LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

PHASE 1 WEEK 3
ASSESSMENT 

NAME: 

OCTOBER 23, 2020 6:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read each question very carefully and write your answers after each
question. Answer the questions clearly and concisely.  
2. Type your answers using BLACK FONT COLOR to differentiate it
from the questions. Please just INSERT your answers in this
questionnaire, not in a new document.
3. Answer the questions as if you’re taking the bar exam. The way you
answer has bearing on the points you will earn. Your answer should
demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent
provisions and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical
conclusion.  Check your grammar and spelling. Don’t forget to save
your work every time you finish an item. 
4. A MERE "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER WITHOUT ANY
CORRESPONDING EXPLANATION OR DISCUSSION WILL NOT
BE GIVEN FULL CREDIT. THUS, ALWAYS EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY
ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION.
5. Save As your answers with the file name:  
202_Section_LASTNAME_P1W3 
ex: 202_1_SANGCOPAN_P1W3
202_2_NAGA_P1W3
6. Attach the saved file to our Google Classroom SUBMIT IT TODAY ON
OR BEFORE 8:30 PM.  Late submissions may be considered but
deductions shall be appropriately given.

1. DH was hired by Amomoway Recruitment Agency, Inc. (ARAI) as a

domestic helper in Hong Kong. She has already signed and executed a
POEA-approved employment contract but her deployment was skirted
because her foreign employer refused at the last minute to accept her
 after learning that she had been involved in a criminal case while she was
working as a nanny in the Philippines. The foreign employer saw the
CCTV footage showing her slapping and hurting her 1-year old ward
which went viral on the internet. Consequently, she filed an illegal
dismissal case against ARAI before the Labor Arbiter. ARAI filed a
motion to dismiss grounded on the fact that since DH was never deployed
abroad, there exists no employer-employee to speak of; hence, the Labor
Arbiter has no jurisdiction over her case. As counsel of DH, how will you
controvert the motion to dismiss?

ANSWER:

2. COCO Manpower Resources, Inc. is a recruitment agency owned by

BB, CC and DD. AA, a clerk of COCO, together with BB, CC and DD
obtained money from four people whom they promised to recruit for
work at a factory in China. AA received the payments, but turned
them over to his employers who issued receipts. The owners of COCO
were charged with illegal recruitment because the agency was not
registered with POEA. While they remain at large, AA was caught
and tried. He was found guilty by the lower court for illegal
recruitment in large scale. AA claimed that he cannot be held liable
because according to her, he was just an ordinary employee of COCO
Manpower Resources, Inc., and that her promise that the four recruits
would be employed in China was made in good faith, and in the
performance of his duties as a clerk in the company. Rule on her
contentions.

ANSWER:

3. AA is a consultant of MOMO Lipad Abroad, a recruitment agency. At

the time AA was employed by MOMO, the company was operating
under a temporary authority given by the POEA pending renewal of
its license. The temporary license included the authority to recruit
workers. On one occasion, she interviewed potential applicants UU,
VV and XX for work at a factory in Vietnam. The three were charged
processing fees which were received by one named ZZ. They were
promised that they would be able to work abroad, but they were never
deployed. They tried to refund their money from MOMO but to no
avail. Thus, they filed a case against AA for illegal recruitment. AA
 argued that he was unaware that MOMO failed to register his name in
the POEA as an employee. Rule on AA’s arguments.

ANSWER:

4. SS, a local recruitment agency, deployed DH to Taiwan under a 12-

month contract as a domestic helper for the foreign employer, ZZ.
Unknown to the local agency, DH and ZZ agreed to extend the
employment for two more years under a second contract. When DH
returned to the Philippines, she filed a complaint against SS for
underpayment of salaries and refund of tax payments under such
second contract. In its defense, SS argued that it cannot be held liable
under the extended contract which it had no knowledge of.
Meanwhile, DH insists that SS, as local recruitment agency, is
solidarily liable because he is charged with knowledge of the extended
contract under the theory of imputed knowledge. Is the argument of
DH valid?
ANSWER:

5. AA was introduced to MM as a person who can facilitate papers for

workers. During a meeting, AA explained the requirements for
working as a teaching personnel in UK. AA also showed pictures of
other people she had supposedly helped to get employment. With such
representations, MM agreed to apply for work in the UK. MM paid
PhP175,000 for which AA promised to personally process the visa
application. After repeated but vain follow-ups, MM discovered that
AA did not have any license or authority to recruit. In the case for
illegal recruitment, AA did not dispute her lack of license or authority
to conduct recruitment activities, but she maintained that the
transaction was only for securing a visa which did not qualify as a
"recruitment activity”. Is the argument of AA tenable?
ANSWER:

6. In 2019, AA filed a complaint for permanent total disability against

ZZ Manning Agency and OO, the company president. AA alleged that
he fell on deck while lifting heavy loads of lube oil drum, with his left
arm hitting the floor. The incident resulted in his being permanently
 unfit for further sea service. While the Labor Arbiter and NLRC held
that there was no permanent disability, ZZ Manning Agency and OO
were held solidarily liable for payment of temporary disability
benefits. OO contended that he cannot be held liable without showing
that he acted beyond the scope of his authority or with malice. Is the
argument of OO correct?

ANSWER:

7. UU Agency hired AA as an assistant cook onboard Barkoz, a cruise

ship belonging to a foreign principal, WW Cruise Lines. He signed a
one-year contract where he was mainly tasked to assist the chief cook,
TT, in preparing meals. Sometime during his 3rd month, TT began
harassing AA while at work. In dire need of income, AA tolerated the
acts of the chief cook until he was suddenly told that his services would
be terminated as soon as the cruise ship arrives at the next port, in
Cambodia. AA had to spend his own money to go back home. Upon
arriving in the Philippines, AA filed a money claim with the NLRC,
which ruled that there was illegal dismissal. Thus, the NLRC awarded
full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at 12% per
annum and the payment of his salaries for the unexpired portion of
the contract. UU Agency and WW Cruise Lines argued that pursuant
to R.A. 8042, as amended by R.A. 10022, AA shall only be entitled to
three months for every year of the unexpired term, since it is less than
the unexpired term of the contract. Is the contention of UU Agency
and WW Cruise Lines tenable?

ANSWER: