2019 Pre Week On Labor Law and Social Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, REPRODUCE.
any of thePROPERTY OF SANwho
following categories BEDA are excludedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
from securing an AEP, he OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF may
LAW.instead secure a Certificate
NOT FOR of Exclusion
UNIVERSITY from the
COLLEGE OF Regional
LAW. NOT Office:
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. • Members of the governing board with voting rights only and do not intervene inSALE.
the management of
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
the corporation or in the day to day operations of the enterprise; PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.•DOCorporate
NOT officers
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN• BEDA
President and REPRODUCE.
Treasurer, who PROPERTY
are part-owner
OFofSAN
the company;
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
• Those providing consultancy services who do not have employers in the Philippines;
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR corporate
• Intra UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
transferee who OF LAW.
is a manager, NOT FOR
executive, or specialistUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and an employee OF LAW. NOT FO
of the foreign
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY for SALE.
service supplierPROPERTY DO
at least NOT
OFone
SAN REPRODUCE.
year continuous
BEDA employment priorPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
OF NOT
to deployment REPRODUCE.
to a BEDA
SAN branch,UNIVERSITY
subsidiary affiliate or representative office in the Philippines;
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.•DOContractual
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
service supplier who NOT FOR SALE.
is a manager, DO NOT
executive, COLLEGE
or specialist OF LAW.
of a foreign NOTsupplier
service FOR SALE. DO N
which has no commercial PROPERTY
presence in the OF SAN BEDA
Philippines: (i) who entersREPRODUCE.
the PhilippinesPROPERTY
temporarily OFto SAN BEDA
supply
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a service pursuant to a contract between
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his/her employer and a service consumer in
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOthe
Philippines; (ii) must possess the appropriate educational and professional qualifications; and (iii) must
be employed by thePROPERTY DO NOT
OF SAN
foreign service REPRODUCE.
BEDA
supplier UNIVERSITY
for at least one year prior to the SALE.
PROPERTY
supplyDOof NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
service inBEDA
the UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Philippines;
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
• Representative of the Foreign Principal/Employer assigned in the Office of Licensed Manning Agency
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN(OLMA)
BEDA (D.O. No. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
186-17, Sec. 3-4). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
19. SALE.
F LAW. NOT FOR Who DOare covered
NOT byCOLLEGE
the LaborOF
Code
LAW.provisions
NOT FOR onSALE.
WorkingDO Conditions
NOT and Rest OF
COLLEGE Periods?
UCE. PROPERTY OF SANTheBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Labor Code provisions on Working Conditions and Rest Periods apply to employeesPROPERTY
in OF
all SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and undertaking
establishments UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
whether OForLAW.
for profit NOT
not, but notFOR
to: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE. • Government employees;
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Managerial employees including members of the managerial staff; PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
• Field personnel COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
• Members
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the family of the employer
REPRODUCE. who areOF
PROPERTY dependent
SAN BEDAon him for support
• Domestic helpers
• Persons in the personal service of another;
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA • Workers paid by
UNIVERSITY SALE.
result (LABOR
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
CODE,
SAN REPRODUCE.
Art.
BEDA 82).
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
7
20. What is the normal hours of work?
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
Article 83 of the Labor Code provides that the normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
eight (8) hours a day. Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
(1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall PROPERTY OF
hold regular office
hours
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFfor eightNOT
LAW. (8) hours
FOR a day, for five (5) daysCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY a week, exclusive
OF LAW. of time
NOTfor meals (LABOR
FOR CODE, Art.
UNIVERSITY 83).
COLLEGE OF LAW
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
21. O was employed
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA as a bank teller in K Bank. She was required
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to work daily for a period of eight PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. straight OF SAN
hours.
a. Is this schedule allowed by
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
law?DO NOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSIT
b. In case O was only given a meal break of 15 minutes, can he claim compensation for the shorter
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
meal period?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
a. As a general rule, the schedule is not allowed. Article 85 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be
the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. regular meals (LABOR
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
CODE, Art.OF
PROPERTY 85). REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR b.
SALE. DOheNOT
Yes, can claim COLLEGE OF LAW.
compensation. A mealNOT FOR
period SALE.
of less DOtwenty
than NOT (20) minutes
COLLEGE mayOF
beLAW. NOT
given by theFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA provided that
employer REPRODUCE.
such shorterPROPERTY
meal periodOF is SAN BEDA
credited REPRODUCE.
as compensable PROPERTY
hours worked of the OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. employee
NOT FORin the following cases: COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
i. Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.
ii. Where the establishment OF DO
SANNOT
regularly BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
operates hours aSALE.
PROPERTY
not less than sixteen (16) OF DO
day; SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
iii. NOT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO In case of actual orOFimpending
COLLEGE LAW. NOT emergencies
FOR SALE.orDOthereNOTis urgent work to
COLLEGE OFbeLAW.
performed
NOT FORon SALE. DO
machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA suffer; and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
iv.FORWhere the UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
work is necessary OF LAW.
to prevent seriousNOT
loss FOR
of perishableUNIVERSITY
goods (IRR OFCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
THE LABOR
LE. DO CODE, Sec. 7, Rule I).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
22. X works in
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a call center which operates twenty-four (24)
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR hours a day. His shift starts at COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY 4:00 P.M. until
OF LAW. NOT F
1:00 A.M. of the following day. Is he entitled to any additional compensation for work performed during
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA
thisUNIVERSITY
shift?
Yes, X is entitled to a night differential pay. Under Article 86 of the Labor Code, every employee shall be
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFaSAN
paid nightBEDA
shift differential REPRODUCE.
of not less thanPROPERTY
ten percentOF SANofBEDA
(10%) his regular wageREPRODUCE.
for each hourPROPERTY
of work OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
performed FOR 10:00 o’clock
between UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
in the evening to sixOF LAW.
o’clock in NOT FOR In theUNIVERSITY
the morning. COLLEGE
case of X, he is entitled toOF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT night shift differential for work performed
REPRODUCE. SALE. from
DO 10:00
NOT pm until 1:00 am of the day following (LABOR
REPRODUCE. CODE, Art.
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
86). (LABOR CODE, Art. 86). PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
ITY COLLEGE23.
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
DEF Foundation is a non-profit organization dependent for its existence on contributions andLAW. NOT F
LE. DO
SAN BEDA donations from well-wishers.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
B, an office
SAN REPRODUCE.
clerk therein,
BEDA renders work from 7:00
UNIVERSITY SALE.
A.M
PROPERTY DO
OF00NOT
to 8: REPRODUCE.
P.M.BEDA
SAN from UNIVERSIT
Monday to Friday. While admitting that it does not fall under the exceptions, DEF Foundation argued
OF LAW. NOT FOR that
SALE. DO not
it had NOTgiven overtime
COLLEGEpay
OFbecause
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
it should DO NOT
be exempt COLLEGE
as a charitable OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
institution.
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.a.NOT Is FOR
B entitled toUNIVERSITY
overtime pay?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
b. What is the rate of additional compensation for overtime pay?
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR a. Yes, B is entitled to overtime pay. Article 82 of the Labor Code that the provisions on Working
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Conditions and Rest Periods shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether
for profit or not, subject only to certain exceptions mentioned therein. Thus, the PROPERTY
provisions are equally OF SAN
applicable
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to non-profit institutions (LABOR CODE,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORArt. 82). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. Article 87 of the PROPERTY
SALE.
Labor Code OF
DO
SANNOT
provides BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
that work PROPERTY
may be performed beyond
SALE. DO
SANNOT
OFhours
eight (8)
REPRODUCE
BEDA
a day UNIVERSIT
provided
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT that the employee
COLLEGE OF isLAW.
paid NOT
for theFOR
overtime
SALE.work, an additional
DO NOT compensation
COLLEGE OF LAW.equivalent
NOT FOR to SALE. DO
his regular wage plus at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours
8
on a holiday or restPROPERTY
day shall beOF SAN
paid an BEDA UNIVERSITY
additional PROPERTY
compensation equivalent OFofSAN
to the rate BEDA UNIVER
the first
eight hours
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT on a holiday or rest day plus at least thirty
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT percent (30%) thereof (LABOR CODE, Art. 87).
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Note: Undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime REPRODUCE.
work on any PROPERTY
other day OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.(LABOR
NOT FOR CODE, Art.UNIVERSITY
88). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIV
24. U, anOF
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY employee
SAN BEDAof KKD Corporation, works from
REPRODUCE. 8:00 A.M.
PROPERTY OFtoSAN
5:00BEDA
P.M. on Monday to Friday. OnPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. June OF SA
12, she worked from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. What are the additional compensations she is entitled to?
IVERSITY COLLEGEDiscuss
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
each entitlement and the respective rates applicable.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
U is entitled to holiday pay and overtime pay. For holiday pay, the rule is that work performed on a regular
holiday DO NOT
merits COLLEGE
at least twice (200%) OFthe LAW. NOTofFOR
wage rate SALE. DO Meanwhile,
the employee. NOT COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
with respect NOT FOR SALE. D
the overtime
ODUCE. PROPERTYpay,
OF work
SAN inBEDA
excess of eight REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
(8) hours performed OF SAN
on a regular BEDA
holiday REPRODUCE.
shall be paid an PROPERTY OF SAN B
additional compensation
equivalent to
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the rate of the first eight hours on a holiday plus
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR at least 30% thereof. Thus, the following
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE formula
OF LAW. NO
is applicable: Compensation = [(Hourly rate of basic daily wage x 200% x 130% x number of hours work) +
(Basic wage rate x 200%)]
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
(LABOR CODE,
PROPERTY DO NOT
OF SANArt. REPRODUCE.
87; Art.
BEDA 94(b)).
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
25. Distinguish facilities from supplements.
Facilities
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR are items of expense necessary for the laborer's
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and his family's existence and
UNIVERSITY subsistence
COLLEGE so
OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT that
REPRODUCE. by express provision of law.
SALE.On
DOthe other
NOT hand, supplements
REPRODUCE. constitute extra remuneration
SALE. DO NOT or special
REPRODUCE.
privileges, or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages.
E OF LAW. NOT FORFacilities
SALE. DO formNOT
part of the wage and
COLLEGE OF are
LAW.deductible
NOT FOR therefrom
SALE. DOwhen
NOTfurnished by the employer,
COLLEGE OF LAW. whereas
NOT FOR SALE. DO
supplements do not form part of the wage and are therefore not deductible (SLL International Cables Specialist
ODUCE. PROPERTY et.
OFal.SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 172161, March 2, 2011).
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR
26. SALE.
X andDO NOT to COLLEGE
Y decided put up an OF LAW.They
IT firm. NOTagreed
FOR SALE.
to hireDO
20 NOT
employees COLLEGE OF positions
for various LAW. NOT FORasSALE. DO N
such
UCE. PROPERTY OF software
developers and engineers, marketing officers and administrative assistants. Being optimistic OF SAN BEDA
on the growth
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the company, X and Y wanted to operate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR daily. In the proposed employment contract,
the employees are required to report for work from Mondays to Sundays. X and Y sought your advice
E. DO
PROPERTY
on the legality of the employment OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
contract. What UNIVERSITY
advice will you give them? SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
I will advise X and Y to include in the employment contract a weekly rest period for the employees. Article
UCE. PROPERTY OF 91
SAN BEDA
of the REPRODUCE.
Labor Code provides PROPERTY
that it shall OF of
be the duty SAN BEDA
every REPRODUCE.
employer, whether PROPERTY
operating for OF SAN BEDA
profit or not,
to provide each of his UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
employees a rest OFnotLAW.
period of NOTtwenty-four
less than FOR UNIVERSITY
(24) consecutiveCOLLEGE
hours afterOF LAW. NOT FO
every
E. DO NOT six (6) consecutive normal work
REPRODUCE. days.
SALE. DO The
NOT employer shall determine and schedule the
REPRODUCE. weekly
SALE. DO rest
NOT day of his
REPRODUCE.
employees, subject to collective bargaining agreement and to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of
E OF LAW. NOT FORLabor andDO
SALE. Employment
NOT may provide.OF
COLLEGE AsLAW.
an exception,
NOT FOR theSALE.
employer
DOshall
NOTrespectCOLLEGE
the preference of employees
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
as to weekly rest day when such preference is based on religious grounds (LABOR CODE, Art. 91).
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
27. Mr. X is engaged in the business of selling various household and food products. He has a medium-
sizedDO NOT storeCOLLEGE
grocery located inOF
theLAW.
townNOT FOR
center SALE.
mainly DO NOT
catering COLLEGEofOF
to the residents LAW.
the town.NOT
The FOR
storeSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF is
SAN BEDA
open daily from 8AM REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
to 9PM, including OF SAN
weekends BEDA Due to REPRODUCE.
and holidays. high volume ofPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
sales, he had
to employ
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ten (10) persons to assist
UNIVERSITY in the daily
COLLEGE storeNOT
OF LAW. operations.
FOR All 10UNIVERSITY
employees are given aOF
COLLEGE fixed
LAW. NOT FO
and regular schedule with a rest day per week. One of his employees, Y, acts as cashier. During her
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
years of employment,PROPERTYSALE.
Y had DO
OF NOT
worked SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
as scheduled, SALE.on
without objection, PROPERTY
including DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OFholidays.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The
dispute
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOarose
NOT whenCOLLEGE
Y demanded holiday
OF LAW. NOTpay FORfrom Mr.DO
SALE. X. NOT
In his defense, Mr. X
COLLEGE OFclaimed
LAW. NOT that FOR
he isSALE. DO N
exempted from paying holiday pay because he is regularly employing 10 workers only. Is the
UCE. PROPERTY OF contention
SAN BEDAcorrect? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE. No, the contention of Mr. X is not correct.
SALE. DO NOT As general
REPRODUCE. rule, holiday pay benefit applies
SALE. DOto all
NOTemployees.
REPRODUCE.
However, one of the exceptions therein are retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
E OF LAW. NOT FORworkers. In other
SALE. DO NOTwords, COLLEGE
exemptionsOFfrom holiday
LAW. NOTpayFORapply onlyDO
SALE. to establishments
NOT employing
COLLEGE “less than
OF LAW. NOTten”
FOR SALE. DO
employees or workers, meaning one to nine. Otherwise, if the number of employees equal to ten or more, such
ODUCE. PROPERTY employer
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
is no longer covered by the exception. Accordingly, Mr. X is obliged to pay holiday pay to his
OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF employees,
LAW. NOT including
FOR UNIVERSITY
Y (IRR of the LaborCOLLEGE
Code, Sec. OF1,LAW. NOT
Rule IV, FOR
Book III). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
9
OPERTY OF SAN
28. BEDA
C, a UNIVERSITY
worker at XYZ Center, was PROPERTY
on leaveOF SAN BEDA
without pay onUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
April 17, 2019. He did not report forOFwork
SANonBEDA UNIVE
April 18 and
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT19, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, respectively.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Is C entitled to holiday pay
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for the FOR SALE.
two successive holidays? Explain.
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
No, CNOT
is notFOR UNIVERSITY
entitled to holiday pay for COLLEGE OF LAW.holidays.
the two successive NOT FOR Where thereUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
are two (2) successive
SALE. DO NOT regular
REPRODUCE.holidays, like Maundy Thursday and Good
SALE. DO NOT Friday, an employee
REPRODUCE. may not be paid for both
SALE. DOholidays
NOT ifREPRODUCE
he/she absents himself/herself from work on the day immediately preceding the first holiday, unless he/she BEDA UN
works
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT on SALE.
FOR the firstDO
holiday,
NOT in which case he/she
COLLEGE is entitled
OF LAW. NOTtoFOR
his/her holiday
SALE. DO pay
NOTon the second
COLLEGEholiday (IRR of
OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
the Labor Code,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Sec. 10, Rule IV, Book III).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW.29. How should service charges be distributed?
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF All SAN BEDA employees
rank-and-file REPRODUCE.
of employers PROPERTY OF SAN
and contractors BEDA
collecting REPRODUCE.
service charges are entitled PROPERTY
to equal OF SAN
share in the
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR85% of the total of such charges. The remaining
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 15% may be retained to cover for loss and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
breakages and for distribution to managerial employees, at the discretion of the management in the latter case.
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF
In restaurants or similar establishments
SALE. DO NOT
SANno
where BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
service charge is collected butPROPERTY
SALE.
OF SAN
there is a policy
DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
or practice UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR ofSALE.
pooling
DOtips,
NOT such pooled tips shall
COLLEGE OFbe distributed
LAW. in theSALE.
NOT FOR same manner
DO NOT(2018 Handbook
COLLEGEon OFWorker’s Statutory
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Monetary Benefits, p. 25). The shares referred to herein shall be distributed and paid to the employees not
less thanBEDA REPRODUCE.
once every two (2) PROPERTY
weeks or twice a month atOF SAN BEDA
intervals REPRODUCE.
not exceeding sixteen PROPERTY
(16) days (IRR OF THEOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
LABOR NOT FOR Sec. 4, Rule
CODE, UNIVERSITY
VI). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
30. What is the rule in case the service charge is abolished?
In the event that the company stopped collecting service charges, the share of the covered employees
shall be considered as integrated in their wages. The basis of the amount to be integrated shall be the average
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOF LAW. NO
monthly share of each employee for the last 12 months immediately preceding the abolition of withdrawal
SALE. such charges (IRR OF THE LABOR CODE, Sec. 5, Rule VI).
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
31. W is real estate
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR agent engaged in selling condominium
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR units. In her employment
UNIVERSITY contract with OF
COLLEGE XYZLAW. NOT F
Builders, she is paid on a purely commission basis at the rate of 10% of the total purchase price of the
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY sold.SALE.
condominium units she PROPERTY After DO
OF NOT
two SAN REPRODUCE.
yearsBEDA UNIVERSITY
with the 13 th SALE.
company, W claimedPROPERTY monthDOpayNOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
fromBEDA
XYZ UNIVERSIT
th
OF LAW. NOT FOR Builders.
SALE. DOIsNOT
XYZ Builders required
COLLEGE OF to pay NOT
LAW. 13 month pay toDO
FOR SALE. W?NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN No, BEDA REPRODUCE.
XYZ Builders is not PROPERTY
required to pay 13th monthOF
paySAN BEDA
because REPRODUCE.
it falls within the exception asPROPERTY
an employerOF SAN BED
of those
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwhoFORare paid on a purely commission
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEbasis. The following
OF LAW. NOT FORare not covered by PD 851,
UNIVERSITY 13thLAW. NOT F
or theOF
COLLEGE
LE. DO NOT Month
REPRODUCE. Pay Law: SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
The government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled BEDA UNIVE
corporations,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT except COLLEGEthose OFcorporations
LAW. NOToperating
FOR SALE. essentially
DO NOT as private subsidiaries
COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOTtheFOR SALE.
government;
• Employers who are already paying their employees thirteenth- month pay or more in a calendar year
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. or
NOT FOR
its equivalent UNIVERSITY
at the time of the COLLEGE
issuance ofOFPDLAW.
851; NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT •
REPRODUCE.
Persons
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY in the personal SALE.
service DO
of NOT
another REPRODUCE.
in
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYrelation to such workers; and
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
• Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary or task basis, and those who are
paidNOT COLLEGE
a fixed amount OF LAW.specific
for performing NOT FOR
work,SALE. DO NOT
irrespective COLLEGE
of the time OF
consumed in LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
the performance
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
thereof (except those PROPERTY
workers who OFpiece-rate
are paid on SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
basis, in which PROPERTY
case their employer shallOF SAN BED
grant
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthem thirteenth-month
UNIVERSITYpay) (2018 Handbook
COLLEGE OF LAW.on Workers’
NOT FOR Statutory Monetary Benefits,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE p. 40).
OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
32. Distinguish wage from salary.
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Wage
SALE.applies
DO NOT to the compensation
COLLEGE OF forLAW.
skilledNOT
or unskilled manual
FOR SALE. DOlabor
NOT while salary denotes
COLLEGE OFcompensation
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
for a higher grade or supervisor level of employment (Equitable Banking Corp. v. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772,
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
June 8, 2006 citing Gaa v. CA, G.R. No. L-44169, December 3, 1985). BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
33. What is the required form of payment of wages?
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.As a
DOgeneral
NOT rule, wages
COLLEGEshallOF
be paid
LAW. in legal
NOTtender; use ofDO
FOR SALE. promissory
NOT notes and other
COLLEGE OFforms
LAW.is prohibited
NOT FOR SALE. DO
even when expressly requested by employee (IRR of the Labor Code, Sec. 1, Rule VIII, Book III). The only
exceptions in which the law allows payment by check are when:
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
10
PERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
a. Such manner is customary upon OF SAN BEDA
effectivity of the UNIVERSITY
Labor Code, or PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
b. Stipulated
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT in a CBA, or
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
c. The following conditions are met:
i. There is a bank or facility for encashment within a radius of 1 km REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
ii. Employer UNIVERSITY
does COLLEGE
not receive any pecuniaryOFbenefit
LAW. from
NOTthe
FORarrangementUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.iii. Employees are given reasonable
SALE. DO NOT time during
REPRODUCE.banking hours to withdraw, such time
SALE. shall REPRODUCE.
DO NOT be
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
considered as working hours OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIV
iv. Written
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT consent of employees
COLLEGE OFconcerned
LAW. NOTif there
FOR isSALE.
no CBA
DO(Sec.
NOT2, RuleCOLLEGE
VIII, BookOF
III, LAW.
IRR of NOT
the FOR SAL
Labor
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Code). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
34. When NOT FOR
is payment to a personUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
other than the employeeOFhimself
LAW. NOT FOR underUNIVERSITY
authorized the law? COLLEGE OF LAW.
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
Wages shall be paid directly to the employee, except when:
a. Payment COLLEGE
to a member of theOF LAW.
family NOT FOR inSALE.
is authorized DO
writing byNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
the employee
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFb.SAN
Payment
BEDA to anotherREPRODUCE.
is authorized by law (such as
PROPERTY OFpayment
SAN BEDA for insurance premiums and union
REPRODUCE. dues
PROPERTY OF SAN B
c. In case of death, payment to heirs of the deceased employees without need of intestate proceedings
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
(IRR of the Labor Code, Sec. 5, Rule VIII, Book III).
OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
UCE. PROPERTY
35.OF What
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
are the prohibitions regarding PROPERTY
wages? OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
E. DO NOT The following are the prohibitions
REPRODUCE. SALE.regarding
DO NOT wages:
• PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Non-interference in disposal of wages – No employer shall interfere with the employee’s freedom
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDOdispose
NOT of his wages nor
COLLEGE OF shall
LAW.force,
NOT compel,
FOR SALE. or oblige
DO NOTemployees to purchase
COLLEGE merchandise,
commodities or other property from the employer or from any other person, or otherwise make use of
any store or services of such employer or any other person (LABOR CODE, Art. 112);
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
• No wage deduction – No employer shall make any deductions from the employee’s COLLEGE
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY OF LAW. NOT
wages except
when authorized to do soSALE.
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY(LABOR
OF DO
SANCODE,
NOT
BEDA Art. 113);
REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
• No deposits for loss or damage – No employer shall require the worker to make deposits from which
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdeductions
NOT COLLEGE
shall OF for
be made LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
reimbursement of lossDO NOT
of or damageCOLLEGE OF LAW.orNOT
to tools, materials, FOR SALE. DO N
equipment
supplied by the
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA employer except
REPRODUCE. when the
PROPERTY OFemployer
SAN BEDA is engaged inREPRODUCE.
such business PROPERTY
requiring such
OF SAN BEDA
deposits
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR as determined by the Secretary of Labor
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (LABOR CODE, Art. 114);
• Limitations on deductions from deposits for loss or damage – No employer shall make any
E. DO
deduction fromPROPERTY OF NOT
the employee’s SAN REPRODUCE.
deposits
BEDA forUNIVERSITY
the actual amount of the SALE.
loss
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
or damage REPRODUCE.
unless
SAN BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOemployee
NOT has been heard
COLLEGE OF thereon
LAW. NOTand his
FOR responsibility
SALE. DO NOT has been clearly
COLLEGEshownOF(LABOR
LAW. NOTCODE,FORArt.SALE. DO N
115);
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN• BEDA
Withholding of REPRODUCE. PROPERTYprohibited
wages and kickbacks OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
– No employer shall withhold anyPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
amount from
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT the
FORwages unless authorized
UNIVERSITY to do so OF
COLLEGE or induce the employee
LAW. NOT FOR to give up any partCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY of his wages by
OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE. force, stealth, intimidation,
SALE. threat
DO or dismissal
NOT REPRODUCE.or by any other means without his DO
SALE. (consent
NOT (LABOR
REPRODUCE.
CODE, Art. 116); PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
• No
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdeduction
NOT to ensure employment
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT – No
FOR employer shallNOT
SALE. DO make deductions
COLLEGE as OF
consideration
LAW. NOTofFOR a SALE. DO
promise of employment or retention of employment (LABOR CODE, Art. 117);
• No retaliatory measures – No employer shall refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits or
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR discharge
otherwise UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the employee OFfiled
who has LAW.
any NOT FOR under this
complaint UNIVERSITY
Title, or hasCOLLEGE
testified orOF
is LAW. NOT
ALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. about to testify in such proceedings
SALE. DO (LABOR
NOT CODE, Art. 118); and
• No false reporting – No employer shall make any statement, report or record knowing such
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOstatement,
NOT COLLEGE
report OF LAW.
or record NOTinFOR
to be false any SALE. DO
material NOT (LABOR
respect COLLEGE
CODE,OF
Art.LAW.
119). NOT FOR SALE. DO N
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
36. D Manufacturing is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of household appliances. The
supervisors
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand foremen
COLLEGE ofOF
theLAW.
company
NOT FORwereSALE.
then DO
receiving
NOT a daily wageOF
COLLEGE of LAW.
P320 NOT
and FOR
P300,SALE. DO N
respectively. Sometime in 2005, a new law was passed increasing the statutory minimum wage and
UCE. PROPERTY OF salary
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
rates in the private sector by P25 per day but only for those receiving the minimum wage and
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
up NOT FORDid the wage
to P300. UNIVERSITY
increaseCOLLEGE OF LAW.
result in wage NOT FOR
distortion? Explain. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Yes, the wage increase resulted in wage distortion. Wage distortion means a situation where an increase
E OF LAW. NOT FORin SALE. DO NOT
prescribed wage ratesCOLLEGE OF elimination
results in the LAW. NOTorFOR SALE.
severe DO NOTof intentional
contraction COLLEGE OF LAW.
quantitative NOT FOR SALE. DO
differences
ODUCE. PROPERTY inOFwage
SANorBEDA
salary rates between and among
REPRODUCE. employee OF
PROPERTY groups
SANinBEDA
an establishmentREPRODUCE.
as to effectively obliterate OF SAN B
PROPERTY
the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of
RSITY COLLEGE OF differentiation.
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
In other words, COLLEGE
wage distortion OF LAW.
means NOT FOR or virtual
the disappearance UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
disappearance OF LAW. NOT
of pay
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA differentials between lower
and higher DO
SANNOT
OFpositions inREPRODUCE.
BEDAanUNIVERSITY
enterprise because of compliance
PROPERTY SALE.
withOF DO
SANNOT
a wage REPRODUCE.
order.
BEDA In
UNIVERSITY
the case at bar, only the daily wages of foremen were increased from P300 to P325, resulting in a situation
whereDO
theNOT
foremen COLLEGE OF LAW.
would receive more NOT
than FOR SALE.
that of DO NOT
the supervisors. COLLEGE
Thus, wage OF LAW. resulted
distortion NOT FOR(PISALE. DO N
11
Manufacturing PROPERTY
v. PI Manufacturing OF SAN
Supervisors andBEDA UNIVERSITY
Foreman Association, G.R. No.PROPERTY OF SAN 4,
167217, February BEDA UNIVE
2008).
RODUCE. PROPERTY
37. X Bank classifies its employees according to five (5) levels. Sometime in 2010, REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY OF SAN
the Board of Directors
approved a new FOR UNIVERSITY
salary scale wherein theCOLLEGE OF LAW.
hiring rates of newNOT FOR were UNIVERSITY
employees increased byCOLLEGE
PhP1,000 OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT for those
REPRODUCE. falling under Levels 1-3, and by PhP2,000
SALE. DO NOT for those
REPRODUCE. classified under Levels 4-5.
SALE. DO Only
NOTtheREPRODUCE
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
salaries of those who fell below the new minimum rates were adjusted. The union demanded for an OF SAN BEDA UN
across-the-board
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOincrease
NOT forCOLLEGE
old employees.
OF LAW. X Bank
NOT refused andDO
FOR SALE. maintained
NOT that it was not
COLLEGE OF obliged
LAW. NOT FOR SA
to do so. In its
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA complaint, the union contended that the adjusted
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA salary scale resulted in a wage
distortion using the classification based on new and old employees and thus necessitated a correction
or adjustment. DidFOR UNIVERSITY
the said change in salaryCOLLEGE OFinLAW.
scale result wageNOT FOR
distortion? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
No, the change did not result in wage distortion. Jurisprudence laid down the four elements of wage
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDO
distortion, wit: NOT COLLEGE
(1) an existing OFofLAW.
hierarchy NOTwith
positions FOR SALE. DO NOT
corresponding COLLEGE
salary rates; OF LAW.
(2) a significant NOT FOR SALE.
change
in the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFsalary
SAN rate
BEDA of a lower pay class without aPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. concomitantOF increase in the salary rateREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA of a higher one; (3) the
PROPERTY OF SAN
elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and (4) the existence of the distortion in the same region
of the country. In the case at bar, the first element is wanting. While seniority may be a factor in determining
wages, it cannot be the sole
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
basis whenOF DO
theSAN NOT
nature REPRODUCE.
of their
BEDA work differs. Moreover,PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
for purposes DO NOTBEDAREPRODUCE
of determining
OF SAN UNIVERSIT
the existence of wage distortion, employees cannot create their own independent classification as this is a
OF LAW. NOT FOR matter
SALE. ofDO NOT
management COLLEGE OF discretion
judgment and LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
(Bankard DO NOT
Employees COLLEGE
Union-Workers OF LAW.
Alliance Trade NOT FOR
Unions v. SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANG.R.
NLRC, BEDA
No. 140689, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
February 17, 2004). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
38. How should a wage distortion be settled? (2006, 1997, 2009 Bar)
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Where the application
SALE. DO NOT of any prescribed
COLLEGE OF LAW. wage
NOT increases
FOR SALE.by virtue
DO NOTof a law orCOLLEGE
wage order OFissued
LAW.by anyFOR SALE.
NOT
Regional Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment, the employer and the union
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFnegotiate
shall SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
to correct the distortions. PROPERTY
Any dispute OFfrom
arising SAN BEDA
wage distortion shallREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
be resolved through the OF SAN
grievance
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTprocedure
FOR as provided in the applicable
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE collective
OF LAW. bargaining
NOT FOR agreement and, if the dispute
UNIVERSITY remainsOF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
SALE. unresolved, then through voluntary SALE.
arbitration.NOT
In cases where there are no collective bargaining agreements
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
or recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall endeavor to correct such wage distortions. Any
REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR dispute
SALE. DOarising
NOTtherefrom shall beOF
COLLEGE settled
LAW.through the SALE.
NOT FOR NationalDOConciliation
NOT and Mediation
COLLEGE BoardNOT
OF LAW. and, FOR
if it SALE. DO
remains unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, the issue of wage distortion shall be referred
to the appropriate branch of the NLRC (LABOR CODE, Art. 124, par. 5).
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT39.
FOR WSALE. DO NOT
Company is engagedCOLLEGE OF LAW.
in a business NOT FOR
involving SALE. DO
integrated NOTto serve
circuits COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
communications FOR SALE. DO
and data
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAindustries. REPRODUCE.
processing PROPERTY
Through negotiations byOFtheSAN BEDA
union, the company REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
agreed to increase theOF SAN BED
salaries/wages
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of its employees within a four-year period.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR After a year of implementing the agreement,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
the company discovered an error in the automated payroll which caused overpayment of
salaries/wages
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYto employees. SALE. DO NOT
Accordingly,
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
the company
OF SAN SALE.
notified the employeesPROPERTY
BEDA UNIVERSITY DO
that the NOT REPRODUCE.
overpayment
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
will SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR be deducted
DO NOTon a staggered
COLLEGE OF basis.
LAW. The union
NOT FORopposed
SALE. DOtheNOTdeduction and thereafter
COLLEGE OF LAW.filed
NOTaFOR SALE.
complaint against the company for violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code on non-diminution of
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANWill
benefits. BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the action prosper? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
SALE. DO NOT No, the action will not prosper.
REPRODUCE. Diminution
SALE. DO of benefits
NOT is the unilateral withdrawal by
REPRODUCE. the employer
SALE. of
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
benefits already enjoyed by the employees. There is diminution of benefits when it is shown that: (1) the grant
OF LAW. NOT FOR or benefit
SALE. DOis NOT
founded onCOLLEGE
a policy orOF
hasLAW.
ripened
NOTintoFOR
a practice
SALE. over a long period;
DO NOT (2) the practice
COLLEGE OF LAW. is consistent
NOT FOR SALE. DO
and deliberate; (3) the practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law; and (4) the diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer. In this case, the
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
third requisite is absent. An erroneously granted benefit may be withdrawn without violatingCOLLEGE
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY OF LAW. NOT F
the prohibition
LE. DO against non-diminution of benefits because no vested right may be said to have arisen nor any diminution of
SAN BEDA
benefit may have resulted (TSPIC Corp v. TSPIC Employees Union, G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008). UNIVERSIT
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT
40. FOR
As aSALE. DOrule,
general NOTevery employee
COLLEGE who OF LAW. NOT FORatSALE.
has rendered DO NOT
least one COLLEGE
year of service shall OF LAW. NOT
be entitled to aFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTYyearly service
OF SAN incentive leave
BEDA of five (5) days
REPRODUCE. with pay.OF
PROPERTY Who areBEDA
SAN excluded fromREPRODUCE.
the benefit? PROPERTY OF SAN
The NOTare
following FORnot entitledUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to service incentive OF LAW. NOT FOR
leave: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA • Government employees
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
• Managerial employees and officers or members of the managerial staff
• Persons in the personal service of another
• BEDA REPRODUCE.
Field personnel and those whosePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
time and performance is unsupervisedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
by the employer
12
• Those already enjoyingPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
the benefit PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
• Those
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTenjoying vacation leave with pay of at least
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTfive (5) days COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF•SAN Those employed in establishments regularly employing less than 10 employees (2018 Handbook on
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, p. 26).
SALE. DO NOT41. X worked
REPRODUCE. as a bus driver for AB Trans. His
SALE. DO NOT daily route
REPRODUCE. is from Lipa City, Batangas to Cubao,
SALE. Quezon
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF
City. For every trip, he is required to report on time to ensure prompt departure and arrival. Bus
SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTinspectors
FOR SALE.alsoDO board
NOT the COLLEGE OF LAW.
bus for general NOT FOR
inspection SALE.
while onDO
theNOTway fromCOLLEGE
the pointOF of LAW.
originNOT
to FOR SAL
destination.
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANDuring
BEDA his five (5)REPRODUCE.
years of employment,
PROPERTY he OF
did SAN
not use
BEDAhis service incentive
REPRODUCE.leave. PROPERTY
When OF SA
he was dismissed, he sued his employer for non-payment of commutable service incentive. AB Trans
IVERSITY COLLEGEargued
OF LAW.
thatNOT FOR
X was UNIVERSITY
not entitled COLLEGEleave
to service incentive OF LAW. NOT
because heFOR UNIVERSITY
is considered COLLEGE OF LAW.
as a field personnel
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
paid
BEDA on a commission basis
and thus OF DO
SANNOT
excluded REPRODUCE.
from
BEDA the benefit. Will the actionPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.OF DO
of X prosper? NOT
Explain.
SAN BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOaction
Yes, the NOTof X will
COLLEGE
prosper. OF LAW.
Section NOT
1(D), FOR
Rule SALE.IIIDO
V, Book NOT
of the COLLEGE
Implementing RulesOF
andLAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
Regulations
ODUCE. PROPERTYofOFtheSAN
LaborBEDA
Code excludesREPRODUCE.
field personnel PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and other employees whose performance REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
is unsupervised by the OF SAN B
employer including
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR those who are engaged on purely
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR commission basis. However, the phrase
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE "other
OF LAW. NO
employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer" must not be understood as a separate
classification but must be
taken as anOF
PROPERTY DO NOT
amplification REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDAofUNIVERSITY
the definition of field personnel. SALE.
Here, OF
PROPERTY DO
while NOT
X isBEDA
SAN REPRODUCE.
paid on
UNIVERSITY
a commission basis, his work is supervised by his employer. Not being considered as field personnel, X is
entitled to service incentive leave (Auto Bus v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005).
Note: D.O.
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR No. 118-12 expressly provides that public utility
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR bus drivers and conductors
UNIVERSITYare COLLEGE
now entitledOF
to LAW.
be NOT FO
paid service incentive leave of five (5) days for every year of service.
42. What are the conditions for entitlement to the maternity leave benefit?
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA To be entitled to thePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
maternity OF DO
leave NOT
benefit,
SAN BEDA aREPRODUCE.
female employee should bePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
an SSS member NOT REPRODUCE.
employed
SAN BEDA at
UNIVERSITY
the time of her delivery or miscarriage; she must have given the required notification to the SSS through her
employer; COLLEGE
and her employer OFhave
must LAW. NOT
paid FORthree
at least SALE.monthly
DO NOT COLLEGE
contributions to the OF
SSSLAW.
withinNOT FOR SALE. DO N
the twelve-
UCE. PROPERTY OF month period immediately
SAN BEDA before the date
REPRODUCE. of the contingency
PROPERTY (i.e., childbirth orREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA miscarriage) (2018 Handbook
on Workers’
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Statutory Monetary Benefits, p. 28).
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
43. UNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA whoSALE.
A, a female employee,PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
is living-in REPRODUCE.
withBEDA
SAN B, is pregnant
UNIVERSITYwith her fourthPROPERTY SALE.
child. PriorDO NOT
to her
OF SANdueREPRODUCE.
date,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
she filed for maternity leave, but the employer refused the application because she is not married. Is
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the refusal of the employer justified?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
No,
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe refusal of the employer is not justified. The
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR law does not discriminate based onCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY the civil status of
OF LAW. NOT FO
a female employee. Accordingly, this benefit applies to all female employees, whether married or unmarried.
ERTY OF SAN BEDAAsUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
long as the female employee
DO NOT
OFatSAN
has paid
REPRODUCE.
leastBEDA
three UNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
(3) monthly contributions in
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANperiod
the twelve-month BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORimmediately
SALE. DOpreceding
NOT the semesterOF
COLLEGE of her
LAW.childbirth,
NOT FOR she SALE.
can avail
DOofNOT
the maternity benefitsOF
COLLEGE by LAW.
complying
NOTwith
FOR SALE. DO
the requirements on notification. Hence, even if A is not married, she is still entitled to the maternal leave,
ODUCE. PROPERTY regardless
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of civil status or the legitimacyPROPERTY
of her childOF(2018
SAN Handbook
BEDA REPRODUCE.
on Workers’ StatutoryPROPERTY
Monetary OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF Benefits,
LAW. NOT FOR
p. 28). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
44. What are
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the conditions for entitlement of paternity
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA leave benefit? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
A legally married male employee in the private and public sector shall be entitled to a seven-day paternity
E. DO
SAN BEDA leave benefit provided that
UNIVERSITY heSALE.
has met
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFthe REPRODUCE.
following
SAN BEDA conditions:
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.a.
DOHe is an employee at the time of the delivery of his child;
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
b. He is cohabiting with his spouse at the time that she gives birth or suffers a miscarriage;
UCE. PROPERTY OF SANc.BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
He has applied for paternity leave with his employer within a reasonableREPRODUCE.
period ofPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
time from the
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT expected
FOR date of delivery by
UNIVERSITY his pregnant
COLLEGE spouse,
OF LAW. NOTorFORwithin such UNIVERSITY
period as may be provided
COLLEGE by
OF LAW. NOT FO
company rules and regulations, or by collective bargaining agreement; and
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
d. His wife, to whom he SALE.
PROPERTY DOmarried,
is legally NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA
has UNIVERSITY
given SALE.(2018
PROPERTY
birth or suffered a miscarriage DO NOT
OF REPRODUCE.
SAN
HandbookBEDA
on UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Workers’
DO NOTStatutory Monetary
COLLEGE OFBenefits,
LAW. NOTp. 30).
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
13
45. A isOF
RODUCE. PROPERTY married to B and they have
SAN BEDA three minorPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. children. Later on, B
OF SAN was convictedREPRODUCE.
BEDA for the crime of theft
PROPERTY OF SAN
and meted the penalty of imprisonment for two years. B was then arrested and jailed to serve the
sentence. Is A FOR UNIVERSITY
considered as COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
a solo parent? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN REPRODUCE
BEDA UN
Yes, A is considered as a solo parent because she was left with the responsibility of parenthood due to
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
the criminal DO NOT
conviction resulting COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
to the imprisonment FOR SALE.
her spouse for atDO NOT
least COLLEGE
a year. Section 3 (a)OF LAW.
of R.A. No.NOT FOR SA
8972 provides
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANthat
BEDAa solo parent is:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF• LAW.
A woman
NOTwho FORgives birth as a result of
UNIVERSITY rape andOF
COLLEGE other crimes
LAW. NOTagainst
FOR chastityUNIVERSITY
provided sheCOLLEGE
keeps OF LAW
and raises the child
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
•UNIVERSITY
Parent left solo or alone with theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
responsibility ofREPRODUCE.
BEDA parenthood
UNIVERSITY due to: PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPROD
UNIVE
o DO
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Death
NOT of the spouse
o Spouse is detained of serving sentence for criminal conviction for at least a year
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
o BEDA
Due to physical orREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
mental incapacity of spouseOF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
Due
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
o to legal separation or de facto separation from
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR spouse for at least 1 year so long asCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY entrusted OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT with custody of the child
RTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY o PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
Due to declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage as long as in custody of the children UNIVERSIT
Due to abandonment
o NOT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO COLLEGE OF of spouse for atFOR
LAW. NOT leastSALE.
1 year.DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
• Unmarried mother or father who preferred to keep and rear his or her children
o Any other person who solely provides parental care and support to a child.
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTo FOR
Any family UNIVERSITY
member whoCOLLEGE
assumes OFthe LAW. NOT FOR
responsibility of head ofUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
family as a result OF LAW. NOT F
of death,
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. abandonment, disappearance
SALE. DO or prolonged
NOT absence of the parent (R.A. No.
REPRODUCE. 8972,
SALE. DOSec.
NOT 3).REPRODUCE.
46. OF
ERSITY COLLEGE A LAW.
was employed
NOT FORby BKY Company
UNIVERSITY on June 10, 2010.
COLLEGE Sometime
OF LAW. NOTinFOR
2018, she suffered from COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY intraductalOF LAW. NO
papilloma. Her doctor advised her that she needs to undergo the procedure of excision of the
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
lactiferous duct fistula. As SALE.
a result, OF DO
she SAN NOT
filed BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
a leave under the special leavePROPERTYSALE.
benefits DO
SANNOT
OFwomen.
for Is REPRODUCE
BEDA A UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR entitled
SALE. DOto such
NOT benefit?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Yes, A is entitled to the special leave benefit for women. Section 18 of R.A. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
No. 9710 provides that aOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
woman NOT FOR havingUNIVERSITY
employee COLLEGE
rendered continuous OF LAW.
aggregate NOT FORservice ofUNIVERSITY
employment at least six (6)COLLEGE
months forOF
theLAW. NOT F
LE. DO last twelve (12) months shall be entitled to a special leave benefit of two (2) months with full pay based on her
SAN BEDA
gross monthly compensation following surgery caused by gynecological disorders (R.A. No. 9710, Sec. 18). UNIVERSIT
47. B, a female
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA employee, filed charges against her live-in
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA partner under R.A. No. 9262 or Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act. After suffering trauma, she filed for a leave. However, her
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT did
employer FORnot approve
UNIVERSITY
the sameCOLLEGE OF LAW.
claiming that NOT FOR
she already used up allUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
her sick leave. OF LAW. NOT F
Is B entitled
LE. DO NOT to file for a leave?
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Yes,
SALE.B DO NOT to a leave
is entitled COLLEGE
underOF LAW.
R.A. NOT FOR
No. 9262. UnderSALE. DO43NOT
Section COLLEGE
of R.A. No. OF LAW.
9262, victims NOT FOR SALE.
of violence
against women
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and their children shall be entitled to take
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAa paid leave of absence up to 10 days in addition
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY to OF SAN
other paid leaves under the Labor Code extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the protection
order. Hence, even if B already used up all her sick leaves, she is still entitled to take a leave under R.A. No.
9262 (R.A.
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY No. 9262, Sec. 43). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
48. What are the acts of discrimination prohibited under the Labor Code? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO NOT Article
REPRODUCE. 133 of the Labor Code provides
SALE. DO NOTthat it shall be
REPRODUCE. unlawful for any employer to discriminate
SALE. DO NOT against
REPRODUCE.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex. BEDA UNIVE
Specifically,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO theNOT
following are acts of discrimination:
a. Payment
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of lesser compensation,
REPRODUCE.including
PROPERTY wage,
OFsalary or other form of REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA remuneration and fringe
PROPERTY OF SAN
benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value; and
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
b. Favoring UNIVERSITY
a male employee over aCOLLEGE OF LAW.
female employee withNOT FORto promotion,
respect UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
training opportunities,
SALE. study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes (LABOR CODE, Art. 133).
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
14
49. POF
ODUCE. PROPERTY Airlines is an airline company
SAN BEDA cateringPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. domestic flights
OF SAN in the
BEDAcountry. Z was hired as a stewardess
in May 2000. Sometime in March 2015, P Airlines fired Z on the ground that she had gotten married.
RSITY COLLEGE OFThe
LAW. NOT FOR
dismissal was pursuantUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to a company policyOF LAW. NOT
requiring that aFOR UNIVERSITY
female employee must beCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
single and
shall not marry during her employment. P Airlines justified its company policy based on Art.
DO130
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OFofSAN
NOT
Labor Code which states that an employer can determine appropriate standards for retirement or
the
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTtermination
FOR SALE.inDO NOT occupations
special COLLEGE OFas
such LAW. NOT
those FOR attendants
of flight SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
and the like. OF LAW.
Did P Airlines NOT FOR SAL
violate
the Labor
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY Code?
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
IVERSITY COLLEGE OFYes,
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
P Airlines violated Article 134 of the Labor Code which specifically provides that it shall be unlawful
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
forUNIVERSITY
BEDA an employer to require as PROPERTY SALE.
a condition ofOF DO
SANNOT
employment
BEDAREPRODUCE.
or UNIVERSITY
continuation of employment SALE.
that a woman
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFemployee
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.resigned
deemed DO NOT COLLEGE
or separated, or to OF LAW.dismiss,
actually NOT FOR SALE. discriminate
discharge, DO NOT or otherwise
COLLEGEprejudice
OF LAW.a woman
NOT FOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTYemployee
OF SAN merely
BEDA by reason REPRODUCE.
of her marriage.PROPERTY
In the case OF SAN
at bar, theBEDA REPRODUCE.
stipulation requiring PROPERTY
a female employee to OF SAN B
be single violates
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the prohibition on stipulations against
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORmarriage. Article 134 provides protection for women
that is broader and more powerful than the regulation provided under Article 130 (Zialcita v. PAL, Case No.
RO4-3-3398-76, February
20, 1977).OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
PROPERTY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
50. GG Airlines hired and recruited A, B and C as flight attendants. They continued their employment until
UCE. PROPERTY OF they
SAN were
BEDAseparated REPRODUCE.
from service on PROPERTY OF SAN
various dates. BEDA
Later, A, B and C REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
brought an action OF SAN BEDA
for illegal
dismissal
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR against GG Airlines. According to them,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe termination of their employment was illegal
E. DO NOT because the same was made
REPRODUCE. solely
SALE. DO on the
NOT ground that they became pregnant.
REPRODUCE. In DO
SALE. its NOT
defense, GG
REPRODUCE.
Airlines invoked the Employment Contract which provides that the employment of a flight attendant
E OF LAW. NOT FORwho becomes
SALE. DO NOT pregnantCOLLEGE
at any time
OFduring
LAW. the NOT term of SALE.
FOR the contract
DO NOT shall render such contract
COLLEGE OF LAW.void
NOTandFOR SALE. DO
shall be cause for termination for lack of medical fitness. Decide the case.
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
A, B and C were illegally dismissed. It is illegal and unlawful to terminate the employment of COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
any woman
ALE. by reason of pregnancy. Section 135 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be unlawful for any employer to
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
discharge a woman on account of her pregnancy. While pregnancy does present physical limitations that may UNIVERSITY
renderDO NOT the performance
difficult COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of functions FOR SALE.
associated with DO NOT
being COLLEGEit would
a flight attendant, OF LAW. NOT FORbeSALE. DO N
nevertheless
UCE. PROPERTY OF the
SANheight
BEDAof iniquity toREPRODUCE.
view pregnancy as a disability
PROPERTY so permanent
OF SAN BEDA and immutable that, it PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. must entail the
OF SAN BEDA
termination of one's employment. It is clear that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to
exigencies UNIVERSITY
that limit the performanceCOLLEGE OF but
of functions, LAW. NOT FOR
pregnancy could not be UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
such an impairing OF LAW. NOT FO
occurrence
E. DO
SAN BEDA that it leaves no other recourse
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY but DO
the NOT
OF completeREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA termination of the means through
UNIVERSITY SALE.
which DO
PROPERTY aOF NOT
woman REPRODUCE.
earns a
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
living (LABOR CODE, Art. 135; Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio et al., G.R. No. 198587, January 14,
2015).DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
ERTY OF SAN51.
BEDAAUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
is a female employee working
DO NOT
as anOF
REPRODUCE.
SANclerk
office BEDA UNIVERSITY
under
SALE.
PROPERTY
the supervision of B,
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
the office manager. On UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORseveral
SALE.occasions,
DO NOT B called A asking
COLLEGE her toNOT
OF LAW. come to his
FOR office.
SALE. At one time,
DO NOT while inside
COLLEGE the office,
OF LAW. NOT FORB SALE. DO
touched her shoulder and part of her neck. He also tickled her ears. A filed a complaint for sexual
ODUCE. PROPERTY harassment.
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
B argued that his acts do not constitute sexual harassment because A did not allege in
RSITY COLLEGE OF her
LAW. NOT FOR
complaint that there UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
was a demand, request,OF LAW. NOT FOR
or requirement UNIVERSITY
of a sexual favor COLLEGE
as a condition OF LAW. NOT
for her
ALE. DO NOT continued employment or for her
REPRODUCE. promotion
SALE. DO NOT to a higher position. Is B guilty of sexual
REPRODUCE. SALE. harassment?
DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Explain. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes,
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA B is guilty of sexual harassment. It is true
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877
REPRODUCE. calls forOF
PROPERTY a SAN BEDA
“demand, request or requirements of a sexual favor”. However, it is not essential that the demand, request or
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORbe made as
requirement UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
a condition for continued OF LAW. NOTorFOR
employment for promotionUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to a higher position. OF LAW. NOT FO
It is enough
E. DO
that the respondent’s acts result
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
in creating
SANan REPRODUCE.
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment
PROPERTY NOT
for the
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
employee.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
In the case at bar, the acts committed by B generated an intimidating and hostile environment for A (Domingo
v. Rayala, COLLEGE
G.R. No. 155831, OF LAW.
February 18, NOT
2008).FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAR,UNIVERSITY
52. a 17-year-old girl, signed
SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
a contract OF
REPRODUCE.
withSAN
MG BEDA UNIVERSITY
Company
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
to work as a model promoting
NOT
theOF
REPRODUCE.
SAN
new BEDA UNIVERS
flavors
E OF LAW. NOT FORof SALE.
Crazy DO
Vodka,
NOTits premier alcoholic
COLLEGE product.
OF LAW. NOTIt FOR
was stipulated
SALE. DO inNOTthe contract that since
COLLEGE R is aNOT
OF LAW. minor,
FOR SALE. DO
she will only work for eight (8) hours per day during the shooting and will not work beyond 10:00 P.M.
ODUCE. PROPERTY until
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
6:00 A.M. the next morning. Did MG Company violate any law? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
ALE. Yes, MG Company violated R.A. No. 9231. Under D.O. No. 65-04, the rules and regulations implementing
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
R.A. No. 9231, as amended, no child below 18 years of age shall be employed as a model in any advertisement
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOorNOT
directly COLLEGEalcoholic
indirectly promoting OF LAW.beverages,
NOT FORintoxicating
SALE. DO drinks,
NOT tobacco
COLLEGE
and itsOF LAW. NOT
byproducts, FOR SALE. DO N
gambling
15
or any PROPERTY
form of violence or pornography. OF MG
Thus, SANCompany
clearly violated the prohibition when OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
it engaged
R in advertising
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT an alcoholic beverage. (D.O. No. 65-04, Sec. 6).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF REPRODUCE.
53.SAN
DBEDA
is employed
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
by A Company to PROPERTY
perform NOT
laundry
OF SANREPRODUCE.
services
BEDAatUNIVERSITY SALE.while
its staff house. One morning, DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
D was
OF SAN BEDA UN
performing her assigned task and hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORThe
stone. SALE. DO NOT
accident preventedCOLLEGE
her fromOF LAW. NOT
working. She FOR
was SALE. DO NOT
permitted COLLEGE
to go on leave OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
for medication.
After a OF
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY month,
SANABEDA
Company offered her PhP5,000
REPRODUCE. to persuade
PROPERTY OFher to BEDA
SAN quit her job instead. D refusedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. and OF
informed A Company
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR that she preferred to return to work. A was
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR not permitted to work again and was
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
thereafter dismissed. Hence, D filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Arbiter awarded salary differential,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY13SALE.
th
OF DO
month
SAN NOT
pay REPRODUCE.
differential
BEDA and separation pay.
UNIVERSITY NLRCSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
affirmed NOT
and
SAN REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
held that D was a regular employee and thus entitled to such benefits. In its defense, A Company
insisted that D is a mere domestic helper and not a regular employee. Is D a kasambahay? Explain.
No, D is not
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a kasambahay. Under Section 4(d) of R.A. No.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 10361, a domestic worker or kasambahay
refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship. Domestic or household
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
service shall mean servicePROPERTY
SALE. DO
OF SAN
in the employer’s
NOT
BEDA
home
REPRODUCE.
whichUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is usually necessary or desirable
SALE. SANNOT
DO BEDAREPRODUCE
OFmaintenance
for the UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR and enjoyment
SALE. DO NOTthereofCOLLEGE
and includes
OFministering
LAW. NOTtoFORthe personal
SALE. DO comfort
NOT and convenience
COLLEGE OFof LAW.
the members
NOT FOR of SALE. DO
the employer’s household. The criterion is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in
DUCE. PROPERTY OFtheSAN
homeBEDA REPRODUCE.
of said employer. PROPERTY
The definition cannot beOF SAN BEDA
interpreted REPRODUCE.
to include househelper PROPERTY OF SAN BED
or laundrywomen
working in FOR
staff houses UNIVERSITY
of a company.COLLEGE
Hence, DOF LAW.beNOT
cannot FOR as a UNIVERSITY
considered COLLEGE
kasambahay (Apex OFv.LAW. NOT F
Mining
LE. DO NOT NLRC, G.R. No. 94951, April 22,
REPRODUCE. 1991).
54. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT WhatSALE.
are the
DOrights
NOT and benefits
COLLEGE of OF
a kasambahay
LAW. NOT granted under
FOR SALE. DORANOT 10361 or Batas Kasambahay?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
The following are the rights of a kasambahay:
a. Minimum wage; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. b. Other mandatory benefits, SALE.
such asDO
theNOT
dailyREPRODUCE.
and weekly rest periods;
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c.
PROPERTY
Service Incentive Leave;
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
d. DO NOT
13th COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
month pay; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
e. BEDA
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN Freedom from employers’ interference
REPRODUCE. in the disposal
PROPERTY OF SAN of wages;
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
f. Coverage under the SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG laws;
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.g.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Standard of treatment;
LE. DO
SAN BEDA h. Board, lodging and
UNIVERSITY SALE.attendance;
medical
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
i. Right to privacy;
j. Access to outside communication;
k. BEDA REPRODUCE.
Access to education and training;PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
l. Right
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to form, join, or assist labor
UNIVERSITY organization;
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
m. Right to be provided a copy of the employment contract;
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
n. Right to certificate of PROPERTY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
employment;OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR o. Right
SALE. DOtoNOT
terminate COLLEGE
the employment;
OF LAW.andNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
p. Right to exercise their own religious beliefs and cultural practices.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
55. Who is an industrial homeworker?
An industrial
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA homeworker can be defined as any
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA person engaged in industrial homework.
REPRODUCE. IndustrialOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
homework
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR means a system of production where work
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORfor an employer or contractor is carried
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE out by
OF aLAW. NOT F
homeworker in or about his/her home. In such case, the materials may or may not be furnished by the employer
LE. DO
SAN BEDA or contractor. (IRR OF THE
UNIVERSITY SALE.CODE,
LABOR
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
Sec.BEDA
SAN 2). UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT56.
FOR When
SALE.isDO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
homework not allowed?
No homework
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR shall be performed on the following: (1)
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR explosives, fireworks and articles ofCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY like character;
OF LAW. NOT F
(2) drugs and poisons; and (3) other articles, the processing of which requires exposure to toxic substances
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
(IRRUNIVERSITY SALE.
OF THE LABOR CODE, PROPERTY
Sec. DO NOT
13). OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVE
ERSITY COLLEGE
57. OF
M LAW. NOT FOR workerUNIVERSITY
is a construction whose workCOLLEGE
day is fromOF10:00
LAW.P.M.
NOT to FOR UNIVERSITY
6:00 A.M. the COLLEGE
following day. While atOF LAW. NO
SALE. work, he suddenly experienced back pain. Due to the incident, he requested his employer to allow him
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
to undergo health assessment and get advice on how to reduce his back pain during work. The
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR employer
SALE. DOrefused
NOT andCOLLEGE OF LAW.
claimed that NOT
M is not FOR SALE.
covered DOlaw
by the NOT COLLEGE
governing OF LAW.
nightworkers NOTsame
as the FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFonly
SANapplies
BEDAto women. REPRODUCE.
Is the contention correct? OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
16
No, the contention is notPROPERTY OF SAN
correct. Under BEDA2 UNIVERSITY
Section of D.O. No. 119-12, thePROPERTY
implementing OFrules
SAN and
BEDA UNIVER
regulations of
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTR.A. No. 10151, a night worker is any employed
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT person whose work
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT10FOR SALE. D
covers the period from
in the evening to 6 o'clock the next morning provided that the worker performs no less than 7 consecutive
ODUCE. PROPERTYhours
OF SAN BEDA
of work. The law doesREPRODUCE.
not distinguishPROPERTY OF the
as to what sex SANemployee
BEDA should be. REPRODUCE.
Accordingly, allPROPERTY
workers OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OFwhose
LAW. schedule
NOT FORfalls withinUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the said schedule OF LAW.
are deemed nightNOT FORand mayUNIVERSITY
workers COLLEGE
avail of the right OF LAW. NO
to request
SALE. DO NOT health
REPRODUCE.assessment without charge. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIV
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
58. BLC Hotel and
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORRestaurant offers apprenticeship program as approved
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR by the Secretary of Labor.
UNIVERSITY Under OF LAW.
COLLEGE
the apprenticeship program, students may be accepted for a six-month training without compensation.
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
A, UNIVERSITY
BEDA an HRM student, submitted SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
her application
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
pursuant
BEDA to her school’s internship
UNIVERSITY SALE.
program.
PROPERTY DO
OFAs
SAN NOT
part of REPRODU
BEDA UNIVER
the requirements for graduation, she is required to complete 200 hours of on-the-job training work. A
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
insisted that she should receive compensation as a matter of right. Is A correct?
No, A is
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR not correct. Article 72 of the Labor Code provides
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR that the Secretary of Labor may authorize
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEthe OF LAW. NO
hiring of apprentices without compensation whose training on the job is required by the school or training
program curriculum or as PROPERTY SALE.
a requisiteOF
DO
forSAN
NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
graduation or board examination. InPROPERTY
SALE.
this case, AOF
DO NOT
SAN insist
cannot
REPRODUCE.
BEDAonUNIVERSITY
receiving
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. compensation
DO NOT as a matter
COLLEGE of right
OF LAW. NOTsince
FORtheSALE.
reason
DOwhy
NOTshe applied to BLCOF
COLLEGE is LAW.
to comply
NOTwith
FORtheSALE. DO N
school requirement for which she is not entitled to a compensation.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
ODUCE. PROPERTY
59. POFis SAN BEDA engineer in
a software REPRODUCE.
an advertisingPROPERTY OF SANinBEDA
firm. Sometime REPRODUCE.
2015, she figured PROPERTY
into an accident which OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF resulted
LAW. NOT to the
FORloss of her ability to use
UNIVERSITY her legs.OF
COLLEGE Nevertheless,
LAW. NOT FORthe performance and productivity
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOFP LAW. NOT
remained the same. When the advertising firm had a change of management, P noticed that her wage
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
became 25% lower than PROPERTY SALE.
the minimumOF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
wage.
REPRODUCE.
When UNIVERSITY
P asked management PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
as to the suddenSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
diminution
of her
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOwage,
NOTthe management
COLLEGE OF said
LAW.thatNOT
handicapped
FOR SALE.workers
DO NOT may beCOLLEGE
paid not less than NOT
OF LAW. 75% of FORtheSALE. DO N
minimum wage. Is the employer correct?
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORemployer UNIVERSITY
No, the COLLEGE
is not correct. Under OF 5LAW.
Section NOT
of R.A. No. FOR UNIVERSITY
7277, as amended by R.A. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
10524, a qualified
E. DO disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions and the same compensation, privileges,
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person. A qualified disabled
personDOis NOT
an employeeCOLLEGE
who canOF LAW.with
perform, NOTorFOR SALE.
without DO NOT
reasonable COLLEGE OF
accommodations, the LAW. NOT
essential FOR SALE. DO N
functions
of her employment.
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA In this case, P is a qualified disabled
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA person. There was no allegation that P cannot perform
the essential functions of her employment. The employer should not have had her wage cut below minimum
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
wageNOTandFOR
should have UNIVERSITY
provided theCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
same compensation FORby able-bodied
received UNIVERSITY
softwareCOLLEGE
engineersOF LAW. NOT FO
in the
firm.
60. X, the owner
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of JM Foods Corporation, informed you about
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his plan to expand his business
UNIVERSITY and put OF
COLLEGE up LAW. NOT
a new brand of food chain in the Philippines. He told you that he intends to hire at least 200 crews for
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
his initial opening. How
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
will you convince XBEDA
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
to hire PROPERTY
persons with disabilities?
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
I will advise X to hire persons with disabilities and emphasize to him the incentives provided under the
UCE. PROPERTY OF Magna
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Carta for Disabled PROPERTY
Persons. Section 8(b) of OF
R.A.SAN
No. BEDA
7277, as amendedREPRODUCE.
by R.A. 10524, PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
provides that
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTentities
private FOR that employ
UNIVERSITY
disabled COLLEGE
persons whoOFmeet
LAW. theNOT FORskills or qualifications,
required UNIVERSITY either
as a regular
E. DO employee, apprentice or learner,SALE. shall be entitled to an additional deduction, from their gross REPRODUCE.
income,
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
equivalent to 25% of the total amount paid as salaries and wages to disabled persons: Provided, however, that
such DO
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. entities
NOTpresentCOLLEGE
proof as certified
OF LAW. by NOT
the DOLE
FOR that
SALE.disabled
DO NOTpersons COLLEGE
are under their employ.
OF LAW. NOTProvided
FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF further,
SAN BEDAthat the disabled employee is
REPRODUCE. accreditedOF
PROPERTY with
SAN DOLE
BEDAand DOH as to his disability,
REPRODUCE. skills and
qualifications.
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
17
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
Compulsory Coverage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
a. Employees OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE i. OFAll LAW.
privateNOT
sector
FORemployees,UNIVERSITY
whether permanent,
COLLEGEtemporary,
OF LAW.or provisional,
NOT FOR who areUNIVERSITY
not over 60 years of
COLLEGE OF LAW
age (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 9);
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
ii. Household PROPERTY
Helper who is not
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
over 60 years
NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
of age withUNIVERSITY
a monthly income of not PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
less than P1,000SAN NOT REPROD
BEDA
(R.A. UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FORNo. 8282,
SALE. DOSec.
NOT 9, par. (a)) and hasOF
COLLEGE rendered at least
LAW. NOT FOR1 month
SALE.ofDO
service
NOT(R.A. No. 10361, OF
COLLEGE Sec.LAW.
30); NOT FOR SALE.
iii. A Filipino seafarer, upon signing of the standard employment contract and actual deployment by the
manning agency and the foreign principal, who are considered as the employers (SSS Guidebook (2017),
p. 4); NOT
and FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT iv. All employees of a Foreign government,
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOinternational
NOT organization, or their wholly owned
REPRODUCE. instrumentality
SALE. DO NOT
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
which entered into an agreement with the Philippine government for the inclusion of such employees in UNIVERSIT
theDO
SSSNOT
(R.A. No. COLLEGE
8282, Sec.OF LAW.
8, par. (j)).NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
b. Employers
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTperson
i. Any FOR who carries
UNIVERSITY
on in theCOLLEGE
PhilippinesOF LAW.
any NOT
trade, FOR industry,
business, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
undertaking, and usesOF
theLAW. NOT F
services of another person,SALE.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY exceptDO
theNOT REPRODUCE.
Government SALE.
(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par. (c));
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
ii. Social, civic, professional, charitable, and other non-profit organizations which hire the services of
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR employees
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
are considered OF LAW.
“employers” (SSSNOT FOR SALE.
Guidebook DOp.NOT
(2017), 4); COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
iii. Any foreign
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Government, international organization, or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA their wholly owned instrumentality
REPRODUCE. whichPROPERTY
entered OF SAN
into an agreement with the SSS for the coverage of its Filipino employees (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par. (j));
and
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA iv. A household EmployerPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
who engages DO
OFand
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
controls
BEDA the services of a domestic worker
UNIVERSITY SALE.
(R.A.
PROPERTY OF DO
No. SANNOT
10361, REPRODUCE
Sec.
BEDA UNIVERSIT
3, par. (e)).
Voluntary CoverageBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OFi. LAW.
Non-working
NOT FOR spouses who devote full time
UNIVERSITY to managing
COLLEGE OF LAW.the household
NOT FORand familyUNIVERSITY
affairs who isCOLLEGE
legally married
OF LAW. NOT F
to a member (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 9(b));
LE. DO
SAN BEDA
ii. UNIVERSITY
Self–employed (SE), who PROPERTY
SALE. DO OF NOT
realizes no incomeSAN REPRODUCE.
forBEDA UNIVERSITY
a certain
SALE. DO
month (R.A. No. 8282, PROPERTY
Sec. 1); OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
iii. Overseas-based
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Filipinos (OFW) OF
COLLEGE being recruited
LAW. by foreign-based
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTemployersCOLLEGE
for employment
OF LAW. abroad
NOT(R.A.
FOR SALE. DO
No. 8282, Sec. 9 par. (c)); and
iv. Voluntary Member or a person previously covered as an SSS member who has at least 1 posted contribution
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
and isNOT FOR workingUNIVERSITY
no longer COLLEGE
as either employee, OF LAW. NOT
self-employed, FOR(R.A. No.UNIVERSITY
or OFWs COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
8282, Sec. 11).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT
SALE. DO OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVE
61. X is an employee of Falcon Shop earning P4,000.00/month. Due to his struggle to make ends meet, he
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
requested his NOT
employer COLLEGE OF LAW.from
to stop deducting NOThis
FOR SALE.
salary hisDO NOT
SSS monthlyCOLLEGE OF LAW.
contribution sayingNOTthatFOR SALE.
he’s already
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA waiving his social security coverage. If you
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA were the employer, would you grant
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY X’s OF SAN
request?
No, X’s
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY request should not beSALE. DO
granted. NOT
As REPRODUCE.
X’s employer,
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY I am duty bound SALE.
OF DO
to promptly
PROPERTY NOT
remit
SAN SSS
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
contributions. Sections 8 & 9 of R.A. 8282 or the SSS law require the compulsory coverage of employers, who
OF LAW. NOT FOR carries
SALE. DO
on inNOT COLLEGE
the Philippines OF LAW.
any trade, NOTindustry,
business, FOR SALE.
andDOusesNOT COLLEGE
the services OF LAW.
of another, NOT FOR SALE. DO
and employees,
DUCE. PROPERTY OFwhoSAN
areBEDA
not over 60 yearsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
old. Non-remittance OF SAN BEDA
of contribution is a violation ofREPRODUCE.
the law on thePROPERTY
part of theOF SAN BED
employer.
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. (R.A. No. 8282,
NOT FOR Sec. 22). If ICOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY will grant X’s
OFrequest, I can be
LAW. NOT FORheld liable UNIVERSITY
under the SSSCOLLEGE
law. Therefore,
OF LAW. NOT F
I should not grant X’s request to stop deducting his SSS contributions.
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT62.
FOR On the basis of the provision of package of welfare benefits far superior than those provided by the
SSS, Golden Corporation filed a petition with the SSS for exemption from coverage. The welfare plan
DUCE. PROPERTY OF is funded solely by the company without contributions from its employees,REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY
and is admittedly, the bestOF SAN BED
welfare
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT plan in the Philippines.
FOR Will the
UNIVERSITY petitionOF
COLLEGE forLAW.
exemption
NOT FORprosper? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY
No, the petition for exemption
DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
will not prosper. BEDA
The UNIVERSITY
provision
SALE.
PROPERTY
of private benefit plans,
DO NOT
OF
as provided
REPRODUCE.
in SAN BEDA UNIVE
Section
9 (a)SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR of theDO
SSSNOTlaw, shallCOLLEGE
not operate
OFtoLAW.
exemptNOTanyFOR
employer
SALE.from
DO its
NOTcompulsory coverage.
COLLEGE OF IfLAW.
the private
NOT FOR SALE.
plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may be integrated with the SSS plan. Here, the private benefit plan
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of Golden Corporation is not exempt from the coverage of the SSS although it may be integrated with the SSS OF SAN
plan. NOT FOR
Therefore, UNIVERSITY
the petition for COLLEGE
exemption will OF (Philippine
not prosper LAW. NOTBlooming
FOR Mills UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Co., Inc. v. Social SecurityOF LAW. NO
SALE. System, G.R. No. L-21223, August 31, 1966).
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
18
The following
ODUCE. PROPERTY are excluded
OF SAN BEDA from SSS coverage: PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
a. Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or business of the employer;
RSITY COLLEGEb.OFServices
LAW. NOT FOR on or UNIVERSITY
performed COLLEGE
in connection with OFVessel
an Alien LAW. by
NOTan FOR UNIVERSITY
employee if he is employedCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
when such
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN vesselUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE. DO NOT
is outside the Philippines;PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
c. Services performed by temporary employees, which may be excluded by regulation of the Commission.
LEGE OF LAW. NOTEmployees
FOR SALE.of DObonaNOT COLLEGE
fide independent OF LAW.shall
contractors NOTnot
FOR
be SALE.
deemed DOemployees
NOT ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the employer NOT FOR SAL
engaging
the service
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANof said
BEDA contractors; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
d. Service
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.performed
NOT FOR in the employ of the Philippine
UNIVERSITY Government,
COLLEGE OF LAW.instrumentality
NOT FOR or agency thereof; and
e. Service performed in the employ of a Foreign Government, international organization, or their wholly–owned
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
instrumentality
BEDA UNIVERSITY(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8SALE.
PROPERTY par.OF DO
SANNOT
(j)). BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
63. The owners of FALCON Factory, a company engaged in the assembling of automotive components,
ODUCE. PROPERTYdecided
OF SANtoBEDA REPRODUCE.
have their building renovated.PROPERTY OF composed
Fifty persons SAN BEDAof engineers,
REPRODUCE.
architects, PROPERTY
and other OF SAN B
construction
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR workers, were hired for the renovation which
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is expected to last for 3 years.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE The
OF LAW. NO
employees contended that they should be subject to compulsory coverage under the SSS Law. Rule
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
on their contention. (2002 Bar)
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
The engineers, architects and other construction workers are not subject to compulsory coverage under
SAN BEDA
Social Security Law.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Employment which is purelyOF SANand
casual BEDA REPRODUCE.
not for the purpose PROPERTY
of occupation or businessOF SAN BEDA
of the FOR is excluded
employer UNIVERSITY
from theCOLLEGE
coverage OF LAW.
of the SSSNOTLaw FOR UNIVERSITY
(R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8 par.COLLEGE
(j)). In thisOF LAW. NOT FO
case,
E. DO NOT the renovation to be done bySALE.
REPRODUCE. the engineers,
DO NOT architects,
REPRODUCE. and other construction workers
SALE. is DO
not NOT
related to the
REPRODUCE.
FALCON Factory’s business of assembling of automotive components. Therefore, their employment is
E OF LAW. NOT FOR excluded fromNOT
SALE. DO the scopeCOLLEGE
of the SSSOF
Law.
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT
TheREPRODUCE.
BEDAfollowing are considered dependents:
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Legal spouse entitled for support;
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. Child, whether legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or illegitimate; and
UCE. PROPERTYc.OF Parents
dependent for support (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8 par. (e)). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
The following are the conditions for children to be considered as dependents:
E. DO
SAN BEDA
a. UNIVERSITY
Unmarried;
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FORb. SALE.
Not gainfully
DO NOT employed; and
c. Has not reached 21 years of age or if 21 years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been
UCE. PROPERTY OF permanently
SAN BEDA incapacitated
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally (R.A. No. 8282, Sec. 8, par.
(e)). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
The following are beneficiaries:
E OF LAW. NOTa.FOR SALE.beneficiaries:
Primary DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
i. The
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA dependent Spouse until he or she remarries; and
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
ii. Dependent legitimate/ legitimated or legally adopted and illegitimate children.
RSITY COLLEGE b.OF Secondary
LAW. NOTbeneficiaries
FOR UNIVERSITY
(in the absenceCOLLEGE
of primary OF LAW. NOT FOR
beneficiaries): UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
i. In
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the absence of the primary SALE. DO NOT
beneficiaries, REPRODUCE.
the
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY dependent parents; or SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
ii. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the covered employee (R.A. No. 8282,
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Sec.
DO 8NOT
par. (k)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
64.LAW.
Y COLLEGE OF X and
NOTYFOR
were married in 1992. Y,COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY member of OFSSS,
LAW.designated
NOT FOR his wife,UNIVERSITY
X, and theirCOLLEGE
children OF
as his
LAW. NOT FO
beneficiaries. In 2005, Y died. Thereafter, X filed a claim for death benefits with the SSS as the wife of
E. DO
SAN BEDA the deceased-member.PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
It appeared, NOT REPRODUCE.
OFhowever,
SAN BEDA thatUNIVERSITY set ofSALE.
Y submitted a different PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
beneficiaries REPRODUCE.
SANand that
BEDA UNIVERSITY
he was previously married to another woman. Consequently, X’s claim was denied. She insisted that
she was the legitimate wife of Y and filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC). The
UCE. PROPERTY OF SSC
SANdismissed
BEDA the petition for lack of merit on the ground that X failed toREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA prove that herPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
marriage with
Y was valid.
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR On appeal, CA reversed the SSC’s
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORdecision. It held that SSC could not make
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. a NOT FO
determination of the validity or invalidity of X and Y’s marriage. Does SSC have the authority to
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAdetermine
UNIVERSITY SALE.
Y’sDO
the validity of XPROPERTY
and NOT
OF SAN
marriage?REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
Yes, SSC has the authority to determine the validity of the marriage in this case. Although the SSC is not
ODUCE. PROPERTY intrinsically
empowered to determine the validity of marriages, it is required by Sec. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
4 (b) (7) of R.A. 8282 to OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF examine
LAW. NOT FOR statistical
available UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and economic data to OF LAW.
ensure NOT
that the FOR UNIVERSITY
benefits fall into the rightful COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
beneficiaries.
ALE. The investigations conducted by SSS are appropriate in order to ensure that the benefits provided under the
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
SS law are received by the rightful beneficiaries. It is not hard to see that such measure is necessary for the
system’s
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO proper
NOT administration,
COLLEGE OF otherwise, it will be
LAW. NOT FORswamped
SALE. DOwithNOT
bogus claims that willOF
COLLEGE pointlessly
LAW. NOT deplete
FORitsSALE. DO N
funds. Such scenario will certainly frustrate the purpose of the law which is to provide covered employees and
their families protection against the hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death, with a view to promoting
19
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA
their UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
well-being in the spirit of social justice OF SANSecurity
(Social BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Commission v. Azote, G.R. OFApril
No. 209741, SAN15,BEDA UNIVE
2015).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN Monthly Contribution
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
Benefit Remarks/Other Conditions required to avail the benefits
Paid
a. He has reached the age of 60 years and is already separated
from employment or has ceased to be self-employed; or
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
b. He has OFtheLAW.
reached NOT
age of FOR (R.A. No.UNIVERSITY
65 years COLLEGE OF LAW
8282, Sec. 12–B);
SALE. At least 120 monthly or
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
Retirement
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
contribution prior to the c. He is a surface or underground mineworker whose date of actual
EGE OF LAW. NOTBenefits
FOR SALE. DOsemester
NOT of retirement
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT is
retirement FORnotSALE.
earlierDO NOT
than April 27,COLLEGE
2016 (SSSOFGuidebook
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (2017), at 70); or
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
d. A total disability pensioner who has recovered from disability and
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFyears
is at least 60 LAW.oldNOT
(SSSFOR
Guidebook UNIVERSITY
(2017), at 70).COLLEGE OF LAW. N
In SAN
PROPERTY OF NOT
orderBEDA REPRODUCE.
for theUNIVERSITY
beneficiary of an employee SALE.
to be entitled
PROPERTY DO
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
to death UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTAt least 36 monthly
COLLEGE benefits
OF LAW. NOTunder
FORthe SSS,DO
SALE. theNOT
cause of death of the OF
COLLEGE employee must be
Death Benefits contribution prior to the a sickness listed as an occupational disease by ECC; or any other
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA semesterREPRODUCE.
of death PROPERTY
illness causedOFbySAN BEDA
employment, subjectREPRODUCE.
to proof that PROPERTY
the risk of OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR contracting the same
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is increased by the working conditions.
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. At least 36 monthly
Disability Benefits contributions prior to the None
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
semester ofCOLLEGE
disability OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
a. Member mustOF SAN
have BEDA
been REPRODUCE.
reported for coverage PROPERTY OF SAN
by his employer
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR even if noOF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE contribution
LAW. NOT paid;
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
Funeral Benefits 1 monthly contribution b. Self-employed member/OFW/non-working spouse/voluntary
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
member
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
who PROPERTY SALE.
had at least 1 monthly contribution OF DO
SANNOT
payment BEDA
(R.A.
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. No.NOT8282,
FORSec.
SALE.13B).
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.a.PROPERTY
Unable toOFwork dueBEDA
SAN to sickness or injury and confined
REPRODUCE. either in OF SAN BED
PROPERTY
a hospital or at home for at least 4 days;
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
b. Has paid at leastNOT FOR of contributions
3 months UNIVERSITYwithinCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
the 12-month
At least 3 monthly
LE. DO
SAN Sickness
Benefits contributionPROPERTY
REPRODUCE.
period immediately before the semester
preceding OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
ofSALE. DO
OForNOT
sickness
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
injury;
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
c. Has used up all current company sick leaves with pay; and
the semester
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of sickness
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTnotified
FOR SALE. DO NOTor directly
COLLEGE OFif separated
d. Has the employer, the SSS, from
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTYemployment,OF SAN BEDAmember orREPRODUCE.
voluntary self-employedPROPERTY
regarding OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his/her sickness
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR or injury (SSS Guidebook, 2017, p. 40).
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. a. NOT
DO Notify the SSS thru her employer of pregnancy
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO andNOT
probable
REPRODUCE.
date of her childbirth; PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OFb.LAW.
Full NOT
payment
FORshall be advanced
SALE. DO NOT by theCOLLEGE
employerOF within
LAW.30 days
NOT FOR SALE.
from the filing of the maternity leave application;
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. i.PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
Payment of daily maternity benefits shall be a bar to the
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
recovery NOT FOR
of sickness UNIVERSITY
benefits under the SSS lawCOLLEGE
for the OF LAW. NO
SALE. same period for which daily maternity benefits have beenREPRODUCE
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
received;
PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT At least COLLEGE OF LAW. ii.
3 monthly NOT FORshall
SSS SALE. DO NOT reimburse
immediately COLLEGE the OF LAW. NOT
employer FOR SALE. DO
of the
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAcontribution immediately amount of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA maternity benefits advanced to the employee
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDby
Maternity Leave
preceding the semester the employer upon receipt of satisfactory proof of such
ITY COLLEGE OF Benefits
LAW. NOT FOR of childbirth
UNIVERSITY
or COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
payment and legality thereof; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
miscarriage
PROPERTY c. NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
Maternity
BEDA benefits
UNIVERSITY SALE.
shall be paid only PROPERTY
for the DO
first 4
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
deliveries
SAN BEDA or UNIVERSIT
miscarriages; and
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
d. In FORanSALE.
case DO NOT
employee member COLLEGE OF birth
should give LAW.orNOT FOR SALE. DO
suffer
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA miscarriage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF without
SAN BEDA the required contributions
REPRODUCE.having been OF SAN BED
PROPERTY
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR remitted
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE for herNOT
OF LAW. by her
FORemployer, UNIVERSITY
or without theCOLLEGE
latter having
OF LAW. NOT F
previously notified the SSS, the employer shall pay to the SSS
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
damages
SAN equivalent
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.said
to the benefits which
PROPERTY DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
employee BEDA UNIVE
member would otherwise have been entitled to (R.A. No. 8282,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
Sec. 14-A).
ERSITY COLLEGE
65. OF
A,LAW.
single,NOT
has FOR UNIVERSITY
been an active member ofCOLLEGE OF the
the SSS for LAW. NOT
past FOR She UNIVERSITY
20 months. COLLEGE
became pregnant out ofOF LAW. NO
SALE. wedlock and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that she would have to deliver the baby
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
through caesarean section because of some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes,
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR how many
SALE. DO days
NOT can she go on maternity
COLLEGE OF LAW. leave? (2010
NOT FOR Bar)DO NOT
SALE. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
20
Yes, A can claim maternity PROPERTY OF SAN14-A
benefits. Section BEDA UNIVERSITY
of the PROPERTY
SSS law does not provide OF SANasBEDA
any qualification to UNIVER
the civil status
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the claimant for maternity benefits so long
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT as the said female employee has paid at least 3
months contributions within the 12-month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth or
ODUCE. PROPERTYmiscarriage.
OF SAN BEDA In this case, A is entitled to maternity benefits because she has paid herREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY
contributions for the past OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF20
LAW. NOTTherefore,
months. FOR A isUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
be paid a daily maternityOF LAW.equivalent
benefit NOT FORto 100% UNIVERSITY
of her averageCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
daily salary
SALE. DO NOT credit
REPRODUCE.for 78 days in case of caesarian delivery.
LEGE OF LAW. 66.NOTSeveral employees
FOR SALE. DO NOT of ABC corporation,
COLLEGE OFanLAW.employer
NOT registered
FOR SALE.with
DOthe
NOTSSS, filed separate
COLLEGE OFcomplaints
LAW. NOT FOR SAL
against ABC
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA for non-remittance of their SSS contributions.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAUpon investigation, it was discovered that
ABC corporation indeed failed to remit the SSS contributions of its employees from 1997-2000. Is ABC
IVERSITY COLLEGEcorporation
OF LAW. NOT FOR
liable UNIVERSITYofCOLLEGE
for the non-remittance the SSS OF LAW. NOTofFOR
contributions UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
its employees?
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
Yes, ABC Corporation is liable. Prompt remittance of SSS contributions under Section 22 (a) of RA 8282
is mandatory. COLLEGE
Any divergence from OF
this LAW. NOT FOR
rule subjects the SALE. DOnot
employer NOT COLLEGEsanctions,
only to monetary OF LAW. i.e.,
NOTtheFOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTYpayment
OF SANofBEDA
penalty of three REPRODUCE.
percent (3%) per month, butOF
PROPERTY also to criminal
SAN BEDA prosecution if the employer
REPRODUCE. fails to: OF SAN B
PROPERTY
(a) register its employees with the SSS; (b) deduct monthly contributions from the salaries/wages of its
RSITY COLLEGE OFemployees;
LAW. NOTorFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
(c) remit to the SSS its employees' SSS contributions and/or loan payments after deducting the
same from their respective
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
salaries/wages.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDANOT REPRODUCE.
Here, UNIVERSITY
ABC failed to remit the PROPERTY SALE.
contribution DO
fromSAN
OF NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
1997-2000. UNIVERSITY
Therefore, ABC is liable for the non-remittance of the SSS contribution of its employees (Jorge B. Navarra vs.
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOofNOT
People COLLEGE
the Philippines, OF LAW.
G.R. No. NOT
224943, FOR
March 20,SALE.
2017,DO NOT COLLEGE
Perlas-Bernabe, J.). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
All government REPRODUCE.
personnel, whether PROPERTYirrespective
elective or appointive, OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of status of appointment, PROPERTY
provided they are OF SAN B
receiving
RSITY COLLEGE fixed monthly
OF LAW. NOT FOR compensation and have not
UNIVERSITY reached the
COLLEGE OF mandatory
LAW. NOTretirement
FOR age UNIVERSITY
of 65 years, areCOLLEGE
compulsorily
OF LAW. NOT
covered as members of the GSIS and shall be required to pay contributions (R.A. 8291, Sec. 3).
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTNote:
FOR An employee
SALE. DO NOT who is already
COLLEGEbeyond
OF the
LAW.mandatory
NOT FOR retirement ageNOT
SALE. DO of 65 shallCOLLEGE
be compulsorily
OF LAW. covered
NOTand FORbeSALE. DO N
required to pay both the life and retirement premiums under the following situations:
UCE. PROPERTYa.OF An
SAN BEDAofficial who REPRODUCE.
elective PROPERTY
at the time of election OF office
to public SAN BEDA
is below 65 yearsREPRODUCE.
of age and willPROPERTY
be 65 years OF
or SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.moreNOT FORend of hisUNIVERSITY
at the term of office,COLLEGE OFperiod/s
including the LAW. NOTof hisFOR UNIVERSITY
re-election to public office COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
thereafter without
E. DO interruption.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
b.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA
Appointive officials who, before reaching the mandatory age of 65, are appointed to government position by UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand shall
the President COLLEGE OFgovernment
remain in LAW. NOTservice
FOR SALE.
at age DO NOT65 (IRRCOLLEGE
beyond OF8291,
of R.A. No. LAW.RULE
NOTII,FOR
Sec.SALE. DO N
2.2).
Y COLLEGE OF Contractual
LAW. NOTemployees
FOR UNIVERSITY
including casualsCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
and other employees FOR
with an UNIVERSITYagency
employee-government COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
relationship
are also compulsorily
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY covered, SALE.
provided DO
they NOT
are REPRODUCE.
receiving fixed
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYmonthly compensation andSALE. DO
renderingNOT
the REPRODUCE.
required
number of working hours for the month (IRR of R.A. 8291, RULE II, Sec. 2.3).
The following are excluded from the compulsory coverage:
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), subject to the condition that they must settle first their
financial
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOobligation
NOT with the GSIS;
b. Members
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA subject to the condition that they mustPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. settle first their
OF SAN BEDA
financial obligation with the GSIS;
Y COLLEGE OF c.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Contractuals who have no employer-employee relationship with the agencies they serve; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO d. Uniformed personnel of the Bureau
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. of
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFFire
SAN REPRODUCE.
Protection
BEDA (BFP);
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. Uniformed personnel of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP);
F LAW. NOT FORf. SALE. DO NOT
Barangay COLLEGE
and Sanggunian OF LAW.
Officials NOT
who are not FOR SALE.
receiving DOmonthly
fixed NOT compensation;
UCE. PROPERTYg.OF Employees
SAN BEDAwho do not REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
have monthly regular OFwork
hours of SANandBEDA REPRODUCE.
are not receiving fixed monthlyPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
compensation
(IRR of
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR R.A. No. 8291, Rule II, Sec. 3).
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN67.
BEDAJ,UNIVERSITY
a former director of DOLE, SALE.
wasDO
PROPERTY NOT
hired REPRODUCE.
OFtoSAN
work on a UNIVERSITY
BEDA DOLE-ILO project on work SALE. DOShe
safety.
PROPERTY NOT
OFwasREPRODUCE.
SAN hired
BEDA UNIVERS
as a consultant and is required to deliver outputs for such project, report on a regular basis, and
present for DOLE during ILO workshops and consultations. For this, J demanded that she be reported
ODUCE. PROPERTY by
OFDOLE
again as an employee and that her GSIS membership be renewed. Rule REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
on J’s contention.
J’s contention is wrong. Under Section 3 of the IRR of R.A. 8291, contractuals who have no employer-
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
employee relationship with
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
the government
NOT
BEDA
agency
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
they PROPERTY
serve are excluded from
SALE.
OFofDO
the coverage SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
the GSIS. UNIVERSITY
In
this case,
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. J’s engagement
DO NOT as a consultant
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTis contractual
FOR SALE.in nature because she
DO NOT was hired
COLLEGE OFforLAW.
a specific
NOTproject
FOR SALE. DO N
only. As a contractual with no employer-employee relationship with the government, J’s GSIS membership
21
cannot PROPERTY
be renewed. Therefore, OF SAN
DOLE is not BEDA
required UNIVERSITY
to report J as an employeePROPERTY OFofSAN
for purposes BEDA UNIVE
GSIS
coverage.
The following areNOT FOR
dependents: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF a.
SANREPRODUCE.
The legitimate
spouse dependent for
PROPERTYDOupon
support NOT
OF theREPRODUCE.
SANmember or pensioner;
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
b. The legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted child, including the illegitimate child who is:
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT i. FOR SALE. not
unmarried, DOgainfully
NOT employed,
COLLEGE notOF LAW.
over NOT
the age of FOR SALE.
majority; or DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYii. Is over the age
OF SAN BEDAof majority but incapacitatedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. and incapableOFofSAN
self-support
BEDA due to aREPRODUCE.
mental or physical
PROPERTY OF
defect acquired
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR prior to age of majority;
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
c. Parents dependent upon the member for support (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 2 (f)).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPROD
UNIVE
The following are the beneficiaries:
VERSITY COLLEGE a. OF LAW.Beneficiary
Primary NOT FORincludesUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the legal dependent OF LAW.
spouse NOT FOR
until he/she UNIVERSITY
remarries and COLLEGE
the dependent children OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 2 (g)).
b. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO
Secondary Beneficiary includes the dependent parents and, subject to the restrictions on the dependentBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR children,
SALE. DO theNOT
legitimateCOLLEGE OF(R.A.
descendants LAW.No.
NOT FOR
8291, SALE.
Sec. DO NOT
2 (h)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
Benefits Conditions to avail the benefits
a. If the member resigns or separates from service, he has rendered at least 3 years of
service but less than 15 years; or
Separation
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Benefits
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
b. If the member resigns or separates from service, he has rendered at least 15 years of OF LAW. NO
service and is below
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF60
SALE. DO years
SAN NOT ofREPRODUCE.
BEDA age (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 11).
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTa. Has rendered at least 15 years of service;
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
b. At least 60 years of age at the time of retirement; and
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA c. Not receiving
a monthly pension benefit from permanent total REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
disability (R.A. No. 8291, OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGERetirement
OF LAW. Benefits
NOT FOR Sec. 13-A).
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
SAN BEDA SALE.
UNIVERSITY Note: Retirement
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
is compulsory UNIVERSITY
upon reaching
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
65 years of age with at least 15OF
NOT REPRODUCE.
SANofBEDA
years UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTservice.COLLEGE
But if he has rendered
OF LAW. NOTless
FORthanSALE.
15 years
DO ofNOTservice, he may be allowed
COLLEGE OF LAW. to NOT FOR SALE. DO
complete the said period (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 13).
a. In service at the time of disability;
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR b. If heUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is separated from OFhas
service, LAW.
paidNOT FOR
at least 36 monthlyUNIVERSITY
contributionsCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
within 5 years
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY immediately SALE. DO NOT
before theOF
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
disability,
SAN BEDA or hasUNIVERSITY
paid a total of at least 180 SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
monthly contributions
prior to the disability;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTc. Member COLLEGE
cannot enjoyOF LAW.
monthlyNOT FOR benefit
income SALE. and
DO the
NOTold-ageCOLLEGE
retirement OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
simultaneously
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (R. A. No.REPRODUCE.
Permanent Total
8291, Sec. 16PROPERTY
(a)); and OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. d.
NOT FOR Not due to his grave misconduct, notorious
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR negligence, habitual intoxication,
UNIVERSITY or willful OF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
Disability Benefits
intention to kill himself or another (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 15).
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNote: If member does not satisfy the conditions above, but has rendered at least 3 years of
service at the time of disability, he is still entitled to cash payment equivalent his average
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA monthly compensation
REPRODUCE.forPROPERTY
each year OF SAN BEDA
of service REPRODUCE.
but not less than PROPERTY
P12,000 (R.A. No. 8291, OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Sec. 16 UNIVERSITY
(b)). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO a. Not exceedSALE.
120 days in oneREPRODUCE.
calendar year;
b. OF NOT
SAN BEDA
Exhausted all his sick leave benefits; UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTc.In COLLEGE
service at theOFtime
LAW. NOT
of his FOR SALE. DO NOT
disability; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA d. If separated,
REPRODUCE. rendered at least 3 years
PROPERTY OF SAN of service
BEDAand paid 6 REPRODUCE.
monthly contributions in the OF SAN BED
PROPERTY
12-month period immediately preceding the disability;
ITY COLLEGE Temporary
OF LAW. NOT Total
FOR e. UNIVERSITY
Cannot COLLEGE
enjoy temporary total OF LAW.benefit
disability NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
and sick leave COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
pay simultaneously;
Disability Benefits
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY f. SALE.
If disabilityPROPERTY
requires DO NOT
treatment
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
that lastsUNIVERSITY
BEDA beyond 120 days, the paymentSALE.ofDO
PROPERTY the NOT REPRODUCE.
temporary
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
total disability benefit may not exceed 240 days;
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE
g. Such benefit shallOF
notLAW.
be lessNOT
thanFOR
P70SALE. DOA.NOT
a day (R. No. 8291,COLLEGE
Sec. 18); OF
andLAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAh. Not due REPRODUCE.
to his grave misconduct,
PROPERTY notorious
OF SANnegligence,
BEDA habitual intoxication, or
REPRODUCE. willful
PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR intention to kill himself or another (R.A.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR No. 8291, Sec. 15). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. a. Deceased wasSALE.
in the service at REPRODUCE.
the time of his death; or
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY b.
Survivorship PROPERTY
If separated OF DO
from service,
NOT
SANhas
BEDA UNIVERSITY
at least PROPERTY
3 years of service at the
SALE. DO
time of his OF SAN
death
NOT REPRODUCE
andBEDA
has UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FORBenefits
SALE. DO NOT paid 36 monthly
COLLEGE OFcontribution
LAW. NOTwithin
FOR 5-year
SALE. period
DO NOT immediately preceding
COLLEGE OFhis death,
LAW. NOTor has
FOR SALE. DO
paid at least 180 monthly contribution prior to death (R.A. No. 8291, Sec. 21 (a)).
22
PERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYCovered deaths:
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
a. ActiveCOLLEGE
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT member; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN b. MemberREPRODUCE.
BEDA who has been PROPERTY
separated fromOF service;
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Funeral Benefits
c. Pensioner; and
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
d. Retiree, COLLEGE
who at the time OF LAW.
of his retirement NOT
was FOR
of pensionable UNIVERSITY
age but opted toCOLLEGE
retire underOF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYR.A. No. 16161
REPRODUCE. (R.A.DO
SALE.
PROPERTY No.NOT
OF8291,REPRODUCE.
SANSec. 23).
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. 68.NOTDuring
FOR SALE. DO NOT leave,
his one-month COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
H, a policeman, was FOR
shot SALE. DO while
to death NOT trying COLLEGE OFtwo
to pacify LAW.of NOT
his FOR SAL
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
neighbors BEDA
who are fighting. W,REPRODUCE.
her surviving PROPERTY OFhe
spouse whom SAN
hadBEDA
abandoned years REPRODUCE.
back, filed aPROPERTY
claim OF SA
for death benefits
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR but was denied by the GSIS contending that
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR H is not entitled to benefits since he
was on-leave when he died. Is the GSIS correct?
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
No, GSIS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. is incorrect.
DO NOT Under the
COLLEGE OF24-hour
LAW. NOT duty FOR
doctrine,
SALE.members
DO NOTof the police by the
COLLEGE OFnature
LAW. ofNOTtheir
FOR SALE. D
functions are technically 24 hours a day, except when they are on vacation leave. The exception is not
ODUCE. PROPERTYapplicable
OF SAN BEDA
where a policeman REPRODUCE.
responds to aPROPERTY
situation on OF SAN
which hisBEDA REPRODUCE.
services is necessary PROPERTY
in maintaining peace OF SAN B
and order. Here,
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR H’s act of responding to his neighbor’s situation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR may be considered an extension of a police’s
function. Therefore, H’s death is compensable (ECC v. CA, G.R. No. 115858, June 28, 1996).
UNIVERSITY
69. SALE.
F LAW. NOT FOR After DO
44 years,
NOT X retired
COLLEGEas Chief StateNOT
OF LAW. Prosecutor of DOJ
FOR SALE. DO in 1992. HeCOLLEGE
NOT applied for
OFretirement
LAW. NOTbenefit
FOR SALE. DO N
under R.A. 910. The application was approved by GSIS. Thereafter, and for more than nine years, X
UCE. PROPERTY OF continuously
SAN BEDA receivedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
his retirement benefits, until 2001, when he failed to receive his monthly
pension. UNIVERSITY
X learned that COLLEGE
GSIS cancelled OF LAW.ofNOT
the payment his FOR UNIVERSITY
pension because the DBM COLLEGE
informedOF LAW. NOT FO
GSIS
E. DO NOT that X was not qualified to SALE.
REPRODUCE. retire DO
under
NOTR.A. 910 which provides for the retirement
REPRODUCE. SALE. of
DOjustices
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and its enforcement by the GSIS. Thus, GSIS stopped the
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
payment NOT
of X’s monthlyCOLLEGE
pension. OF
DoesLAW. NOT FOR SALE.under
X’s disqualification DO NOT COLLEGEhim
R.A. 910 preclude OFfrom
LAW.receiving
NOT FOR SALE. DO
any retirement
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA benefit under any other existing retirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA law? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
No, X’s disqualification from receiving retirement benefits under R.A. 910 does not precludeCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
him from
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY benefits SALE.
receiving any retirementPROPERTY under DO
OFany
SANNOT
other
BEDA REPRODUCE.
existing retirement law. Since PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
X has been OF DO
SANNOT
declared REPRODUCE.
ineligible
BEDA UNIVERSITY
to retire under R.A. 910, GSIS should simply apply the proper retirement law to X’s claim. In this way, GSIS
wouldDObe NOT COLLEGE
faithful to its mandateOF LAW. NOTretirement
to administer FOR SALE. DOin NOT
laws the spirit inCOLLEGE OFhave
which they LAW. NOT
been FOR SALE. DO N
enacted,
UCE. PROPERTY OF i.e.,
SANtoBEDA
provide retirees the wherewithal PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. to live a life of
OFrelative comfort and security
SAN BEDA after years of
REPRODUCE. service to the
government (GSIS v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186560, November 17, 2010).
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
70. X has been working with Lima Land for 20 years. Wanting to work in the public sector, X applied with
UCE. PROPERTY OF and
SANwas
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
offered a job at Livecor. Before accepting the offer, he wanted to consult with you whether
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
theNOT FOR that heUNIVERSITY
payments COLLEGE
and Lima Land OF LAW.
had made to the NOT FORbe transferred
SSS can UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
or credited to theOF LAW. NOT FO
GSIS.
E. DO NOT What would you advise? (2014
REPRODUCE. Bar)
I will DO NOT
inform COLLEGE
X that his OF LAW.
contributions underNOT
SSSFORmaySALE. DO NOTor credited
be transferred COLLEGE
to GSIS OFfor
LAW. NOT FOR
purposes of SALE. DO
claiming
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA benefits. Under Section 3 of RA 7699 or the Limited
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Portability Law, a covered worker who transfers
employment from one sector to another shall have his contributions in both systems credited and shall be
RSITY COLLEGE OF totalized
LAW. NOT FORpurpose ofUNIVERSITY
for the COLLEGE
old-age, disability, OF LAW.
survivorship NOT
and FOR
other benefits in UNIVERSITY
case he does COLLEGE
not qualify OF
for LAW. NOT
such benefits.
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY Here, X is planningSALE.
to DO NOT
transfer REPRODUCE.
employment
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY from private to public sector. SALE.
If upon DO
his NOT REPRODUCE.
retirement
he did not qualify for the benefits, X can avail of the totalization under the limited portability law.
