x is a member of the 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?
b) assuming that x got married to his GF a few days before his death, is M entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain?
A) 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 8k, RA8282)
B) in view of the marriage of X to his GF, 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 8k, Ra8282, YOLANDAvSSS)

DEFINE just and authorized causes

Seasona and project ees
Strikes and lockouts
Bonafide occupation qualification
Grivevance mahcinery

a) just cause is a fault-based ground for dismissal under A297, whereas authorized cause is a non-fault ground for dismissal under A298 and 299 of the LC
b) seasonal EE is 1 engaged for the duration of the season for which he has been engaged; whereas, project ee is 1 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 engagemend A295
c) strikes are carried out thru temporary stoppage of work, while lockouts are carried out thru temporary withholding of work A2987 LC
d) bonafide occupation qualification (BFOW) is an occupational reqt based on qlt or attribute. It is a valid if it serves a algitimate business purpose, it is work-
related, and its possession enhances an EE’s productivity at work (STAR PAPER CORP, V SMYOBL)
E) grievance machinery is a contractual dispute resolution mechanism for all grievable disputes. It is a mandatory provision of a CBA, w/o which it cannot be
registered.

A B & C were hired as a resident-dotors by MM MEDICAL CENTER, in the course of their engagement, A B & C maintained specific work schedules as
determined by the Medical Director. The hospital also monitored their work through supervisors who game them specific instructions on how they should erform
their respective tasks, including diagnosis, treatment, and management of their patients.
1 day, A B & C approached the Medical Dir and inquired about the non-payment of their employment benefits. In response, the Med Dir told them that they are
not entitled to any because theey are mere “independent contractor”s as express stipulated in the contracts which they admittedly signed. As such, no ER-EE
relationship exists between them and the hospital
a) what is the control test in determining the existence of an ER-EE
b) is the medical dire’s reliance on the contracts signed by A B & C to refute the existence of an ER-EE relationship correct? If not, are A B and C EE of MM
MEDICAL CENTER INC?

A) under the control trest, the person who exercises labor law concept of control, actual or rreserved, is the ER of the person over whome he exercises it. Labor
law concept of control is control over means and metyhods of performance (OROZCOvCA)
B)No, the MEDIRAL DIR is not correct. ER-EE 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 & C, who are not medical specialists, are the EE of MM
MEDICAL CENTER owing to the means-methods control exercised by the latter over them.

Mrs. B the personal cook in the household of X, filed a monetary claim against her ER 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 1 yr of service and hence, not entitled to the said monetary claim
a) is the contention of X tenable? Explain
\b) assuming that MRs. B is instead a clerk in X’s company with at least 30 regular EEs, will her monetary claim prosper? Explain
a) No, X’s contention is not tenable. As a Kasambahay, MRs B is entitled to SIL RA10361. 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 that second, she has 3 yrs from demand for payment to avail of the benefit as in the case of
Lourdes Rodriguez Park n Ride). Hence, not being a prescribed claim, its withholding is unlawful
b) being a corporate EE, MRs B is a covered EE. And not being one of the less than 10 regular EEs, as her ER has at least 30 regular EEs, she is qualified.
Hence, prescription being a non-issue, she is entitled to service incentive leave.

Ms. F a sales assistant, is one of the 8 wrokers regualrlay employed by ABC Covenience Store. She was required to report on December 25 and 30
Should ABC Store pay her holiday pay?
No. ABC convenience store, being a retail establishment, does not have duty to pay holiday pay to Ms. F because she is one of its less than 10 regular EEs. As
such, she is disqualified by Art 94(a) of the LC

D, one of the sales preressentatives of OP, INC, was receiving a basic pay of P50,000 a month, plus a 1% overriding commission on his actual sales
transactions. In addition, beginning 3 months ago, or in Aug 2019, D was able to receive a monthly gas and transportation allowance of P5k despite the lack of
any company policy therefor. In Nov 2019, D approached his manager and asked for his gas and transportation allowance for the month. The manger declined
his request, saying that the company had decided to discontinue the aofrmenetion allowance considering the incereeased 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-dimuntion of benefits
Is the argument D tenable? Explain
No, D’s argument is not tenable
The principle of non-dimuntion of Benefits A100 LC) strictly pertains to pre-promulgation benefits and not to post-promulgation benefits such as a subject
allowance (APEXMININGCOvNLRC). If what is diminished is a post-ppromulgation benefit, the ruel 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.

W Gas Crops is engaged in the manufacture and distribution to the general public of various petroleum products. On Jan 1, 2010 W gass corp entered into a
service agreement w/ Q manpower CO, whereby the latter undertook to provide utility workers for the maintenance of the former’s manufacturing plant. Although
the wokers were hired by Q manpower Co they used the equipment owned by W Gas Corp in performing their tasks, and were likewise subject to constant
checking based on W Gas Corp’s procedures.
Feb 1, 2010, Mr R one of the utility workers, was dismissed from employment in line w/ the termination of the Service Agreement B/n W Gas Corp and Q Man
power Co. Thus, MR R filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against W gas corp claiming that Q manpower Co is only a laboy-only contractor. In the course of the
proceedings, W gas corp. presented no evidence to prove Q manpower Co’s capitalization
a) Is Q manpower Co, a labor-only contractor? Explain
b) Will Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp prosper?
a) Q Manpower Co not being substantially capitalized and possessed with investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries or work premises, is a labor-
only contractor. Relevantly, its apparent labor-only contractor status is confirmed by the fact that it does not control the means and methods of performance of
the manpower it supplied. Since both essential element and confirming element are present, it is labor-only contractor
b) yes, it will prosper. In labor-only contracting, the legal personality of the principal merges w/ that of its labor-only contractor who is just its agent (cocca-cola
bottlers Phils, inc V DELA CRUZ). Hence, pursuant to the principle of merger of legal personalities the former ass the real employer can be proceeded against
for illegal dismissal despite the termination of subject contracting agreement.

Ms. T was caught in the act of stealing the company property of her ER. When Ms. T admitted to the commission of the said act to her manager, the latter
advised her to just tender her resignation; otherwise, she would face an investigation which would likely lead to the termination of her employment and the filing
of criminal charges in court.
Acting on her manager’s advice,, Ms. T submitted a letter of resignation. Later on, MS T field a case for constructive dismissal against her ER, while Ms. T
conceded that her manager spoke to her in calm and unforceful manner, she claimed that her resignation was not completely voluntary because she was told
that should she not resign, she could be terminated from work for just cause and worse criminal charged could be field against her
a) what is the difference between resignation and constructive dismissal and
b) will Ms T’s claim for constructive dismissal prosper?
A) a resignation is a voluntary self-termination when personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the ER’s business
(GANvGALEERMAPHSINC). While, a constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible,
unreasonable, or unlikely. (Phil. Jaoan Active Carbon Corp. Vs NLRC)
B) No, Ms. T’s claims will not prosper. She was not placed in a situation that left her no option except to self-terminate. Instead, she was just given a graceful
exist. A graceful exit is within the prerogative of the employer to give instead of binding an employee to his fault, or filing an action for redress gainst him (Central
Azucarera de Bais)

After due proceedings, the LA declared MR. K to have been illegally dismissed by his former ER, AB inc as a csqnce the LA directed ABC inc to pay MR K
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as well as his full backwages
While ABC inc accepted the finding of illegal dismissal. It nevertheless filed a MR, claiming that the LA erred in awarding both separation pay and full back
wages, and instead, should have ordered MR. K’s reinstatement to his former position w/o loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but w/o payment of
backwages. In this regard, ABC pointed out that the LA’s ruling did not contain any finding of strained relations or that reinstatement was no longer feasible. In
any case, it appears that no evidence was presented on this score
a) is ABC inc’s contention to delete the separation pay, and instead, order reinstatement w/o backwages correct?
b) assuming that on appeal, the NLRC upholds the decision of the LA, where how and within what timeframe should ABC inc assail the NLRC
a) as to separation pay, the LA’s decision fails to state that there is a bar to reinstatement; hence, he should have ordered reinstatement pursuant to the general
rule prescribed by A294 LC. Since the alternative relief of separation pay is an exception, it must be justified with a reinstatement bar. Ass to backwages,
however, it cannot be deleted because it is a logical consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal ( ICT MARKETING SERVICES, INC V MARIPHIL SALES).
Hence, absent any reason for limitng or withholding it, it should be awarded as it was awarded by the LA.
b) after the denial of the appellant’s MR, the NLRC’s decision and order of denial can be assailed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court thru the filing a petition for
certiorari w/in 60 days form receipt of said denial order. Correction of error of jurisdiction, resulting in the nullification of the assailed dispositions, should be
sought based on the NLRC’s grave abuse of its appellate power amounting to lack of, or excess of jurisdiction.

for purposes of prescription, with what periods form the time the cause of action accrued should the following cases be filed
a) money claims arising from ER-EE relationships
b) illegal dismissal
c) unfair labor practice
d) offenses under the LC
e) illegal recruitment
a) money claims arising from ER-EE relationship shall be prosecuted w/in 3 years from date they become a legal possibility, or can be judicially brought Art306
LC, Art 1150 NCC, Anabe vs Asian Construction)

b) illegal dismissal shall be assailed w/in 4 yrs from complete severance of ER-EE relationship, or date of salary/ positional downgradte A1146 NCC, Orchard
Golf & Country Club Vs Francisco)

c) unfair labor practice shall be brought by complaint under the Labor Code not later than 1 yr from date of commission (Art 305LC). As to its criminal aspect, it
shall be prosecuted w/in 3 yrs from date of finality fo the ULP judgment (A305Lc)

d) offenses under the LC shall be prosecuted w/in 3 yrs from date of commission (A305)

e) illegal recruitment shall be prosecuted w/in 5 yrs if simple illegal recuirtment, and w/in 20 yrs if economic sabotage (sec 7 Rule 4, Ra 10022)

