1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Sample Pages PDF

From Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
LABOR LAW
ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM 1994 TO 2019

ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED
BASED ON THE MOST FREQUENTY ASKED TOPICS
1991 - 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Page | 1
LABOR LAW
The questions for the 2019 Labor bar examinations are all recycled popular topics
of the past exams. WALANG BINAGO. PINAKA-MADALING SUBJECT NG LAW
AY ANG LABOR LAW.
After reading all the bar questions, I suggest you get any book on Labor. Huwag na
masyadong mahal na book. Kahit yung mga paper covered book. Scan only the
topics asked in the bar. Do not overload with information. Concentrate on bar
questions and read current events. I think if may new questions to come up
manggagaling ito sa security of tenure like yung contractualization.
Ok. Labor is very easy. Sanayin lang ninyo ang mga mata ninyo sa kakabasa ng
bar questions and answers and I am 100% sure na you would pass Labor Law.
Limited lang topics asked – TERMINATION, ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, STRIKE, DOLE
SECRETARY’S ASSUMPTION POWER, JURISDICTION, UNION SECURITY
CLAUSE, ULP AND ELECTION OF CBU. 90% ng BQA laging nasa mga topics na
yan. Very easy to locate them kasi topical yung approach natin.
I can’t imagine how many 2019 bar students spent as much as P100,000 sa mga
school materials, big books and centers. Ang kailangan lang naman is to familiarize
with bqas and a simple book to quick scan to pass the 2019bar. Kaya, save your
money, enjoy while studying smart for your bar exam.
THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL is composed of 283 pages. The sources used are UPLC, PALS, books with
BQAs and other materials that can be found in the internet. I just have the patience to ARRANGE them based
on the most asked topics from 1987 to 2019, and SEQUENCE them by year. Some answers were paraphrased
to suit the ALAC format and some were found to be so informative in lecture type answer and better left out as
they are. We are giving credits to the authors of those materials.
KINLDY REFER BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO YOUR COLLEAGUES PARA GOOD VIVES.
BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1991-2019

LABOR LAW
FIRST EDITION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2020
The ARRANGER is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney”
title to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@yahoo.com.ph. Other law subjects will soon be available for
2020 Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595
LABOR LAW

MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES…5 Page | 2
JURISDICTION…12
MED-ARBITER…12
LABOR ARBITER…12
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS…20
DOLE SECRETARY…24
DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR…35
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR…36
REGULAR COURTS…41
INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSY 42
NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION..45
AWARDS OF DAMAGES…45
ATTORNEY’S FEE…46
RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT…51

ALIEN EMPLOYMENT…51
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT…52
LABOR STANDARDS….58
E-E RELATIONSHIP…58
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS…69
WORKING HOURS…70
WAGES….73
MINIMUM PAY…
PAYMENT IN LEGAL TENDER...
FRINGE BENEFITS…
BONUS…
FACTORS IN COMPUTING SEPARATION PAY…
SALARY DIFFERENTIALS…
OVERTIME PAY…
FOOD AND LODGING…
HOLIDAY PAY…
NO WORK NO PAY PRINCIPLE…
13TH MONTH PAY…
UNPAID WAGES…
RETIREMENT…
MANDATORY REMITTANCE…
WAGE DISTORTION…89
CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR…91
EMPLOYMENT…100
MINORS…100
HOUSEHELPERS…102
HOMEWORKERS…105
LABOR LAW

LEARNERSHIP AND APPRENTICESHIP…106
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY…107
KINDS OF EMPLOYEE…108
CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEE…108
REGULAR EMPLOYEE…112
PROJECT-BASED EMPLOYEE…117
FIELD PERSONNEL…120
Page | 3
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE…121
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT…122
LABOR RELATIONS…125
RIGHT TO STRIKE…125
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT…125
EFFECTS OF HIRING REPLACEMENTS…131
ILLEGAL LOCK-OUT…132
RIGHT TO PICKET…131
ILLEGAL STRIKE…132
LIABILITY OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS…132
WELGA NG BAYAN…136
TEMPORARY STOPPAGE…137
WILDCAT STRIKE…138
WORK SLOWDOWN…139
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION….140
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION…
ACQUISITION OF LEGAL PERSONALITY…
BLR CERTICATION…
RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE…
UNION DUES…
DISMISSAL FROM UNION MEMBERSHIP…
MODES OF DETERMINING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT…152

VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION…
CONSENT ELECTION…
CERTIFICATION ELECTION…
RUN-OFF ELECTION…
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT/ AGREEMENT…161

DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN GOOD FAITH…
COMPANY UNION VS UNION SHOP…
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES…
MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES…
DISCIPLINARY CASES…
SURFACE BARGAINING VS BLUE-SKY BARGAINING…
GLOBE DOCTRINE…
SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE…
COMMUNITY INTEREST RULE…
ARBITRAL AWARDS…
AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE…
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE…
LABOR LAW

CHECK-OFF CLAUSE…
CONTRACT BAR RULE VS. DEADLOCK BAR RULE…
NON-UNION MEMBERS…
INTERPRETATION OF CBA…
JURISDICTIONAL PRE-CONDITIONS…
LOCK-OUT VS CLOSED SHOP…
MANDATORY SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING…
Page | 4
REPRESENTATION ISSUE…
UNION SECURITY CLAUSE…171
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE…176

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION…
TERMINATION…183
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS…
JUST CAUSE…189
AUTHORIZE CAUSE…197
UNION SECURITY CLAUSE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION…202
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL…204
DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF AGE…
SALE OR MERGING OF BUSINESS…
QUITCLAIM…
REINSTATEMENT…
SECURITY OF TENURE…
BACKWAGES…
UNSERVED PORTION OF CONTRACT…
DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE…
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD…
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE…237
SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS…241
MATERNITY AND PATERNITY BENEFITS…
PORTABILITY LAW…
WORK-RELATED DISEASE…
GSIS…
SSS…
2019 LABOR BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS …254

2018 LABOR BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS…263
LABOR LAW

Page | 5
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON LABOR
(2009) No. II. a. Enumerate at least four (4) policies enshrined in Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution that are not covered by Article
3 of the Labor Code on declaration of basic policy. (2%)
Four (4) policies enshrined in Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution which are not covered by Article 3 of the Labor Code on
declaration of basic policy are:
1. All workers shall have the right to peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with the law
2. They shall be entitled to a living wage
3. They shall participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
4. The state shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers.
(2008) No. I. b. Explain the extent of the workers right to participate in policy and decision- making process as provided under Article XIII,
Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. Does it include membership in the Board of Directors of a corporation? (3%)
Under Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, the workers shall participate in policy and decision- making affecting their rights, duties, welfare
and benefits, through labor- management councils (See, Art. 211[g] and 255 of the Labor Code). The worker’s rights do not include
membership in the Board of Directors of a Corporation (See Meralco v. Meralco Employees, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999).
(2007) No. I. a. What is the principle of codetermination? (5%)
The principle of codetermination is one which grants to the workers the right to participate in policy and decision making processes
affecting their rights and benefits. (Art. 255, Labor Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
By the principle of codetermination, the workers have a right to participate in the decision making process of employers on matters
affecting their rights and benefits, through collective bargaining agreements, grievance machineries, voluntary modes of settling disputes
and conciliation proceedings mediated by government.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Codetermination is a term identified with workers‘ participation in the determination of business policy. Under the German model, the
most common form of codetermination, employees of some firms are allocated control rights by law, in the form of board seats. It is based
on the conviction that democratic legitimacy cannot be confined to government but must apply to all sectors of society. Besides corporate
control rights, the German system deals with dual channels of representation of employees by unions (at the industry- wide, and
microeconomic level) and works councils (at the firm level).
LABOR LAW

(2009) No. XII. In her State of the Nation Address, the President stressed the need to provide an investor-friendly business environment
so that the country can compete in the global economy that now suffers from a crisis bordering on recession. Responding to the call,
Congress passed two innovative legislative measures, namely: (1) a law abolishing the security of tenure clause in the Labor Code; and
(2) a law allowing contractualization in all areas needed in the employer’s business operations. However, to soften the impact of
these new measures, the law requires that all employers shall obtain mandatory unemployment insurance coverage for all their
employees.
Page | 6
The constitutionality of the two (2) laws is challenged in court. As judge, how will you rule? (5%)
The first innovative measure, on abolition of the security of tenure clause in the Labor Code, is security of tenure clause in the Labor
Code, is unconstitutional as it goes against the entitlement of workers to security of tenure under Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution.
The second innovation measure, on a law allowing contractualization in all areas needed in the employer‘s business operations, is legal.
Article 106 of the Labor Code already allows the Secretary of labor and Employment not to make appropriate distinction between labor-
only and job contracting. This means that the Secretary may decide, through implementing regulation, arrangement where the person
supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
premises, among others, and the workers recruited and place by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the
principal business of the employer.
Hence, it would be legal for Congress to do any with the prohibition on labor-only contracting and allow contractualization in all areas
needed in the employer‘s business operations. Assuming, of course, that contractual workers are guaranteed their security of tenure.
(1998) What are the salient features of the protection to labor provision of the Constitution?
The salient features of the Protection to Labor provision of the Constitution (Article XIII. Section 3) are as follows:
1. Extent of Protection - Full protection to labor;

2. Coverage of Protection - Local and overseas, organized and unorganized;
3. Employment Policy - Full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all;
4. Guarantees Unionism and Method of Determination Conditions of Employment - Right of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations.
5. Concerted Activities - Right to engage in peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
6. Working Conditions - Right to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.
7. Decision Making Processes - Right to participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits
8. Share in Fruits of production - Recognition of right of labor to its just share in fruits of production.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Constitution (In Article XIII, Section 3) provides that the State shall afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized. The State shall afford protection to labor by promoting full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
Workers are entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. The State shall guarantee the right of all workers
to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in accordance
with law.
Workers shall also participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The
State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling labor disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. The State shall
regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
LABOR LAW

LEGISLATION AND INTERPRETATION OF LABOR LAWS
(2017) Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul’s watch. Procopio filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Procopio’s favor on the ground that Raul’s testimony was doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt
should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because Article 4 of the Labor Code – which states
that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and
Page | 7
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor – applied only when the doubt involved the “implementation and interpretation” of the Labor
Code; hence, the doubt, which involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved
in favor of Procopio. Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
In Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing, G.R. No. 177114, January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court explained the application of
Article 4 of the Labor Code regarding doubts on respondent’s evidence on the voluntariness of petitioner’s resignation. Thus, the High
Court said:
Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code – that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the
Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the
evidence presented by the employer and the employee. (Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
494 Phil. 697 [2005]) As shown above, Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the company’s case,
particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence,
the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and
discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that
culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the company’s chief corporate
officer was against him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment. (Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte, 486 Phil.
493 [2004])
(2009) No. II. b. Clarito, an employee of Juan, was dismissed for allegedly stealing Juan’s wristwatch. In the illegal dismissal case
instituted by Clarito, the Labor Arbiter, citing Article 4 of the Labor Code, ruled in favor of Clarito upon finding Juan’s testimony doubtful.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter holding that Article 4 applies only when the doubt involves "implementation and
interpretation" of the Labor Code provisions. The NLRC explained that the doubt may not necessarily be resolved in favor of labor since
this case involves the application of the Rules on Evidence, not the Labor Code. Is the NLRC correct? Reasons. (3%)
The NLRC is not correct. It is well settled doctrine that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee,
the scale of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time honored rule that in controversies between labor and the employee,
doubts necessarily arising from the evidence, or in the implementation of the agreement and writing should be resolved in favor of the
labor.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the NLRC is not correct. Article 221 of the Labor Code read: ―In any proceeding before the Commission….the rules
of evidence prevailing in Courts of law….shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission
and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively
without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process.‖ The question of doubt is not important in this
case.
(1998) Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Code
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of labor. Article 1702 of the Civil Code also provides
that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
LABOR LAW

Mica-Mara company assails the validity of these statutes on the ground that they violate its constitutional right to equal protection of the
laws. Is the contention of Mica Mara Company tenable? Discuss fully.
No, the Constitution provides that the state shall afford full protection to labor. Furthermore, the State affirms labor as a primary economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Page | 8
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, because a law which promotes a constitutional mandate does not violate the equal protection clause. The constitutional mandate is
for the State to afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of
justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counter-balanced by the sympathy the law should accord the underprivileged.
The contention of Mica-Mara Company is not tenable. The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not violated by reasonable
classification. Thus, it is constitutionally possible to treat workers differently from employers.
The social justice principle embodied in the Constitution could be the basis for treating workers more favorably than employers, in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and of its implementing rules and regulations.
(2006) What is the concept of liberal approach in interpreting the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations in favor of
labor? (2.5%)
The workers' welfare should be the paramount consideration in interpreting the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
This is rooted in the Constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved
in favor of labor" (PLOT v. NLRC, G.R No. 111933, July 23,1997). It underscores the policy of social justice to accommodate the interests
of the working class on the humane justification that those who have less in life shall have more in law (PAL v. Santos, G.R. No. 77875,
February 4, 1993).
(2006) What is the purpose of labor legislation? (2.5%)
Labor legislation is an exercise of police power. The purpose of labor legislation is to regulate the relations between employers and
employees respecting the terms and conditions of employment, either by providing for certain standards or for a legal framework within
which better terms and conditions of work could be negotiated through collective bargaining. It is intended to correct the injustices inherent
in employer-employee relationship.
(1997) Differentiate labor standards law from labor relations law. Are the two mutually exclusive?
LABOR STANDARDS law is that labor law which prescribes terms and conditions of employment like Book in Book IV, Title I and Book
VI of the Labor Code. These Books of the Labor Code deal with working conditions, wages, working conditions for women, minors, house
helpers and home-workers, medical and dental services, occupational health and safety, termination and retirement. On the other hand,
LABOR RELATIONS law is that labor law which regulates the relations between employers and workers like Book V of the Labor Code
which deals with labor organizations, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices and strikes and lockouts.
Labor standards laws and labor relations laws are not mutually exclusive; they are complement to each other. Thus, the law on strikes
and lockouts which is an example of labor relations law includes some provisions on the security of tenure of workers who go on strike
or who are locked out. These provisions are examples of labor standards law.
(2003) How do the provisions of the law on labor relations interrelate, if at all, with the provisions pertaining to labor standards?
LABOR LAW