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTCoverage
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Y COLLEGEThe
OF following
LAW. NOT are covered under
FOR the Employee’s
UNIVERSITY COLLEGECompensation:
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT a. All
REPRODUCE. employers; SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
b. Employees not over 60 years old; OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOTc.FOR
Employees
SALE. DOover 60 yearsCOLLEGE
NOT old and paying contributions
OF LAW. NOT FOR (LABOR
SALE. CODE,
DO NOT Art. 174);
d. Employees coverable by both the GSIS and the SSS; and
e. Filipino employees employed abroad subject to prescribed EC regulations (LABOR CODE, Art. 175; Amended
RSITY COLLEGE OF Rules
LAW. onNOT FOR
Employees’ UNIVERSITY
Compensation, COLLEGE
Rule OF LAW. NOT FOR
I, Sec. 2). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
23
OPERTY OFConditions
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for Compensability PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
For an injury
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFtoSAN
be compensable,
BEDA theREPRODUCE.
following requirements
PROPERTYmust concur:
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
a. The injury and the resulting disability must be the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment FORResolutionUNIVERSITY
(ECC No. 2799, JulyCOLLEGE OFand
25, 1984); LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF b.
SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.ofDO
The sickness and the resulting disability
PROPERTY NOT
death
OFmustREPRODUCE.
SAN SALE.listed
be the result of an occupational disease
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT
under
OF REPRODUCE
SAN BEDA UN
the rules (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation (2014), RULE III, Sec. 1).
REPRODUCE.Theory of Increased
PROPERTY Risk
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF
Theory of Increased Risk is relevant when the ailment or sickness is not classified as an occupational disease,
SALE.
OPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFthus, REPRODUCE.
BEDA
proof UNIVERSITY
must PROPERTY
be shown that the risk SALE.
OF DO
of contracting the NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
disease UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is increased by the working SALE. DO
SANNOT
OF(GSIS
conditions REPROD
BEDA
v. UNIVE
Calumpiano,
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR G.R.
SALE.No.
DO196102,
NOT November
COLLEGE 26, OF
2014).
LAW. Under
NOTthisFORtheory,
SALE.there must be a COLLEGE
DO NOT reasonableOF proof
LAW.thatNOT
the FOR SALE.
employees’ working condition increased his risk of contracting the disease, or that there is a connection between his
RODUCE. PROPERTY
work and theOF SANofBEDA
cause REPRODUCE.
the disease (Castor-Garupa PROPERTY
v. ECC, G.R. No. OF158268,
SAN BEDA
April 12, 2006). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Only a reasonable proof OF SAN
of work-connection, FOR causal connection,
not direct UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is required OF LAW.compensability
to establish NOT FOR of a non-occupational
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEdisease OF LAW. N
SALE. DO(GSIS
NOT v. Cordero, G.R. No., 171378, March 17,
REPRODUCE. 2009).
SALE. DO BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT71.
FOR XSALE.
was employed
DO NOT at Nestlé Philippines
COLLEGE since
OF LAW. NOT1966 as SALE.
FOR a salesman
DO NOT and was COLLEGE
later promoted as Area
OF LAW. NOTSales
FOR SALE. DO
Supervisor in 1977. In 1994, he was confined for a week in PGH because of joint pains. It was
discovered that he had BUN, creatinine, anemia, and chronic renal disease. He underwent a renal
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
transplant UNIVERSITY
and was discharged COLLEGE
thereafter. OF LAW. NOT
Subsequently, he FOR
filed a claimUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
for compensation OF LAW. NOT F
benefits
LE. DO NOT before the SSS. However, the SALE.
REPRODUCE. claim was
DO denied
NOT on the ground that X’s illness – end-stage
REPRODUCE. SALE. renal
DO NOTdisease
REPRODUCE.
secondary to uric acid nephropathy – had no causal relationship to his job as Area Sales Supervisor.
X promptly NOT to the
appealed COLLEGE
ECC. ECCOF affirmed
LAW. NOT theFOR SALE.ofDO
decision NOT
SSS. COLLEGE
Is X’s illness OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
compensable?
Yes, X’s illness is compensable. Under the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation, for the sickness
and the resulting disability to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational COLLEGE
diseaseOF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA listed under Annex A of these
UNIVERSITY RulesSALE.
PROPERTY with DO
OFthe
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
conditions set therein satisfied; otherwise,
UNIVERSITY SALE.
proof
PROPERTY DO
must
OF beNOT
SAN REPRODUCE
shown
BEDA UNIVERSIT
that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. Concededly, end-stage renal
OF LAW. NOT FOR disease
SALE. DO NOT to uric
secondary COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
acid nephropathy is notFOR SALE.
among the DO NOT
Occupational COLLEGEunder
Diseases OF LAW.
AnnexNOTA ofFOR
the SALE. DO
Amended REPRODUCE.
Rules on Employees PROPERTY
Compensation. This, OF SAN BEDA
however, REPRODUCE.
would not automatically PROPERTY
bar petitioners claimOF SAN BED
for asNOT
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. long FOR
as he could prove that the COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY risk of contracting
OF LAW. theNOT
illness was increased
FOR by his working
UNIVERSITY conditions.
Here, considering the workload and areas of responsibility of petitioner in this case, it is not unlikely for him to
LE. DO
SAN BEDA develop hypertension, which
UNIVERSITY in SALE.
turn ledDO
PROPERTY OF NOT
to uremia.REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA It should SALE.
be stressed that in determining
OF NOT
whether REPRODUCE.
a disease
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR isSALE.
compensable,
DO NOTit is enough that there
COLLEGE exists NOT
OF LAW. a reasonable workDO
FOR SALE. connection.
NOT Hence, X’s illness
COLLEGE is compensable
(Limbo v. ECC, G.R. No. 146891, July 30, 2002).
Proximate
ITY COLLEGE Cause
OF LAW. NOT FORTheory UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
Where primary injury is shown to have arisen in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows
GE OF LAW.from
NOT theFOR SALE.
injury DO NOT
likewise arises out COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of the employment, unlessFOR
it isSALE. DO NOT
the result COLLEGEintervening
of an independent OF LAW. cause
NOT FOR SALE.
attributable to claimant’s
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA own negligence or misconduct (Belarmino
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAv. ECC, G.R. No. 90204, May 11, 1990).
24-Hour Duty Doctrine
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
For the purpose of determining compensability of injury or death, soldiers and policemen and even firemen by the
nature of their work may be considered on duty round-the-clock. But this doctrine, while it relaxes the work-place factor,
DUCE. PROPERTY OFdispense
does not SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
with the work-connection PROPERTY
requisite (GSIS v.OF
CA,SAN
G.R.BEDA
No. 1288524, April REPRODUCE.
20, 1999). PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO Continuing Act Rule
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR
To be SALE. DO NOT the act
compensable, COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
of the employee FOR
going to,SALE. DO NOT
or coming from, the COLLEGE
workplace,OF LAW.
must NOT
have FOR
been a SALE. DO
continuing
DUCE. PROPERTY OF act,
SANthat is, he had not been
BEDA diverted therefrom
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYby any
OFother
SANactivity,
BEDA and he hadREPRODUCE.
not departed from his usualOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
route to, or from, his workplace (ECC Board Resolution No. 3914-A, July 5, 1988).
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
72. X is a security guard of ABCSALE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY bankDO
PROPERTY NOT
assignedREPRODUCE.
OF SAN to its main office. His regular duty
PROPERTY DO NOT
is from REPRODUCE.
2:00pm
OF SAN to
BEDA UNIVE
10:00pm. One night, he rendered his regular duty, but as the security guard who was to relieve him
failed DO NOT
to arrive, COLLEGE
he rendered overtimeOFduty
LAW.upNOT FOR SALE.
to 5:00am in the DO NOT morning.
following COLLEGE
On hisOFway
LAW. NOTatFOR SALE.
home,
RODUCE. PROPERTYabout 6:00 BEDA
OF SAN am, the passenger jeepney that
REPRODUCE. X was riding
PROPERTY on turned
OF SAN BEDA turtle dueREPRODUCE.
to slippery road. As a
PROPERTY OF SAN
result, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, X filed a claim for disability benefits. His claim was denied by
the GSIS. X contends that the injuries he sustained due to the vehicular accident should be construed
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA as “arising out of or in the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
court of
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
employment”
BEDAREPRODUCE.
and thus compensable. Is PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY X’s injurySALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
compensable?
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
Yes, X’s injury is compensable because such injury is considered as one arising out of and in the course
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANemployment.
of the BEDA Here,REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
it can be seen that X left his OF SANseveral
station BEDAhours afterREPRODUCE.
his regular timePROPERTY
off, becauseOF SAN BED
24
PERTY OF SAN BEDA
theUNIVERSITY
reliever did not arrive, andPROPERTY OF SAN
so X was asked to goBEDA UNIVERSITY
on overtime. After permission toPROPERTY OF SAN
leave was given, BEDA UNIVER
he went
home. There
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT is no evidence on record that X deviated
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTfrom his usual, regular homeward route or that
interruptions occurred in the journey. Employment includes not only the actual doing of the work, but a
ODUCE. PROPERTYreasonable
OF SAN BEDA margin of time and space necessary to be used in passing to and fromREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the place where PROPERTY
the work OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OFisLAW.
to be NOT
done.FOR UNIVERSITY
If the employee be injured COLLEGE OF LAW.
while passing, NOT
with the FOR or implied
express UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
consent of the employer,OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT to or
REPRODUCE.from his work by a way over the employer's
SALE. DO NOT premises,
REPRODUCE. or over those of another in such proximity
SALE. DO NOT and
REPRODUCE.
relation as to be in practical effect a part of the employer's premises, the injury is one arising out of and in the
LEGE OF LAW. NOTcourse of the employment
FOR SALE. DO NOT asCOLLEGEmuch as though
OF LAW.it had
NOThappened whileDO
FOR SALE. the NOT
employee was engaged
COLLEGE OFinLAW.
his work
NOT FOR SAL
at the place
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of its performance. Hence, X’s injury is compensable
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA (Lazo v. ECC, G.R. No. 78617, June 18,
1990).
SALE.
PERTY Personal
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA Comfort Doctrine PROPERTY
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
E OF LAW. NOT FOR
Acts SALE. DO
performed by NOT
an employee COLLEGE
within theOF LAW.
time and NOT
spaceFOR
limitsSALE.
of the DO NOT to COLLEGE
employment minister to OF LAW.comfort,
personal NOT FOR SALE. D
such as satisfaction of thirst, hunger REPRODUCE.
or any physical PROPERTY
demands, orOF SAN BEDA
to protect REPRODUCE.
oneself from excessive cold or PROPERTY
heat, shall OF SAN B
be deemed incidental
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to employment and injuries suffered in the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR performance of such acts shall be considered
compensable and arising out of and in the course of employment (ECC Board Resolution No. 93-08-0068, August 5,
1993).UNIVERSITY
TY OF SAN BEDA SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Marked Men Rule
Y COLLEGE OF This
LAW. NOT
rule FOR a situation
governs UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
where because OF peace
of serious LAW.and NOTorder
FORproblemsUNIVERSITY
of the country,COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
more particularly
E. DO NOT the insurgency problems, it has become
REPRODUCE. generally
SALE. DO perceptible
NOT that on account of the nature ofSALE.
REPRODUCE. their work,
DO members
NOT of
REPRODUCE.
the AFP have become “marked men” insofar as insurgents and other lawless elements are concerned and are,
E OF LAW. NOT FOR killed
therefore, SALE.byDOsuch NOTinsurgents
COLLEGE
at everyOFopportunity.
LAW. NOTThus,
FOR SALE. DOAFP
when an NOTmemberCOLLEGE
suffers aOF LAW. NOTit FOR
contingency, is SALE. DO
presumed that it
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA is because of the nature of his work (ECC Board Resolution
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA No. 3908, July 5, 1988).
Presumptive Compensability
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
This provides that the moment a member of the Armed Forces suffers a contingency, the presumption is that it is
F LAW. NOTbecause
of the nature of his work. However, In the following instances, the disability or death of a member of the military
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
is deemed not compensable: REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF a.LAW.
While
NOTtheFOR
soldier is onUNIVERSITY
furlough or on-leave,
COLLEGE he or
OFshe is considered
LAW. NOT FORabsent from military service;
b. While the soldier is on Sick, Convalescent, or Compassionate leave, except when the leave had been due to
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
work-connected illness or
PROPERTY
injuries; OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FORc. SALE.
WhileDO
the NOT
soldier is on Maternity,OF
COLLEGE Paternity
LAW. NOTor Graduation
FOR SALE.leave;
DOandNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
d. When the soldier is considered on “AWOL” status (ECC Board Resolution No. 03-020014, February 01, 1993).
Y COLLEGE OF
73.LAW. NOT FOR
Bernardo Alcaraz was UNIVERSITY
employed for COLLEGE
almost OF
29 LAW.
years NOT FORAide byUNIVERSITY
as Metro COLLEGE
the MMDA. Alcaraz wasOFlater
LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT found dead at the basement
REPRODUCE. SALE. of DO
the NOT
MMDA building. The autopsy concluded
REPRODUCE. that DO
SALE. Alcaraz
NOT died of
REPRODUCE.
Myocardial Infarction. The GSIS denied the claim for death benefits on the ground that myocardial
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOtheNOT
infarction, cause ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
Alcaraz’ death, was NOT FOR
directly SALE.toDO
related NOT which
diabetes COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
is not considered FOR SALE. DO
a work-
connected
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA illness; hence, its complications, such as
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA myocardial infarction, are not work-related.
Decide the case.
ALE. DO NOT I
REPRODUCE.will
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY rule in favor of Alcaraz. A heart
SALE. DO disease,
NOT such as
REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY myocardial infarction, can SALE.
PROPERTY be OF
considered
DO
SANNOT work-
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
related, with or without the complicating factors of other non-occupational illnesses. A heart disease is
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTif it was
compensable COLLEGE
known toOF LAW.
have beenNOT FOR during
present SALE. DO NOT
employment, COLLEGE
there must beOFproof
LAW.that
NOTan FOR
acuteSALE. DO N
exacerbation
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA was clearly precipitated by the unusual
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA strain by reason of the nature of his work. The
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFnature of SAN BEDA
Alcaraz’ duties and the conditions under which he worked were such as to eventually cause the onset of his
myocardial infarction. The stresses, the strain, and the exposure to street pollution and to the elements that
E. DO
Alcaraz had to bear for PROPERTY
almost DO
OF NOT
29 years REPRODUCE.
are allBEDA
SAN too real to be ignored. They cannot
UNIVERSITY SALE.
but
PROPERTY leadDO
to aNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
deterioration
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
of health particularly with the contributing factors of diabetes and pulmonary disease. Hence, the claim for
deathDO NOTis proper
benefits COLLEGE OFAlcaraz,
(GSIS v. LAW. G.R.
NOT No.
FOR187474,
SALE. DO NOT 6, 2013).
February COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Y COLLEGEExclusions
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Disability or Death is not compensable if the injury is caused by:
E OF LAW. NOTa.FOR
Willful
SALE.intention
DO NOT to injure COLLEGE
or kill himself
OForLAW.
another;
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Note: Suicide, provoked death or attributable to one’s own aggression is not compensable. Suicide is
ODUCE. PROPERTY compensable
only when it results from insanity resulting from compensable work injury; or occurs during
RSITY COLLEGE OF delirium
LAW. NOT FOR from compensable
resulting UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
disease. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. b. Intoxication;
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c.
PROPERTY
Notorious negligence; or
SALE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR
d. SALE. DO NOT
If otherwise excludedCOLLEGE OF LAW.
from coverage NOT
by law FOR CODE,
(LABOR SALE. DO
Art. NOT
178). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
25
OPERTY OF SAN
74. BEDA
M wasUNIVERSITY
employed as an Engineer PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of 555 Shipping Lines toUNIVERSITY
work aboard the vessel PROPERTY OF SAN
M/V Princess. BEDA UNIVE
While
the vessel was
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT docked, M boarded the ship, visibly drunk,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTand challenged those present with an axe,
injuring P, fellow seaman. A fight between P and M ensued leading to M’s eventual death. Is M’s death
compensable? BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
SALE. DO NOT No,
REPRODUCE.M’s death is not compensable. Under Article
SALE. DO NOT 178 of the
REPRODUCE. Labor Code, death is not compensable
SALE. DO NOTwhenREPRODUCE
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UN
caused by a willful intention to injure or kill himself or another. Here, M’s death is attributable to his own
aggression,
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. disregard
DO NOThis own personal
COLLEGE safety, and disobedience
OF LAW. of rules
NOT FOR SALE. DOevidenced
NOT byCOLLEGE
his act of boarding
OF LAW.theNOT FOR SA
vessel visibly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAdrunk. Therefore, his death is not compensable.
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW.75. X worked as an able seaman and his job required him to paint the ship’s pump room which had poor
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
ventilation thus exposing him to chemicals of the paint and thinner causing him to suffer shortness of
breath BEDApains. He was
and chest REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
able to complete OF SAN BEDA
his contract. REPRODUCE.
Thereafter, he was repatriated,PROPERTY
and he OF SAN
immediately asked
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR for his employer’s referral for a medical examination,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR but such request was ignored.
He consulted his own physician who diagnosed him with a cardiovascular disease and found him
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
disabled for work. Thereafter,
SALE. DO
OF aSAN
he filed
NOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
complaint for payment of permanentPROPERTY SALE.
disabilityOF
DO NOT
SAN BEDA
benefits.
REPRODUCE
His UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR employer
SALE. DOcountered
NOT that X wasOF
COLLEGE repatriated
LAW. NOT notFOR
because
SALE. of
DOhisNOT
illness but because
COLLEGE OFhis
LAW.contract
NOT had
FOR SALE. DO
ended. Is X entitled to permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC despite only being diagnosed
after BEDA of his employment
termination REPRODUCE.contract?
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO NOT Yes, X is entitled to permanent
REPRODUCE. SALE. disability
DO NOT benefits under the POEA-SEC. A reasonable
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOproof
NOTof REPRODUCE.
work-
connection is sufficient and a direct causal relation is not required. The fact that petitioner was able to pass his
PEME
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR without
SALE. DO any
NOTfinding COLLEGE
that he had OFa LAW.
pre-existing
NOT FORheartSALE.
ailment
DObefore
NOTboarding the vessel
COLLEGE and later
OF LAW. NOT onFOR SALE.
finding, after
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the termination of his contract that he has acquired
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the said heart ailment, one can conclude that
such illness developed while he was on board the same vessel. Thus, probability, not the ultimate degree of
certainty, is the test of proof in compensation proceedings (Alfredo Mallari Magat v. Interorient COLLEGE
MaritimeOF LAW. NO
SALE. Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 232892,SALE.
April 4,DO
2018, Covered Case).
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT76.
FOR XSALE. DO NOT as an
was employed COLLEGE OF LAW.
able-bodied seamanNOTby FOR SALE. DO
Y crewing, Inc.,NOT
through ZCOLLEGE
manningOF LAW.for
agency, NOT FOR SALE. DO
a term
DUCE. PROPERTY OFof SAN
9 months.
BEDAFour months later, X diedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. due to multiple organ
OF SAN failure secondary
BEDA to septicemia
REPRODUCE. or bloodOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
poisoning or infection. The employer paid X’s wife USD 1,000 for burial and for death benefits, and
offered USD40,000 for death benefits which was half of the amount provided by the CBA between Z
LE. DO
SAN BEDA manning agency and the
UNIVERSITY SALE.union,
seamen
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
to which
BEDA X belonged. X’s wife demanded
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
a full NOT
OFcopy REPRODUCE.
SAN of the UNIVERSIT
BEDA
CBA, but X refused. Consequently, X’s wife filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for money
OF LAW. NOT FOR claims.
LA sustained the claim that since the labor union of X was an affiliate of the International
Transport REPRODUCE.
Workers Federation PROPERTY
(ITF), the agreement OFofSAN BEDAprevail overREPRODUCE.
ITF must the CBA andPROPERTY
POEA-SEC.OF SAN BED
Was the CA
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR correct in affirming the death benefits under
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the ITF agreement over the benefits
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE provided
OF LAW. NOT F
under the CBA and POEA-SEC?
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR No, theDO
SALE. CA NOT
is incorrectCOLLEGE
in affirmingOFtheLAW.
deathNOT
benefits
FOR under
SALE.theDO
ITFNOT
agreement. The special
COLLEGE OFclauses
LAW. NOTin theFOR SALE.
CBA must prevail. A contract of labor is so impressed with public interest that the more beneficial conditions
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFbe
must SAN BEDA in favor REPRODUCE.
endeavored PROPERTY
of the laborer. This OF SAN with
is in consonance BEDA REPRODUCE.
the avowed policy PROPERTY
of the State to give OF SAN
maximum aid
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORand full protection to labor as enshrined in
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution (Maersk-Filipinas
SALE. DO NOT Crewing, Inc. and AP Moller Singapore
REPRODUCE. SALE.PTE
DO Ltd.
NOT v. Malicse, G.R. No. 200576, November 20,
REPRODUCE. 2017, Covered
SALE.
Case). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
77. In 2007, X was employed as GP2 Wiper. Sometime in January 2008, while engaged in the performance
of his duties, he felt a sudden crack on his back which was followed by a severe pain and numbness
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
of the left side of his body. Subsequently, he was referred to a physician and was given COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
medicine.
LE. DO Initially, the medicine accorded some relief, but eventually his condition aggravated.
SALE.Subsequently, X
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
complained of chest pain, and he was then referred to another physician. Upon examination, he was
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR diagnosed
with cervical OFand
neuralgia LAW.wasNOT FOR SALE.
declared unfit toDO NOT
work for fourCOLLEGE
days with OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
a recommendation
DUCE. PROPERTY OFthat
SANshould
BEDAhis medicalREPRODUCE.
condition failPROPERTY
to improve,OFheSAN
should be repatriated
BEDA back. Thereafter,
REPRODUCE. X wasOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
repatriated. On June 17, 2008, X reported to the company-designated physician, Dr. Cruz, for medical
evaluation UNIVERSITY
who confirmed COLLEGE
the diagnosis of X.OF LAW. NOTphysical
X underwent FOR rehabilitation.
UNIVERSITYOn COLLEGE
NovemberOF 14,LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN 2008,
BEDA Dr. Cruz assessed his
condition
asSAN
Grade
BEDA10 UNIVERSITY
disability. However, X didSALE.
not DO
PROPERTY NOT
agree, REPRODUCE.
OF and
SAN he
BEDA UNIVE
demanded for the payment of maximum disability compensation. Is X entitled to permanent disability
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.when
benefits DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
the company-designated NOT issued
physician FOR SALE. DO NOT beyond
his assessment COLLEGE OF LAW.
the 120-day NOT FOR SALE.
period?
No, XNOT
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. is not
FORentitled to permanent
UNIVERSITYdisability
COLLEGEbenefits. The prevailing
OF LAW. NOT FOR rule as it now stands is that
UNIVERSITY the 120-OF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
day initial period may be extended for the purpose of determining the seafarer's grade of disability. The
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA company-designated physician
must OF DO
arriveSAN NOT
at and REPRODUCE.
issue
BEDA a definite assessment of the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
seafarer's
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
fitness REPRODUCE
toBEDA
work UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR or permanent disability within the period of 120 days. If the company-designated physician fails to give his
assessment within the 120-day period but there is sufficient justification for the delay (e.g. the seafarer's
condition required furtherREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
medical treatment OFrehabilitation),
or on-going SAN BEDA the 120-day REPRODUCE.
period shallPROPERTY
be extendedOF SAN BED
26
to 240 days. In this case, the PROPERTY OF SAN
disability grading BEDAbyUNIVERSITY
was given Dr. Cruz 150 days after X's PROPERTY OFevaluation
first medical SAN BEDA UNIVER
from repatriation.
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT It was well within the 240-day period. Therefore,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT X is not entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW.disability
to permanent NOT FOR SALE. D
benefits. (Ricky B. Tulabing v. MST Marine Services (Phils.), Inc., TSM International Ltd., and/or Capt. Del
ODUCE. PROPERTYCastillo,
OF SANG.R.BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
No. 202113, June 6, 2018, Covered Case). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
SALE. DO NOT78. X, a Filipino
REPRODUCE. seafarer, while the vessel was
SALE. DO NOT approaching the
REPRODUCE. port of Hong Kong, he accidentally stepped
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
on the mooring line while preparing to heave the same, as a result he "twisted his right foot and he OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTimmediately
FOR SALE. fell
DOonNOTthe floor." He reported
COLLEGE to the
OF LAW. shipFOR
NOT doctor andDO
SALE. was declaredCOLLEGE
NOT fit to return
OFtoLAW.
work.NOTA FOR SAL
few months
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAafter, X alleged another incident. He narrated that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA while he was pulling on the tug line,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY it OF SA
suddenly moved causing his hands to get pulled, hitting the bitts ballard. Thereafter, he was referred
IVERSITY COLLEGEtoOF LAW. NOT
a doctor FOR consultation.
for medical UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
He was OF LAW.back
then repatriated NOTtoFOR UNIVERSITY
the Philippines. Upon hisCOLLEGE
arrival, OF LAW.
SALE. medical tests were conducted, and he was eventually diagnosed with "Right ankle sprain; Carpal
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SAN
Tunnel Syndrome, Bilateral; and Osteochondral Defect Femoral Trochlea, Right Knee." He, thereafter,
NOT
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOsurgery
underwent NOT and COLLEGE
physicalOFtherapy.
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Eventually, DO treatment,
after NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
the company-designated
ODUCE. PROPERTYphysician declared him fit to
OF SAN BEDA work. Unsatisfied
REPRODUCE. by the OF
PROPERTY diagnosis,
SAN BEDArespondent consulted his own
REPRODUCE. medical OF SAN B
PROPERTY
expert. His own doctor issued a medical report, stating that he is now permanently disabled and is
RSITY COLLEGE OFtherefore
now permanently unfit to resume his usual sea duties. In light of this, respondent insisted on
his disability benefits.PROPERTY
Does the failureDO
OF SAN NOT
to refer REPRODUCE.
BEDAtoUNIVERSITY
a third doctor render the SALE.
findings
PROPERTY of DOcompany-
OFthe
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
designated physician as to the fitness to work final and binding?
UCE. PROPERTY OF SANYes,
BEDA failure to referREPRODUCE.
to a third doctorPROPERTY
renders the OFfindings
SAN BEDA
of the company REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
designated physician OF SAN BEDA
as to the
fitness
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORto work final and binding. It is well settled that
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR while it is the company-designated physician who
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. is NOT FO
entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman's disability, during the term of the latter's employment, the
ERTY OF SAN BEDAsame is not automatically final,
binding or
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFconclusive.
SAN BEDA Should the seafarer disagree
with the assessment,
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA he UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORmay dispute
SALE. DOtheNOTsame byCOLLEGE
seasonably OFexercising
LAW. NOT his prerogative
FOR SALE.toDO seek
NOTa secondCOLLEGE
opinion and
OFconsult
LAW. aNOT doctorFOR SALE. DO
of his choice. In case of disagreement between the findings of the company-designated physician and the
ODUCE. PROPERTY seafarer's
OF SAN BEDAdoctor of choice,REPRODUCE.
the employer and PROPERTY OFmay
the seafarer SANagree
BEDAjointly to refer
REPRODUCE.
the latter to a PROPERTY
third doctor OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF whose
LAW. NOTdecision
FORshall be final and binding
UNIVERSITY on them.
COLLEGE OFThis
LAW.ruling
NOTis also
FORexplicitlyUNIVERSITY
stated in Section 20 of the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. POEA-SEC. Also, it was settled that the referral to a third doctor is mandatory, and should the seafarer fail to
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DOSANNOT
abide by this method, the assessment of the company designated physician shall be final and binding (Dohle BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Philman
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOManning
NOT Agency, Inc. Dohle
COLLEGE Limited,
OF LAW. NOTet.FOR
al. v.SALE.
JuliusDO
ReyNOT
Quinal Doble, G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF223730,
LAW. NOTOctober
FOR4,SALE. DO N
2017, Covered Case).
Y COLLEGE OF
79.LAW. NOThired
X was FORas able UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
seaman on board OF LAW.
M/T Gulf Coral.NOTWhileFOR UNIVERSITY
on duty closing COLLEGE
the vessel’s OF LAW.
air valve, X NOT FO
E. DO slipped and fell on his back. Since he experienced pain in his abdomen and had difficulty urinating, he
SAN BEDA
was examined and thereafter diagnosed with acute lumbago. Accordingly, he was repatriated. Upon UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
arrival onNOT
February COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
8, 2010, a company-designated DO NOT
physician examined COLLEGE
him. After OF LAW.ofNOT
a series FOR SALE. DO N
treatment,
on June
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 16, 2010 or after 126 days, X was temporarily
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA diagnosed with lumbosacral muscular spasm,
for which the company-designated physician gave a Grade 10 partial disability rating and scheduled
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
himNOT
to FOR
undergo a UNIVERSITY COLLEGEofOF
bone scan. Instead LAW. NOT
following theFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
said recommendation, X consultedOF LAW.
an NOT FO
ERTY OF SAN BEDAindependent SALE.
UNIVERSITYdoctor who declared DO
PROPERTY NOT
himOF REPRODUCE.
toSAN
be unfit
BEDAforUNIVERSITY SALE.
sea duty. He then filed PROPERTYDO
the claim forNOT REPRODUCE.
OFpermanent
SAN BEDA UNIVERS
total disability benefits. Does the lapse of 120 days automatically entitle to total permanent disability?
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, mere
BEDAlapse of theREPRODUCE.
120-day periodPROPERTY
does not automatically
OF SAN BEDA warrant the payment of permanent
REPRODUCE. total OF SAN B
PROPERTY
disability benefits.
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR An employee's disability becomes permanent
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and total only: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE the
1) when so declared by OF LAW. NOT
company-designated physician; or 2) in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent
total disability, upon the
lapse of the
PROPERTY DO
OF 120- NOT
SAN or REPRODUCE.
240-day
BEDA treatment periods, while
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
the employee's
OF SAN disability
BEDA UNIVERSITY
continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated
physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee's fitness or disability. If the 120 days initial
UCE. PROPERTY OF period
SAN BEDA
is exceeded andREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
no such declaration is madeOF SAN BEDA
because REPRODUCE.
the seafarer requires PROPERTY
further medical OF SAN BEDA
attention,
then
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. the FOR
NOT temporary total disability period
UNIVERSITY may beOF
COLLEGE extended up toFOR
LAW. NOT a maximum UNIVERSITY
of 240 days, subject
COLLEGEto the
OFright
LAW. NOT FO
of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists (C.F.
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Sharp Crew Management,
SALE. DO
PROPERTY OFN.NOT
Inc. v. Noel SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA
Orbeta, UNIVERSITY
G.R.
SALE. DO
211111, September 25,PROPERTY
2017, Covered OF NOT
SAN
Case).
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Right
RSITY COLLEGE OFto Self-Organization
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or
F LAW. NOTeducational
FOR SALE.institutions,
DO NOT whether COLLEGE OFforLAW.
operating profitNOT FOR
or not, SALE.
shall haveDO
the NOT COLLEGE OFand
right to self-organization LAW. NOTjoin,
to form, FORorSALE. DO N
assist labor organizations
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of their own choosing for purposes
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of collective bargaining.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYand
Ambulant, intermittent OF SAN BEDA
27
OPERTY OFitinerant
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
workers, self-employed people, PROPERTY OF SAN
rural workers and BEDA
those UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
without any definite employers may OFformSAN
laborBEDA UNIVE
organizations for their
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT mutual aid and protection (LABOR CODE, Art.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 253). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
SALE. DOManagerial
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
Employee
BEDA is an employee who
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
is vested REPRODUCE.
OF with
SAN powers SALE.and
or prerogatives to lay down
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DOexecute
NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE
BEDA UN
management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees (IRR of
OLLEGE OF LAW.
LABORNOT CODEFOR SALE.
Book DO NOT
V, Rule COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
I, Sec. 1(hh). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
Confidential employees
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR are those who by reason of their positions or
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR nature of work are required to assist or act
UNIVERSITY in a
COLLEGE OF LAW
fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records
SALE.
OPERTY DO
SANNOT
OF(Metrolab
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Industries,
UNIVERSITYInc. v. Roldan-Confesor,
PROPERTY SALE.
G.R. No.DO
OF NOT
108855,
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
February 28, 1996). The exclusion
from DO
SANNOT
bargaining
OF REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor
relations is the principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule” (Tunay na Pagkakaisa
RODUCE. PROPERTY
ng Manggagawa OF SAN BEDA
sa Asia REPRODUCE.
Brewery v. Asia Brewery, G.R. PROPERTY
No. 162025, OFAugust
SAN BEDA
3, 2010). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
Payroll master and employees who have access to salary and compensation data are NOT confidential employees.
SALE. DO NOT
RTY OF SANTheir
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
positions PROPERTY
do not involve dealing
SALE. DO
OF SAN
with confidential
NOT
BEDA
labor
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
relations information. AlthoughPROPERTY
SALE. DO NOT
OF Labor
Art. 255 of the SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
Code UNIVERSIT
limits
OF LAW. NOT the SALE.
FOR ineligibility
DO to join, formCOLLEGE
NOT or assist labor organization
OF LAW. NOT FORto managerial
SALE. DOemployees,
NOT under the doctrine
COLLEGE OF LAW. of necessary
NOT FOR SALE. DO
implication, confidential employees are likewise ineligible because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might
DUCE. PROPERTY
not be OF SAN of
assured BEDAtheir loyalty in REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
view of the evident OFinterests
conflict of SAN BEDA and the union REPRODUCE.
can also become PROPERTY
company-OF SAN BED
denominated FORpresenceUNIVERSITY
with their COLLEGE(San
in union membership OF LAW.
MiguelNOT FOR
Foods, Inc. v. SanUNIVERSITY
Miguel Corp.COLLEGE
SupervisorsOF&LAW. NOT F
LE. DO Exempt
NOT Union, G. R. No. 146206, August
REPRODUCE. 1, 2011).
80. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT AA Faculty Union
SALE. DO NOTfiled a COLLEGE
petition forOF
certification
LAW. NOTelection seeking
FOR SALE. DO to represent
NOT a bargaining
COLLEGE unit NOT
OF LAW. in AAFOR SALE.
School consisting
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of forty (40) faculty members. AA School
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA opposed the petition, claiming that
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY AA OF SAN
Faculty Union's members are neither rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather managerial employees.
AA School then filed a petition for cancellation of AA Faculty Union's certificate of registration on the OF LAW. NO
SALE. grounds of misrepresentation inSALE.
registration and that AA Faculty Union is composed of DO
managerial
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
OF SANNOTBEDA
employees who are prohibited from organizing as a union. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order denying
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR the
SALE. DO NOT
petition COLLEGE
for certification OF LAW.
election on theNOT FOR that
ground SALE.
AADO NOT faculty
School’s COLLEGE
members OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
are managerial
DUCE. PROPERTY OFemployees.
SAN BEDA Was AA School correct in filing
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYa petition
OF for
SANcancellation
BEDA of AAREPRODUCE.
Faculty Union's certificateOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
of registration?
LE. DO
SAN BEDA Yes, AA School is correct
UNIVERSITY inSALE.
filing aDO
PROPERTY OF NOT
petition
SANfor REPRODUCE.
cancellation
BEDA of AA Faculty Union’s
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
certificate
of registration.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
In case of alleged inclusion of disqualified employees in a union, the proper procedure for an employer like AA
OF LAW. NOT FOR school
is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's certificate of registration due to
misrepresentation, REPRODUCE.
false statement PROPERTY
or fraud OF SAN BEDA
under the circumstances enumerated REPRODUCE.
in Art. 247 of thePROPERTY
Labor Code,OF SAN BED
as amended.
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR AA School's sole ground for seeking cancellation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of AA Faculty Union’s certificate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE of registration
OF LAW. NOT F
- that its members are managerial employees and for this reason, its registration is thus a patent nullity for
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA
beingUNIVERSITY SALE.
an absolute violation ofPROPERTY DO NOT
Art. 255 ofOF REPRODUCE.
theSAN BEDA
Labor CodeUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
which declares that managerial DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANare
employees BEDA UNIVE
ineligible
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.toDO
joinNOT
any laborCOLLEGE
organization
OF--- is, inNOT
LAW. a sense, an accusation
FOR SALE. DO NOTthat AACOLLEGE
Faculty Union is guilty
OF LAW. NOTofFOR SALE.
misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not managerial employees. Therefore,
RODUCE. PROPERTYAAOF SAN BEDA
School REPRODUCE.
was correct in filing a petition PROPERTY OF SANofBEDA
for the cancellation REPRODUCE.
the union’s registration (AsianPROPERTY
Institute OF SAN
Management
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR v AIM Faculty Association, G.R. No. 207971, January
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 23, 2017). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
OF DO
UNIVERSIT
81. Union A filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent the bargaining unit consisting of
OF LAW. NOT FOR rank
SALE.and
DOfile
NOTprofessional
COLLEGEandOF
technical
LAW. NOTemployees including
FOR SALE. DO NOTthe sales logistics
COLLEGE OFcoordinator
LAW. NOT and
FOR SALE. DO
maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists of Company XYZ.
Company XYZ contends that the latter positions cannot be members of the bargaining unit of the rank
and file employees because they are supervisory employees and confidential employees COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
respectively
LE. DO who are exposed to the internal business operations of the company. CanSALE. the salesNOT
logistics
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
coordinator and maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists be
OF LAW. NOT FOR members
SALE. DOofNOT COLLEGE
the bargaining unitOF LAW.and
of rank NOTfileFOR SALE. DO NOT
employees? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Yes, the sales logistics coordinator and maintenance foreman, and financial analysts and quality
assurance UNIVERSITY
specialists can be membersCOLLEGE OF LAW.
of the bargaining unitNOT FOR
of rank UNIVERSITY
and file employees. COLLEGE
Exposure OF LAW. NOT F
to internal
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN business
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.isDO
operations of the company
PROPERTY notNOT
OF REPRODUCE.
a ground
SAN for theUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
exclusion in the bargaining DO NOT
unit. Employees
who
BEDA UNIVE
encounter or handle trade secrets and financial information are not automatically classified as confidential
employees. TheNOT COLLEGE
information OF isLAW.
they handle NOT
not the FOR
kind SALE. DO that
of information NOTis relevant
COLLEGE OF LAW.
to collective NOT FOR SALE.
bargaining
RODUCE. PROPERTYnegotiations
OF SAN BEDAand settlement ofREPRODUCE.
grievances as PROPERTY
would classifyOFthem
SANasBEDA
confidential employees. Even if they
REPRODUCE. have
PROPERTY OF SAN
access to information
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR which are confidential from the business
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR standpoint, the exercise of their right to self-
organization could not be defeated because their common functions do not show that there exists a confidential
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA relationship within the realm
of labor OF DOSANNOT
relations thus
BEDA REPRODUCE.
the sales logistics coordinatorPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
and maintenance SAN NOT REPRODUCE
foreman,
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR and financial analysts and quality assurance specialists can be members of the bargaining unit of rank and file
employees (Coca-Cola Bottlers PHL v. Ilocos Professional & Technical Employees Union, G.R. No. 193798,
September 8, 2015). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
28
Supervisory Employees; Right PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
of Supervisory UNIVERSITY
Employees PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
Supervisory
ODUCE. PROPERTY Employee
OF SAN BEDAis an employee who, in the
REPRODUCE. interest ofOF
PROPERTY theSAN
employer,
BEDA effectivelyREPRODUCE.
recommends managerial
PROPERTY OF SAN B
actions and the exercise of such authority is not routinary or clerical but requires the use of independent judgment (IRR
of LABOR CODE NOT FOR
Book V, Rule I UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
Sec. 1(xx)). Supervisory LAW. NOT
employees shallFOR UNIVERSITY
not be eligible COLLEGE
for membership OF LAW. NO
in the
collective
SALE. DO NOT bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
REPRODUCE. employees
SALE. DO NOT but may join, form, or assist separate collective
REPRODUCE. SALE. DObargaining
NOT REPRODUCE.
units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors’ union operating
BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOT
within FOR SALE.
the same DO NOTmay join
establishment COLLEGE
the sameOF LAW. NOT
federation FOR SALE.
or national union DO
(Art.NOT
255, LaborCOLLEGE
Code). OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
SALE.
PERTY OF DO NOT
SAN82.
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Union A filed a petition forPROPERTY
SALE. DO
SANNOT
OFelection
certification BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
seeking to represent rank andPROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
file employees.
REPRODU
BEDA
ABC UNIVER
Company
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOfiled
NOTa petition seekingOF
COLLEGE to LAW.
cancel the FOR
NOT registration
SALE. DO of NOT
Union A COLLEGE
on the ground that NOT
OF LAW. it has
FOR SALE. D
members who are foremen in the company. Will the union membership of the foremen warrant the
ODUCE. PROPERTYcancellation
OF SAN BEDA of registrationREPRODUCE.
of Union A? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
SALE. DO NOT No, the union membership of SALE.
REPRODUCE. the foremen
DO will not
NOT warrant the cancellation of registration
REPRODUCE. SALE.of DO
Union A. The
NOT
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for cancellation of
the registration
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of theCOLLEGE
union. Said
OFemployees
LAW. NOT areFOR
automatically
SALE. DOdeemed
NOT removed from OF
COLLEGE the LAW.
list of membership
NOT FOR SALE. DO N
of said union.
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Foremen are considered to be supervising
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA and instructing the employees under them,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY assessing
OF SAN BEDA
and evaluating their performance and making reports and recommending new systems in the company. Since
foremen are not rank UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and file employees OFrather
but are LAW.considered
NOT FORextensions UNIVERSITY COLLEGEthey
of the management, OF are
LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT deemed removed from the list
REPRODUCE. of membership
SALE. DO NOT of Union A and the petition shall failSALE.
REPRODUCE. (Lepanto
DO Consolidated
NOT REPRODUCE.
Mining Company v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, G.R. No. 157086, February 18, 2013, Art. 256, Labor Code).
ALE. Bargaining unit is a group of employeesSALE.
sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit, SALE.
comprisedNOT
of allREPRODUCE.
or
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping
F LAW. NOTwithin
FOR such
SALE.employer
DO NOT unit (D.O. No. 40-03,
COLLEGE OFRule
LAW. I, Sec.
NOT1).
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Factors in Determining the Appropriate Bargaining Unit:
Y COLLEGE OF a.LAW. NOT FORof Interest
Community UNIVERSITY
Doctrine or COLLEGE OF LAW.
Substantial Mutual NOT FOR Rule - UNIVERSITY
Interest COLLEGE
affinity and unity OF LAW. NOT FO
of employees'
E. DO interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions
PROPERTY
(San Miguel Corp. Employees Union PTGWO v. Confessor, G.R. No 111262, Sept. 19, 1996);
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FORb. SALE.
GlobeDO NOT - based
Doctrine COLLEGE
on the OF LAW.willNOT
express FOR of
or desire SALE. DO NOT In defining
the employees. COLLEGE the OF LAW. NOT
appropriate FOR SALE. DO N
bargaining
UCE. PROPERTY OF unit
SANforBEDA
purposes of collective bargaining,
REPRODUCE. the determining
PROPERTY OF SANfactor
BEDAis the desireREPRODUCE.
of the workersPROPERTY
themselves OF
(2 SAN BEDA
AZUCENA, supra at 466-467);
Y COLLEGE OF c.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
Employment Status - such as temporary, seasonal, and probationary employee (Philippine Land Air Sea
ERTY OF SAN BEDALabor Union v. CIR, G.R. No.
L-14656, November
PROPERTY 29, 1960);
OF SAN BEDA and
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
d. Prior Collective Bargaining History - precedent history of collective bargaining between the proposed
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOunit
bargaining NOT and theCOLLEGE
employer.OF LAW.
(Sta. NOT
Lucia FORCommercial
East SALE. DO NOT
Corp. COLLEGE
v. Hon. OF LAW.
Secretary NOTand
of Labor FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY Employment,
G.R. No. 162355, August 14,PROPERTY
2009). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTMethods
FOR SALE. DO NOT theCOLLEGE
of determining bargainingOFrepresentative:
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
a. Request
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA for SEBA (D.O.
REPRODUCE.Rule
No. 40-I-15, VII);
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
b. Certification election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule VIII);
Y COLLEGE OF c.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
Run-off election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule X);
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
SAN BEDAd. UNIVERSITY
Re-run election (D.O. No. SALE.Rule
40-I-15,
PROPERTY DO
OF I,NOT REPRODUCE.
Sec.BEDA
SAN 1(tt)); UNIVERSITY
and SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. Consent election (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule VIII, Sec. 10)
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
SEBA Certification is the process whereby the DOLE recognizes a labor organization REPRODUCE.
as the SolePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and Exclusive
Bargaining Agent
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (SEBA) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR unit. This has replaced Voluntary Recognition
wherein it is the employer who recognizes the labor organization as the SEBA of the employees (D.O. No. 40-I-15).
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Certification
E OF LAW. NOT election
FOR SALE. is the process
DO NOT of determining
COLLEGE OF LAW.through secret
NOT FOR ballotDO
SALE. theNOT
sole and exclusive
COLLEGErepresentative
OF LAW. NOT of the
FOR SALE. DO
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation (D.O. No. 40-03, Sec.
ODUCE. PROPERTY
1(h). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
ALE. Consent election – when the two (2) or more contending unions voluntarily and mutually agree toSALE.
hold the certification
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
election among themselves, with or without the participation and supervision of the DOLE (D.O. No. 40-03, Sec. 1(h)). UNIVERSITY
29
OPERTY OF SANRules
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Which Prevent the HoldingPROPERTY OF SAN
of a Certification BEDA UNIVERSITY
Election PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
a. Certification
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Year Bar Rule - no petition for certification
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT election may be filed within
COLLEGEone (1)
OFyear
LAW.from the FOR SALE.
NOT
date of a valid certification, consent, or run-off election or from the date of voluntary recognition. The same
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF banSAN BEDA
applies REPRODUCE.
if “no union” won PROPERTY
in the previous election (2OF SAN BEDA
AZUCENA, supra at 487).REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
VERSITY COLLEGE OF
b. LAW. NOT FOR
Contract-Bar UNIVERSITY
Rule - while a valid andCOLLEGE
registeredOF CBALAW.
of aNOT
fixed FOR UNIVERSITY
duration is subsisting, the COLLEGE
BLR is not OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT allowed
REPRODUCE. to hold an election contesting the
SALE. DO NOT majority status
REPRODUCE. of the incumbent union during
SALE. DO(5)
its five yearREPRODUCE
NOT
term of representation except during the 60-day period immediately prior to the expiration of the five (5)OF SAN BEDA UN
year SALE.
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR term. The
DOfive
NOT(5) years shall be reckoned
COLLEGE OF LAW.from NOTtheFORdateSALE.
of effectivity
DO NOT of the CBA (IRR of OF
COLLEGE the LAW.
LABOR NOT FOR SA
CODE, Book
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA V, Rule XVII, Sec. 7, as amended by D.O.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA No. 40-03). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF
c. Deadlock Bar Rule - a petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending
bargaining FOR submitted
deadlock UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to conciliation OF LAW.
or arbitration or had NOT FORthe subject
become UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
of a valid notice of OF LAW
SALE. strike or lockout. The principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
management (NACUSIP-TUCP v. Dir. Trajano, G.R. No. 67485, April 10, 1992).
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DOSANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
d. Negotiation Bar Rule -COLLEGE
a petition OF LAW. NOTelection
for certification FOR SALE.
cannotDObeNOT COLLEGE
entertained if, beforeOF
theLAW. NOT
filing of the FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFpetition
SAN for certification election,
BEDA the duly recognized
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYorOF certified
SAN BEDAunion has commenced negotiations
REPRODUCE. with
PROPERTY OF SAN
the employer in accordance with Art. 261 of the Labor Code within the one (1) year period referred to in
Sec. 14(d) of D.O. No. 40-03, Rule VIII (certification year rule) (2 AZUCENA, supra at 486- 489).
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYREPRODUCE. PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSIT
Employer as Bystander
OF LAW. NOT FOR
In allSALE.
cases,DO NOTthe petition
whether COLLEGE OF LAW. election
for certification NOT FOR SALE.
is filed by DO NOT orCOLLEGE
an employer OFlabor
a legitimate LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
organization,
DUCE. PROPERTYtheOF SAN BEDA
employer REPRODUCE.
shall not be considered a party PROPERTY
thereto with OF SAN BEDAright to oppose
a concomitant REPRODUCE.
a petition forPROPERTY
certificationOF SAN BED
election. The
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORemployer’s participation in such proceedings
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORshall be limited to: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
a. Being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA b. UNIVERSITY SALE.
Submitting the list of employees
PROPERTY DO NOT
duringOF REPRODUCE.
theSAN
pre-election SALE. DOact
conference should the Med-Arbiter
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
OFfavorably
SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR on the petition
SALE. DO NOT (LABORCOLLEGE
CODE, Art. OF271).
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Run-off election BEDAto an election
– refers REPRODUCE.
between thePROPERTY
labor unionsOF SAN BEDA
receiving REPRODUCE.
the two (2) highest PROPERTY
number of votes in a OF SAN
certification
ERSITY COLLEGE or consent
OF LAW. NOT election
FOR with three (3) or more
UNIVERSITY choices,OF
COLLEGE where such
LAW. a certified
NOT FOR or consent results in COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY none of theOF LAW. NO
SALE. three REPRODUCE.
(3) choices receiving the majority of theSALE.
valid votesNOT
cast;REPRODUCE.
provided that the total number of votes for allDO
contending
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF SANNOT
unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast (IRR of the LABOR CODE, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(ss), as amended BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOTby D.O.
FORNo. 40-03).
Re-run election – refers to an election conducted to break a tie between the contending unions, including between
ITY COLLEGE
“NoOF LAW.and
Union” NOT
oneFOR UNIVERSITY
of the unions. COLLEGE
It shall likewise refer toOF
anLAW. NOT
election FOR after UNIVERSITY
conducted COLLEGE
a failure of election OF LAW. NOT F
has been
LE. DO declared by the election officer and/or affirmed by the mediator-arbiter (D.O. No. 40-I-15, Rule I, Sec. 1(tt)).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT83.
FOR On
SALE. DO10,
June NOT2015, a COLLEGE
petition forOFcertification
LAW. NOT election
FOR SALE. wasDOfiled
NOTby Union
COLLEGE OF LAW.
A seeking NOT FOR
to represent a SALE. DO
bargaining
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA unit consisting of rank and file employees.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA It was granted on July 15, 2015. Previously, 20
employees were hired on April 15, 2017. During the election, these 20 employees were questioned on
the ground UNIVERSITY
that they are not eligibleCOLLEGE OF LAW.
voters. Union NOT FORthat they UNIVERSITY
A contends COLLEGE
are eligible voters OF LAW. NOT F
because
theyUNIVERSITY
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA were already employees SALE. DO NOT
three months
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
priorBEDA
OF SAN to theUNIVERSITY SALE.
decision granting the petition.
PROPERTY DO NOT
Decide. REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR The
SALE.20 DO NOT are COLLEGE
employees ineligible toOF LAW.
vote NOT
during FOR SALE. election.
the certification DO NOTOnly employees
COLLEGEwho OF are
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
members
RODUCE. PROPERTYof OF
the appropriate
SAN BEDA bargainingREPRODUCE.
unit sought to be represented
PROPERTY OF3 SAN
months
BEDAprior to the filing of the petitionPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. shall be OF SAN
eligible to vote.
