2019 Bar Questions

A.1.
Define, explain or distinguish the following terms:

(a) Just and authorized causes

Suggested answer: A just cause is a fault-based ground for dismissal under Art. 297, LC; whereas an
authorized cause is a non-fault ground for dismissal under Art. 298-299, LC.

(b) Seasonal and project employees

A seasonal employee is one engaged for the duration of the season for which he has been engaged; whereas, a
project employee is on whose employment is co-terminus with the specific project or undertaking for which
he has been engaged; provided, its scope or duration was made known to him upon engagement. [Art. 295,
LC]

(c) Strikes and lockouts

Strikes are carried out through temporary stoppage of work; whereas, lockouts are carried out through
temporary withholding of work. [Art. 279, LC]

(d) Bona fide occupational qualifications

A bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) is an occupational requirement based on quality or attribute.
It is valid if it serves a legitimate business purpose, it is work-related, and its possession enhances an
employee’s productivity at work. [Star Paper Corp., et al. v. Symbol, et al., GR no. 164774, April 12, 2006]

(e) Grievance machinery

A grievance machinery is a contractual dispute resolution mechanism for all grievable disputes. It is a
mandatory provision of a CBA, without which it cannot be registered.

A.2.
X is a member of the Social Security System (SSS). In 2015, he died without any spouse or children. Prior to
the semester of his death, X had paid 36 monthly contributions. His mother, M, who had previously been
receiving regular support from X, filed a claim for the latter’s death benefits.

(a) Is M entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain.

M is entitled to the death benefits. Being the mother of X, who was single and without issue, she is elevated to
the status of sole beneficiary. [Sec. 8(k), RA 8282]

(b) Assuming that X got married to his girlfriend a few days before his death, is M entitled to claim death
benefits from the SSS? Explain.

In view of the marriage of X to his girlfriend, M is deemed restored to her secondary beneficiary status. Hence,
X’s wife will be his primary beneficiary until she remarries; provided, she was living with him at the time of
his death. [Sec. 8(k), RA 828; Yolanda Signey v. SSS, GR No. 173582, January 28, 2008]

A.3.
A, B, and C were hired as resident-doctors by MM Medical Center, Inc. In the course of their engagement, A,
B, and C maintained specific work schedules as determined by the Medical Director. The hospital also
monitored their work through supervisors who gave them specific instructions on how they should perform
their respective tasks, including diagnosis, treatment, and management of their patients.

One day, A, B, and C approached the Medical Director and inquired about the non-payment of their
employment benefits. In response, the Medical Director told them that they are not entitled to any because they
are mere “independent contractors” as expressly stipulated in the contracts which they admittedly signed. As
such, no-employer-employee relationship exists between them and the hospital.

(a) What is the control test in determining the existence of an employer-employee?

Under the Control Test, the person who exercises labor law concept of control, actual or reserved, is the
employer of the person over whom he exercises it. Labor law concept of control is control over means and
methods of performance. [Orozco v. CA, Philippine Daily Inquirer & Magsanoc, GR 155207, August 13,
2008]

(b) Is the Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts signed by A, B, and C to refute the existence of an
employer-employee relationship correct? If not, are A, B, and C employees of MM Medical Center, Inc.?
Explain.

No, the Medical Director is not correct. Employer-employee relationship is a question of both law and fact.
Law provides its cognitive significance, whereas evidence gives its out-there representation. Being a matter of
law and evidence, it cannot be the subject of stipulation. A, B, and C, who are not medical specialists, are the
employees of MM Medical Center, Inc. owing to the “means-methods control” exercised by the latter over
them.

A.4.
Mrs. B, the personal cook in the household of X, filed a monetary claim against her employer, X, for denying
her service incentive leave pay. X argued that Mrs. B did not avail of any service incentive leave at the end of
her one (1) year of service and hence, not entitled to the said monetary claim.

(a) Is the contention of X tenable? Explain.

No, X’s contention is not tenable. As a kasambahay, Mrs. B is entitled to service incentive leave (RA 10361).
As such, she has the prerogative to use it, monetize it after 12 months of service, or commute it until separation
from service. If she elects the second, she has 3 years from demand for payment to avail of the benefit.
[Lourdes Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, GR 222980, March 20, 2017]. Hence, not being a prescribed claim, its
withholding is unlawful.

(b) Assuming that Mrs. B is instead a clerk in X’s company with at least 30 regular employees, will her
monetary claim prosper? Explain.

Being a corporate employee, Mrs. B is a covered employee. Not being one of the less than 10 regular
employees, as her employee has at least 30 regular employees, she is qualified. Hence, prescription being a
non-issue, she is entitled to service incentive leave.

A.5.
Ms. F, a sales assistant, is one of the eight (8) workers regularly employed by ABC Convenience Store. She
was required to report on December 25 and 30.
Should ABC Convenience Store pay her holiday pay? Explain.

No, ABC Convenience Store, being a retail establishment does not have the duty to pay holiday pay to Ms. F
because she is one of its less than 10 regular employees. As such, she is disqualified by Art. 94(a), LC.

A.6.
D, one of the sales representatives of OP, Inc., was receiving a basic pay of P50,000.00 a month, plus a 1%
overriding commission on his actual sales transactions. In addition, beginning 3 months ago, or in August
2019, D was able to receive a monthly gas and transportation allowance of P5,000.00 despite the lack of any
company policy therefor.

In November 2019, D approached his manager and asked for his gas and transportation allowance for the
month. The manager declined his request, saying that the company had decided to discontinue the
aforementioned allowance considering the increased costs of its overhead expenses. In response, D argued that
OP, Inc.’s removal of the gas and transportation allowance amounted to a violation of the rule on non-
diminution of benefits.

Is the argument of D tenable? Explain.

No, D’s argument is not tenable. The Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits [Art. 100, LC] strictly pertains
to pre-promulgation benefits and not to post-promulgation benefits such as subject allowance [Apex Mining
Co. v. NLRC, GR 86200, Feb 25, 1992; Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel
Davao, GR 174040, Sept. 22, 2010]. If what is diminished is s post-promulgation benefit, the rule violated is
the Principle of Grants. At any rate, the subject allowance has not yet ripened to a demandable right since its
enjoyment was for a few months only and the company did not intend to grant it permanently.