish thePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. existence ofOF
anSAN
act justifying
BEDA the loss ofREPRODUCE.
trust and confidence. To beOF
PROPERTY a SAN BEDA
45
validUNIVERSITY
cause for dismissal, the act PROPERTY
that betraysOFtheSAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
employer’s trust must be real. Loss of PROPERTY
confidence as OFa ground
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for dismissal has
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT never been intended to afford an occasion
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT for abuse by the employer of its prerogative,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT as it FOR SALE. DO N
can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature and the loss must be founded on clearly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANfacts
established BEDA REPRODUCE.
sufficient to warrant PROPERTY
the employee's OF SAN
separation fromBEDA REPRODUCE.
work. Jeff may indeed PROPERTY
be considered as OF SAN BEDA
oneLAW. NOT FOR
who occupies UNIVERSITY
a position of COLLEGE
trust and confidence as OF
he isLAW.
one ofNOT FOR
those UNIVERSITY
who were entrusted COLLEGE
with the handling OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT of a significant amount or portion of
REPRODUCE. DCP's
SALE. DO products
NOT for sale. However, DCP failed to present
REPRODUCE. substantial
SALE. DO
evidence to support their allegations that Jeff had participated in the theft of the company’s stolen itemsOF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT(Distribution
FOR SALE. & Control
DO NOT Products,COLLEGE
Inc. v. Jeffrey E. Santos,
OF LAW. NOTG.R.
FORNo. 212616,
SALE. July 10, 2017,
DO NOT Covered
COLLEGE OF Case).
124. N and S were employees of EPC Bank and members of EPCB Union. The union held an election and N
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEandOF LAW.proclaimed
S were NOT FOR as President
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and Executive OF LAW. NOT
Vice-President, FOR
respectively. UNIVERSITY
After taking theirCOLLEGE
oath, OF LAW. NOT
N REPRODUCE.
and S notified the bank of their decision to NOT
be onREPRODUCE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
OF DO
SAN BEDAfull-time leave in order to devoteSALE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY their time
OF DO in REPRODUCE.
SANNOT
maintaining industrial peace which is a privilege given to their position under their CBA. Because of
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOofNOT
the pendency COLLEGE
the appeal by the OF LAW.
losing NOT FORthe
candidates, SALE. DOdisapproved
bank NOT COLLEGE OFofLAW.
the leaves NOT
N and S, FOR SALE. DO N
which the latter
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA failed to comply. They were meted the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA penalty of dismissal after administrative
hearings were conducted. EPC Bank argues that it validly dismissed N and S from employment
because they committed serious misconduct and willful disobedience when they failed to return to
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
work despite orders for them
to do so. DO NOT
OFWere
SAN N and
BEDA REPRODUCE.
S validly dismissed?
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,DO NOT
N and S were COLLEGE
not validly OF LAW. NOT
dismissed. FOR
A valid SALE. DO
dismissal NOT
on the ground COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of willful disobedience FOR SALE. DO NOT
requires
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF theSAN BEDA of twin requisites:
concurrence REPRODUCE. (1) thePROPERTY
employee'sOF SAN BEDA
assailed REPRODUCE.
conduct must have PROPERTY
been willful or intentional,OF SAN BEDA
the willfulness
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORbeing characterized
UNIVERSITY by a wrongful OF
COLLEGE andLAW.
perverse
NOT attitude;
FOR and (2)UNIVERSITY
the order violated
COLLEGEmust have
OF LAW. NOT FOR
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN engaged
BEDA to discharge. N and S’s
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
failure to NOT
report
OF REPRODUCE.
SANforBEDA
work despite SALE.
the disapproval of their
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
application
PROPERTY OFfor REPRODUCE.
leave
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
was SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR clearlyDO
intentional.
NOT However,
COLLEGE such
OFwas
LAW.notNOT
characterized
FOR SALE. byDO
a wrongful
NOT and perverseOF
COLLEGE attitude
LAW.orNOT withFOR SALE. DO NO
deliberate disregard of their duties as such. At the time, N and S notified the bank of their intent to avail of their
union BEDA
leaves, REPRODUCE.
they were already proclaimedPROPERTY
as winnersOF SAN
and BEDA
in fact REPRODUCE.
took their respective oaths PROPERTY
of office. OF SAN BEDA
Following
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT the terms
FOR of the parties' CBA, which
UNIVERSITY has the
COLLEGE OFstrength
LAW. NOTof law
FORas betweenUNIVERSITY
them, N andCOLLEGE
S, as duly-OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. elected union officers, were entitledSALE.
to take their union leaves (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Nestor N. Nebres and
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Armenia F. Suravilla, G.R. No. 208735, July 19, 2017, Covered Case). PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
125. Sterling Co. hired Esa as machine operator. Years later, Sterling’s supervisor found Esa and his co-
employees about to take a nap on the sheeter machine. She called their attention and prohibited them
from NOT FOR
taking UNIVERSITY
a nap thereon for safetyCOLLEGE
reasons.OF
Esa LAW.
thenNOT FORdisrespectful
uttered UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and provocative OF LAW. NOT FOR
words
SALE. DO NOT and raised his middle finger against
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOhisNOT
superior. A notice to explain was servedSALE.
REPRODUCE. on Esa
DObut the REPRODUCE.
NOT latter
neither responded nor attended the administrative hearings for the same. Sterling then terminated
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Esa’s
SALE. employment.
DO NOT COLLEGE
Sterling OF LAW.
argues that NOT
Esa'sFOR SALE. DO
utterance NOTand abusive
of foul COLLEGE OF LAW.
language NOT FOR
against his SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF supervisor,
SAN BEDAdemonstrating a dirty finger,
REPRODUCE. and defiance
PROPERTY OF SANtoBEDA
perform his duties undeniably
REPRODUCE. constituteOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
serious misconduct. Was Esa validly dismissed?
Yes, Esa
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY was validly SALE.
dismissed. DO
For NOT REPRODUCE.
misconduct or improper
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY behavior to be SALE.for
a justPROPERTY
cause DOdismissal,
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN the
BEDA UNIVERSITY
following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
the employee's COLLEGE
duties showing OFemployee
that the LAW. NOT has FOR SALE.
become unfitDO NOT working
to continue COLLEGE OFemployer;
for the LAW. NOTandFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY(c)OF
it must
SANhave
BEDA been performed with wrongful
REPRODUCE. intent. TheOF
PROPERTY utterance
SAN BEDA of obscene, insulting or offensive
REPRODUCE. words
against a superior
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is not only destructive of the morale of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his co-employees and a violation of the company
rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct. The accusatory and inflammatory language used
by an employee towards his
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
employer or DO NOT
OFsuperior
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
can be a ground for dismissal or
UNIVERSITY SALE.
termination.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
Further,
OF REPRODUCE.
Esa's
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR assailed
SALE. DOconduct was related to his work. The supervisor did not prohibit him from taking a nap. She merely
reminded him that he could not do so on the sheeter machine for safety reasons. Esa's acts reflect an
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto comply with
unwillingness REPRODUCE.
reasonable PROPERTY
managementOF SAN BEDA
directives (Sterling PaperREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Products Enterprises, Inc. v.OF SAN BEDA
KMM-Katipunan
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and Raymond Z. Esponga,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEG.R. OF
No. LAW.
221493,NOTAugust
FOR2, 2017, UNIVERSITY
Covered Case).COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA
126. UNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
Transglobal hired respondent
DO
Chu as
NOT REPRODUCE.
OFa seaman
SAN BEDAfor UNIVERSITY
a nine (9)-month duty onPROPERTY
SALE. DO
OF NOT
board a vessel.SAN
While
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
at a UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR port in DO
SALE. Taiwan,
NOTChu and his four
COLLEGE OF(4)LAW.
companions
NOT FORleft the vessel.
SALE. DO NOT Upon their return,OF
COLLEGE their captain
LAW. NOT was
FOR SALE. DO NOT
infuriated in view of their tardiness. The latter served them with a reprimand letter for misbehaving and
arguing REPRODUCE.
with a chief officer PROPERTY
in the captain’s OF SAN
presence. TheyBEDA
refused to sign REPRODUCE.
the letter sincePROPERTY
it allegedlyOF SAN BEDA
contained UNIVERSITY
false statements. They were COLLEGE OF LAW.
dismissed NOT FOR
as a result UNIVERSITY
thereof. Transglobal COLLEGE
alleges OF LAW. NOT FOR
that Chu’s
SALE. DO NOT unwarranted
REPRODUCE. refusal to sign the reprimand
SALE. DO NOT letter
REPRODUCE.in violation of his captain’s order
SALE. DO NOTconstitute
REPRODUCE.
insubordination which is a ground for dismissal. Was Chu validly dismissed? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, Chu
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAwas not validly dismissed. Insubordination or willful
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA disobedience, as a just cause for the PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. dismissal OF SAN BEDA
of an employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct
must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA
had been engaged to discharge. Chu is bound to obey lawful commands of the captain of the ship, but only as
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR long
SALE.
asDO NOT
these pertain COLLEGE OF LAW.
to his duties. There NOT
is noFOR SALE. to
relevance DOthe
NOT
order toCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
sign the documents FOR SALE. DO NOT
in Chu’s
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF performance
SAN BEDAof his duty asREPRODUCE.
a seaman. ThePROPERTY
pieces of evidence
OF SANpresented
BEDA are insufficient to establish
REPRODUCE. that Chu'sOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
46
refusal was characterized by PROPERTY
a wrongful and OFperverse
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
mental PROPERTY
attitude rendering his act OFwith
inconsistent SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
proper
subordination.
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Chu had explained that he refused to sign the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT written reprimand for he maintained that the same
contained falsehoods. A seaman is bound to obey lawful commands of the captain of the ship but only as long
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYasOFthese
SANpertains
BEDA to his duties;
signing a written reprimand is not one of these duties REPRODUCE.
(TransglobalPROPERTY
Maritime OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFAgency,
LAW. NOT FOR
Inc. v. UNIVERSITY
Vicente Chua, Jr., G.R. No.COLLEGE
222430, OF LAW.
August 30,NOT
2017,FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Covered Case).
BEDA UNIVERSIT
127. A, a security guard of KLP, while doing his usual inspection around the company’s premises heard a
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTsound of a running
FOR SALE. DO NOTindustrial fan. WithOF
COLLEGE theLAW.
intention
NOTofFOR
turning it off,
SALE. DO he followedCOLLEGE
NOT the soundOFonly to find
X and Y having
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA sexual intercourse beside the big bamboo organ.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA A immediately went back to the guard
house and relayed what he saw to B, another security guard on duty. Due to such event, X and Y were
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEdismissed
due to serious misconduct. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
a. Was the termination valid?
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOthey
b. Will NOTbe entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW.pay?
to separation NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
a. Yes, the termination is valid. Sexual acts and intimacies between two consenting adults belong, as a
principled ideal, to the realm of purely private relations. Whether aroused by lust or inflamed by sincere
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
affection, sexualPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
acts should OF DO NOT
be carried
SAN out REPRODUCE.
BEDA atUNIVERSITY
such place, time and circumstance
PROPERTY SALE.
that, DO
OFbySAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
the generally
UNIVERSITY
accepted norms of conduct, will not offend public decency nor disturb the generally held or accepted
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOsocial
NOT morals.COLLEGE OF LAW.
Under these NOT FOR
parameters, SALE.
sexual actsDO NOT two COLLEGE
between consentingOF LAW.
adults do NOT FORaSALE. DO NOT
not have
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
place in the work environment PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
(Imasen Philippine REPRODUCE.
Manufacturing Corporation PROPERTY
v. Alcon, OF SAN BEDA
G.R. No.
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT 194884,
FOR October 22, 2014). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN b. No, X and Y are not
PROPERTY DO
entitled to NOT
OF REPRODUCE.
separation
SAN pay. UNIVERSITY
BEDA The payment of separation SALE.
pay isDO
PROPERTY onlyNOT
due
OF REPRODUCE.
when
SAN a UNIVERSITY
BEDA
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.dismissal
DO NOTis on COLLEGE
account of OF
an authorized
LAW. NOTcause and the
FOR SALE. DOamount
NOT of separation
COLLEGEpay OFdepends on the
ground for the termination of employment (Belarde v. Fuentes, G.R. Nos. 205685-86, June 22, 2015).
NIVERSITY COLLEGE128.
OF A, the NOT
LAW. company’s
FOR secretary, was offered
UNIVERSITY a promotion.
COLLEGE However,
OF LAW. despite theUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR offer and a huge increase
SALE. in her salary, she refused. The company then dismissed A based on willful disobedience which
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
prompted A to file an illegal dismissal case. Will the case prosper? Explain.
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Yes,
SAN the illegal dismissal case will prosper. Promotion is the advancement from one position to another with
an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTAnFOR
salary. employee isUNIVERSITY
not bound toCOLLEGE OF LAW. which
accept a promotion, NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
is in the nature COLLEGE
of a gift or reward. OF LAW.
Refusal to NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT be promoted is a valid exercise
REPRODUCE. of aDO
SALE. right.
NOT Such exercise cannot be considered in law
REPRODUCE. SALE.as insubordination
DO NOT or
REPRODUCE.
willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer hence, it cannot be the basis of an employee's dismissal
from service COLLEGE
(PHARMACIA and OF LAW. NOT
UPJOHN, FOR
INC. v. SALE.Jr.,
Albayda, DOG.R.
NOTNo. 172724,
COLLEGE OF23,
August LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
2010).
PROPERTY OF SAN
TheBEDA UNIVERSITY
following SALE. DO
are the just causes forPROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
OFemployment
termination of SAN BEDAasUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
provided by D.O. No. 147-15, DO5.4:
Sec. NOT REPRODUCE.
Installation of Labor-saving Devices; Requisites
1. There must be introduction of machinery, equipment or other devices; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
2. The introduction
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR must be done in good faith;
SALE. DO NOT 3. The purpose for such introduction
REPRODUCE. must
SALE. DO beNOT
validREPRODUCE.
such as to save on cost, enhance SALE.
efficiency NOT
and other
justifiable economic reasons; PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
4. SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR ThereDO
is no other option
NOT available
COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
the employer
NOT FORthanSALE.
the introduction
DO NOT of machinery,
COLLEGEequipment
OF LAW.orNOT
device
FORandSALE. DO NOT
the consequent termination of employment of those affected thereby; and
5. There must be fair and reasonable criteria in selecting employees to be dismissed.
SALE. DO Redundancy; Requisites
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
1.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
There must be superfluous positions or services of employees;
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR2. SALE. DO NOTor services
The positions COLLEGEare inOF LAW.ofNOT
excess whatFOR SALE. DOdemanded
is reasonably NOT COLLEGE
by OFrequirements
the actual LAW. NOT FOR of theSALE. DO NOT
enterprise
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to operate in an economical and efficient manner;
3. There must be good faith in abolishing redundant positions;
ERSITY COLLEGE OF 4.LAW.
There must be fair and reasonable criteria in selecting the employees to be dismissed; and COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN 5. There
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.ofDO
must be an adequatePROPERTY
proof NOT REPRODUCE.
redundancy
OF SAN such
BEDAasUNIVERSITY SALE. DO
but not limited to the newPROPERTY
staffing NOT
pattern, REPRODUCE.
feasibility
studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
management COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
of the restructuring. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Retrenchment
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTor Downsizing;
FOR Requisites
1. The retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses;
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA2. UNIVERSITY
The losses, if already incurred,
PROPERTY SALE.
are not DO
SANNOT
OFmerely de REPRODUCE.
BEDA minimis, but substantial, serious,
UNIVERSITY SALE.
actual
PROPERTY OF DO
and SANNOT
real, or REPRODUCE.
if only
BEDA UNIVERSITY
expected, are reasonably imminent;
3. The expected or actual losses must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence;
47
PROPERTY OF SAN4. BEDA UNIVERSITYmust be in good
The retrenchment PROPERTY OF advancement
faith for the SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
of its interest and not to defeat OF SANtheBEDA UNIVERSITY
or circumvent
employees’ right
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT to security of tenure; and
5. There must be fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained
among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
financial hardship for OF SAN BEDA
certain NOT FOR
workers. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
BEDA UNIVERS
Closure or Cessation of Operation; Requisites
COLLEGE OF LAW.1. NOT
There
FORmust be aDO
SALE. decision
NOT to close or ceaseOF
COLLEGE operation of theFOR
LAW. NOT enterprise
SALE. by
DOthe management;
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
2. The decision
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAwas made in good faith; and
3. There is no other option available to the employer except to close or cease operations.
PROPERTY OFDisease;
SALE. DO
SANNOT Requisites
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
1.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
The employee must be suffering from any disease;
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
2. FOR SALE. DOemployment
The continued NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
of the employee NOT FORbySALE.
is prohibited law orDO NOT to his/her
prejudicial COLLEGE OFasLAW.
health NOT
well as to FOR SALE. DO N
the health of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA his/her co-employees; and
3. There must be certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within a period
of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Other Causes of Termination
1. Reasonable and lawfulCOLLEGE OF LAW.
grounds specified NOTcompany
under FOR SALE. DO NOT
policies; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
AnSAN BEDAfound positive
employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
for use of dangerous OFshall
drugs SANbeBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
dealt with administratively;
3. LAW.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF Sexual
NOTharassment
FOR (serious misconduct);
UNIVERSITY and
4. Those provided for under the CBA (D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 6).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
129. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Arlene wasDO
SALE. hiredNOTas a news correspondent
COLLEGE OF LAW. byNOT
Fiji Inc.