LABOR RELATIONS law focuses its provisions on the collective aspects of employer-employee relationship. Its legal provisions deal
with employees organizing unions and how through these unions, employees are able to have collective bargaining with their employer.
On the other hand, LABOR STANDARDS law focuses on the terms and conditions of employment of employees as individual employees
or those legal provisions dealing with wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment.
There may be instances when the provisions of labor relations law may interrelate with provisions of labor standards law. Thus, a CBA
Page | 9
which is dealt with in labor relations law may have provisions that improves upon the minimum terms and conditions of employment
prescribed in labor standards law, like a CBA providing for a higher minimum wage, or for the computation of a higher overtime pay or
the payment of holiday pay not only for regular holidays but also for certain special holidays.
(1995) What are the three (3) general classifications of labor statutes? Describe and give an example of each classification.
The three (3) general classifications of labor statutes are:
LABOR RELATIONS Laws are those labor statutes that deal with the relations of labor and management, like the laws on unions,
collective bargaining, unfair labor practices, strikes, lockouts and picketing.
LABOR STANDARDS are those labor statutes that prescribe standards relating to terms and conditions of employment for compliance
by employers, like the laws on hours of work, weekly rest periods, holiday pay, wages, and laws dealing with women, minors, house-
helpers, and industrial home-workers.
SOCIAL SECURITY Laws are those labor statutes that provide protection not only to a worker but also to members of his family in case
of loss of income or when there is need for medical care brought about by contingencies like sickness, disability, death, and old age.
Examples of social security laws are the Social Security Law, Revised Government Service Insurance Act, the Articles of the Labor Code
on Employees Compensation, the State Insurance Fund, and the National Health Insurance Act.
(1994) Concepcion Textile Co. included the overtime pay, night-shift differential pay, and the like in the computation of its employees'
13th-month pay. Subsequently, with the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of San Miguel Corporation vs.
Inciong (103 SCRA 139) holding that these other monetary claims should not be included in the computation of the 13th- month pay,
Concepcion Textile Co. sought to recover under the principle of solutio indebiti its overpayment of its employees' 13th-month pay, by
debiting against future 13th-month payments whatever excess amounts it had previously made. Is the Company's action tenable?
The Company's action is not tenable. The principle of salutio indebiti which is a civil law concept is not applicable in labor law. Thus,
solutio indebiti is not applicable to the instant case, (Davao Fruits Corporations vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et at. 225
SCRA 562)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
The Company's action would be tenable if payment was done by mistake. In which case recovery can be done under the principle of
solutio indebiti. But if there was no mistake, the Company's action would be untenable because it would violate Article 100 of the Labor
Code which prohibits elimination or diminution of benefits.
Is there any distinction between labor legislation and social legislation? Explain.
LABOR LEGISLATION is sometimes distinguished from social legislation by the former referring to labor statutes, like Labor Relations
Law and Labor Standards, and the latter to Social Security Laws. Labor legislation focuses on the rights of the worker in the workplace.
SOCIAL LEGISLATION is a broad term and may include not only laws that give social security protection, but also those that help the
worker secure housing and basic necessities. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law could also be considered a social legislation.
LABOR LAW

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Labor Legislation is limited in scope, and deals basically with the rights and duties of employees and employers. Social Legislation
is more encompassing and includes such subjects as agrarian relations, housing and human settlement, protection of women and
children, etc. All labor laws are social legislation, but not all social legislation is labor law.
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE Page | 10

(2006) What property right is conferred upon an employee once there is an employer-employee relationship? Discuss briefly.
His employment is not merely a contractual relationship. One's employment is a property right within the mantle of constitutional protection
(Callanta v. Carnation Phil., No. L-70615, October 28, 1986). Hence, the employee enjoys security of tenure and he cannot be dismissed
except for cause and only after due process. The worker is thus protected and insulated against any arbitrary deprivation of his job
(Philips Semi Conductors [Phils.] v. Fadriquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004).
(1996) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?
The Constitution in Art. XIII, Section 3 provides for the following rights of employers and employees:
A. Employers Right to a reasonable return on investments, and to expansion and growth.
B. Employees right to a just share in the fruits of production; self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law; security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage;
and participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In an employer-employee relationship, it is the right of the employer to use the services of an employee who is under his (employer's)
orders as regards the employment. On the other hand, it is the right of the employee to receive compensation for the services he renders
for the employer.
INJUNCTION IN LABOR CASES
(2000) Professor Juan dela Cruz, an author of the textbook Commentaries on the Labor Code of the Philippines, citing an American case,
wrote: It is said that the prohibition against the issuance of a writ of injunction in labor cases creates substantive and not purely procedural
law." Is there any statutory basis for the statement/comment under Philippine law? (5%)
Yes. The statutory basis is Article 254 of the Labor Code. It prohibits issuance of injunction, as a matter of policy, to resolve disputes
except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of the Labor Code. [Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. CZR,
44 SCRA 350 (1972)]
SOCIAL JUSTICE AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN LABOR
(2003) May social justice as a guiding principle in labor law be so used by the courts in sympathy with the working man if it collides with
the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Explain. 5%
Yes. The State is bound under the Constitution to afford full protection to Labor; and when conflicting interests collide and they are to be
weighed on the scales of social justice, the law should accord more sympathy and compassion to the less privileged workingman.
(Fuentes v. NLRC. 266 SCRA 24 f 19971) However, it should be borne in mind that social justice ceases to be an effective instrument
for the "equalization of the social and economic forces" by the State when it is used to shield wrongdoing. (Corazon Jamer v. NLRC. 278
SCRA 632)
ANOTHER ANSWER:
LABOR LAW

No, social justice as a guiding principle in law may not be used by the courts if it collides with the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. Social justice is not a magic wand applicable in all circumstances. Not all labor cases will be automatically decided in favor
of the worker. Management has also rights which are entitled to recognition and protection; justice must be dispensed according to facts
and law; and social justice is not designed to destroy or oppress the employer.
ANOTHER ANSWER: Page | 11

Social justice as a guiding principle in Labor Law can be implemented side by side with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In implementation of the principle of social justice, the Constitution commands that the State shall afford protection to labor. Thus, Labor
Law may be pro-labor in the sense that labor is given certain benefits not given to management. But this is not necessarily violative of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution because said clause allows reasonable classification.
PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
(1995) 1. Under the Labor Code, is the right of first preference a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of the workers?
Explain.
The right of first preference in favor of workers is not a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor. The preference could be exercised
only in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation of an employer's business.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A preference does not attach to specific properties. A lien creates charges on a particular property. The right of first preference as regards
unpaid wages recognized by the Labor Code does not constitute a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of the workers. It
is but a preference of credit in their favor, a preference in application.
The Labor Code does not purport to create a lien in favor of workers or employees for unpaid wages either upon all of the properties or
upon any particular property owned by their employer.
(2003) Premiere Bank, a banking corporation, being the creditor-mortgagee of XYZ & Co., a garment firm, foreclosed the hypothecated
assets of the latter. Despite the foreclosure, XYZ & Co. continued its business operations. A year later, the bank took possession of the
foreclosed property. The garment firm's business operations ceased without a declaration of bankruptcy. Jose Caspar, an employee of
XYZ & Co., was dismissed from employment due to the cessation of business of the firm. He filed a complaint against XYZ & Co. and
the bank. The Labor Arbiter, after hearing, so found the company liable, as claimed by Jose Caspar, for separation pay. Premiere Bank
was additionally found subsidiarily liable upon the thesis that the satisfaction of labor benefits due to the employee is superior to the right
of a mortgagee of property. Was the Labor Arbiter correct in his decision?
No. The preference of credits established in Art. 110 of the Labor Code cannot be invoked in the absence of any insolvency proceedings,
declaration of bankruptcy, or judicial liquidation. (DBP v. Santos. 171 SCRA 138 (1989).
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No. What Art. 110 of the Labor Code establishes is not a lien but a preference of credit in favor of employees. Unlike a lien, a preference
of credit does not create a charge upon any particular property of the debtor. (Development Bank of the Philippines v. Secretary of Labor.
179 SCRA 630 (1989).
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The Decision of the Labor Arbiter holding Premiere Bank (as foreclosing mortgagee-creditor) subsidiarily liable for a money obligation of
XYZ & Co, (as mortgagor) to Caspar, its employee, has no legal basis.
LABOR LAW

There is no privity of relationship between the Bank and Caspar. The relationship, upon which the obligation to pay a sum of money is
based, is between XYZ (the mortgagor) and Caspar as its employee arising from the Labor Code provision requiring an employer to pay
separation pay, re: other causes of employment.
At both times - Labor Arbiter Decision to pay separation pay and foreclosure - XYZ & Co. was an existing business entity and neither
bankrupt or in liquidation, although its business operations after the foreclosure ceased.
Page | 12
The decision of the Labor Arbiter for XYZ & Co. to pay a sum of money to Caspar was based on an action in personam, not in rem.
enforceable against any party. (Sundowner Corporation vs. drilon. 180 SCRA 14 (1989)
The reference in the Decision to "labor benefits due to an employee is superior to the right of a mortgagee of property" is misplaced. The
preferential claim rule has no basis and runs contrary to law and jurisprudence.
(1995) Distinguish the mortgage created under the Civil Code from the right of first preference created by the Labor Code as regards
the unpaid wages of workers. Explain.
A MORTGAGE directly subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation
for which it was constituted. It creates a real right which is enforceable against the whole world. It is therefore a lien on an identified real
property.
MORTGAGE CREDIT is a special preferred credit under the Civil Code in the classification of credits. The preference given by the Labor
Code when not attached to any specific property, is an ordinary preferred credit.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the asset of an employer which has become bankrupt or has been liquidated has been mortgaged, the proceeds of the sale of said
mortgaged asset is first subject to the lien of the person to whom the property is mortgaged. Said lien is superior to the first preference
enjoyed by the workers pursuant to the Labor Code.
(1999) Lowland Cement & Factory Company (LCFC) borrowed P500M from the Development Bank of the Philippines and mortgaged
the entire company, inclusive of its land, buildings and equipment, to guarantee the payment of the loan. However, because of the
economic conditions, LCFC incurred heavy losses and eventually failed to pay DBP the required monthly amortizations over a period of
more than one (1) year. In due time, DBP foreclosed the mortgaged assets of LCTC resulting in the closure of the company and the
displacement of all its employees for want of work.
The LCFC Labor Union [Union] filed in behalf of the displaced workers a labor case against DBP as the new owner of the defunct cement
factory for wage differentials, retirement pay and other money claims. The Labor Arbiter decided in the favor of the Union. DBP appealed
to the NLRC.
DBP contended in its appeal that its acquisition of the mortgage assets of LCFC through foreclosure sale did not make it the owner of
the defunct Lowland Cement, and that the doctrine of successor-employer is not applicable in this case, since DBP did not continue the
business operation of LCFC.
The NLRC while finding merit in DBP's contention, nonetheless held DBP liable to the extent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale since
the Union's claims in behalf of the workers constitute a first preference with respect thereto pursuant to article 110 of the Labor Code.
Is the NLRC correct in holding DBP liable to the extent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale? Explain briefly (5%)
No. DBP is not liable. DBP has a lien over the properties of LCFC which were mortgaged to DBP and said lien is superior to the preference
that the workers have under the Labor Code (in Article 110) with respect to their claims as workers against LCFC.
LABOR LAW

Panel: All claims must be filed in insolvency proceedings, which are outside the jurisdiction of the NLRC (Republic v. Peralta)
JURISDICTION
MED-ARBITER Page | 13
(1996) The national council of X Union, the exclusive bargaining representative of all daily paid workers of Z Corp., called a general
meeting and passed a resolution which provides that each union member was to be assessed P 1,000 to be deducted from the lump
sum of P10,000.00 which each employee was to receive under the CBA. Sergio, a Union member, protested and refused to sign the
authorization slip for the deduction. X Union then passed a resolution expelling Sergio from the union. Sergio filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal deduction and expulsion from the union. Will the complaint prosper? Explain.
The complaint will not prosper before the Labor Arbiter because there is here an intra-union conflict which is under the Jurisdiction of the
Med-Arbiter. (See Art, 226 and Rule V of Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code).
LABOR ARBITER
(2015) Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledging coffee venture, he invites his best friend,
Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the
Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the
business is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of
stock to Carlo as part of the latter's bonus.
Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced
to terminate Carlo but he does so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain.
Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no
jurisdiction over the case as it would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario
claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was a corporate act, he cannot be held personally liable.
As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the jurisdiction question. (3%)
What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate act declared to be unlawful? (2%)
Carlo is an employee. Hence, as LA, I have the power to hear and resolve his complaint.
Carlo is not a corporate officer of the business organization involved, which is a corporation based on the fact that it was incorporated,
declared dividends and issued shares of stock. Being the Chief Marketing Agent only, and not the corporate president, treasurer or
secretary, he is a corporate employee. In fact, he was paid salaries and commissions, plus bonuses, for his personal services.
Corporate officers are personally accountable only as provided by Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code and not solely because they act in
the interest of the company (Carag v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147590, 2 April 2007). Hence, they have to personally commit the illegality, or
ratify it, or be guilty of bad faith or gross neglect in order to be personally liable.
(2014) Luningning Foods engaged the services of Lamitan Manpower, Inc., a bona fide independent contractor, to provide “tasters” that
will check on food quality. Subsequently, these “tasters” joined the union of rank-and-file employees of Luningning and demanded that
they be made regular employees of the latter as they are performing functions necessary and desirable to operate the company’s
LABOR LAW

business. Luningning rejected the demand for regularization. On behalf of the “tasters”, the union then filed a notice of strike with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In response, Luningning sought a restraining order from the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
arguing that the DOLE does not have jurisdiction over the case since it does not have an employer-employee relationship with the
employees of an independent contractor. If you were the RTC judge, would you issue a restraining order against the union? (4%)
I will not issue a TRO. The dispute brought to the RTC is a labor dispute despite the fact that the disputants may not stand in the proximate
Page | 14
relation of employer and employee (Art. 212, LC). Moreover, the issue of regularization is resolvable solely thru the application of labor
laws. Under both Reasonable Causal Connection Rule and Reference to Labor Law Rule, the dispute is for labor tribunals to resolve.
For lack of jurisdiction, therefore, I will dismiss the case.
(2014) Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio networks. He employed Lionel as his
agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty Communications to formally engage in the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of
the incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant Vice-President for Sales and Head of
Technical Coordination. After several months, there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in “under the table dealings” and received
“confidential commissions” from Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was, therefore, charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of
trust, and was given 48 hours to present his explanation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-hour deadline and was
subsequently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal.
Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which
was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company’s motion to dismiss? (5%)
I will deny the motion to dismiss. Lionel is not a corporate officer but a corporate employee only because:
(a) his office is not a creation of the Corporation Code;

