FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

28. No. Such reliance is not correct since their employment status must be defined and prescribed by law and not by
what the parties say it should be. It is well settled rule on laws that an employee-employer relationship does exist when
the employer has a control and supervision not only on the means and method the task is being performed but also as to
the result of such task. In this case, it is evident that MM Medical Center maintained such control and supervision over
their respective tasks by maintaining . Moreover, employee-employer relationship may exist even the import of the
contract signed by the parties is couched as “service contract” but the employee in the performance of his assigned task,
the other party has control and supervision over it.

30. No. They cannot agree on such stipulations without first complying with the requirements set by law with respect to
independent contractor.

Under the labor Code, Independent Contractor is one who has sufficient capital, tools and implements to undertake the
service agreement and to employ the necessary workers to perform such tasks under his control and supervision. It must
also be noted that the task to be performed is not the main business of the principal but merely incidental or ancillary. In
the case at bar, it is evident that the agency has no financial capacity to perform such service and the task to be
performed falls within the main business of the principal. While it is true that the parties may stipulate terms and conditions
as they may have deemed convenient but subject to such condition that it should not be contrary to law, morals, public
order and public policy. The contract entered into by the parties is contrary to law if not against public policy since it tries
to circumvent the law to escape any liability by employing workers of the agency who is merely conduit of the principal to
escape the be covered by labor standard.

31. I will rule against the employer.

Well-settled is the rule that employment status shall be defined and governed by the law and not by what the parties say
should it be. In other words, the import of their agreement must not be couched that would defeat the very definition of
employee-employer relationship. In this case, It is evident that there is an employee and employer relationship between
the plaintiff and the AB Hotel and Resort since the control and supervision as to the means and method of how they
should performed their tasks are present. This is exemplified by the fact that the Hotel management issued directives how
the asset of the hotel shall be managed and the order issued upon the clinic staff not to accept any cash payments from
guests.

To determine the existence of employee-employer relationship, the following elements must be present, to wit; (1) The
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) Payment of wages; (3) Power to discipline and dismiss; and (4) Power to
control the means and methods by which the task has to be performed.

The facts of the above problem do not indicate the existence of any of the foregoing elements. Thus, Pandoy is not an
employee of Perfect Triangle but independent contractor.

The proper standard of economic dependence is whether or not the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his
continued employment in that line of business.

Guidelines indicating of labor law “control” should not merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the
contractual relationship; they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining the
result, or fixing the methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.

The term employ means to suffer or permit to work.

Control over the performance of the task of one providing the service- both with respect to the means and manner, and
the results of the service- is the primary element in determining whether an employment relationship exits.

Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship.

It is a well settled rule that employer-employee exists when the means and manner by which the task is to be
accomplished is being imposed upon by the employer. This holds true even the arrangement is job contracting.
Furthermore, the employment status is defined and governed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.
Applying such doctrine in the case at bar, it is evident that the manner in which the task is to be accomplished is under the
sole control of the Star Crafts, hence the element of control which is a determinative factor to know whether or not
employer-employee does exist is present in this case.
In this case, the element of control is present. This was indicated in the express condition of the contract stating that the
workers must complete their tasks within the premises of Star Crafts. Thus, the fact that the said 100 workers were
performing their tasks within the premises of Star Crafts show control or supervision of the latter on the performance of
work by the dormer.

The element of control as to the manner and method of performance of work is not present in this case. This is because
Pablo was hired to plow, harrow, and burrow, using his own carabao and other implements and following, his own
schedule of work, without any supervision from the company.

No. there is an employer-employee relationship between Baron Hotel and Asia security guards.

Under prevailing jurisprudence, it is well settled rule that employer-employee relationship does exist when the manner,
means or methods in which the task is to be accomplished is under the control and supervision of the employer. This
holds true in case of independent contractor.

In this case, the facts have shown that the Baron Hotel has the control and supervision with respect to the manner in
which the payment of salary is given, the means and methods how promotions, suspensions, and dismissals are carried
out. All these facts are indicative that Baron Hotel has exercised control and supervision over the security guards being
assigned in Baron Hotel.

It is therefore submitted that there is an existence of employer-employee relationship between Baron Hotel and security
guards.

In case of jeepney owners and jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter, The
management of the business is in the owner’s hands. The owner as holder of the certificate of public convenience must
see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules promulgated as regards its
operation. Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called “boundary”
they pay to the owner / operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and
employee.

53.

No. Gomburza College cannot be made liable against Victor Monteverde since Ruben Padilla is not employee of the
former.

Under the Labor Code, it provides that in case of arrangement between a student and his School wherein they have
agreed that the former shall be given school privileges or opportunities to finish his studies in exchange to work for the
latter does not fall within the definition of employer-employee relationship but as a working scholar and not employee of
the college.

While it is true that Ruben Padilla at the time of mulling incident, he was working for Gomburza College, however,
applying the law above will make such employment status as mere contractual rather than employer-employee
relationship. Hence, the injury suffered by the plaintiff shall be directed against Ruben Padilla in his personal capacity and
Tort liability cannot be held against Gomburza College.

There is employer-employee raltionship between resident physician and training hospital unless: (1) There is training
agreement between them; and (2) The training program is duly accreited or apporived by the appropriate government
agency.

An independent contractor is defined as one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to
perform the job, work or service on its own account and under one’s own responsibility according to one’s own
manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance.

Article 4 (LC) provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

That all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the labor code should be interpreted in favor of the
workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the
employer and employee.

Article 1702 (NCC), it provides that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor
of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
Management prerogatives refer to the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, such as the freedom to
prescribe work assignments, working methods, processes to be followed, regulation regarding transfer of employees,
supervision of their work, lay-off and discipline, and dismissal and recall of work.

The employer’s right to conduct the affairs of its business, according to its own discretion and judgment is well-recognized
subject to such condition that those discretion and judgment must always be fair and reasonable.

1. Employee selection;
2. To discipline;
 Power of dismissal is a measure of self-protection.
3. To prescribe rules and regulations;
4. Security of Tenure;
 The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to the positions to the extent of
depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Managerial
prerogatives, on the other hand, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and
general principles of fair play and justice.
5. To dismiss an employee;
6. To characterize employment as no longer necessary and hire;
7. To transfer/promote employees;
 Management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another-
provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges, and the action is not
motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient
cause.
 Transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in
service. Promotion is the advancement from one position to another with an increase of in duties and
responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary. Demotion involves a
situation where an employee is relegated to a subordinate or less important position constituting a reduction to a
lower grade or rank, with corresponding decrease in duties and responsibilities and usually accompanied by
decrease in salary.
8. Outsourcing of business;
 What is primordial importance is that the service agreement does not violate the employee’s right to security of
tenure and payment of benefits to which he is entitled under the law. It is under management prerogatives to farm
out any of its activities, regardless of whether such activity is peripheral or core in nature. Applying the doctrinal
rule, contracting out does not require prior consultation with the union.
9. Productivity standards;
 This arrangement appears to us to be an allowable exercise of company rights. An employer is entitled to impose
productivity standards for its works, and in fact, non-compliance may be visited with a penalty even more severe
than demotion. Such sufficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals or works quotas, either by
failing to attain work goals or work quotas, either failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable
period, or by producing unsatisfactory results.
10. Right to demote;
 Generally, demotion is allowed as a valid exercise of management prerogative, often as a consequence of an
employee’s failure to comply with company productivity standards. Even the employer’s right to demote an
employee requires the observance of the twin-notice requirement.
11. Grant of bonus;
 Bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right.
The granting of bonus is basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer who
may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses aside from basic salaries or wages.
Moreover, bonuses are not part of labor standards I the same class as salaries, cost of living allowances, holiday
pay, and leave benefits, which are provided by the labor code.
 If it is additional compensation which the employer promised and agreed to give without any conditions imposed
for its payment such as success or business or greater production or output, then it is part of the wage.
12. Change of working hours;
13. Post-employment ban;
14. Policy on marital discrimination.
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’z
employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationship of that nature might compromise the interests of
the company.