FORforSALE.
a period
DOofNOT
one year.COLLEGE
The employment
OF LAW. contact
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
was successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary adjustments upon every renewal. Years
passed, andBEDA REPRODUCE.
Arlene was diagnosed PROPERTY
with lung cancer. She OF SAN BEDAFiji Inc. about
informed REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
her condition, which OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFprompted
LAW. NOT Fiji Inc
FORto deny the renewal of her
UNIVERSITY contract
COLLEGE OFconsidering
LAW. NOTher condition.UNIVERSITY
FOR Arlene filed aCOLLEGE
complaintOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. for illegal dismissal alleging thatSALE.
she was forced to sign the non-renewal contract upon knowledge of
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
her condition reached Fiji Inc. Will the case prosper? PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Yes, Arlene was illegally dismissed. For termination due to disease to be valid, two requirements must be
complied with: (1) the employee’s disease cannot be cured within six (6) months and his "continued
employment UNIVERSITY
is prohibited COLLEGE
by law or prejudicial OFhealth
to his LAW.as NOTwellFOR UNIVERSITY
as to the health COLLEGE OF
of his co-employees"; andLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT (2) certification issued by a competent
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO public
NOT health authority that even with proper medical
REPRODUCE. SALE. treatment,
DO NOT the
REPRODUCE.
disease cannot be cured within six (6) months. The burden of proving compliance with these requisites is on
SALE. DO NOT
employer. COLLEGE
Noncompliance OFtoLAW.
leads NOT FORthat
the conclusion SALE. DO NOT was illegal.
the dismissal COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
There is no evidence showing that Arlene was accorded due process. After informing her employer of her
lung NOT FOR
cancer, she was notUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
given the chance OF LAW.
to present NOTcertificates.
medical FOR UNIVERSITY
Fiji immediately COLLEGE
concluded OF
thatLAW. NOT FOR
Arlene could
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY no longer perform SALE.
her DO
duties NOT REPRODUCE.
because of chemotherapy.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY It did not ask her SALE.
how her DO NOT
condition REPRODUCE.
would
affect her work. Neither did it suggest for her to take a leave, even though she was entitled to sick leaves.
Worse, DO
it did notNOT COLLEGE
present any OFfrom
certificate LAW. NOT FORpublic
a competent SALE.health
DO NOT
authority.COLLEGE OFwas
What Fiji did LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
to inform
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYherOF
that
SANher BEDA
contract would noREPRODUCE.
longer be renewed (Fuji Television
PROPERTY OF SANNetwork,
BEDA Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. Nos.PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. 204944- OF SAN BEDA
45,LAW.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF December 3, 2014).
130. UNIVERSITY
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA X and Y were employedPROPERTY SALE. DO
by AB Laboratories NOT
in the Pedia Division. However,
UNIVERSITY theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
positions of REPRODUCE.
the
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR respondents
SALE. DO NOT were declared redundant when the Pedia Division and its Medical Nutrition Division were
merged into one. This resulted in the termination of X and Y, who were subsequently offered them the
position of district salesREPRODUCE.
manager. They PROPERTY
denied theOF SANA BEDA
offer. REPRODUCE.
complaint for illegal dismissal PROPERTY
was filed byOF SAN BEDA
X and
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. Y arguing
NOT FOR thatUNIVERSITY
no fair criteria was utilized
COLLEGE OF LAW. in determining
NOT FOR who UNIVERSITY
among the employees
COLLEGE OF areLAW. NOT FOR
redundant. AB Laboratories argued that respondents were dismissed for an authorized cause. Is the
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
contention of AB Laboratories
DO
OF NOT
correct?
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, there was no valid implementation of the redundancy program. For there to be a valid implementation
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF of SAN BEDA program,REPRODUCE.
a redundancy PROPERTY
the following should OF SAN
be present: (1)BEDA REPRODUCE.
written notice served on both thePROPERTY
employeesOF SAN BEDA
and the FOR
Department UNIVERSITY
of Labor COLLEGE
and Employment at OF LAW.
least NOT FOR
one month UNIVERSITY
prior to the intended date ofCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
retrenchment;
SALE. DO NOT (2) payment
REPRODUCE. of separation pay equivalent to
SALE. DO NOT at least one month
REPRODUCE. pay or at least one month pay for
SALE. DO NOT every year
REPRODUCE.
of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable
criteria
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR in ascertaining
SALE. DO NOT whatCOLLEGE
positions are
OFtoLAW.
be declared
NOT FORredundant
SALE.and
DOaccordingly
NOT abolished. OF
COLLEGE AB LAW.
Laboratories
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
failed to establish
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA compliance with the fourth requirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA since it did not gauge the redundant employees
against the preference criteria of status, efficiency, and proficiency. Furthermore, the offer for job openings for
the position of district sales manager puts a cloud on the wisdom and validity of the redundancy COLLEGE
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY program asOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. the essence of redundancy is that the existing manpower exceeds more than what is necessary in their
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
operation (Abbott Laboratories (Philippines), Inc. v. Manuel F. Torralba, G.R. No. 229746, October 11, 2017,
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Covered
SALE. DO NOT
Case). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
48
Two-fold OF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY requirements
SAN BEDAof due process:
In order for dismissal of employees to be valid, substantive and procedural requirements of due process must be
complied with. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a. The substantive
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY aspect SALE.
requires that DO
the NOT REPRODUCE.
dismissal be for (a)
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY just cause under SALE.
Art. PROPERTY
297 DO NOT
(Termination
OF SANREPRODUCE.
by BEDA UNIVERSIT
Employer) or (a) authorized cause under Art. 298 (Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel) or
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTArt.
FOR299SALE.
(DiseaseDO as
NOT Ground COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
for Termination). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
b. The procedural
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA aspect requires that the employer
REPRODUCE. shall observe
PROPERTY OF SANthe BEDA
following: If the termination
REPRODUCE.is based on
PROPERTY OF SAN BED
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEjust
OFcause
LAW.under
NOT Art.
FOR297: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
• A written notice served on the employee specifying the (i) ground(s) for termination, (ii) company policies,
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA if any, (iii) detailed narration
of facts as DO
SANNOT
OFbasis theREPRODUCE.
ofBEDA charge, and (iv) a directive for
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
the employee
PROPERTY NOT
to give
SAN a REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
writtenDO
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. explanation
NOT within a reasonable
COLLEGE OF LAW.period
NOT[“Reasonable
FOR SALE. DO period”
NOTis construed
COLLEGEas aOF
period
LAW.of at
NOTleast
FOR SALE. DO NO
5 calendar days.];
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY• OFASAN BEDA
hearing or conferenceREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
during which the employer OF SANafford
should BEDAthe employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
ample opportunity to be OF SAN BEDA
heard andFOR UNIVERSITY
to defend himself with theCOLLEGE
assistanceOFofLAW.
counselNOT FOR
if he so desires.UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Ample opportunity OF LAW. NOT FOR
to be
SALE. DO NOT heard” means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges
against him/her and submit evidence in support of his/her defense, whether in a hearing, conference orUNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.some other fair, COLLEGE
DO NOT just and reasonable
OF LAW.way
NOT(D.O.
FORNo. 147-15,
SALE. DOSec.
NOT5.1(b))]; and
• A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that (i) all circumstances involving the
charge have been considered and (ii) the grounds have been established to justify the severance of
employment. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
If the termination is based on authorized cause under Arts. 298 and 299: It is deemed complied with upon service of
written SALE.
notice DOemployee
to the NOT and COLLEGE OF LAW.
the appropriate NOT FOR
Regional OfficeSALE.
of theDO NOT
DOLE at leastCOLLEGE OF LAW.
30 days before NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the effectivity
of the termination,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA specifying the ground or grounds therefor. If
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAthe termination is based on (i) completion of a contract
or phase thereof, (ii) failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of probationary
employment: It shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
dateREPRODUCE.
BEDA ofUNIVERSITY
termination (IRR of the LABOR
PROPERTY SALE.
CODE, DO
SANNOT
OFBook VI, REPRODUCE.
Rule
BEDA I, Sec. 2, as amended by D.O.
UNIVERSITY 147,SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
series NOT
of 2015).
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTNote:
FORAnSALE. DO NOT
employee COLLEGE
may validly OF LAW.
be dismissed basedNOT FOR SALE.and
on reasonable DOlawful
NOTgrounds
COLLEGE
specifiedOF LAW.
under theNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
employer’s
company BEDA
policy REPRODUCE.
or under the CBA. PROPERTY
(D.O. 147, series of 2015,OF SAN6 BEDA
Secs. and 7). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Resignation
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR by personal reasons to disassociate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE themselves
OF LAW. NOT FOR
from their employment. On the other hand, there is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility,
or disdain
SALE.
by an employer becomesPROPERTY
DO NOT
OFthe
unbearable on
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
part of theUNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
employee that it could foreclose
DO NOT
any OF
REPRODUCE.
SANofBEDA
choice him UNIVERSITY
except
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT to forego
FOR SALE.ofDO
hisNOT
continued COLLEGE
employmentOF(Hyatt
LAW.Taxi
NOTServices, Inc. v.DO
FOR SALE. Catinoy,
NOT G.R.COLLEGE
No. 143204,
OFJune
LAW. 26,NOT
2011).
FOR SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
131. A was initially employed by BB as a Supervisor for their restaurant. Thereafter, when the restaurant OF SAN BEDA
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF closed,
LAW. NOTshe FOR UNIVERSITY
was transferred COLLEGE
to do office OFbecame
work and LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
an Administrative and FinanceCOLLEGE
assistantOF
to LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT CC. When BB ventured into other
REPRODUCE. businesses,
SALE. DO NOT A’s duties extended, performing various
REPRODUCE. SALE. functions
DO NOT to
REPRODUCE.
each of the B’s business. Subsequently, A filed a resignation letter due to the not so favorable
treatment COLLEGE
of CC towards her. OF LAW. NOT
However, FOR
BB did SALE.
not DOher
accept NOT COLLEGE
resignation OF LAW. NOT
and convinced her toFOR
staySALE. DO NOT
and work.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Nevertheless, her experience became worse.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA A’s resignation was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYshe
finally accepted when OF SAN BEDA
filed the same due to an incident when CC called her on the phone, scolded and berated her and told
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
her that if she did not want to continue to work, the company could manage without her. She then filedLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA for illegal dismissal. Was ASALE.
UNIVERSITY DO
OF NOT
constructively
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SAN dismissed?
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,DOthis
NOTis a caseCOLLEGE OF LAW.
of resignation and notNOT FOR SALE.
dismissal. There DO NOT
is constructive COLLEGE OF LAW.
dismissal when NOT FOR
an employer's actSALE. DO NOT
of clear
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA so unbearable on the part of the employee
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF so as to SAN BEDA
foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. It exists where there is involuntary
resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. Strong words may
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAsometimes
UNIVERSITY asSALE.
be exchanged PROPERTY DO NOT
the employer
OF SANREPRODUCE.
describes her expectations or as the
employee
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
narrates
OF SAN the UNIVERSITY
BEDA
conditions of her work environment and the obstacles she encounters as she accomplishes her assigned tasks.
AsSALE. DOhuman
in every NOT relationship,
COLLEGE OF are
there LAW. NOTtoFOR
bound SALE. DO NOTHowever,
be disagreements. COLLEGE OF LAW.
when these strongNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
words
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY from
OF SAN BEDA happenREPRODUCE.
the employer PROPERTY
without palpable reason or OF
are SAN BEDAonly for theREPRODUCE.
expressed PROPERTY
purpose of degrading the OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF dignity
LAW. NOTof theFOR
employee, then a hostile work
UNIVERSITY environment
COLLEGE will be
OF LAW. created.
NOT FOR This is not the situation
UNIVERSITY in this case.
A was not pressured into resigning. A was not comfortable anymore with the fact that she was always at the
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
beck and call of BB (Lourdes SALE.
OF DO
SAN
C. Rodriguez v.NOT
BEDA
ParkREPRODUCE.
N UNIVERSITY MarchSALE.
PROPERTY
Ride, Inc. G.R. No. 222980, 20,OF DO
SANNOT
2017). BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
49
An employer hasBEDA REPRODUCE.
the right to preventively suspendPROPERTY OFduring
the employee SAN BEDA
the pendency ofREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the administrative case OF SAN BEDA
against him as a measure
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of self – protection (Philippine National Bank
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 166096, September 11,
2008).
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
132. When is it proper to impose preventive suspension?
An employee mayBEDA
be placed underREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
preventive suspension, OF SAN BEDA
when: REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF 1. LAW.
The evidence
NOT FORof guilt isUNIVERSITY
strong, and the employer
COLLEGE OForLAW.
headNOTof establishment
FOR is convinced that
UNIVERSITY the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
continued stay of the employee during the period of investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
operations of the company;
and OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR2.SALE.
His DO
continued
NOT employment
COLLEGE poses a serious
OF LAW. NOTand imminent
FOR SALE.threat
DO NOTto life or property
COLLEGE of the
OF employer
LAW. NOT or FOR SALE. DO N
his co-workers (Gatbonton v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146779, January 23, 2006).
It shallNOT FOR
be for a maximum UNIVERSITY
period of 30 COLLEGE OFwhich
days, during LAW.period
NOT the
FORemployeeUNIVERSITY
placed under COLLEGE
preventive OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT suspension is not entitled to any wages.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT133.
FOR SSALE.
was charged
DO NOT with violating
COLLEGE"various
OF LAW.company
NOT FOR policies by misrepresenting
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGEand OF
using
LAW.hisNOT
position
FOR SALE. DO NOT
and influence
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in his plot to defraud S Company. Pending
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA administrative investigation, S was placed
under preventive suspension without pay for a period of 30 days. Continued audit investigation,
however, revealed that S approved/noted several CEs covering activities for which paymentsCOLLEGEwereOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT made
REPRODUCE. but not actually carried out. Unaccredited
SALE. DO NOT third parties
REPRODUCE. were also engaged in the implementation
of the projects. S was again preventively suspended for another 10 days. May a subsequent preventive
suspension beNOT COLLEGE
imposed for OF LAW.
a separate NOToffense
or distinct FOR SALE.
upon DO
anNOT
employee?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Yes, a subsequent preventive suspension may be imposed for a separate or distinct offense upon an
employee. While the Omnibus Rules limits the period of preventive suspension to 30 days, such time frame
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA pertains only to one offense
UNIVERSITY by theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
employee. For REPRODUCE.
an
BEDA offense, it cannot go beyond
UNIVERSITY SALE.
30 days.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
However,
OF REPRODUCE.
if the
BEDA UNIVERSITY
employee is charged with another offense, then the employer is entitled to impose a preventive suspension
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR not
SALE. DO NOT
to exceed COLLEGE for
30 days specifically OFthe
LAW.
newNOT FOR Indeed,
infraction. SALE. DO NOT
a fresh COLLEGE
preventive OF LAW.
suspension can beNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
imposed
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF for a separate or distinct offense. Thus, an employer is well within its rights to preventively suspend anOF SAN BEDA
employee
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for
FORother wrongdoings
UNIVERSITY that may be later
COLLEGE OFdiscovered
LAW. NOT while
FORthe first investigation
UNIVERSITY is ongoing
COLLEGE (Smart
OF LAW. NOT FOR
Communications, Inc. v. Solidum, G.R. No. 19776; December 7, 2015).
An illegally dismissed employee shall be entitled to the following:
a. Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges;
PROPERTY OF SANb.BEDA
Full UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
backwages, inclusive of allowances;
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
c. Other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of his actual reinstatement (Art. 294, Labor Code).
The following reliefs
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR are also awarded in illegal dismissal cases:
a. Award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement where reinstatement is not possible;
SALE. DO NOT
b. UNIVERSITY
Award of separation pay or PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN BEDA
financial assistance REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
in cases of VALID dismissal butPROPERTYSALE.
long years OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
of service, REPRODUCE.
and UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR others
SALE. are
DOtaken
NOTinto consideration;
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANInBEDA
Note: REPRODUCE.
Philippine Long Distance PROPERTY
Telephone CompanyOFv. SAN BEDA
National REPRODUCE.
Labor Relations Commission, PROPERTY
the SupremeOF SAN BEDA
CourtNOT FOR the harsh
recognized UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
realities faced OF LAW.that
by employees NOT FORthem, despite
forced UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
their good OFtoLAW. NOT FOR
intentions,
SALE. DO violate company policies, for which the employer can rightfully terminate their employment. For these
SAN BEDA
instances, the award of financial assistance was allowed. But, in clear and unmistakable language, the UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Supreme
SALE. DOCourt
NOTalso held that theOFaward
COLLEGE LAW.ofNOTfinancial
FOR assistance
SALE. DO should
NOT not COLLEGE
be given toOFvalidly
LAW.terminated
employees, whose offenses are iniquitous or reflective of some depravity in their moral character.
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
c. Reliefs to illegally dismissed employee whose employment is for a fixed period; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT d. The
REPRODUCE.proper relief is only the payment of the
SALE. DO NOT employee’s salaries
REPRODUCE. corresponding to the unexpired
SALE. DOportion
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
employment contract;
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTe. FOR SALE.
Award DO NOTand attorney’s
of damages COLLEGE OFand
fees; LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
f. Imposition
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of legal interest on separation pay, backwages and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA other monetary award.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Reinstatement is the restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated. COLLEGE
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY The personOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
reinstated assumes the position hePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
had occupied DO
SANNOT
OFprior hisREPRODUCE.
toBEDAdismissal. SALE.
Reinstatement presupposes
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY that DO
OFthe
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
previous
BEDA UNIVERSITY
position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially
equivalent or of DO NOT
similar COLLEGE
nature as the one OF LAW. NOT
previously FORby
occupied SALE. DO NOT (DUPCOLLEGE
the employee OF LAW.
Sounds Phils. NOT
and/ or FOR SALE. DO NOT
Manuel
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Tan v. OF SAN
Court of BEDA
Appeals, G.R. No.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
168317, November 21, OF SANThe
2011). BEDA REPRODUCE.
Labor Arbiter’s PROPERTYisOF SAN BEDA
order of reinstatement
50
immediately executory, and no writ ofPROPERTY
execution isOF SAN BEDA
necessary UNIVERSITY
to implement the said order ofPROPERTY OF(Garcia
reinstatement SAN BEDA
v. UNIVERSITY
Philippine Airlines,
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009).
Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected REPRODUCE.
because of PROPERTY
the unjust OF SAN BEDA
dismissal NOT v.
(Bordomeo FOR UNIVERSITY
Court of Appeals, COLLEGE
G.R. No. OF LAW.20,
161596, February NOT FOR
2013) UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
134. How do we compute backwages?
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYItOFis computed
SAN BEDA from the timeREPRODUCE.
of the illegal dismissal
PROPERTY up toOF
time of actual
SAN BEDA reinstatement. If reinstatement
REPRODUCE. is
PROPERTY OF SAN BED
no longer possible, it is computed until finality of the decision (St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEAssociation
v. St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela, G.R. No. 182957, June 13, 2013). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
135. What are included in the computation of backwages?
The Court
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA has declared that the base figure to be
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAused in the computation of backwages due
REPRODUCE. to the OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFsuch
as the emergency living allowances and the 13th-month pay mandated under the law (Paramount Vinyl
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
Product Corporation vs.PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NLRC, G.R. SALE. DO
No.SAN
OF NOT
81200, REPRODUCE.
October
BEDA 17, 1990).
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
136. SALE.
A is DO NOT as bank
working COLLEGE OF LAW.
collector. It wasNOT
laterFOR SALE. DO
discovered NOT
that several COLLEGE
funds sheOF LAW.
was NOT FOR
handling wereSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF misappropriated.
SAN BEDA The REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
bank then dismissed A andOF SAN
filed BEDA of criminalREPRODUCE.
a series cases againstPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
her. A, on the
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.other
NOThand,
FOR filed anUNIVERSITY
illegal dismissal case OF
COLLEGE against
LAW.the NOTbank.
FORThe court held that there
UNIVERSITY was OF
COLLEGE illegal
LAW. NOT FOR
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of A. However, instead of reinstatement, separation pay was
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAgiven
to A due strained relations.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Was such act by the bank correct?
b. IfBEDA REPRODUCE.
there is no reinstatement, whatPROPERTY OFtoSAN
will happen BEDA
A’s backwages? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. a. Yes, the act of the bank of givingDO
separation pay instead of reinstating A is correct. In instances where
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOemployer,
NOT separation
COLLEGEpay OF should be granted.
LAW. NOT In effect,
FOR SALE. DO NOTan illegallyCOLLEGE
dismissedOF
employee
LAW. NOTshould
FORbeSALE. DO NOT
entitled to either reinstatement – if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer be viable,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
plus backwages in either instance (Wenphil Corporation vs Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014).
OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.b. Employees who are SALE.illegally
DOdismissed
NOT are entitled to full backwages, inclusive
REPRODUCE. SALE.ofDO
allowances and
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual compensation was
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOwithheld
NOT from COLLEGE
them upOF to LAW. NOT
the time FOR actual
of their SALE. reinstatement.
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. isNOT
But if reinstatement FOR SALE. DO NOT
no longer
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDApossible, the backwages
REPRODUCE. shall PROPERTY
be computedOF from theBEDA
SAN time of their illegal termination up
REPRODUCE. to the finality
of the decision (Bank of Lubao, Inc. v Manabat, G.R. No. 188722, February 1, 2012).
137. A case of
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYillegal dismissal SALE.
was DO
filed NOT
by VD REPRODUCE.
against
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYUB Inc. and JU. The SALE.
LA ruled DO
that
PROPERTY NOT
VD’s REPRODUCE.
OF dismissal
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
was valid but was reversed by the NLRC on appeal. VD was awarded backwages from the date of her
dismissal upNOT COLLEGE
to the date of the OF
NLRCLAW. NOT FOR
decision and SALE. DO NOT
separation COLLEGE
pay in lieu OF LAW. NOT
of reinstatement due FOR
to SALE. DO NOT
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY strained
OF SAN relations.
BEDA The decision became
REPRODUCE. final and OF
PROPERTY executory.
SAN BEDAUB Inc. later REPRODUCE.
challenged thePROPERTY
basis for OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NLRC’s
LAW. NOTaward
FORof backwages computed
UNIVERSITY at the time
COLLEGE of VA’s
OF LAW. dismissal
NOT FOR up toUNIVERSITY
the finality ofCOLLEGE
the Court’s
OF LAW. NOT FOR
Decision, arguing that full backwages is computed from the time an illegally dismissed employee’s
compensation is withheld
up to the DO
OF time NOT
SAN of REPRODUCE.
his actual
BEDA reinstatement. And
UNIVERSITY SALE.
since theOF
PROPERTY DO NOT
decision REPRODUCE.
of the
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
NLRC awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners argue that backwages should no
longer accrue beyond the date of the said NLRC Decision. How is the amount of backwages computed?
The FOR
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT computation UNIVERSITY
of backwagesCOLLEGE
is from theOF time
LAW.of dismissal
NOT FORup to the UNIVERSITY
finality of the COLLEGE
decision ordering
OF LAW. NOT FOR
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. When separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement, backwages is
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
computed from the time PROPERTY
SALE. DO
of dismissal OF
NOT
untilSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
the finality ofUNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
the decision ordering separation
DO
pay. OF
NOT
TheSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
finality UNIVERSITY
of the
decision
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO becomes
NOT the reckoning
COLLEGE OF point
LAW.because
NOT FOR in SALE.
allowing
DOseparation
NOT pay, the final
COLLEGE OFdecision effectively
declares that the employment relationship ended so that separation pay and backwages are to be computed
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF up
SAN BEDA
to that REPRODUCE.
point (U-BIX Corporation PROPERTY
v. Valerie OFHollero,
Anne H. SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
G.R. No. 199660, PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
July 13, 2015).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
138. X and Y were dismissed, along with 200 other employees of Rid-Rite, on the ground of retrenchment.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Each
OF SAN BEDAreceived involuntary
of them REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
separation OF SAN
benefits. BEDA there were
However, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
eight other employees
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF who
LAW.were
NOTmistakenly
FOR paid additional COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY voluntary OF
separation
LAW. NOT benefits.
FOR X and UNIVERSITY
Y filed a complaint before
the LA for payment of such additional voluntary separation benefits. X and Y argued that Rid-Rite
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
discriminated againstPROPERTY
SALE.
them by not
DO
SANNOT
OFgranting
BEDA REPRODUCE.
theUNIVERSITY
aforesaid benefits, thePROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
award of which SAN NOT
BEDA
had
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
since
become
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO aNOT
companyCOLLEGE
policy. Rid-Rite
OF LAW.avers
NOTthat
FORX and Y were
SALE. separatedCOLLEGE
DO NOT from service on theNOT
OF LAW. ground
FORofSALE. DO NOT
retrenchment, which separation was involuntary in nature. Hence, nothing more was due to them. Are
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF XSAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and Y entitled to additional voluntary separation benefits?
51
No, X and
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTY are not entitled additional voluntary separation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT benefits. Voluntary and involuntary
COLLEGE separation
benefits are distinct from one another. By its nomenclature alone, one could easily discern that the award of
voluntary separation benefits involves a situation that is opposite of that contemplated in involuntary separation OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.–NOT
benefits FOR
that is, UNIVERSITY
the employee's separationCOLLEGE OF LAW.isNOT
from employment by hisFOR
own choice UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and/or for reasons within OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT his control. Given the diametrical nature
REPRODUCE. SALE. of an
DO involuntary
NOT and a voluntary separation from
REPRODUCE. SALE. service,
DO NOToneREPRODUCE.
necessarily excludes the other. As X and Y’s termination was involuntary in nature, i.e., by virtue of a BEDA UNIVERS
retrenchment
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.program
DO NOT undertaken by Rid-Rite,
COLLEGE they are
OF LAW. NOTonlyFOR
entitled
SALE.to receive
DO NOT involuntary separation
COLLEGE OF benefits
(Read-Rite Philippines,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Inc. v. Gina Francisco, G.R. No. 195457,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA August 16, 2017, Covered Case).
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW.139. B worked
NOT FOR SALE.asDOa part-time
NOT professional
COLLEGE OFlecturer at XYZ
LAW. NOT FORSchool
SALE.inDO
1974. He tookCOLLEGE
NOT a leave ofOF
absence
LAW. from
NOT FOR SALE. DO N
1975 to 1977. Upon returning in 1977, he resumed teaching in the school until 2003, the year his
employment was terminatedREPRODUCE.
by the school PROPERTY
because he OF wasSAN BEDA
already 75 years old.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Thereafter, B claimed
hisLAW. NOT pay
retirement FORfrom XYZ UNIVERSITY
School, whichCOLLEGE OFdenied
the latter LAW. NOT FOR
on the UNIVERSITY
ground that COLLEGE
he was merely a part- OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT time teacher who was not entitled to such benefit. B filed a complaint against XYZ School for non-
UNIVERSITY
payment of retirement benefits. Will the action prosper? PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Yes,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the action will prosper. B is entitled to retirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA benefits pursuant to RA 7641. To avail the
REPRODUCE. retirementOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
benefits under Art. 302 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA. 7641, the following requisites must concur:
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.a.NOT TheFORemployee hasUNIVERSITY
reached theCOLLEGE
age of 60 OFyears
LAW.forNOT FORretirement
optional UNIVERSITY
or 65 years COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
for compulsory
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. retirement; SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
b.
The employee has served at least five years in the establishment; and
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR c.
SALE. DO NOT
There COLLEGE
is no retirement planOF
or LAW.
other NOT FOR SALE.
applicable DO NOT
agreement providingCOLLEGE OF LAW.
for retirement NOTofFOR SALE. DO NO
benefits
employees
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in the establishment.
Retirement Pay Law shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position,
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA designation or status and PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
irrespective OF DO
of the
SAN NOT
method
BEDAREPRODUCE.
byUNIVERSITY
which their wages are paid. TheySALE.
PROPERTY shall DO
SANNOT
OFinclude REPRODUCE.
part-
BEDA UNIVERSITY
time employees, employees of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR personal
SALE. DO NOTof another
service COLLEGE
(De LaOF LAW. NOTUniversity
Salle-Araneta FOR SALE. DO NOT
v. Juanito COLLEGE
C. Bernardo OF190809,
G.R. No. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
February
13, 2017). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
140. UNIVERSITY SALE.
Jona was hired on JunePROPERTY DO
1955 as an OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
elementary UNIVERSITY
teacher SALE.
PROPERTY
in SP Colleges. In 1970 she DO
OF NOT
SAN
applied aREPRODUCE.
for BEDA
one UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (1) yearDO
SALE. leave
NOTof absence due to
COLLEGE OFher mother’s
LAW. NOT FORillness. However,
SALE. DO NOTafter the expiration
COLLEGE OF of saidNOT
LAW. leaveFOR
in SALE. DO NOT
1971, Jona had not been heard by the school. In 1982, Jona applied anew with the school. On 1997,
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN an
during BEDA REPRODUCE.
event in exercises PROPERTY
of the school, Jona was OFawarded
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
a plaque of appreciation for PROPERTY
her 30 yearsOF SAN BEDA
of service. UNIVERSITY
Upon reaching COLLEGE retirement
the compulsory OF LAW. NOT age FOR UNIVERSITY
of 65, the school COLLEGE
computed OF LAW. NOT FOR
Joanna’s
SALE. DO NOT retirement benefits on account
REPRODUCE. of 15DO
SALE. years
NOTof service (1982-1997), considering sheSALE.
REPRODUCE. abandoned
DO NOTherREPRODUCE.
work
during her employment of 1955-1970. Jona, insists that she did not abandoned her work, and as such
her SALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR retirement benefits must
DO NOT be computed
COLLEGE OF LAW. forNOTher service
FOR SALE.ofDO30NOT
years (1955-1997).
COLLEGE OF Should
LAW.Jona’s
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
Services for the school during the period from 1955 to 1970 be factored in the computation of her
retirement benefits?
SALE. DO NOT No, Jona cannot be credited forSALE.
REPRODUCE. her services
DO NOTin 1955-1970
REPRODUCE.in the determination of her retirement
SALE. benefits.
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
For, after her one year leave of absence expired in 1971 without her requesting for extension thereof as in fact
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR she
SALE.
hadDOnotNOT COLLEGE
been heard OFshe
from until LAW. NOT FOR
resurfaced SALE.when
in 1982 DO NOT COLLEGE
she reapplied OF LAW.school,
with petitioner NOT FORshe SALE. DO NOT
abandoned
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA her teaching position as in fact she was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA employed elsewhere in the interim and effectively
relinquished the retirement benefits accumulated during the said period. For a valid finding of abandonment,
two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work, or absence without valid or justifiable reason;
SALE. DO
and (2) a clear intention PROPERTY
to sever DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
employer-employee
SAN BEDA relationship, with the second
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OFasNOT
element REPRODUCE.
theBEDA
SAN more UNIVERSITY
determinative factor, being manifested by some overt acts. To prove abandonment, the employer must show
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR that
SALE.
theDO NOT deliberately
employee COLLEGEand OFunjustifiably
LAW. NOTrefused
FOR SALE. DO NOT
to resume COLLEGE
his employment OF LAW.
without NOT FOR
any intention of SALE. DO NOT
returning. There must beREPRODUCE.
a concurrencePROPERTY OF SAN
of the intention BEDA and some
to abandon REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
overt acts from which anOF SAN BEDA
employee
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT may
FOR be deduced as havingCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY no more intention
OF LAW. to NOT
work.FOR
The approved one-year leave
UNIVERSITY of absence
without pay of Jona expired in 1971 without her requesting for extension thereof or notifying the school if and
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN when
she would resume teaching. DO
She
PROPERTY NOT
was SANREPRODUCE.
OFrehired only inUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE. DO NOT
1982 after filing anew anPROPERTY
application, REPRODUCE.
without
OF SAN her
BEDA UNIVERSITY
proffering any explanation for her more than a decade of absence. Under the circumstances, abandonment of
work at petitioner school in 1971 is indubitably manifest (Sta. Catalina College v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 144483,REPRODUCE.
November 19,PROPERTY
2003). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
141. N was an employee of XYZ Company for 20 years. To facilitate the grant of his SSS retirement benefits,
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
N entered into an agreement
SALE.
OF DO
with XYZ SANNOT
BEDA
Company
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
whereby PROPERTY
the latter would issue
SALE.
OF DOSANNOT
a certification BEDA
of
REPRODUCE.
his UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR separation from employment
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE notwithstanding
OF LAW. NOTthe FORfact of his
SALE. DOcontinued
NOT employment
COLLEGE OFas LAW.
a laborer.
NOTUpon
FOR SALE. DO NOT
reaching the compulsory retirement age, N was actually deemed retired and was paid his last salary,
but not retirement benefits. N filed a claim for the payment of his retirement benefits. In its defense,
OF SAN BEDA
52
XYZ Company claims that PROPERTY OF SAN
N was no longer BEDA UNIVERSITY
its employee because Mr. Q employedPROPERTY OF itSAN
him after BEDA UNIVERSITY
issued
N’s certification
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of separation from employment. Is N entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT to retirement benefits under the Labor
Code?
Yes,NOT
N isFOR UNIVERSITY
entitled to retirement COLLEGE
benefits under OF
the LAW.
Labor NOT
Code.FOR UNIVERSITY
In Oro Enterprises v. NLRCCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
(G.R. No.
SALE. DO NOT 110861, November 14, 1994), theSALE.
REPRODUCE. Supreme
DO Court
NOT held that the beneficent provisions of Art.
REPRODUCE. SALE.287DO
of the
NOTLabor
REPRODUCE.