(b) it is not shown that his office is a corporate position under Liberty’s Articles of Incorporation; and
(c) it is not shown that there is a board resolution investing his position with the status of a corporate office.
Absent corporate controversy, the Office of the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and resolve Lionel’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
(2010) On December 12, 2008, A signed a contract to be part of the crew of ABC Cruises, Inc. through its Philippine manning agency
XYZ. Under the standard employment contract of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), his employment was to
commence upon his actual departure from the port in the point of hire, Manila, from where he would take a flight to the USA to join the
cruise ship “MS Carnegie.” However, more than three months after A secured his exit clearance from the POEA for his supposed
departure on January 15, 2009, XYZ still had not deployed him for no valid reason.
Is A entitled to relief? Explain. (3%)
Yes, even if no departure took place, the contract of employment has already been perfected which creates certain rights and obligations,
the breach of which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party.
A can file a complaint for Recruitment Violation for XYZ‘s failure to deploy him within the prescribed period without any valid reason, a
ground for the imposition of administrative sanctions against XYZ under Section 2, Rule I, Part V of the 2003 POEA Rules of Employment
of Seafarers. At the same time, A can file for illegal recruitment under Section 6(L) of Rep. Act No 8042 (cf: Section 11 Rule I, Part V of
the 2003 POEA Rules on Employment of Seafarers).
A may file a complaint for breach of contract, and claim damages therefor before the NLRC, despite absence of employer-employee
relationship. Section 10 of Rep. Act No 8042 conferred jurisdiction on the Labor Arbiter not only claims arising out of E-ER, but also by
LABOR LAW

virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages. (Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, 527 SCRA 165 [2007]).
(This is important as an exception to the rule on the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter)
(1994) In 1990, Vic Garcia was hired by the International Labor Organization (ILO) Office in Manila as a bookkeeper for five years. On
Page | 15
January 5. 1994, he was advised that his services were being terminated for loss of confidence. Garcia questioned his dismissal by ILO-
Manila as arbitrary and without benefit of due process.
If you were counsel for ILO, what defense/s should you put up? If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case?
The defense that I will put up will be to claim that being an international agency, the ILO enjoys immunity, namely functional independence
and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located and is thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
(Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center - Aqua Culture Department, et al vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al G.R
No, 86773, 14 February 1992)
If I were the Labor Arbiter. I will grant the motion to dismiss. The ILO being an International agency, the same is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Labor Arbiter and immune from the legal writs and processes of the administrative agencies of the country, where it is found, for
the reason that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local agencies would afford a convenient medium through
which the host government may interfere in its operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions, and besides, such
subjection to local jurisdiction would Impair the capacity of such body to impartially discharge its responsibilities.
(1997) On 01 August 1992, Pro-Knit, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of textile garments, entered into a collective bargaining
agreement with the Kamao Union in representation of the rank and file employees of the corporation.
The CBA was effective up to 20 June 1995. The contract had an automatic renewal clause which would allow the agreement after its
expiry date to still apply until both parties would have been able to execute a new agreement.
On 10 May 1995 Kamao Union submitted to Pro- Knit's management their proposals for the renegotiation of a new CBA. The next day,
Pro-Knit suspended negotiations while Kamao Union since Pro-Knit had entered into a merger with Eagle Garments, a corporation also
engaged in the manufacture of textile garments. Eagle Garments assumed all the assets and liabilities of Pro-Knit.
Kamao filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court for specific performance and damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction
against Pro-Knit and Eagle Garments. Pro-Knit and Eagle Garments filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of Jurisdiction. How would
you rule on the Motion to Dismiss?
I will grant the Motion to Dismiss. The act of Pro-knit suspending negotiations with Kamao Union could be an unfair labor practice. It
could be a violation of the duty to bargain collectively. As such, the case is under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter and not of a regular
court.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
I will deny the Union's Motion to Dismiss. There is no labor dispute between the parties; hence, the Regional Trial Court has Jurisdiction
over the complaint. Art. 212 of the Labor Code, reads -
Labor dispute Includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relations of employer and employee.
LABOR LAW

In addition, the Company can claim that labor contracts are contracts in personam and do not generally bind successors in interest except
under special circumstances. In Sundowner Development Corporation v Drilon, 180 SCRA 14, the Court said: The rule is that unless
expressly assumed, labor contracts such as xxx collective bargaining agreements are not enforceable against a transferee of an
enterprise, labor contracts being in personam, thus binding only between the parties.
(2007) P.D. 1508 requires the submission of disputes before the Barangay Lupong Tagapamayapa prior to the filing of cases with the Page | 16
courts or other government bodies. May this decree be used to defeat a labor case filed directly with the Labor Arbiter? Discuss fully.
(5%)
No. Requiring conciliation of labor dispute before the Barangay Lupon Tagapamayapa would defeat the salutary purposes of the law.
Instead of simplifying labor proceedings designed at expeditious settlement or referral to the proper courts or office to decide it finally,
the conciliation of the issues before the Barangay Lupong Tagapamayapa would only duplicate the conciliation proceedings and would
unduly delay the disposition of labor cases (Montoya v. Escayo, 171 SCRA 446 [1989]).
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No, because under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non- agricultural.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
P.D. 1508 does not apply to labor dispute because labor cases have their own grievance and mediation processes.
(2009) No. III. a. Richie, a driver-mechanic, was recruited by Supreme Recruiters (SR) and its principal, Mideast Recruitment Agency
(MRA), to work in Qatar for a period of two (2) years. However, soon after the contract was approved by POEA, MRA advised SR to
forego Richie’s deployment because it had already hired another Filipino driver-mechanic, who had just completed his contract in
Qatar. Aggrieved, Richie filed with the NLRC a complaint against SR and MRA for damages corresponding to his two years’ salary under
the POEA-approved contract.
SR and MRA traversed Richie’s complaint, raising the following arguments:
The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case; (2%)
The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. Section 10, R.A. No. 8042, reads:
―Money Claims. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the
complaint, the claims arising out of an employer – employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for
overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case. The failure to deploy a worker within the prescribed period without valid reason is a
recruitment violation under the jurisdiction of the POEA.
(2012) No. III. a. On August 01, 2008, Y, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of textile garments, entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with Union X in representation of the rank and-file employees of the corporation. The CBA was effective up to June
20, 2011. The contract had an automatic renewal clause which would allow the agreement after its expiry date to still apply until both
parties would have been able to execute a new agreement. On May 10, 2011, Union X submitted to Y's management their proposals for
the negotiation of a new CBA. The next day, Y suspended negotiations with Union X since Y had entered into a merger with Z, a
LABOR LAW

corporation also engaged in the manufacture of textile garments. Z assumed all the assets and liabilities of Y. Union X filed a complaint
with the Regional Trial Court for specific performance and damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction against Y and Z and Z filed a
Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. (5%)
The Motion to Dismiss must be granted. The claim against Y and Z consists mainly of the civil aspect of the unfair labor practice charge
referred to in Article 247 of the Labor Code. Under Article 247 of the Code, the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices,
Page | 17
which may include claims for damages and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters.‖ (National Union
of Bank Employees v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 56431, January 19, 1988). Besides, what the parties have is a labor dispute as defined in Article
212 (I) of the Labor Code ―regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. Being
so, the RTC is prohibited by Art. 254 of the Code from exercising jurisdiction over the case.
(2008) No. II. b. Can a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter be submitted to voluntary arbitration? Why or
why not? (3%)
Yes, provided that the parties to the dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter states in unequivocal language
that they conform to the submission of said dispute to the voluntary arbitration (Vivero v. CA, G.R. No . 138938, October 24, 2000).
(2004) Under a seaman’s contract of employment with a local manning agent of a foreign shipping company, Capt. TROY embarked on
an ocean-going vessel in good health. One stormy night at sea, he was drenched with rainwater. The following morning, he contracted
fever which lasted for days. He suffered loose bowel movement, lost his appetite, and eventually he died before a scheduled airlift to the
nearest port.
Subsequently, the widow of Capt. TROY complained against the local manning agent and its foreign principal before the Regional
Arbitration Branch of DOLE, for actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. She invoked the Labor Code provision which requires
the employer to provide all necessary assistance to ensure the adequate and necessary medical attendance and treatment of the injured
or sick employee in case of emergency.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the complaint for damages
arising from illness and death of Capt. TROY abroad. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)
In Tolosa v. NLRC, (G.R. 149578, April 10,2003), the Supreme Court held that what we have in this case is a claim arising from tort or
quasi-delict. In such a situation, the seaman who died on November 18, 1992, cannot sue before the Labor Arbiter. But this will not apply
now, as under Sec. 10, R.A. 8042, [effective June 7, 1995], what we have is a claim "arising out of an employer- employee relationship
or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages", cognizable by the "Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission" (NLRC) who have the original
and exclusive jurisdiction thereon.
(1995) 1. Give the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over: unfair labor practices; termination disputes; cases accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement, and involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment; claims for actual,
moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations: cases arising from any violation of Article 264
of the Labor Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockout; and except claims of Employees Compensation, Social
Security. Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations including those persons in domestic
or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement.
LABOR LAW

(2001) The affected members of the rank and file elevated a labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC via a petition for review filed after the
lapse of the ten-day reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. Should the NLRC dismiss the petition outright or may the NLRC take
cognizance thereof? (5%).
The NLRC should dismiss the appeal outright because the same was filed beyond the reglementary period of appeal. Article 223 of the
Labor Code reads:
Page | 18
"Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties
within ten (10) calendar days from, receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders."

The NLRC could dismiss outright the appeal for being filed out of time. But if there are good reasons that may justifiably explain why
there was a delay in the filing of the appeal, substantial justice may be the basis for the NLRC to take cognizance of the appeal.
(2001) "A" was able to obtain a Judgment against his former employer, Company "B", for P750,000.00. In executing the judgment in
favor of A, the Labor Arbiter sought to levy on B's office equipment. B filed an action for damages and injunction against the Labor Arbiter
before the Regional Trial Court of the province where B's offices are located. Is B's action tenable? Why? (5%).
B's action is not tenable. In the case of Delta Ventures Resources vs. Hon. Fernando P. Labato, G.R. No. 118216, March 9, 2000, the
Supreme Court ruled that the regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom,
including the execution of decisions, awards or orders.

Yes, B's action before the Regional Trial Court is tenable if said action is limited to the filing of a damage suit against the Labor Arbiter
because there exists no employer-employee relationship between "B" and the Labor Arbiter, and there is no labor dispute between them.
In Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112139. January 31, 2000, the Supreme Court, ruled:
"It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where NO employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is
involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the
Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction."
(1996) Sara has been working as housemaid for the Bojilov spouses for three (3) years. In the early morning of July 28, the spouses and
Sara were watching the live coverage of the finals of an Olympic boxing match between a Bulgarian and a Filipino which the foreign
fighter won on points. Peeved by Sara's angry remarks that the scoring was unfair, the Bojilov spouses fired her on the spot.
Sara thereafter filed a complaint with the Regional Director of the DOLE for unpaid salaries totalling P5,500.00. The Bojilov spouses
moved to dismiss the complaint on the belief that Sara's claim falls within the Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Sara, however, claimed
that the Regional Director can decide on her claim by virtue of his plenary visitorial powers under Art. 128 and of Art. 129 of the Labor
Code, as amended, which empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide, among others, matters involving recovery of wages.
Whose position will you sustain? Explain.
Will your answer be the same if Sara's claim is P4,500.00 with reinstatement? Explain.
I will sustain the position of the Bojilov spouses. Art. 128 is not applicable because the case did not arise as a result of the exercise of
visitorial and enforcement powers by the Regional Director, as the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. Instead, the case is a simple money claim under Art. 129, which could be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Director if
the claim does not exceed P5,000. But the claim exceeds P5,000.00. Thus, it is the Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction under Art. 217(a)
of the Labor Code.
LABOR LAW

I will still hold that it is the Labor Arbiter that has jurisdiction. It is true that the money claim no longer exceeds P5,000. But there is a claim
for reinstatement. Thus, this claim is under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter, per Art. 129 of the Labor Code.
APPEAL AND EXECUTION
(2009) No. VIII. a. Alexander, a security guard of Jaguar Security Agency (JSA), could not be given any assignment because no client Page | 19
would accept him. He had a face only a mother could love. After six (6) months of being on "floating" status, Alexander sued JSA for
constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter upheld Alexander’s claim of constructive dismissal and ordered JSA to immediately reinstate
Alexander. JSA appealed the decision to the NLRC. Alexander sought immediate enforcement of the reinstatement order while the appeal
was pending.
JSA hires you as lawyer, and seeks your advice on the following:
Because JSA has no client who would accept Alexander, can it still be compelled to reinstate him pending appeal even if it has posted
an appeal bond? (2%)
No, the posting of the bond of the employer does not have the effect of staying the execution of the reinstatement aspect of the decision
of the Labor Arbiter (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC,280 SCRA 806 [1997]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, JSA can be compelled to reinstate Alexander, pending appeal of the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, even if JSA post a
bond.
Art. 223. Appeal xxx In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned shall be immediately executor, even pending appeal and the posting of a bond.
(2007) No. VI. Procedurally, how do you stay a decision, award or order of the Labor Arbiter? Discuss fully. (5%)
Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter may be stayed by filing an appeal to the Commission by any or both parties within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
In case of appeal of a LA‘s judgment involving a monetary award, it may only be stayed upon the posting of a cash or surety bond
issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from (Art. 223, Labor Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
By perfecting an appeal, through the filing an Appeal Memorandum within 10 days from receipt of such decision, verified by the appellant
and accompanied by his Non-Forum Certification, proof of service on the other party, proof of payment of the appeal fee and cash or
surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award of the judgment appeal from.
(2007) No. XIII. May a decision of the Labor Arbiter which has become final and executory be novated through a compromise agreement
of the parties? (5%)
Yes, although Article 221 of the Labor Code requires the Labor Arbiter to exert all efforts to amicably settle the case before him on or
before the first hearing, it must be noted that neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rule as well as the NLRC Rules prohibit
the amicable settlement of cases during the pendency of the proceeding or after a judgment is issued thereupon.
LABOR LAW