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Since they have been employees only for a
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR period of less than two months prior to the filing
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO of
the petition, they are not qualified to vote (D.O. No. 40-I-15, Sec. 6).
OF DOSANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT84.
FOR Union
SALE. ADO is the recognized bargaining agent of X Corporation. On April 15, 2010, they agreed upon a
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
CBA with a term of 5 years or until April 2015. On the third year of the agreement, the parties decided
DUCE. PROPERTY OFto SAN BEDA
extend REPRODUCE.
the CBA for two more yearsPROPERTY OF2017.
or until April SAN OnBEDA REPRODUCE.
March 15, 2017, PROPERTY
Union B filed a petitionOF SAN BED
for certification
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR election. Should theCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY petition beOFgranted?
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
No, the petition shouldPROPERTY OF NOT
not be granted. SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA
Art. 265 UNIVERSITY
provides
SALE. DO
that any CBA that thePROPERTY
parties may OF
NOT
SAN
enter
REPRODUCE.
intoBEDA
shall, UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR insofar
SALE. as
DOtheNOTrepresentation
COLLEGEaspect
OFisLAW.
concerned,
NOT be
FORforSALE.
a termDOof 5NOT
years. No petition
COLLEGE questioning
OF LAW.theNOT majority
FOR SALE. DO
status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted
DUCE. PROPERTY OFby the DOLE outside of the 60-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such 5-year term of theOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
CBA.NOT
Here,FOR
the freedom UNIVERSITY
period was on COLLEGE
the year 2015OF because
LAW. NOT the FOR
representationUNIVERSITY
aspect has aCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
term of 5 years
LE. DO NOT regardless
REPRODUCE. of the extension of the CBA itself.
SALE. DO NOT Since the petition
REPRODUCE. was filed outside the freedom period,
SALE. DO NOT the same
REPRODUCE.
must be denied. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
85. A, OF
RODUCE. PROPERTY B, C,
SANand 10 other rank REPRODUCE.
BEDA and file employees of X Corp.
PROPERTY were
OF SAN members of YREPRODUCE.
BEDA Union, the recognized
PROPERTY OF SAN
bargaining agent. X Corp. and Y Union had a CBA which would expire on June 22, 2017. The president
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
ofLAW. NOT
Y Union FOR X Corp.
advised UNIVERSITY
to terminateCOLLEGE
A, B, C,OF LAW.
and NOT FOR
the other 10 employeesUNIVERSITY
for acts ofCOLLEGE
disloyaltyOF LAW. NO
SALE. especially for signing a petition for certification election of Union B. It appears that the petition for
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
certification elections was filed on June 12, 2017. Y Union alleges that Article 264 of the Labor Code
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR applies
SALE. DO NOTprovides
which COLLEGE OF LAW.
that it shall be theNOT
dutyFOR SALE.
of both DO NOT
parties COLLEGE
to keep the OF and
status quo LAW. NOT FOR
continue in SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFfullSAN
force and effect the REPRODUCE.
BEDA terms and conditions
PROPERTYof the
OFexisting
SAN BEDAagreement during the 60-day PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. period priorOF SAN BED
30
PERTY OF SAN BEDA
to UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
its expiration date and/or until a new OFagreement
SAN BEDA is UNIVERSITY
reached by the parties. PROPERTY OF SAN
They claim that A, B,BEDA
C, UNIVER
and 10 other
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT employees violated this provision when
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT they campaigned for, supported, and signed
Union B’s petition for certification election. If you were the legal counsel of the said employees, how
ODUCE. PROPERTYwould
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
you counter the assertions of Y Union? OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
SALE. DO NOT The
REPRODUCE. employees cannot be dismissed. Under
SALE. DO NOT Art. 268
REPRODUCE. of the Labor Code, while it is incumbent
SALE. DO NOTfor REPRODUCE.
the
employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTexpiration
FOR SALE. of the
DOfreedom
NOT period, they could
COLLEGE OF only
LAW. doNOT
so when
FORnoSALE.
petition
DOforNOTcertification election OF
COLLEGE wasLAW.
filed. The
NOT FOR SAL
provision for
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA status quo is conditioned on the fact that no
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAcertification election was filed
REPRODUCE.freedom
during the PROPERTY OF SA
period. The petition for certification election was filed on June 12, 2017. Therefore, under Art. 268, at the
IVERSITY COLLEGEexpiration
OF LAW.ofNOT FOR period,
the freedom UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
X Corp. no longer has OF LAW. NOT
the obligation to FOR UNIVERSITY
recognize Y Union COLLEGE OF LAW.
as the incumbent
SALE. bargaining agent when a petition for certification election was filed, as in this case. Moreover, the last sentence
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. OF DO
of Art. 264, which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of the CBA and
OF DO
SANNOT BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
does DO NOT
not include COLLEGEaspect
representational OF LAW.
of theNOT
CBA.FOR SALE. DO
An existing CBANOT COLLEGEa bar
cannot constitute OF LAW. NOT
to a filing of FOR
a SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTYpetition
OF SAN for BEDA
certification election during the freedom
REPRODUCE. period.
PROPERTY OFWhen there is a representational
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.issue,PROPERTY
the status OF SAN B
quo provision insofar as the need to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply (Picop Resources v.
RSITY COLLEGE OFDequilla,
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
G.R. No. 172666, December 7, 2011).
OF SANDO NOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
86. There are 600 eligible voters in the bargaining unit sought to be represented. A certification election
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT andCOLLEGE
was conducted OFfollowing
yielded the LAW. NOT FOR What
results. SALE.are
DOthe
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
legal effects?
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Union A 140
Union B 105
PROPERTYDO NOT REPRODUCE.
Union COF SAN BEDA120 UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT No OF
COLLEGE Union
LAW. NOT FOR 75SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Spoiled Ballots
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Abstain
PROPERTY 30OF SAN BEDA
30
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
TOTAL VOTES OF 500 NOT FOR
LAW. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
A valid certification election was conducted. The double majority rule was observed. To have a valid
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO atNOT
election, COLLEGE
least a majority OF LAW.
of ALL NOT FORVOTERS
THE ELIGIBLE SALE. DO NOT MAJORITY)
(FIRST COLLEGE OFunit
in the LAW. NOT
must FOR
have castSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF their
SAN vote.
BEDASince there REPRODUCE.
are 600 eligiblePROPERTY
voters, majority
OF SANof which
BEDA(301) should have casted PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. their vote. 500
OF SAN BEDA
employees casted their vote; thus, the election is valid. The labor union receiving the majority of the VALID
VOTES CAST (SECOND MAJORITY) shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in
E. DO
SAN BEDA the unit. The total number
UNIVERSITY SALE.
of the
PROPERTY DO
valid
OF NOT
votes REPRODUCE.
SANcast is 470.
BEDA validSALE.
Spoiled ballots are notPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO
OF NOT
votes cast REPRODUCE.
because
SAN BEDAthey
UNIVERSITY
are torn, defaced or left unfilled in such a manner as to create doubt or confusion or to identify the voter. Thus,
the majority is 236. There is no winner in the certification election. A run-off election between the labor unions
UCE. PROPERTY OF receiving
SAN BEDA the 2 highest REPRODUCE.
number of votesPROPERTY OF SANwhen
shall be conducted BEDA REPRODUCE.
an election which provides for PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
three or more
CHOICES
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR results in no choice receiving majority of the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR valid votes cast provided that the total number of votes
for ALL CONTENDING UNIONS is at least 50% of the TOTAL OF VOTES CAST. Since there are four (4)
ERTY OF SAN BEDAchoices
UNIVERSITY
and the total number SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFthe
of votes of SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
contending SALE.
unions exceeds 50% ofPROPERTY DOcast,
the votes NOT aREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
run-off
E OF LAW. NOT FORelection
SALE.shall be conducted.
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANA,BEDA
87. Unions B, and C agreedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
to hold an election withoutOF
theSAN BEDA
DOLE intervention toREPRODUCE.
determine thePROPERTY
exclusive OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF bargaining
LAW. NOT agent.
FOR During UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the elections, Union OF LAW.
A got NOT FOR
majority of the validUNIVERSITY
votes cast; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
thus, it was
ALE. DO NOT recognized as the bargaining agent.
REPRODUCE. SALE. What
DO is the
NOT effect of DOLE’s non-interventionSALE.
REPRODUCE. in the DO
election?
NOT REPRODUCE.
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.TheDOconsent
NOT election
COLLEGEis valid;
OF however,
LAW. NOT theFOR
results thereof
SALE. DO shall
NOTnot constitute
COLLEGE a bar
OF to the holding
LAW. NOT FOR of aSALE. DO N
certification
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA election for 1 year from the holding of such
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA consent election (IRR of LABOR CODE, Book V Rule
VIII, Sec. 24).
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Y COLLEGECheck-Off
OF LAW. NOT FOR of deducting
is a method UNIVERSITY
from anCOLLEGE
employee’sOFpay
LAW. NOT FORperiod the
at prescribed UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
amounts due OF LAW.
to the union for NOT FO
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
fees,
OF SAN finesUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
or assessments (2 AZUCENA DOatNOT
supra
236).
BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT
88. FOR SALE.
When is DO NOT
an individual COLLEGE
written OF LAW. NOT
authorization FOR SALE.
for check-off DO NOT
required? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation
fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA individual written authorization
duly OF DO
SANNOT
signed theREPRODUCE.
byBEDA employee.
UNIVERSITYThe authorization shouldSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
specify theNOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
amount,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction (LABOR CODE, Art. 250(o)).
31
89. BCD
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFUnion
SAN is a registered union
BEDA which had
REPRODUCE. a 5-year CBA
PROPERTY with BEDA
OF SAN XYZ Corp. The 60-day freedomPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. period OF SAN
of the CBA passed without a challenge to BCD Union’s status as bargaining agent. Three of its
members wroteFOR
to the DOLEUNIVERSITY
informing itCOLLEGE OF LAW.
that majority NOT FORintends UNIVERSITY
of its members to disaffiliate COLLEGE
from their OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
mother
OF SAN BEDA federation
UNIVERSITYto form another SALE.
union.DO
PROPERTY BCD NOT REPRODUCE.
OFUnion
SAN questioned SALE.the
the disaffiliation. Pending
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DOdispute,
NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE
BEDA UN
XYZ Corp. stopped the remittance to BCD Union of the union dues that had been checked off from the
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
worker’s DOand
salaries NOT COLLEGE
recognized the newOFunion.
LAW. Does
NOT the
FORfailure
SALE.toDO NOT
remit COLLEGE
union dues amountOFtoLAW.
ULP?NOT FOR SA
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFYes, the failure
LAW. NOT FOR to remit union dues amounted
UNIVERSITY to ULP.
COLLEGE OFIt LAW.
is a violation
NOT FOR of the duty to bargain collectively
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
which is a form ULP. Since no petition for certification election challenging the majority status of BCD Union
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
was
BEDA filed during the freedom period,
OF DO
it remained
SAN NOT
the REPRODUCE.
exclusive
BEDA bargaining agent of the
UNIVERSITY SALE.
employees
PROPERTY OF DO
and NOT
XYZ
SAN REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
Corporation’s refusal to bargain collectively constitutes ULP. The failure to remit union dues and the voluntary
recognition of the new union were indications of interference with the employee’s right to self-organization
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFconstitutes
which SAN BEDAULP (Ren Transport
REPRODUCE.
Corp. v.PROPERTY
NLRC, G.R.OF No.SAN BEDAJune 27, 2016).
188020, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
90. Union A has a 5-year CBA with X Corp. On the second year of the CBA, Union A submitted its proposal
to increase the salaries ofPROPERTY SALE. DO
OF but
the workers,
NOT
SANXBEDA REPRODUCE.
Corp. UNIVERSITY
did not reply. PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSIT
a. DO
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Is there
NOT a violation of the
COLLEGE OFduty
LAW.to bargain
NOT FOR collectively?
b. Will your answer be the same if X Corporation refused to reply on the proposal if the same was
given on the third PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
year of the CBA? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO NOT a. There is no violation ofSALE.
REPRODUCE. the duty
DO toNOT
bargain collectively. Art. 265 provides thatSALE.
REPRODUCE. all other
DOprovisions
NOT of
REPRODUCE.
the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. The mandatory period of
renegotiation
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT has not yet arrived.
COLLEGE Therefore,
OF LAW. NOTXFORCorp.’s failure
SALE. DOtoNOT
reply doesCOLLEGE
not constitution
OF LAW.a violation
NOT FOR SALE.
of the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA duty to bargain collectively.
b. No, the answer will not be the same if X Corporation refused to reply on the proposal when COLLEGE
given onOF LAW. NO
SALE. the third year of the CBA. SALE.
Since X Corp. refused to reply on the mandatory period of renegotiation,
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSIT
the same constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain collectively which is a ground for ULP. The CBA
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT by the
proposed COLLEGE
union mayOFbeLAW. NOTlock,
imposed FORstock,
SALE.andDObarrel
NOTon employer
COLLEGE
who OF LAW.to NOT
refused FOR SALE. DO
negotiate
a CBA. The employer
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA which violates
REPRODUCE. the duty
PROPERTY to bargain
OF SAN BEDA collectively,REPRODUCE.
loses its statutory right toOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union. Hence, the
proposals of the union may be adopted as the CBA and consequently, imposed on the employer, lock,
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY (Kiok SALE.
Loy vs.DO
stock, and barrel PROPERTY NOT
NLRC,
OF REPRODUCE.
SANG.R.
BEDANo.UNIVERSITY
L- 54334, January 22, 1986). SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT Recovery of civil
FOR SALE. DO liability
NOT in theCOLLEGE
administrative proceedings
OF LAW. NOT FOR shallSALE.
bar recovery
DO NOTunder the Civil Code.
COLLEGE No criminal
prosecution may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFinSAN
first obtained the BEDA REPRODUCE.
administrative proceedings. ThePROPERTY OF SAN
final judgement BEDA
in the administrative REPRODUCE.
proceeding shall PROPERTY
not be OF SAN
binding in the criminal
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR merely as proof of compliance of the requirements
(Art. 258, Labor Code).
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT91.
FOR Union
SALE. ADO
informed
NOT X, COLLEGE
its member,
OFthat theNOT
LAW. union wasSALE.
FOR not able
DO to fully deduct
NOT the union
COLLEGE duesNOT
OF LAW. fromFOR
his SALE. DO
salary and that his failure to pay the same would result to sanctions upon him. For failure to pay union
dues, X was suspended. X appealed but it was not acted upon. For two (2) more occasions, X failed to
pay union dues causing his further suspension and finally, his expulsion. His appeals were COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
unheeded
LE. DO prompting him to file a complaint against Union A for unfair labor practice (ULP). Is the suspension an
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
act of ULP?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANYes,BEDA
the suspension REPRODUCE.
is an act of ULP. All the prohibited
PROPERTY OF SANactsBEDA constituting ULP in essencePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. relate to theOF SAN BED
worker’s right to self-organization. Because Union A did not act on X’s appeals, X was unceremoniously
suspended, disqualified UNIVERSITY
and deprived COLLEGE
of his rightOF LAW.
to run for NOT FOR in the union,
a position UNIVERSITY
as well asCOLLEGE
expelledOFandLAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN forced to join another union, ForSALE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY these,DO
PROPERTY NOT
Union
OF ASANREPRODUCE.
is guilty of unfair labor practices underSALE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY ArticleDO
PROPERTY 260NOT REPRODUCE.
(a) and
OF SAN (b)
BEDA UNIVE
– that is, violation of petitioner’s right to self-organization, unlawful discrimination, and illegal termination of his
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
unionSALE. DO NOT
membership (MendozaCOLLEGE
v. MWEU, OFG.R.
LAW. NOT
No. FOR January
201595, SALE. DO25,NOT
2016). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DOSANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE
Unfair labor practices are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to UNIVERSIT
bargain
OF LAW. NOT FORcollectively
SALE. DOand
NOT otherwise deal withOF
COLLEGE each other
LAW. in anFOR
NOT atmosphere
SALE. DOof freedom
NOT and mutual respect.
COLLEGE OF LAW. It disrupts
NOT FORthe SALE. DO
industrial peace and violated the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization. It does not only
32
PERTY OF SAN BEDA
violate civilUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
rights alone but also constitute OFoffenses
criminal SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
against the State (Bankard v. PROPERTY
NLRC, G.R. OFNo.SAN BEDA UNIVER
171664,
March 6, 2013).
92. SUE-KMU is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
of respondent
RSITY COLLEGE OFMilkyway
LAW. NOT FORAs the existing
Corp. UNIVERSITY COLLEGEMilkyway
CBA between OF LAW.Corp.
NOT FOR
and SUE-KMUUNIVERSITY
was aboutCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
to end, the
SALE. DO NOT President
REPRODUCE. of SUE-KMU informed Milkyway
SALE. DO NOTCorp. of their
REPRODUCE. intent to open new negotiation for
SALE. DO NOT the year
REPRODUCE.
2015-2018. In response thereto, Milkyway Corp., through a letter, stated that "unilateral grants are by BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTtheir
FORvery nature
SALE. not properCOLLEGE
DO NOT subjects of
OFCBA
LAW. negotiations
NOT FOR SALE.and therefore
DO NOTshall be excludedOF
COLLEGE therefrom."
LAW. NOT FOR SAL
SUE-KMU contends
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that Milkyway Corp. is guilty of unfair
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor practice due its refusal to
REPRODUCE. bargain on
PROPERTY OF SA
an economic provision, and that Milkyway Corp. set as a precondition for the holding of collective
IVERSITY COLLEGEbargaining
OF LAW. NOT FOR the non-inclusion
negotiations UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFofLAW.
of the issue NOT FOR
Retirement UNIVERSITY
Plan. Did Milkyway Corp.COLLEGE
commit OF LAW.
SALE. unfair labor practice when it considered some economic benefits as unilateral grants and therefore
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
excluded them from CBA negotiations?
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFNo, SANMilkyway
BEDA Corp. is not guilty of unfairPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. labor practice.
OF For
SANa BEDA
charge of unfair labor practice to PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. prosper, it OF SAN B
must be shown that Milkyway Corp. was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or
RSITY COLLEGE OFdone
LAW.in NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and that social humiliation, wounded
feelings, or grave anxiety
resulted OF
PROPERTY DO NOT
in disclaiming REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA unilateral
UNIVERSITYgrants as proper subjects
PROPERTY SALE.
in DO collective
OFtheir
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
bargaining negotiations. While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain
collectively with eachCOLLEGE
other, suchOF LAW. NOT
compulsion FOR
does notSALE.
includeDOtheNOT
commitmentCOLLEGE OF LAW.
to precipitately NOT
accept or FOR
agreeSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF to
SAN
the BEDA
proposals of the REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
other. Herein, the OF bases
union merely SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
its claim of refusal to bargain onPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a letter written
by Milkyway
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Corp. However, in the said letter, Milkyway
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Corp. never refused to bargain collectively with SUE-
KMU. The corporation simply wanted to exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during
ERTY OF SAN BEDACBA
UNIVERSITY SALE.
negotiations, on the postulation
PROPERTY DO NOT
that
OFsuch REPRODUCE.
SANwasBEDAin the SALE. DO
nature of a unilaterallyPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY granted NOT
benefit REPRODUCE.
(Union
OF SAN of UNIVERS
BEDA
E OF LAW. NOT FORFilipro
SALE.Employees-DFA-KMU
DO NOT v. Nestlé
COLLEGE OF Philippines,
LAW. NOTInc.,
FORG.R.
SALE.Nos.
DO158930-31
NOT &COLLEGE
158944-45,
OFMarch
LAW.3,NOT
2008).
FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
93. SBC BankBEDA REPRODUCE.
and SBC-Employees PROPERTY
Union signed OF SAN
a five-year BEDA bargainingREPRODUCE.
collective PROPERTY
agreement (CBA) with a OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF provision
LAW. NOTtoFOR renegotiate the terms COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY thereof onOFthe third
LAW. year.
NOT FORBefore the commencement
UNIVERSITY of the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. negotiation, the union suggested to the bank, that the bank lawyers should be excluded from the
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
negotiating team. The bank acceded. Meanwhile, the bank’s head negotiator suggested to the union,UNIVERSITY
that the
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO President
NOT of the federation
COLLEGE OF LAW.to NOT
whichFOR
the SALE.
union DO
wasNOT
affiliated,COLLEGE
be excluded from the
OF LAW. NOTunion’s
FOR SALE. DO N
negotiating panel. The union and the bank failed to agree on the remaining economic provisions of the
UCE. PROPERTY OF CBA.
The union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike before the National Conciliation and
OF SAN BEDA
Mediation UNIVERSITY
Board (NCMB). COLLEGE
The union OFthat
alleged LAW.theNOT
bankFOR
committed UNIVERSITY
unfair labor COLLEGE OF LAW.
practice when it NOT FO
E. DO interfered with the union’s choice of negotiator. Is the interference in the choice of the union's
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
bargaining panel by the bank, tantamount to unfair labor practice?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No,
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the interference in the choice of the union's
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAbargaining panel by the bank is not tantamount
REPRODUCE. to unfair
labor practice. Article 259(a) of the Labor Code, considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer
interferes, restrains orUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
coerces employees in theOF LAW. NOT
exercise FOR
of their UNIVERSITYorCOLLEGE
right to self-organization OFform
the right to LAW. NOT FO
ERTY OF SAN BEDAassociation.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
The right toPROPERTY DO NOT
self-organization REPRODUCE.
OF SANnecessarily SALE.
includes the right PROPERTY
BEDA UNIVERSITY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
to collectiveOFbargaining.
SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the union to exclude from
E OF LAW. NOT FORitsSALE.
panel DO NOT
of negotiators aCOLLEGE OF LAW.
representative of theNOT FOR
union, andSALE. DObeNOT
if it can COLLEGE
inferred that OF LAW.
the employer NOTthe
adopted FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY said act to
OF SAN yield adverse REPRODUCE.
BEDA effects on the exercise
PROPERTY to right
OF SANto self-organization
BEDA orREPRODUCE.
on the right to collective OF SAN B
PROPERTY
bargaining,
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR ULP under Article 259(a) in connection with
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Article 253 of the Labor Code is committed. However,
the suggestion made by the bank’s head negotiator should be construed as part of the normal relations and
innocent communications,
which areOF
PROPERTY DO
all SAN NOT
part of REPRODUCE.
the friendly
BEDA the unionSALE.
relations between PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY and DO
SANNOT
OFbank REPRODUCE.
(Standard
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004).
UCE. PROPERTY
94.OF On
SAN2002,
BEDA REPRODUCE.
Union A, then the exclusivePROPERTY
bargainingOF SAN BEDA of UR Co.'s
representative REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
rank-and-file employees,OF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.entered into a CBA effective
NOT FOR until COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY DecemberOF31,LAW.
2006.NOT
DaysFOR
after the CBA was signed,
UNIVERSITY a certification
election was conducted. Union B won and replaced Union A as the exclusive bargaining representative.
E. DO
PROPERTY
UR Co. consistently refused
DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SANa BEDA
to negotiate UNIVERSITY
new collective
SALE.
PROPERTY
bargaining agreement
DO
OF NOT
SAN
with Union
REPRODUCE.
B, BEDA
despiteUNIVERSITY
several
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOdemands
NOT from union, OF
COLLEGE allegedly
LAW. NOT due to the SALE.
FOR existing
DOCBA,
NOTwhichCOLLEGE
it signed with UnionNOT
OF LAW. A. Did
FOR URSALE. DO N
Co. commit unfair labor practice?
Yes,FOR UNIVERSITY
UR Co. is guilty of unfair laborCOLLEGE
practice.OF LAW.
Under NOT259(g)
Article FOR of the Labor
UNIVERSITY
Code, an COLLEGE
employer isOF LAW. NOT FO
guilty
E. DO NOT of unfair
REPRODUCE. labor practice when it fails in its
SALE. DO NOT duty to bargain in
REPRODUCE. good faith. An employer who refuses to
SALE. DO NOT bargain with
REPRODUCE.
the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an
E OF LAW. NOT FORemployer
SALE. DOhasNOT
not bargained in goodOF
COLLEGE faith,
LAW.the totality
NOT FOR of allSALE.
the acts
DOofNOT
the employer at the time
COLLEGE of negotiations
must be
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAtaken into account. The 2002 CBA was done
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAonly days before the certification
REPRODUCE.When
election. Union OF SAN B
PROPERTY
A and UR Co. entered into the CBA, they had been aware that a certification election was going to be conducted
RSITY COLLEGE OF in
LAW.
a fewNOT
days.FOR UNIVERSITY
In pushing through COLLEGE OF
with negotiations LAW.
instead of NOT
waitingFOR UNIVERSITY
for the outcome COLLEGE
of the election, OF LAW. NOT
UR Co.
ALE. risked needing to renegotiate with a new union if Union A loses. It cannot, thus, invoke the hastily concluded
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
CBA as an excuse not to bargain with petitioners. If respondent had truly intended to bargain in good faith, it
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
couldDO NOT
have COLLEGE
easily waited OF LAW.
a few more days NOT FOR
to know theSALE.
result DO NOT
of the COLLEGE
certification electionOF LAW. NOT
(SONEDCO FOR SALE. DO N
Workers
UCE. PROPERTY OF Free
SANLabor
BEDAUnion v. Universal Robina Corp.,
REPRODUCE. G.R. No.
PROPERTY OF220383,
SAN BEDA October 5, 2016).
33
95. Tipsy Beer suffered
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT an economic crisis. To curve this, it
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT implemented an early
COLLEGE OF program.
retirement LAW. NOT A FOR SALE.
number of employees of the Paranaque Tipsy Beer Plant availed of such program which resulted in
several BEDA being created.
vacancies REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
This prompted OF SAN Tipsy
the Paranaque BEDABeer Worker’s
Union to negotiate
with NOT FORfor the filling
the company UNIVERSITY COLLEGENoOF
up of vacancies. LAW. NOT
resolution wasFOR
reached onUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
the matter. Paranaque
SALE. DO NOT Tipsy Beer
REPRODUCE. thereafter, engaged the services of
SALE. DO NOT JLN Co. to
REPRODUCE. provide manpower services. The Union
SALE. DO NOTfiledREPRODUCE
a Notice of Strike based on the ground of ULP for contracting out services regularly performed by BEDA UN
members.
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT Was DO
FOR SALE. the NOT
ground valid?
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
No, the ground for the notice of strike is not valid. JLN Co. was engaged by Paranaque Tipsy Beer to meet
business NOT FOR
exigencies created by UNIVERSITY
the economic COLLEGE
crisis whichOF LAW. in
resulted NOT FORvacancies
several UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
being created. The OF LAW
SALE. company’s action to contract-out services and functions performed by the Union members did not constitute
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA
unfair labor practice as this was not directed at the member’s right to self-organization. Hence, there was no
UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
ULP and theDO NOTcited by
ground COLLEGE OFisLAW.
the Union invalidNOT FOR Santos
(General SALE. DO NOT Plant
Coca-Cola COLLEGE OF LAW.
Free Worker’s NOT
Union v. FOR SALE.
Coca-Cola
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANBottlers
BEDA PHL Inc., G.R. No. 178647,
REPRODUCE. February 13,
PROPERTY OF2009).
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSIT
3 3
Under
OF LAW. NOT FORArticle
SALE.259
DOofNOTthe LaborCOLLEGE
Code, theOFunfair
LAW.labor
NOTpractices
FOR SALE. of employers
DO NOT are the following:
COLLEGE (RAF-C
OF LAW. D ) FOR SALE. DO
NOT
1. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Right to self-organization;
DUCE. PROPERTY2. OF
ToSAN BEDA
pay negotiation REPRODUCE.
or Attorney’s PROPERTY
fees to the union or itsOF SAN or
officers BEDA REPRODUCE.
agents as part of the settlementPROPERTY
of any issueOF SAN BED
in collective UNIVERSITY
bargaining or COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
any other dispute; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT 3. To initiate, dominate, assist or
REPRODUCE. otherwise
SALE. DO NOTinterfere with the Formation or administration
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOofNOTany REPRODUCE.
labor
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters; BEDA UNIVE
4. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT To require
SALE. asDOa NOT
Condition COLLEGE
of employment that a NOT
OF LAW. personFORor an employee
SALE. DO NOTshall not COLLEGE
join a laborOF
organization
LAW. NOTorFOR SALE.
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs (Yellow-Dog Contract);
5. To Contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
6.REPRODUCE.
To grossly violate a Collective bargaining
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
7.
PROPERTY OFagreement;
SALE. DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
To Discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR encourage
SALE. DO or NOT COLLEGE
discourage OF LAW.
membership in anyNOT
laborFOR SALE. DO
organization. NOT in thisCOLLEGE
Nothing Code or inOF LAW.
any otherNOT FOR SALE. DO
law shall
DUCE. PROPERTY OFstop theBEDA
SAN parties from requiring membership
REPRODUCE. in a recognized
PROPERTY OF SAN collective
BEDA bargaining agent as a PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. condition forOF SAN BED
employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of
the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the
LE. DO
SAN BEDA recognized collective bargaining
UNIVERSITY SALE.
agentDO
PROPERTY may
OF NOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
be BEDA
assessed a reasonable fee equivalent
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to the DO
PROPERTY dues
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
andBEDA
SAN other UNIVERSIT
fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the
OF LAW. NOT FOR benefits
SALE. DO NOT
under COLLEGE
the collective OF LAW.
bargaining NOT FOR
agreement: SALE. that
Provided, DO NOT COLLEGE
the individual OF LAW.
authorization NOTunder
required FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN242,
Article BEDA paragraph (o) REPRODUCE.
of this CodePROPERTY OF SAN
shall not apply BEDA
to the non-members REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of the recognized collectiveOF SAN BED
bargaining
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR agent; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
8. To Dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being
about
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA SALE.
to give testimony underPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
this Code; orOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT 9. FOR
To violate
SALE.the
DODuty
NOTto bargain collectively
COLLEGE as prescribed
OF LAW. NOT FOR by the Labor
SALE. DOCodeNOT(LABOR CODE, Art.
COLLEGE OF 259).
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY
Totality of OF SAN BEDA
Conduct REPRODUCE.
Doctrine - the culpability PROPERTY
of employer’s OF SAN
remarks BEDA
is to be evaluated not REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
only on the basis of their OF SAN
implications, but is
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR appraised against the background of and in conjunction
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR with collateral circumstances (The Insular
SALE. DO Life Assurance
NOT REPRODUCE.Co., Ltd, Employees Assoc.—NATU
SALE. v. The
DO NOTInsular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No.SALE.
REPRODUCE. L-25291, January
30, 1971). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
Under Art. 260 of the Labor Code, the unfair labor practices of labor organizations are the following:
LE. DO
SAN(GRADE-V)
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
1. To (Grossly) violate a collective bargaining agreement.
2. To DO NOT
Restrain or coerceCOLLEGE
employeesOF in
LAW.
the NOT FORofSALE.
exercise their DO
rightNOT COLLEGE OFHowever,
to self-organization. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
a labor
DUCE. PROPERTY OForganization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention ofOF SAN BED
membership;
3. To Ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN collective
bargaining or any other
PROPERTYDO NOT
dispute; REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
4. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT To cause
SALE.orDOattempt
NOT to cause an employer
COLLEGE OF LAW. to NOT
Discriminate
FOR SALE.against
DO an
NOT employee, including
COLLEGE OFdiscrimination
LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate
an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation
ERSITY COLLEGE OFof LAW.
membership
NOT FORis made available to other members;
SALE. 5. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
things of value, in the nature of an Exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR including
SALE. DOtheNOT
demand for fee for union
COLLEGE negotiations;
OF LAW. NOT FOR or SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
6. To Violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
employees (LABOR CODE, Art. 260).
34
Strikes
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY OF SANREPRODUCE.
Strike isBEDA UNIVERSITY
the temporary
SALE. DO NOT
stoppage of workPROPERTY OF SAN
by the concerted
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
action UNIVERSITY
of the
SALE.
PROPERTY
employees as a result of
DO NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
a labor or industrial BEDA UNIV
dispute
LEGE OF LAW. NOT (IRR
FORof SALE.
LABORDOCODE
NOTBook V,COLLEGE
Rule I, Sec.
OF1(vv)).
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
EPRODUCE.Picketing
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
Picketing is a device used by the union to bolster their strike. It refers to outside patrolling or marching to and
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF SANfro
DO
the strikers at the company’s premises usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known
NOT of REPRODU
BEDA UNIVER
E OF LAW.the
NOT FOR
facts SALE.inDO
involved NOTdisputeCOLLEGE
a labor OF LAW.
(IBM v. NLRC, G.R.NOT FOR SALE.
No. 91980, DO1991).
June 27, NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
Lockouts
SALE. DO NOT
TY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Lockout is the temporary refusal
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO
of an employer NOT REPRODUCE.
to furnish
OF SAN BEDA work as a result of a labor
UNIVERSITY SALE.
or industrial
PROPERTY DO NOT
OFdispute
SAN (IRRREPRODUCE.
BEDA of
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTLABOR CODE Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1(gg)).
Requisites REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
for a Valid Strike REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
E. DO NOT Substantive Requirement
a. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
It must be based on serious and substantial grounds involving a bargaining deadlock and/or unfair labor
E OF LAW. NOT FOR practice; and NOT
SALE. DO COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
b. These have
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA not been brought to voluntary or compulsory
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA arbitration. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Procedural Requirement: (GF-SARC-7)UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO BEDAA UNIVERSITY
strike must be based on PROPERTY
1. REPRODUCE.
SANNOT a valid and factual
SALE. SANGround;
OF DO NOT a strike or lockout must be
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY based SALE.
PROPERTY on OF
either:
DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. Collective Bargaining Deadlock (economic); or
F LAW. NOT FOR
b. SALE.
UnfairDO NOTPractice
Labor COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
(political). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY
2. AOF SANofBEDA
notice REPRODUCE.
strike or lockout must be FiledPROPERTY
with NCMB-DOLE:OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a. At least
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 30 days from the intended date thereof, if
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the issues involved arose from a collective
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEbargaining
OF LAW. NOT FO
deadlock; or
E. DO
SAN BEDA
b. UNIVERSITY
At least 15 days from the
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
intended OF
NOT
SAN
date,
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
if the issuesUNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY
raised are in the nature OF NOT
of unfair laborSAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA
practices; UNIVERSITY
or
F LAW. NOT FOR Immediately,
c. SALE. DO NOTin caseCOLLEGE
of dismissal
OFfrom
LAW. NOT FORofSALE.
employment their officers
DO NOT duly elected in accordance
COLLEGE OF LAW.withNOT
the union’s
FOR SALE. DO N
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened.
3. A notice must be Served to the NCMB-DOLE at least 24 hours prior to the taking of strike or lockout vote by
Y COLLEGE OF secret
LAW. balloting,
NOT FORinformingUNIVERSITY
said office ofCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the decision NOTaFOR
to conduct UNIVERSITY
strike or lockout COLLEGE
vote, and the date,OF LAW. NOT FO
place
and time thereof
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY (IRR of the SALE.
LABOR DO
CODE, NOT REPRODUCE.
Book V, Rule
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYXXII, Sec. 10, as amended SALE.
by DO
D.O. NOT
No. REPRODUCE.
40-03)
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA ; UNIVERS
4. The decision to strike must be Approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
E OF LAW. NOTconcerned
FOR SALE. DO NOT
obtained by secretCOLLEGE OFtheLAW.
ballot; and NOTtoFOR
decision SALE.
declare DO NOT
a lockout must be COLLEGE
approved by OFa LAW. NOT
majority FOR SALE. DO
of the
boardOF
ODUCE. PROPERTY of SAN
directors
BEDA of the employer corporation or
REPRODUCE. associationOF
PROPERTY or SAN
of theBEDA
partners in a partnership
REPRODUCE. obtained by secret OF SAN B
PROPERTY
ballot in a meeting
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR called for the purpose. A report of the strike
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR or lockout vote must be filed with the NCMB
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE at least
OF LAW. NOT
7 days before the intended strike or lockout;
5. A UNIVERSITY
TY OF SAN BEDA strike or lockout vote Report SALE.
should OF
PROPERTY DO NOT
be submitted REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDAtoUNIVERSITY
the NCMB-DOLE at least SALE.
seven (7)OF
PROPERTY DO
days NOT
before
SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDAtheUNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FORintended dateNOT
SALE. DO of strike or lockout; subject
COLLEGE OF LAW. to the
NOTcooling-off
FOR SALE. period;
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
6. Except in cases of union busting, the Cooling off period prescribed by law should be fully observed; and
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
7. The sevenBEDA
(7) day waitingREPRODUCE.
period or strikePROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ban after submission REPRODUCE.
of strike or lockout vote to thePROPERTY
NCMB-DOLE OF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF should
LAW. NOT FORobservedUNIVERSITY
be fully in ALL cases, COLLEGE
includingOFunion
LAW.busting
NOT FOR (NCMB PrimerUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
on Strike, OFand
Picketing, LAW. NOT FO
E. DO Lockout).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTAFOR SALE.
“wildcat DOisNOT
strike” COLLEGE
a strike which OF LAW.byNOT
is one declared FORofSALE.
a group DOwithout
workers NOT formal
COLLEGE OF LAW.
union approval NOT FOR
(Violation of Art.SALE. DO N
278 of
UCE. PROPERTY OFtheSAN
Labor Code).
Y COLLEGEWhen
OF LAW. NOT FOR
is Strike Illegal UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERS
Noted authority in labor law, Ludwig Teller, lists 6 categories of an illegal strike, viz:
a. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental
ODUCE. PROPERTY functions;
b. When it
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORviolates a specific requirement of law such as Art.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR278 of the Labor Code on the requisites
UNIVERSITY of a valid
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
strike;
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDAc. UNIVERSITY
When it is declared for anPROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
unlawful purpose,
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
such as UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
inducing the employer to commit
SALE.
OF DO
an unfair SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
labor BEDA UNIVERSITY
practice
against
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOnon-union
NOT employees;
d. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers;
UCE. PROPERTYe.OF When
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
it is declared in violation PROPERTY
of an existing OF or
injunction SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
35
OPERTY OF SANf. BEDA
WhenUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
it is contrary to an existing agreement,OF SAN
such as aBEDA UNIVERSITY
no-strike PROPERTY
clause or conclusive arbitration OF(Toyota
clause SAN BEDA UNIVE
Motors PHL
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTWorkers Assn. v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT October 19, 2007).
Legal Strike vs. Illegal Strike
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Basis
OF SAN of UNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
Legal Strike Illegal Strike
Distinction
One called for a valid purpose and One staged for a purpose not recognized by law
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
As to Nature OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
conducted through means authorized by or if for a valid purpose, it is conductedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF
through
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.law. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE means OF LAW. not NOT FOR by law.UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
sanctioned
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
As NOT
SAN its REPRODUCE.
toBEDA effects Officers are not liable
UNIVERSITY SALE.
for resulting
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFdamages.
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Officers are liable for resulting
UNIVERSITY SALE.
damages.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
OFThose REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
on the union They will not lose employment by reason who knowingly participates in an illegal strike may
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. thereof.
officers DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
lose DO NOTby reason
employment COLLEGE
thereof.OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANThey
As to its effects BEDAare not civillyREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
liable for participating OF SAN
in They BEDAliable for personally
are civilly REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
participating in OF SAN
to the members a
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORvalid strike. unlawful
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR acts during the strike and they may lose
SALE. DO NOTof the union
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT employment by reason thereof. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE
REPRODUCE.
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT96.
FOR ASALE. DO NOT are union
and company COLLEGE OF LAW.
members NOTUnion.
of XYZ FOR SALE.
They DO NOT
participated inCOLLEGE
a lawful OF LAW.
strike NOT EJK
against FOR SALE. DO
Corp. Since
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA there was stoppage of work and EJK cannot
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA stop its productions, it hired replacements
for A and company. After a few days, a memo was sent by XYZ to A and company dismissing them
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
from NOT
work.FOR
Was XYZ’s UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
act of dismissing A andOF LAW. NOT
company FOR
correct? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
No XYZ’s act of dismissing A and company is not correct. A union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strikeDO NOT to COLLEGE
is deemed have lost hisOFemployment
LAW. NOTstatus,
FOR SALE.
but a DO NOT
union member COLLEGE OF LAW.
who is merely NOTorFOR SALE.
instigated
induced to
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA participate in the illegal strike is more benignly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA treated. Part of the explanation for the benign
consideration for the union member is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who are misled into
supporting illegal strikes, absent any finding that such workers committed illegal acts during the period of the
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA illegal strikes. Since there PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY is no proofSALE.
that DO
OFtheSAN NOT REPRODUCE.
employee-members
BEDA UNIVERSITY committed illegal SALE.
acts during
PROPERTY theDO
OF NOT
strike,
SAN REPRODUCE
their
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR dismissal
SALE. DOisNOT
illegal (Malayang Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Balanced Foods v. NLRC, G.R No. 160302,
September 27, 2010).
97. X Union was
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the recognized bargaining agent of rank
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and file employees of A Corp.
UNIVERSITY The latter
announced the implementation of a job evaluation program. X Union demanded the suspension of the
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
said program contending
SALE. DO
SAN ULP.
that it constitutes BEDAIt UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
PROPERTY
also informed A Corp. that OF NOT
SAN
it will exercise
REPRODUCE.
itsBEDA
right UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR to concerted
SALE. DO NOT action. COLLEGE
X Union members
OF LAW. picketed
NOT FORduring
SALE. their
DO NOT break time. The union
COLLEGE members
OF LAW. NOTalso
FOR SALE. DO
conducted a strike by blocking the entry and exit points of the company premises preventing other
employees from entering REPRODUCE.
and leaving PROPERTY
the same. AOF SANfiled
Corp. BEDA a complaint REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
questioning the validity ofOF SAN BED
the strike. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
It issues a return-to-work OF striking
order to the LAW. NOT FOR but only
employees UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
10 complied OF LAW. NOT F
prompting
LE. DO NOT the corporation to dismiss the
REPRODUCE. employees
SALE. DO NOTwho continued the concerted action. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR a. Is the
SALE. DO strike
NOT illegal?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
b. Assuming
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA that the strike is illegal, was the dismissal
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of everyone who participatedPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. therein OF SAN
justified?
SALE. DO NOT a. Yes, the strike is illegal. The
REPRODUCE. strikeDO
SALE. staged
NOT by the union did not comply with Art. 278.
REPRODUCE. TheyDO
SALE. didNOT
not (a)
REPRODUCE
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
file a notice of strike with the DOLE, (b) observe the cooling-off period, and (c) submit the result of the
strike COLLEGEthey
vote. Moreover, OF obstructed
LAW. NOTthe FOR SALE.toDO
ingress andNOT
egress from COLLEGE OF LAW.
its offices. Thus, NOT FOR SALE. DO
the strike
commenced
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by the union is illegally conducted.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.b.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
No, the dismissal of those who participated is not justified. There is a need to distinguish between the
LE. DO
SAN BEDA officers and the members
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTYof theDO
OF NOT
union
SANwhoREPRODUCE.
participated
BEDA SALE. may
in an illegal strike. PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY The officers DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
be deemed
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
dismissed from their employment upon a finding that they have knowingly participated in the illegal
strike, COLLEGEofOF
but the members theLAW. NOTsuffer
union shall FOR SALE. DOfate
the same NOT COLLEGE
only if they are shownOFtoLAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
have knowingly
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. Since it was not proven that all thoseOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTwho were dismissed
FOR committed
UNIVERSITY illegal acts
COLLEGE OFduring
LAW.the strike,
NOT FOR the termination of their employment
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFwasLAW. NOT F
unjustified and illegal (HSBC Employees Union v. NLRC, G. R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016).
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
98. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT Union A and
SALE. DO XNOTCorp. entered
COLLEGEintoOF
a LAW.
CBA with
NOTaFOR“noSALE.
strike,
DOnoNOT
lockout”COLLEGE
rule. WhenOFthey
LAW.started
NOT FOR SALE.
renegotiations of the CBA, they were not able to arrive at an agreement thus resulting into a bargaining
deadlock. This prompted Union A to file a notice of strike and to undergo all the procedures for PROPERTY OF SAN
conducting
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTa valid
FOR strike. XUNIVERSITY
Corp. questioned the strike
COLLEGE on the
OF LAW. NOTground
FOR that it violated the “no
UNIVERSITY strike, noOF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
lockout” rule. Is the strike valid?
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. No,DOthe NOT
strike is notCOLLEGE
valid. A strike may be
OF LAW. regarded
NOT as invalid
FOR SALE. DO although
NOT theCOLLEGE
labor union
OFcomplied
LAW. NOT withFOR
the SALE. DO
strict requirements for staging one as provided in Art. 278 when the same is held contrary to an existing
agreement, such as the no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. No law or public policy prohibits the
36
Union and the Company form PROPERTY OF SAN
mutually waiving theBEDA
strike UNIVERSITY
and lockout option availablePROPERTY
to them toOF SAN
give wayBEDA
to UNIVER
voluntary arbitration.
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Since the strike was committed in violation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the no strike, no lockout rule, the same is
illegal (C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 155109, March 14, 2012).
RSITY COLLEGE
99. OFXLAW.
UnionNOT
filedFOR
a notice of UNIVERSITY
strike againstCOLLEGE OFillegal
A Corp. for LAW.dismissal
NOT FORand suspension.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
Subsequently, A LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT Corp.
REPRODUCE. informed the SOLE of its plan to retrench
SALE. DO NOT one hundred
REPRODUCE. seventy-one employees. On account
SALE. DO NOT of
REPRODUCE.
this action of A Corp, X union immediately filed a notice of strike and subsequently conducted a strike OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTwith
FORallSALE.
the requirements
DO NOT provided
COLLEGEbyOFlaw on the
LAW. NOTground that they
FOR SALE. believed in
DO NOT good faith
COLLEGE that their
OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
employer was
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA performing acts which constitutes unfair
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor practice. A Corp.
REPRODUCE. action
filed an PROPERTY OF SA
questioning the validity of the strike. It was later found that no ULP was being committed rendering
IVERSITY COLLEGEthe
OFstrike
LAW.illegal
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
for not having COLLEGE
a valid cause. Are theOF LAW.
union NOT FOR
officers UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
considered dismissed?
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
No, the union officers are not considered dismissed. A Corp. enforced its retrenchment program at a time
when DOwas
there NOT COLLEGE
an ongoing disputeOF LAW. NOT
between it andFOR
the SALE.
union DO NOT the dismissal
regarding COLLEGEandOF suspension
LAW. NOT ofFOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTYemployees.
OF SAN BEDA This engendered an honest belief
REPRODUCE. on the part
PROPERTY OFofSAN
the BEDA
union that A Corp. was indeed committing
ULP which impelled them to stage a strike to protect their basic rights. Their strike was justified by belief in
RSITY COLLEGE OFgood
LAW.faith
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
that the employer was committing ULP. Good faith saves the strike from being declared illegal and
the strikers from being declared
to have DO NOT
lost their
employment
UNIVERSITYstatus. PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
Note:DO NOT claim
A union’s COLLEGE OF LAW.
of good faith is notNOT FOR
a valid SALE.toDO
excuse NOT with COLLEGE
dispense OF LAW.
the procedural steps NOT
for a FOR
lawfulSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF strike.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
People’s Industrial PROPERTY
and Commercial OF SAN
Employees BEDA Organization
& Workers REPRODUCE.
v. PICC did PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
not rule that
procedural
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR requirements can be dispensed with, even
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORif the Union believed in good faith that ULP was being
committed. The good faith defense invoked in Philippine Metal Foundries v. CIR had been decided in 1979.
ERTY OF SAN BEDAWith SALE.
the enactment of R.A. PROPERTY
No. 6715, compliance with the
OF SAN BEDA SALE.
for the DO
procedural requirementsPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NOT
validity ofREPRODUCE.
OF SAN a strike
BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORis SALE.
now mandatory
DO NOT (Grand Boulevard
COLLEGE OF Hotel
LAW.v.NOTGenuine Labor DO
FOR SALE. Organizations
NOT in Hotel Restaurant
COLLEGE OF LAW. &NOT Allied
FOR SALE. DO
Industries, G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003).
100.
RSITY COLLEGE OF Union
LAW. NOTA filed a notice of
FOR strike and notice
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEfor OF
the LAW.
conduct
NOT ofFOR
strike vote UNIVERSITY
on April 8. On April 10,OF
COLLEGE it LAW. NOT
ALE. conducted a strike vote and submitted its result on the same day. Union A conducted a strike on May
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
8. Is the strike valid?
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes, the strike is valid. It is possible that the union may conduct a strike vote and to report the results of
SANsame
within the statutory cooling-off period. What is important is that there be compliance with the two
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT the
periods, FORcooling-offUNIVERSITY
period and the COLLEGE OF ban
7-day strike LAW. NOTv.FOR
(NFSW UNIVERSITY
Ovejera, G.R. COLLEGE
No. L- 59743, May 31, OF LAW. NOT FO
1982).
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Note: In the event the results of the strike or lockout vote is filed within the cooling-off period, the 7-day
requirement shall be COLLEGE OFthe
counted from LAW.
day NOT FORthe
following SALE. DO NOT
expiration COLLEGE
of the cooling OF (NFSW
off period LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
v. Ovejera,
G.R. No.
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA L- 59743, May 31, 1982).
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
101. NOT FOR
A “Welga ng Bayan”UNIVERSITY
was staged COLLEGE
to protest OF
the LAW. NOT FOR
accelerating UNIVERSITY
price of rice. Union A led COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
by its officers
ERTY OF SAN BEDAstaged a work stoppage which
lasted OF
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
for SAN
several
BEDAdays which prompted the company
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
theyOF REPRODUCE.
areSAN
working
BEDA UNIVERS
for to file a petition to declare the stoppage illegal. Was the stoppage of work illegal?
No, the stoppage of work REPRODUCE.
is not illegal. PROPERTY OFtemporary
A strike is any SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
stoppage of work PROPERTY
by the concerted action OF SAN B
of employees
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR as a result of a labor or industrial dispute.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR In this case, there exists no
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE the
labor dispute between OF LAW. NOT
employer and the employees therefore their concerted action cannot be considered as a strike. However, in
BIFLEX PHL, Inc. LaborPROPERTY
Union (NAFLU) DO NOT
v. FILFLEX
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDA Industrial
UNIVERSITY & Manufacturing PROPERTY SALE. DO
Corp, the Supreme
OF SAN NOT
Court
BEDAREPRODUCE.
held
UNIVERSITY
that the stoppage of work due to “Welga ng Bayan” is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy
strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding
UCE. PROPERTY OF their
SANterms
BEDAand conditionsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of employment. EmployeesOFwho
SANhave
BEDA REPRODUCE.
no labor dispute PROPERTY
with their employer OF SAN BEDA
but who,
on NOT
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. a day FOR
they are scheduled to work,COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY refuse to work and instead
OF LAW. join a welga UNIVERSITY
NOT FOR ng bayan commit an illegal
COLLEGE OFwork
LAW. NOT FO
stoppage (G.R. No. 155679, December 19, 2006).
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
102. SALE.
F LAW. NOT FOR MalouDOWang
NOTGarments Inc. temporarily
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT stopped its operations
FOR SALE. DO NOT because of adverse
COLLEGE OF LAW.effects
NOT ofFORtheSALE. DO N
economic crisis in the country. The union in the factory immediately protested the temporary
UCE. PROPERTY OF shutdown.
SAN BEDABecause its REPRODUCE.
CBA with MalouPROPERTY
Wang wasOF expiring
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
during the period PROPERTY
of shutdown, OF SAN BEDA
the union
claimed UNIVERSITY
the Malou Wang halted itsCOLLEGE OFtoLAW.
operations avoidNOT FORto bargain
its duty UNIVERSITY
collectively.COLLEGE
The unionOF LAW. NOT FO
went
E. DO NOT on
REPRODUCE. strike and picketed the main gates and
SALE. DO NOT deliberately
REPRODUCE. prevented persons and vehicles from
SALE. DO NOT going into
REPRODUCE.
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
and out of the compound of Malou Wang Garments. The latter filed a petition for injunction with a BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORprayer
SALE.forDO
TRO
NOTin the NLRC. The OF
COLLEGE NLRC
LAW.directed the union
NOT FOR SALE.toDOrefrain
NOTfrom preventing
COLLEGE OF access
LAW.toNOT
Malou
FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY Wang’s
OF SANproperty.
BEDA The union violated such
REPRODUCE. order. TheOF
PROPERTY officers and members were
SAN BEDA then dismissed.
REPRODUCE. Upon OF SAN B
PROPERTY
complaint of the union, the LA found Malou Wang guilty of illegal dismissal because the it did not file
RSITY COLLEGE OF aLAW. NOTtoFOR
petition declare the UNIVERSITY
strike illegal. COLLEGE OF LAW.
Was the Labor NOT
Arbiter FOR
correct? UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the Labor Arbiter is not correct. Article 279(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO from
picketing NOTobstructing
COLLEGE OF ingress
the free LAW. NOT FOR
to and SALE.
egress DOtheNOT
from employer’sCOLLEGE OFSince
premises. LAW.theNOT FOR
union wasSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF found by the NLRC to have
SAN BEDA prevented PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. the free entryOF
into andBEDA
SAN exit of vehicles from Malou Wang’s
REPRODUCE. compound,
37
the union’s officers and employeesPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
clearly committed UNIVERSITY
illegal acts PROPERTY
in the course of the strike. The use ofOFunlawful
SAN BEDA UNIVE
means in the
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTcourse of a strike renders such strike illegal.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Therefore, the strike was ipso facto illegal.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT The filing FOR SALE.
of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. Hence, the LA was wong in finding that it was
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANforBEDA
necessary REPRODUCE.
Malou Wang Garments to first PROPERTY
file a petitionOF SAN BEDA
to declare the strike illegalREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
before terminating the OF SAN
union’s NOT and
officers FORmembersUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
(Jackbilt Industries Inc. v.OF LAW.Employees
Jackbilt NOT FORWorkers Union, UNIVERSITY
G.R. Nos.COLLEGE
171618-OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT 19, March
REPRODUCE. 20, 2009). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE
The Secretary of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Labor may assume jurisdiction over a strike when there
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR exists a labor dispute causing or is
UNIVERSITY likely
COLLEGE OF LAW
to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. The power of assumption of jurisdiction
SALE.
OPERTY OForDO
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
certification by the Secretary of LaborPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OFifDO
is in the nature NOT
a police
SAN REPRODUCE.
power
BEDA measure (Philtread Workers
UNIVERSITY SALE.
Union
PROPERTY v.OF DO
SANNOT
Secretary REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, March 12, 1997).
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto the National
Industries Indispensable REPRODUCE.
Interest: PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
1. Hospital sector;
2. Electrical power supply;
SALE. DO NOT
RTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
3. UNIVERSITY
Water supply services, to PROPERTY
SALE.
exclude smallOF
DO NOT
SANsupply
water
REPRODUCE.
BEDAservices
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
such as bottling and
SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN
refilling stations; BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
4. Air
OF LAW. NOT FOR traffic
SALE. DO control;
NOT and COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
5. Such other industries as may be recommended by the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC)
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo.
(D.O. BEDA REPRODUCE.
40-H-13, Rule XXII, Sec. 16). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO Conditions
NOT REPRODUCE.for a Valid Exercise of theSALE.
Assumption
DO of REPRODUCE.
NOT Jurisdiction Authority: SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
a. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute; or
GE OF LAW. NOTb. FOR
AfterSALE.
a conference
DO NOTcalled COLLEGE
by the Secretary of Labor
OF LAW. NOT onFOR theSALE.
propriety of the issuance
DO NOT of theOF
COLLEGE Assumption
LAW. NOTorFOR SALE.
Certification
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Order, motu proprio or upon request or petition
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by either party to the labor dispute
REPRODUCE. (Operational
PROPERTY OF SAN
Guidelines of D.O. No. 40-G-03, March 29, 2010, as amended by D.O. 40-H-13, Sec. 1).
Effects of Defiance of Assumption or Certification OrderREPRODUCE.
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
the DOLE Secretary or NLRC:
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO BEDAorUNIVERSITY
SANNOT Return-to-work Order pursuantSALE.
PROPERTY thereto
OF DOissue
SAN NOT by
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR
a. ItSALE. DO NOTan illegal
is considered COLLEGE OF LAW.
act committed NOT
in the FORofSALE.
course DOorNOT
the strike lockout; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTYb. OF
TheSANstrikers
BEDA may be subject to immediatePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. disciplinary action,
OF SAN including
BEDA dismissal REPRODUCE.
or loss of employment statusOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
and even to criminal prosecution (San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of
Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc., G.R. No. 143341, May 28, 2004);
LE. DO
c. UNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA shallSALE.
The locking-out employerPROPERTY DO
OF NOT
pay backwages, REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA damages and other affirmative
UNIVERSITY SALE.
relief
PROPERTY andDO NOT
even
OF REPRODUCE.
SANcriminal
BEDA UNIVERSIT
prosecution (Art. 278, Labor Code); and
d. The strike becomes illegal (Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle PHL, G.R. No. 88710-13, December 19,
1990). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
103. TT, a public transportation company, retrenched 21 of its employees due to serious losses.
UNIVERSITYthe companyPROPERTY
Consequently, DO
union, ABC NOT REPRODUCE.
OFUnion
SAN BEDA
filed aUNIVERSITY SALE.claiming
PROPERTY
Notice of Strike with DOLE, DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF that
SAN BEDA UNIVE
TT
engaged
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.inDOUnfair
NOT Labor Practices
COLLEGE OF (ULP).
LAW. NOT Unable
FOR to settle
SALE. DO their
NOT differences
COLLEGE at OF
theLAW.
scheduled
NOT FOR SALE.
preliminary conference held before Conciliator–Mediator of the NCMB, the case was thereafter referred
RODUCE. PROPERTYto OF
theSAN BEDA
Office REPRODUCE.
of the Secretary PROPERTY
of the DOLE. OF SAN
Acting DOLE BEDA issued aREPRODUCE.
Secretary PROPERTY
Decision ordering the OF SAN
reinstatement
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the union officers to their former positions,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR without loss of seniority rights,
SALE. DO NOT preservation of the status quo, continuous
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO implementation
NOT REPRODUCE.of the existing CBA, andSALE.
remittanceNOT
of the
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
withheld union dues to ABC union without unnecessary delay. TT filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
OF LAW. NOT FOR while
SALE.ABC union submitted
DO NOT COLLEGEa “Partial
OF LAW. Appeal.”
NOT FORThe Secretary
SALE. DO of Labor declined
NOT COLLEGE to OF
ruleLAW.
on TTs Motion
NOT FOR SALE. DO
for Reconsideration and TTs “Partial Appeal”, citing a DOLE regulation which provided that voluntary
arbitrators’ decisions, orders, resolutions or awards shall not be the subject of motions for
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
reconsideration. Decide on the case.COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) may assume jurisdiction in an impending strike
OF LAW. NOT FOR concerning
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OFcompany.
a public transportation LAW. NOT By FOR SALE.
referring theDO NOT
case COLLEGE
to the SOLE, OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
the Conciliator–Mediator
DUCE. PROPERTY OFconceded
SAN BEDA that the case fell within the coverage
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYof Art.OF278 of the
SAN BEDALabor Code; the impending strike
REPRODUCE. in TT, aOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
public transportation company whose business is imbued with public interest, required that the SOLE assume
jurisdiction UNIVERSITY
over the case, COLLEGE
which he in fact OF the
did. When LAW. NOT FOR
Secretary UNIVERSITY
of Labor assumes COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT F
over a labor
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN caseUNIVERSITY
BEDA in an industry indispensableSALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
to national REPRODUCE.
OF interest,
SAN BEDA“he UNIVERSITY SALE.
exercises great breadth ofPROPERTY DO NOT
discretion” REPRODUCE.
in finding
OF SAN a
BEDA UNIVE
solution to the parties’ dispute. “The authority of the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing
or likely DO NOT
to cause a strike orCOLLEGE
lockout in OF LAW. NOT
an industry FOR SALE.
indispensable DO NOTinterestCOLLEGE
to national OF extends
includes and LAW. NOT
to allFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY questions
OF SANand controversies REPRODUCE.
BEDA arising therefrom. (Philtranco
PROPERTY OFservice enterprises, Inc.REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA Vs. PhiltrancoPROPERTY
Workers OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OFUnion–Association
LAW. NOT FORof Genuine Labor Organizations
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE(PWU–AGLO),
OF LAW. NOT G.R. NO. 180962,
FOR February 26,
UNIVERSITY 2014). OF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
104.REPRODUCE.
BEDA A Union staged a strike PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY due to theSALE.
OF DO
illegal
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
dismissal
BEDA of its members. The Secretary
of OF DO
Labor NOT
assumed
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR jurisdiction and settled the issue with regard to the validity of the termination of the said members.
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANa. BEDA REPRODUCE.
Was the act of the PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Secretary valid? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
38
b. What are the issues PROPERTY OF SAN of
that the Secretary BEDA
LaborUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
can resolve when he assumes OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
jurisdiction?
a. Yes, the act of the Secretary is valid, provided that it is one of the issues submitted to be resolved by
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
him. Under Art. 263 of the Labor Code, the Labor Secretary's authority to resolve PROPERTY
a labor dispute within OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORfrom theUNIVERSITY
30 days COLLEGE
date of assumption OF LAW. NOT
of jurisdiction FOR
encompasses onlyUNIVERSITY
the issues inCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
the dispute
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.(Philippine Airlines Inc. v Secretary of
SALE. DO NOT Labor, G.R.
REPRODUCE.No. 88210, January 23, 1991).SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FORb. SALE.
The issues
DO NOT that the Secretary
COLLEGEofOF Labor
LAW.canNOT
resolve
FOR are:
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
i. Issues
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA submitted to
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFby
the Secretary to be resolved himBEDA
SAN (Philippine Airlines Inc. v Secretary
REPRODUCE. of
PROPERTY OF SA
Labor, G.R. No. 88210, January 23, 1991);
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
ii. NOT
IssuesFORsubmitted UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to the Secretary OF LAW.
for resolution and NOT
such FOR UNIVERSITY
issues involved in the laborCOLLEGE
dispute OF LAW.
SALE. itself (St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres, G.R. No. 100158, June 2, 1992);
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
iii. It may subsume pending labor cases before the LA which are involved in the dispute and decide
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOeven
NOTissues COLLEGE OFthe
falling under LAW. NOT and
exclusive FORoriginal
SALE. DO NOT of LA
jurisdiction COLLEGE
such as OF
the LAW. NOTofFOR SALE. D
declaration
legality or illegality
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of strike (International
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYPharmaceuticals,
OF SAN BEDA Inc. v Secretary of Labor,PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. G.R. No. OF SAN B
92981-83, January 9,1992)
SALE. DO NOT
TY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
105.UNIVERSITY
Makabagong Pagkakaisa PROPERTY SALE.
ng Manggagawa DO
OF SAN ng NOT REPRODUCE.
Coco
BEDA Factory (Union) and Coco
UNIVERSITY SALE.
Factory
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
(Company)
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
had
UNIVERSITY
a CBA that expired. Union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation. The
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTreached
negotiations COLLEGE OF LAW.
a deadlock, NOT
leading to aFOR SALE.
Notice DO NOT
of Strike. The NCMBCOLLEGE OFefforts
exerted LAW.butNOT FORtoSALE. DO N
failed
UCE. PROPERTY OF resolve
SAN BEDAthe deadlock. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
The company filed a NoticeOF SAN BEDA
of Lock-out REPRODUCE.
for unfair labor practice duePROPERTY
to the unionsOF SAN BEDA
alleged
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR work slowdown. The union went on strike
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 3 days later. The DOLE Secretary assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. What is the effect of such assumption?
BEDA UNIVERS
The DO
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. LaborNOTSecretary's assumption
COLLEGE of jurisdiction
OF LAW. NOT FORover the DO
SALE. dispute
NOTor its COLLEGE
certificationOF
to LAW.
the NLRC
NOT forFOR SALE. DO
compulsory arbitration shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or
ODUCE. PROPERTY lockout
OF SANand BEDA
all striking or REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
locked out employees shallOF SAN BEDAreturn to work
immediately REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
and the employer shall OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF immediately
LAW. NOT FOR resume operations and readmit
UNIVERSITY all workers
COLLEGE under NOT
OF LAW. the same
FORterms andUNIVERSITY
conditions before the strike
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. or lockout (Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of Labor & Employment,
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010). OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
106. Union A is conducting a valid strike against Company X. In the conduct thereof, the members of the
E. DO
SAN BEDA union picketed around
UNIVERSITY theSALE.
PROPERTY DO
companyOF NOT
SAN REPRODUCE.
premised
BEDA holding posters containing
UNIVERSITY SALE.
their
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
demands REPRODUCE.
SANfrom
BEDA the
UNIVERSITY
employer. They also placed barb wires outside the gates of the company premises which prevented
the trucks delivering the company products from entering and exiting the company premises. It
UCE. PROPERTY OF likewise
SAN BEDA prevented theREPRODUCE.
other employeesPROPERTY OF SAN
from entering or BEDA REPRODUCE.
leaving the place. Company X PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
filed a petition
for the issuance
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of a writ of injunction against Union
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR A before the NLRC. Union A contends that the
same cannot be issued. Decide.
BEDA UNIVERS
The injunction
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT powerCOLLEGE of the NLRC shall be
OF LAW. NOTlimited
FORto SALE.
the prohibited
DO NOTactivities conducted
COLLEGE OFduring
LAW.the strike
NOT FOR SALE. DO
and not against the strike itself. The law prohibits the obstruction of the free ingress to or egress from the
ODUCE. PROPERTY employer’s
premises for lawful PROPERTY
purposes or OF SAN
obstruct public BEDA
thoroughfares. Since REPRODUCE.
the members ofPROPERTY
the union OF SAN B
obstructed the
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR gates of the company premises, the NLRC
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR can issue an injunctionUNIVERSITY COLLEGEacts
against their prohibited OF LAW. NOT
ALE. DO NOT and not
REPRODUCE. on the strike itself (IRR of LABOR
SALE. DOCODE,
NOT Book V,
REPRODUCE.Rule XXII, Sec. 14). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
107. What are the tests to determine employer-employee relationship? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE.a. Four-fold test (Atok Big Wedge Company
SALE. DO NOT Inc. v.
REPRODUCE. Gison, G.R. No. 169510, August
SALE.8,DO
2011).
NOT REPRODUCE.
b. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Two-tiered test (Francisco v. NLRC, G.R 170087, August 31, 2006). OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
108. What
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANis the four-fold test?REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF ItLAW. NOTused
is a test FORto determine
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the existence OF LAW. NOT FOR
of employer-employee UNIVERSITY
relationship by consideringCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
the following
ALE. factors: (SPDC)
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITYa.
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Selection and engagement of the employee;
PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.b.DOPayment
NOT of COLLEGE
wages; OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
c. Power
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of Dismissal; and
39
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA d.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Power to Control the employee OFrespect
with SAN BEDAto theUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
means and methods by which OFisSAN
the work BEDA UNIVE
to be
accomplished
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT (Atok Big Wedge Company Inc. v. Gison,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT supra). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
109. What is the two-tiered test?
Under theNOT FOR test, theUNIVERSITY
two-tiered COLLEGE
following determines the OF LAW. NOT
existence of an FOR UNIVERSITY
employer-employee COLLEGE OF LAW. N
relationship:
SALE. DO NOT a. The
REPRODUCE. putative employer’s power to control
SALE. DO NOT the employee
REPRODUCE. with respect to the means and methods
SALE. DO NOT byREPRODUCE
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN
which the work is to be accomplished; and BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UN
b. The
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR underlying
SALE. DO NOTeconomic realities OF
COLLEGE of the activity
LAW. NOT or FOR
relationship (Francisco
SALE. DO NOT v. NLRC,
COLLEGEsupra).
OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
The “control test” is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.ofNOT
or absence FOR
an employer-employeeUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
relationship. Under theOF control
LAW. NOT FOR
test, an UNIVERSITY
employer-employee COLLEGE OF LAW
relationship
SALE. exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end (Chevron PHL, Inc. v. Galit, G.R.
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
No. 186114, NOT7, 2015).
October COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
110. ABC Corporation is engaged in providing janitorial services to its clients. A, one of its employees, was
sent by ABC Corporation to be one of XYZ Corporation’s janitors. However, after years of providing
janitorial services with XYZ,
they decided
PROPERTY OF SAN NOT
to BEDAREPRODUCE.
terminate the service contract PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
between them. DOa NOT
OF As
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
result UNIVERSIT
of the contract’s termination, ABC dismissed 30 of its employees and A was among those employees.
OF LAW. NOT FOR ASALE. DOthat
alleged NOTbeing aCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
regular employee, ABC FOR SALE. DO
Corporation NOT just dismiss
cannot COLLEGE OFhence
him, LAW. anNOT FOR SALE. DO
illegal
dismissal case was filed REPRODUCE.
by A. On the PROPERTY OF claimed
contrary, ABC SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
that A was just PROPERTY
a project employee andOF SAN BED
that his employment
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is dependent on the service contract
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of its employer with their client. Was there
illegal dismissal? Decide on the case.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR Yes,
SALE.there was illegal
DO NOT dismissal.
COLLEGE OFThe
LAW. primary
NOT FORstandard
SALE.inDOdetermining
NOT regular
COLLEGE employment
OF LAW. isNOTtheFOR SALE.
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the employer's business
or trade. BEDA
Guided REPRODUCE.
by this test, A’s PROPERTY
work as a janitor, OF SAN
service crew, andBEDA REPRODUCE.
sanitation aide are necessary or PROPERTY
desirable OF SAN
to LAW.
ERSITY COLLEGE OF ABC Corporation’s
NOT FOR business of providingCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY janitorial and manpower
OF LAW. NOTservices
FOR to its UNIVERSITY
clients as an independent
COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. contractor. Hence, A is a regular employee and his employment did not depend on the service contract entered
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
by ABC with its client (Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, January 15, 2014).
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
ITY COLLEGE111.
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
What are the kinds of employment?
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
The following are the kinds of employment:
a. Regular employees: employees who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable PROPERTY
in the usual OFtrade
business or SANofBEDA REPRODUCE.
the employer (LABOR PROPERTY
CODE, Art. 295); OF SAN BED
b. Casual
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR employees: employees who are not regular,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR project, or seasonal employees (LABOR CODE,
Art. 295), and as a general rule, those performing activities not usually necessary or desirable in the
PROPERTY
employer’s usual business DO NOT
OF SAN
or trade REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
are casual employees (GMA Network SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
OFG.R.
v. Pabriga, REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVE
No.
176419,
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNovember 27, 2013);OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
COLLEGE COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
c. Probationary employees: employees whose employment does not exceed six (6) months from the
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANdateBEDA REPRODUCE.
the employee started PROPERTY
working, unless OF SAN
it is covered by BEDA
an apprenticeshipREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
agreement stipulating a OF SAN
longer
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORperiod (LABOR CODE, Art. 296);
SALE. DO NOT d. Project employees: employees
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOwhose
NOT employment
REPRODUCE. has been fixed for a specific
SALE. project REPRODUCE
or
SANNOTBEDA UNIVERSIT
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOengagement
NOT ofCOLLEGE
the employee (Gapayao
OF LAW. NOTv.FOR
Fulo,SALE.
G.R. No.
DO 193493,
NOT July 13, 2013);
e. Seasonal employees: employees who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and
the employment is for the duration of the season (LABOR CODE, Art. 295);
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.f.NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Fixed-term employees: employees whose employment contract specifies that the same COLLEGE
will last OF
onlyLAW. NOT F
LE. DO for a definite period (Brent School v. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990);
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
g.
SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF NOT
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSIT
Security guards: any person who offers or renders personal service to watch or secure a residence,
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT establishment,
business COLLEGE OF LAW.compound,
building, NOT FOR any SALE. DOarea
other NOTor property;
COLLEGE OF LAW.
or inspects, NOT FOR
monitors, or SALE. DO
performs body checks
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA or searches
REPRODUCE. of individuals
PROPERTY OF SANor baggage
BEDA and otherREPRODUCE.
forms of security inspectionOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
(D.O. No. 150-16, Sec. 2(h));
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.h.NOT FOR status:
Floating UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
means an indefinite OF LAW.
period of timeNOT FOR
when employeesUNIVERSITY
do not receive COLLEGE OForLAW. NOT F
any salary
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
financial benefit provided
PROPERTY DO(Agro
by law NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
Commercial SALE.
Security Services Agency,PROPERTY
BEDA UNIVERSITY Inc. DO NOT
v. NLRC,
OFG.R.REPRODUCE.
Nos.
SAN BEDA UNIVE
82823-24. July 31, 1989).
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Project
SAN employees
BEDA may become regular employees
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYwhen one isBEDA
OF SAN employed outside the scope of the
REPRODUCE. project
PROPERTY OF SAN
or when there
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is continuous rehiring by the same employer for
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the tasks or same nature of tasks even after the
cessation of a project and such task performed were vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA or trade of the employer (Maraguinot
v.OF DO
SANNOT
NLRC, G.R.
BEDA REPRODUCE.
No.UNIVERSITY
120969, January 22, 1998).
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
40
PERTY OF SAN112.
BEDA
B UNIVERSITY
was hired by XYZ CompanyPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
in connection with aUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
telecommunication project OF SANwas
the company BEDA UNIVER
contracted to
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT provide for a foreign telecommunications
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT firm. B contends that the provision
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT in his
FOR SALE. D
contract which provides that his position is "project-based and as such is co-terminus to the project”
ODUCE. PROPERTYneither
OF SAN determined nor made known him, at the time of hiring, when the said project would end, be OF SAN B
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
RSITY COLLEGE OFterminated,
LAW. NOTor FOR UNIVERSITY
be completed. He arguesCOLLEGE
that sinceOF
hisLAW. NOTfailed
contract FORto provide
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the duration and scope OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT of the
REPRODUCE.project which should have been specified
SALE. DO NOT at the
REPRODUCE.time they were engaged for the same,
SALE. DO NOThe has
REPRODUCE.
ROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
now become a regular employee. Is his contention correct? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIV
EPRODUCE. PROPERTYNo, OF B’s
SANcontention
BEDA is not correct. For an employee
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY to be
OFconsidered
SAN BEDAproject-based, the employerPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. must OF SA
show compliance with two (2) requisites, namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific
IVERSITY COLLEGEproject
OF LAW. NOT FOR and (b) UNIVERSITY
or undertaking; COLLEGE
the duration and scope ofOF LAW.
which wereNOT FOR at the time
specified UNIVERSITY
they were COLLEGE
engaged OF LAW.
SALE. for such project. As regards the second requisite, the law and jurisprudence dictate that ‘the duration ofNOT
the REPRODU
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SAN
undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The phrase ‘determinable times’ simply
BEDA UNIVER
means DO NOT
capable of being COLLEGE
determinedOF or LAW.
fixed."NOT FOR
In this SALE.
case, XYZDO NOT substantially
Company COLLEGEcomplied
OF LAW.withNOT FOR SALE. D
this
ODUCE. PROPERTYrequisite
OF SANwhen
BEDAit expressly indicated in petitioners’
REPRODUCE. employment
PROPERTY OF SANcontracts
BEDA that their positions were "co-terminus
with the project." To the mind of the Court, this caveat sufficiently apprised petitioners that their security of
RSITY COLLEGE OFtenure
LAW.with
NOTXYZFORCompanyUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
would only last as long as the project was subsisting (Gadia v. Skyes Asia, G.R.
No. 209499, January 28,PROPERTY
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY 2015). SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR
113. SALE. DO NOT
Min was COLLEGE
hired by NCB Co., a OF LAW. NOT
corporation FOR SALE.
engaged DO
in the NOT
constructionCOLLEGE
business,OF asLAW. NOTfor
a laborer FOR
theSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF structural
SAN BEDAphase andREPRODUCE.
as a mason PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
for the architectural phase of Avi REPRODUCE.
Condominium.PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Later, upon
reviewing
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Min’s employment record, NCB Co. found
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR that Min was lacking in appointment paper and
thus did not rehire him again. Min filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, he alleged that his work as a
ERTY OF SAN BEDAlaborer SALE.
and mason was necessary
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT
andOF REPRODUCE.
desirable
SAN BEDAto the business of the employer
UNIVERSITY SALE.
andDO
PROPERTY thatNOT REPRODUCE.
hisSAN
OF rehiring
BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORwhich
SALE.resulted
DO NOT to his working
COLLEGEforOFmoreLAW.than one
NOT FORyear makes
SALE. DOhim
NOTa regular employee.
COLLEGE On the
OF LAW. other
NOT FOR SALE. DO
hand, NCB Co. averred that Min was hired as a project employee for the two different phases and that
ODUCE. PROPERTY his
OF tasks
SAN BEDA
were completelyREPRODUCE.
different fromPROPERTY OFIsSAN
each project. MinBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
a regular employee?
ALE. No, Min is not a regular employee. The NOT
repeated rehiring of Min did not make him aSALE.
regular employee of
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
NCB Co. It is not uncommon for a construction firm to hire project employees to perform work necessary and
vital for
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOitsNOT
business.COLLEGE
The Supreme CourtNOT
OF LAW. has FOR
acknowledged
SALE. DOthe
NOT unique COLLEGE
characteristic
OF of the construction
industry and emphasized that the laborer's performance of work that is necessary and vital to the employer's
UCE. PROPERTY OF construction
SAN BEDA business,REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
and the former's repeated rehiring, do not automatically lead to regularization.
OF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe employee's
Additionally, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
tenure "is OF LAW.
not permanent NOT FOR with the
but coterminous UNIVERSITY
work to whichCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
he is assigned."
E. DO Consequently, it would be extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects,
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
to carry the employee on a permanent status and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
on. An NOT cannot
employer COLLEGE OF to
be forced LAW. NOTthe
maintain FOR SALE. DO
employees in NOT
the payroll,COLLEGE
even afterOF
theLAW. NOT FOR
completion of theSALE. DO N
project.
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Accordingly, it is all too apparent that the
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA employee's length of service and repeated re-hiring
constitutes an unfair yardstick for determining regular employment in the construction industry (Reyman
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT v.
Minsola FOR UNIVERSITY
New City Builders COLLEGE
Inc. and OF LAW.
Engr. Ernel NOT
Fajardo, FOR
G.R. No. 207613,UNIVERSITY
January 31, COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
2018, Covered
ERTY OF SAN BEDACase).
E OF LAW. NOT
114.FOR
ACSALE.
TechDO NOT
a company COLLEGE
based OFUS,
in the LAW.
hiredNOT
IKSIFOR SALE. DO
to review NOTlitigation
various COLLEGE OF LAW.
documents. DueNOT FOR SALE. DO
to the
ODUCE. PROPERTY nature
OF SAN ofBEDA
the job, AC Tech required IKSIPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. to hire lawyers,
OF SANor at least, law graduates,
BEDA to review
REPRODUCE. various OF SAN B
PROPERTY
litigation
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORdocuments. For this purpose, IKSI engaged
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORthe services of X and Y, as senior and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE junior
OF LAW. NOT
reviewers with a contract duration of five (5) years. Two years thereafter, X and Y received a Notice of
Forced Leave from IKSI
informingOF
PROPERTY DO
them NOT
SANthat REPRODUCE.
theyUNIVERSITY
BEDA shall be placed on indefinite SALE.
forcedOF
PROPERTY DO
leave NOT REPRODUCE.
SANeffective
BEDA UNIVERSITY
that same day due to changes in business conditions and eventually, their contracts would have to be
terminated. X and Y thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. IKSI countered that the X and Y are
UCE. PROPERTY OF project
SAN BEDAemployees and REPRODUCE.
the durationPROPERTY OF was
of the project SAN reasonably
BEDA REPRODUCE.
determinable at thePROPERTY
time X andOFY SAN BEDA
were
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOThired.
FORIs the contention
UNIVERSITY of IKSI correct?OF LAW. NOT FOR
COLLEGE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
No, the contention ofPROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SANProject
IKSI is not correct. BEDA UNIVERSITY
employment
SALE. DO
and fixed-term PROPERTY
employment OF
NOT
are SAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
not the UNIVERSITY
same.
WhileDO
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. theNOT
former requires
COLLEGE a particular
OF LAW. project,
NOTthe FOR duration
SALE. ofDOa NOT
fixed-term COLLEGE
employment OFagreed
LAW. upon
NOT byFORtheSALE. DO N
parties may be any day certain, which is understood to be “that which must necessarily come although it may
UCE. PROPERTY OF not
SANbeBEDA
known when.” TheREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
decisive determinant OF SAN employment
in fixed-term BEDA is notREPRODUCE.
the activity thatPROPERTY
the employeeOF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT upon
is called FOR to performUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
but the day certain OF upon
agreed LAW.byNOT FOR for the UNIVERSITY
the parties commencement COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
and termination
E. DO NOT of
REPRODUCE.the employment relationship (Innodata
SALE. DO NOT Knowledge Services,
REPRODUCE. Inc. v. Socorro Inting, et al., G.R.
SALE. DO NOT No. 211892,
REPRODUCE.
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
December 6, 2017, Covered Case). OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
115. ABC
ODUCE. PROPERTY Security
OF SAN BEDAService hired Padilla as PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. a security guard.
OF SANHeBEDA
was relieved from his post PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. at City AV OF SAN B
Corporation and was advised to wait for his reassignment order. Pending reassignment, he was told
RSITY COLLEGE OF that
LAW.ABC
NOT FOR Service
Security UNIVERSITY
was havingCOLLEGE OFfinding
a hard time LAW. NOT FOR
an assignment forUNIVERSITY
him since heCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
was already
ALE. over 38 years old and subsequently advised him to resign which he refused. He reported to the office
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
to collect his 13th month pay and was again persuaded to hand a resignation letter. When he was still
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT or reassigned
not deployed COLLEGE for
OF more
LAW.than
NOTaFOR
year,SALE. DO aNOT
he filed COLLEGE
Complaint OF dismissal.
for illegal LAW. NOTPadilla
FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF alleged
SAN BEDAthat he was constructively
REPRODUCE.dismissed
PROPERTYonOFtheSAN
ground
BEDAthat he wasREPRODUCE.
placed on a floating
PROPERTYstatus.
OF SAN BEDA
41
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA
ABCUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Security Service countered OF was
that Padilla SANrelieved
BEDA UNIVERSITY
from his post on account PROPERTY OFrequest.
of a client’s SAN BEDA UNIVE
Was Padilla constructively
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT dismissed?
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Yes, Padilla was constructively dismissed. Temporary displacement or temporary REPRODUCE.
off-detail of PROPERTY
security OF SAN
guard NOT FORallowed inUNIVERSITY
is, generally, COLLEGE
a situation where OF LAW.
a security NOTclient
agency’s FORdecided notUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to renew their service OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT contract
REPRODUCE.with the agency and no post is available
SALE. DO NOT for the relieved
REPRODUCE. security guard. Such situation does
SALE. DO NOT notREPRODUCE
normally result in a constructive dismissal. Nonetheless, when the floating status lasts for more than six (6) BEDA UN
months,
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the employee
SALE. DO NOTmay beCOLLEGE
considered
OFtoLAW.
haveNOTbeenFOR
constructively
SALE. DO dismissed
NOT (Macario S.OFPadilla
COLLEGE LAW.v.NOT FOR SA
Airborne Security
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Service, Inc. and/or Catalina Solis, G.R. No. 210080,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA November 22, 2017, Covered
REPRODUCE. Case).
PROPERTY OF
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
Elements
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFisSAN
116. What BEDA or Subcontracting?
Contracting REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
SALE. DO NOT Contracting or Subcontracting isSALE.
REPRODUCE. an arrangement
DO NOT whereby a principal agrees to farm out
REPRODUCE. to aDO
SALE. contractor
NOT
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
the performance or completion of a specific job or work within a definite or predetermined period, regardless
OF LAW. NOT FOR ofSALE.
whether
DO such
NOT job orCOLLEGE
work is to OF
be LAW.
performed
NOTorFOR
completed
SALE. DOwithin
NOT or outside the premises
COLLEGE of theNOT
OF LAW. principal
FOR SALE. DO
(D.O. 174,
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA series of 2017, Sec. 3(c)).
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
To beNOT FOR contracting
permissible, UNIVERSITY COLLEGEshall
or subcontracting OF only
LAW. beNOT FOR
allowed UNIVERSITY
if ALL the following COLLEGEoccur:
circumstances OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.a. The contractor or subcontractor
SALE. DO is NOT
engaged in a distinct and independent business
REPRODUCE. SALE. and
DOundertakes
NOT to
REPRODUCE.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
perform the job or work on its own responsibility, according to its own manner and method;
UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR b.
SALE.
TheDO NOT or subcontractor
contractor COLLEGE OFhas LAW. NOT FOR
substantial SALE.
capital DO NOT
to carry out the jobCOLLEGE
farmed outOF
by LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
the principal
on his
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA account, manner and method, investment
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in the form of tools, equipment, machinery
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY and OF SAN
supervision;
c. In performing the work farmed out, the contractor or subcontractor is free from the control and/or
OF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA direction of the principal
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY inSALE.
all OF DO
SANNOT
matters REPRODUCE.
connected
BEDA with the performance of
UNIVERSITY SALE.
the work
PROPERTY OF DO
except NOT
as
SAN REPRODUCE
to the
BEDA UNIVERSIT
result thereto; and
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.d. DO
TheNOT COLLEGE ensures
Service Agreement OF LAW. NOT FORwith
compliance SALE. DOrights
all the NOT and benefits
COLLEGE OFthe
for all LAW. NOT FOR
employees of SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
the contractor or subcontractor under the labor laws (D.O. 174, series of 2017, Sec. 8). PROPERTY OF SAN BED
“Substantial Capital” – refers to paid-up capital stock/shares at least Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) in
LE. DO
PROPERTY
case of corporations, partnerships andDO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
cooperatives; inUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
case of single proprietorship, DO
OF NOT
a net worthSAN REPRODUCE.
of atBEDA
least UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR Five Million
SALE. Pesos (P5,000,000.00)
DO NOT COLLEGE OF(D.O. LAW.No.NOT
174-17).
FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY
117. OF SANisBEDA
What REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Labor-Only Contracting? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO NOT Labor-Only Contracting shall refer
REPRODUCE. to an
SALE. DOarrangement
NOT where:
a. PROPERTY
The contractor or subcontractorOF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
• DO
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. Does
NOTnot haveCOLLEGE
substantial
OFcapital;
LAW.orNOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
• Does
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA not have investments in the form of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAtools, equipment, machineries, supervision,
REPRODUCE. work
PROPERTY OF SAN
premises, among others; and
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. •NOTTheir
FORemployees UNIVERSITY
recruited andCOLLEGE OFperforming
placed are LAW. NOT FOR whichUNIVERSITY
activities COLLEGE
are directly related to theOF LAW. NO
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY main business SALE.
operation of DO
the NOT REPRODUCE.
principal; or
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA NOT REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
b. The contractor or subcontractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the
work COLLEGE
of the employee OF174,
(D.O. LAW. NOTofFOR
series 2017,SALE. DO NOT
Sec. 5). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
ITY COLLEGE118. Legarda
OF LAW. NOTPlace
FOR Dormitory (LPD) entered
UNIVERSITY into OF
COLLEGE a Contract
LAW. NOT of FOR
Services with Ward Janitorial
UNIVERSITY Services
(Ward). Under the contract, WJS, as an independent contractor, will assign workers, X, Y, and Z, to
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY TheySALE.
perform services at LPD.PROPERTY
workedDO
OF6NOT REPRODUCE.
daysBEDA
SAN a week and ZSALE.
filed aDO
for 8 hours daily. X, Y, PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY NOT REPRODUCE.
Complaint
OF SAN BEDAfor UNIVERSIT
th
OF LAW. NOT FOR Regularization,
SALE. DO NOTand illegal dismissal, underpayment of 13 month pay, and payment of attorney’s fees
and CBA benefits against LPD and Ward. They alleged that they asked LPD to consider them as regular
workers within the appropriate bargaining unit established in the collectiveREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
bargaining agreement byOF SAN BED
LPD NOT
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. and its
FORunion, theUNIVERSITY
LPD Workers Union (LPD
COLLEGE Union).
OF LAW. NOT LPD
FORrefused the request since
UNIVERSITY they were
employed by Ward. X, Y, and Z later joined the LPD Union and came to you for advice. May they, as
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
employees
SALE. DObecome
PROPERTY
of a labor-only contractor,
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA employees
regular UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY
of the principal?
REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
Yes, they may become regular employees of the principal. They are regular employees of LPD because
Ward is a labor-only contractor. Failure to register as a contractor, a presumption arises that one is PROPERTY
engaged OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
in LAW. NOTcontracting
labor-only FOR UNIVERSITY
unless COLLEGE
the contractor OF LAW.
overcomes NOT of
the burden FORproving thatUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
it has substantial capital,OF LAW. NO
SALE. investment, tools, and the like. In this case, however, LPD failed to adduce evidence to prove that Ward had
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
substantial capital, investment, or assets to perform the work contracted for. Thus, the presumption that Ward UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR isSALE.
a labor-only
DO NOTcontractor stands.OF
COLLEGE Consequently,
LAW. NOT FORLPD SALE.
is deemed the employer
DO NOT of respondents.
COLLEGE OF LAW.Hence, as SALE. DO
NOT FOR
regular employees
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of LPD, respondents are entitled
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto their claims for wages and other benefits (Manila
Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Lluz, G.R. No. 208451, February 3, 2016).
42
PERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Effects of Termination OF SAN BEDA
of Employment UNIVERSITY
in Relation PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
to Service Agreements
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN When
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN Effect BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Prior to the expiration
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of the Governed by Articles 297 (282),
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 298 (283), and 299 (284) of the Labor
UNIVERSITY Code. OF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
Service Agreement
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
Pre-termination of the Service The party at fault shall be liable to unpaid wages and other unpaid benefits
Agreement
LEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR notSALE.
due toDOauthorized
NOT including
COLLEGEunremitted
OF LAW.legal
NOTmandatory
FOR SALE. contributions
DO NOT (SSS, PhilHealth,
COLLEGE OFPag-IBIG,
LAW. NOT FOR SAL
causes under Article 298 (283) ECC), without prejudice to the solidary liability of the parties to the Service
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Agreement.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
Expiration of the Service The employee may opt to wait for re-employment within three (3) months to
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
Agreement UNIVERSITY
or Completion of the PROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO NOT
SANto
resign and transfer BEDAREPRODUCE.
anotherUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
contractor-employer. Failure
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
of the contractorBEDA
to
REPRODU
UNIVER
phaseFOR
E OF LAW. NOT of the job,DO
SALE. work or service
NOT provideOF
COLLEGE newLAW.
employment
NOT FOR for the employee
SALE. DO NOT shall entitle the latter
COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
the payment
NOT FOR SALE. D
for which the employee is of separation benefits as may be provided by Law or Service Agreement,
ODUCE. PROPERTY
employed
whichever is higher, without prejudice to his/ her entitlement to the completion
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
bonuses orCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
other emoluments, FOR retirement
including UNIVERSITY
benefitsCOLLEGE
wheneverOF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. applicable.
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANNOT
SALE. DO BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT(D.O.
FORNo. 174-17,
SALE. Sec. 13). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
Trilateral relationship
Trilateral relationship refers to the relationship inNOT
a contracting or subcontracting arrangement whereDO
there
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OFisSAN
NOT aREPRODUCE.
service
BEDA UNIVERS
contract for a specific job, work or service between the principal and the contractor, and a contract of employment
E OF LAW. NOT FORthe
between SALE. DO NOT
contractor COLLEGE
and its workers OF LAW.
(Manila NOTPark
Memorial FORCemetery,
SALE. DOInc.
NOT COLLEGE
v. Lluz, G.R. OF LAW.
No. 208451, NOT FOR
February 3, SALE. DO
2016).
Solidary liability
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR In the
SALE.event
DOofNOT
violation of any provision
COLLEGE of theNOT
OF LAW. LaborFOR
Code, including
SALE. DO NOT the failureCOLLEGE
to pay theOFwages,
LAW.there
NOTexists
FOR aSALE. DO N
solidary liability on the part of the principal and the contractor for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code
and other BEDA
social REPRODUCE.
legislations, to the extent of the PROPERTY OF SAN
work performed underBEDA
the employment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
contract (D.O. No. OF SAN BEDA
174-17, Sec
Y COLLEGE9).
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Job Contracting v. Labor-Only Contracting
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Job Contracting
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Labor-Only Contracting PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE.
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to the Nature of
UNIVERSITY Relationship
COLLEGE with NOT
OF LAW. the Employer/Principal
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT The employer or principal is considered
REPRODUCE. onlyDO
SALE. an indirect
NOT The employer/ principal is treated as
REPRODUCE. directDO
SALE. employer
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
employer (PCI Automation Center, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. contractor’s employees in all instances (contractor is BEDA UNIVERS
No. 115920,
E OF LAW. NOT January
FOR SALE. 29, 1996). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
DO NOT merely
FOR an agent
SALE. DOof NOT
the employer) (ManilaOF
COLLEGE Water
LAW.Company
NOT FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA v. Peña,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAG.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004).
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to the Existence of Er-Ee Relationship
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORwith Employer/Principal
ALE. DO The
NOT law creates an Er-Ee relationshipSALE.
REPRODUCE. for a DO
limited
NOT The statute creates an Er-Ee relationship
REPRODUCE. SALE. for REPRODUCE.
a
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA UNIVERSITY
purpose, (i.e. to ensure that the employees are paid comprehensive purpose, (i.e. to prevent a circumvention of
F LAW. NOT their
FORwages)
SALE. (SMC v. MAERC
DO NOT IntegratedOF
COLLEGE Services,
LAW. NOTInc., FOR
laborSALE.
laws)DO (SMC
NOTv. MAERC Integrated
COLLEGE OF LAW. Services,
NOT FORInc., SALE. DO N
G.R. No. 144672, July 10, 2003). supra).
As to the Liability of the Principal
The principal becomes solidarily liable with the The principal becomes solidarily liable with the contractor
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
contractor
SALE.
PROPERTY
in the event the latter
DO NOT
fails toOFpay
REPRODUCE.
SANtheBEDAnot UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO
only for unpaid wages butPROPERTY
NOT
OFrightful
also for all the
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
claimsUNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT employees’
FOR SALE. wages
DO NOT and for violation
COLLEGEof OF labor standard
LAW. of the
NOT FOR employees
SALE. DO NOTunder the Labor Code
COLLEGE OF and
LAW.ancillary
NOT FOR laws SALE. DO N
laws. The liability, however, does not extend to the (SMC v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., supra).
payment of BEDA
back wages and/or REPRODUCE.
separation PROPERTY
pay of OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
employees whoFOR are illegallyUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
dismissed (Rosewood UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT Processing
REPRODUCE. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116476-84, May
SALE. DO NOT 21,
1998). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
119. A,
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFB,SAN
C, and D were security
BEDA guards hired
REPRODUCE. by XYZ Security
PROPERTY OF SANServices
BEDA to work for SB Colleges,PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. Inc. They OF SAN B
filed a complaint against the latter for non-compliance with the current minimum wage order. XYZ
RSITY COLLEGE OF Security
Services alleged that SB Colleges, Inc. should exclusively be liable for the payment of wage
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA increases. Is SB Colleges,
UNIVERSITY Inc. SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
solidarily
SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
liable?
BEDA IfUNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
yes, can it seek any reimbursement?
PROPERTY SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Yes,
DO SB
NOT COLLEGE
Colleges OFliable.
is solidarily LAW.The
NOT FOR SALE.
principal DO NOT
is solidarily liable withCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the contractor for anyNOT FORofSALE. DO N
violation
UCE. PROPERTY OF any
SANprovision
BEDA of the Labor REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Code, including OF SAN
the failure to payBEDA
wages. In caseREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the principal pays OF SAN BEDA
the unpaid
43
wages, PROPERTY from
it may validly claim reimbursement OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
the contractor PROPERTY
(Alpha Investigation and OF SAN
Security Agency, BEDA UNIVE
Inc.
v. NLRC, G.R. No.
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 111722, May 27, 1997).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SAN REPRODUCE
BEDA UN
The following are the just causes for termination of employment as provided by D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 5.2:
UNIVERSITYSerious
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
Misconduct; FOR
Requisites UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
SALE. 1. There must be misconduct;
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
2.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
The misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character; and
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT
3. FOR
ThereSALE. DOshowing
must be NOT thatCOLLEGE OF LAW.
the employee becomes NOT FOR
unfit SALE. DO
to continue NOT for the
working COLLEGE
employer.OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Willful Disobedience or Insubordination; Requisites
VERSITY COLLEGE
1. OF LAW.
There NOT
must FOR
be disobedience UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or insubordination; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
2. UNIVERSITY
RTY OF SAN BEDA SALE.
The disobedience or insubordination
PROPERTYmust DO NOT
be willful
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDAorUNIVERSITY
intentional characterized PROPERTY SALE.
by a wrongful DOperverse
OFand
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
attitude;
3. The DOviolated
order NOT mustCOLLEGE OF LAW.
be reasonable, NOT
lawful, andFOR SALE.
made DOtoNOT
known COLLEGE
the employee; and OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY4. OF SAN
The BEDA
order must pertain toREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the duties which OFengaged
he has been SAN BEDA
to discharge. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties; Requisites
OPERTY OF SAN1.BEDA
There SALE.
must be neglect of duty;PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY and DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
2. The negligence must be both gross and habitual in character.
Fraud or Willful BEDAof Trust; Requisites
Breach REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE1. OF
There
LAW.must
NOTbe FOR
an act, omission, or concealment;
2. The act, omission or concealment involves a breach of legal duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed;
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
3. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
It must be committed against
SALE.
OF DO
the employer SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
or his/her UNIVERSITY and
representative; PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
4. ItSALE.
OF LAW. NOT FOR must be
DOinNOT
connection with the employee’s
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT work.FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY
Loss ofOF SAN BEDARequisitesREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Confidence; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF
1. LAW.
ThereNOT
mustFOR UNIVERSITY
be an act, omission COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
or concealment; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO 2. The act, omission or concealment justifies the loss of trust and confidence;
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
3.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence;
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
4. The lossDO NOTand confidence
of trust COLLEGEshould
OF LAW. NOT
not be FOR SALE. DO NOT
simulated; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
5. It should
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA improper, illegal or unjustified;
REPRODUCE. and PROPERTY OF SAN BED
6. It must be genuine and not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.
Commission of a
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITYCrime or Offense; SALE. DO
Requisites NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
1. There must be an act or omission punishable/prohibited by law; and
GE OF LAW. NOT
2. FOR
The SALE. DO NOTwas committed
act or omission COLLEGEbyOF theLAW. NOTagainst
employee FOR SALE. DO NOT
the person COLLEGE
of employer, OF LAW.
any immediate NOT FOR SALE.
member
RODUCE. PROPERTY of his/her
OF SANfamily,
BEDAor his/her duly authorized representative.
Analogous Cases; Requisites
1. UNIVERSITY
RTY OF SAN BEDA There must be act or omission SALE.
similar to
PROPERTY DO
OFthose NOT REPRODUCE.
SANspecified just causes; and
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
2. The act or omission must be voluntary and/or willful on the part of the employees.
DUCE. PROPERTY
120. OF SAN the
During BEDA REPRODUCE.
Christmas Party PROPERTY
of XYZ Company, A, anOF SAN BEDA
employee REPRODUCE.
and a union officer, PROPERTY
berated and malignedOF SAN BED
the company’s
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR managing director by
UNIVERSITY throwingOF
COLLEGE foul andNOT
LAW. offensive
FOR words at him, such as
UNIVERSITY "putangOF
COLLEGE inaLAW. NOT F
mo ka, gago ka!" A's tirade included the company and it officers. Moreover, the incident happened in
LE. DO
PROPERTY
front of the company's employees, OF NOT
SAN
their
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
families, asUNIVERSITY
well as company clients
SALE. DO
PROPERTY OF ANOT
and guests. SAN REPRODUCE.
wasBEDA
later UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR dismissed
SALE. DO on the ground
NOT of serious
COLLEGE misconduct.
OF LAW. NOT FOR A claimed
SALE. DOthatNOT
his acts do not warrant
COLLEGE OF dismissal
LAW. NOTsince FOR SALE. DO
misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee's work to
constitute just cause for his separation. Is his contention correct? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO NOT No,
REPRODUCE. A’s contention is erroneous. A’s display
SALE. DO NOT of insolent
REPRODUCE. and disrespectful behavior, in utter DO
SALE. disregard
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
time and place of its occurrence, had very much to do with his work. He set a bad example as a union officer.
His actuations
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOduring
NOT the company's
COLLEGEChristmas
OF LAW.Party
NOTcould
FOR have
SALE.had
DOnegative
NOT repercussions
COLLEGE OF for his
LAW.employer
NOT FOR SALE.
had he been allowed to stay on the job. His standing before those clients who witnessed the incident and those
who would hear of it would surely be diminished, to the detriment of the company (Benitez v. Santa Fe, G.R.
OF SAN
No. NOTApril
208163, FOR20, 2015).UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
Note: The case is to be distinguished from Samson v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121035, April 12, 2000, wherein the
OF LAW. NOT FOR offensive
SALE. DO NOT ofCOLLEGE
utterances OF against
the employee LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
the general DO were
manager NOTnot considered
COLLEGEasOF LAW.misconduct
serious NOT FOR SALE. DO
44
since PROPERTY
the utterances were made in a mereOF SANget-together
casual BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
of employees, and in the absence ofOF
theSAN BEDA UNIVER
general
manager.