Code providing for retirement benefits is apart from the retirement benefits that can be claimed by a qualified
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTemployee
FOR SALE. under
DOtheNOTsocial security
COLLEGElaw. OFUnder
LAW. Art.NOT
287, FOR
an employee
SALE. DO upon
NOT reaching the age of
COLLEGE OF60LAW.
yearsNOT
or FOR SALE. DO
more, but not
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAbeyond the compulsory retirement age, who has
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA served at least 5 years in the said establishment,
may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay. Here, N should be entitled to retirement pay as a necessary
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEconsequence
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
of the finding that he was an employee of XYZ Company (Masing and Sons Development COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
SALE. Corporation v Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, April 27,NOT
2011).
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOTProportionality
FOR SALE. DORule NOT- Infractions committed
COLLEGE by anNOT
OF LAW. employee
FOR should meritNOT
SALE. DO only the corresponding
COLLEGE OFsanction demanded
by the circumstances. The penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, the act, conduct or omission
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF to
imputed SAN
theBEDA REPRODUCE.
employee and imposed PROPERTY
in connection OFemployer’s
with the SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
disciplinary authority (ManilaPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Memorial Park
ERSITY COLLEGECemetery,
OF LAW. Inc.
NOTv. FOR
Panado, G.R.UNIVERSITY
No. 167118, COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
June 15, 2006). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
142. X, an employee of ABC Company, lent his ID Card to N for N to get a clearance for the release of goods
from
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.theDO
warehouse
NOT toCOLLEGE
facilitate OF
the LAW.
loading of goods
NOT and distribution
FOR SALE. DO NOT of COLLEGE
ABC Company’s
OF LAW.products.
The management of ABC Company discovered the misrepresentation, and dismissed X in accordance
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY with
its rules and regulations. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ABC Company. ABC
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF Company
LAW. NOTargues FOR that theUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
strict implementation of company rules and regulations is a valid OF LAW. NOT FOR
exercise
SALE. of its management prerogative. Is ABC Company correct?
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,
DOABC
NOTCompany COLLEGE OF LAW.
is not correct. As aNOT FOR
rule, an SALE. DO
employer NOTa wideCOLLEGE
is given latitude of OF LAW. inNOT
discretion FOR SALE. DO NOT
managing
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF its own
SAN affairs, including
BEDA the implementation
REPRODUCE. of company
PROPERTY OF SAN rules
BEDAand regulationsREPRODUCE.
and impositionPROPERTY
of disciplinary
OF SAN BEDA
measures on its employees. However, the exercise of management prerogative is not limitless, but hemmed
in by FOR
good faith and aUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
due consideration of the OF LAW.
rights NOT
of the FORHere, X’sUNIVERSITY
worker. COLLEGE
motive in lending OF LAW. NOT FOR
his company
I.D. Card was to benefitPROPERTY
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
ABC Company. NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
TheBEDA
penalty SALE.
of dismissal for X’s misrepresentation
UNIVERSITY DO
PROPERTY OFisSAN NOT REPRODUCE.
unwarranted
BEDA UNIVERSITY
(Dongon v. Rapid Movers & Forwarders Co, Inc., G.R. 163431, August 28, 2013).
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF NSAN
143. wasBEDA
employed by ZZZREPRODUCE.
Inc. as a PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
security coordinator. REPRODUCE.
He was dismissed PROPERTY
from employment OF SAN BEDA
after
discovery
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of serious breaches of company rules, including
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR introduction of alcoholic beverages into
the premises and having sexual intercourse in the office premises. The Company Code of Conduct
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAprovides SALE.
that violations ofPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
the code shall REPRODUCE.
be penalized
OF SAN with suspension of not
moreDO
PROPERTY NOT
than REPRODUCE.
OF30SAN
days.
BEDAN UNIVERSITY
claims
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.that
DO the
NOTpenaltyCOLLEGE
imposedOF upon
LAW. himNOT
wasFORharsh andDO
SALE. thatNOT
he should have been
COLLEGE metedNOT
OF LAW. withFOR
a SALE. DO NOT
penalty of suspension only. ZZZ Inc, on the other hand, claims that the dismissal is a valid exercise of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY management
OF SAN BEDA prerogative.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Is ZZZ Inc. correct? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Yes, the dismissal is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The formulation and promulgation by
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
an employer of rules of conduct
SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN for
and discipline BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
its employees,
SALE.
PROPERTY
inclusive of those deemed to OF
DO
SANNOT
constituteBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
serious
misconduct,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT cannot and should not
COLLEGE OF operate
LAW. NOTto altogether negate
FOR SALE. DOhis prerogative
NOT and responsibility
COLLEGE OF LAW. toNOTdetermine
FOR SALE. DO NOT
and declare whether or not facts not explicitly set out in the rules may and do constitute such serious
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF misconduct
SAN BEDA as to justify REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the dismissal of the employee or the imposition of sanctions heavier than those
specifically and expressly prescribed. Here, the severity of the violations committed by N warrants OF LAW. NOT FOR
a heavier
SALE. DO penalty than that provided in the Code of Conduct. No employer may rationally be expected to continue in
SAN BEDA
employment a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employer's UNIVERSITY
rules,DO
andNOT COLLEGE
appreciation OF LAW.
of the dignity NOT FOR SALE.
and responsibility DO NOT
of his office, COLLEGE
has so plainly OF LAW.been
and completely NOTbarred.
FOR SALE. DO NOT
Therefore,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the penalty of dismissal was a proper exercise
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of management prerogative (Stanford-Microsystems
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 74187, January 28, 1988).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
The exercise of the prerogative to transfer employees from one office or area of operation to another is valid
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution in salary, benefits and other privileges. The transfer should not be
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
motivated NOT FOR or madeUNIVERSITY
by discrimination in bad faith orCOLLEGE
effected asOF LAW.
a form of NOT FOR withoutUNIVERSITY
punishment COLLEGE
sufficient cause OF LAW. NOT FOR
(Pharmacia
SALE. & Upjohn, Inc. v. Albayda, G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010).
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
53
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFobserve
Failure to SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
prescribed standards of work, orPROPERTY OF SANwork
to fulfill reasonable BEDA assignmentsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
due to inefficiency may OF SAN BEDA
constitute just cause
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR for dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to mean failure to attain work goals or work quotas,
either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. This
PROPERTYmanagement
OF SAN BEDA prerogative
UNIVERSITY SALE.
of requiring standards
PROPERTY DO
may beOFNOT REPRODUCE.
availed
SAN of so long
BEDA as they are exercised in
good faith
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
for the
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
advancement of the employer’s interest (Leonardo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125303, June 16, 2000).
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
144.
SAN REPRODUCE.
When
BEDA is bonus demandable?PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
BonusSALE. DO NOT when:COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
is demandable COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFa. SAN BEDA
It had been promised REPRODUCE.
by the employerPROPERTY OF agreed
and expressly SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
upon by the parties; or PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
b. ItNOT
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. had aFOR
fixed amountUNIVERSITY
and had a long and regular
COLLEGE OF practice
LAW. NOTon the
FORpart of the UNIVERSITY
employer. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
To be considered a “regular
practice,” DO giving
the
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
ofUNIVERSITY
the bonus should have been SALE.
done over
PROPERTY DO
longNOT
OFa SAN REPRODUCE.
period
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate (American Wire and Cable Daily Rated
Employees Union v. American Wire and Cable Co. Inc., G.R. No. 155059, April 29, 2005)
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
145. SD Inc. had its factory workers working from 7:45 am to 3:45 pm with a 30-minute paid “on call” lunch
break. DOSD
Later, NOT COLLEGE
Inc. issued OF LAW. NOT
a memorandum to its FOR SALE. DO
employees, NOT theCOLLEGE
changing OF LAW.
work schedule fromNOT
7:45FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYamOFto SAN BEDA
4:45 pm from Mondays REPRODUCE.
to Fridays. APROPERTY OF SAN
and B felt that they BEDA REPRODUCE.
are adversely affected PROPERTY
by the change in OF SAN BEDA
work
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.schedule
NOT FORand discontinuance
UNIVERSITYof the 30-minute
COLLEGE OFpaid
LAW. “on call”FOR
NOT lunch break, prompting them
UNIVERSITY to fileOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
a case for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability against SD Inc. Does the change
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA in work schedule constitute
UNIVERSITY SALE.
unfair
PROPERTY OF DO
labor NOT
practice?
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, the change in work schedule does not constitute unfair labor practice. Management retains the
prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working REPRODUCE. PROPERTYsoOF SAN BEDA
hours of its employees
long the
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT same
FORis exercised in good faith.
UNIVERSITY In the instant
COLLEGE case NOT
OF LAW. SD Inc.,
FORas the employer, cites asCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY reason forOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
adjustment the efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production. It rationalizes that while
the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be called upon to do jobs
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR during
SALE. that
DO period
NOT as they were "on
COLLEGE OFcall."
LAW. Even
NOTif denominated
FOR SALE. DO as lunch
NOT break,COLLEGE
this period
OFcould
LAW.very
NOTwellFOR
be SALE. DO NOT
considered as working time because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and were paid
accordingly for working. With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break
without anyFOR
interruption UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
from their employer (SimeOF LAW.Pilipinas,
Darby NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Inc. v. NLRC, COLLEGE
G.R. No. 119205, AprilOF
15,LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT 1998).
146. Yrasuegui is
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORan international flight steward of Philippine
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORAirlines (PAL). The proper weightCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY for a manOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds. Yrasuegui developed a weight problem
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
which prompted PAL to advise him to go on an extended vacation to address his weight concerns.BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR After
SALE.meeting
DO NOTthe right weight, OF
COLLEGE he was
LAW.allowed
NOT FORto return
SALE. to
DOwork.
NOTNot long after, his
COLLEGE OF weight problem
recurred. He was removed from flight duty and was formally requested to trim down weight. Upon
checking, it was discovered that he gained, instead of losing weight. Yrasuegui made a commitment
to lose weight in 90 days however, he failed to do so. He was dismissed from employment COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
for failure
SALE. DO to comply with company standards. Is the weight requirement a valid condition of employment?
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Yes,DOtheNOT COLLEGEisOF
weight requirement LAW.
a valid NOT FOR
condition SALE. DO NOT
of employment. EmploymentCOLLEGE OF LAW.
in particular NOT
jobs may notFOR
be SALE. DO NOT
limited
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto persons of a particular sex, religion, or national
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion,
or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide
occupational qualification (BFOQ). BFOQ is valid "provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonablyCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
necessary
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN for satisfactory
BEDA UNIVERSITY job performance".SALE.
TheDO
PROPERTY NOT
primary
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
objective
BEDAofUNIVERSITY SALE.
PAL in the imposition of the DOstandards
weight
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
for
BEDA UNIVERSITY
cabin crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times in order
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.passenger
to inspire DO NOT confidence
COLLEGE OF LAW.
on their abilityNOT FORforSALE.
to care DO NOT when
the passengers COLLEGE
somethingOF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
goes wrong.
Aircrafts have
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA constricted cabin space, and narrow aisles
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and exit doors. The body weight and size of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY a cabin OF SAN BEDA
attendant are
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR important factors to consider in case of emergency
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Inc., G.R.OF LAW. NOT FO
No. 168081, October 17, 2008).
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
54
Non-Compete BEDA
or Non-Involvement REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Clause - The employer andOF
theSAN BEDAare free to stipulate
employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
in an employment
contract prohibiting
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the employee within a certain period from and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORafter the termination of his employment, from:
a. Starting a similar business, profession or trade; or
SALE. DO NOT
b. BEDA
Working in an entity that is engaged
in a similarOF
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
business that might
SAN BEDA SALE.
compete with the employer
UNIVERSITY DO
(Tiu
PROPERTY v. NOT REPRODUCE.
Platinum
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTPlans
FORPhil.,
SALE.Inc.,
DOG.R.NOTNo. 163512,
COLLEGEFebruary 28, 2007).
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
In cases OF SANanBEDA
where REPRODUCE.
employee assails PROPERTY
a contract containing OF SAN BEDA
a provision REPRODUCE.
prohibiting him or PROPERTY OF SAN BED
her from accepting
competitive
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFemployment
LAW. NOTas against public
FOR policy, the COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY employer has
OF toLAW.
adduce
NOT evidence
FOR to prove that the restriction
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE is OF LAW. NOT F
reasonable and not greater than necessary to protect the employers’ legitimate business interests. The restraint may
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
not be
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
unduly harsh or oppressive in PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
curtailing the SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
employees’ UNIVERSITY
legitimate efforts to earn aPROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
livelihood and SAN NOT
must BEDA
be
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW.reasonable in light DO
NOT FOR SALE. of sound
NOT publicCOLLEGE
policy (Rivera v. Solidbank
OF LAW. Corp.,
NOT FOR G.R. DO
SALE. No. NOT
163269, April 19, 2006).
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
The Labor arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAwhether
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
workers, agricultural or non-agricultural:
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTa.FOR
ULP cases;
b. Termination disputes;
c. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay,
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF hours
LAW. ofNOT
workFOR UNIVERSITY
and other terms COLLEGE
and condition OF LAW. NOT FOR
of employment; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. d. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other formsREPRODUCE.
of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
Cases arising from any violation of Art. 279, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
f. SALE.
ExceptDO NOTfor Employees
claims COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
Compensation, FORSecurity,
Social SALE. DO NOT and maternity
Medicare COLLEGEbenefits,
OF LAW. NOT claims
all other FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF arising from employer-employee
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.relations, including
PROPERTY OFthose of persons in domestic
SAN BEDA or household
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY service,
OF SAN BEDA
involving an amount exceeding P5,000 regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement (Art.
224, FORCODE); UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
LABOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
g. Monetary
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY claims of OverseasSALE. DO
contract NOT
workers REPRODUCE.
arising
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY from employer-employee SALE.asDO
relations
PROPERTY NOT
provided
OF REPRODUCE.
by Sec.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
10 of RA 8042;
GE OF LAW. NOT FORh. SALE.
WageDO NOT disputes
distortion COLLEGE OF LAW.establishments
in unorganized NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT settled
not voluntarily COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
by the parties;
RODUCE. PROPERTYi.OF Other cases as may beREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA provided by lawPROPERTY
(NLRC RULES,
OF SANRuleBEDA
V, Sec. 1); REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF j.LAW.
Contested
NOT FORcases under the exceptionCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY clause of OF
Article
LAW.128NOT
(b) (E.O.
FORNo. 111)UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Jurisdiction
over Money
BEDA Claims
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Labor Arbiter Regional Director
Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction over DOLE Regional Directors have jurisdiction over claims amounting to
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OFmoney
small LAW.claims
NOT FOR
lodged underUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Article ₽5,000 OFprovided
or below, LAW. NOT FOR requisites
the following UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
concur: (1) OF LAW. NOT FOR
The claim
129, except when
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the claim includes aSALE.
mustDO NOT
arise REPRODUCE.
from ER-EE
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY relationship; (2) The SALE.
claimant DO
does NOT
not REPRODUCE.
seek
prayer for reinstatement (Art. 224, reinstatement; and (3) The aggregate money claim of each employee
GE OF LAW. NOT Labor
FOR SALE.
Code).DO NOT COLLEGE OF does
LAW.not NOT FOR₽5,000
exceed SALE. (Art.
DO NOT
129, LaborCOLLEGE
Code). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTYThe OFtotalSAN BEDA
amount REPRODUCE.
of money claims PROPERTYofOF
must In inspection SAN BEDA cases, DOLE
establishment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Regional Directors OF SAN BEDA
have
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.anNOT
involve FOR exceeding
amount UNIVERSITY COLLEGE regardless
₽5,000 jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT FOR or not UNIVERSITY
of whether COLLEGE
the total amount OFper
of claims LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
OPERTY OF NOT
(Art. 224, Labor Code).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.employees
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
exceeds ₽5,000 (Art. 128, Labor Code).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF For
LAW. theNOT
valid FOR
exercise by the
SALE. DODOLE
NOT Secretary or anyOF
COLLEGE of his dulyNOT
LAW. authorized
FOR SALE. DO NOT
representatives (DOLE Regional Directors) of the visitorial and
enforcement powers provided under Article 128(b), the following
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITYrequisites
COLLEGEshould OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGEshould
concur: (1) The employer-employee relationship OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. still
SALE. DO NOTexist; (2) The findings
REPRODUCE. in question were made in the
SALE. DO NOT course of
REPRODUCE.
inspection by labor inspectors; and (3) The employees have not yet BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.any
initiated NOT FOR
claim or SALE. DO with
complaint NOTthe DOLE COLLEGE OFDirector
Regional LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
under
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Art. 129, or the Labor
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Arbiter under Art. 224. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
147. ALPAP staged a strike. A return-to-work order was issued, but ALPAP defied the same. Consequently,
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA SOLE declared their strike
illegal. OF DO
SANNOT
Sometime REPRODUCE.
after,
BEDA PAL filed a complaint for
UNIVERSITY SALE.
damages
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
against
OF REPRODUCE.
ALPAP
BEDA UNIVERSITY
before the LA. The LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint for damages for lack of jurisdiction. Was is
proper for labor tribunals to assume jurisdiction over the complaint for damages?