The established rule is that the compromise agreement or amicable settlement may still be made even after the judgment has become
final and executor. Settlement of case is encouraged and authorized by law. Article 2040 of the Civil Code impliedly authorizes this. It is
even encouraged by express provision of law.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, provided that the same is not unconscionable, and the agreement was approved by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or the Page | 20
Court of Appeals, before whom the case is pending.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, provided that the new agreement is not tainted with fraud duress or undue influence.
(2007) No. XII. b. Cite two instances when an order of execution may be appealed. (5%)
An Order of Execution may be appealed:
1. Where the Order of Execution varies or goes beyond the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce or the terms of the judgment are
ambiguous (DBP v. Union Bank, 419 SCRA 131 [2004]);
2. Where the implementation of the Order was irregular (Metrobank v. C.A. 356 SCRA 563 [2001]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
When its execution becomes impossible or unjust, it may be modified or altered on appeal or harmonize the same with justice and the
facts (Torres v. NLRC, 339 SCRA 311 [2001]). Supervening events may warrant modification in the execution of the judgment, as when
reinstatement is no longer possible because the position was abolished as a cost-cutting measure due to losses (Abalos v. Philex Mining
Corp., 393 SCRA 134 [2000]).
(2007) No. XII. a. How do you execute a labor judgment which, on appeal, had become final and executory? Discuss fully.
Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or decision that finally disposes of the action or proceedings after the counsel of record
and the parties shall have been furnished with copies of the decision in accordance with these Rules but only after the expiration of the
period of appeal if no appeal has been duly perfected.
The Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director, or his duly authorized hearing officer of origin shall, motu proprio or upon motion of any interested
party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment only within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory, so requiring the
sheriff or duly deputized officer to execute the same. No motion for execution shall be entertained nor a writ be issued unless the labor
Arbiter is in possession of the records of the case which shall include an entry of judgment in case of appeal except hat, as provided for
in Section 10 Rule VI, and in those cases where partial execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter shall restrain duplicate original
copies thereof for the purpose of its immediate enforcement.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

(2018) Due to his employer's dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily resign. In exchange, he
demanded payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and financial assistance, as promised by his employer. Management
promised to pay him as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-and-file employees. Five years later, and before management
was able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died of heart attack. His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the
company before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the unpaid claim. She also
LABOR LAW

claimed additional damages arguing that the supposed resignation letter was obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and
influence. The employer filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money claims, and (B)
the action has prescribed.
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including interest on the amount unpaid? (2.5%)
Page | 21
The NLRC has jurisdiction over money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship where the amount claimed is in excess
of Php 5,000, including interest, regardless of whether or not there is a claim for reinstatement.
(2013) No. V. Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded
Cris financial assistance. Only the company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of
whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor
Arbiter's decision; it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of separation pay and full backwages.
Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It
argued that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue brought on
appeal was the legal propriety of the financial assistance award.
Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or
irregularity whether in substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decide the case. (8%)
The review power of the NLRC in perfected appeals is limited only to those issues raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion
for the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal (United Placement International v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 445 [1993]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the NLRC is empowered to determine even the issues not raised on appeal in order to fully settle the
issues surrounding the case [See: Art. 218(e), now Art. 224(e)].
(2016) Filmore Corporation was ordered to pay P 49 million to its employees by the Labor Arbiter. It interposed an appeal by filing a
Notice of Appeal and paid the corresponding appeal fee. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond equivalent to the total
amount of the monetary award, Filmore filed a Motion to Reduce the Appeal Bond to P 4,000,000.00 but submitted a surety bond in the
amount of P 4.9 million. Filmore cited financial difficulties as justification for its inability to post the appeal bond in full owing to the
shutdown of its operations. It submitted its audited financial statements showing a loss of P40 million in the previous year. To show its
good faith, Filmore also filed its Memorandum of Appeal.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection on the ground that posting of an appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award is
indispensable for the perfection of the appeal and the reduction of the appeal bond, absent any showing of meritorious ground to justify
the same, is not warranted. Is the dismissal of the appeal correct? Explain. (5%)
No. In McBurnie v. Ganzon, (G.R. Nos. 178034, 186984-85, October 2013), NLRC made a serious error in denying outright the motion
to reduce the bond. Once the motion to reduce the appeal bond is accompanied by at least 10% of the monetary awards, excluding
damages and attorney's fees, the same shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an
appellant's motion is pending resolution by the Commission. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an
appellant's period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended. The NLRC must resolve the motion and determine
the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable
amount. Should the NLRC later determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then
LABOR LAW

the party shall comply accordingly. The appellant has ten (10) days from notice of the NLRC order to perfect the appeal by posting the
required appeal bond.
(2015) Philippine News Network (PNN) engages the services of Anya, a prominent news anchor from a rival station, National News
Network (NNN). NNN objects to the transfer of Anya claiming that she is barred from working in a competing company for a period of
three years from the expiration of her contract. Anya proceeds to sign with PNN which then asks her to anchor their nightly newscast.
Page | 22
NNN sues Anya and PNN before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) asking for a labor injunction. Anya and PNN object
claiming that it is a matter cognizable by a regular court and not the NLRC.
Is NNN's remedy correct? Why or why not?
The NLRC has no jurisdiction.
As to PNN, there is no employer-employee relationship between itself and NNN; hence, the NLRC cannot hear and resolve their dispute
(Reasonable Causal Connection Rule). As to Anya, the injunctive power of the NLRC is ancillary in nature; hence, it requires a principal
case which is absent. Besides, the dispute between her and PNN is not resolvable solely thru the application of the Labor Code, other
labor statutes, CBA or employment contract (Reference to Labor Law Rule).
What are the grounds for a labor injunction to issue?
The NLRC may issue an injunctive writ to enjoin an illegal activity under Art. 279 of the Labor Code;
1. as an ancillary remedy to avoid irreparable injury to the rights of a party in an ordinary labor dispute pursuant to Rule X, 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure, as amended; and
2. to correct the Labor Arbiter’s grave abuse of discretion pursuant to Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.
Distinguish the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter from that of the NLRC.
As to jurisdiction, the LA can hear and resolve cases under Art. 224 of the Labor Code, money claims under Sec. 7 of R.A. 10022; and
referred wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments, as well as the enforcement of compromise agreements pursuant to the
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended. On the other hand, the NLRC reviews decisions rendered by the LA; decisions or orders
rendered by the RD under Art. 129 of the Labor Code; and conducts compulsory arbitration in certified cases.
As to the power to issue a labor injunction, the NLRC can issue an injunctive writ. On the other hand, the Labor Arbiter cannot issue an
injunctive writ.
(2014) The jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission does not include: (1%)
1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiter
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Regional Directors or hearing officers involving the recovery of wages and
other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations where the aggregate money claim of each does not exceed
five thousand pesos (Php5,000)
3. Original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certified to it by the Regional Directors
4. Power to issue a labor injunction
LABOR LAW

Reason: Regional Directors do not have assumption power; hence, they cannot certify cases to the NLRC.
(2013) No. V. Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded
Cris financial assistance. Only the company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of
whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Page | 23
Arbiter's decision; it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of separation pay and full backwages.
Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued
that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue brought on appeal
was the legal propriety of the financial assistance award.
Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or
irregularity whether in substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decide the case. (8%)
The review power of the NLRC in perfected appeals is limited only to those issues raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion
for the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal (United Placement International v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 445 [1993]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the NLRC is empowered to determine even the issues not raised on appeal in order to fully settle the
issues surrounding the case [See: Art. 218(e), now Art. 224(e)].
(1995) What is the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission?
Jurisdiction of the NLRC:
1. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiter;

2. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Regional Directors or hearing officers involving the recovery of wages and
other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations where the aggregate money claim of each employee or
househelper does not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
3. original Jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certified to NLRC by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment; and
4. power to issue a labor injunction.
(2001) Company "A" and Union "B" could not resolve their negotiations for a new CBA. After conciliation proceedings before the NCMB
proved futile, B went on strike. Violence during the strike prompted A to file charges against striker-members of B for their illegal acts.
The Secretary of Labor assumed Jurisdiction, referred the strike to the NLRC and issued a return-to-work order. The NLRC directed the
parties to submit their respective position papers and documentary evidence. At the Initial hearing before the NLRC, the parties agreed
to submit the case for resolution after the submission of the position papers and evidence.
Subsequently, the NLRC issued an arbitral award resolving the disputed provisions of the CBA and ordered the dismissal of certain
strikers for having knowingly committed Illegal acts during the strike. The dismissed employees elevated their dismissal to the Court of
Appeals claiming that they were deprived of their right to due process and that the affidavits submitted by A were self-serving and of no
probative value. Should the appeal prosper? State the reason(s) for your answer clearly. (5%).
LABOR LAW

The appeal should not prosper. The Supreme Court, in many cases, has ruled that decisions made by the NLRC may be based on
position papers. In the question, it is stated that the parties agreed to submit the case for resolution after the submission of position
papers and evidence. Given this fact, the striker-members of B cannot now complain that they were denied due process. They are in
estoppel. After voluntarily submitting a case and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question
the jurisdiction or power of the court. A party cannot adopt a posture of double dealing. (Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, 16 March 1989).
Page | 24
No, the appeal will not prosper. In CMP Federal Security Agency vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 125298, February 11, 1999, the Supreme Court
ruled:
"The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not
ignored. Hence, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process, for the labor arbiter to resolve a case based solely on the
position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties. The affidavits of witnesses in such case may take the place
of direct testimony."
(2001) Some disgruntled members of Bantay Labor, Union filed with the Regional Office of the DOLE a written complaint against their
union officers for mismanagement of union funds. The Regional Director did not rule in the complainants' favor. Not satisfied, the
complainants elevated the Regional Director's decision to the NLRC. The union officers moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of
Jurisdiction. Are the union officers correct? Why? (3%).
Yes, the union officers are correct in claiming that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the appealed ruling of the Regional Director. In
Barles vs. Bitonio, G.R. No. 120220, June 16, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled:
'Appellate authority over decisions of the Regional Director involving examination of union accounts is expressly conferred on the BLR
under the Rule of Procedure on Mediation- Arbitration.
xxx
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau — (b) The Bureau shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases originating from the Regional
Director involving .... Complaints for examination of union books of accounts.
The language of the law is categorical. Any additional explanation on the matter is superflous."
(2001) Company "A", within the reglementary period, appealed the decision of a Labor Arbiter directing the reinstatement of an employee
and awarding backwages. However, A's cash bond was filed beyond the ten-day period. Should the NLRC entertain the appeal? Why?
(5%).
No, the NLRC should not entertain the appeal, as the same was not perfected for failure to file a bond. Art. 223 of the Labor Code reads:
"In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety
bond... In the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from."
In ABA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122627. July 18, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled:
"An appeal bond is necessary......the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from."
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The NLRC may still entertain the appeal.
LABOR LAW

It is true that the Labor Code (in Art. 223) provides that appeal is perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. But if Company
A filed a motion for the reduction of the bond, and said motion was only acted upon after the reglementary period, then, the NLRC, in the
interest of substantial justice, may still take cognizance of the appeal.
(1999) The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Genevieve Cruz against Bulag Optical Inc. (BOI) which
denied her prayer for reinstatement but awarded financial assistance in her favor. BOI appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the Page | 25
NLRC within the reglementary period. Genevieve filed an opposition to the appeal. The NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. Both the BOI and Genevieve are not satisfied with the decision of the NLRC,
What is the remedy, if any, of BOI and before what forum? Explain briefly. (3%)
BOI can file a Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision. If the NLRC denies the
Motion for Reconsideration, BOI can file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court since the
decision of the NLRC is final and executory.
Can Genevieve Cruz avail herself of the same remedy as that of BOI? Why? (2%)
Genevieve Cruz can avail herself of the same remedy as that of the BOI. The remedies described for the BOI are also the same remedies
available to Genevieve Cruz as a party to the case, pursuant to the Labor Code (Article 223) and the Rules of Court (Rule 65).
DOLE SECRETARY
(2018) Upon compliance with the legal requirements on the conduct of a strike, Navarra Union staged a strike against Newfound
Corporation on account of a collective bargaining deadlock. During the strike, some members of Navarra Union broke the windows and
punctured the tires of the company-owned buses. The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
(a) Should all striking employees be admitted back to work upon the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment? Will these include striking employees who damaged company properties? (2.5%)
Yes. Under Article 278 (g) of the Labor Code, all striking employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately
resume operations and re-admit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
Regarding the striking union members who damaged company property, the employer should still reinstate them, but after their
reinstatement, the employer may institute the appropriate disciplinary proceedings, or raise the matter on the illegality of the strike on the
ground of violence and illegal acts committed during the strike before the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction.
OTHER ANSWER
Yes, all striking employees should be admitted to work upon assumption of jurisdiction y the Secretary of DOLE. The mere issuance of
an assumption order by the Secretary automatically carries with it a return-to-work order, even if the directive to return to work is not
expressly stated in the assumption order.
(2017) Pursuant to his power under Sec. 278(g) (263(g)) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction
over the 3-day old strike in Armor Steel Plates, Inc., one of the country’s bigger manufacturers of steel plates, and ordered all the
striking employees to return to work. The striking employees ignored the order to return to work.
What conditions may justify the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction? (2.5%)
LABOR LAW

Pursuant to Article 263 (g) [now 278 (g)], when a labor dispute causes or is likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable
to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the
same to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. (Section 1, Operational Guidelines of Department
Order No. 40-G-03, Series of 2010, dated February 24, 2011)
For a valid exercise of the assumption of jurisdiction authority, any of the following conditions must be present:
Page | 26
1. Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute; or
2. After a conference called by the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the propriety of the issuance of the Assumption
or Certification Order, motu proprio or upon a request or petition by either party to the labor dispute.
In the said conference. the parties shall also be encouraged to amicably settle the dispute. (Section 2, Operational Guidelines of
Department Order No. 40-G-03, Series of 2010, dated February 24, 2011)
What are the consequences of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor, and of the disobedience to the return to work?
Explain your answer. (2.5%)
The consequences of assumption of jurisdiction are as follows:
1. If a strike or lockout has not taken place, the parties are enjoined to conduct any untoward action that may lead to a strike or lockout.
2. if a strike or lockout has already taken place, all striking and locked out workers shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of an
Assumption or Certification Order, immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike.
At any point in time, the parties are not prevented from submitting the dispute to Voluntary Arbitration with the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his/her duly authorized representative as Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. (Section 3, Operational
Guidelines of Department Order No. 40-G-03, Series of 2010, dated February 24, 2011)
While the consequence of disobedience to the return to work has been ruled in the case of Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila
Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 154591, March 5, 2007. In holding that defiance of the assumption order or a return-to work order by a
striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act and, therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status.
The High Court explained:
The law explicitly prohibits such acts.