To justify a bona fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors:
 That the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and
  That there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be
unable to properly perform the duties of the job.
Meiorin test
 The employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose of rationally connected to the performance of
the job.
 The employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that work-
related purpose.
 The employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate
work-related purpose.

Test of reasonableness is used together with BFOQ to reflect an inherent quality reasonably necessary for the satisfactory
job performance.

The disparate treatment and the disparate impact. Under this analysis, the plaintiff must prove that an employment policy
is discriminatory on its face.

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the LA of NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety calendar days after the filing of the compliant, the claims:

 Arising out of an employer-employee relationship;

 By virtue of any law; or
 Contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint
and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition
precedent for its approval. Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract
and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said
contract.

Their collective responsibility shall continue until the expiration of the employment contracts. The fact that the agency and
its principal have already terminated their agency agreement does not relieve the former of its liability. To rule otherwise
would render nugatory the very purpose of the law governing the employment of workers for foreign jobs abroad was
enacted.

The liability of corporate directors and officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their
company, there must be a finding that they were remiss in directing the affiars of the that company, such as sponsoring or
tolerating the conduct of illegal activities.

Reliefs granted by law in case of breach of employment or illegally dismissed OFW:

 Salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract violated together with attorney’s fees and
reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary;
 Full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of 12% per annum;
 Repatration of the worker and transport of OFW personal belongings;
 10% of the amount of withheld wages as AF when the withholding us unlawful.

In case of violation of special law, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary and the fact alone that the accused
violated the law warrants her conviction, good faith will not lie as a defense.

The employment permit may be issue to a non-resident or alien to the applicant employer after a determination of non-
availability of a person in the Philippines who is a competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the
services for which the alien is desired. For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investment, the employment
permit may be issued upon recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of said registered
enterprise.

APPRENTICESHIP, LEARNERS AND PERSON WITH DISABILITY

As to definition. Resignation refers to cessation of work coupled by intent to voluntary relinquish the job permanently on
the other hand constructive dismissal refers to cessation of work because the fact that continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable and unlikely, as an offer of involving demotion of rank or diminution of salary. It is also due to
harsh environment, intimidation and hostility of the employer towards the employee leaving him without other option but to
severe his employment status with the employer.

As to nature. In resignation, the cessation of work is voluntary on the part of the employee whereas in constructive
dismissal, the cessation of work is involuntary.

As to effect and consequence. In resignation, the resigned employee is not entitled to reinstatement or backwages since
the dismissal is voluntary while in constructive dismissal, the illegally terminated employee, as a rule, is entitled to
reinstatement and backwages from the time of dismissal up to the actual reinstatement.

No, Ms. T’s claim of constructive dismissal will not prosper.

Jurisprudence provides that claim of constructive dismissal to be valid, the complainant must show that cessation of work
is not voluntary but owing to the fact that continued employment renders impossible, unreasonable or unlikely when the
offer involves demotion of rank or diminution of salary. It also caused by disdain, insensibility and indifference of the
employer, harsh working environment and intimidation and hostility in the workplace leaving the employee without option
but to discontinue his employment status with the employer.

Applying the foregoing rule, the facts of the case do not show that the employer was disdain, insensitive or hostile against
her or there was an offer which constitutes demotion of rank or diminution of salary. In fact, her resignation was a result of
her pending administrative case which she admitted as her own doing and the only way out is for her to resign ahead of
termination. Hence, Ms. T is, therefore, not constructively dismissed but rather she resigned voluntarily.

Yes, the preventive suspension against Karina Santos is not valid.

Preventive suspension is defined by law as a measure undertaken by the employer in order to prevent serious imminent
threat against the life or property of the employer or his co-workers. This also exercised in order to preserve the evidence
or prevent the erring employee to intimidate the potential witnesses.

Applying the foregoing rule, the facts of the case do not show that there is a serious and imminent threat against the life or
property of the employer or to her co-workers. In fact, she was notified about the complaint only over the phone and was
not apprised either with particularity the facts and circumstance of her alleged misdeeds. Taken as a whole, it is clear that
serious and imminent threat to the life and property of the employer and her co-worker is not present. Hence, Karina
Santos’ preventive suspension, therefore, is not valid.

Seasonal Employees are those employees who work for any industry whose employment is limited to particular season.
To be considered as such, the employer must show that the employee must be performing work or services that are
seasonal in nature and he had been employed for the duration of the season.

Whereas, Project employees are those employees who work for any industry whose commencement and termination of
particular work, job or project is predetermined or determinable at the start of his employment and it was made known to
him such nature before his work starts. To be considered as such, the employer must show that the designation of a
specific project or undertaking for which the employee is hired and clear determination of the completion or termination of
the project at the time of the employee’s engagement.

Project employee may be distinguished from casual employee in the following manner:

As to the definition. Project employee is a kind of employment arrangement where the nature of job is designated by
particular job, work or project which is predetermined or determinable at the start of such undertaking and such
arrangement was made known to the employee at the time of employment. On the other hand, casual employee refers to
a kind of employment arrangement where the employee is permitted to work in any industry and the job is not necessarily
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer or merely incidental to the business of the employer and it is
for a definite period and such nature of work was made known to the employee at the time of the engagement.

As to the nature. Project employee is not a regular employee since the duration or life of the service will depend on the life
of the project or work or job. Hence, if the project is already finished, so is his or her employment ends as well. However, if
the project ends and yet he or she continuously working which is necessary or desirable in the business or trade of the
employer, he or she may be considered as regular employee. While in casual employee, his or her employment will not be
considered as regular employment if he or she fails to meet the standard set by the employer which was made known to
him or her at the start of the employment. However, if he or she works for atleast 1 year, he or she is considered as
regular employment.

I will dismiss the claim based on the following legal grounds:

1. The kind of employment arrangement entered into by Mariano and my client was for a fixed term employment. Being a
fixed-term arrangement, the duration of work is definite and co-terminus with the life of the project. As such, he is not
considered as regular employee.

2. Assuming the arrangement is not for a fixed term but a project employment, he is also not considered as regular
employee since as per definition of project employment, it is a kind of employment arrangement where the duration or life
of the particular or specific employment solely depends on the life of the project and such commencement and termination
of work is made known to the project employee at the start of his employment.

3. His employment arrangement will not be ripened into regular employee simply because his previous employment lasted
for 14 months. It just so happens that the duration of the project lasted for 14 months.

Applying the foregoing arguments, Mariano is, therefore, not a regular employee but a non-regular employee.

Yes, the claim of Engineer A is correct.

Jurisprudence explained that project employees are those employees who work for a specific project and the duration of
such arrangement solely depends on the life of the project. Such nature is being made known to the project employee at
the starts of the employment. Also, it must be shown that at the end of each project, a termination notice is being filed
before the RD of DOL in the place where the project is being undertaken and non-compliance with this requirement of the
law will make the project employee a regular employee.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that Engineer A was contracted in different projects owned by the employer in
several occasions. Although, such arrangement may fall within the definition of project employee, however, the facts also
reveal that he was repeatedly rehired for 5 times and it appears that his service is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. Such arrangement may be served as a badge of regular employment since it is no
longer per project arrangement but in truth, he already part of the regular workforce of the employer.

As to procedural aspect. To ensure that the security of tenure is not being circumvented, the law requires that the
employer must file a notice of termination before the concerned agency notifying the same such termination of
employment. In this case, the facts do not show that the employer complied with such requirement and clearly violates the
law. Hence, Engineer A is, therefore, a regular employee.

Pedro is a regular employee.