55
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Yes,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
the assumption of jurisdiction OFlabor
by the SANtribunals
BEDA UNIVERSITY
was proper. Under Article PROPERTY OF SAN
224 of the Labor Code, BEDA UNIVERSITY
the LA and NLRC
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT have jurisdiction to resolve cases involving
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT claims for damages from employer-employee
relationship. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the LA only if there is a “reasonable connection” between the claim asserted and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
employer-employee
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTHere,
relationship. FOR PAL’s claim
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
for damages has OF LAW. NOT
reasonable FOR
connection withUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
its employer-employee
SALE. DO NOT relationship with ALPAP as such arose
REPRODUCE. SALE. from
DO the
NOT illegal strike which were closely relatedSALE.
REPRODUCE. with DO
the NOT
latter’sREPRODUCE.
allegation of ULP against PAL (PH Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Association of the PHL, G.R. No. 200088, BEDA UNIVERS
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTFebruary 26, 2018,
FOR SALE. DOCovered
NOT Case).
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
148. On the basis of a complaint filed by the employees, DOLE-NCR conducted a complaint inspection of
Makabayan Company where several violations were noted. After hearing with respect to the violations,
the Regional Director ordered Makabayan Company to pay ₽763,927.85 to the affectedSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYemployees.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Makabayan Company filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the RD has no jurisdiction
over money NOTexceeding
claims COLLEGE OFand
₽ 5,000 LAW. NOT FOR
the same SALE. covered
is properly DO NOTby theCOLLEGE OFofLAW.
jurisdiction NOT FOR SALE. DO N
the Labor
Arbiter.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY Is Makabayan
OF SAN BEDA Company correct? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
No, Makabayan’s contention is incorrect. While it is true that under Arts. 129 and 224 of the Labor Code,
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
the LA has jurisdiction to hear
and decide DO NOT
OFcases
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
where the aggregate money claims
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO exceed
of each employees
PROPERTY OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
₽5,000, said provisions of law do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Secretary
SALE. DOofNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Labor or his duly authorize representatives. Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Art.
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF 128SAN BEDA
of the REPRODUCE.the
Labor Code. Notwithstanding PROPERTY
provisions OF SAN129
of Arts. BEDA
and 224 and inREPRODUCE.
cases where thePROPERTY
relationshipOF SAN BEDA
of employer-employee
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR still exists, the
UNIVERSITY Secretary
COLLEGE of Labor
OF LAW. NOTand
FOREmployment or his duly
UNIVERSITY authorized
representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the Labor standard provisions
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
of the Code (Ex-Bataan Veterans SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
Security OF REPRODUCE.
SAN
Agency v.BEDA UNIVERSITY
Laguesma, SALE. DO
PROPERTY
G.R. No. 152396, November 20,NOT
OF SAN
2007).REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
149. Q was one of the incorporators of ABC Corp. and the internal auditor and personnel manager of the
same. UponBEDA REPRODUCE.
retirement, Q filed a claim for PROPERTY OF SAN
unpaid salaries BEDA
and separation REPRODUCE.
pay due PROPERTY
him amounting to P OF SAN BEDA
845,000 and FOR UNIVERSITYbut
P250,000 respectively, COLLEGE OF LAW.
was denied. Q NOT
filed FOR
a complaintUNIVERSITY
before the COLLEGE
NLRC forOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. nonpayment of separation and retirement benefits. The LA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA
because of absence of employer-employee relationship. Q filed his complaint before the RTC. Does
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR RTC
SALE.have jurisdiction
DO NOT over money
COLLEGE claims
OF LAW. NOTinvolving
FOR SALE.an amount
DO NOTexceeding P5,000
COLLEGE OFarising fromFOR
LAW. NOT an SALE. DO NOT
employer-employee relationship?
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.No,NOTtheFOR
RTC has noUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
jurisdiction over this case.OF LAW.
Art. NOT
224 of the FOR UNIVERSITY
Labor Code provides COLLEGE
that the OF LAW. NOT FOR
LA shall have
SALE. DO NOT original and exclusive jurisdiction
REPRODUCE. on claims
SALE. DO NOTarising from employer-employee relations
REPRODUCE. involving
SALE. DO an amount
NOT REPRODUCE.
exceeding ₽5,000.00. Here, the claim for unpaid salaries and separation pay involves one which arose from
SALE. DO NOT
employer-employeeCOLLEGE OF LAW.
relationship NOTABC
of Q and FORCorp.,
SALE.the
DOjurisdiction
NOT COLLEGE
over which OF LAW.toNOT
belongs the FOR
LA. SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF Therefore,
SAN BEDAthe RTC mayREPRODUCE.
not take cognizance of Q’sOF
PROPERTY complaint
SAN BEDA(World’s Best REPRODUCE.
Gas, Inc. v. Vital, G.R. No.OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
211588, September 9, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
150. P, an employee
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY of the M SALE.
Grocery, DO
was NOT REPRODUCE.
criminally charged
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY by the latter for SALE.
theft. The DO
PROPERTY NOT
complaint
OF SANREPRODUCE.
was
BEDA UNIVERSITY
dismissed. Meantime, allegedly after an administrative investigation, P was dismissed by M. As a
result, DO NOT
P lodged COLLEGE
a complaint OF LAW.
for illegal NOT FOR
dismissal with SALE. DO NOT
the NLRC COLLEGE
and demanded OF LAW. NOT
reinstatement withFOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN In
damages. BEDA
addition, she REPRODUCE.
also institutedPROPERTY OF SAN
separate civil BEDA against the
complaint REPRODUCE.
M with the PROPERTY
RTC for OF SAN BEDA
malicious prosecution.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR M moved to dismiss the civil
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORcomplaint on the ground that RTC had no
jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-employer relations. Should the civil case be
dismissed? SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
No, the civil case should not be dismissed. Not every controversy involving workers and their employers
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF canSAN BEDA only by the
be resolved REPRODUCE.
LAs. This willPROPERTY
be so only ifOF SAN
there is aBEDA REPRODUCE.
“reasonable causal connection”PROPERTY
between theOF SAN BEDA
claimNOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. asserted
FORand employee-employer relations, OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE thenLAW.
the case
NOT is under
FOR the jurisdiction of the labor
UNIVERSITY courtsOF
COLLEGE (PHLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Association of the PHL, G.R. No. 200088, February 26, 2018, Covered Case).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and criminal
SALE. DO NOTjurisdictionCOLLEGE
(San Miguel
OF Corp.
LAW.v.NOTEtcuban, G.R. No.
FOR SALE. DO127639,
NOT December
COLLEGE 3, 1999).
OF LAW.Here, the FOR
NOT civil SALE. DO NOT
case involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution. It does not appear that there is a “reasonable
causal connection” between the complaint and the relations of the parties as employer and employees. The
complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact could have arisen independently of an COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
employment
SALE. DO NOT relationship
REPRODUCE. between the parties. Therefore,
SALE. DO NOT jurisdiction over
REPRODUCE. the case is properly with the civil courts.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
151. FOR
A, B,SALE.
and CDO NOT
were COLLEGE
employed OF LAW.
as female NOT FOR SALE.
flight attendants of PAL.DOThey
NOTare members
COLLEGE OF LAW.
of the FASAP, NOT
theFOR SALE. DO NO
exclusive
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAbargaining representative of the flight attendants.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PAL-FASAP CBA, provides, inter alia, that:
“Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement, compulsory retirement shall be 55
for females and 60 for males.” A, B, and C manifested that the provision is discriminatory COLLEGE andOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA demanded for an equalPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
treatment OF DO
with
SAN NOT
their REPRODUCE.
male
BEDA counterparts. The FASAP
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
submitted
PROPERTY SAN NOT
its CBA
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
proposals and manifested its willingness to commence the collective bargaining negotiations. A, B,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and
SALE. DO NOT
C filed COLLEGE
a case before OF LAW.
the RTC NOT FOR
questioning theSALE. DOofNOT
validity COLLEGE
the provision in theOF LAW.
CBA. NOT
PAL FOR
filed a SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF motion
SAN to dismiss the case
BEDA contendingPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. that the RTC had
OF no BEDA
SAN jurisdiction overREPRODUCE.
the case. The 3PROPERTY
employeesOF SAN BEDA
56
went to you to ask for your PROPERTY
legal opinionOFif SAN BEDA
indeed, the UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
RTC has no jurisdiction over OF SANWhat
their petition. BEDA UNIVERSITY
will you advise
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT them? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFThe SANRTC
BEDA has jurisdiction over the case. The subject of litigation is incapableREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of pecuniary estimation,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFexclusively
LAW. NOTcognizable
FOR UNIVERSITY
by the COLLEGE
RTC, pursuant to Sec.OF
19 LAW. NOTBlg.
(1) of B.P. FOR129, as amended.
UNIVERSITY BeingCOLLEGE
an ordinaryOF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT civil action, the same is beyond the
REPRODUCE. jurisdiction
SALE. DO NOTof REPRODUCE.
labor tribunals. Where the principal relief
SALE. sought
DO is to REPRODUCE.
NOT be
resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective bargaining
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTagreement
FOR SALE. butDOby the
NOT generalCOLLEGE
civil law, the
OFjurisdiction
LAW. NOT over
FORtheSALE.
dispute
DO belongs
NOT to theCOLLEGE
regular courts of justice
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
and not to the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor arbiter and the NLRC. Here, the issue
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA cannot be resolved by the Labor Code only
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYbut it OF SAN BED
requires the application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEElimination
OF LAW. of NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the power to apply and interpret the constitution OF LAW. NOT F
and CEDAW is within the jurisdictionSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYofOF trial
DO
SANcourts,
NOT
BEDA a court of general jurisdiction. Therefore,
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
jurisdiction over the case (Halguena v. PH Airlines, G.R. No. 172013, October 2, 2009).
OFRTC
SALE. DO
SANNOThas REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
152. A, B, and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAC are employees of XYZ School. They were dismissed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA from employment for participating
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYin OF SAN BEDA
protest actions which was considered a breach of trust and confidence reposed in them. They filed an
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFillegal
LAW.dismissal
NOT FORcase against
XYZ School. The LA ruled that their dismissal was valid. On appeal, NLRC
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
reversed the same and
ordered DOreinstatement.
their
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE. Is the order of PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
reinstatement DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
immediately
OF SAN UNIVERSITY
executory?
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, BEDA REPRODUCE.
the order of reinstatement PROPERTY
is not OFexecutory.
immediately SAN BEDAArt. 229 of theREPRODUCE.
Labor Code PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
which provides
thatNOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. reinstatement
FOR is immediately
UNIVERSITY executory
COLLEGE even
OFpending appeal
LAW. NOT FORapplies only when it is the
UNIVERSITY LA himself
COLLEGE OFwho
LAW. NOT FOR
ordered the reinstatement. If the reinstatement order is issued by the NLRC on appeal, there is a need to
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAsecure
UNIVERSITY SALE.
a writ of execution from theDO
PROPERTY NOT
Labor REPRODUCE.
OFArbiter
SAN a quoUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
to enforce the reinstatement DOemployee
of the
OF SAN (Mt. UNIVERSITY
BEDA
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORCarmel
SALE.College
DO NOT v. Resuena, G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF173076,
LAW. NOTOctober
FOR10, 2007).
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFdisciplinary
153. A SAN BEDAaction based REPRODUCE.
on breach ofPROPERTY OF SAN
discipline and BEDA
reimbursement REPRODUCE.
of wage PROPERTY
increases was filed by OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF crew
LAW.members
NOT FORof XYZ Maritime against
UNIVERSITY XYZ Maritime
COLLEGE OF LAW.in the POEA.
NOT FORDuring the pendency of
UNIVERSITY the action,
SALE. R.A. No. 8042 took effect vesting in the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction over all money claims arising out of
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
employer-employee relationship involving OFWs. On the basis thereof, POEA dismissed the SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
complaint.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTOn appeal, the NLRC
COLLEGE OF dismissed
LAW. NOTthe case
FOR claiming
SALE. DO NOTto have no jurisdiction
COLLEGE over the
OF LAW. NOTsame.
FORIsSALE. DO NOT
SANaction
BEDAof the NLRCREPRODUCE.
proper?
Yes,FOR UNIVERSITY
the action of the COLLEGE
NLRC is proper. OF LAW.
The NLRC does NOT FOR
not have jurisdictionUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to review on appeal OF LAW. NOT FOR
disciplinary
SALE. DO NOT action cases decided by the POEA.
REPRODUCE. SALE. R.A.NOT
DO No. 8042 did not remove from the POEA the
REPRODUCE. original
SALE. DO and exclusive
NOT REPRODUCE.
jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary action cases and other special cases administrative in character
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO such
involving NOTworkers.
COLLEGE OF No.
When R.A. LAW.8042NOT FOR the
withheld SALE. DO NOT
appellate COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW.
of the NLRC NOT
in respect of FOR
casesSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF decided
SAN BEDA by the POEA, REPRODUCE.
the appellate jurisdiction
PROPERTY wasOFvested
SAN in the Secretary of
BEDA Labor in accordance
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYwith his
OF SAN BEDA
power of supervision and control under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Therefore, it was proper for
theNOT
NLRC FOR
to dismiss UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the case because OF jurisdiction
appellate LAW. NOTover FORdisciplinaryUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
cases decided by the OF
POEALAW. NOT FOR
belong to
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYthe Secretary of SALE.
Labor DO
(EasternNOT REPRODUCE.
Mediterranean
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYMaritime LTD v. Surio, G.R.SALE.
No. DO NOT
154213, REPRODUCE.
August 23,
2012).
154. X,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFa SAN
corporation
BEDA duly incorporated
REPRODUCE. under PhilippineOF
PROPERTY laws engaged
SAN BEDA in the business of selling
REPRODUCE. assorted OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
products, received
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a Subpoena from the Office of the City
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Prosecutor of Quezon City in connection
with a complaint filed by the SSS for alleged delinquency in the remittance of SSS contributions and
penalty liabilities. X attributed
its OF DO
failure NOT
SANtoBEDAREPRODUCE.
remitUNIVERSITY
the SSS contributions PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
to Y, a MarketingSAN NOT REPRODUCE.
Assistant,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
who refused to provide the latter’s SSS Number and to be deducted her contributions. X eventually
settled its obligations with the SSS and demanded from Y her share in the SSS contributions and
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF expenses
SAN BEDAfor processing.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Y claimed that OF SAN
X deliberately BEDA
failed to deduct andREPRODUCE.
remit her SSSPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
contributions
andNOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. averred
FORthat the regular courtsCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY do not have
OFjurisdiction
LAW. NOTover FORthe instant case as it arose
UNIVERSITY out of
COLLEGE OFtheir
LAW. NOT FOR
employer-employee relationship. Does the regular court exercise jurisdiction over the case concerning
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
payment of SSS contributions? OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the regular court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Article 217(a) (4) of the Labor Code bestows
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF upon
SAN BEDA
the Labor ArbiterREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
original and exclusive OF SANover
jurisdiction BEDA REPRODUCE.
claims for damages PROPERTY
arising from OF SAN BEDA
employer-
employee UNIVERSITY
relations. The COLLEGE
observation that theOF LAW.ofNOT
matter SSSFOR UNIVERSITY
contributions necessarily COLLEGE
flowed fromOF the
LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT employer-employee relationship
REPRODUCE. between
SALE. DO NOT the REPRODUCE.
parties – shared by the lower courts SALE.and the DOCANOT
– is REPRODUCE.
correct;
thus, petitioners’ claims should have been referred to the labor tribunals. In this connection, it is noteworthy to
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORstate thatDO
SALE. "theNOT
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
COLLEGE OF LAW. to award
NOT FORnot only DO
SALE. the NOT
reliefs provided by labor
COLLEGE laws, but
OF LAW. NOTalso
FOR SALE. DO NOT
damages
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA governed by the Civil Code" (Amecos Innovations,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Inc. and Antonio F. Mateo v. Eliza R. Lopez, G.R.
No.178055, July 2, 2014).
SALE. 155. X filed a complaint before theSALE.NLRCDO against Y for illegal dismissal, non-execution of DO
a contract of
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF SANNOT
BEDA
employment, violation of the minimum wage law, and non-payment of overtime pay. Thereafter, X filed
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
an action COLLEGE
for damages OFYLAW.
against beforeNOT
the FOR
MeTCSALE. DO NOT
of Quezon COLLEGE
City. Y moved forOFtheLAW. NOT of
dismissal FOR
theSALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF complaint
SAN BEDAon the grounds of lack of
REPRODUCE. jurisdiction
PROPERTY OFand
SANforum-shopping
BEDA or splitting causes
REPRODUCE. of action
57
arguing PROPERTYover
that the NLRC has jurisdiction OF the
SANaction
BEDAforUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
damages because the alleged OFisSAN
injury BEDA UNIVERSITY
work-
related and that
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT X should not be allowed to split her causes
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of action by filing the action for damages
separately from the labor case. Does the regular court exercise jurisdiction over the case involving
damages against employer? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. DO NOT No, the regular court does notSALE.