121. A was employed in XYZ School, a catholic and sectarian educational institution, REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
as an assistant to the OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OFXYZ’s
LAW.Director.
NOT FORWithout having
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
any legal OF LAW.
impediments to NOT
marryFOR
one another,UNIVERSITY
A and her COLLEGE
boyfriend OF
B LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT conceived
REPRODUCE. a child out of wedlock. XYZ learned
SALE. DO NOT of A’s pregnancy,
REPRODUCE. and advised A to resign in view
SALE. DO NOT of a
REPRODUCE.
provision in the school’s handbook following the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private SchoolsOF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOT(MRPS) on the
FOR SALE. DOcauses
NOT for COLLEGE
terminationOFofLAW.
employments; that Section
NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT 94(e) ofCOLLEGE
the 1992OF MRPS
LAW.cites
NOT FOR SAL
"disgraceful
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA or immoral conduct" as a ground for dismissal
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in addition to the just causes
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY for OF SA
termination of employment provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. XYZ maintains that pre-
IVERSITY COLLEGEmarital
OF LAW. NOTrelations,
sexual FOR evenUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
if between two OF LAW.
consenting NOT
adults FOR legal impediment
without UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to marry, is OF LAW.
SALE. considered a disgraceful and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which are grounds for the
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
termination of employment under the 1992 MRPS and the Labor Code. That XYZ, as a Catholic
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
institution of NOT
learning, COLLEGE OF LAW.
has the right NOT the
to uphold FORteaching
SALE. DO of NOT COLLEGE
the Catholic ChurchOF
andLAW. NOTitsFOR SALE. D
expect
ODUCE. PROPERTYemployees
OF SAN BEDAto abide by the same. May PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. A be dismissed
OF SAN onBEDA
the ground of REPRODUCE.
disgraceful orPROPERTY
immoral OF SAN B
conduct?
No, A may not be dismissed
on OF DO
the SAN NOT
ground REPRODUCE.
of disgraceful
BEDA UNIVERSITYor immoral conduct. SALE.
The morality
PROPERTY DO NOT
referred
OF SAN BEDAtoREPRODUCE.
in
UNIVERSITY
the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious. The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful
or immoral involves aCOLLEGE OF LAW.first,
two-step process: NOT FOR SALE. DO
a consideration NOT
of the totality COLLEGE OF LAW. surrounding
of the circumstances NOT FOR SALE. DO N
SANconduct;
BEDA and second, REPRODUCE.
an assessmentPROPERTY
of the saidOF SAN BEDA vis-à-vis the
circumstances REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
prevailing norms OF SAN BEDA
of conduct,
i.e., what
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the society generally considers moral and respectable.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR The fact of the petitioner’s pregnancy
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. out of NOT FO
wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the petitioner’s conduct as disgraceful or immoral. That
ERTY OF SAN BEDAthe SALE.
petitioner was employedPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
by a CatholicOF REPRODUCE.
educational
SAN BEDA institution SALE.
per se does not absolutely
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT
determine REPRODUCE.
whether
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORherSALE.
pregnancy
DO NOT out of wedlock
COLLEGEis disgraceful
OF LAW.orNOT immoral. There DO
FOR SALE. is still
NOT a necessity to determine
COLLEGE whether
OF LAW. NOTthe
FOR SALE. DO
petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing
ODUCE. PROPERTY norms
OF SAN BEDA Furthermore,
of conduct. REPRODUCE.
there was PROPERTY
no substantialOFevidence
SAN BEDA to prove that aREPRODUCE.
pregnancy outPROPERTY
of wedlock OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF will
LAW. cause
NOTgrave
FORscandal UNIVERSITY
to the school and its students.
COLLEGE It is NOT
OF LAW. the burden
FOR of employer to show COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY such damage
OF LAW. NOT
ALE. (Leus v. St. Scholastica, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015).
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
122. SALE.
F LAW. NOT FOR XYZ Company
DO NOT hiredCOLLEGE
Atty. B as
OFan
LAW.Assistant ViceSALE.
NOT FOR President for legal COLLEGE
DO NOT services. B
OFwas dismissed
LAW. NOT FOR forSALE. DO N
willful breach of trust by mishandling of a case assigned to him. B allegedly belatedly drafted a
UCE. PROPERTY OF haphazard
SAN BEDAanswer toREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
a complaint which he incorrectly titled "Answer with Cross Party Complaint"
instead of "Answer UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
with Cross Claim". OF LAW. NOT
Consequently, theFOR
other companyUNIVERSITY
lawyersCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
had to prepare
E. DO another answer that was eventually filed in court. In his defense, B said that he was given only one day
SAN BEDA
within which to finish the draft. B then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In the course of the UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTXYZ Company
proceedings, COLLEGEfailed
OF LAW. NOT FOR
to adduce SALE. DOhaphazardly
the supposed NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.Will
drafted answer. NOT
theFOR
caseSALE. DO N
prosper?
Yes,FOR
the case willUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
prosper. To be OF LAW.
a valid cause NOT FOR
for dismissal, the loss ofUNIVERSITY
trust must be COLLEGE
based on aOF LAW. NOT FO
willful
ERTY OF SAN BEDAbreach SALE.
of such trust and founded
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
on clearly
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF established
SAN BEDA facts. The charge is that the
draft-answer
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFBSAN
prepared
BEDA UNIVERS
Asia was so haphazardly done that the lawyers assigned to handle them had to prepare another answer that
was DO NOT
eventually COLLEGE
filed in court. OF LAW.
Yet, XYZ CompanyNOTdidFOR
not SALE.
botherDO NOT the COLLEGE
to present OFBLAW.
draft-answer preparedNOTandFOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY demonstrate
OF SAN BEDA why it regarded the same as haphazardly
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY done.
OF SAN Besides,
BEDAas Atty. B said, he was given
REPRODUCE. only one OF SAN B
PROPERTY
day within which
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to finish the draft-answer and XYZ Company
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR did not contest this fact. Consequently,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE he could
OF LAW. NOT
not be expected to do more than an adequate pleading. Settled is the rule that under Article 297(c) of the Labor
Code, the breach of trust
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
must be willful.
PROPERTY OF SAN NOT REPRODUCE.
Ordinary
BEDAbreach will not be enough. PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
A breach is OF DO
willful
SAN NOT
if itBEDA REPRODUCE.
is done
UNIVERSITY
intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly or inadvertently. Willful breach was not shown by the facts (Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated
UCE. PROPERTY OF Plans,
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
G.R. No. 181852, PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
October 9, 2013). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
123. Jeff was employed as DCP’s company driver. In 2010, Jeff received a notice informing him that he was
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.suspension
PROPERTY
being placed under preventive
DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
for thirty
SALE. DO
days because he PROPERTY
was one ofOF
NOT
theSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
employees UNIVERSITY
suspected
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTof having participated
COLLEGE in theNOT
OF LAW. theftFOR
of the electrical
SALE. DO NOT productsCOLLEGE
of DCP. Jeff aver that
OF LAW. NOTheFOR
wasSALE. DO N
not given the opportunity to explain his side before he was suspended and that after the lapse of his
UCE. PROPERTY OF 30-day
SAN BEDAsuspension, heREPRODUCE.
was no longerPROPERTY
allowed OF SAN BEDA
to return to work withoutREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
any justification OF SAN BEDA
for such
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR DCP on
disallowance. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the other hand OF LAW.
explained that NOT FORJeff andUNIVERSITY
only the the companyCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
warehouseman
E. DO NOT were
REPRODUCE. the only ones who had complete
SALE. DO NOTaccess to the
REPRODUCE. warehouse where the stolen items were
SALE. DO NOT located,
REPRODUCE.
and that the termination of Jeff’s employment was based on their loss of trust and confidence in him.
E OF LAW. NOT FORWas JeffDO
SALE. illegally
NOT dismissed?
Yes, Jeff was illegally dismissed. Loss of trust and confidence is a just cause for dismissal under Article
RSITY COLLEGE OF 282
LAW.(c)NOT
of theFOR
Labor Code,UNIVERSITY
which providesCOLLEGE OF LAW.may
that an employer NOT FOR an employment
terminate UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
for "fraud OF LAW. NOT
or willful
ALE. breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative." In order
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
to properly invoke the ground of loss of trust and confidence as a just cause for dismissal, two conditions must
be satisfied: COLLEGE
(1) the employer OFshow
must LAW.that
NOTthe FOR SALE.concerned
employee DO NOTholds COLLEGE OF
a position of LAW.
trust and NOT FOR SALE. DO N
confidence;
UCE. PROPERTY OF and
SAN(2)BEDA
the employer must establish thePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. existence ofOF
anSAN
act justifying
BEDA the loss ofREPRODUCE.
trust and confidence. To beOF
PROPERTY a SAN BEDA
45
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA
validUNIVERSITY
cause for dismissal, the act PROPERTY
that betraysOFtheSAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
employer’s trust must be real. Loss of PROPERTY
confidence as OFa ground
SAN BEDA UNIVE
for dismissal has
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT never been intended to afford an occasion
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT for abuse by the employer of its prerogative,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT as it FOR SALE.
can easily be subject to abuse because of its subjective nature and the loss must be founded on clearly
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANfacts
established BEDA REPRODUCE.
sufficient to warrant PROPERTY
the employee's OF SAN
separation fromBEDA REPRODUCE.
work. Jeff may indeed PROPERTY
be considered as OF SAN
VERSITY COLLEGE OF
oneLAW. NOT FOR
who occupies UNIVERSITY
a position of COLLEGE
trust and confidence as OF
he isLAW.
one ofNOT FOR
those UNIVERSITY
who were entrusted COLLEGE
with the handling OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT of a significant
REPRODUCE. amount or portion of DCP's products
SALE. DO NOT for sale.
REPRODUCE. However, DCP failed to present substantial
evidence to support their allegations that Jeff had participated in the theft of the company’s stolen items OF SAN BEDA UN
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT(Distribution
FOR SALE. & Control
DO NOTProducts,COLLEGE
Inc. v. Jeffrey E. Santos,
OF LAW. NOTG.R.
FORNo. 212616,
SALE. July 10, 2017,
DO NOT Covered
COLLEGE OF Case).
LAW. NOT FOR SA
124. N and S were employees of EPC Bank and members of EPCB Union. The union held an election and N
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEandOF LAW.proclaimed
S were NOT FOR as President
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and Executive OF LAW. NOT
Vice-President, FOR
respectively. UNIVERSITY
After taking theirCOLLEGE
oath, OF LAW
SALE. N and S notified the bank of their decision to be on full-time leave in order to devote their time in
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
maintaining industrial peace which is a privilege given to their position under their CBA. Because of
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOofNOT
the pendency COLLEGE
the appeal by the OF LAW.
losing NOT FORthe
candidates, SALE. DOdisapproved
bank NOT COLLEGE OFofLAW.
the leaves NOT
N and S, FOR SALE.
which
RODUCE. PROPERTY the latter
OF SAN BEDAfailed to comply. They were
REPRODUCE. meted OF
PROPERTY theSAN
penalty
BEDAof dismissal after administrative
hearings were conducted. EPC Bank argues that it validly dismissed N and S from employment
because they committed serious misconduct and willful disobedience when they failed to return to
work despite orders for them
to do so.
PROPERTY DO
OFWere NOT REPRODUCE.
N and S
SAN BEDA validly dismissed?
UNIVERSIT
No,DO NOT
N and S were COLLEGE
not validly OF LAW. NOT
dismissed. FOR
A valid SALE. DO
dismissal NOT
on the ground COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of willful disobedience FOR SALE. DO
requires
DUCE. PROPERTY OFtheSAN BEDA of twin requisites:
concurrence REPRODUCE. (1) thePROPERTY
employee'sOF SAN BEDA
assailed conduct must have REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
been willful or intentional,OF SAN BED
the willfulness
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR being characterized by a wrongful and perverse
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR attitude; and (2) the order violated
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE must have
OF LAW. NOT F
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been
engaged
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA to discharge. N and S’s
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
failure to OF
reportREPRODUCE.
SANforBEDA
work despite SALE.
the disapproval of their
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
application
PROPERTY OFfor REPRODUCE.
leave
SAN BEDA UNIVE
was SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR clearlyDO
intentional.
NOT However,
COLLEGE such
OFwas
LAW.notNOT
characterized
FOR SALE. byDO
a wrongful
NOT and perverseOF
COLLEGE attitude
LAW.orNOT withFOR SALE.
deliberate disregard of their duties as such. At the time, N and S notified the bank of their intent to avail of their
union BEDA
leaves, REPRODUCE.
they were already proclaimedPROPERTY
as winnersOF SAN
and BEDA
in fact REPRODUCE.
took their respective oaths PROPERTY
of office. OF SAN
Following
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT the terms
FOR of the parties' CBA, which
UNIVERSITY has the
COLLEGE OFstrength
LAW. NOTof law
FORas betweenUNIVERSITY
them, N andCOLLEGE
S, as duly-OF LAW. NO
SALE. elected union officers, were entitledSALE.
to take their union leaves (BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Nestor N. Nebres and
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
Armenia F. Suravilla, G.R. No. 208735, July 19, 2017, Covered Case). PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
125. Sterling Co. hired Esa as machine operator. Years later, Sterling’s supervisor found Esa and his co-
employees about to take a nap on the sheeter machine. She called their attention and prohibited them
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
from NOT FOR
taking UNIVERSITY
a nap thereon for safetyCOLLEGE
reasons.OF
Esa LAW.
thenNOT FORdisrespectful
uttered UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and provocative OF LAW. NOT F
words
LE. DO and raised his middle finger against his superior. A notice to explain was served on Esa but the latter
SAN BEDA
neither responded nor attended the administrative hearings for the same. Sterling then terminated UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR Esa’s
SALE. employment.
DO NOT COLLEGE
Sterling OF LAW.
argues that NOT
Esa'sFOR SALE. DO
utterance NOTand abusive
of foul COLLEGE OF LAW.
language NOT FOR
against his SALE. DO
supervisor,
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA demonstrating a dirty finger, and defiance
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA to perform his duties undeniably constitute
serious misconduct. Was Esa validly dismissed?
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE.
Yes, Esa was validly dismissed.
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
For misconduct
OF SAN BEDAor improper SALE.for
behavior to be a justPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY cause DOdismissal,
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN the
BEDA UNIVE
following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
the employee's COLLEGE
duties showing OFemployee
that the LAW. NOT has FOR SALE.
become unfitDO NOT working
to continue COLLEGE OFemployer;
for the LAW. NOTandFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY(c)OF
it must
SANhave
BEDA been performed with wrongful
REPRODUCE. intent. TheOF
PROPERTY utterance
SAN BEDA of obscene, insulting or offensive
REPRODUCE. words
PROPERTY OF SAN
against a superior
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is not only destructive of the morale of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR his co-employees and a violation of the company
rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct. The accusatory and inflammatory language used
by an employee towards his
employer or DO NOT
OFsuperior
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
can be a ground for dismissal or
UNIVERSITY SALE.
termination.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
Further,
OF REPRODUCE
Esa's
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR assailed
SALE. DOconduct was related to his work. The supervisor did not prohibit him from taking a nap. She merely
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
reminded him that he could not do so on the sheeter machine for safety reasons. Esa's acts reflect an
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAto comply with
unwillingness REPRODUCE.
reasonable PROPERTY
managementOF SAN BEDA
directives (Sterling PaperREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Products Enterprises, Inc. v.OF SAN BED
KMM-Katipunan
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR and Raymond Z. Esponga,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEG.R. OF
No. LAW.
221493,NOTAugust
FOR2, 2017, UNIVERSITY
Covered Case).COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO
SAN BEDA
126. UNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
Transglobal hired respondent
DO
Chu as
NOT REPRODUCE.
OFa seaman
SAN BEDAfor UNIVERSITY
a nine (9)-month duty onPROPERTY
SALE. DO
OF NOT
board a vessel.SAN
While
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
at a UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR port in DO
SALE. Taiwan,
NOTChu and his four
COLLEGE OF(4)LAW.
companions
NOT FORleft the vessel.
SALE. DO NOT Upon their return,OF
COLLEGE their
LAW.captain
NOT was
FOR SALE. DO
infuriated in view of their tardiness. The latter served them with a reprimand letter for misbehaving and
DUCE. PROPERTY OFarguing with a chief officer in the captain’s presence. They refused to sign the letter since it allegedlyOF SAN BED
contained UNIVERSITY
false statements. COLLEGE
They were OF LAW.
dismissed NOT FOR
as a result UNIVERSITY
thereof. Transglobal COLLEGE
alleges OF LAW. NOT F
that Chu’s
LE. DO NOT unwarranted
REPRODUCE. refusal to sign the reprimand
SALE. DO NOT letter
REPRODUCE.in violation of his captain’s order
SALE. DO NOTconstitute
REPRODUCE.
insubordination which is a ground for dismissal. Was Chu validly dismissed? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF No, ChuBEDA
SAN was not validly dismissed.
REPRODUCE.Insubordination
PROPERTY or willful
OF SAN disobedience,
BEDA as a just cause for the PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. dismissal OF SAN
of an employee, necessitates the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct
must NOT
have FOR
been willful, thatUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
is, characterized OF LAW.
by a wrongful andNOT FOR attitude; UNIVERSITY
perverse COLLEGE
and (2) the order violatedOF LAW. NO
SALE. must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA
had been engaged to discharge. Chu is bound to obey lawful commands of the captain of the ship, but only as
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR long
SALE.
asDO NOT
these pertain COLLEGE OF LAW.
to his duties. There NOT
is noFOR SALE. to
relevance DOthe
NOT
order toCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
sign the documents FOR SALE. DO
in Chu’s
DUCE. PROPERTY OFperformance
SAN BEDAof his duty asREPRODUCE.
a seaman. ThePROPERTY
pieces of evidence
OF SANpresented
BEDA are insufficient to establish
REPRODUCE. that Chu'sOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
46
refusal was characterized by PROPERTY
a wrongful and OFperverse
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
mental PROPERTY
attitude rendering his act OFwith
inconsistent SAN BEDA UNIVER
proper
subordination.
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Chu had explained that he refused to sign the
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT written reprimand for he maintained that the same
contained falsehoods. A seaman is bound to obey lawful commands of the captain of the ship but only as long
ODUCE. PROPERTYasOFthese
SANpertains
BEDA to his duties;
signing a written reprimand is not one of these duties REPRODUCE.
(TransglobalPROPERTY
Maritime OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OFAgency,
LAW. NOT FOR
Inc. v. UNIVERSITY
Vicente Chua, Jr., G.R. No.COLLEGE
222430, OF LAW.
August 30,NOT
2017,FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
Covered Case).
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIV
127. A, a security guard of KLP, while doing his usual inspection around the company’s premises heard a
LEGE OF LAW. NOTsound of a running
FOR SALE. DO NOTindustrial fan. WithOF
COLLEGE theLAW.
intention
NOTofFOR
turning
SALE.it off,
DO he followedCOLLEGE
NOT the soundOFonly to find
LAW. NOT FOR SAL
X and Y having
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA sexual intercourse beside the big bamboo organ.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA A immediately went back to the guard
house and relayed what he saw to B, another security guard on duty. Due to such event, X and Y were
IVERSITY COLLEGEdismissed
OF LAW. NOTdue toFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
serious misconduct. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
a. Was the termination valid?
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOthey
b. Will NOTbe entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW.pay?
to separation NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
a. Yes, the termination is valid. Sexual acts and intimacies between two consenting adults belong, as a
principled ideal, to the realm of purely private relations. Whether aroused by lust or inflamed by sincere
affection, sexualPROPERTY
acts shouldOF DO NOT
be carried
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
out atUNIVERSITY
such place, time and circumstance
PROPERTY SALE.
that, DO
OFbySAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
the generally
UNIVERSITY
accepted norms of conduct, will not offend public decency nor disturb the generally held or accepted
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOsocial
NOT morals.COLLEGE OF LAW.
Under these NOT FOR
parameters, SALE.
sexual actsDO NOT two COLLEGE
between consentingOF LAW.
adults do NOT FORaSALE. DO N
not have
place in the work environment PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
(Imasen Philippine REPRODUCE.
Manufacturing Corporation PROPERTY
v. Alcon, OF SAN BEDA
G.R. No.
194884,
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR October 22, 2014).
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE.b. No, X and Y are not
ERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
entitled to OF
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
separation pay. UNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA The payment of separation SALE.
pay isDO
PROPERTY onlyNOT
due
OF REPRODUCE.
when
SAN a UNIVERS
BEDA
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.dismissal
DO NOTis on COLLEGE
account of OF
an authorized
LAW. NOTcause and the
FOR SALE. DOamount
NOT of separation
COLLEGEpay OFdepends on the
ground for the termination of employment (Belarde v. Fuentes, G.R. Nos. 205685-86, June 22, 2015).
128.
RSITY COLLEGE OF A, the NOT
LAW. company’s
FOR secretary, was offered
UNIVERSITY a promotion.
COLLEGE However,
OF LAW. despite theUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR offer and a huge increase
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. in her salary, she refused. The company then dismissed A based on willful disobedience which
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
prompted A to file an illegal dismissal case. Will the case prosper? Explain.
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
UCE. PROPERTY OF Yes,
SAN the illegal dismissal case will prosper. Promotion is the advancement from one position to another with
an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTAnFOR
salary. employee isUNIVERSITY
not bound toCOLLEGE OF LAW. which
accept a promotion, NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
is in the nature COLLEGE
of a gift or reward. OF LAW.
Refusal to NOT FO
E. DO be promoted is a valid exercise of a right. Such exercise cannot be considered in law as insubordination or
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer hence, it cannot be the basis of an employee's dismissal
from service COLLEGE
(PHARMACIA and OF LAW. NOT
UPJOHN, FOR
INC. v. SALE.Jr.,
Albayda, DOG.R.
NOTNo. 172724,
COLLEGE OF23,
August LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
2010).
ERTY OF SAN
TheBEDA UNIVERSITY
following SALE. DO
are the just causes forPROPERTY NOT REPRODUCE.
OFemployment
termination of SAN BEDAasUNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY
provided by D.O. No. 147-15, DO5.4:
Sec. NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Installation of Labor-saving Devices; Requisites
1. There BEDA
must be introductionREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
of machinery, equipment or OF SAN
other BEDA
devices; REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
2. The introduction
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR must be done in good faith;
ALE. DO NOT 3. The purpose for such introduction
REPRODUCE. must
SALE. DO beNOT
validREPRODUCE.
such as to save on cost, enhance SALE.
efficiency NOT
and other
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
justifiable economic reasons; PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
4. SALE.
F LAW. NOT FOR ThereDO
is no other option
NOT available
COLLEGE OFtoLAW.
the employer
NOT FORthanSALE.
the introduction
DO NOT of machinery,
COLLEGEequipment
OF LAW.orNOT
device
FORandSALE. DO N
the consequent termination of employment of those affected thereby; and
5. There must be fair and reasonable criteria in selecting employees to be dismissed.
E. DO Redundancy; Requisites
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
1.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
There must be superfluous positions or services of employees;
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR2. SALE. DO NOTor services
The positions COLLEGE
are inOF LAW.ofNOT
excess whatFOR SALE. DOdemanded
is reasonably NOT COLLEGE
by OFrequirements
the actual LAW. NOT FOR of theSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF enterprise
SAN BEDA to operate inREPRODUCE.
an economical PROPERTY
and efficient OF
manner;
3. There must be good faith in abolishing redundant positions;
Y COLLEGE OF 4.LAW. NOT
There FORbe fair andUNIVERSITY
must COLLEGE
reasonable criteria OF LAW.
in selecting the NOT FOR to be dismissed;
employees UNIVERSITY
and COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN 5. There
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.ofDO
must be an adequatePROPERTY
proof NOT
redundancy
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
such
BEDAasUNIVERSITY SALE. DO
but not limited to the newPROPERTY
staffing NOT
pattern, REPRODUCE.
feasibility
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
studies/proposal, on the viability of the newly created positions, job description and the approval by the
management COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
of the restructuring. COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Retrenchment or Downsizing;
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Requisites
1. The retrenchment must be reasonably necessary and likely to prevent business losses;
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA2. UNIVERSITY
The losses, if already incurred,
PROPERTY SALE.
are not DO
SANNOT
OFmerely de REPRODUCE.
BEDA minimis, but substantial, serious,
UNIVERSITY SALE.
actual
PROPERTY OF DO
and SANNOT
real, or REPRODUCE.
if only
BEDA UNIVERSITY
expected, are reasonably imminent;
3. The expected or actual losses must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence;
47
OPERTY OF SAN4. BEDA UNIVERSITYmust be in good
The retrenchment PROPERTY OF advancement
faith for the SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
of its interest and not to defeat OF SANtheBEDA UNIVE
or circumvent
employees’ right
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT to security of tenure; and
5. There must be fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained
among the employees, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
financial hardship for OF SAN
certain NOT FOR
workers. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF SANREPRODUCE
BEDA UN
Closure or Cessation of Operation; Requisites
OLLEGE OF LAW. 1. NOT
There
FORmust be aDO
SALE. decision
NOT to close or ceaseOF
COLLEGE operation of theFOR
LAW. NOT enterprise
SALE. by
DOthe management;
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
2. The decision
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA was made in good faith; and
3. There is no other option available to the employer except to close or cease operations.
SALE. Disease; Requisites
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
1.
OF DO
SANNOT
The employee must be suffering from any disease;
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT
2. FOR SALE. DOemployment
The continued NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
of the employee NOT FORbySALE.
is prohibited law orDO NOT to his/her
prejudicial COLLEGE OFasLAW.
health NOT
well as to FOR SALE.
the OF
RODUCE. PROPERTY health
SANof BEDA
his/her co-employees; and
3. There must be certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within a period
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.
UNIVERSIT
Other Causes of Termination
1. Reasonable and lawfulCOLLEGE OF LAW.
grounds specified NOTcompany
under FOR SALE. DO NOT
policies; COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY2. OF
AnSAN BEDAfound positive
employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
for use of dangerous OFshall
drugs SANbeBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
dealt with administratively;
3. Sexual harassment
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR (serious misconduct); and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
4. Those provided for under the CBA (D.O. No. 147-15, Sec. 6).
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
129. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT Arlene wasDO
SALE. hiredNOTas a news correspondent
COLLEGE OF LAW. byNOT
Fiji Inc.
FORforSALE.
a period
DOofNOT
one year.COLLEGE
The employment
OF LAW. contact
NOT FOR SALE.
was successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary adjustments upon every renewal. Years
passed, andBEDA REPRODUCE.
Arlene was diagnosed PROPERTY
with lung cancer. She OF SAN BEDAFiji Inc. about
informed REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
her condition, which OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OFprompted
LAW. NOT Fiji Inc
FORto deny the renewal of her
UNIVERSITY contract
COLLEGE OFconsidering
LAW. NOTher condition.UNIVERSITY
FOR Arlene filed aCOLLEGE
complaintOF LAW. NO
SALE. for illegal dismissal alleging thatSALE.
she was forced to sign the non-renewal contract upon knowledge of
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SANNOTBEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
her condition reached Fiji Inc. Will the case prosper? PROPERTYSALE.OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
Yes, Arlene was illegally dismissed. For termination due to disease to be valid, two requirements must be
complied with: (1) the employee’s disease cannot be cured within six (6) months and his "continued
employment UNIVERSITY
is prohibited COLLEGE
by law or prejudicial OFhealth
to his LAW.as NOTwellFOR UNIVERSITY
as to the health COLLEGE OF
of his co-employees"; andLAW. NOT F
LE. DO (2) certification issued by a competent public health authority that even with proper medical treatment, the
SAN BEDA
disease cannot be cured within six (6) months. The burden of proving compliance with these requisites is on UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR the
SALE. DO NOT
employer. COLLEGE
Noncompliance OFtoLAW.
leads NOT FORthat
the conclusion SALE. DO NOT was illegal.
the dismissal COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
There is no evidence showing that Arlene was accorded due process. After informing her employer of her
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
lung NOT FOR
cancer, she was notUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
given the chance OF LAW.
to present NOTcertificates.
medical FOR UNIVERSITY
Fiji immediately COLLEGE
concluded OF
thatLAW. NOT F
Arlene
could no longer performPROPERTY
her duties because
OF SANofBEDA
chemotherapy.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
It did not ask herPROPERTY DO NOT
how her condition
OF SANREPRODUCE.
would
BEDA UNIVE
affect her work. Neither did it suggest for her to take a leave, even though she was entitled to sick leaves.
Worse, DO
it did notNOT COLLEGE
present any OFfrom
certificate LAW. NOT FORpublic
a competent SALE.health
DO NOT
authority.COLLEGE OFwas
What Fiji did LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
to inform
RODUCE. PROPERTYherOF
that
SANher BEDA
contract would noREPRODUCE.
longer be renewed (Fuji Television
PROPERTY OF SANNetwork,
BEDA Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. Nos.PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. 204944- OF SAN
45, December
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 3, 2014). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
130. UNIVERSITY
RTY OF SAN BEDA X and Y were employedPROPERTY SALE. DO
by AB Laboratories NOT
in the Pedia Division. However,
UNIVERSITY theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
positions of REPRODUCE
the
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR respondents
SALE. DO NOT were declared redundant when the Pedia Division and its Medical Nutrition Division were
merged into one. This resulted in the termination of X and Y, who were subsequently offered them the
position of district salesREPRODUCE.
manager. They PROPERTY
denied theOF SANA BEDA
offer. REPRODUCE.
complaint for illegal dismissal PROPERTY
was filed byOF SAN BED
X and
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. Y arguing
NOT FOR thatUNIVERSITY
no fair criteria was utilized
COLLEGE OF LAW. in determining
NOT FOR who UNIVERSITY
among the employees
COLLEGE OF areLAW. NOT F
redundant. AB Laboratories argued that respondents were dismissed for an authorized cause. Is the
LE. DO
PROPERTY
contention of AB Laboratories
DO
OF NOT
correct?
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
No, there was no valid implementation of the redundancy program. For there to be a valid implementation
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
of a redundancy program, the following should be present: (1) written notice served on both thePROPERTY
employeesOF SAN BED
and the FOR
Department UNIVERSITY
of Labor COLLEGE
and Employment at OF LAW.
least NOT FOR
one month UNIVERSITY
prior to the intended date ofCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
retrenchment;
LE. DO NOT (2) payment
REPRODUCE. of separation pay equivalent to
SALE. DO NOT at least one month
REPRODUCE. pay or at least one month pay for
SALE. DO NOT every year
REPRODUCE.
of service, whichever is higher; (3) good faith in abolishing the redundant positions; and (4) fair and reasonable
criteria
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR in ascertaining
SALE. DO NOT whatCOLLEGEpositions are
OFtoLAW.
be declared
NOT FORredundant
SALE.and
DOaccordingly
NOT abolished. OF
COLLEGE AB LAW.
Laboratories
NOT FOR SALE.
failed to establish
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA compliance with the fourth requirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA since it did not gauge the
REPRODUCE.employees
redundant PROPERTY OF SAN
against the preference criteria of status, efficiency, and proficiency. Furthermore, the offer for job openings for
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
theLAW. NOT
position of FOR
district sales UNIVERSITY
manager puts COLLEGE
a cloud onOFtheLAW. NOT
wisdom andFOR UNIVERSITY
validity of the redundancy COLLEGE
program asOF LAW. NO
SALE. the essence of redundancy is that the existing manpower exceeds more than what is necessary in their
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
operation (Abbott Laboratories (Philippines), Inc. v. Manuel F. Torralba, G.R. No. 229746, October 11, 2017,
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR Covered
SALE. DO NOT
Case). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
48
Two-fold OF
ODUCE. PROPERTY requirements
SAN BEDAof due process:
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
In order for dismissal of employees to be valid, substantive and procedural requirements of due process must be
complied with. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT
a. The substantive
aspect requires
PROPERTY DOdismissal
that the NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
be for UNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
(a) just cause under Art. PROPERTY
297 DO NOT
(Termination
OF SANREPRODUCE.
by BEDA UNIV
Employer) or (a) authorized cause under Art. 298 (Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel) or
LEGE OF LAW. NOTArt.
FOR299SALE.
(DiseaseDO as
NOT Ground COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
for Termination). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
b. The procedural
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA aspect requires that the employer
REPRODUCE. shall observe
PROPERTY OF SANthe BEDA
following: If the termination
REPRODUCE.is based on
PROPERTY OF SA
just cause under
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Art. 297: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
• A written notice served on the employee specifying the (i) ground(s) for termination, (ii) company policies,
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA if any, (iii) detailed narration
of facts as DO
SANNOT
OFbasis theREPRODUCE.
ofBEDA charge, and (iv) a directive for
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
the employee
PROPERTY NOT
to give
SAN a REPRODU
BEDA UNIVER
writtenDO
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. explanation
NOT within a reasonable
COLLEGE OF LAW.period
NOT[“Reasonable
FOR SALE. DO period”
NOTis construed as aOF
COLLEGE period
LAW.of at
NOTleast
FOR SALE. D
5 calendar days.];
ODUCE. PROPERTY• OFASAN BEDA
hearing or conferenceREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
during which the employer OF SANafford
should BEDAthe employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
ample opportunity to be OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
heard andFOR UNIVERSITY
to defend himself with theCOLLEGE
assistanceOFofLAW.
counselNOT FOR
if he so desires.UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Ample opportunity OF LAW. NO
to be
SALE. DO NOT heard” means any meaningfulSALE.
REPRODUCE. opportunity
DO (verbal
NOT or written) given to the employee toSALE.
REPRODUCE. answerDOtheNOT
charges
REPRODUCE.
against him/her and submit evidence in support of his/her defense, whether in a hearing, conference or
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.some other fair, COLLEGE
DO NOT just and reasonable
OF LAW.way
NOT(D.O.
FORNo. 147-15,
SALE. DOSec.
NOT5.1(b))]; and
• A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that (i) all circumstances involving the
charge have been considered and (ii) the grounds have been established to justify the severance of
employment. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
BEDA UNIVERS
If the termination is based on authorized cause under Arts. 298 and 299: It is deemed complied with upon service of
E OF LAW. NOT FOR
written SALE.
notice DOemployee
to the NOT and COLLEGE OF LAW.
the appropriate NOT FOR
Regional OfficeSALE.
of theDO NOT
DOLE at leastCOLLEGE OF LAW.
30 days before NOT FOR SALE. DO
the effectivity
of the termination,
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA specifying the ground or grounds therefor. If
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAthe termination is based on (i) completion of a contract
or phase thereof, (ii) failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of probationary
employment: It shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT
dateREPRODUCE.
BEDA ofUNIVERSITY
termination (IRR of the LABOR
PROPERTY SALE.
CODE, DO
SANNOT
OFBook VI, REPRODUCE.
Rule
BEDA I, Sec. 2, as amended by D.O.
UNIVERSITY 147,SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
series NOT
of 2015).
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTNote:
FORAnSALE. DO NOT
employee COLLEGE
may validly OF LAW.
be dismissed basedNOT FOR SALE.and
on reasonable DOlawful
NOTgrounds
COLLEGE
specifiedOF LAW.
under theNOT FOR SALE. DO N
employer’s
company BEDA
policy REPRODUCE.
or under the CBA. PROPERTY
(D.O. 147, series of 2015,OF SAN6 BEDA
Secs. and 7). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Resignation
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is the voluntary act of employees who are compelled
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR by personal reasons to disassociate
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE themselves
OF LAW. NOT FO
from their employment. On the other hand, there is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility,
or disdain
SALE.
by an employer becomesPROPERTY
DO NOT
OFthe
unbearable on
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
part of theUNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
employee that it could foreclose
DO NOT
any OF
REPRODUCE.
SANofBEDA
choice him UNIVERS
except
E OF LAW. NOT to forego
FOR SALE.ofDOhisNOT
continued COLLEGE
employmentOF(Hyatt
LAW.Taxi
NOTServices, Inc. v.DO
FOR SALE. Catinoy,
NOT G.R.COLLEGE
No. 143204,
OFJune
LAW. 26,NOT
2011).
FOR SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY
131. A OFwas
SAN BEDAemployed REPRODUCE.
initially PROPERTY
by BB as a Supervisor forOF SAN
their BEDA Thereafter,
restaurant. REPRODUCE.
when the PROPERTY
restaurant OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF closed,
LAW. NOTshe FOR UNIVERSITY
was transferred COLLEGE
to do office OFbecame
work and LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
an Administrative and FinanceCOLLEGE
assistantOF
to LAW. NOT
ALE. DO NOT CC. When BB ventured into other
REPRODUCE. businesses,
SALE. DO NOT A’s duties extended, performing various
REPRODUCE. SALE. functions
DO NOT to
REPRODUCE.
each of the B’s business. Subsequently, A filed a resignation letter due to the not so favorable
treatment COLLEGE
of CC towards her. OF LAW. NOT
However, FOR
BB did SALE.
not DOher
accept NOT COLLEGE
resignation OF LAW. NOT
and convinced her toFOR
staySALE. DO N
and work.
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Nevertheless, her experience became worse.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA A’s resignation was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYshe
finally accepted when OF SAN BEDA
filed the same due to an incident when CC called her on the phone, scolded and berated her and told
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
her that if she did not want to continue to work, the company could manage without her. She then filedLAW. NOT FO
E. DO
SAN BEDA for illegal dismissal. Was ASALE.
UNIVERSITY DO
OF NOT
constructively
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SAN dismissed?
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,DOthis
NOTis a caseCOLLEGE OF LAW.
of resignation and notNOT FOR SALE.
dismissal. There DO NOT
is constructive COLLEGE OF LAW.
dismissal when NOT FOR
an employer's actSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF of clear
SAN discrimination, REPRODUCE.
BEDA insensibility or disdain
PROPERTY becomes so unbearable
OF SAN BEDA on theREPRODUCE.
part of the employee so as OF
PROPERTY to SAN BEDA
foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment. It exists where there is involuntary
resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer. Strong words may
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDAsometimes
UNIVERSITY asSALE.
be exchanged PROPERTY DO NOT
the employer
OF SANREPRODUCE.
describes her expectations or as the
employee
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
narrates
OF SAN the UNIVERS
BEDA
conditions of her work environment and the obstacles she encounters as she accomplishes her assigned tasks.
E OF LAW. NOT FORAsSALE. DOhuman
in every NOT relationship,
COLLEGE OF are
there LAW. NOTtoFOR
bound SALE. DO NOTHowever,
be disagreements. COLLEGE OF LAW.
when these strongNOT FOR SALE. DO
words
ODUCE. PROPERTY from
OF SAN BEDA happenREPRODUCE.
the employer PROPERTY
without palpable reason or OF
are SAN BEDAonly for theREPRODUCE.
expressed PROPERTY
purpose of degrading the OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF dignity
LAW. NOTof theFOR
employee, then a hostile work
UNIVERSITY environment
COLLEGE will be
OF LAW. created.
NOT FOR This is not the situation
UNIVERSITY in this case.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
A was not pressured into resigning. A was not comfortable anymore with the fact that she was always at the
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
beck and call of BB (Lourdes SALE.
OF DO
SAN
C. Rodriguez v.NOT
BEDA
ParkREPRODUCE.
N UNIVERSITY MarchSALE.
PROPERTY
Ride, Inc. G.R. No. 222980, 20,OF DO
SANNOT
2017). BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
49
An employer hasBEDA REPRODUCE.
the right to preventively suspendPROPERTY OFduring
the employee SAN BEDA
the pendency ofREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
the administrative case OF SAN
against him as a measure
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of self – protection (Philippine National Bank
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 166096, September 11,
2008).
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
OF SAN BEDA UN
132. When is it proper to impose preventive suspension?
An employee may be placed under preventive suspension, when: OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF
1. The evidence
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of guilt is strong, and the employer or head
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of establishment is convinced that
UNIVERSITY the
COLLEGE OF LAW
continued stay of the employee during the period of investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
operations of the company;
and OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR2.SALE.
His DO
continued
NOT employment
COLLEGE poses a serious
OF LAW. NOTand imminent
FOR SALE.threat
DO NOTto life or property
COLLEGE of the
OF employer
LAW. NOT or FOR SALE.
his co-workers (Gatbonton v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146779, January 23, 2006).
It shallNOT FOR
be for a maximum UNIVERSITY
period of 30 COLLEGE OFwhich
days, during LAW.period
NOT the
FORemployeeUNIVERSITY
placed under COLLEGE
preventive OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT suspension is not entitled to any wages.
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT133.
FOR SSALE.
was charged
DO NOT with violating
COLLEGE"various
OF LAW.company
NOT FOR policies by misrepresenting
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGEand OF
using
LAW.hisNOT
position
FOR SALE. DO
and influence
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in his plot to defraud S Company. Pending
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA administrative investigation, S was placed
under preventive suspension without pay for a period of 30 days. Continued audit investigation,
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT revealed
however, FOR thatUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
S approved/noted OF LAW.
several CEs NOT FORactivitiesUNIVERSITY
covering COLLEGEwere
for which payments OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT made but not actually carriedSALE.
REPRODUCE. out. Unaccredited
DO NOT third parties were also engaged in
REPRODUCE. the implementation
of the projects. S was again preventively suspended for another 10 days. May a subsequent preventive
suspension beNOT COLLEGE
imposed for OF LAW.
a separate NOToffense
or distinct FOR SALE.
upon DO
anNOT
employee?COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Yes, a subsequent preventive suspension may be imposed for a separate or distinct offense upon an
employee. While the Omnibus Rules limits the period of preventive suspension to 30 days, such time frame
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA pertains only to one offense
UNIVERSITY by theSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
employee. For REPRODUCE.
an
BEDA offense, it cannot go beyond
UNIVERSITY SALE.
30 days.
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
However,
OF REPRODUCE
if the
BEDA UNIVERSIT
employee is charged with another offense, then the employer is entitled to impose a preventive suspension
OF LAW. NOT FOR not
SALE. DO NOT
to exceed COLLEGE for
30 days specifically OFthe
LAW.
newNOT FOR Indeed,
infraction. SALE. DO NOT
a fresh COLLEGE
preventive OF LAW.
suspension can beNOT FOR SALE. DO
imposed
DUCE. PROPERTY OFfor a separate or distinct offense. Thus, an employer is well within its rights to preventively suspend anOF SAN BED
employee
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for
FORother wrongdoings
UNIVERSITY that may be later
COLLEGE OFdiscovered
LAW. NOT while
FORthe first investigation
UNIVERSITY is ongoing
COLLEGE (Smart
OF LAW. NOT F
Communications, Inc. v. Solidum, G.R. No. 19776; December 7, 2015).
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
An illegally dismissed employee shall be entitled to the following:
a. Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges;
OPERTY OF SANb.BEDA
Full UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
backwages, inclusive of allowances;
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
c. Other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of his actual reinstatement (Art. 294, Labor Code).
The following reliefs
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR are also awarded in illegal dismissal cases:
a. Award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement where reinstatement is not possible;
SALE. DO NOT
b. UNIVERSITY
Award of separation pay or PROPERTY SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN BEDA
financial assistance REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
in cases of VALID dismissal butPROPERTYSALE.
long years OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
of service, REPRODUCE
and UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR others
SALE. are
DOtaken
NOTinto consideration;
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANInBEDA
Note: REPRODUCE.
Philippine Long Distance PROPERTY
Telephone CompanyOFv. SAN BEDA
National REPRODUCE.
Labor Relations Commission, PROPERTY
the SupremeOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
CourtNOT FOR the harsh
recognized UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
realities faced OF LAW.that
by employees NOT FORthem, despite
forced UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
their good OFtoLAW. NOT F
intentions,
LE. DO violate company policies, for which the employer can rightfully terminate their employment. For these
SAN BEDA
instances, the award of financial assistance was allowed. But, in clear and unmistakable language, the UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR Supreme
SALE. DOCourtNOTalso held that theOFaward
COLLEGE LAW.ofNOTfinancial
FOR assistance
SALE. DO should
NOT not COLLEGE
be given toOFvalidly
LAW.terminated
NOT FOR SALE. DO
employees, whose offenses are iniquitous or reflective of some depravity in their moral character.
ITY COLLEGE OF
c. LAW. NOT
Reliefs FOR dismissed
to illegally UNIVERSITY
employeeCOLLEGE OF LAW.isNOT
whose employment for aFOR
fixed period;UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT d. The
REPRODUCE.proper relief is only the payment of the
SALE. DO NOT employee’s salaries
REPRODUCE. corresponding to the unexpired
SALE. DOportion
NOT of the
REPRODUCE.
employment contract;
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOTe. FOR SALE.
Award DO NOTand attorney’s
of damages COLLEGE OFand
fees; LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
f. Imposition
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SANofBEDA
legal interest onREPRODUCE.
separation pay,PROPERTY
backwages OFandSAN
otherBEDA
monetary award.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.isNOT
Reinstatement FOR
the restoration UNIVERSITY
to a COLLEGE
state or condition OF LAW.
from which NOTbeen
one had FORremovedUNIVERSITY
or separated. COLLEGE
The personOF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
reinstated assumes the position hePROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
had occupied DO
SANNOT
OFprior hisREPRODUCE.
toBEDA dismissal. SALE.
Reinstatement presupposes
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY that DO
OFthe NOT REPRODUCE
previous
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially
equivalent or of DO NOT
similar COLLEGE
nature as the one OF LAW. NOT
previously FORby
occupied SALE. DO NOT (DUPCOLLEGE
the employee OF LAW.
Sounds Phils. NOT
and/ or FOR SALE. DO
Manuel
DUCE. PROPERTY
Tan v. OF SAN
Court of BEDA
Appeals, G.R. No.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
168317, November 21, OF SANThe
2011). BEDA REPRODUCE.
Labor Arbiter’s PROPERTYisOF SAN BED
order of reinstatement
50
immediately executory, and no writ ofPROPERTY
execution isOF SAN BEDA
necessary UNIVERSITY
to implement the said order ofPROPERTY OF(Garcia
reinstatement SAN BEDA
v. UNIVER
Philippine Airlines,
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009).
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected REPRODUCE.
because of PROPERTY
the unjust OF SAN B
dismissal NOT v.
(Bordomeo FOR UNIVERSITY
Court of Appeals, COLLEGE
G.R. No. OF LAW.20,
161596, February NOT FOR
2013) UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
134. How do we compute backwages?
EPRODUCE. PROPERTYItOF is computed
SAN BEDA from the timeREPRODUCE.
of the illegal dismissal
PROPERTY up toOF
time of actual
SAN BEDA reinstatement. If reinstatement
REPRODUCE. is
PROPERTY OF SA
no longer possible, it is computed until finality of the decision (St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty
IVERSITY COLLEGEAssociation
OF LAW. NOTv. St.FOR UNIVERSITY
Joseph Academy COLLEGE
of Valenzuela, G.R. OF
No. LAW. NOT
182957, FOR
June 13, 2013). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
135. What are included in the computation of backwages?
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFTheSANCourt
BEDAhas declaredREPRODUCE.
that the base PROPERTY
figure to beOFused
SAN in BEDA
the computation REPRODUCE.
of backwages due to the OF SAN B
PROPERTY
employee should include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving
RSITY COLLEGE OFsuch
as the emergency living allowances and the 13th-month pay mandated under the law (Paramount Vinyl
Product Corporation vs.PROPERTY
NLRC, G.R. OF DO
No.SAN NOT
81200, REPRODUCE.
October
BEDA 17, 1990).
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR
136. SALE.
A is DO NOT as bank
working COLLEGE OF LAW.
collector. It wasNOT
laterFOR SALE. DO
discovered NOT
that several COLLEGE
funds sheOF LAW.
was NOT FOR
handling wereSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF misappropriated.
SAN BEDA The REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
bank then dismissed A andOF SAN
filed BEDA of criminalREPRODUCE.
a series cases againstPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
her. A, on the
other hand,
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR filed an illegal dismissal case against
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the bank. The court held that there was illegal
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of A. However, instead of reinstatement, separation pay was
ERTY OF SAN BEDAgiven SALE.
to A due strained relations.
BEDA UNIVERS
a. Was such act by the bank correct?
b. IfBEDA REPRODUCE.
there is no reinstatement, whatPROPERTY OFtoSAN
will happen BEDA
A’s backwages? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
ALE. a. Yes, the act of the bank of givingDO
separation pay instead of reinstating A is correct. In instances where
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF SANNOT BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.OF DOSANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA
reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOemployer,
NOT separation
COLLEGEpay OF should be granted.
LAW. NOT In effect,
FOR SALE. DO NOTan illegallyCOLLEGE
dismissedOFemployee
LAW. NOTshould
FORbeSALE. DO N
entitled to either reinstatement – if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer be viable,
plus backwages in either instance (Wenphil Corporation vs Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014).
E. DO b. Employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusive
SALE.ofDO
allowances and
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual compensation was
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOwithheld
NOT from COLLEGE
them upOFto LAW. NOT
the time FOR actual
of their SALE. reinstatement.
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. isNOT
But if reinstatement FOR SALE. DO N
no longer
possible,
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the backwages shall be computed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfrom the time of their illegal termination up to the finality
of the decision (Bank of Lubao, Inc. v Manabat, G.R. No. 188722, February 1, 2012).
ERTY OF SAN137.
BEDAAUNIVERSITY SALE.
case of illegal dismissalPROPERTY DO
was filed byNOT
OFVD REPRODUCE.
SANagainst
BEDAUB Inc. and JU. The LA ruled
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
that
PROPERTY NOT
VD’s REPRODUCE.
OF dismissal
SAN BEDA UNIVERS
was valid but was reversed by the NLRC on appeal. VD was awarded backwages from the date of her
dismissal upNOT COLLEGE
to the date of the OF
NLRCLAW. NOT FOR
decision and SALE. DO NOT
separation COLLEGE
pay in lieu OF LAW. NOT
of reinstatement due FOR
to SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY strained
OF SAN relations.
BEDA The decision became
REPRODUCE. final and OF
PROPERTY executory.
SAN BEDAUB Inc. later REPRODUCE.
challenged thePROPERTY
basis for OF SAN B
NLRC’s award
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of backwages computed at the time of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORVA’s dismissal up to the finality of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEthe Court’s
OF LAW. NOT
Decision, arguing that full backwages is computed from the time an illegally dismissed employee’s
compensation is withheld
up to the DO
OF time NOT
SAN of REPRODUCE.
his actual
BEDA reinstatement. And
UNIVERSITY SALE.
since theOF
PROPERTY DO NOT
decision REPRODUCE.
of the
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
NLRC awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, petitioners argue that backwages should no
longer accrue beyond the date of the said NLRC Decision. How is the amount of backwages computed?
The FOR
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT computation UNIVERSITY
of backwagesCOLLEGE
is from theOF time
LAW.of dismissal
NOT FORup to the UNIVERSITY
finality of the COLLEGE
decision ordering
OF LAW. NOT FO
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. When separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement, backwages is
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
computed from the time PROPERTY
SALE. DO
of dismissal OF
NOT
untilSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
the finality ofUNIVERSITY
SALE.