ART. 263. STRIKES, PICKETING, AND LOCKOUTS
x x x x (omitted)
ART. 264. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
(a) x x x x (omitted)
More to the point, the Court has consistently ruled in a long line of cases spanning several decades that once the DOLE assumes
jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike or
lockout.
Defiance of the assumption order or a return-to work order by a striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act
and, therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status. (Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN), G.R. No. 153664, 18 July 2003, 406 SCRA 688, 710; Telefunken Semiconductors
Employees Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 143013-14, 18 December 2000, 348 SCRA 565, 582; Federation of Free Workers
v. Inciong, G.R. No.49983, 20 April 1982, 208 SCRA 157, 165)
LABOR LAW

(2014) Liwanag Corporation is engaged in the power generation business. A stalemate was reached during the collective bargaining
negotiations between its management and the union. After following all the requisites provided by law, the union decided to stage a strike.
The management sought the assistance of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who assumed jurisdiction over the strike and issued
a return-to-work order. The union defied the latter and continued the strike. Without providing any notice, Liwanag Corporation declared
everyone who participated in the strike as having lost their employment. (4%)
Was Liwanag Corporation’s action valid?

Page | 27
If, before the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction, the striking union members communicated in writing their desire to return to work,
which offer Liwanag Corporation refused to accept, what remedy, if any, does the union have?
(A). Yes, the action of Liwanag Corporation is valid.
The DOLE Secretary can assume jurisdiction in the event of a labor dispute likely to result in a strike in an industry involving national
interest, like energy production (Art. 263(g); D.O. 40-H-13). His AJO, once duly served on the union, will produce an injunctive effect.
Hence, if ignored, the union’s strike would be illegal even if it may have complied with pre- strike procedure. As a consequence, Liwanag
Corporation may declare all the strikers as having lost their employment as a consequence of their intransigence (Sarmiento v. Tuico, 27
June 1988).
(B) The union may file a complaint for illegal lockout, with prayer for immediate reinstatement. The refusal of Liwanag Corporation to
admit the strikers back is an illegal lockout because it is not preceded by compliance with prescribed pre-lockout procedure. If the lockout
is unreasonably prolonged, the complaint may be amended to charge constructive dismissal.
(0000) Jenson & Jenson (J & J) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. Its rank-and-flle workers
organized the Jenson Employees Union (JEU), a duty registered local union affiliated with PAFLU, a national union. After having been
certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the appropriate bargaining unit, JEU-PAFLU submitted its proposals for a Collective
Bargaining Agreement with the company.
In the meantime, a power struggle occurred within the national union PAFLU between its National President, Manny Pakyao, and its
National Secretary General, Gabriel Miro. The representation issue within PAFLU is pending resolution before the Office of the Secretary
of Labor.
By reason of this intra-union dispute within PAFLU, J & J obstinately and consistently refused to offer any counterproposal and to bargain
collectively with JEU-PAFLU until the representation issue within PAFLU shall have been resolved with finality. JEU-PAFLU filed a Notice
of Strike. The Secretary of Labor subsequently assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
Will the representation issue that has arisen involving the national union PAFLU, to which the duty registered local union JEU is affiliated,
bar collective bargaining negotiation with J & J? Explain briefly. (3%)
Can the Secretary of Labor decide the labor dispute by awarding the JEU CBA Proposals as the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the
parties? Explain briefly. (2%)
Representation issue in this case is not a bar...
Yes. The Secretary of Labor can decide the labor dispute by awarding the JEU CBA proposals as the Collective Bargaining Agreement
of the parties because when the Secretary of Labor (under Article 263[g]) assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor exercises the power of compulsory
arbitration over the labor dispute, meaning, that as an exception to the general rule, the Secretary of Labor now has the power to set or
LABOR LAW

fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or terms and conditions of employment by determining what should be the CBA of the parties. (See
Divine Word University vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
What is involved in the case in the question is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. If the consumer products
that are being manufactured are not such that a strike against the company cannot be considered a strike in an Industry indispensable Page | 28
for the national interest, then the assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor is not proper. Therefore, he cannot legally exercise
the powers of compulsory arbitration in the labor dispute.
(1995) What are the objectives of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in certifying a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration? Explain.
The objectives of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in certifying a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration is to prevent
a work stoppage that may adversely affect the national interest and to see to it that a labor dispute is expeditiously settled.
(2012) A deadlock in the negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement between College X and the Union prompted the latter,
after duly notifying the DOLE, to declare a strike on November 5. The strike totally paralyzed the operations of the school. The Labor
Secretary immediately assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued on the same day (November 5) a return to work order. Upon
receipt of the order, the striking union officers and members, on November 1, filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof questioning the
Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction, and continued with the strike during the pendency of their motion. On November 30, the
Labor Secretary denied the reconsideration of his return to work order and further noting the strikers' failure to immediately return to work,
terminated their employment. In assailing the Labor Secretary's decision, the Union contends that:
The Labor Secretary erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the dispute since College X could not be considered an industry indispensable
to national interest;
The contention has no merit. There is no doubt that the on-going labor dispute at the school adversely affects the national interest. The
on-going work stoppage at the school unduly prejudices the students and will entail great loss in terms of time, effort and money to all
concerned. More importantly, the school is engaged in the promotion of the physical, intellectual and emotional well-being of the
country‘s youth, matters that are therefore of national interest (St. Scholastica‘s College v. Ruben Torres, G.R. No. 100152, June
29, 1992 citing Philippine School of Business Administration v. Oriel, G.R. No. 80648, August 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 402)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute because the school (College X) is an industry indispensable
to the national interest. This is so because the administration of a school is engaged in the promotion of the physical, intellectual and
emotional well-being on the country‘s youth (PSBA v. Noreil, 164 SCRA 402 [1998]).
An assumption order is executor in character and must be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition
(or Motion for Reconsideration) questioning its validity (Baguio Colleges Foundation v. NLRC, 222 SCRA 604 [1993]; Union of Filipino
Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., 193 SCRA 396 [1990]).
Article 264 of the Labor Code, as amended. (Solid Bank Corporation, etc., v. Solid Bank Union, G.R. No. 159461, November 15, 2010)
thus, the union officers and members who defied the assumption order of the Secretary of Labor are deemed to have lost their
employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act (Union of Filipino Employees vs. Nestle Philippines, Supra.)
(2004) Which of the following may be considered among industries most vital to national interest as to be the subject of immediate
assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or certification for compulsory arbitration in case of strike or work
stoppage arising from a labor dispute?
LABOR LAW

1. Bulletin daily newspaper publishing company.

2. Local franchise of Jollibee and Starbucks.
3. Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila.
4. Enchanted Kingdom, Elephant Island and Boracay Resort.
5. LBC, DHL and FedEx centers. Justify your answer or choice. (5%)
Page | 29
Certification of labor dispute for immediate assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, as
indispensable to national interest. (Art. 263 [g], Labor Code).
1. Bulletin Daily Newspaper. Access to information, e.g., local, foreign, or otherwise are requirements for an informed citizenry.
2. Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila. The country needs domestic sea transport due to our topography and for the smooth
flow of business and government operations.
3. LBC, DHL, FEDEx Centers. Couriers are essential to foreign and domestic business and government operations.
(1996) A deadlock in the negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement between X College and the Union prompted the latter,
after duly notifying the DOLE, to declare a strike on November 5 which totally paralyzed the operations of the school.
The Labor Secretary immediately assumed Jurisdiction over the dispute and issued on the same day (November 5) a return
to work order. Upon receipt of the order, the striking union officers and members on November 7, filed a motion for reconsideration
thereof questioning the Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction, and continued with the strike during the pendency of their motion.
On November 30, the Labor Secretary denied reconsideration of his return to work order and further noting the striker's failure to
immediately return to work terminated their employment.
In assailing the Labor Secretary's decision, the Union contends that:

1. the Labor Secretary erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the dispute since X College could not be considered an industry
indispensable to national interest;
2. the strikers were under no obligation to immediately comply with the November 5 return to work order because of their then pending
motion for reconsideration of such order: and
3. the strike being legal, the employment of the striking Union officers and members cannot be terminated.
Rule on these contentions. Explain.
1. The Supreme Court has already ruled that educational institutions are in an industry indispensable to the national interest, considering
the grave adverse effects that their closure entails on their students and teachers.
2. The striking workers must immediately comply with a Return to Work Order even pending their motion for reconsideration. Compliance
is a duty imposed by law, and a Return to Work Order is immediately executory in character.
The nature of a Return to Work Order, was characterized by the Supreme Court in Sarmiento v. Juico, 162 SCRA 676 (1988) as:
It is also important to emphasize that the return to work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty. It must be discharged as
a duty even against the workers' will. Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of options or voluntariness but of obligation.
In Baguio Colleges Foundation v. NLRC, 222 SCRA 604 (1993) the Court ruled:
Assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency
of any petition questioning their validity.
LABOR LAW

3. The continuing strike is illegal because it is in defiance of a return to work order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, hence,
termination of employment of all those who participated whether officer or member, is legal.
In Sta. Scholastica's College v. Torres. 210 SCRA 565 (1992), the Court ruled:
Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a return to work order may, consequently, be declared to have
Page | 30
lost his employment status in accordance with Art. 246 of the Labor Code.
(2004) Employees of ABC declared a strike after filing a Notice of Strike with the DOLE. They barricaded company gates and damaged
vehicles entering company premises. On the second day of the strike, ABC filed a petition with the DOLE Secretary to intervene through
the issuance of an assumption of jurisdiction order that the Secretary may issue when a strike or lock-out will adversely affect national
interest. ABC furnished the Secretary with evidence to show that company vehicles had been damaged; that electric power had been cut
off; and equipment and materials were damaged because electric power was not immediately restored. ABC forecast that the country’s
supply of chlorine for water treatment (which the company produces) would be affected adversely if ABC’s operations were closed down
by the strikers.
Could the DOLE Secretary intervene, assume jurisdiction and issue a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order)? Briefly justify your answer.
(5%)
Yes, the Secretary of Labor and Employment can assume jurisdiction over the dispute because ABC could be considered as
in industry indispensable to the national interest since it produces the country’s supply of chlorine for water treatment.
The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment has the effect of ending the strike. The strikers will
be subject to a return to work order by the Secretary of Labor and Employment upon her assumption of jurisdiction.
(2012) A deadlock in the negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement between College X and the Union prompted the latter,
after duly notifying the DOLE, to declare a strike on November 5. The strike totally paralyzed the operations of the school. The Labor
Secretary immediately assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued on the same day (November 5) a return to work order. Upon
receipt of the order, the striking union officers and members, on November 1, filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof questioning the
Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction, and continued with the strike during the pendency of their motion. On November 30, the
Labor Secretary denied the reconsideration of his return to work order and further noting the strikers' failure to immediately return to work,
terminated their employment. In assailing the Labor Secretary's decision, the Union contends that:
The strikers were under no obligation to immediately comply with the November 5 return to work order because of their then pending
Motion for Reconsideration of such order.
This position of the union is flawed. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code provides that such assumption xxx shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike xxx. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption, xxx all striking
employees shall immediately effective and executor notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. (Ibid., citing University of
Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, G.R. No. 89920, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 759).
(2008) No. VI. c. On the day that the Union could validly declare a strike, the Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction
over the dispute and enjoining the strike, or if one has commenced, ordering the striking workers to immediately return to work. The
return-to- work order required the employees to return to work within twenty-four hours and was served at 8 a.m. of the day the strike
was to start. The order at the same time directed the Company to accept all employees under the same terms and conditions of
employment prior to the work stoppage. The Union members did not return to work on the day the Secretary's assumption order was
served nor on the next day; instead, they held a continuing protest rally against the company's alleged unfair labor practices. Because of
the accompanying picket, some of the employees who wanted to return to work failed to do so. On the 3rd day, the workers reported for
work, claiming that they do so in compliance with the Secretary's return- to-work order that binds them as well as the Company. The
LABOR LAW

Company, however, refused to admit them back since they had violated the Secretary's return-to-work order and are now considered to
have lost their employment status.
The Union officers and members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that there was no strike but a protest rally which is a valid
exercise of the workers’ constitutional right to peaceable assembly and freedom of expression. Hence, there was no basis for the
termination of their employment.
Page | 31
You are the Labor Arbiter to whom the case was raffled. Decide, ruling on the following issues:
What are the consequences, if any, of the acts of the employees? (3%)
Defiance of the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor after he has assumed jurisdiction is a ground for loss of the employment
status of any striking officers or member (Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. CA, G.R. Nos. 143013-14, December
18, 2000). However, this rule should not apply to the employees who failed to return because of the accompanying picket that blocked
free egress & ingress to and from company premises.
(1994) The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over a strike under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code and issued a return-to-work order.
The Union defied the return-to-work order and continued the strike. The Company proceeded to declare all those who participated in the
strike as having lost their employment status. Was the Company's action valid?
Was the Company still duty bound to observe the requirements of due process before declaring those who participated in the strike as
having lost their employment status?
The Company's action is valid. Any declaration of a strike after the Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute is
considered an illegal act, and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a return-to-work order may
consequently be declared to have lost his employment status and forfeited his right to be readmitted, having abandoned his position, and
so could be validly replaced.
For the moment a worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to have abandoned his job, as it is already in itself knowingly
participating in an illegal act, otherwise the worker will simply refuse to return to his work and cause a standstill in company operations
while returning the position he refuses to discharge or allow management to fill. (St. Scholastica's College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres,
Secretary of Labor, etal., G.R. No. 100158. 29 June 1992.)
Considering that the workers who defied the return-to-work order are deemed to have abandoned their employment, the only obligation
required of an employer is to serve notices declaring them to have lost their employment status at the worker's last known address. (Sec.
2 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
(1997) The Secretary of Labor assumed Jurisdiction over a strike in Manila Airlines and eventually issued a return-to-work. The Manila
Airlines Employees Union defied the return-to-work order and continued with their strike. The management of Manila Airlines then
declared all the employees who participated in the strike dismissed from employment. Was the act of Manila Airlines' management in
dismissing the participants in the strike valid?
What are the effects of an assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor upon the striking employees and Manila Airlines?
Yes. The act of Manila Airlines' management in dismissing the participants in the strike is valid, in a number of Supreme Court decisions,
it has ruled that the defiance by workers of a return to work order of the Secretary of Labor issued when he assumes jurisdiction over a
labor dispute is an illegal act and could be the basis of a legal dismissal. The return to work order imposes a duty; it must be discharged
as a duty even against the workers' will.
LABOR LAW

When the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a strike, all striking employees shall immediately return to work and the employer
shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. [Art.
263(q)].
(1998) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, after assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an airline issued a Return to
Work Order. The airline filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and pending resolution of the motion, deferred the implementation Page | 32
of the Order.
Can the airline defer the implementation of the Return to Work Order pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration?
The airline cannot defer the implementation of the Return to Work Order on the basis of there being a pending Motion for Reconsideration
re: the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of a labor dispute. According to the Supreme Court, the
Return to Work Order issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment upon his assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an
industry indispensable for the national interest is immediately executory.

No, the airline cannot defer the implementation of a return to work order pending resolution of a Motion for Reconsideration.
The Labor Code reads –
Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. - xxx
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the
national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to
the
Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike... as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking employees ...shall immediately return to work, (underscoring supplied)
The Supreme Court, in Baguio Colleges Foundation V NLRC. 222 SCRA 604 (1995), ruled -
xxx assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the
pendency of any petition questioning their validity.
Being executory in character, there was nothing for the parties to do but implement the same, (underscoring supplied)
(2003) In a labor dispute, the Secretary of Labor issued an "Assumption Order". Give the legal implications of such an order.
Under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike
or lockout as specified in the assumption order. If one had already taken place at the time of assumption, all striking or lockout employees
shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and re-admit all workers under the same terms
and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision
as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
The mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return-to-work order, even if the
directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order. Those who violate the foregoing shall be subject to disciplinary
action or even criminal prosecution. Under Art. 264 of the Labor Code, no strike or lockout shall be declared after the assumption of
jurisdiction by the Secretary.
LABOR LAW

(2013) No. VII. Philippine Electric Company is engaged in electric power generation and distribution. It is a unionized company with
Kilusang Makatao as the union representing its rank-and-file employees. During the negotiations for their expired collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), the parties duly served their proposals and counter-proposals on one another. The parties, however, failed to discuss
the merits of their proposals and counter- proposals in any formal negotiation meeting because their talks already bogged down on the
negotiation ground rules, i.e., on the question of how they would conduct their negotiations, particularly on whether to consider retirement
as a negotiable issue.
Page | 33
Because of the continued impasse, the union went on strike. The Secretary of Labor and Employment immediately assumed jurisdiction
over the dispute to avert widespread electric power interruption in the country. After extensive discussions and the filing of position papers
(before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and before the Secretary himself) on the validity of the union's strike and on the
wage and other economic issues (including the retirement issue), the DOLE Secretary ruled on the validity of the strike and on the
disputed CBA issues, and ordered the parties to execute a CBA based on his rulings.
Did the Secretary of Labor exceed his jurisdiction when he proceeded to rule on the parties' CBA positions even though the parties did
not fully negotiate on their own? (8%)
No, the power of the Secretary of Labor under Article 263(g) is plenary. He can rule on all issues, questions or controversies arising from
the labor dispute, including the legality of the strike, even those over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction (Bangong
Pagkkaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph International v. Secretary, G.N. No. 167401 and 167407, July 5, 2010).
(2010) No. XIX. a. Several employees and members of Union A were terminated by Western Phone Co. on the ground of redundancy.
After complying with the necessary requirements, the Union staged a strike and picketed the premises of the company. The management
then filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. Without the benefit of a hearing,
the Secretary issued an Order to assume jurisdiction and for the parties to revert to the status quo ante litem.
Was the order to assume jurisdiction legal? Explain. (2%)
Yes, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has plenary power to assume jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. When in
his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest,
the Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration (Art.
263[g], Labor Code). This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution
to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests (Steel Corporation v. SCP Employees Union, 551 SCRA 594 [2008]). Such
assumption shall have the effect of automatic enjoining an impending strike or lockout, or an order directing immediate return to work
and resume operations, if a strike already took place, and for the employer to re-admit all employees under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout (Art. 263(g), Labor Code; Sec. 15, Rule XXII, Dept. Order No. 40-G-03).
(2010) No. XIX. b. Several employees and members of Union A were terminated by Western Phone Co. on the ground of redundancy.
After complying with the necessary requirements, the Union staged a strike and picketed the premises of the company. The management
then filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. Without the benefit of a hearing,
the Secretary issued an Order to assume jurisdiction and for the parties to revert to the status quo ante litem.
Under the same set of facts, the Secretary instead issued an Order directing all striking workers to return to work within 24 hours, except
those who were terminated due to redundancy. Was the Order legal? Explain. (3%)
No, the Secretary of Labor‘s order will be inconsistent with the established policy of the State of enjoining the parties from performing
acts that undermine the underlying principles embodied in Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.
LABOR LAW

In this case, excepting the employees terminated due to redundancy form those who are required to return-to- work, which was the very
labor dispute that sparked the union to strike, the Secretary of Labor comes short of his duty under Article 263(g) to maintain status quo
or the terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. In fact, the Secretary could be accused of disposing of the parties‘ labor dispute
without the benefit of a hearing, in clear derogation of due process of law.
(2008) No. VI. b. On the day that the Union could validly declare a strike, the Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction Page | 34
over the dispute and enjoining the strike, or if one has commenced, ordering the striking workers to immediately return to work. The
return-to- work order required the employees to return to work within twenty-four hours and was served at 8 a.m. of the day the strike
was to start. The order at the same time directed the Company to accept all employees under the same terms and conditions of
employment prior to the work stoppage. The Union members did not return to work on the day the Secretary's assumption order was
served nor on the next day; instead, they held a continuing protest rally against the company's alleged unfair labor practices. Because of
the accompanying picket, some of the employees who wanted to return to work failed to do so. On the 3rd day, the workers reported for
work, claiming that they do so in compliance with the Secretary's return- to-work order that binds them as well as the Company. The
Company, however, refused to admit them back since they had violated the Secretary's return-to-work order and are now considered to
have lost their employment status.
The Union officers and members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that there was no strike but a protest rally which is a valid
exercise of the workers’ constitutional right to peaceable assembly and freedom of expression. Hence, there was no basis for the
termination of their employment.
You are the Labor Arbiter to whom the case was raffled. Decide, ruling on the following issues:
Were the employees simply exercising their constitutional right to petition for redness of their grievances? (3%)
No, there was a defiance of the assumption order of the Secretary of Labor by the union. The assumption order is immediately executor.
Following an assumption order by the strikers is not a matter of option or voluntarinesss but of obligation on their part (Marcopper Mining
Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March 11, 1996; Art. 264[a], Labor Code).
(2008) No. III. b. Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on five-month cycles. At the end of a saleslady's
five-month term, another person is hired as replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, were SDS uniforms, report at specified
hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and regulations. Those who refuse the 5-month employment contract are not hired.
The day after expiration of her 5-month engagement, Lina wore her SDS white and blue uniform and reported for work but was denied
entry into the store premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and stationed herself in front of one of the gates of SDS. Soon
thereafter, other employees whose 5-month term had also elapsed, joined Lina's hunger strike.
The owner of SDS considered the hunger strike staged by Lina, et al.., an eyesore and disruptive of SDS business. He wrote the Secretary
of Labor a letter asking him to assume jurisdiction over the dispute and enjoin the hunger "strike". What answer will you give if you were
the Secretary of Labor? (3%)
Although the Secretary of Labor has wide discretion in exercising jurisdiction over labor dispute, he may not enjoin the strike because
SDS‘s is not indispensable to the national interest (Art. 263[g], Labor Code).
(1998) An airline which flies both the international and domestic routes requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment to approve
the policy that all female flight attendants upon reaching age forty (40) with at least fifteen (15) years of service shall be compulsorily
retired; however, flight attendants who have reached age forty (40) but have not worked for fifteen (15) years will be allowed to continue
working in order to qualify for retirement benefits, but in no case will the extension exceed four (4) years.
Does the Secretary of Labor and Employment have the authority to approve the policy? [5%|
LABOR LAW

Yes, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has the authority to approve a policy dealing with the retirement of flight attendants of
airlines.
Article 132 (d) of the Labor Code provides that the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall establish standards that will ensure the
safety and health of women employees, including the authority to determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement
Page | 35
or termination in special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like.
CAVEAT:
It could be argued that Article 132 (d) may be unconstitutional because this may constitute discrimination in violation of the spirit of
Section 14 of Article XIII of the Constitution which provides that the State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful
working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and
enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
(1998) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, after receipt of a Notice to Terminate Employment of one hundred (100) workers,
enjoined the employer from implementing their termination. Has the Secretary of Labor and Employment the authority to enjoin the
employer from terminating the employment of the workers? If so, on what grounds? [5%1
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has the authority to enjoin an employer from terminating the employment of workers.
The Labor Code (in Article 377(b) provides that the Secretary of Labor and Employment may suspend the effectivity of the termination
of workers pending the resolution of a labor dispute in the event of a prima facie finding of an appropriate official of the Department of
Labor and Employment before whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in
implementation of a mass lay off.
(1999) FACTS: Polaris Drug Company had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with Polaris Workers Union (PWU) which was
due to expire on May 31, 1999. PWU had a total membership of one hundred [100] rank-and-file employees of the company. Mike Barela,
a militant member of the union, suspected that the union officers were misappropriating union funds as no financial report was given to
the general membership during the union's general assembly. Hence, Mike Barela prepared a sworn written complaint and filed the same
with the Office of the Secretary of Labor on May 10, 1999, petitioning for an examination of the financial records of PWU.
Is the Secretary of Labor authorized by law to examine the financial records of the union? If so, what power? If not, why not? (3%)
The Secretary of Labor is expressly authorized by the Labor Code (in Article 274} to examine the financial records of the unions to
determine compliance or non-compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and to prosecute any violation of the law and
the union constitution-and- by-laws. But this authority may be exercised only upon the filing of a complaint under oath and duly supported
by the written consent of at least twenty percent (20%) of the total membership of the labor organization concerned.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Among the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization is the right implied by the proviso in the Labor Code (Article 241
(m)) stating that the books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any labor organization shall be open to inspection
by any officer or member thereof during office hours.
As a union member, Mike Barela could file an intra- union case that may entail the act of the Secretary of Labor examining the financial
records of the union. (See La Tondena Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 239 SCRA 117) Under the facts given
above, could an examination or audit of the financial records of the union be ordered? Why? (2%)
Under the facts given in the question, an examination or audit of the financial records of the union can not be ordered because for such
examination or audit to take place, there should be a complaint under oath and duly supported by written consent of at least twenty (20%)
LABOR LAW

per cent of the total membership of the labor organization concerned. In this case, the aforementioned requirement was not fulfilled. It
was only a sworn written complaint by one union member that was filed.
Also, the Labor Code provides that an examination of the books of a union shall not be conducted during the sixty (60) day freedom
period nor within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of election of union officials.
In the case, the complaint was filed on May 10, 1999 which is within the freedom period of the current CBA which was to expire on May
Page | 36
31. 1999.
(2001) Under what conditions may the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative inquire into the financial activities or
legitimate labor organizations? (2%).
The Labor Code (in Art. 274), the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative is empowered to inquire into
the financial activities of legitimate labor organizations upon the filing of a complaint under oath and duly supported by the written consent
of at least twenty (20%) percent of the total membership of the labor organization concerned and to examine their books of accounts
and other records.
DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

(2018) Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation's failure to pay his wage increase amounting to
PhP5,000.00 as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson
asked the DOLE to immediately issue an Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice from the DOLE to
appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating the dispute between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation
before the Regional Director failed, the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their respective position papers in relation to the
dispute. Needy Corporation argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings,
only a maximum of 75% of the said money claim may be awarded to him.
(a) Was DOLE's action to conduct mandatory conciliation in light of Nelson's complaint valid? (2.5%)
Yes. In relation to R.A. 10396 or the “Mandatory Conciliation-Meditation Law”, Article 234 of the Labor Code (Renumbered) provides
that “all issues arising from labor and employment shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation. The Labor Arbiter or
appropriate DOLE agency or office that has jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed or referred cases by the duly
authorized officer.”
(2016) Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama "participation basis" by DJN Radio Company. He worked from 8:00
a.m. until 5:00 p.m., six days a week, on a gross rate of P80.00 per script, earning an average of P20,000.00 per month. Inggo filed a
complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal deduction, non-payment of service
incentive leave, and 13th month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection.
The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary
claims in the total amount of P30,000.00. DJN Radio elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was
brought to the Court of Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee relationship because it was the drama
directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the
NLRC and not the DOLE because Inggo's claim exceeded P5,000.00.
May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and
enforcement powers? (2.5%)
LABOR LAW