REPRODUCE. have DO
jurisdiction
NOT over this case. Article 217(a) of theSALE.
REPRODUCE. LaborDOCode,
NOTasREPRODUCE.
amended, clearly bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages
arising
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORfrom employer-employee
SALE. DO NOT relations —in
COLLEGE other words,
OF LAW. NOT FORthe Labor
SALE.Arbiter has jurisdiction
DO NOT COLLEGEto award not only
the reliefs provided
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by labor laws, but also damages governed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAby the Civil Code. Under theREPRODUCE.causal
“reasonable PROPERTY OF SAN B
connection rule,” if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-
employee NOT FOR
relations, then the caseUNIVERSITY COLLEGE of
is within the jurisdiction OFour
LAW.
laborNOT FOR
courts. UNIVERSITY
In the absence COLLEGE
of such nexus, it OF LAW. NOT
is REPRODUCE.
the regular courts that have jurisdiction. TheDOSupreme Court held that the employees’ claimSALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYforOF damages
DO
SANNOT
was intertwined with them having been separated from their employment without just cause and, consequently,
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
had aSALE. DO NOT
reasonable COLLEGEwith
causal connection OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
their employer-employee NOT with COLLEGE
relations OF LAW.v.NOT
petitioner (Kawachi Del FOR SALE. DO N
Quero, G.R.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA No. 163768, March 27, 2007).
156. X initiated an illegal dismissal case against employer, ADB. Two summonses were served, one to the
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
ADB and the other through
the DFA. OF DO NOT
Forthwith,
SAN theREPRODUCE.
BEDA ADB and the DFA notifiedPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY respondentSALE. DO Arbiter
Labor
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
that the ADB, as well as its president and office, were covered by an immunity from legal process
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR except
for borrowings, OF or
guaranties LAW.
the NOT FOR
sale of SALE. DO
securities NOT to Article
pursuant COLLEGE OFand
50(1) LAW. NOT55FOR
Article of SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF theSAN BEDA Establishing
Agreement REPRODUCE.
the Asian PROPERTY
Development OFBank
SANinBEDA REPRODUCE.
relation to Section PROPERTY
5 and Section 44 of theOF SAN BEDA
Agreement
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORBetween The Bank And
UNIVERSITY The Government
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Of The
FORPhilippines Regarding
UNIVERSITY The Bank's
Headquarters. The LA took cognizance of the complaint on the impression that the ADB had waived
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN its diplomatic
immunity fromPROPERTYDOrendered
suit and NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN judgement against ADB. Does the
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO jurisdiction
LA have
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
overSALE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the case?
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
No, the BEDA
LA does not haveREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
jurisdiction. The stipulationsOFof SAN
both BEDA REPRODUCE.Agreement
the Charter and Headquarters PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
states
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. that,
NOTexcept
FORin the specified cases ofCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY borrowing OF
andLAW.
guarantee
NOToperations,
FOR asUNIVERSITY
well as the purchase,
COLLEGE saleOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form. The Bank's officers,
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
on their part, enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The Charter and
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the Headquarters
SALE. DO NOT AgreementCOLLEGEgranting these NOT
OF LAW. immunities and privileges
FOR SALE. DO NOT are treaty covenants
COLLEGE OFand commitments
voluntarily assumed by the Philippines government which must be respected. In World Health Organization vs.
Aquino, the Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to
OF SAN BEDA
look beyond UNIVERSITY
a determination COLLEGEbranch
by the executive OF LAW.
of theNOT FOR
government, andUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
where the plea OF LAW. NOT FOR
of diplomatic
SALE. DO NOT immunity is recognized and affirmed
REPRODUCE. SALE.byDO
theNOT
executive branch of the government, it is then
REPRODUCE. the duty
SALE. DO of
NOTthe courts
REPRODUCE.
to accept the claim of immunity. Hence, the LA does not have jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (Department
SALE. DO NOT
of ForeignCOLLEGE
Affairs vs.OF LAW.
NLRC, NOT
G.R. No.FOR SALE.
113191, DO NOT18, 1996).
September COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Grounds PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The following are the grounds for appeal:
1. If the decision, award or order was secured through Fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
2. OF LAW.isNOT
If there primaFOR UNIVERSITY
facie evidence of Abuse ofCOLLEGE
discretion OF LAW.
on the partNOT
of theFOR UNIVERSITY
Labor Arbiter or Regional COLLEGE
Director; OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT3.REPRODUCE.
If made purely on Questions of law;SALE.
and/orDO NOT REPRODUCE.
4.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
If serious Errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR damage
SALE. DO NOT to theCOLLEGE
or injury OF LAW.
appellant (NLRC NOT Rule
RULES, FOR VI,
SALE.
Sec.DO
2). NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Requisites
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for Perfection
FOR of Appeal COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO
SANThe following
BEDA SALE.anDO
are the requisites PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY to perfect NOT
appeal:
OF REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
1. Proof of Service upon the other parties;
2. Filing of a verified memorandum of appeal containing the grounds, issues raised and arguments propounded
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF andSAN BEDA
relief(s) sought withinREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the required period OF and
of appeal SANwith
BEDAa statement ofREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the date appellant receivedOF SAN BEDA
the appealed
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR decision, award, or order;COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
3. In 3 legibly typewritten or printed copies;
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN4.BEDA UNIVERSITY
Proof of payment of the required
SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
appeal fee
REPRODUCE.
OF and
SAN BEDA
legal UNIVERSITY
research
SALE.
PROPERTY
fee; otherwise, it will
DO NOT
OF SAN
be dismissed
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
but the
dismissal
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.isDOonlyNOT
discretionary;
5. In case of monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only by the posting of a Bond (cash
deposit BEDAbond or property
or surety REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
bond) equivalent OF SAN
in amount BEDA
to the REPRODUCE.
monetary award exclusive of PROPERTY
damages OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFandLAW. NOT FOR
attorney’s fees; and UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. 6.REPRODUCE.
It must be filed within the Reglementary period:NOT REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Within 10 days for decisions of Labor Arbiter PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR b.SALE. DO 5NOT
Within days – forCOLLEGE OFDOLE
decisions of LAW.Regional
NOT FOR SALE. (NLRC
Directors DO NOT
RULES,COLLEGE OF 4).
Rule VI, Sec. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
58
PROPERTY OF SAN
10%BEDA
AppealUNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Bond Only “Provisional” PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The 10%
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY requirement
OF SAN BEDA in McBurnie v. Ganzon pertains
REPRODUCE. to the reasonable
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA amount which the NLRC wouldPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. accept as OF SAN BEDA
the minimum of the bond that should accompany the motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the period to perfect
an appeal under NOT FORrules. It isUNIVERSITY
the NLRC based on theCOLLEGE OF LAW.
judgment award NOT FOR
and should in no case beUNIVERSITY
construed as COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
the minimum
SALE. DO amount
NOT of bond to be posted in order to perfect
REPRODUCE. SALE. appeal.
DO NOT There is no hard and fast rule in determining
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOwhether
NOT the
REPRODUCE.
additional bond to be posted is reasonable in relation to the judgment award (NLRC RULES, Rule VI; Sara Lee PHL,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
Inc. v. FOR SALE.
Macatlang, G.R.DO
No.NOT COLLEGE
180147, January 14,OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
2015). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
157. A and B worked for QFI corp. Both were among those retrenched due to the drastic drop in the net
income of QFI. However, it was discovered that their final pay and other benefits were not released
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
due to the alleged discovery
OF DO
SANNOT
of unauthorized REPRODUCE.
deduction
BEDA which they purportedly
UNIVERSITY SALE.
failed
PROPERTY to DO
OF NOT
explain.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Aggrieved, both filed complaints for illegal dismissal against QFI. LA found A and B to have been
illegally dismissed. Dissatisfied, QFI filed a notice of appeal accompanied by a motion to reduce bond
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYandOFaSAN
cashBEDA REPRODUCE.
bond. NLRC gave due course toPROPERTY OF holding
QFI’s appeal SAN BEDA
that there wasREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
substantial compliance
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFwith theNOT
LAW. bondFOR
requirement. CA reversed
UNIVERSITY NLRC’s ruling
COLLEGE OF LAW.andNOT
ruledFOR
that QFI’s failure to post the
UNIVERSITY required
bond impeded the perfection of its appeal and rendered the LA decision final and executory. Did QFI
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
substantially compliedPROPERTY
SALE. DO NOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
OF requirement?
with the bond SAN UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Yes, QFI substantially complied with the bond requirement. In case of a judgment involving a monetary
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF award,
SAN BEDA
an appeal by theREPRODUCE.
employer mayPROPERTY
be perfectedOF SAN
only BEDA
upon the posting of aREPRODUCE.
cash or surety PROPERTY
bond issued OF
by SAN BEDA
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORbonding company
a reputable UNIVERSITY COLLEGE by
duly accredited OFthe
LAW. NOT FORin the amount
Commission UNIVERSITY
equivalentCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
to the monetary
SALE. DO NOT award in the judgment appealed
REPRODUCE. from.
SALE. DOA NOT
mere REPRODUCE.
notice of appeal without posting bond shall
SALE.notDOstop
NOTthe REPRODUCE.
running
of the period for perfecting an appeal. Here, the posting of a cash bond equivalent to more than 20% of the
monetary
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOjudgment,
NOT together with the
COLLEGE OFMotion
LAW.toNOTReduce
FORBondSALE.within the reglementary
DO NOT COLLEGEperiod
OFwas sufficient
LAW. NOT FORto SALE. DO NOT
suspend the period to perfect the appeal. The posting of the said partial bond coupled with the subsequent
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY posting
OF SANofBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment also signified QFI's good faith and
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF willingness
LAW. NOTtoFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
recognize the final outcome of its appeal. In determining the reasonable amount of appeal OF LAW. NOT FOR
bonds,
SALE. however, the Court primarily considers the merits of the motions and the appeals (Quantum Foods, Inc. v.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
Marcelino Esloyo, G.R. No. 213696, December 9, 2015, Perlas-Benabe, J.).
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTY 158.
OF Mr.
SANQBEDA
was employed as a Claims
REPRODUCE. Staff ofOF
PROPERTY Oroport. He was charged
SAN BEDA for mishandling
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYandOF SAN BEDA
misappropriation of five trays of eggs even when he had no information about who was responsible
for it and without approval of the Senior Finance Officer of Oroport in violation of the standard
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE.
procedure in handlingPROPERTY
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY DO
claims. OroportNOT REPRODUCE.
dismissed
OF SAN SALE.
Mr. Q from service for serious
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
misconduct. REPRODUCE.
The LA
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
declared that the dismissal of MR. Q was illegal and awarded him a total of P 162,000. Oroport appealed
to theDO NOTbut submitted
NLRC COLLEGE OF LAW.
a Bank NOT FOR
Certification SALE.
in lieu DO NOTa cashCOLLEGE
of posting or securityOF LAW.
bond. NOT
Did FOR SALE. DO NOT
Oroport’s
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF failure
SAN BEDA
to post a bond REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFofSAN
result to the non-perfection BEDA of the LA’s
his appeal REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
decision to NLRC?
Yes, Oroport’s failure to post bond results to the non-perfection of his appeal. Oroport’s submission before
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY SALE.
NLRC of a Bank Certification, DO NOT
in lieu of
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFposting a cashUNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA SALE. DO NOT
or surety bond, cannot bePROPERTY
considered REPRODUCE.
as substantial
compliance
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOwithNOTArt. 229COLLEGE
of the Labor
OFCode.
LAW.The
NOTfiling
FORofSALE.
the appeal bond is a jurisdictional
DO NOT COLLEGE OFrequirement
LAW. NOTand
FOR SALE. DO NOT
the rules thereon mandate no less than a strict construction. Hence, Ororport’s appeal was not perfected
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY (Quirante
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
v. Oroport Cargo Handling Services Inc., G.R. No. 209689, December 2, 2015). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
ERSITY COLLEGE OF The
LAW. NOT FOR
decisions, UNIVERSITY
orders or awards issued byCOLLEGE
the VA orOF LAW.
panel NOT
of VA FOR
may be elevatedUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to the Court of OFway
Appeals by LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO of an ordinary appeal under Rule 43 petition for review (Luzon Development Bank v. Assn. of Luzon Development Bank
PROPERTY OF NOT
Employees, G.R. No. 120319, October 6, 1995).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The CA
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA may set aside decisions of the NLRC. Any decision
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by the NLRC that isREPRODUCE.
not supportedPROPERTY
by substantial
OF SAN BEDA
evidence is a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The judicial function of the CA in the exercise of its
ERSITY COLLEGEcertiorari
OF LAW.jurisdiction
NOT FORover the NLRCUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
extends to the careful review of the NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence because LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT the factual
REPRODUCE. findings of the NLRC are accorded great
SALE. DO NOT respect and
REPRODUCE. finality only when they rest on substantial
SALE. DO NOT evidence
REPRODUCE.
(Sugarsteel Industrial, Inc. v. Albina, G.R. No. 168749, June 6, 2016).
159. E was hired
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA as a technician in Saudi Arabia, through
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA its agent, SBM. After his contract,PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. E filed a OF SAN BEDA
complaint for non-payment of salaries. LA ruled in favor of E but was reversed by NLRC for not
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF substantiating
LAW. NOT FORhis claims. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
However, he filed an MR where NLRC reinstated the LA’s Decision. SBM
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA filed a petition for certiorari
UNIVERSITY butSALE.
PROPERTY the DO
SANNOT
OFsame was
BEDAREPRODUCE.
dismissed by the CA on the
UNIVERSITY groundSALE.
PROPERTY of OF DO
SANNOT
failure fileREPRODUCE.
toBEDA an
UNIVERSITY
MR against the NLRC Resolution. SBM moved for reconsideration but was denied. May the CA give
due course COLLEGE
to a petition OF LAW.absent
for certiorari NOT FOR SALE. DO
any motion for NOT COLLEGE
reconsideration filedOF LAW. the
against NOTNLRC’s
FOR SALE. DO NOT
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF resolution?
59
Yes, the CA
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT may give due course to the petition for certiorari.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT As a general rule, an MR is an
COLLEGE OFindispensable
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
condition before a losing party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. However, jurisprudence allows exceptions to the rule, among others, where the questions raised PROPERTY
in the OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. proceedings
certiorari NOT FOR have beenUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
duly raised and passedOF LAW.
upon by NOT
theFOR
lower court orUNIVERSITY
are the same COLLEGE
as those OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT raised and passed upon in the lowerSALE.
REPRODUCE. court. DO
Since
NOTNLRC has been given an opportunity to review
REPRODUCE. itsDO
ruling andREPRODUCE.
SALE. OF SAN
correct itself when E filed a MR, requiring SBM to file another MR would be futile because the very issues BEDA UNIVERS
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTraised
FOR in SALE.
the MRDO
hadNOT
already been evaluated
COLLEGE by NLRC
OF LAW. NOT(Rapid Manpower
FOR SALE. Consultants
DO NOT v. De Guzman,
COLLEGE OF LAW.G.R.NOT FOR SALE. D
No. 187418,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDASeptember 28, 2015).
160. A filed an illegal dismissal case against B Corp. The LA ruled against B Corp hence an appeal COLLEGE
was OF LAW. NOT
SALE. made to the NLRC which affirmed theSALE.
LA’s decision. From NLRC it elevated the case to CA via petition
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
for certiorari. CA evaluated the materiality and significance of the pieces of evidence presented to it
UNIVERSITY
whichSALE. DO NOT
according to A wereCOLLEGE OF LAW.
capriciously, NOT FOR
whimsically, or SALE. DO NOT
arbitrarily COLLEGE
disregarded OF LAW.
by the NLRC. WasNOTthe FOR SALE. DO N
act of CA proper?
Yes, the act of CA is proper. In a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the issues are limited to
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
errors of jurisdiction or grave
UNIVERSITY abuse SALE.
PROPERTY of OF DO NOT
discretion.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
However, in labor cases elevated
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to the CA
PROPERTY DO
viaSAN
OF NOT
petition
BEDAforREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
certiorari, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence alleged to have
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR been
SALE.capriciously,
DO NOT whimsically,
COLLEGE OF LAW.disregarded
or arbitrarily NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
by the NLRC in relationCOLLEGE
to all otherOF LAW. NOT
evidence FOR SALE. DO NOT
on record
(Paredes REPRODUCE.
v. Feed the Children PROPERTY
PHL Inc., G.R. OF SAN
No. 184397, BEDA 9, 2015) REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
September
161. A and B filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CDE Corp. LA ruled in favor of A and B. NLRC
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN modified
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO the
the ruling thereby PROPERTY
increasing NOT REPRODUCE.
monetary
OF SAN BEDAawards SALE. DO NOT
due to A and B. Dissatisfied,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY CDE
OF SANREPRODUCE.
corp.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
directly
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.filed
DOa NOT
petition for certiorariOF
COLLEGE before
LAW.the NOTCA.FOR
CA SALE.
deniedDO
theNOT
petition due to CDE’s
COLLEGE OFfailure
LAW. to fileFOR SALE. DO NO
NOT
an MR before the NLRC prior to the filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA. Was CA correct in
dismissing REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the petition for certiorari? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SALE. No, the CA erred in dismissing SALE.
the petition NOT
for certiorari. The direct recourse to the CA was justified. While
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
it is apparent from the computation of monetary awards that it just an oversight on the part of the NLRC, it isUNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR not without
SALE. any implications
DO NOT COLLEGEas such oversight
OF LAW. NOT resulted in an unwarranted
FOR SALE. DO NOT increase COLLEGE in the
OFmonetary
LAW. NOTawards
FOR SALE. DO NOT
due to respondents. Clearly, such an increase is a patent nullity as it is bereft of any factual and/or legal basis.