Jurisprudence explained that to remove the seasonal employee from the ambit of regular employment. The employer
must have shown that the employment arrangement is seasonal in nature and such arrangement is made known to the
seasonal employee. However, if the employee is part of “work pool”, such seasonal employee may become a regular
employee when there is a continuous rehiring and the nature of the job is considered as necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that Pedro has been rehired and called for duty for almost 10 years. He is
considered as part of the work pool and the continuous rehiring and the nature of work is necessary and desirable in the
usual business and trade of employer. These are badges that would make him a part of regular workforce of the
employer. Hence, Pedro is, therefore, a regular seasonal employee.

I will decide in favor of Don-Don.

Jurisprudence explains that the determining factor whether the employment is regular one is there a causal connection
between the nature of job and in relation usual business or trade of the employer. He is considered regular employee
when the service or function is reasonably necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer.
Otherwise is not a regular employee and engaged into different work arrangement.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that the nature of his job as call center is reasonably necessary and desirable in
the usual trade or business of the employer notwithstanding the fact that he was hired for only 4 months. Length of time is
not the sole and determining factor that would make him a regular employee. Hence, Don-Don is, therefore, a regular
employee.

My advise is to file illegal dismissal case against Hambergis Inc. since she is a regular employee.

Jurisprudence explains that regular employment refers to a work arrangement wherein the employee has been engaged
to work which is reasonably necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Length of service is
not the sole and determining factor but the causal connection between the work performed and the trade or business of
the employer.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that Lucy was hired as a call center agent for 5 months and rehired for several
times until her termination. Being a call center company, call center agent is necessary and desirable in its business,
without which, it may not survive. The fixed term agreed upon by the parties will not prevail over the overwhelming
evidence that she has been performing a vital and important role in the employer’s core business. Hence, Lucy is,
therefore, a regular employee and her termination without cause shall be a ground for her illegal dismissal case.

On the other hand, fixed term employment is a kind of employment arrangement whereby the parties have agreed without
any compulsion by reason of force, intimidation or fraud and fully aware as to the nature and legal consequence and the
fact that no moral dominance has been exerted by any of the parties.

I will rule in favor of the SDS.

Jurisprudence explains that fixed term employment is a kind of work arrangement whereby the parties have agreed that
the duration of work is fixed for a definite period and such fact that the employee’s consent was not vitiated and no moral
dominance was exerted by any of the parties.

Applying the foregoing rule, it is evident that all the requirements set by law were complied with. The facts do not show
that Lina was forced to sign the agreement against her will or the employer exerted moral dominance over her. The
company policy of hiring fixed term employment is a valid exercise of management prerogative and not a scheme to
circumvent the law on security of tenure. In fine, the agreement entered into by Lina and SDS was voluntary and with
mutual consent. Hence, Lina is, therefore, not regular employee.

As counsel, I can use both grounds to legally terminate Amaya’s employment.

Settled is the rule that in all cases of probationary employment, the law requires that at the time of employment it is
required that the reasonable standard for regularization is made known to the employee. Failure to comply with such rule
will make the employment status to be a regular one. Also, under Labor law, as amended, probationary employee cannot
be terminated during the probationary period without just or authorized cause.

Applying the foregoing rule, the complaint filed against her for malicious imputation of vice or defect constitutes
misconduct and if proven to be true is ground for his immediate termination.

Ms. A is probationary employee. She is probationary employee since at the start of her employment, the VP for sport has
made known to her the standard that she has to meet, which is to bring the volleyball team into the finals. However, after
the season ends, the volleyball team ended at the bottom of the standing. Here, she fails to meet the standard that the
employer had initially set for her regularization.

She is not a fixed term employee because the term fixed term is a kind of work arrangement whereby the parties have
agreed that work is determinate and the period is fixed. Under this arrangement, it isn necessary that the consent is freely
given, no compulsion or moral dominance is exerted by any of the parties. It does not appear that the parties agreed that
her work covers a specific timeline or definite period.