Yes. Pursuant to Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the DOLE may do so where the prima facie determination of employer-employee
relationship is for the exclusive purpose of securing compliance with labor standards provisions of said Code and other labor legislation.
The DOLE, in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers, somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an
employer- employee relationship. Such determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself.
Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLE's primary function of enforcing labor standards
provisions (People's Broadcasting Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009).
Page | 37
If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering
that the claim of Inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain. (2.5%)
No. As held in the case of Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, Inc., G.R. No. 171275, July 13, 2009, the visitorial and enforcement powers
of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards taws and other labor legislation,
regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers; thus, even claims exceeding P5,000.00.
(2008) No. III. c. Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on five-month cycles. At the end of a saleslady's
five-month term, another person is hired as replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, were SDS uniforms, report at specified
hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and regulations. Those who refuse the 5-month employment contract are not hired.
The day after expiration of her 5-month engagement, Lina wore her SDS white and blue uniform and reported for work but was denied
entry into the store premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and stationed herself in front of one of the gates of SDS. Soon
thereafter, other employees whose 5-month term had also elapsed, joined Lina's hunger strike.
Assume that no fixed-term worker complained, yet in a routine inspection a labor inspector of the Regional Office of the Labor Code's
security of tenure provisions and recommended to the Regional Director the issuance a compliance order. The Regional Director adopted
the recommendation and issued a compliance order. Is the compliance order valid? Explain your answer. (3%)
No, the compliance order is not valid. The Regional Director exercises only visitorial and enforcement power over the labor standard
cases, and the power to adjudicate uncontested money claims of employees. The Regional Director has no power to rule on SDS‘s 5-
month term policy.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the Compliance Order is valid because the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives has the power
to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or
industrial safety engineers made during inspection. The Secretary ot his duly authorized representatives may issue writs of execution to
the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders (Art. 128, Labor Code; V.L. Enterprises and/or Visitacion v. CA, G.R. No.
167512, March 12, 2007).
(2009) No. I. a. The visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard
laws can be exercised even when the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00. (5%)
TRUE. The visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standards laws
can be exercised even when the individual claims exceeds P5,000.00 the authority under Article 128 may be exercised regardless of the
monetary value involved. Under Article 129, however the authority is only for claims not exceeding P5,000.00 per claimant.
(1994) Tina Aquino, a domestic helper in the household of Fidel Aldeguer, filed an action In the Regional Office of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) for recovery of unpaid wages amounting to P3,500.00 and P1,499.00 as moral damages. Aquino claimed
that the amount of P3,500.00 is equivalent to the P500.00 a month she failed to receive for the last seven months of her employment
LABOR LAW

with Aldeguer, based on their agreed P2,500,00 monthly salary. Aldeguer moved to have Aquino's complaint dismissed, alleging that as
a domestic helper Ms. Aquino should have first brought the matter to the Lupong Barangay.
If you were the Regional Director, how would you resolve the matter?
As Regional Director, I will assume Jurisdiction. The provisions of P.D. No. 1508 requiring the submission of disputes before the Barangay
Page | 38
Lupong Tagapayapa prior to their filing with the court or other government offices are not applicable to labor cases.
Article 129 of the Labor Code empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other
monetary claims and benefits owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household service, provided that the money
claim does not exceed P5,000.00. (Montoya vs .Escayo, G.R. Nos, 82211-12, March 21. 1989)
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR
(2017) State the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator, or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in labor disputes? (4%)
The voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from:
1. The implementation or interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements; (Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section 4, Rule XIX,
Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
2. The interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies which remain unresolved after exhaustion of the grievance procedure;
(Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section 4, Rule XIX, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
3. Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized establishments; (par. 4, Article 124, Labor Code,
Section 4, Rule XIX, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
4. The interpretation and implementation of the productivity incentive programs under RA 6971.
5. Upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks. (Article 275. [262], Labor Code, Section 4, Rule XIX, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
6. Violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor
practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (Article 274. [261], Labor Code)
(2015) a. XYZ Company and Mr. AB, a terminated employee who also happens to be the President of XYZ Employees Union,
agree in writing to submit Mr. AB's illegal dismissal case to voluntary arbitration. Is this agreement a valid one?
The agreement is valid because the preferred mode of settling labor disputes is thru voluntary modes, like voluntary arbitration. The
agreement is consistent with Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution. Moreover, it does not violate any statute, offend morals, or defeat public
policy.
b. XYZ Company and XYZ Employees Union (XYZEU) reach a deadlock in their negotiation for a new collective bargaining agreement
(CBA). XYZEU Iles anotice of strike; XYZ Company proposes to XYZEU that the deadlock be submitted instead to voluntary arbitration.
If you are counsel for XYZEU, what advice would you give the union as to the:
LABOR LAW

(1) propriety of the request of XYZ Company, and (2) the relative advantages/disadvantages between voluntary arbitration and
compulsory arbitration?
b. 1 As counsel, I will advise the union to accede to the request of the company. Besides being the constitutionally preferred mode of
dispute settlement, voluntary arbitration is expected to assure the parties a more lasting industrial peace.
Page | 39
b.2 The ADVANTAGES OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION are:
1. the parties’ dispute is heard and resolved by a person they both have chosen as their judge; hence, they are self-assured of his
impartiality;
2. if both parties are willing to submit their dispute, the decision is final and binding on them in general by reason of their submission
agreement; and
3. in the event of a challenge, the decision is elevated to the CA and then to the SC, i.e., less one layer of appeal.
ITS DISADVANTAGES are:
1. in case of appeal by the employer to the CA, the monetary award will not be secured with an appeal bond which Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court does not require; and
2. in case of enforcement of judgment, the Voluntary Arbitrator has no sheriff to enforce it.
The ADVANTAGES OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION are:
1. subject to pre-litigation mediation, a case can be initiated thru the filing of a verified complaint by a union member, unlike in voluntary
arbitration where the Voluntary Arbitrator acquires jurisdiction primarily thru a submission agreement. In a case where the company is
unwilling, the EBR (and only the EBR) may serve a notice to arbitrate; hence, a union member may be left out in the process if the EBR
does not serve that notice;
2. a monetary award is secured with the employer’s appeal bond; and;
3. there is a system of restitution in compulsory arbitration.
ITS DISADVANTAGES are:

1. State interference with the affairs of labor and management is maximized, disregarding the inter-party nature of the relationship; and
2. The system of appeals entails a longer process.
(1995) How are cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements handled and disposed?
Through the grievance machinery and if not resolved by the grievance machinery, through voluntary arbitration.
(2010) Company C, a toy manufacturer, decided to ban the use of cell phones in the factory premises. In the pertinent Memorandum,
management explained that too much texting and phone-calling by employees disrupted company operations. Two employee members
of Union X were terminated from employment due to violation of the memorandum-policy. The union countered with a prohibitory
injunction case (with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order) filed with the Regional Trial Court, challenging the validity
and constitutionality of the cell phone ban. The company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should be referred to the
grievance machinery pursuant to an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with Union X, and eventually to Voluntary Arbitration. Is
the company correct? Explain. (3%)
Yes, termination cases arising in or resulting from the interpretation and implementation of the collective bargaining agreements, and
interpretation and enforcement of company personnel policies which were initially processed at the various steps of the plant-level
Grievance Procedure under the parties collective bargaining agreements, fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator pursuant to Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code.
LABOR LAW

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the prohibitory injunction case filed by Union X against Company C to
enjoin the latter from implementing the memorandum-policy against use of cell phones in the factory. What is at issue in Union X‘s
challenge against the validity and constitutionality of the cell phone ban being implemented by Company C. the issue, therefore, does
not involve the interpretation of the memorandum-policy, but its intrinsic validity (Haliguefla v. PAL, 602 SCRA 297 [2009]).
Page | 40
(2010) Distinguish the terms “conciliation,” “mediation” and “arbitration.” (3%)
There is a DOLE official called a ―Conciliator Mediator. He is an officer of the NCMB whose principal function is to assist in the
settlement and disposition of labor – management disputes through conciliation and preventive mediation. However, he does not
promulgate decisions that settle controversies about rights, which are demandable and enforceable. The latter is called arbitration and is
the function of a labor arbiter or a voluntary arbitrator.
1. CONCILIATION is the process of dispute management whereby parties in dispute are brought together for the purpose of: (1) amicably
settling the case upon a fair compromise; (2) determining the real parties in interest; (3) defining and simplifying the issues in the case;
(4) entering into admissions or stipulations of facts; and (5) threshing out all other preliminary matters (Section 3, Rule V, 2005 NLRC
Rules of Procedure). In resolving labor disputes, this comes before arbitration, as a mandatory process, pursuant to the State policy of
promoting and emphasizing conciliation as modes of settling labor disputes (Art. 211 (A)(a), Labor Code).
2. MEDIATION is a voluntary process of settling disputes whereby the parties elect a mediator to facilitate the communication and
negotiation between the parties in dispute for the purpose of assisting them in reaching a compromise. (Sec. 3(q), Rep. Act No. 9285 or
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law).
3. ARBITRATION is a system of dispute settlement that may be compulsory or voluntary, whereby the parties are compelled by the
government, or agree to submit their dispute before an arbiter, with the intention to accept the resolution of said arbiter over the dispute
as final and biding on them (Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Employees, 249 SCRA 162 [1995]).
In this jurisdiction, compulsory arbitration in labor disputes are submitted to a labor arbiter, whose powers and functions are clearly
defined under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code; whereas in voluntary arbitration, the powers and functions of the voluntary arbitrator or
panel of voluntary arbitrators elected to resolve the parties‘ dispute involve the interpretation and implementation of the parties‘ collective
bargaining agreement, pursuant to Articles 260-262 of the Labor Code.
(2008) What issues or disputes may be the subject of voluntary arbitration under the Labor Code? (4%)
Disputes that may be subject of voluntary arbitration are:
1. Distortion of the wage structure within an establishment arising from any prescribed wage increase because of a law or wage order
which any Regional Board issues (Art. 124, Labor Code); and
2. Interpretation and implementation of the parties‘ collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies (Art. 217, as amended by R.A. 6715; Art. 260, Labor Code; Navarro III v. Damasco, G.R.
No. 101875, July 14, 1995).
(2008) Can a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator be submitted to compulsory arbitration? Why or why not? (3%)
No, jurisdiction in compulsory arbitration is conferred by law, not by agreement of the parties (Veneracion v. Moncilla, G.R. No. 158238,
July 20, 2006).
LABOR LAW

The law mandated that all grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled shall be referred to the voluntary
arbitration prescribed in the CBA Art. 260, Labor Code). This procedure providing for a conclusive arbitration clause in the CBA must be
strictly adhered to and respected if the ends are to be achieved (Liberal Labor Union v. Phil. Can Co., G.R. No. L-4834, March 28, 1952,
cited in San Miguel Corporation v, NLRC, G.R. No. 99266, March 02, 1999). Hence, to submit a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a
voluntary arbitration to compulsory arbitration would be to trifle faith the express mandate of the law.
Page | 41
(1997) State the cases when a labor dispute would fall under the Jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
A labor dispute falls under the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of voluntary arbitrator if a labor disputes arises from an
unresolved grievance which in turn arises from the interpretation or implementation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement or of company
personnel policies. [Art. 261)
Upon agreement of parties, a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators may also hear and decide all other labor disputes
including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlock. (Art. 262)
(2003) The employer company, in a directive to the union president, ordered the transfer of some of its employees, including a number
of union officials, to its plant offices. The order was opposed by the union. Ultimately, the union filed an unfair labor practice against the
company alleging that the purported transfer of its union officials was unjust and in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA), Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, the dispute was referred to a voluntary arbitrator who later ruled on the issues raised by the
parties. Could it later be validly asserted that the "decision" of the voluntary arbitrator would have no "compulsory" effect on the parties?
Explain.
No. A voluntary arbitrator chosen under the Grievance Machinery of a CBA can exercise jurisdiction not only on disputes involving
interpretation/implementation of a CBA and/or company rules, personnel policies (Art. 261, Labor Code) but also, upon agreement of the
parties, "all other labor disputes including unfair labor practice' (Art. 262, Labor Code). As no objection was raised by any of the parties
when 'the dispute was referred to a voluntary arbitrator who later ruled on the issues raised by the parties", it follows that what we have
is voluntary arbitration agreed upon by the parties. His decision is binding upon the parties and may be enforced through any of the
sheriffs, including those of the NLRC, he may deputize.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No. The award of voluntary arbitrators acting within the scope of their authority determines the rights of the parties, and their decisions
have the same legal effects as a judgment of the Court. Such decisions on matters of fact or law are conclusive, and all matters in the
award are thenceforth res judicata on the theory that the matter has been adjudged by the tribunal which the parties have agreed to make
final as tribunal of last resort. [Volkschel Labor Union v. NLRC. 98 SCRA 314 (1980).
(2001) Company A and Union B had a 3-year CBA that expired on June 12, 1990. Negotiations proved futile so the unresolved issues
were referred to an Arbiter who rendered a decision on March 15, 1992 retroactive to December 14, 1990. Is the Arbiter's decision
providing for retroactivity tenable or not? Why? (5%)
The referral of the unresolved issues of the collective bargaining negotiations to an Arbiter is not within the jurisdiction of the Arbiter. But
assuming that the unresolved issues in the collective bargaining negotiations were properly referred to the Arbiter pursuant to the
provision of the Labor Code (Art. 262} that states that a Voluntary Arbitrator may hear and decide any labor dispute, including bargaining
deadlocks, the Arbiter's decision providing for retroactivity is tenable. Exercising his compulsory arbitration power, the Arbiter could decide
the issue of retroactivity in any way which is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
But in a case (Manila Electric Co vs. Secretary of Labor Leonardo Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, February 22, 2000), the Supreme Court
said that an arbitral award shall retroact to the first day after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA that
was being re-negotiated.
LABOR LAW

The retroactive Order of the Labor Arbiter is void for want of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Nowhere in the Labor Code,
more specifically, Article 217, is the Labor Arbiter given jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective bargaining, including determining
the period or duration of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
(2005) (1) Ricky Marvin had worked for more than ten (10) years in IGB Corporation. Under the terms of the personnel policy on Page | 42
retirement, any employee who had reached the age of 65 and completed at least ten (10) years of service would be compulsorily retired
and paid 30 days' pay for every year of service.
Ricky Marvin, whose immigrant visa to the USA had just been approved, celebrated his 60th birthday recently. He decided to retire and
move to California where the son who petitioned him had settled. The company refused to grant him any retirement benefits on the
ground that he had not yet attained the compulsory retirement age of 65 years as required by its personnel policy; moreover, it did not
have a policy on optional or early retirement.
Taking up the cudgels for Ricky Marvin, the union raised the issue in the grievance machinery as stipulated in the CBA. No settlement
was arrived at, and the matter was referred to voluntary arbitration.
If you were the Voluntary Arbitrator, how would you decide? Briefly explain the reasons for your award. (5%)
I will decide the case in accordance with the Retirement Law. (R.A. No. 7641) Under the law, Ricky Marvin is entitled to Optional
Retirement at age 60 since he has served the Company for at least 5 years, in fact 10 years already. He will also receive 22.5 days for
every year of service. (Capitol Wireless v. Confesor, G.R. No. 117174, November 13, 1996)
PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION
(2018) Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation's failure to pay his wage increase amounting to
PhP5,000.00 as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson
asked the DOLE to immediately issue an Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice from the DOLE to
appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating the dispute between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation
before the Regional Director failed, the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their respective position papers in relation to the
dispute. Needy Corporation argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings,
only a maximum of 75% of the said money claim may be awarded to him.
(a) Was DOLE's action to conduct mandatory conciliation in light of Nelson's complaint valid? (2.5%)
Yes. In relation to R.A. 10396 or the “Mandatory Conciliation-Meditation Law”, Article 234 of the Labor Code (Renumbered) provides that “all issues
arising from labor and employment shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation. The Labor Arbiter or appropriate DOLE agency or office that
has jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed or referred cases by the duly authorized officer.”
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation's argument? (2.5%)
No. Article 239 of the Labor Code provides that the information and statements given in confidence at the conciliation-mediation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in any arbitration proceeding, except
when there is a waiver of confidentiality. In the present case, Nelson’s willingness to settle for 75% of his money claim may not be used
against him in the money claims case before the Regional Director due to the confidentiality rule.
(2007) No. VII. b. How sacrosanct are statements/data made at conciliation proceedings in the Department of Labor and Employment?
What is the philosophy behind your answer? (5%)
LABOR LAW