In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are
OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORby substantial
not supported UNIVERSITY
evidence, COLLEGE OF
which refers to LAW. NOT FOR
that amount UNIVERSITY
of relevant evidence COLLEGE mind
that a reasonable OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT might accept as adequate to justify
REPRODUCE. a conclusion.
SALE. DO NOT Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in
REPRODUCE. the evidence
SALE. DO NOT and the
REPRODUCE.
applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR accordingly,
dismiss the OF LAW.
petition (Jolo’s NOT
Kiddie FOR
Carts SALE. DO
v. Evelyn NOT andCOLLEGE
A. Caballa OFBautista,
Anthony M. LAW. NOT G.R. FOR
No. SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF 230682, November 29, 2017,
SAN BEDA Perlas-Benabe,
REPRODUCE. J.)
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
162. FOR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT X, a SALE.
legal assistant
DO NOT of FFW Legal Center,
COLLEGE OF LAW.joined
NOTthe union
FOR of DO
SALE. rank-and-file
NOT employees
COLLEGE OFandLAW.
eventually
NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
became the employees’ union president. During the 21st National Convention and Election of National
Officers of FFW, X was nominated for the position of National Vice President. However, FFW COMELEC
OF SAN BEDA
informed himFOR
that he is UNIVERSITY
not qualifiedCOLLEGE OF LAW.as
for the position NOThisFOR
candidacy UNIVERSITY
violates the COLLEGE
1998 FFWOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT Constitution and By-Laws. Despite
REPRODUCE. theDO
SALE. same,
NOT the convention delegates allowed X’s
REPRODUCE. candidacy. He
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
emerged victorious and was proclaimed as the National Vice President. Y filed before the BLR a petition
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR for
SALE.
the DO NOT ofCOLLEGE
nullification OF of
the election LAW.
X asNOT
FFWFOR SALE.Vice
National DOPresident
NOT COLLEGE
alleging OFX LAW.
that is not NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
qualified
to run for
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the position because Section 76 of Article XIX
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the FFW Constitution and By-Laws prohibits
federation employees from sitting in its Governing Board. X filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that it is the Regional Director of the DOLE and not the BLR who has jurisdiction over the case
SALE. DO
involving the provisionsPROPERTY
of the DO
OF NOT
constitution REPRODUCE.
SANand
BEDAby-laws?
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Yes, DO NOT
BLR COLLEGE
has jurisdiction OFthis
over LAW. NOT
case. TheFORBLRSALE. DO NOT over intra-union
has jurisdiction COLLEGE OF LAW.involving
disputes NOT FOR a SALE. DO NOT
federation. Section 226 ofREPRODUCE.
the Labor Code PROPERTY OF SAN
clearly provides thatBEDA
the BLR and theREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Regional Directors of DOLEOF SAN BEDA
have NOT
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. concurrent
FOR jurisdiction over inter-union
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEand OF
intra-union
LAW. NOTdisputes.
FOR Such disputes includeCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY the conductOForLAW. NOT FOR
nullification of election of union and workers association officers. There is no doubt as to the BLRs jurisdiction
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN overUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
the instant dispute involving
PROPERTY DO NOT
member-unions
OF SANREPRODUCE.
of aBEDA
federation SALE.
arising from disagreement
UNIVERSITY over
PROPERTY DOtheNOT REPRODUCE.
provisions
of the federation’s constitution and by-laws. Hence, BLR has jurisdiction over the case at bar (Montano v.
Verceles, G.R. No. 168583, July 26, 2010).
163. OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE A LAW.
Union,NOT
the existing
FOR exclusive bargaining
UNIVERSITY agent OF
COLLEGE of BLAW.
Inc., NOT
alleged
FORthat B Inc.UNIVERSITY
is guilty of ULP due toOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
organizing a company union, gross violation of the CBA and violation of their duty to bargain because
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
of its refusal to remit thePROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
collected union
NOT
BEDA
dues
REPRODUCE.
to AUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
union despite several demands.
SALE. OF DO
It filedSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR for ULPDO
SALE. with the NLRC,
NOT but the assigned
COLLEGE OF LAW.Labor Arbiter
NOT FOR dismissed
SALE. DO NOT the complaint
COLLEGEfor lack of jurisdiction.
Was the action of the Labor Arbiter proper?
60
No, the action of LA wasPROPERTY
improper. AnOF SAN BEDA
intra-union UNIVERSITY
dispute PROPERTY
refers to any conflict between OF SANunion
and among BEDA UNIVERSITY
members, including
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT grievances arising from any violation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the rights and conditions of membership, violation
of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYchartering
OF SAN or
disaffiliation of the union. The issue raised in this case pertained only to REPRODUCE.
the validity of PROPERTY
the acts of OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFmanagement
LAW. NOT FOR in light of theUNIVERSITY
fact that it stillCOLLEGE OF LAW.
has an existing CBA.NOT FOR
Thus, as to B Inc,UNIVERSITY
the question COLLEGE
was whether OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT they were liable for unfair labor practice,
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOwhich
NOTissue was within the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
REPRODUCE. SALE. Therefore,
DO NOT the
REPRODUCE.
dismissal of ULP complaint was erroneous (Employees Union of Bayer PHL v. Bayer PHL, Inc., G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT162943,
FOR SALE.December 6, 2010). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
NCMB UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is not a quasi-judicial agency
SALE.
OF DO
exercising SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
quasi-judicial functions but merely a PROPERTY
SALE.
conciliatory OF
DO
SAN
body
NOT
for BEDA
REPRODUCE.
the UNIVERSITY
OLLEGE OF LAW.purpose
NOT FOR of facilitating
SALE. DOsettlement
NOT ofCOLLEGE
disputes between
OF LAW. parties.
NOT Hence, its decision
FOR SALE. DO NOT cannot be elevated OF
COLLEGE to the CA via
LAW. NOTRule
FOR SALE. DO NO
43 petition. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court applies only to awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial REPRODUCE.
agency in the exercise PROPERTYfunctions
of its quasi-judicial OF SAN(Tabigue
BEDA v. International
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Copra Export Corp., OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF 183335,
G.R. No. LAW. NOT FOR 23, 2009).
December UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
OF SANDO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
RODUCE. PROPERTYTheOF SAN BEDA
Bureau REPRODUCE.
of Labor Relations PROPERTY
and the Regional OF SAN
Directors BEDAhave concurrent
of DOLE REPRODUCE.
jurisdictionPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
over the inter-
ERSITY COLLEGEunion and intra-union
OF LAW. NOT FOR disputes.UNIVERSITY
Such disputes include OF
COLLEGE the LAW.
conduct or nullification
NOT FOR ofUNIVERSITY
election of union and worker’s
association (Montano v. Verceles, G.R. No. 168583, July 26, 2010).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LLEGE OF LAW. NOTUnder ArticleDO
FOR SALE. 129NOT
of the Labor Code, OF
COLLEGE DOLE
LAW. Regional
NOT FOR Directors
SALE. or
DOthe
NOTduly authorized
COLLEGE hearing officers,
OF LAW. NOTareFOR SALE. DO NOT
empowered, in a summary proceeding, to hear and decide claims for recovery of wages and other monetary claims
and benefits, BEDA
including REPRODUCE.
legal interests, provided the PROPERTY OF SAN
following requisites BEDA
concur: REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE a.OF The
LAW. NOT
claim FORarise fromUNIVERSITY
must COLLEGE
employer-employee OF LAW. NOT FOR
relationship; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. b. The claimant does not seek reinstatement; and REPRODUCE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c. PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA
The aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed P 5,000 (M. Ramirez Industries v. Secretary
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO G.R.
of Labor, NOTNo. 89894,
COLLEGE OF 3,
January LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
To divest the Regional Director or his representatives of jurisdiction under Art. 129 of the Labor Code, the following
ERSITY COLLEGEelements
OF LAW.must
NOTbeFOR
present: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a. The employer
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY contests the SALE.
findings DO
of NOT
the REPRODUCE.
labor regulations
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY officer and raises issues SALE. DO
OF NOT
thereon;
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. To resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
GE OF LAW. NOT FORc. SALE.
Such DO NOTare notCOLLEGE
matters verifiable OF LAW.
in the NOTcourse
normal FOR SALE. DO NOT
of inspection COLLEGE
(Ex-Bataan OF Security
Veterans LAW. NOT FORv.SALE. DO NOT
Agency
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Laguesma,
SAN BEDAG.R. No. 152396, November
REPRODUCE. 20, 2007). OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
164. AAI is engaged in the business of providing janitorial services. Its employees instituted a complaint
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAforUNIVERSITY
underpayment of wages SALE. DO NOT
against OF
PROPERTY AAISANREPRODUCE.
before theUNIVERSITY
BEDA Regional Office of DOLE.SALE.
TheDO
PROPERTY NOT
Regional
OF SANREPRODUCE.
Office
BEDA UNIVERSITY
conducted a complaint inspection and found a couple of violations including non-payment of labor
standard benefits. The Regional Director issued an order for the agency to pay the deficiencies. AAI
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY alleged
OF SANthat
BEDAthe RegionalREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Director does not have OF SAN BEDA
jurisdiction REPRODUCE.
over the subject PROPERTY
matter because the OF SAN BEDA
money claim
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of each private respondent exceeded P 5,000.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR It pointed out that the Regional Director
should have endorsed the case to the Labor Arbiter. Was AAI’s contention correct?
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,
DOAAI’s
NOTcontention is incorrect.
COLLEGE OF LAW. Art. 224
NOTin FOR
relation to Art.
SALE. DO129
NOTof the Labor Code provides
COLLEGE OF LAW.that
NOTthe FOR
LaborSALE. DO NOT
Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF PSAN BEDA
5,000; however, it doesREPRODUCE.
not contemplatePROPERTY OF SAN
the visitorial BEDA
and enforcement REPRODUCE.
powers PROPERTY
of the Secretary of Labor OF
or SAN BEDA
hisNOT FOR
duly authorized UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
representatives. OF LAW.Director
Here, the Regional NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
validly assumed COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT FOR
over the money
SALE. DO claims of AAI’s employees even if the claims REPRODUCE.
exceeded P 5,000 because such jurisdiction was exercised in
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN BEDA
accordance with Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause (Ex-UNIVERSITY
Bataan
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOVeterans
NOT Security Agency
COLLEGE OFv.LAW.
Laguesma, G.R. SALE.
NOT FOR No. 152396,
DO NOTNovember 20, 2007).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
For a UNIVERSITY
SALE.
valid exercise by the DOLE
DO NOT
PROPERTY
SecretaryOF
REPRODUCE.
orSAN
any BEDA UNIVERSITY
of his duly
SALE.ofDO
PROPERTY
authorized representatives
NOT
theOF SANREPRODUCE.
visitorial BEDA
and UNIVERSITY
enforcement
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT powers,
FOR SALE. DO the
NOT following requisitesOF
COLLEGE must concur:
a. The employer-employee relationship should still exist;
b. The BEDA
findings in question wereREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
made in the course of theOF SAN BEDA
inspection REPRODUCE.
by the labor inspectors; and PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
NIVERSITY COLLEGE c.OF The
LAW. NOT FOR
employee has not yetUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
initiated any claim OF LAW.
or complaint withNOT FOR Regional
the DOLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Director under Art. 129,OF
or LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. the LA under Art. 224.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
61
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANVisitorial
Scope of SOLE’s BEDA UNIVERSITY
Power PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF Art.
SAN37BEDA REPRODUCE.Art. 128
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Art. 289
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to Powers covered
SALE. DO NOT Visitorial power
REPRODUCE. Visitorial
SALE.andDOenforcement
NOT power
REPRODUCE. Visitorial power
As to Purpose
In relation to recruitment and To inquire into employer’s compliance To inquire into the financial activities of
placement of workers for both local with labor standards under labor laws legitimate labor organizations
UNIVERSITY and overseas
COLLEGE OFemployment
LAW. NOT FOR andUNIVERSITY
social legislations
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Note: Such inquiry or examination shall not be conducted during the 60-day freedom period not within the 30 days
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORpreceding
immediately SALE. DOtheNOT COLLEGE
date of election OF LAW.
of union NOT
officials (Art.FOR
289,SALE.
LABORDOCODE).
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Jurisdiction Over Money Claims
SALE.
ROPERTY DO NOT
Art. 128, Labor Code PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
Art.
SAN NOT
129,BEDA REPRODUCE.
Labor Code
UNIVERSITY Art. SALE.
224, Labor
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
Code
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Who Exercises
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Power
Secretary
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANof BEDA
Labor or his duly Regional Director or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA any duly REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Labor Labor Arbiter
authorized representative authorized hearing officer of DOLE
Nature of Power
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Administrative – visitorial and
Adjudicatory power on matters
COLLEGE OF LAW.enforcement powerDO
NOT FOR SALE. exercised
NOT through
COLLEGE OF LAW.
involving NOTofFOR
recovery
Adjudicatory
wageSALE. DO NOT
power OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
COLLEGE
routine inspections
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of establishment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Existence
UNIVERSITY of Er-Ee OF
COLLEGE Relationship
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. Claim must beSALE. arising NOT
fromREPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA
employer-employee UNIVERSITY
relations,
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTincluding thoseOFofLAW.
COLLEGE persons
NOT FORin SALE. DO NOT
Er-Ee relationship not necessary domestic or household service,
Requires BEDA
existence of REPRODUCE.
Er-Ee PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
since it should not include a claim for except claims for Employees’
OF SAN BEDA
relationship
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Compensation, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
reinstatement Social Security,
SALE. DO Medicare andSALE.
Maternity Benefits,
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
regardless of whether accompanied
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTby a claim COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
for reinstatement
How Initiated REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
IVERSITY COLLEGEEnforcement
OF LAW. NOT FOR
power is an
offshoot of Sworn complaint filed by interested
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. Complaint SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
visitorial
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA power
UNIVERSITY party
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
Limitation as toNOT FOR of
Amount SALE. DO NOT
Claim COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
No limit Not more than P 5,000 More than P 5, 000
SALE. Appeal
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Appeal to Secretary of Labor, within 10
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DODecision
NOT COLLEGE Appeal to NLRC, within 5 calendar
calendar days; may be OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNLRCCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
days
elevated
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFtoSAN
the CA through certiorari
165. JJ filed a complaint against BB before the DOLE Regional Office for illegal deduction, nonpayment of
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY 13th SALE.
monthDO
service incentive leave, PROPERTY pay,NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
premium
BEDA pay SALE.
for holiday and rest PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY day and DO
OF NOT
illegal REPRODUCE.
diminution
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of benefits, delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth. After
summary investigation, DOLE found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was
entitled to his money. REPRODUCE.
BB appealed PROPERTY OFbut
the decision, SANtheBEDA
DOLE dismissed REPRODUCE.
the same.PROPERTY
Can DOLEOF SAN BEDA
determine
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. if there is anUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR employer-employee
COLLEGE relationship
OF LAW. NOTbetween
FORparties?UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY
Yes, the DOLE is fully empowered
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN
to make BEDA UNIVERSITY
a determination
SALE. DO NOT
as to the existence ofPROPERTY
REPRODUCE.
an employer-employee
relationship
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOin the
NOT exercise COLLEGE
of its visitorial
OF and
LAW. enforcement
NOT FORpowerSALE.(People's
DO NOTBroadcasting
COLLEGE (Bombo RadyoNOT
OF LAW. PHL,FOR SALE. DO NO
Inc.) v. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 179652, March 6, 2012).
The DOLE Secretary may UNIVERSITY
suspend theCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
effects of termination FORresolutionUNIVERSITY
pending of the dispute COLLEGE
in the eventOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the DOLE before whom the dispute is pending that:
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITYa. PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
UNIVERSITY
The termination may cause a serious labor dispute; and/or PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
b. DO
TheNOT COLLEGE
termination OF LAW. NOT
is in implementation FOR SALE.
of a mass lay-off DO NOTCODE,COLLEGE
(LABOR OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Article 292).
62
The following BEDA which mustREPRODUCE.
are cases be disposed PROPERTY OF SAN
of by the Labor BEDA
Arbiter REPRODUCE.
by referring the same to the PROPERTY
grievance OF SAN BEDA
machinery and voluntary
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR arbitration:
1. Disputes on the interpretation or implementation of CBA; and
SALE. DO NOT
2. BEDA
Disputes SALE. DO
on the interpretation or PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NOT
enforcement OF REPRODUCE.
of company personnel
SAN BEDA policies (2011 NLRC
UNIVERSITY SALE. DOProcedure,
Rules of
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTRule
FORV,SALE.