PROPERTY
the decision ordering separation
DO
pay. OF
NOT
TheSAN
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
finality UNIVERSITY
of the
decision
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO becomes
NOT the reckoning
COLLEGE OF point
LAW.because
NOT FOR in SALE.
allowing
DOseparation
NOT pay, the final
COLLEGE OFdecision effectively
declares that the employment relationship ended so that separation pay and backwages are to be computed
UCE. PROPERTY OF up
to that point (U-BIX Corporation v. Valerie Anne H. Hollero, G.R. No. 199660, July 13, 2015). OF SAN BEDA
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
138. X and Y were dismissed, along with 200 other employees of Rid-Rite, on the ground of retrenchment.
ODUCE. PROPERTY Each
of them received involuntary separation benefits. However, there wereREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
eight other employees
RSITY COLLEGE OF who
LAW.were
NOTmistakenly
FOR paid additional COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY voluntary OF
separation
LAW. NOTbenefits.
FOR X and UNIVERSITY
Y filed a complaint before
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
the LA for payment of such additional voluntary separation benefits. X and Y argued that Rid-Rite
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
discriminated againstPROPERTY
SALE.
them by not
DO
SANNOT
OFgranting
BEDA REPRODUCE.
theUNIVERSITY
aforesaid benefits, thePROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
award of which SAN NOT
BEDA
had
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
since
become
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO aNOT
companyCOLLEGE
policy. Rid-Rite
OF LAW.avers
NOTthat
FORX and Y were
SALE. separatedCOLLEGE
DO NOT from service on theNOT
OF LAW. ground
FORofSALE. DO N
retrenchment, which separation was involuntary in nature. Hence, nothing more was due to them. Are
UCE. PROPERTY OF XSAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
and Y entitled to additional voluntary separation benefits?
51
No, X and
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Y are not entitled additional voluntary separation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT benefits. Voluntary and involuntary
COLLEGE separation
benefits are distinct from one another. By its nomenclature alone, one could easily discern that the award of
voluntary separation benefits involves a situation that is opposite of that contemplated in involuntary separation OF SAN
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.–NOT
benefits FOR
that is, UNIVERSITY
the employee's separationCOLLEGE OF LAW.isNOT
from employment by hisFOR
own choice UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
and/or for reasons within OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT his control.
REPRODUCE. Given the diametrical nature of
SALE. DO NOT an involuntary and
REPRODUCE. a voluntary separation from service,
SALE. DO NOT oneREPRODUCE
necessarily excludes the other. As X and Y’s termination was involuntary in nature, i.e., by virtue of a OF SAN BEDA UN
retrenchment
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.program
DO NOT undertaken by Rid-Rite,
COLLEGE they are
OF LAW. NOTonlyFOR
entitled
SALE.to receive
DO NOT involuntary separation
COLLEGE OF benefits
LAW. NOT FOR SA
(Read-Rite Philippines,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Inc. v. Gina Francisco, G.R. No. 195457,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA August 16, 2017, Covered Case).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW.139. B worked
NOT FOR SALE.asDO
a part-time
NOT professional
COLLEGE OFlecturer at XYZ
LAW. NOT FORSchool
SALE.inDO
1974.
NOTHe tookCOLLEGE
a leave ofOF
absence
LAW. from
NOT FOR SALE.
1975 to 1977. Upon returning in 1977, he resumed teaching in the school until 2003, the year his
employment was terminatedREPRODUCE.
by the school PROPERTY
because he OF wasSAN BEDA
already 75 years old.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
Thereafter, B claimed
VERSITY COLLEGE OF
hisLAW. NOT pay
retirement FORfrom XYZ UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
School, which OFdenied
the latter LAW. NOT FOR
on the ground thatUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
he was merely a part- OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT time teacher who was not entitled
REPRODUCE. to such
SALE. DO benefit.
NOT B filed a complaint against XYZSALE.
REPRODUCE. School forNOT
non-
RTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
payment of retirement benefits. Will the action prosper? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
DO UNIVERSIT
Yes,
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the action will prosper. B is entitled to retirement
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA benefits pursuant to RA 7641. To avail the
REPRODUCE. retirementOF SAN BED
PROPERTY
benefits under Art. 302 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA. 7641, the following requisites must concur:
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.a.NOT TheFORemployee hasUNIVERSITY
reached theCOLLEGE
age of 60 OFyears
LAW.forNOT FORretirement
optional UNIVERSITY
or 65 years COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
for compulsory
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. retirement; SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
b.
The employee has served at least five years in the establishment; and
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR c.
SALE. DO NOT
There COLLEGE
is no retirement planOF
or LAW.
other NOT FOR SALE.
applicable DO NOT
agreement providingCOLLEGE OF LAW.
for retirement NOTofFOR SALE.
benefits
employees
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA in the establishment.
Retirement Pay Law shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position,
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA designation or status and PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
irrespective OF DO
of the
SAN NOT
method
BEDAREPRODUCE.
byUNIVERSITY
which their wages are paid. TheySALE.
PROPERTY shall DO
SANNOT
OFinclude REPRODUCE
part-
BEDA UNIVERSIT
time employees, employees of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the
OF LAW. NOT FOR personal
SALE. DO NOTof another
service COLLEGE
(De LaOF LAW. NOTUniversity
Salle-Araneta FOR SALE. DO NOT
v. Juanito COLLEGE
C. Bernardo OF190809,
G.R. No. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
February
13, 2017). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
LE. DO
SAN BEDA
140. UNIVERSITY 1955SALE.
Jona was hired on JunePROPERTYas anDO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA
elementary UNIVERSITY
teacher SALE.
PROPERTY
in SP Colleges. In 1970 she DO
OF NOT
SAN
applied aREPRODUCE.
for BEDA
one UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR (1) yearDO
SALE. leave
NOTof absence due to
COLLEGE OFher mother’s
LAW. NOT FORillness. However,
SALE. DO NOTafter the expiration
COLLEGE OF of saidNOT
LAW. leaveFOR
in SALE. DO
1971, Jona had not been heard by the school. In 1982, Jona applied anew with the school. On 1997,
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN an
during BEDA REPRODUCE.
event in exercises PROPERTY
of the school, Jona was OFawarded
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
a plaque of appreciation for PROPERTY
her 30 yearsOF SAN BED
of service. UNIVERSITY
Upon reaching COLLEGE retirement
the compulsory OF LAW. NOT age FOR UNIVERSITY
of 65, the school COLLEGE
computed OF LAW. NOT F
Joanna’s
LE. DO NOT retirement benefits on account
REPRODUCE. of 15DO
SALE. years
NOTof service (1982-1997), considering sheSALE.
REPRODUCE. abandoned
DO NOTherREPRODUCE.
work
during her employment of 1955-1970. Jona, insists that she did not abandoned her work, and as such
her SALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR retirement benefits must
DO NOT be computed
COLLEGE OF LAW. forNOTher service
FOR SALE.ofDO30NOT
years (1955-1997).
COLLEGE OF Should
LAW.Jona’s
NOT FOR SALE.
Services for the school during the period from 1955 to 1970 be factored in the computation of her
retirement benefits?
SALE. DO NOT No, Jona cannot be credited forSALE.
REPRODUCE. her services
DO NOTin 1955-1970
REPRODUCE.in the determination of her retirement
SALE. benefits.
SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
For, after her one year leave of absence expired in 1971 without her requesting for extension thereof as in fact
OF LAW. NOT FOR she
SALE.
hadDOnotNOT COLLEGE
been heard OFshe
from until LAW. NOT FOR
resurfaced SALE.when
in 1982 DO NOT COLLEGE
she reapplied OF LAW.school,
with petitioner NOT FORshe SALE. DO
abandoned
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA her teaching position as in fact she was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA employed elsewhere in the interim and effectively
relinquished the retirement benefits accumulated during the said period. For a valid finding of abandonment,
two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work, or absence without valid or justifiable reason;
LE. DO
and (2) a clear intention PROPERTY
to sever DO
OF NOT REPRODUCE.
employer-employee
SAN BEDA relationship, with the second
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO
OFasNOT
element REPRODUCE.
theBEDA
SAN more UNIVERSIT
determinative factor, being manifested by some overt acts. To prove abandonment, the employer must show
OF LAW. NOT FOR that
SALE.
theDO NOT deliberately
employee COLLEGEand OFunjustifiably
LAW. NOTrefused
FOR SALE. DO NOT
to resume COLLEGE
his employment OF LAW.
without NOT FOR
any intention of SALE. DO
returning. There must beREPRODUCE.
a concurrencePROPERTY OF SAN
of the intention BEDA and some
to abandon REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
overt acts from which anOF SAN BED
employee
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT may
FOR be deduced as havingCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY no more intention
OF LAW. to NOT
work.FOR
The approved one-year leave
UNIVERSITY of absence
without pay of Jona expired in 1971 without her requesting for extension thereof or notifying the school if and
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN when
she would resume teaching. DO
She
PROPERTY NOT
was SANREPRODUCE.
OFrehired only inUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE. DO NOT
1982 after filing anew anPROPERTY
application, REPRODUCE.
without
OF SAN her
BEDA UNIVE
proffering any explanation for her more than a decade of absence. Under the circumstances, abandonment of
work at petitioner school in 1971 is indubitably manifest (Sta. Catalina College v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 144483, November 19, 2003). OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
141. N was an employee of XYZ Company for 20 years. To facilitate the grant of his SSS retirement benefits,
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
N entered into an agreement
SALE.
OF DO
with XYZ SANNOT
BEDA
Company
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
whereby PROPERTY
the latter would issue
SALE.
OF DOSANNOT
a certification BEDA
of
REPRODUCE
his UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR separation from employment
SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE notwithstanding
OF LAW. NOTthe FORfact of his
SALE. DOcontinued
NOT employment
COLLEGE OFas LAW.
a laborer.
NOTUpon
FOR SALE. DO
reaching the compulsory retirement age, N was actually deemed retired and was paid his last salary,
but not retirement benefits. N filed a claim for the payment of his retirement benefits. In its defense,
52
XYZ Company claims that PROPERTY OF SAN
N was no longer BEDA UNIVERSITY
its employee because Mr. Q employed PROPERTY OF itSAN
him after BEDA UNIVER
issued
N’s certification
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of separation from employment. Is N entitled
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT to retirement benefits under the Labor
Code?
Yes,NOT
N isFOR UNIVERSITY
entitled to retirement COLLEGE
benefits under OF
the LAW.
Labor NOT
Code.FOR UNIVERSITY
In Oro Enterprises v. NLRCCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
(G.R. No.
SALE. DO NOT 110861,
REPRODUCE. November 14, 1994), the Supreme Court
SALE. DO NOT held that
REPRODUCE. the beneficent provisions of Art. 287 of
SALE. DO NOTthe Labor
REPRODUCE.
Code providing for retirement benefits is apart from the retirement benefits that can be claimed by a qualified
LEGE OF LAW. NOTemployee
FOR SALE. under
DOtheNOTsocial security
COLLEGElaw. OFUnder
LAW. Art.NOT
287, FOR
an employee
SALE. DO upon
NOT reaching the age of
COLLEGE OF60LAW.
yearsNOT
or FOR SAL
more, but not
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA beyond the compulsory retirement age, who has
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA served at least 5 years in the said establishment,
may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay. Here, N should be entitled to retirement pay as a necessary
IVERSITY COLLEGEconsequence
OF LAW. NOT FORfinding that
of the UNIVERSITY
he was anCOLLEGE
employee OF LAW.Company
of XYZ NOT FOR(Masing and UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
Sons Development
SALE. Corporation v Rogelio, G.R. No. 161787, April 27, 2011).
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODU
BEDA UNIVER
SALE. DO NOT
TY OF SAN BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOTProportionality
FOR SALE. DORule NOT- Infractions committed
COLLEGE by anNOT
OF LAW. employee
FOR should meritNOT
SALE. DO only the corresponding
COLLEGE OFsanction demanded
by the circumstances. The penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, the act, conduct or omission
UCE. PROPERTY OF to
imputed SAN
theBEDA REPRODUCE.
employee and imposed PROPERTY
in connection OFemployer’s
with the SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
disciplinary authority (ManilaPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Memorial Park
Cemetery, Inc. v. Panado, G.R.UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
No. 167118, June 15, 2006). UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
142. X, an employee of ABC Company, lent his ID Card to N for N to get a clearance for the release of goods
E OF LAW. NOT FORfrom
SALE.theDO
warehouse
NOT toCOLLEGE
facilitate OF
the LAW.
loading of goods
NOT and distribution
FOR SALE. DO NOT of COLLEGE
ABC Company’s
OF LAW.products.
NOT FOR SALE. DO
The management of ABC Company discovered the misrepresentation, and dismissed X in accordance
ODUCE. PROPERTY with
its rules and regulations. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ABC Company. ABC
RSITY COLLEGE OF Company
LAW. NOTarguesFOR that the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
strict implementation of company rules and regulations is a valid OF LAW. NOT
exercise
ALE. of its management prerogative.SALE.Is ABC Company correct?
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,DOABC
NOTCompany COLLEGE OF LAW.
is not correct. As aNOT FOR
rule, an SALE. DO
employer NOTa wideCOLLEGE
is given latitude of OF LAW. inNOT
discretion FOR SALE. DO N
managing
UCE. PROPERTY OF its
SANown affairs, including
BEDA the implementation
REPRODUCE. of company
PROPERTY OF SAN rules
BEDAand regulationsREPRODUCE.
and impositionPROPERTY
of disciplinary
OF SAN BEDA
measures on its employees. However, the exercise of management prerogative is not limitless, but hemmed
in by FOR
good faith and aUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
due consideration of the OF LAW.
rights NOT
of the FORHere, X’sUNIVERSITY
worker. COLLEGE
motive in lending OF LAW. NOT FO
his company
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY ABCSALE.
I.D. Card was to benefitPROPERTY DO
OF NOT
Company. REPRODUCE.
TheBEDA
SAN penalty SALE. DO
of dismissal for X’s misrepresentation
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OFisNOT REPRODUCE.
unwarranted
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
(Dongon v. Rapid Movers & Forwarders Co, Inc., G.R. 163431, August 28, 2013).
UCE. PROPERTY OF NSAN
143. wasBEDA
employed by ZZZREPRODUCE.
Inc. as a PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
security coordinator. REPRODUCE.
He was dismissed PROPERTY
from employment OF SAN BEDA
after
discovery
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of serious breaches of company rules, including
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR introduction of alcoholic beverages into
the premises and having sexual intercourse in the office premises. The Company Code of Conduct
ERTY OF SAN BEDAprovides SALE.
that violations ofPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
the code shall REPRODUCE.
be penalized
OF SAN with suspension of not
moreDO
PROPERTY NOT
than REPRODUCE.
OF30SAN
days.
BEDAN UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORclaims
SALE.that
DO the
NOTpenaltyCOLLEGE
imposedOF upon
LAW. himNOT
wasFORharsh andDO
SALE. thatNOT
he should have been
COLLEGE metedNOT
OF LAW. withFOR
a SALE. DO
penalty of suspension only. ZZZ Inc, on the other hand, claims that the dismissal is a valid exercise of
ODUCE. PROPERTY management
OF SAN BEDA prerogative.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
Is ZZZ Inc. correct? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
Yes, the dismissal is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The formulation and promulgation by
an employer of rules of conduct
SALE. DO NOT
OF SAN for
and discipline BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
its employees,
SALE.
PROPERTY
inclusive of those deemed to OF
DO
SANNOT
constituteBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
serious
misconduct,
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT cannot and should not
COLLEGE OF operate
LAW. NOTto altogether negate
FOR SALE. DOhis prerogative
NOT and responsibility
COLLEGE OF LAW. toNOTdetermine
FOR SALE. DO N
and declare whether or not facts not explicitly set out in the rules may and do constitute such serious
UCE. PROPERTY OF misconduct
SAN BEDA as to justify REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the dismissal of the employee or the imposition of sanctions heavier than those
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
specifically and expressly prescribed. Here, the severity of the violations committed by N warrants OF LAW. NOT FO
a heavier
E. DO penalty than that provided in the Code of Conduct. No employer may rationally be expected to continue in
SAN BEDA
employment a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employer's UNIVERSITY
rules,DO
andNOT COLLEGE
appreciation OF LAW.
of the dignity NOT FOR SALE.
and responsibility DO NOT
of his office, COLLEGE
has so plainly OF LAW.been
and completely NOTbarred.
FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF Therefore,
SAN BEDAthe penalty ofREPRODUCE.
dismissal wasPROPERTY
a proper exercise
OF SAN of management
BEDA prerogative (Stanford-Microsystems
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 74187, January 28, 1988).
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
The exercise of the prerogative to transfer employees from one office or area of operation to another is valid
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution in salary, benefits and other privileges. The transfer should not be
motivated NOT FOR or madeUNIVERSITY
by discrimination in bad faith orCOLLEGE
effected asOF LAW.
a form of NOT FOR withoutUNIVERSITY
punishment COLLEGE
sufficient cause OF LAW. NOT
(Pharmacia
ALE. & Upjohn, Inc. v. Albayda, G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010).
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
53
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFobserve
Failure to SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
prescribed standards of work, orPROPERTY OF SANwork
to fulfill reasonable BEDA assignmentsREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
due to inefficiency may OF SAN
constitute just cause
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR for dismissal. Such inefficiency is understood
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR to mean failure to attain work goals or work quotas,
either by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results. This
SALE. DOmanagement
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
BEDA prerogative
UNIVERSITY SALE.
of requiring standards may
PROPERTY DO beNOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
availed of so long
BEDA as they are exercised in
good faith
PROPERTY REPRODUCE
for the
OF SAN BEDA UN
advancement of the employer’s interest (Leonardo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125303, June 16, 2000).
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO NOT
144.
SAN REPRODUCE.
When
BEDA is bonus demandable?PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
BonusSALE. DO NOT when:COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
is demandable COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OFa. SAN BEDA
It had been promised REPRODUCE.
by the employerPROPERTY OF agreed
and expressly SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
upon by the parties; or PROPERTY OF SAN
b. It had
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a fixed amount and had a long and regular practice
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR on the part of the employer.
To be considered a “regular
practice,”
PROPERTY DO NOT
the giving
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
BEDAofUNIVERSITY
the bonus should have been SALE.
done over
PROPERTY DO
longNOT
OFa SAN REPRODUCE
period
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate (American Wire and Cable Daily Rated
Employees Union v. American Wire and Cable Co. Inc., G.R. No. 155059, April 29, 2005)
BEDA UNIVE
145. SD Inc. had its factory workers working from 7:45 am to 3:45 pm with a 30-minute paid “on call” lunch
break. DOSD
Later, NOT COLLEGE
Inc. issued OF LAW. NOT
a memorandum to its FOR SALE. DO
employees, NOT theCOLLEGE
changing OF LAW.
work schedule fromNOT
7:45FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTYamOFto SAN BEDA
4:45 pm from Mondays REPRODUCE.
to Fridays. APROPERTY OF SAN
and B felt that they BEDA REPRODUCE.
are adversely affected PROPERTY
by the change in OF SAN
work
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.schedule
NOT FORand discontinuance
UNIVERSITYof the 30-minute
COLLEGE OFpaid
LAW. “on call”FOR
NOT lunch break, prompting them
UNIVERSITY to fileOF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
a case for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability against SD Inc. Does the change
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA in work schedule constitute
UNIVERSITY SALE.
unfair
PROPERTY OF DO
labor NOT
practice?
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
No, the change in work schedule does not constitute unfair labor practice. Management retains the
prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to change the working REPRODUCE. PROPERTYsoOF SAN BED
hours of its employees
long the
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT same
FORis exercised in good faith.
UNIVERSITY In the instant
COLLEGE case NOT
OF LAW. SD Inc.,
FORas the employer, cites asCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY reason forOFtheLAW. NOT F
adjustment the efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production. It rationalizes that while
LE. DO
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN REPRODUCE. SALE. DOOF NOT REPRODUCE.
the old work schedule included a 30-minute paidBEDA
lunch UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
break, the employees could be called upon SAN BEDA
to do jobs UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR during
SALE. that
DO period
NOT as they were "on
COLLEGE OFcall."
LAW. Even
NOTif denominated
FOR SALE. DO as lunch
NOT break,COLLEGE
this period
OFcould
LAW.very
NOTwellFOR
be SALE. DO
considered as working time because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and were paid
accordingly for working. With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break
without anyFOR
interruption UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
from their employer (SimeOF LAW.Pilipinas,
Darby NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
Inc. v. NLRC, COLLEGE
G.R. No. 119205, AprilOF
15,LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT 1998).
146. Yrasuegui is
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORan international flight steward of Philippine
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORAirlines (PAL). The proper weightCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY for a manOF LAW. NO
SALE. of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds. Yrasuegui developed a weight problem
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
which prompted PAL to advise him to go on an extended vacation to address his weight concerns.BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR After
SALE.meeting
DO NOTthe right weight, OF
COLLEGE he was
LAW.allowed
NOT FORto return
SALE. to
DOwork.
NOTNot long after, his
COLLEGE OF weight problem
recurred. He was removed from flight duty and was formally requested to trim down weight. Upon
checking, it was discovered that he gained, instead of losing weight. Yrasuegui made a commitment
to lose weight in 90 days however, he failed to do so. He was dismissed from employment COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
for failure
LE. DO to comply with company standards. Is the weight requirement a valid condition of employment?
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
Yes, theNOT COLLEGEisOF
weight requirement LAW.
a valid NOT FOR
condition SALE. DO NOT
of employment. EmploymentCOLLEGE OF LAW.
in particular NOT
jobs may notFOR
be SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFlimited
SANtoBEDA
persons of a particular sex, religion,
REPRODUCE. or national
PROPERTY OForigin
SANunless
BEDAthe employer can show thatPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. sex, religion,OF SAN BED
or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide
occupational UNIVERSITY
qualification (BFOQ). BFOQ COLLEGE OF LAW.itNOT
is valid "provided FOR
reflects an inherentUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
quality reasonably OF LAW. NOT F
necessary
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN for satisfactory
BEDA UNIVERSITY job performance".SALE.
TheDO
PROPERTY NOT
primary
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
objective
BEDAofUNIVERSITY
PAL in the imposition of the SALE. DOstandards
weight
PROPERTY NOT
OF SANREPRODUCE.
for
BEDA UNIVE
cabin crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times in order
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.passenger
to inspire DO NOT confidence
COLLEGE OF LAW.
on their abilityNOT FORforSALE.
to care DO NOT when
the passengers COLLEGE OF LAW.
something NOT FOR SALE.
goes wrong.
RODUCE. PROPERTYAircrafts
OF SAN have constricted cabin
BEDA space, and narrow
REPRODUCE. aisles OF
PROPERTY andSAN
exit doors.
BEDAThe body weight and size of
REPRODUCE. a cabin OF SAN
PROPERTY
attendant
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT are important
FOR factors to considerCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY in case ofOFemergency
LAW. NOT (Yrasuegui
FOR v. Philippine Airlines,
UNIVERSITY Inc., G.R.OF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
No. 168081, October 17, 2008).
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
54
Non-Compete BEDA
or Non-Involvement REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Clause - The employer andOF
theSAN BEDAare free to stipulate
employee REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
in an employment
contract prohibiting
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR the employee within a certain period from and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORafter the termination of his employment, from:
a. Starting a similar business, profession or trade; or
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
b.
OF SAN Working
BEDA in an entity that is engaged
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
in a similar
OF REPRODUCE.
business
SAN that might
BEDA SALE.
compete with the employer
UNIVERSITY DO
(Tiu
PROPERTY v. NOT REPRODUCE.
Platinum
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTPlansFORPhil.,
SALE.Inc.,
DOG.R.
NOTNo. 163512,
COLLEGEFebruary 28, 2007).
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
In cases where an employee assails a contract containing a provision prohibiting him or REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SA
her from accepting
competitive employment
IVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR as against public policy, the employer has to
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORadduce evidence to prove that the restriction
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE is OF LAW.
reasonable and not greater than necessary to protect the employers’ legitimate business interests. The restraint may
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA
not be
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
unduly harsh or oppressive in PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
curtailing the SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
employees’ UNIVERSITY
legitimate efforts to earn aPROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
livelihood and SAN NOT
must BEDA
be
REPRODU
UNIVER
E OF LAW.reasonable in light DO
NOT FOR SALE. of sound
NOT publicCOLLEGE
policy (Rivera v. Solidbank
OF LAW. Corp.,
NOT FOR G.R. DO
SALE. No. NOT
163269, April 19, 2006).
UNIVERSITY
The Labor arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all
ERTY OF SAN BEDAwhether
BEDA UNIVERS
workers, agricultural or non-agricultural:
E OF LAW. NOTa.FOR
ULP cases;
b. Termination disputes;
c. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay,
RSITY COLLEGE OF hours
LAW. ofNOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
work and other terms and condition of employment; NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. d. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
e. PROPERTYSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
Cases arising from any violation of Art. 279, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
F LAW. NOT FOR
f. SALE.
ExceptDO NOTfor Employees
claims COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
Compensation, FORSecurity,
Social SALE. DO NOT and maternity
Medicare COLLEGEbenefits,
OF LAW. NOT claims
all other FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF arising from employer-employee
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. relations, including
PROPERTY OFthose of persons in domestic
SAN BEDA or household
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYservice,
OF SAN BEDA
involving an amount exceeding P5,000 regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement (Art.
224, FORCODE); UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
LABOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
g. UNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA Monetary claims of Overseas SALE.
PROPERTY DO
contract NOT
OFworkers REPRODUCE.
arisingUNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA SALE.asDO
from employer-employeePROPERTY
relations NOT
provided
OF REPRODUCE.
by Sec.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
10 of RA 8042;
F LAW. NOT FORh. SALE.
WageDO NOT disputes
distortion COLLEGE OF LAW.establishments
in unorganized NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT settled
not voluntarily COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
by the parties;
UCE. PROPERTYi.OF Other cases as may beREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA provided by lawPROPERTY
(NLRC RULES,
OF SANRuleBEDA
V, Sec. 1); REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
j. Contested
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR cases under the exception clause of Article
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 128 (b) (E.O. No. 111)UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
PROPERTYDO NOT
Jurisdiction REPRODUCE.
over
OF SAN Money
BEDA Claims
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
Labor Arbiter Regional Director
Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction over DOLE Regional Directors have jurisdiction over claims amounting to
RSITY COLLEGE OFmoney
small LAW.claims
NOT FOR
lodged underUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Article ₽5,000 OFprovided
or below, LAW. NOT FOR requisites
the following UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
concur: (1) OF LAW. NOT
The claim
129, except when
TY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY the claim includes aSALE.
mustDO NOT
arise REPRODUCE.
from ER-EE
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY relationship; (2) The SALE.
claimant DO
does NOT
not REPRODUCE.
seek
prayer for reinstatement (Art. 224, reinstatement; and (3) The aggregate money claim of each employee
F LAW. NOT Labor
FOR SALE.
Code).DO NOT COLLEGE OF does
LAW.not NOT FOR₽5,000
exceed SALE. (Art.
DO NOT
129, LaborCOLLEGE
Code). OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY
The OFtotalSAN BEDA
amount REPRODUCE.
of money claims PROPERTYofOF
must In inspection SAN BEDA cases, DOLE
establishment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Regional Directors OF SAN BEDA
have
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.anNOT
involve FOR exceeding
amount UNIVERSITY COLLEGE regardless
₽5,000 jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT FOR or not UNIVERSITY
of whether COLLEGE
the total amount OFper
of claims LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
TY OF NOT
(Art. 224, Labor Code).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE.employees
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
exceeds ₽5,000 (Art. 128, Labor Code).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF For
LAW. theNOT
valid FOR
exercise by the
SALE. DODOLE
NOT Secretary or anyOF
COLLEGE of his dulyNOT
LAW. authorized
FOR SALE. DO N
representatives (DOLE Regional Directors) of the visitorial and
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
enforcement powers provided under Article 128(b), the following
OF SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITYrequisites
COLLEGEshould OF LAW. NOT
concur: (1)FOR UNIVERSITYrelationship
The employer-employee COLLEGEshould
OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT REPRODUCE. still
SALE. DO NOTexist; (2) The findings
REPRODUCE. in question were made in the
SALE. DO NOT course of
REPRODUCE.
inspection by labor inspectors; and (3) The employees have not yet BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.any
initiated NOT FOR
claim or SALE. DO with
complaint NOTthe DOLE
COLLEGE OFDirector
Regional LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
under
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Art. 129,
REPRODUCE. or the Labor
PROPERTY OFArbiter
SAN under
BEDAArt. 224. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
147. ALPAP staged a strike. A return-to-work order was issued, but ALPAP defied the same. Consequently,
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA SOLE declared their strike
illegal. OF DO
SANNOT
Sometime REPRODUCE.
after,
BEDA PAL filed a complaint for
UNIVERSITY SALE.
damages
PROPERTY DO
SANNOT
against
OF REPRODUCE.
ALPAP
BEDA UNIVERSITY
before the LA. The LA and NLRC dismissed the complaint for damages for lack of jurisdiction. Was is
proper for labor tribunals to assume jurisdiction over the complaint for damages?
55
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA Yes,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
the assumption of jurisdiction OFlabor
by the SANtribunals
BEDA UNIVERSITY
was proper. Under Article PROPERTY OF SAN
224 of the Labor Code, BEDA UNIVE
the LA and NLRC
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT have jurisdiction to resolve cases involving
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT claims for damages from employer-employee
relationship. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the LA only if there is a “reasonable connection” between the claim asserted and REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
employer-employee
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTHere,
relationship. FOR PAL’s claim
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
for damages has OF LAW. NOT
reasonable FOR
connection withUNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
its employer-employee
SALE. DO NOT relationship
REPRODUCE. with ALPAP as such arose from
SALE. DO NOT the illegal strike
REPRODUCE. which were closely related with the latter’sREPRODUCE
SALE. DO NOT
allegation of ULP against PAL (PH Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Association of the PHL, G.R. No. 200088,
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOTFebruary 26, 2018,
FOR SALE. DOCovered
NOT Case).COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
148. On the basis of a complaint filed by the employees, DOLE-NCR conducted a complaint inspection of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Company
Makabayan NOT FORwhere several
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
violations OF LAW.
were noted. After NOT FOR
hearing UNIVERSITY
with respect COLLEGE OF LAW
to the violations,
SALE. the Regional Director ordered Makabayan Company to pay to the affected employees.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
₽763,927.85
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
Makabayan Company filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the RD has no jurisdiction
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
over money NOTexceeding
claims COLLEGE OFand
₽ 5,000 LAW. NOT FOR
the same SALE. covered
is properly DO NOTby theCOLLEGE OFofLAW.
jurisdiction NOT FOR SALE.
the Labor
Arbiter.
RODUCE. PROPERTY Is Makabayan
OF SAN BEDA Company correct? PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
No, Makabayan’s contention is incorrect. While it is true that under Arts. 129 and 224 of the Labor Code,
the LA has jurisdiction to hear
and decide
PROPERTY DO
OFcases NOT
SAN where REPRODUCE.
BEDAthe aggregate money claims
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO exceed
of each employees
PROPERTY OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
₽5,000, said provisions of law do not contemplate nor cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
OF LAW. NOT FOR Secretary
SALE. DOofNOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Labor or his duly authorize representatives. Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Art.
DUCE. PROPERTY OF128SAN BEDA
of the REPRODUCE.the
Labor Code. Notwithstanding PROPERTY
provisions OF SAN129
of Arts. BEDA
and 224 and inREPRODUCE.
cases where thePROPERTY
relationshipOF SAN BED
of employer-employee
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR still exists, the Secretary of
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Labor and Employment or his duly
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE authorized
OF LAW. NOT F
representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the Labor standard provisions
of the Code (Ex-Bataan Veterans SALE.
PROPERTYDO NOT
Security OF REPRODUCE.
SANv.BEDA
Agency UNIVERSITY
Laguesma, SALE.
PROPERTY
G.R. No. 152396, November DO NOT
20,OF REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVE
2007).
149. Q was one of the incorporators of ABC Corp. and the internal auditor and personnel manager of the
same. UponBEDA REPRODUCE.
retirement, Q filed a claim for PROPERTY OF SAN
unpaid salaries BEDA
and separation REPRODUCE.
pay due PROPERTY
him amounting to P OF SAN
845,000 and FOR UNIVERSITYbut
P250,000 respectively, COLLEGE OF LAW.
was denied. Q NOT
filed FOR
a complaintUNIVERSITY
before the COLLEGE
NLRC forOF LAW. NO
SALE. nonpayment of separation and retirement benefits. The LA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA
because of absence of employer-employee relationship. Q filed his complaint before the RTC. Does
REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR RTC
SALE.have jurisdiction
DO NOT over money
COLLEGE claims
OF LAW. NOTinvolving
FOR SALE.an amount
DO NOTexceeding
COLLEGEP5,000OFarising
LAW. NOTfromFOR
an SALE. DO
employer-employee relationship?
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.No,NOT theFOR
RTC has noUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
jurisdiction over this case.OF LAW.
Art. NOT
224 of the FOR UNIVERSITY
Labor Code provides COLLEGE
that the OF LAW. NOT F
LA shall have
LE. DO original and exclusive jurisdiction on claims arising from employer-employee relations involving an amount
SAN BEDA
exceeding ₽5,000.00. Here, the claim for unpaid salaries and separation pay involves one which arose from
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR the
SALE. DO NOT
employer-employeeCOLLEGE OF LAW.
relationship NOTABC
of Q and FORCorp.,
SALE.the
DOjurisdiction
NOT COLLEGE
over which OF LAW.toNOT
belongs the FOR
LA. SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFTherefore,
SAN BEDAthe RTC mayREPRODUCE.
not take cognizance of Q’sOF
PROPERTY complaint
SAN BEDA(World’s Best REPRODUCE.
Gas, Inc. v. Vital, G.R. No.OF SAN BED
PROPERTY
211588, September 9, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
150.
OPERTY OF SAN P, an
employee of the M Grocery,
PROPERTYDO NOT
was OF REPRODUCE.
criminally
SAN BEDAcharged SALE.
by the latter for theft.
UNIVERSITY The DO
PROPERTY NOT
complaint
OF SANREPRODUCE.
was
BEDA UNIVE
dismissed. Meantime, allegedly after an administrative investigation, P was dismissed by M. As a
result, DO NOT
P lodged COLLEGE
a complaint OF LAW.
for illegal NOT FOR
dismissal with SALE. DO NOT
the NLRC COLLEGE
and demanded OF LAW. NOT
reinstatement withFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN In
damages. BEDA
addition, she REPRODUCE.
also institutedPROPERTY OF SAN
separate civil BEDA against the
complaint REPRODUCE.
M with the PROPERTY
RTC for OF SAN
malicious prosecution.
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR M moved to dismiss the civil
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORcomplaint on the ground that RTC had no
jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-employer relations. Should the civil case be
dismissed? SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
No, the civil case should not be dismissed. Not every controversy involving workers and their employers
DUCE. PROPERTY OFcanSAN BEDA only by the
be resolved REPRODUCE.
LAs. This willPROPERTY
be so only ifOF SAN
there is aBEDA REPRODUCE.
“reasonable causal connection”PROPERTY
between theOF SAN BED
claimNOT
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. asserted
FORand employee-employer relations, OF
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE thenLAW.
the case
NOT is under
FOR the jurisdiction of the labor
UNIVERSITY courtsOF
COLLEGE (PHLAW. NOT F
LE. DO Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Association of the PHL, G.R. No. 200088, February 26, 2018, Covered Case).
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil
OF LAW. NOT FOR and criminal
SALE. DO NOTjurisdictionCOLLEGE
(San Miguel
OF Corp.
LAW.v.NOTEtcuban, G.R. No.
FOR SALE. DO127639,
NOT December
COLLEGE 3, 1999).
OF LAW.Here, the FOR
NOT civil SALE. DO
case involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution. It does not appear that there is a “reasonable
causal connection” between the complaint and the relations of the parties as employer and employees. The
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT did
complaint FORnot arise UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
from such relations OFfact
and in LAW. NOT
could FOR
have UNIVERSITY
arisen independently of anCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
employment
LE. DO NOT relationship
REPRODUCE. between the parties. Therefore,
SALE. DO NOT jurisdiction over
REPRODUCE. the case is properly with the civil courts.
GE OF LAW. NOT
151. FOR
A, B,SALE.
and CDO NOT
were COLLEGE
employed OF LAW.
as female NOT FOR SALE.
flight attendants of PAL.DOThey
NOTare members
COLLEGE OF LAW.
of the FASAP, NOT
theFOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTY exclusive
OF SANbargaining
BEDA representative of the PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. flight attendants.
OF SANPAL-FASAP
BEDA CBA, provides,
REPRODUCE.inter alia, that:
PROPERTY OF SAN
“Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement, compulsory retirement shall be 55
ERSITY COLLEGE OFforLAW. NOTand
females FOR60 for males.”
UNIVERSITY
A, B, COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
and C manifested FORprovisionUNIVERSITY
that the COLLEGE
is discriminatory andOF LAW. NO
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA demanded for an equalPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
treatment OF DO
with
SAN NOT
their REPRODUCE.
male
BEDA counterparts. The FASAP
OF DO
submitted SAN NOT
its CBA
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
proposals and manifested its willingness to commence the collective bargaining negotiations. A, B,
OF LAW. NOT FOR and
SALE. DO NOT
C filed COLLEGE
a case before OF LAW.
the RTC NOT FOR
questioning theSALE. DOofNOT
validity COLLEGE
the provision in theOF LAW.
CBA. NOT
PAL FOR
filed a SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFmotion
SAN to dismiss the case
BEDA contendingPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. that the RTC had
OF no BEDA
SAN jurisdiction overREPRODUCE.
the case. The 3PROPERTY
employeesOF SAN BED
56
went to you to ask for your PROPERTY
legal opinionOFif SAN BEDA
indeed, the UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
RTC has no jurisdiction over OF SANWhat
their petition. BEDA UNIVER
will you advise
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT them? COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. D
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFThe SANRTC
BEDA has jurisdiction over the case. The subject of litigation is incapableREPRODUCE.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY OF SAN B
of pecuniary estimation,
RSITY COLLEGE OFexclusively
LAW. NOTcognizable
FOR UNIVERSITY
by the COLLEGE
RTC, pursuant to Sec.OF19 LAW. NOTBlg.
(1) of B.P. FOR129, as amended.
UNIVERSITY BeingCOLLEGE
an ordinaryOF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT civil action,
REPRODUCE. the same is beyond the jurisdiction
SALE. DO NOT of labor tribunals.
REPRODUCE. Where the principal relief sought
SALE. DO NOT is to be
REPRODUCE.
resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective bargaining BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTagreement
FOR SALE. butDOby the
NOT generalCOLLEGE
civil law, the
OFjurisdiction
LAW. NOT over
FORtheSALE.
dispute
DO belongs
NOT to theCOLLEGE
regular courts of justice
OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
and not to the
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA labor arbiter and the NLRC. Here, the issue
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA cannot be resolved by the Labor Code only
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYbut it OF SA
requires the application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
IVERSITY COLLEGEElimination
OF LAW. of NOT FOR of Discrimination
All Forms UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
against Women, OFand
LAW. NOT FOR
the power UNIVERSITY
to apply and interpret COLLEGE OF LAW.
the constitution
SALE. and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of general jurisdiction. Therefore, RTC has REPRODU
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
jurisdiction over the case (Halguena v. PH Airlines, G.R. No. 172013, October 2, 2009).
PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA UNIVER
152. A,OF
ODUCE. PROPERTY B,SAN
and C are employeesREPRODUCE.
BEDA of XYZ School. They wereOF
PROPERTY dismissed
SAN BEDAfrom employment for participating
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYin OF SAN B
protest actions which was considered a breach of trust and confidence reposed in them. They filed an
RSITY COLLEGE OFillegal
LAW.dismissal
NOT FORcase against
XYZ School. The LA ruled that their dismissal was valid. On appeal, NLRC
reversed the same and
orderedOF
PROPERTY DO
their NOT REPRODUCE.
SANreinstatement.
BEDA UNIVERSITY Is the order of PROPERTY SALE.
reinstatement DO NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
immediately
OF SAN UNIVERSITY
executory?
UCE. PROPERTY OF SANNo, BEDA REPRODUCE.
the order of reinstatement PROPERTY
is not OFexecutory.
immediately SAN BEDAArt. 229 of theREPRODUCE.
Labor Code PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
which provides
that reinstatement
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR is immediately executory even pending
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR appeal applies only when it is the LA himself who
ordered the reinstatement. If the reinstatement order is issued by the NLRC on appeal, there is a need to
ERTY OF SAN BEDAsecure SALE.
a writ of execution from
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
the Labor
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFArbiter a quoUNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA SALE.
to enforce the reinstatement DOemployee
of the
OF SAN (Mt. UNIVERS
BEDA
E OF LAW. NOT FORCarmel
SALE.College
DO NOT v. Resuena, G.R. No.
COLLEGE OF173076,
LAW. NOTOctober
FOR10, 2007).
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFdisciplinary
153. A SAN BEDAaction based REPRODUCE.
on breach ofPROPERTY OF SAN
discipline and BEDA
reimbursement REPRODUCE.
of wage PROPERTY
increases was filed by OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF crew
LAW.members
NOT FORof XYZ Maritime against
UNIVERSITY XYZ Maritime
COLLEGE OF LAW.in the POEA.
NOT FORDuring the pendency of
UNIVERSITY the action,
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. R.A. No. 8042 took effect vesting in the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction over all money claims arising out of
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
employer-employee relationship involving OFWs. On the basis thereof, POEA dismissed the SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
complaint.
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTOn appeal, the NLRC
COLLEGE OF dismissed
LAW. NOTthe case
FOR claiming
SALE. DO NOTto have no jurisdiction
COLLEGE over the
OF LAW. NOTsame.
FORIsSALE. DO N
the action of the NLRC proper?
Yes,FOR UNIVERSITY
the action of the COLLEGE
NLRC is proper. OF LAW.
The NLRC does NOT FOR
not have jurisdictionUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to review on appeal OF LAW. NOT FO
disciplinary
E. DO action cases decided by the POEA. R.A. No. 8042 did not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary action cases and other special cases administrative in character
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO such
involving NOTworkers.
COLLEGE OF No.
When R.A. LAW.8042NOT FOR the
withheld SALE. DO NOT
appellate COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW.
of the NLRC NOT
in respect of FOR
casesSALE. DO N
decided
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by the POEA, the appellate jurisdiction was
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA vested in the Secretary of
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY his
Labor in accordance with OF SAN BEDA
power of supervision and control under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Therefore, it was proper for
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
theNOT
NLRC FOR
to dismiss UNIVERSITY
the case becauseCOLLEGE OF jurisdiction
appellate LAW. NOTover FORdisciplinaryUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
cases decided by the OF
POEALAW. NOT FO
ERTY OF SAN BEDAbelong SALE.
to the Secretary of Labor
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
(EasternOF
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
Mediterranean Maritime LTD v. Surio, G.R.
No. 154213,
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFAugust 23, UNIVERS
SAN BEDA
2012).
154. X,
ODUCE. PROPERTY OFa SAN
corporation
BEDA duly incorporated
REPRODUCE. under PhilippineOF
PROPERTY laws engaged
SAN BEDA in the business of selling
REPRODUCE. assorted OF SAN B
PROPERTY
products, received
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR a Subpoena from the Office of the City
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Prosecutor of Quezon City in connection
with a complaint filed by the SSS for alleged delinquency in the remittance of SSS contributions and
penalty liabilities. X attributed
its OF DO
failure NOT
SANtoBEDAREPRODUCE.
remitUNIVERSITY
the SSS contributions PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
to Y, a MarketingSAN NOT REPRODUCE.
Assistant,
BEDA UNIVERSITY
who refused to provide the latter’s SSS Number and to be deducted her contributions. X eventually
settled its obligations with the SSS and demanded from Y her share in the SSS contributions and
UCE. PROPERTY OF expenses
SAN BEDAfor processing.REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Y claimed that OF SAN
X deliberately BEDA
failed to deduct andREPRODUCE.
remit her SSSPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
contributions
andNOT
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. averred
FORthat the regular courtsCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY do not have
OFjurisdiction
LAW. NOTover FORthe instant case as it arose
UNIVERSITY out of
COLLEGE OFtheir
LAW. NOT FO
employer-employee relationship. Does the regular court exercise jurisdiction over the case concerning
E. DO
PROPERTY
payment of SSS contributions? OF NOT REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
No, the regular court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Article 217(a) (4) of the Labor Code bestows
UCE. PROPERTY OF upon
the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damagesREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
arising from OF SAN BEDA
employer-
employee UNIVERSITY
relations. The COLLEGE
observation that theOF LAW.ofNOT
matter SSSFORcontributionsUNIVERSITY
necessarily COLLEGE
flowed fromOF the
LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT employer-employee
REPRODUCE. relationship between
SALE. DO NOT the parties –
REPRODUCE. shared by the lower courts and the
SALE. DO NOTCA – is correct;
REPRODUCE.
thus, petitioners’ claims should have been referred to the labor tribunals. In this connection, it is noteworthy to
E OF LAW. NOT FORstate
SALE.thatDO
"theNOT
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
COLLEGE OF LAW. to award
NOT FORnot only DO
SALE. the NOT
reliefs provided by labor
COLLEGE laws, but
OF LAW. NOTalso
FOR SALE. DO
damages
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA governed by the Civil Code" (Amecos Innovations,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Inc. and Antonio F. Mateo v. Eliza R. Lopez,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY G.R. OF SAN B
No.178055, July 2, 2014).
ALE. 155. X filed a complaint before the NLRC against Y for illegal dismissal, non-execution of DO
a contract of
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTYSALE.OF SANNOT
employment, violation of the minimum wage law, and non-payment of overtime pay. Thereafter, X filed
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
an action COLLEGE
for damages OFYLAW.
against beforeNOT
the FOR
MeTCSALE. DO NOT
of Quezon COLLEGE
City. Y moved forOFtheLAW. NOT of
dismissal FOR
theSALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF complaint
SAN BEDAon the grounds of lack of
REPRODUCE. jurisdiction
PROPERTY OFand
SANforum-shopping
BEDA or splitting causes
REPRODUCE. of action
57
arguing PROPERTYover
that the NLRC has jurisdiction OF the
SANaction
BEDAforUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
damages because the alleged OFisSAN
injury BEDA UNIVE
work-
related and that
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT X should not be allowed to split her causes
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of action by filing the action for damages
separately from the labor case. Does the regular court exercise jurisdiction over the case involving
damages against employer? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
SALE. DO NOT No,
REPRODUCE.the regular court does not have jurisdiction
SALE. DO NOT over this
REPRODUCE. case. Article 217(a) of theSALE.
LaborDOCode,
NOTasREPRODUCE
amended, clearly bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages
arising
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORfrom employer-employee
SALE. DO NOT relations —in
COLLEGE other words,
OF LAW. NOT FORthe Labor
SALE.Arbiter
DO NOT has jurisdiction
COLLEGEto award not only
OF LAW. NOT FOR SA
the reliefs provided
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA by labor laws, but also damages governed
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAby the Civil Code. Under theREPRODUCE.causal
“reasonable PROPERTY OF
connection rule,” if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-
employee NOT FOR
relations, then the caseUNIVERSITY COLLEGE of
is within the jurisdiction OFour
LAW.
laborNOT FOR
courts. UNIVERSITY
In the absence COLLEGE
of such nexus, it OF LAW
SALE. is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the employees’ claim for damages
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
was intertwined with them having been separated from their employment without just cause and, consequently,
SANNOT
BEDAREPROD
UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
had aSALE. DO NOT
reasonable COLLEGEwith
causal connection OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
their employer-employee NOT with COLLEGE
relations OF LAW.v.NOT
petitioner (Kawachi Del FOR SALE.
RODUCE. PROPERTYQuero, G.R. No.
OF SAN BEDA 163768, March 27, 2007). PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
156. X initiated an illegal dismissal case against employer, ADB. Two summonses were served, one to the
ADB and the other through
the DFA. OF
PROPERTY DO NOT
Forthwith,
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
the ADB and the DFA notifiedPROPERTY
UNIVERSITY respondentSALE. DO Arbiter
Labor
OF SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
that the ADB, as well as its president and office, were covered by an immunity from legal process
OF LAW. NOT FOR except
for borrowings, OF or
guaranties LAW.
the NOT FOR
sale of SALE. DO
securities NOT to Article
pursuant COLLEGE OFand
50(1) LAW. NOT55FOR
Article of SALE. DO
DUCE. PROPERTY OFtheSAN BEDA Establishing
Agreement REPRODUCE.
the Asian PROPERTY
Development OFBank
SANinBEDA REPRODUCE.
relation to Section PROPERTY
5 and Section 44 of theOF SAN BED
Agreement
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Between The Bank And The Government
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Of The Philippines Regarding The
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Bank's
OF LAW. NOT F
Headquarters. The LA took cognizance of the complaint on the impression that the ADB had waived
its diplomatic
immunity fromPROPERTYDO NOT REPRODUCE.
suit and rendered
OF SANjudgement against ADB. Does the
BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
LA have jurisdiction
overSALE.
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR the case?
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
No, the BEDA
LA does not haveREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
jurisdiction. The stipulationsOFof SAN
both BEDA REPRODUCE.Agreement
the Charter and Headquarters PROPERTY OF SAN
states
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. that,
NOTexcept
FORin the specified cases ofCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY borrowing OF
andLAW.
guarantee
NOToperations,
FOR asUNIVERSITY
well as the purchase,
COLLEGE saleOF LAW. NO
SALE. and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form. The Bank's officers,
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
on their part, enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The Charter and
OF LAW. NOT FOR the Headquarters
SALE. DO NOT AgreementCOLLEGE granting these NOT
OF LAW. immunities and privileges
FOR SALE. DO NOT are treaty covenants
COLLEGE OFand commitments
voluntarily assumed by the Philippines government which must be respected. In World Health Organization vs.
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Aquino, the Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to
OF SAN BED
look beyond UNIVERSITY
a determination COLLEGEbranch
by the executive OF LAW.
of theNOT FOR
government, andUNIVERSITY
where the plea COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
of diplomatic
LE. DO immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government, it is then the duty of the courts
SAN BEDA
to accept the claim of immunity. Hence, the LA does not have jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR (Department
SALE. DO NOT
of ForeignCOLLEGE
Affairs vs.OF LAW.
NLRC, NOT
G.R. No.FOR SALE.
113191, DO NOT18, 1996).
September COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Grounds PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
The following are the grounds for appeal:
1. If the decision, award or order was secured through Fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
ERSITY COLLEGE
2. OF LAW.isNOT
If there primaFOR UNIVERSITY
facie evidence of Abuse ofCOLLEGE
discretion OF LAW.
on the partNOT
of theFOR UNIVERSITY
Labor Arbiter or Regional COLLEGE
Director; OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT3.REPRODUCE.
If made purely on Questions of law;SALE.
and/orDO NOT REPRODUCE.