It is sacrosanct as privilege communication. This is so because information and statements at conciliation proceedings cannot be used
as evidence in the NLRC. Conciliators and similar officials cannot testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken up at conciliation
proceedings conducted by them. (Articles 233, labor Code.) This is to enable the conciliators to ferret out all the important facts of the
controversy which the parties may be afraid to divulge if the same can be used against them.
REGULAR COURTS Page | 43
(1995) Pablo Bagsakin. a law graduate who got tired of taking the bar examinations after several unsuccessful attempts, joined the
Investigation Division of Warak Transport Company. From the very beginning Pablo never liked his manager because the latter always
made fun of the former's accident reports. When Pablo's patience ran out he walked up to his manager who was reviewing the
investigator's assignments and workload and boxed him until the latter collapsed. The incident happened during office hours at the
Investigation Division in the presence of his co-employees. Pablo was dismissed without any investigation and was no longer allowed to
enter the company premises.
The manager filed a complaint for damages against Pablo before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC). In turn, Pablo filed a case for
illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter against the manager and the transport company. Pablo asked for reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights with full back wages. Pablo also filed before the Pasig RTC a motion to dismiss the damage suit against him alleging that
the Labor Arbiter before whom the case for illegal dismissal was pending had exclusive jurisdiction over both cases.
Resolve the motion to dismiss. Discuss fully.
The motion to dismiss filed by Pablo before the Pasig RTC should be denied.
The damage suit filed by the manager against Pablo does not arise from employer-employee relationship. While the case involves an
employer and his employee. It is not the employer- employee relationship between the two that gives rise to the damage suit. Instead, it
is based solely on an alleged tort which could give rise to a damage suit under the Civil Code. Thus, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction
over the damage suit.
(1999) Mariet Demetrio was a clerk-typist in the Office of the President of a multi-national corporation. One day she was berated by the
President of the company, the latter shouting invectives at her in the presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she
committed. Mariet was reduced to tears out of shame and felt so bitter about the incident that she filed a civil case for damages against
the company president before the regular courts. Soon thereafter, Mariet received a memorandum transferring her to the Office of the
General Manager without demotion in rank or diminution in pay. Mariet refused to transfer.
With respect to the civil suit for damages, the company lawyer filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction considering the existence
of an employer-employee relationship and therefore, it is claimed that the case should have been filed before the Labor Arbiter.
Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied? Explain briefly (3%).
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. It is a regular court and not a Labor Arbiter that has jurisdiction on the suit for damages. The
damages are not arising from the employer- employee relations which would have placed the suit under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter.
The suit arises from the fact that the President of the company shouted invectives at Marlet Demetrio in the presence of employees and
visitors. Her complaint for damages is against an officer of the Company based on slanderous language allegedly made by the latter.
This falls under the Jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. There is here a simple action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by
the defendant. Such being the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. (Medina v. Castro-Bartolome, 116
SCRA 597)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
LABOR LAW

The Motion to dismiss should be granted. According to the Labor Code (in Article 217 (a) 4), the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, among others, claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations.
The claim for damages in the case in question arose from the fact that the President of the Company shouted invectives at Marlet
Demetrio in the presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she committed. If the infraction has something to do with her
Page | 44
work, then, the claim for damages could be considered as arising from employer-employee relations. Thus, the claim is under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSY
(2017) Marcel was the Vice President for Finance and Administration and a member of the Board of Directors of Mercedes Corporation.
He brought a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against Mercedes Corporation, which moved to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of the RTC due to the controversy being intra-corporate based on his
positions in the corporation.
Marcel countered that he had only been removed as Vice President for Finance and Administration, not as a member of the Board of
Directors. He also argued that his position was not listed as among the corporate offices in Mercedes Corporation’s by-law.
Is the argument of Marcel correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
Marcel’s contention is correct. It is settled in Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros, G.R. No. 157802, 13 October 2010,
cited in Marc II Marketing Inc. v. Joson, G.R. No. 171993, December 12, 2011, where it held, thus:
Conformably with Section 25, a position must be expressly mentioned in the [b]y-[l]aws in order to be considered as a corporate office.
Thus, the creation of an office pursuant to or under a [b]y-[l]aw enabling provision is not enough to make a position a corporate office.
[In] Guerrea v. Lezama [citation omitted] the first ruling on the matter, held that the only officers of a corporation were those given that
character either by the Corporation Code or by the [b]y- [l]aws; the rest of the corporate officers could be considered only as employees
or subordinate officials.
xxx
It is relevant to state in this connection that the SEC, the primary agency administering the Corporation Code, adopted a similar
interpretation of Section 25 of the Corporation Code in its Opinion dated November 25, 1993 [citation omitted], to wit:
Thus, pursuant to the above provision (Section 25 of the Corporation Code), whoever are the corporate officers enumerated in the by-
laws are the exclusive Officers of the corporation and the Board has no power to create other Offices without amending first the corporate
[b]y-laws. However, the Board may create appointive positions other than the positions of corporate Officers, but the persons occupying
such positions are not considered as corporate officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Corporation Code and are not empowered
to exercise the functions of the corporate Officers, except those functions lawfully delegated to them. Their functions and duties are to
be determined by the Board of Directors/Trustees. (Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros, supra at 26-27) [Emphasis
supplied.]
With the given circumstances and in conformity with Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros, Marcel was not a corporate
officer of Mercedes Corporation because his position as Vice President for Finance and Administration was not specifically mentioned in
the roster of corporate officers in its corporate by-laws.
(2015) Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledging coffee venture, he invites his best friend,
Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the
LABOR LAW

Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the
business is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of
stock to Carlo as part of the latter's bonus.
Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced
to terminate Carlo but he does so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain.
Page | 45
Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no
jurisdiction over the case as it would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario
claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was a corporate act, he cannot be held personally liable.
As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the jurisdiction question. (3%)
What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate act declared to be unlawful?
Carlo is an employee. Hence, as LA, I have the power to hear and resolve his complaint. Carlo is not a corporate officer of the business
organization involved, which is a corporation based on the fact that it was incorporated, declared dividends and issued shares of stock.
Being the Chief Marketing Agent only and not the corporate president, treasurer or secretary, he is a corporate employee. In fact, he was
paid salaries and commissions, plus bonuses, for his personal services.
Corporate officers are personally accountable only as provided by Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code and not solely because they act in
the interest of the company (Carag v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147590, 2 April 2007). Hence, they have to personally commit the illegality, or
ratify it, or be guilty of bad faith or gross neglect in order to be personally liable.
(2014) Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio networks. He employed Lionel as his
agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty Communications to formally engage in the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of
the incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant Vice-President for Sales and Head of
Technical Coordination. After several months, there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in “under the table dealings” and received
“confidential commissions” from Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was, therefore, charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of
trust, and was given 48 hours to present his explanation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-hour deadline and was
subsequently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal.
Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which
was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company’s motion to dismiss? (5%)
I will deny the motion to dismiss.
Lionel is not a corporate officer but a corporate employee only because:
(a) his office is not a creation of the Corporation Code;

(b) it is not shown that his office is a corporate position under Liberty’s Articles of Incorporation; and
(c) it is not shown that there is a board resolution investing his position with the status of a corporate office.
Absent corporate controversy, the Office of the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and resolve Lionel’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
-------xxx----
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS (RTC) UNDER RA 8799 OF 2000. AND UNDER SECTION 181 OF RA 11232, OTHERWISE
LABOR LAW

KNOWN AS REVISED CORPORATION CODE OF FEB 2019, REQUIRES THAT INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTES BE REFERRED TO
ARBITRATION PROVIDED THAT ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.
So, if may question about intra-corporate dispute like dismissal of corporate officers, and sagot ay:
1. “Assuming there was no arbitration agreement provided for in the articles of the incorporation of XYZ Company, the dismissal of A, a
corporate officer, is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Page | 46
(1996) Diego, Executive Vice-President of Evergreen Development Corporation (EDC) was dismissed by the Board of Directors for his
involvement in irregularities prejudicial to EDC's interests. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, praying for
reinstatement with back-wages, P5 million pesos as moral damages, P1 million pesos as exemplary damages and attorney's fees. EDC
questioned the Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Diego, in turn contended that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case as it involves
the termination of an employee and claims for backwages, benefits and damages. Decide.
The dismissal of an Executive Vice-president of a Corporation, who is a corporate officer, by the Board of Directors of the corporation is
not a termination dispute under the Jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter. It is an intra-corporate dispute that is under the jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. (RTC na may jurisdiction under RA 8799)
(1997) Mr. Jonathan Pe, a registered stockholder of New Wave Beauty Shop, Inc. was elected Vice-President of New Wage at a regular
monthly meeting. At a subsequent meeting of the Board of Directors, it was resolved to dismiss Jonathan as Vice-president due to loss
of trust and confidence. Jonathan Pe filed with the National Labor Relations Commission a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages
against New Wage claiming that he was dismissed without due process. New Wage filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
Resolve the motion.
The Motion to Dismiss should be granted. The election of Jonathan Pe as Vice President of New Wave Beauty Shop, Inc, made him a
corporate officer.
His subsequent dismissal as such corporate officer is considered an intra-corporate matter. Thus, the dismissal of Pe is not a case of a
termination dispute which is under the Jurisdiction of a Regional Branch of the NLRC. Instead, it is under the Jurisdiction of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, it having jurisdiction over intra- corporate matters. (RTC na may jurisdiction under RA 8799)
NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION
(2017) The Regional Tripartite and Productivity Board (RTWPB) for Region 3 issued a wage order on November 2, 2017 fixing
the minimum wages for all industries throughout Region 3.
Is the wage order subject to the approval of the National Wages and Productivity Commission before it takes effect? (2%)
No. the National Wages and Productivity Commission function is to review the Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite and
Productivity Board (RTWPB) (See Section 4, Rule IV, NWPC GUIDELINES NO. 01 Series of 2007, dated June 19, 2007)
The law mandates that no petition for wage increase shall be entertained within a period of 12 months from the effectivity of the wage
order. Under what circumstances may the Kilusang Walang Takot, a federation of labor organizations that publicly and openly assails
the wage order as blatantly unjust, initiate the review of the wage increases under the wage order without waiting for the end of the 12-
month period? Explain your answer. (3%)
LABOR LAW

If Kilusang Walang Takot feels aggrieved by the Wage Order issued by the Board it may appeal such Order to the National Wages and
Productivity Commission by filing a verified appeal with the Board not later than ten (10) days from the date of publication of the Order
on the grounds of non-conformity with prescribed guidelines and/or procedures, questions of law and grave abuse of discretion. (See
Section 1, Rule IV, in relation to Section 2 Rule V, NWPC GUIDELINES NO. 01 Series of 2007, dated June 19, 2007)
AWARDS OF DAMAGES Page | 47
(2018) In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned, and Nod sought permission from the company to distribute flyers with
respect to a weekend union activity. The company HR manager granted the request through a text message sent to another union
member, Norlyn.
While Nad, Ned, and Nod were distributing the flyers at the company assembly plant, a company supervisor barged in and

1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Sample Pages PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Sample Pages PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1991-2019

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT…51

MODES OF DETERMINING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT…152

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT/ AGREEMENT…161

UNION SECURITY CLAUSE…171

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE…176

2019 LABOR BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS …254

(2007) No. I. a. What is the principle of codetermination? (5%)

1. Extent of Protection - Full protection to labor;

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

LEGISLATION AND INTERPRETATION OF LABOR LAWS

(2006) What is the purpose of labor legislation? (2.5%)

The three (3) general classifications of labor statutes are:

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE Page | 10

(1996) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?

INJUNCTION IN LABOR CASES

SOCIAL JUSTICE AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN LABOR

ANOTHER ANSWER: Page | 11

(a) his office is not a creation of the Corporation Code;

Is A entitled to relief? Explain. (3%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

SR and MRA traversed Richie’s complaint, raising the following arguments:

The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case; (2%)

(1995) 1. Give the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

APPEAL AND EXECUTION

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

An Order of Execution may be appealed:

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Decide the case. (8%)

Is NNN's remedy correct? Why or why not?

The NLRC has no jurisdiction.

What are the grounds for a labor injunction to issue?

Distinguish the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter from that of the NLRC.

4. Power to issue a labor injunction

Decide the case. (8%)

(1995) What is the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission?

Jurisdiction of the NLRC:

1. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiter;

The consequences of assumption of jurisdiction are as follows:

The law explicitly prohibits such acts.

Was Liwanag Corporation’s action valid?

(A). Yes, the action of Liwanag Corporation is valid.

Representation issue in this case is not a bar...

1. Bulletin daily newspaper publishing company.

In assailing the Labor Secretary's decision, the Union contends that:

Rule on these contentions. Explain.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. - xxx

Was the order to assume jurisdiction legal? Explain. (2%)

DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

ITS DISADVANTAGES are:

The ADVANTAGES OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION are:

ITS DISADVANTAGES are:

Disputes that may be subject of voluntary arbitration are:

REGULAR COURTS Page | 43

Resolve the motion to dismiss. Discuss fully.

Is the argument of Marcel correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

I will deny the motion to dismiss.