She is not also considered as regular employee since the term regular employee is defined as a work arrangement
wherein the employee’s nature of work is reasonably necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. Here, it may be true that the role of Ms. A is important but it is not considered as necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer. The employer’s main business is to provide quality education. Her role is limited
to coaching job which is just incidental to such main business.

I will decide against Sergio.

Jurisprudence explained that for serious misconduct to valid as ground for termination of an employee, the following
requisites must be present: (1) The conduct must be serious in character; (2) The act or omission must be function related
that would render him unfit for his continuous employment; and (3) It was made for wrongful intent.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that all the requisites are present in his case. Slapping his co-workers and
damaging employer’s property are serious in character. The act is work-related since the act complained of was
committed inside the workplace and it was made for wrongful intent since the same was deliberately made to conceal his
previous infraction of using somebody’s ID. All told, he committed serious misconduct and dismissal of service is
warranted.

Yes, the dismissal is valid.

Jurisprudence explained that willful disobedience is a valid ground for termination.

The employees assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willingness being characterized by a wrongful
and perverse attitude, and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that Nicodemus despite his knowledge of the company policy prohibiting
employees to wear attires not sanction by the company, he commits such lawful order without any valid excuse. His
perverse attitude was amplified when confronted by the HR Manager, instead of being remorseful, he instead claims that
wearing shorts and sneakers did not affect his performance in work. Such adamant behavior by all means is constitutive
of willful disobedience.

No, IBM’s contention is not correct.

Jurisprudence explains that redundancy program is valid ground to terminate one’s employment if the position is
reasonably in excess of what the company is actually needed. This may cause by overhiring of workers, closure of a
product line due to slow sales or demand. It is also settled rule that employer is under no obligation to keep more
employees than are necessary for the operation.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that the adopted a redundancy program to streamline operation. This is a valid
management prerogative subject only to condition that it was made in good faith and not to circumvent labor rights. Here,
there is no showing that the redundancy program was made to violate the right of employees of security of tenure or right
to self-organization. Hence, IBM is, therefore, not correct in his contention.

As counsel of Hagibis, I will present the following legal grounds as justification for the retrenchment program:

1. That the company in order to prevent imminent losses or to actually reduce and minimize the effect of such losses
which is substantial and consequential, retrenchment program is the measure of last resort to stop the continued financial
losses that the company is experiencing.

2. That the notice of retrenchment has been served to affected workers and with the DOL one month prior to the intended
retrenchment;

3. Payment of separation pay of atleast 1 month or ½ of 1 month salary whichever is higher for every year of service;

4. That the fair and reasonable criteria is being used to know who amongst the employee will be retained or not.

I will dismiss the case of unlawful termination.

Jurisprudence provides that in case of asset sale, the selling company is liable to termination pay to those employees to
be dismissed form service. However, the buyer of such asset is not compelled to absorb or retain the workforce of selling
company but they are given priority in the selection and hiring process.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that Bleach Company bought the asset of Blank. In such as case, Blank is not
required by law to absorb or retain the employees of Bleach in its payroll. The contention of laid-off employees that Blank
and Bleach are sister companies has no factual basis. Hence, the unlawful termination is, therefore, without merit.

Jurisprudence provides that in the absence of express prohibition in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the rule is that
both the separation pay and retirement benefits shall be collected. This is also pursuant to social justice policy of the State
that doubts shall always be resolved in favor of labor rights.
Applying the foregoing principle, it is evident that the CBA did not prohibit the availment of both separation pay and
retirement benefits, hence, both benefits are, therefore must be given by the employer.

The motion to dismiss must be denied.

Jurisprudence explains that in all cases of illegal dismissal, the same must be brought within 4 years from the time of
cause of action accrues or from the time the notice of termination was served to the employee.

Applying the foregoing rule, it appears that the decision to finally terminate the said employee was on October 30, 1980,
the 4 year prescriptive period shall start to run on such date. Thus, the employee has 4 year to file the illegal dismissal
form October 30, 1980. When he filed the illegal dismissal case on November 25, 1983, it is well within the four year
prescriptive period. Hence, prescriptive period did not, therefore, set in.