4.
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANNOT
UNIVERSIT
If serious Errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable
OF LAW. NOT FOR damage
SALE. DO NOT to theCOLLEGE
or injury OF LAW.
appellant (NLRC NOT Rule
RULES, FOR VI,
SALE.
Sec.DO
2). NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Requisites
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT for Perfection
FOR of Appeal COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
LE. DO
SANThe following
BEDA SALE.anDO
are the requisites PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY to perfect NOT
appeal:
OF REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
1. Proof of Service upon the other parties;
2. Filing of a verified memorandum of appeal containing the grounds, issues raised and arguments propounded
DUCE. PROPERTY OF and relief(s) sought within the required period of appeal and with a statement ofREPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA PROPERTY
the date appellant receivedOF SAN BED
the appealed
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR decision, award, or order;COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
3. In 3 legibly typewritten or printed copies;
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN4.BEDA UNIVERSITY
Proof of payment of the required
SALE.
PROPERTY DO NOT
appeal fee
REPRODUCE.
OF and
SAN BEDA
legal UNIVERSITY
research
SALE.
PROPERTY
fee; otherwise, it will
DO NOT
OF SAN
be dismissed
REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVE
but the
dismissal
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.isDOonlyNOT
discretionary;
5. In case of monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only by the posting of a Bond (cash
deposit or surety bond or property bond) equivalent in amount to the monetary award exclusive of PROPERTY
damages OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF
andLAW. NOT FOR
attorney’s fees; and UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. 6. It must be filed within the Reglementary period:
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a.
SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Within 10 days for decisions of Labor Arbiter PROPERTY SALE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR b.SALE. DO 5NOT
Within days – forCOLLEGE OFDOLE
decisions of LAW.Regional
NOT FOR SALE. (NLRC
Directors DO NOT
RULES,COLLEGE OF 4).
Rule VI, Sec. LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
58
PERTY OF SAN
10%BEDA
AppealUNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Bond Only “Provisional” PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVER
The 10%
ODUCE. PROPERTY requirement
OF SAN BEDA in McBurnie v. Ganzon pertains
REPRODUCE. to the reasonable
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA amount which the NLRC wouldPROPERTY
REPRODUCE. accept as OF SAN B
the minimum of the bond that should accompany the motion to reduce bond in order to suspend the period to perfect
an appeal under NOT FORrules. It isUNIVERSITY
the NLRC based on theCOLLEGE OF LAW.
judgment award NOT FOR
and should in no case beUNIVERSITY
construed as COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
the minimum
amount
SALE. DO NOT of bond to be posted in order to perfect
REPRODUCE. appeal.
SALE. DO NOT There is no hard and fast rule in determining
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOwhether
NOT the
REPRODUCE.
additional bond to be posted is reasonable in relation to the judgment award (NLRC RULES, Rule VI; Sara Lee PHL,
BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOT
Inc. v. FOR SALE.
Macatlang, G.R.DO
No.NOT COLLEGE
180147, January 14,OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
2015). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
157. A and B worked for QFI corp. Both were among those retrenched due to the drastic drop in the net
IVERSITY COLLEGEincome
OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
of QFI. However, it was discovered that their final pay and other benefits were not released
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
due to the alleged discovery
OF DO
SANNOT
of unauthorized REPRODUCE.
deduction
BEDA which they purportedly
UNIVERSITY SALE.
failed
PROPERTY to DO
OF NOT
explain.
SAN BEDA REPRODU
UNIVER
Aggrieved, both filed complaints for illegal dismissal against QFI. LA found A and B to have been
illegally dismissed. Dissatisfied, QFI filed a notice of appeal accompanied by a motion to reduce bond
ODUCE. PROPERTYandOFaSAN
cashBEDA REPRODUCE.
bond. NLRC gave due course toPROPERTY OF holding
QFI’s appeal SAN BEDAthat there wasREPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
substantial compliance
with the bond
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR requirement. CA reversed NLRC’s ruling
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORand ruled that QFI’s failure to post the
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE required
OF LAW. NO
bond impeded the perfection of its appeal and rendered the LA decision final and executory. Did QFI
substantially compliedPROPERTY
SALE. DO NOT
OF requirement?
with the bond
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
Yes, QFI substantially complied with the bond requirement. In case of a judgment involving a monetary
UCE. PROPERTY OF award,
SAN BEDA
an appeal by theREPRODUCE.
employer mayPROPERTY
be perfectedOF SAN
only BEDA
upon the posting of aREPRODUCE.
cash or surety PROPERTY
bond issued OF
by SAN BEDA
a reputable bonding UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
company duly accredited by the Commission in the UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
amount equivalent to the monetary
E. DO NOT award in the judgment appealed
REPRODUCE. from.
SALE. DOA NOT
mere REPRODUCE.
notice of appeal without posting bond shall
SALE.notDOstop the REPRODUCE.
NOT running
of the period for perfecting an appeal. Here, the posting of a cash bond equivalent to more than 20% of the
E OF LAW. NOT FORmonetary
SALE. DOjudgment,
NOT together with the
COLLEGE OFMotion
LAW.toNOTReduce
FORBondSALE.within the reglementary
DO NOT COLLEGEperiod
OFwas sufficient
LAW. NOT FORto SALE. DO
suspend the period to perfect the appeal. The posting of the said partial bond coupled with the subsequent
ODUCE. PROPERTY posting
OF SANofBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
a surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary judgment also signified QFI's good faith and
RSITY COLLEGE OF willingness
LAW. NOTtoFOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
recognize the final outcome of its appeal. In determining the reasonable amount of appeal OF LAW. NOT
bonds,
however, the Court primarily considers the NOT
meritsREPRODUCE.
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN BEDAofUNIVERSITY
the motions and the appeals (Quantum
Marcelino Esloyo, G.R. No. 213696, December 9, 2015, Perlas-Benabe, J.).
PROPERTYSALE. Foods,
OF DO
SANNOT Inc.
BEDA v.
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
158.
UCE. PROPERTY OF Mr.
SANQBEDA
was employed as a Claims
REPRODUCE. Staff ofOF
PROPERTY Oroport.
SAN BEDAHe was charged for mishandling
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYandOF SAN BEDA
misappropriation of five trays of eggs even when he had no information about who was responsible
for it and without approval of the Senior Finance Officer of Oroport in violation of the standard
E. DO
procedure in handlingPROPERTY
claims. DO
OF NOT
Oroport REPRODUCE.
dismissed
SAN BEDA SALE.
Mr. Q from service for serious
OF NOT
misconduct. REPRODUCE.
The LA
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
declared that the dismissal of MR. Q was illegal and awarded him a total of P 162,000. Oroport appealed
to theDO NOTbut submitted
NLRC COLLEGE OF LAW.
a Bank NOT FOR
Certification SALE.
in lieu DO NOTa cashCOLLEGE
of posting or securityOF LAW.
bond. NOT
Did FOR SALE. DO N
Oroport’s
UCE. PROPERTY OF failure
SAN BEDA
to post a bond REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OFofSAN
result to the non-perfection BEDA of the LA’s
his appeal REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
decision to NLRC?
Yes, Oroport’s failure to post bond results to the non-perfection of his appeal. Oroport’s submission before
ERTY OF SAN BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY SALE.
NLRC of a Bank Certification, DO NOT
in lieu of
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFposting a cashUNIVERSITY
SAN BEDA SALE. DO NOT
or surety bond, cannot bePROPERTY
considered REPRODUCE.
as substantial
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOT FORcompliance
SALE. DOwithNOTArt. 229COLLEGE
of the Labor
OFCode.
LAW.The
NOTfiling
FORofSALE.
the appeal bond is a jurisdictional
DO NOT COLLEGE OFrequirement
LAW. NOTand
FOR SALE. DO
the rules thereon mandate no less than a strict construction. Hence, Ororport’s appeal was not perfected
ODUCE. PROPERTY (Quirante
OF SAN BEDA
v. Oroport CargoREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Handling Services Inc., G.R.OF
No.SAN BEDA
209689, December 2,REPRODUCE.
2015). PROPERTY OF SAN B
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
Y COLLEGE OF The
LAW. NOT FOR
decisions, UNIVERSITY
orders or awards issued byCOLLEGE
the VA orOF LAW.
panel NOT
of VA FOR
may be elevatedUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
to the Court of OFway
Appeals by LAW. NOT FO
E. DO of an ordinary appeal under Rule 43 petition for review (Luzon Development Bank v. Assn. of Luzon Development Bank
PROPERTY OF NOT
Employees, G.R. No. 120319, October 6, 1995).
REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
UCE. PROPERTYThe CA may
OF SAN set aside decisions
BEDA of the NLRC.
REPRODUCE. Any decision
PROPERTY OF SAN byBEDA
the NLRC that isREPRODUCE.
not supportedPROPERTY
by substantial
OF SAN BEDA
evidence is a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The judicial function of the CA in the exercise of its
Y COLLEGEcertiorari
OF LAW.jurisdiction
NOT FORover the NLRC
UNIVERSITY
extends COLLEGE OF review
to the careful LAW. NOT
of theFOR UNIVERSITY
NLRC’s evaluation COLLEGEbecause
of the evidence OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO NOT the factual findings of the NLRC are accorded
REPRODUCE. SALE. DOgreat
NOT respect and finality only when they restSALE.
REPRODUCE. on substantial
DO NOT evidence
REPRODUCE.
(Sugarsteel Industrial, Inc. v. Albina, G.R. No. 168749, June 6, 2016).
159. EOFwas
ODUCE. PROPERTY SANhired
BEDA as a technician in Saudi Arabia,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYthrough its agent,
OF SAN BEDA SBM. After his contract,PROPERTY
REPRODUCE. E filed a OF SAN B
complaint for non-payment of salaries. LA ruled in favor of E but was reversed by NLRC for not
RSITY COLLEGE OF substantiating
LAW. NOT FORhis claims. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
However, he filed an MR where NLRC reinstated the LA’s Decision. SBM
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA filed a petition for certiorari
UNIVERSITY butSALE.
PROPERTY the DO
SANNOT
OFsame was
BEDAREPRODUCE.
dismissed by the CA on the
UNIVERSITY groundSALE.
PROPERTY of OF DO
SANNOT
failure fileREPRODUCE.
toBEDA an
UNIVERSITY
MR against the NLRC Resolution. SBM moved for reconsideration but was denied. May the CA give
due course COLLEGE
to a petition OF LAW.absent
for certiorari NOT FOR SALE. DO
any motion for NOT COLLEGE
reconsideration filedOF LAW. the
against NOTNLRC’s
FOR SALE. DO N
UCE. PROPERTY OF resolution?
59
Yes, the CA
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT may give due course to the petition for certiorari.
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT As a general rule, an MR is an
COLLEGE indispensable
condition before a losing party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. However, jurisprudence allows exceptions to the rule, among others, where the questions raised PROPERTY
in the OF SAN
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. proceedings
certiorari NOT FOR have been UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
duly raised and passedOF LAW.
upon by NOTtheFOR
lower court orUNIVERSITY
are the same COLLEGE
as those OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT raised and
REPRODUCE. passed upon in the lower court. Since
SALE. DO NOT NLRC has been
REPRODUCE. given an opportunity to review its ruling
SALE. DO NOT andREPRODUCE
correct itself when E filed a MR, requiring SBM to file another MR would be futile because the very issues OF SAN BEDA UN
OLLEGE OF LAW. NOTraised
FOR in SALE.
the MRDOhadNOT
already been evaluated
COLLEGE by NLRC
OF LAW. NOT(Rapid Manpower
FOR SALE. Consultants
DO NOT v. De Guzman,
COLLEGE OF LAW.G.R.NOT FOR SA
No. 187418,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA September 28, 2015).
160. A filed NOTdismissal
an illegal FOR UNIVERSITY
case COLLEGE
against B Corp. The OF
LA LAW. NOT FOR
ruled against UNIVERSITY
B Corp hence COLLEGE
an appeal was OF LAW
SALE. made to the NLRC which affirmed the LA’s decision. From NLRC it elevated the case to CA via petition
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
for certiorari. CA evaluated the materiality and significance of the pieces of evidence presented to it
REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
whichSALE. DO NOT
according to A wereCOLLEGE OF LAW.
capriciously, NOT FOR
whimsically, or SALE. DO NOT
arbitrarily COLLEGE
disregarded OF LAW.
by the NLRC. WasNOTthe FOR SALE.
act OF
RODUCE. PROPERTY of CA
SAN proper?
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
Yes, the act of CA is proper. In a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the issues are limited to
errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of OF DO NOT
discretion.
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
However, in labor cases elevated
UNIVERSITY SALE.
to the CA
PROPERTY DO
viaSAN
OF NOT
petition
BEDAforREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
certiorari, the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of the evidence alleged to have
OF LAW. NOT FOR been
SALE.capriciously,
DO NOT whimsically,
COLLEGE OF LAW.disregarded
or arbitrarily NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
by the NLRC in relationCOLLEGE
to all otherOF LAW. NOT
evidence FOR SALE. DO
on record
(Paredes REPRODUCE.
v. Feed the Children PROPERTY
PHL Inc., G.R. OF SAN
No. 184397, BEDA 9, 2015) REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
September
161. A and B filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CDE Corp. LA ruled in favor of A and B. NLRC
modified
the ruling thereby PROPERTY DO
increasing the NOT REPRODUCE.
monetary
OF SAN BEDAawards SALE. DO NOT
due to A and B. Dissatisfied,
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY CDE
OF SANREPRODUCE.
corp.
BEDA UNIVE
directly
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.filed
DOa NOT
petition for certiorariOF
COLLEGE before
LAW.the NOTCA.FOR
CA SALE.
deniedDO
theNOT
petition due to CDE’s
COLLEGE OFfailure
LAW. to fileFOR SALE.
NOT
an MR before the NLRC prior to the filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA. Was CA correct in
dismissing REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
the petition for certiorari? REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
SALE. No, the CA erred in dismissing SALE.
the petition NOT
for certiorari. The direct recourse to the CA was justified. While
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDAREPRODUCE
it is apparent from the computation of monetary awards that it just an oversight on the part of the NLRC, it isUNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR not without
SALE. any implications
DO NOT COLLEGE as such oversight
OF LAW. NOT resulted in an unwarranted
FOR SALE. DO NOT increase COLLEGEin the
OFmonetary
LAW. NOTawards
FOR SALE. DO
due to respondents. Clearly, such an increase is a patent nullity as it is bereft of any factual and/or legal basis.
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are
OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORby substantial
not supported UNIVERSITY
evidence, COLLEGE OF
which refers to LAW. NOT FOR
that amount UNIVERSITY
of relevant evidence COLLEGE mind
that a reasonable OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the
SAN BEDA
applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR accordingly,
dismiss the OF LAW.
petition (Jolo’s NOT
Kiddie FOR
Carts SALE. DO
v. Evelyn NOT andCOLLEGE
A. Caballa OFBautista,
Anthony M. LAW. NOT G.R. FOR
No. SALE. DO
230682, November
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 29, 2017, Perlas-Benabe, J.)
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
162. FOR
GE OF LAW. NOT X, a SALE.
legal assistant
DO NOT of FFW Legal Center,
COLLEGE OF LAW.joined
NOTthe union
FOR of DO
SALE. rank-and-file
NOT employees
COLLEGE OFandLAW.
eventually
NOT FOR SALE.
became the employees’ union president. During the 21st National Convention and Election of National
Officers of FFW, X was nominated for the position of National Vice President. However, FFW COMELEC
informed himFOR
that he is UNIVERSITY
not qualifiedCOLLEGE OF LAW.as
for the position NOThisFOR
candidacy UNIVERSITY
violates the COLLEGE
1998 FFWOF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT Constitution and By-Laws. Despite
REPRODUCE. theDO
SALE. same,
NOT the convention delegates allowed X’s
REPRODUCE. candidacy. He
UNIVERSIT
emerged victorious and was proclaimed as the National Vice President. Y filed before the BLR a petition
OF LAW. NOT FOR for
SALE.
the DO NOT ofCOLLEGE
nullification OF of
the election LAW.
X asNOT
FFWFOR SALE.Vice
National DOPresident
NOT COLLEGE
alleging OFX LAW.
that is not NOT FOR SALE. DO
qualified
to run for
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA the position because Section 76 of Article XIX
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of the FFW Constitution and By-Laws prohibits
federation employees from sitting in its Governing Board. X filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that it is the Regional Director of the DOLE and not the BLR who has jurisdiction over the case
LE. DO
involving the provisionsPROPERTY
of the DO
OF NOT
constitution REPRODUCE.
SANand
BEDAby-laws?
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.Yes, DO NOT
BLR COLLEGE
has jurisdiction OFthis
over LAW. NOT
case. TheFORBLRSALE. DO NOT over intra-union
has jurisdiction COLLEGE OF LAW.involving
disputes NOT FOR a SALE. DO
federation. Section 226 ofREPRODUCE.
the Labor Code PROPERTY OF SAN
clearly provides thatBEDA
the BLR and theREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Regional Directors of DOLEOF SAN BED
have NOT
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. concurrent
FOR jurisdiction over inter-union
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEand OF
intra-union
LAW. NOTdisputes.
FOR Such disputes includeCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY the conductOForLAW. NOT F
nullification of election of union and workers association officers. There is no doubt as to the BLRs jurisdiction
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN overUNIVERSITY
BEDA SALE.
the instant dispute involving
PROPERTY DO NOT
member-unions
OF SANREPRODUCE.
of aBEDA
federation SALE.
arising from disagreement
UNIVERSITY over
PROPERTY DOtheNOT REPRODUCE.
provisions
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
of the federation’s constitution and by-laws. Hence, BLR has jurisdiction over the case at bar (Montano v.
Verceles, G.R. No. 168583, July 26, 2010).
163. OF
ERSITY COLLEGE A LAW.
Union,NOT
the existing
FOR exclusive bargaining
UNIVERSITY agent OF
COLLEGE of BLAW.
Inc., NOT
alleged
FORthat B Inc.UNIVERSITY
is guilty of ULP due toOF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
organizing a company union, gross violation of the CBA and violation of their duty to bargain because
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
of its refusal to remit thePROPERTY
SALE.
OF DO
SAN
collected union
NOT
BEDA
dues
REPRODUCE.
to AUNIVERSITY PROPERTY
union despite several demands.
SALE. OF DO
It filedSANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA
complaint UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR for ULPDO
SALE. with the NLRC,
NOT but the assigned
COLLEGE OF LAW.Labor Arbiter
NOT FOR dismissed
SALE. DO NOT the complaint
COLLEGEfor lack of jurisdiction.
Was the action of the Labor Arbiter proper?
60
No, the action of LA wasPROPERTY
improper. AnOF SAN BEDA
intra-union UNIVERSITY
dispute PROPERTY
refers to any conflict between OF SANunion
and among BEDA UNIVER
members, including
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT grievances arising from any violation
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT of the rights and conditions of membership, violation
of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
ODUCE. PROPERTYchartering
OF SAN orBEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
disaffiliation of the union. The issue raised in this case pertained only to REPRODUCE.
the validity of PROPERTY
the acts of OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OFmanagement
LAW. NOT FOR in light of theUNIVERSITY
fact that it stillCOLLEGE OF LAW.
has an existing CBA.NOT FOR
Thus, as to B Inc,UNIVERSITY
the question COLLEGE
was whether OF LAW. NO
SALE. DO NOT they were
REPRODUCE. liable for unfair labor practice, which
SALE. DO NOT issue was within
REPRODUCE. the jurisdiction of the NLRC. Therefore,
SALE. DO NOT the
REPRODUCE.
dismissal of ULP complaint was erroneous (Employees Union of Bayer PHL v. Bayer PHL, Inc., G.R. No. OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOT162943,
FOR SALE.December 6, 2010). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
SALE.
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
NCMB UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
is not a quasi-judicial agency
SALE.
OF DO
exercising SAN NOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
quasi-judicial functions but merely a PROPERTY
SALE.
conciliatory OF
DO
SAN
body
NOT
for BEDA
REPRODU
the UNIVER
E OF LAW.purpose
NOT FOR of facilitating
SALE. DOsettlement
NOT ofCOLLEGE
disputes between
OF LAW. parties.
NOT Hence, its decision
FOR SALE. DO NOT cannot be elevated OF
COLLEGE to the CA via
LAW. NOTRule
FOR SALE. D
43 petition. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court applies only to awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial REPRODUCE.
agency in the exercise PROPERTYfunctions
of its quasi-judicial OF SAN(Tabigue
BEDA v. International
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Copra Export Corp., OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE OF 183335,
G.R. No. LAW. NOT FOR 23, 2009).
December UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
UNIVERSITY
UCE. PROPERTYTheOF SAN
BureauBEDA REPRODUCE.
of Labor Relations PROPERTY
and the Regional OF SAN
Directors BEDAhave concurrent
of DOLE REPRODUCE.
jurisdictionPROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
over the inter-
union and intra-union
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR disputes. Such disputes include the conduct
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR or nullification of election of union and worker’s
association (Montano v. Verceles, G.R. No. 168583, July 26, 2010).
BEDA UNIVERS
E OF LAW. NOTUnder ArticleDO
FOR SALE. 129NOT
of the Labor Code, OF
COLLEGE DOLE
LAW. Regional
NOT FOR Directors
SALE. or
DOthe
NOTduly authorized
COLLEGE hearing officers,
OF LAW. NOTareFOR SALE. DO
empowered, in a summary proceeding, to hear and decide claims for recovery of wages and other monetary claims
and benefits, BEDA
including REPRODUCE.
legal interests, provided the PROPERTY OF SAN
following requisites BEDA
concur: REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE a.OF The
LAW. NOT
claim FORarise fromUNIVERSITY
must COLLEGE
employer-employee OF LAW. NOT FOR
relationship; UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
ALE. b. The claimant does not seek reinstatement; and REPRODUCE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
c. PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDA
The aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed P 5,000 (M. Ramirez Industries v. Secretary
REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO G.R.
of Labor, NOTNo. 89894,
COLLEGE OF 3,
January LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT
1997). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO N
To divest the Regional Director or his representatives of jurisdiction under Art. 129 of the Labor Code, the following
Y COLLEGEelements
OF LAW.must
NOTbeFOR
present: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
E. DO
SAN BEDAa. UNIVERSITY
The employer contests the SALE. of
findings
PROPERTY DO
OFtheNOT REPRODUCE.
labor
SAN regulations
BEDA officer and raises issues
UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
OF NOT
thereon;
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
b. To resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
F LAW. NOT FORc. SALE.
Such DO NOTare notCOLLEGE
matters verifiable OF LAW.
in the NOTcourse
normal FOR SALE. DO NOT
of inspection COLLEGE
(Ex-Bataan OF Security
Veterans LAW. NOT FORv.SALE. DO N
Agency
UCE. PROPERTY OF Laguesma,
SAN BEDAG.R. No. 152396, November
REPRODUCE. 20, 2007). OF SAN BEDA
PROPERTY REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
164. AAI is engaged in the business of providing janitorial services. Its employees instituted a complaint
ERTY OF SAN BEDAforUNIVERSITY
underpayment of wages SALE. DO NOT
against OF
PROPERTY AAISANREPRODUCE.
before theUNIVERSITY
BEDA Regional Office of DOLE.SALE.
TheDO
PROPERTY NOT
Regional
OF SANREPRODUCE.
Office
BEDA UNIVERS
conducted a complaint inspection and found a couple of violations including non-payment of labor
standard benefits. The Regional Director issued an order for the agency to pay the deficiencies. AAI
ODUCE. PROPERTY alleged
OF SANthat
BEDAthe RegionalREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Director does not have OF SAN BEDA
jurisdiction REPRODUCE.
over the subject PROPERTY
matter because the OF SAN B
money claim
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of each private respondent exceeded P 5,000.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR It pointed out that the Regional Director
should have endorsed the case to the Labor Arbiter. Was AAI’s contention correct?
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE.No,DOAAI’s
NOTcontention is incorrect.
COLLEGE OF LAW. Art. 224
NOTin FOR
relation to Art.
SALE. DO129
NOTof the Labor Code provides
COLLEGE OF LAW.that
NOTthe FOR
LaborSALE. DO N
Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds
UCE. PROPERTY OF PSAN BEDA
5,000; however, it doesREPRODUCE.
not contemplatePROPERTY OF SAN
the visitorial BEDA
and enforcement REPRODUCE.
powers PROPERTY
of the Secretary of Labor OF
or SAN BEDA
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
hisNOT FOR
duly authorized UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
representatives. OF LAW.Director
Here, the Regional NOT FOR UNIVERSITY
validly assumed COLLEGE
jurisdiction OF LAW. NOT FO
over the money
E. DO claims of AAI’s employees even if the claims REPRODUCE.
exceeded P 5,000 because such jurisdiction was exercised in
PROPERTY DO
OF NOT
SAN BEDA
accordance with Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause (Ex- UNIVERSITY
Bataan
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOVeterans
NOT Security Agency
COLLEGE OFv.LAW.
Laguesma, G.R. SALE.
NOT FOR No. 152396,
DO NOTNovember 20, 2007).
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA
For a UNIVERSITY
SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY
valid exercise by the DOLE SecretaryOF
REPRODUCE.
orSAN
any BEDA UNIVERSITY
of his duly
SALE.ofDO
PROPERTY
authorized representatives
NOT
theOF SANREPRODUCE.
visitorial BEDA
and UNIVERS
enforcement
E OF LAW. NOT powers,
FOR SALE. DO the
NOT following requisitesOF
COLLEGE must concur:
LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
a. The employer-employee relationship should still exist;
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
b. The findings in question were made in the course of the inspection by the labor inspectors; and PROPERTY OF SAN B
RSITY COLLEGE c.OF The
LAW. NOT FOR
employee has not yetUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
initiated any claim OF LAW.
or complaint withNOT FOR Regional
the DOLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Director under Art. 129,OF
or LAW. NOT
ALE. the LA under Art. 224.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
61
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SANVisitorial
Scope of SOLE’s BEDA UNIVERSITY
Power PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF Art.
SAN37BEDA REPRODUCE.Art. 128
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Art. 289
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR As to Powers covered
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT Visitorial power
REPRODUCE. Visitorial
SALE.andDOenforcement
NOT power
REPRODUCE. Visitorial power
As to Purpose
In relation to recruitment and To inquire into employer’s compliance To inquire into the financial activities of
placement of workers for both local with labor standards under labor laws legitimate labor organizations
UNIVERSITY and overseas
COLLEGE OFemployment
LAW. NOT FOR andUNIVERSITY
social legislations
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
Note: Such inquiry or examination shall not be conducted during the 60-day freedom period not within the 30 days
EGE OF LAW. NOT FORpreceding
immediately SALE. DOtheNOT COLLEGE
date of election OF LAW.
of union NOT
officials (Art.FOR
289,SALE.
LABORDOCODE).
NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
Jurisdiction Over Money Claims
SALE.
RTY DO NOT
Art. 128, Labor Code PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
Art.
SAN NOT
129,BEDA REPRODUCE.
Labor Code
UNIVERSITY Art. SALE.
224, Labor
PROPERTY OF DO NOT
Code
SAN BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Who Exercises
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Power
Secretary
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SANof BEDA
Labor or his REPRODUCE.
duly Regional Director or any
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA duly REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
Labor Labor Arbiter
authorized representative authorized hearing officer of DOLE
Nature of Power
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
Administrative – visitorial and
Adjudicatory power on matters
GE OF LAW.enforcement powerDO
NOT FOR SALE. exercised
NOT through
COLLEGE OF LAW.
involving NOTofFOR
recovery
Adjudicatory
wageSALE. DO NOT
power OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
COLLEGE
routine inspections
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA of establishment REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Existence
UNIVERSITY of Er-Ee OF
COLLEGE Relationship
LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NO
SALE. Claim must beSALE. arising NOT
fromREPRODUCE
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO SAN BEDA
employer-employee UNIVERSIT
relations,
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTincluding thoseOFofLAW.
COLLEGE persons
NOT FORin SALE. DO
Er-Ee relationship not necessary domestic or household service,
Requires BEDA
existence of REPRODUCE.
Er-Ee PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
since it should not include a claim for except claims for Employees’
relationship
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR Compensation, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
reinstatement Social Security,
LE. DO Medicare and Maternity Benefits,
SAN BEDA
regardless of whether accompanied UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTby a claim COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
for reinstatement
How Initiated REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGEEnforcement
OF LAW. NOT FOR
power is an
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
offshoot of Sworn complaint filed by interested
LE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE. Complaint SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE.
visitorial
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA power
UNIVERSITY party
PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW.
Limitation as toNOT FOR of
Amount SALE. DO NOT
Claim COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
No limit Not more than P 5,000 More than P 5, 000
SALE. Appeal
RTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE
BEDA UNIVERSIT
Appeal to Secretary of Labor, within 10
OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DODecision
NOT COLLEGE Appeal to NLRC, within 5 calendar
calendar days; may be OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOTNLRCCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
days
elevated
DUCE. PROPERTY OFtoSAN
the CA through certiorari
BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BED
165. JJ filed a complaint against BB before the DOLE Regional Office for illegal deduction, nonpayment of
LE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY 13th SALE.
monthDO
service incentive leave, PROPERTY pay,NOT
OF SAN REPRODUCE.
premium
BEDA pay SALE.
for holiday and rest PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY day and DO
OF NOT
illegal REPRODUCE.
diminution
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR of benefits, delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth. After
summary investigation, DOLE found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was
entitled to his money. BB appealed the decision, but the DOLE dismissed REPRODUCE.
the same.PROPERTY
Can DOLEOF SAN BED
determine
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. if there is anUNIVERSITY
NOT FOR employer-employee
COLLEGE relationship
OF LAW. NOTbetween
FORparties?UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
LE. DO NOT
OPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY SALE. DO
PROPERTY
Yes, the DOLE is fully empowered
NOT REPRODUCE.
OF SAN
to make BEDA UNIVERSITY
a determination
SALE. DO NOT
as to the existence ofPROPERTY
REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
an employer-employee
relationship
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOin the
NOT exercise COLLEGE
of its visitorial
OF and
LAW. enforcement
NOT FORpowerSALE.(People's
DO NOTBroadcasting
COLLEGE (Bombo RadyoNOT
OF LAW. PHL,FOR SALE.
Inc.) v. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 179652, March 6, 2012).
The DOLE Secretary may UNIVERSITY
suspend theCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
effects of termination FORresolutionUNIVERSITY
pending of the dispute COLLEGE
in the eventOF LAW. NO
SALE. of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the DOLE before whom the dispute is pending that:
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
a. PROPERTY SALE.OF DO
UNIVERSITY
The termination may cause a serious labor dispute; and/or PROPERTY SALE.
OF DO
SANNOTBEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
b. DO
TheNOT COLLEGE
termination OF LAW. NOT
is in implementation FOR SALE.
of a mass lay-off DO NOTCODE,COLLEGE
(LABOR OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
Article 292).
62
The following BEDA which mustREPRODUCE.
are cases be disposed PROPERTY OF SAN
of by the Labor BEDA
Arbiter REPRODUCE.
by referring the same to the PROPERTY
grievance OF SAN B
machinery and voluntary
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR arbitration:
1. Disputes on the interpretation or implementation of CBA; and
SALE. DO NOT
ROPERTY REPRODUCE.
2.
OF SAN Disputes
on the interpretation or PROPERTY
enforcement OF REPRODUCE.
of company
SAN personnel
BEDA policies (2011 NLRC
UNIVERSITY SALE. DOProcedure,
Rules of
OF SAN BEDA UNIV
LEGE OF LAW. NOTRule
FORV,SALE.
Sec. 1, par. 2, as amended).
DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SAL
SALE. 1. Economic or non-political provisions – those that have direct and measurable monetary costSALE.
consequences
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODU
UNIVER
such as wage rates, paid vacations, pensions, health and welfare plans, and other fringe benefits; and
E OF LAW. NOT2. FOR SALE. DO NOT
Non-economic or politicalCOLLEGE
provisionsOF LAW.whose
– those NOT FOR SALE.cost
monetary DOcannot
NOT be directly
COLLEGE OF LAW.
computed suchNOT FOR SALE. D
as the
no-strike-no-lockout,
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA union security, management security,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA check-off clauses, grievance procedures, etc.
(NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration).
SALE. DO NOT
TY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
Note: UNIVERSITY
Violations of either provision SALE.
of the CBA
PROPERTY OFmayDO NOT REPRODUCE.
SANconstitute a grievance and is oftenPROPERTY
referred to as DO NOT
OFrights
SAN REPRODUCE.
dispute
BEDA UNIVERSITY
(NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration).
E. DO NOT The original and exclusive jurisdiction
REPRODUCE. SALE.of the
DO Labor
NOT Arbiter under Article 224, over cases for
REPRODUCE. money
SALE. DOclaims
NOT isREPRODUCE.
limited
only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than the CBA. The voluntary arbitrator (VA) or panel of VA will
E OF LAW. NOT FOR original
thus have SALE. DO
andNOT COLLEGE over
exclusive jurisdiction OF LAW.
moneyNOT FOR
claims SALE.from
arising DOthe
NOT COLLEGE
interpretation OF LAW. NOT
or implementation FOR SALE. DO
of the
CBA and those arising
ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA from the interpretation or enforcement of company
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA personnel policies under Article 274 of the
Labor Code.
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SANNOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
The VA shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
UCE. PROPERTYa.OF Unresolved
SAN BEDAgrievances REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA PROPERTY
(Art. 274, LABOR OF SAN BEDA
CODE);
Y COLLEGE OF b.
LAW. NOT FOR
Unresolved grievancesUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
arising from the OF LAW.
interpretation NOT FOR of company
or enforcement UNIVERSITY
personnelCOLLEGE OF274,
policies (Art. LAW. NOT FO
E. DO LABOR CODE);
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
c.
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Violations of the CBA which are not gross in character (Art. 274, LABOR CODE);
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
F LAW. NOT FORd. SALE.
OtherDO NOT
labor disputes,COLLEGE OF LAW.
including unfair labor NOT FORand
practices SALE. DO NOT
bargaining COLLEGE
deadlocks, OF LAW.ofNOT
upon agreement FOR SALE. DO N
the parties
(Art. 275,
UCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA LABOR CODE);REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
e. National interest cases (Art. 278 (h), LABOR CODE);
Y COLLEGE OF f.LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized establishments (Rules
ERTY OF SAN BEDAImplementing
UNIVERSITYR.A. No. 6727, SALE. DO NOT
Chapter III,OF
PROPERTY Sec. REPRODUCE.
SAN7); BEDA
and UNIVERSITY SALE. DO NOT
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
g. Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of the Productivity Incentive
Programs NOT
under R.A. No.COLLEGE OF9,LAW.
6971 (Sec. NOT
R.A. No. FOR SALE. DO NOT
6971). COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO
166. A is an employee
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR of B who was dismissed after an incident
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR where she hit B’s transmission
UNIVERSITY lines while
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
operating a dump truck. On a complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the voluntary arbitrator, the
VA ruled that the A’s dismissalSALE. DO NOT
OFillegal
was SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
and deemed PROPERTY
it a suspension without SALE.
pay, OF DO
andSAN NOT
BEDA
ordered REPRODUCE.
herUNIVERSITY
reinstatement.
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Due COLLEGE
to B’s failure
OF to reinstate
LAW. A immediately,
NOT FOR A filed a motion
SALE. DO NOT for the
COLLEGE OF issuance
LAW. NOTof FOR
a writSALE. DO N
of execution requiring B to pay unpaid wages, 13th month pay and bonuses from the date when his
UCE. PROPERTY OF reinstatement
SAN BEDA was effectedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
until actual OF SAN
reinstatement. VABEDA REPRODUCE.
granted the motion. On appeal,PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA
CA reversed
Y COLLEGE OF LAW.
theNOT FOR
same. UNIVERSITY
Is the order COLLEGEthe
of the VA reinstating OF employee
LAW. NOTimmediately
FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
executory?
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
Yes, the order of VA reinstating the employee is immediately executory. The reinstatement aspect of the
voluntary
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. arbitrator’sCOLLEGE
DO NOT award is immediately
OF LAW. NOTexecutory. It has the
FOR SALE. DOsame
NOT authority, force and
COLLEGE OF effect
LAW.asNOTthat FOR
of theSALE. DO N
reinstatement order of the LA as voluntary arbitration takes precedence over other dispute settlement devices
UCE. PROPERTY OF as
mandated by the Constitution. Article 229 provides that “the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
dismissed or separatedUNIVERSITY COLLEGE
employee, in so far as OF
theLAW. NOT FOR
reinstatement UNIVERSITY
aspect is concerned, COLLEGE
shall OF LAW.
immediately be NOT FO
E. DO NOT executory,
REPRODUCE. even pending appeal” (Baronda
SALE. DO NOT v. CA, G.R.
REPRODUCE. No. 161006, October 14, 2015).
E OF LAW. NOT
167.FOR
A SALE. DO NOT
is a regular employeeCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
of X Corporation. HeFOR
wasSALE. DO NOT
dismissed COLLEGE
due to poor salesOF LAW. NOT FOR
performance. A SALE. DO
ODUCE. PROPERTY submitted money claimsREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA before the NCMB. Both parties
PROPERTY OF SAN agreed
BEDAto settle amicably.
REPRODUCE.The issue to be OF SAN B
PROPERTY
settled by the VA according to the submission agreement is whether A is entitled to separation pay.
RSITY COLLEGE OF The
LAW. VANOT FOR a decision
rendered UNIVERSITY
finding XCOLLEGE OF liable
Corporation LAW. forNOT FORdismissal
illegal UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT
and since reinstatement
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA is no longer feasible, PROPERTY
UNIVERSITY it orderedSALE.
OF DO
SANNOT
payment of REPRODUCE.
separation
BEDA pay and backwages.
UNIVERSITY CanSALE.
PROPERTY theOF
VADO NOT
rule
SAN on REPRODUCE.
BEDAthe
UNIVERSITY
issue of illegal dismissal and backwages?
63
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA Yes,
UNIVERSITY
the VA can rule on the PROPERTY OF SAN
issue of illegal BEDA UNIVERSITY
dismissal and backwages. VAs may, PROPERTY
by agreementOF SAN BEDA UNIVE
of the
parties, assume
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT jurisdiction over a termination dispute such as
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT the present case. The voluntary arbitrator may
award backwages upon a finding of illegal dismissal, even though the issue of entitlement thereto is not
RODUCE. PROPERTY
explicitly claimed in the Submission Agreement. Backwages, in general, are awardedREPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA on the ground of PROPERTY
equity OF SAN
as a form NOT FOR
of relief UNIVERSITY
that restores the income COLLEGE
lost by theOF LAW. NOT
dismissed FOR by reason
employee UNIVERSITY
of his illegalCOLLEGE
dismissal OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOT (7k Corporation
REPRODUCE. v. Eddie Albarico, G.R. No. 182295,
SALE. DO NOT June 26, 2013).
REPRODUCE. SALE. DO NOT REPRODUCE
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
Cause UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.Period
NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
of Prescription
SALE.
OPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA Money Claims
UNIVERSITY SALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
3 years
BEDA from accrual of the cause
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
of action
PROPERTY SANNOT REPROD
BEDA UNIVE
EGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT ULP COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR 1 year
SALE.from
DOaccrual
NOT of theCOLLEGE
cause of action
Illegal
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA Dismissal 4 years
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfrom accrual of the cause of action PROPERTY OF SAN
REPRODUCE.
Simple
VERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTIllegal
FOR Recruitment
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR5 years UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. N
SALE. DO NOTSyndicated/Large Scale Illegal Recruitment 20 years
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
Reinstatement
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
4 years
SALE. DO NOT
UNIVERSIT
Sexual Harassment
3 years
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN Social
BEDA Security Claims
10 years
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR
GSIS claims
4 years
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVE
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT Commencement
COLLEGE OF LAW. of prescriptive
NOT FOR SALE. periodDO
forNOT
SIL COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
The 3-year BEDA period in the
prescriptive REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
light of the peculiarity OF SIL
of the SANcommences
BEDA REPRODUCE.
not at the PROPERTY
end of the year when OF SAN
the employee
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW.becomes
NOT FORentitled to the commutationCOLLEGE
UNIVERSITY of his SIL OF
but LAW.
from the time
NOT when the employer
FOR refuses
UNIVERSITY to pay itsOF LAW. NO
COLLEGE
monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee’s services as the case may be
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DOSANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
(Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005).
168. Mr. M was hired by Company N as 4th Engineer on board the vessel M/V Couper. M went missing and
was never found which prompted M’s wife V to file a complaint for death benefits, damages and
attorney’s UNIVERSITY
fees. According to N, the COLLEGE OF disappearance
unexplained LAW. NOT FORhappenedUNIVERSITY
on August 2,COLLEGE
1994 andOF
theLAW. NOT F
LE. DO claim was only filed on May 29, 2000 therefore the action had already prescribed. Is Company N
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
correct?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
No,
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA company N is incorrect. The family of the missing
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA seaman may file their claim for compensation
benefits within the three-year period fixed by law from the time the seaman has been presumed dead. M can
only be FOR dead UNIVERSITY
presumed after the lapse COLLEGE OF LAW.
of 4 years from AugustNOT FORwhen he UNIVERSITY
2, 1994 COLLEGE
was declared missing, OF LAW. NOT F
subject
to presentation
OPERTY OF SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY of evidence that SALE. DO
M has notOF
PROPERTY NOT
been
SANREPRODUCE.
found or heard
BEDA SALE.
of for four years thereafter.
UNIVERSITY DO NOT
For this
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OFpurpose,
SAN BEDA UNIVE
M is only presumed dead on August 2, 1998, there for the action has not yet prescribed (Imelda Pantollano, et
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR
al., v.SALE. DOShip
Korphil NOT COLLEGE
Management OF LAW.Corporation,
and Manning NOT FOR SALE. DO169575,
G.R. No. NOT MarchCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE.
30, 2011).
169. IBM staged
ERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FORa strike against N and after having series of conciliation
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR meetings IBM and N entered
UNIVERSITY COLLEGEintoOF LAW. NO
a compromise agreement which the NLRC approved. After 11 years, IBM later filed with NLRC a motion
SALE.
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA for writ of execution claiming
UNIVERSITY thatSALE.
PROPERTY OF DO
they SANNOT
have not REPRODUCE.
BEDAbeen paid the amounts they
UNIVERSITY SALE.
OF DO
were entitled
PROPERTY to
SAN NOT REPRODUCE
because
BEDA UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR Nestlé
SALE. deliberately
DO NOT caused delay in paying their claims. N argued that IBM’s remedy was already barred
by prescription because under the 2005 Revised Rules of the NLRC, a decision or order may be
executed REPRODUCE.
on motion within PROPERTY
5 years from the date OF SAN BEDA
it becomes REPRODUCE.
final and executory PROPERTY
and that the sameOF SAN BED
decision
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOTorFOR order mayUNIVERSITY
only be enforced by independent
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT action
FORwithin a UNIVERSITY
period of 10 years
COLLEGEfromOF
theLAW. NOT F
date of its finality. May an NLRC-approved compromise agreement be executed by filing a motion for
LE. DO
writ of execution after a PROPERTY OF NOT
SAN
lapse of 10 years
REPRODUCE.
BEDA
from UNIVERSITY
its finality?
SALE. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSIT
No, the approved compromise agreement may not be executed after the lapse of 10 years. The IBM is
already barred by prescription. Under the law, a decision or order may be executedREPRODUCE. PROPERTY
on motion within five yearsOF SAN BED
ITY COLLEGE OF LAW.
from NOT FORit becomes
the date UNIVERSITY COLLEGEAfter
final and executory. OF LAW. NOTofFOR
the lapse UNIVERSITY
such period, the judgmentCOLLEGE OF LAW. NOT F
shall become
LE. DO NOT dormant,
REPRODUCE. and may only be enforced by an
SALE. DO NOTindependent
REPRODUCE.action within a period of 10 years from
SALE. DO NOT date of its
REPRODUCE.
finality. IBM’s right to have the NLRC judgment executed thru a motion and the right of action to enforce the
same
GE OF LAW. NOT FOR had prescribed
SALE. DO NOT by theCOLLEGE
time it filed
OFtheir
LAW.Motion
NOTforFOR
WritSALE.
of Execution
DO NOT (Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT(IBM)FOR SALE.
Nestlé PHL
RODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAChapter v. Nestlé PHL, G.R. No. 198675, September
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA 23, 2015). REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN
ERSITY COLLEGE
170. OF
X LAW. NOT FOR
was employed UNIVERSITY
by PLDT as a maintenance COLLEGE OF LAW.
technician. NOT13,
On April FOR UNIVERSITY
1999, he was admitted toCOLLEGE
a hospitalOF LAW. NO
SALE. due to paranoid personality disorder caused by financial and marital problems. He was later on
RTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
SANNOT
BEDA REPRODUCE.
OF DO
SAN
discharged but from September to December, he absented himself from work without official leave due
NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE
UNIVERSIT
OF LAW. NOT FOR toSALE. DO NOT
his poor COLLEGE
mental condition. OF LAW.
PLDT NOT his
terminated FORservice
SALE. on
DOJanuary
NOT 1, 2000.
COLLEGE OF LAW.
Between NOT2003,
2001 and FOR SALE. DO
X made
DUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAfollow-ups with PLDT regarding his benefits.
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA On March 29, 2004,
REPRODUCE. PROPERTYaOF SAN BED
four years later, X filed
64
complaint for constructivePROPERTY
dismissal andOF monetary
SAN BEDAclaims
UNIVERSITY
against PLDT, but PROPERTY OF SAN
the latter moved for BEDA
the UNIVER
dismissal of
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT the complaint for being filed beyond the prescriptive
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DO NOT period of three years. Did the action
prescribe?
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. Yes,NOT
the FOR UNIVERSITY
action has already COLLEGE
prescribed. OF LAW.
The Labor NOTnoFOR
Code has UNIVERSITY
specific provision on whenCOLLEGE OF LAW. NO
a claim for
SALE. DO NOT illegal
REPRODUCE. dismissal or a monetary claim accrues.
SALE. DO NOT Thus, the general
REPRODUCE. law on prescription applies. Article
SALE. DO NOT 1150 of
REPRODUCE.
the Civil Code states that the time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision
LEGE OF LAW. NOTwhich
FOR ordains
SALE. DO otherwise,
NOT shall be counted
COLLEGE from the
OF LAW. NOTdayFORtheySALE.
may beDObrought.
NOT TheCOLLEGE
day the action may NOT
OF LAW. be FOR SAL
brought is the
EPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA day a claim starts as a legal possibility. In
REPRODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDAthe present case, January 1, 2000, the date X was
not allowed to perform his as a maintenance technician, is the date when the claim accrues. Furthermore, the
IVERSITY COLLEGEprescription
OF LAW. NOT FOR by (a)
is interrupted UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
the filing of an OFaLAW.
action; (b) writtenNOT FOR demand
extrajudicial UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
by the creditor; and OF LAW.
SALE. (c) a written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor. Hence, X’s act of following up his benefits is not REPRODU
PERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
UNIVERSITY PROPERTY
considered interrupting the prescription (PLDT v. Pingol, G.R. No. 182622, September 8, 2010).
SALE.
OF DO
SANNOT BEDA UNIVER
171. YOF
ODUCE. PROPERTY was theBEDA
SAN vice-president, REPRODUCE.
manager, and director
PROPERTYof ABC Corp.BEDA
OF SAN Y was forced to resign by thePROPERTY
REPRODUCE. owner of OF SAN B
ABC Corp. on October 17, 1977 because the latter suffered losses due to lack of market and has
RSITY COLLEGE OFincurred
debts caused by a slam in the market. At the time of his resignation, he had unpaid salaries
for 18 months and wasPROPERTY
not paid hisOF DO NOT
separation
SAN BEDA REPRODUCE.
pay. Upon Y’s demand for payment,
ABCOF DOinformed
Corp.
SAN NOT
BEDAREPRODUCE.
UNIVERSITY
him it would first settle the money claims of the rank-and-file employees before paying his claims. Y
patiently waited butCOLLEGE
remainedOF LAW.until
unpaid NOThisFOR SALE.X,DO
demise. NOT of her
in behalf COLLEGE
deceased OFhusband
LAW. NOT FOR aSALE. DO N
Y, filed
UCE. PROPERTY OF complaint
SAN BEDAagainst ABC REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
Corp. on September OF SAN
27, 2002, for BEDA
non-payment of REPRODUCE. PROPERTY
salaries, separation OF SAN BEDA
pay, and
13th month
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR pay. ABC Corp. claims that the action has
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR prescribed for being filed almost five (5) years
from the alleged dismissal of Y. Did the action prescribe?
BEDA UNIVERS
No, the
E OF LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOaction
NOT has not yet prescribed.
COLLEGE OF LAW. Promissory
NOT FORestoppel
SALE. DO is aNOT
recognized exceptionOF
COLLEGE to LAW.
the three-year
NOT FOR SALE. DO
prescription enunciated in Art. 291 of the Labor Code. In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a
ODUCE. PROPERTY party
OF SAN BEDA
bears REPRODUCE.
the burden of establishing PROPERTY
the following OF SAN
elements: (1) aBEDA REPRODUCE.
promise was reasonably expectedPROPERTY
to induce OF SAN B
action NOT
RSITY COLLEGE OF LAW. or forbearance;
FOR (2)UNIVERSITY
such promiseCOLLEGE
did, in fact,
OF induce
LAW. NOTsuch FOR
action or forbearance;
UNIVERSITY andCOLLEGE
(3) the party
OF LAW. NOT
ALE. suffered detriment as a result. The elements are present in this case. Y relied on the promise of ABC Corp.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
OF DO
OF DO
UNIVERSITY
that he would be paid as soon as the claims of all the rank-and-file employees had been paid. If not for this
promise
F LAW. NOT FOR SALE. DOthat
NOThe hadCOLLEGE
held on toOF
until the time
LAW. NOTofFOR
his death,
SALE. there
DO NOT is no reason why heOF
COLLEGE would
LAW.delay
NOTfiling
FORtheSALE. DO N
complaint before the LA. Thus, this is an ample justification not to follow the prescriptive period imposed under
UCE. PROPERTY OF Article
291 of the Labor Code (Accessories Specialist v. Albanza, G.R. No. 168985, July 23, 2008).
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
UT
Y COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR IN UNIVERSITY
OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR
COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FOR DEUS!COLLEGE OF LAW. NOT FO
UNIVERSITY
E. DO
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
E. DO NOT
ERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY REPRODUCE.
OF SAN BEDA UNIVERS
ALE.
TY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
PROPERTY OF DO
SANNOT REPRODUCE.
BEDA UNIVERSITY
65

2019 Pre Week On Labor Law and Social Legislation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Pre Week On Labor Law and Social Legislation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

LAYOUT AND CONTENT EDITORS

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CORE GROUP

VICTOR KENNER S. GALANG

THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE

THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION,

ODUCE. PROPERTY OF SAN BEDA if he falls under

You might also like