Sec. 1, par. 2, as amended).
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
1. REPRODUCE.
Economic or non-political provisions –SALE.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYthose thatNOT
OF DO
SAN haveREPRODUCE.
BEDAdirect and measurable monetary costSALE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYconsequences
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
such as wage rates, paid vacations, pensions, health and welfare plans, and other fringe benefits; and
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT2. FOR SALE. DO NOT
Non-economic or politicalCOLLEGE
provisionsOF LAW.whose
– those NOT FOR SALE.cost
monetary DOcannot
NOT be directly
COLLEGE OF LAW.
computed suchNOT FOR SALE. DO NO
as the
no-strike-no-lockout,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA union security, management security,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA check-off clauses, grievance procedures, etc.
(NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration).
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
Note: Violations of either provision
of the CBAOFmayDOconstitute
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
a grievance and is oftenPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
referred to as DO NOT
OFrights
SAN REPRODUCE.
dispute
BEDA UNIVERSITY
(NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration).
SALE. DO NOT The original and exclusive jurisdiction
REPRODUCE. SALE.of the
DOLabor
NOT Arbiter under Article 224, over cases for
REPRODUCE. money
SALE. DOclaims
NOT isREPRODUCE.
limited
only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than the CBA. The voluntary arbitrator (VA) or panel of VA will
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR original
thus have SALE. DOandNOT COLLEGE over
exclusive jurisdiction OF LAW.
moneyNOT FOR
claims SALE.from
arising DOthe
NOT COLLEGE
interpretation OF LAW. NOT
or implementation FOR SALE. DO NOT
of the
CBA and those
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAarising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA personnel policies under Article 274 of the
Labor Code.
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
The VA shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
RODUCE. PROPERTYa.OF Unresolved
SAN BEDAgrievances REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA PROPERTY
(Art. 274, LABOR OF SAN BEDA
CODE);
ERSITY COLLEGE OF b.
LAW. NOT FOR
Unresolved grievancesUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
arising from the OF LAW.
interpretation NOT FOR of company
or enforcement UNIVERSITY
personnelCOLLEGE OF274,
policies (Art. LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT LABOR CODE);
c. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Violations of the CBA which are not gross in character (Art. 274, LABOR CODE);
GE OF LAW. NOT FORd. SALE.
OtherDO NOT
labor disputes,COLLEGE OF LAW.
including unfair labor NOT FORand
practices SALE. DO NOT
bargaining COLLEGE
deadlocks, OF LAW.ofNOT
upon agreement FOR SALE. DO NOT
the parties
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF (Art.
SAN275,
BEDALABOR CODE); REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
e. National interest cases (Art. 278 (h), LABOR CODE);
ERSITY COLLEGE OF f.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized establishments (Rules
Implementing
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY R.A. No. 6727, SALE.
ChapterDO NOT
III, Sec. REPRODUCE.
7); and
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
g. Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of the Productivity Incentive
Programs NOT
under R.A. No.COLLEGE OF9,LAW.
6971 (Sec. NOT
R.A. No. FOR SALE. DO NOT
166. A is an employee
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of B who was dismissed after an incident
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR where she hit B’s transmission
UNIVERSITY lines while
operating a dump truck. On a complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the voluntary arbitrator, the
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
VA ruled that the A’s dismissalSALE. DO NOT
OFillegal
was SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
and deemed PROPERTY
it a suspension without SALE.
pay, OF DO
andSAN NOT
BEDA
ordered REPRODUCE.
herUNIVERSITY
reinstatement.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Due COLLEGE
to B’s failure
OF to reinstate
LAW. A immediately,
NOT FOR A filed a motion
SALE. DO NOT for the
COLLEGE OF issuance
LAW. NOTof FOR
a writSALE. DO NOT
of execution requiring B to pay unpaid wages, 13th month pay and bonuses from the date when his
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF reinstatement
SAN BEDA was effectedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
until actual OF SAN
reinstatement. VABEDA REPRODUCE.
granted the motion. On appeal,PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
CA reversed
theNOT FOR
same. UNIVERSITY
Is the order COLLEGEthe
of the VA reinstating OF employee
LAW. NOTimmediately
executory?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes, the order of VA reinstating the employee is immediately executory. The reinstatement aspect of the
voluntary
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. arbitrator’sCOLLEGE
DO NOT award is immediately
OF LAW. NOTexecutory. It has the
FOR SALE. DOsame
NOT authority, force and
COLLEGE OF effect
LAW.asNOTthat FOR
of theSALE. DO NOT
reinstatement order of the LA as voluntary arbitration takes precedence over other dispute settlement devices
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF as
mandated by the Constitution. Article 229 provides that “the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall COLLEGE OF LAW.
immediately be NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT executory,
REPRODUCE. even pending appeal” (Baronda
SALE. DO NOT v. CA, G.R.
REPRODUCE. No. 161006, October 14, 2015).
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT
167.FOR
A SALE. DO NOT
is a regular employeeCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of X Corporation. HeFOR
wasSALE. DO NOT
dismissed COLLEGE
due to poor salesOF LAW. NOT FOR
performance. A SALE. DO NOT
submitted
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA money claims before the NCMB. Both parties
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA agreed to settle amicably. The issue to be
settled by the VA according to the submission agreement is whether A is entitled to separation pay.
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF The
VA rendered a decision finding X Corporation liable for illegal dismissal and since reinstatement
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA is no longer feasible, PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY it orderedSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
payment of REPRODUCE.
separation
BEDA pay and backwages.
UNIVERSITY CanSALE.
PROPERTY theOF
VADO NOT
rule
SAN on REPRODUCE.
BEDA the
UNIVERSITY
issue of illegal dismissal and backwages?
63
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Yes,
UNIVERSITY
the VA can rule on the PROPERTY OF SAN
issue of illegal BEDA UNIVERSITY
dismissal and backwages. VAs may, PROPERTY
by agreementOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
of the
parties, assume
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT jurisdiction over a termination dispute such as
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT the present case. The voluntary arbitrator may
award backwages upon a finding of illegal dismissal, even though the issue of entitlement thereto is not
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
explicitly claimed in the Submission Agreement. Backwages, in general, are awardedREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA on the ground of PROPERTY
equity OF SAN BEDA
as a form NOT FOR
of relief UNIVERSITY
that restores the income COLLEGE
lost by theOF LAW. NOT
dismissed FOR by reason
employee UNIVERSITY
of his illegalCOLLEGE
dismissal OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOT (7k Corporation v. Eddie Albarico, G.R.
REPRODUCE. No.DO
SALE. 182295,
NOT June 26, 2013).
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
Cause UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Period
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
of Prescription COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA Money Claims
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
3 years
BEDA from accrual of the cause
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
of action
PROPERTY SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT ULP COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 1 year
SALE.from
DOaccrual
NOT of theCOLLEGE
cause of action
Illegal
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Dismissal 4 years
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfrom accrual of the cause of action PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE.
Simple Illegal
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Recruitment
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 5 years UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. DO NOTSyndicated/Large Scale Illegal Recruitment 20 years
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Reinstatement
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
4 years
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Sexual Harassment
3 years
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN Social
BEDA Security Claims
10 years
GSIS claims
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
4 years
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Commencement
COLLEGE OF LAW. of prescriptive
NOT FOR SALE. periodDO
forNOT
SIL COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NO
The 3-year BEDA period in the
prescriptive REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
light of the peculiarity OF SIL
of the SANcommences
BEDA REPRODUCE.
not at the PROPERTY
end of the year when OF SAN BEDA
the employee
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.becomes
NOT FORentitled to the commutationCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY of his SIL OF
but LAW.
from the time
NOT when the employer
FOR refuses
UNIVERSITY to pay itsOF LAW. NOT FO
COLLEGE
monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee’s services as the case may be
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
(Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005).
168. Mr. M was hired by Company N as 4th Engineer on board the vessel M/V Couper. M went missing and
was never found which prompted M’s wife V to file a complaint for death benefits, damages and
attorney’s UNIVERSITY
fees. According to N, the COLLEGE OF disappearance
unexplained LAW. NOT FORhappenedUNIVERSITY
on August 2,COLLEGE
1994 andOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
SALE. DO NOT claim was only filed on MaySALE.
REPRODUCE. 29, 2000
DO therefore
NOT the action had already prescribed.
REPRODUCE. SALE. Is Company
DO NOT N
REPRODUCE.
correct? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN No, BEDA
company N is incorrect.
REPRODUCE. The family of the missing
PROPERTY OF SANseaman
BEDA may file their claim for compensation
benefits within the three-year period fixed by law from the time the seaman has been presumed dead. M can
only be FOR dead UNIVERSITY
presumed after the lapse COLLEGE OF LAW.
of 4 years from AugustNOT FORwhen he UNIVERSITY
2, 1994 COLLEGE
was declared missing, OF LAW. NOT FOR
subject
to presentation
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY of evidence thatSALE.
M hasDOnotNOT
been REPRODUCE.
found or heard
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY of for four years SALE.
thereafter. DO
For NOT
this REPRODUCE.
purpose,
M is only presumed dead on August 2, 1998, there for the action has not yet prescribed (Imelda Pantollano, et
al., v.SALE. DOShip
Korphil NOT COLLEGE
Management OF LAW.Corporation,
and Manning NOT FOR SALE. DO169575,
G.R. No. NOT March
30, 2011).
169. OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE IBMLAW.staged
NOTa strike
FOR against N and after COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY having series of conciliation
OF LAW. NOT FORmeetingsUNIVERSITY
IBM and N entered
COLLEGEintoOF LAW. NOT FO
a compromise agreement which the NLRC approved. After 11 years, IBM later filed with NLRC a motion
SALE.
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA for writ of execution claiming
UNIVERSITY thatSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
they SANNOT
have not REPRODUCE.
BEDAbeen paid the amounts they
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
were entitled
PROPERTY to
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
because
BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Nestlé
SALE. deliberately
DO NOT caused delay in paying their claims. N argued that IBM’s remedy was already barred
by prescription because under the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC, a decision or order may be
executed REPRODUCE.
on motion within PROPERTY
5 years from the date OF SAN BEDA
it becomes REPRODUCE.
final and executory PROPERTY
and that the sameOF SAN BEDA
decision
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTorFOR order mayUNIVERSITY
only be enforced by independent
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT action
FORwithin a UNIVERSITY
period of 10 years
COLLEGEfromOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
date of its finality. May an NLRC-approved compromise agreement be executed by filing a motion for
SALE. DO
writ of execution after a PROPERTY OF NOT
SAN
lapse of 10 years
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
from UNIVERSITY
its finality?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the approved compromise agreement may not be executed after the lapse of 10 years. The IBM is
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN barred
already BEDA by prescription.
REPRODUCE.
Under the PROPERTY OForSAN
law, a decision BEDA
order may be executed REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
on motion within five yearsOF SAN BEDA
from NOT FORit becomes
the date UNIVERSITY COLLEGEAfter
final and executory. OF LAW. NOTofFOR
the lapse UNIVERSITY
such period, the judgmentCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
shall become
SALE. DO NOT dormant,
REPRODUCE. and may only be enforced by an
SALE. DO NOT independent
REPRODUCE.action within a period of 10 years from
SALE. DO NOT date of its
REPRODUCE.
finality. IBM’s right to have the NLRC judgment executed thru a motion and the right of action to enforce the
same
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR had prescribed
SALE. DO NOT by theCOLLEGE
time it filed
OFtheir
LAW.Motion
NOTforFOR
WritSALE.
of Execution
DO NOT (Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa
COLLEGE (IBM)FOR SALE. DO NO
OF LAW. NOT
Nestlé PHL Chapter
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA v. Nestlé PHL, G.R. No. 198675, September
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 23, 2015). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
170. X was employed by PLDT as a maintenance technician. On April 13, 1999, he was admitted toCOLLEGE
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY a hospitalOF LAW. NOT FO
SALE. due to paranoid personality disorder caused by financial and marital problems. He was later on
ROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDA
discharged but from September to December, he absented himself from work without official leave due
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR toSALE. DO NOT
his poor COLLEGE
mental condition. OF LAW.
PLDT NOT his
terminated FORservice
SALE. on
DOJanuary
NOT 1, 2000.
COLLEGE OF LAW.
Between NOT2003,
2001 and FOR SALE. DO NOT
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF X SAN
madeBEDA
follow-ups withREPRODUCE.
PLDT regarding his benefits.
PROPERTY OF SANOn BEDA
March 29, 2004,REPRODUCE.
four years later, X filed aOF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY
64
complaint for constructivePROPERTY
dismissal andOF monetary
SAN BEDAclaims
UNIVERSITY
against PLDT, but PROPERTY OF SAN
the latter moved for BEDA
the UNIVERSITY
dismissal of
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT the complaint for being filed beyond the prescriptive
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT period of three years. Did the action
prescribe?
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Yes,NOT
the FOR UNIVERSITY
action has already COLLEGE
prescribed. OF LAW.
The Labor NOTnoFOR
Code has UNIVERSITY
specific provision on whenCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a claim for
SALE. DO NOT illegal dismissal or a monetary claim
REPRODUCE. accrues.
SALE. DO Thus,
NOT the general law on prescription applies.
REPRODUCE. SALE. Article
DO 1150REPRODUCE.
NOT of
the Civil Code states that the time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwhich
FOR ordains
SALE. DO otherwise,
NOT shall be counted
COLLEGE from the
OF LAW. NOT dayFORtheySALE.
may be
DObrought.
NOT TheCOLLEGE
day the action may NOT
OF LAW. be FOR SALE. DO
brought is the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA day a claim starts as a legal possibility. In the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA present case, January 1, 2000, the date X was
not allowed to perform his as a maintenance technician, is the date when the claim accrues. Furthermore, the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEprescription
is interrupted by (a) the filing of an action; (b) a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor; and OF LAW. NOT F
(c) a written acknowledgement of theSALE. debt by the debtor. Hence, X’s act of following up his benefits
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
considered interrupting the prescription (PLDT v. Pingol, G.R. No. 182622, September 8, 2010).
SANisNOT
OF DO not REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
171. Y was the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAvice-president, manager, and director of ABC Corp.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Y was forced to resign by thePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. owner of OF SAN BEDA
ABC Corp. on October 17, 1977 because the latter suffered losses due to lack of market and has
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFincurred
debts caused by a slam in the market. At the time of his resignation, he had unpaid salaries
SALE.
OPERTY DO NOT
for 18 months and wasPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
not paid hisOF DO NOT
separation
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
pay. Upon Y’s demand for payment,
ABCOF DOinformed
Corp.
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
him it would first settle the money claims of the rank-and-file employees before paying his claims. Y
patiently waited butCOLLEGE
remainedOF LAW.until
unpaid NOThisFOR SALE.X,DO
demise. NOT of her
in behalf COLLEGE
deceasedOFhusband
LAW. NOT FOR aSALE. DO NOT
Y, filed
SAN BEDAagainst ABC REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Corp. on September OF SAN
27, 2002, for BEDA
non-payment of REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
salaries, separation OF SAN BEDA
pay, and
13th
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. month
NOT FORpay. ABCUNIVERSITY
Corp. claims that the action
COLLEGE OF LAW.hasNOT
prescribed
FOR for being filed almost
UNIVERSITY five (5)OF
COLLEGE years
LAW. NOT FOR
from the alleged dismissal of Y. Did the action prescribe?
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the
LLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOaction
NOT has not yet prescribed.
COLLEGE OF LAW. Promissory
NOT FORestoppel
SALE. DO is aNOT
recognized exceptionOF
COLLEGE to LAW.
the three-year
prescription enunciated in Art. 291 of the Labor Code. In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY party
OF SAN BEDA
bears REPRODUCE.
the burden of establishing PROPERTY
the following OF SAN
elements: (1) aBEDA REPRODUCE.
promise was reasonably expectedPROPERTY
to induce OF SAN BEDA
action NOT
NIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. or forbearance;
FOR (2)UNIVERSITY
such promiseCOLLEGE
did, in fact,
OF induce
LAW. NOTsuch FOR
action or forbearance;
UNIVERSITY andCOLLEGE
(3) the party
OF LAW. NOT FOR
SALE. suffered detriment as a result. The elements are present in this case. Y relied on the promise of ABC Corp.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
that he would be paid as soon as the claims of all the rank-and-file employees had been paid. If not for this
promise
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOthat
NOThe hadCOLLEGE
held on toOFuntil the time
LAW. NOTofFOR
his death,
SALE. there
DO NOT is no reason why heOF
COLLEGE would
LAW.delay
NOTfiling
FORtheSALE. DO NOT
SAN BEDAbefore the LA. Thus, this is an ample justification not to follow the prescriptive period imposed under
Article 291 of the Labor Code (Accessories Specialist v. Albanza, G.R. No. 168985, July 23, 2008).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
UT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR IN UNIVERSITY
OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR DEUS!COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
65

Labor Law PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Labor Law PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Law PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

LAYOUT AND CONTENT EDITORS

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CORE GROUP

VICTOR KENNER S. GALANG

THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE

THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION,

REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA if he falls under

You might also like