Discuss the powers and responsibilities of the FF in the scheme of the LC:
a) secretary of labor
i) ordinary powers. Visitorial and enforcement A128 LC); appellate (review of compliance orders issued under A128LC); and review of CE orders per A272; rule-
making Art 5 LC); and control and supervision (the heritage hotel manila V NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
ii) extraordinary powrs. Assumption power under A278 9g); and suspension power under A292(b), both of the LC.
b) bureau of labor relations
i) original jurisdiction. jurisdiction. jurisdiction over intra-union and inter-union disputes involving national unions and like labor organizations (A232 LC)
ii) appellate jurisdiction. jurisdiction over appealed decisions of the DOLE regional director in intra-union and inter-union cases (a232 LC; Baries v Bitonio)

c) voluntary arbitrators
i) traditional jurisdiction. jurisdiction over unresolved disputes arising from CBA interpretation or implementation; and unresolved disputes arising from the
enforcement or implementation company personnel policies (A274 LC)
ii) jurisdiction by stipulation. Jurisidciton over such other disputes as may be expressly conferred by a CBA or similar agreement (Vivero Vs CA)

Due to serious business reverses, ABC CO decided to terminate the service of several officers receiving “fat compensation packages. One of these officers was
MR X its VP for external affairs and a member of the Board of Directors. Aggrieved, Mr. X field a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC- Regional
Arbitration Branch.
ABC co Moved for the dismissal fo the case on the ground of lack of jurisdicition, asserting that since Mr X occupied the position of VP- external affairs which is
listed in the by-laws of the corporation, the case should have been filed before the RTC.
The LA denied ABC Co’s motion and proceeded to rule that MR X was illegally dismissed. Hence, he was reinstated in ABC Co’s payroll ppending its appeal to
the NLRC
a) did the LA err in ddenying ABC Cos’ motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? explain
b) assuming that jurisdiction is not at issue and that NLRC reverses the LA’s ruling of illegal dismissal with finality, may ABC co claim reimbursement for the
amounts it paid to MR X during the time that he was on payroll reinstatement pending appeal? Explain

a) LA did not err. Even if the office occupied by MR x may have been listed in the corporate by-laws as a corporate office, it should have been shown that he was
appointed to it by the Board of Directors. Absence evidence, MR X was a corporate employee; hence, the tenurial issue he brought to the LA was not an intra-
corporate issue (COSARE vs Broadcom Asia Inc). Moreover, mere membership in the governing board does not make one a corporate officer. Uneless elected
as president, secretary or treasurer, a member of the board would not qualify as a corporate officer (Sec 24 Revised Corp Code)

b) ABC Co cannot claim reimbursement because MR x had nothing to do with the reinstatement given him. on the contrary, the company exercised its exclusive
right to determine which type of reinstatement to give him. had it informed him of the possibility of a reimbursement, he would not have chosen to be driven to
penury at the end of the day through a reimbursement by compulsion. In this case, the Principle of unjust enrichment has no application; hence, he can keep the
salaries he received. (Garcia vs PAL)

Mrs A singed a 1 yr contract w/ XYZ recruitment co for deployment as wielding supervisor for DEF inc located in Dubai. The employment contract, which the
POEA approved, stipulated a salary of US 600/month.
MR A had only been in his job in Dubai for 6 months when DEF Inc announced that it was suffering from severe financial losses and thus intended to retrench
some of its workers, among them MR A. DEF inc hinted, however, that EEs woho would accept a lower salary could be retained.
Together w/ some other Fil workers. MR A agreed to a reduced salary of US $400 a month and thus, continued with his empyoemnt
a) was the reduction of MR A’s salary valid? Explain
b) assuming that the reduction was invalid, may MR A hodl XYZ recruitment co liable for underpayment of wages?

a) no, the reduction is not valid. There is a contractual breach. Applying lex ex contractu or lex loci celebrationis, Philippine law controls; hence, the substantial
character of the alleged financial losses must have been proven with financial statements duly certified by an independent external auditor. Mere announcement
of losses would not suffice. The threat of retrenchment was just a scheme to conveniently effect the illegal substitution of the POEA- approved employment
contracts

b) yes. MR A may hold XYZ recruitment Co, liable for the payment of his wages under the rule that a recruiter is solidarily liable for breaches of the terms and
conditions of the POEA Rules and Regulations; Datuman V first cosmopolitan Manpower and promotion services, inc.

upona review of the wage rate and structure pertaining to its regular rank and file employees. K corporation found it necessary to increase its hiring rates for
employees belonging to the different job classification levels to make their salary rates more competitive in the labor market
after the implementation of the new hiring salary. Union X. the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file EEs, demanded a similar salary adjustment for the
old ees. It argued that the increase in hiring rates resulted in wage distortion since it erased the wage gap between the new and old ees. In other words, new ees
would enjoy most the same salary rates as K corporation old ees

a) what is wage distortion

b) did a wage distortion arise under the circs which legally obligated K corporation to rectify the wages of its old ees? Ex
a) a wage distortion is a the elimination or serious contraction of the wage gap advantage enjoyed by 1 wage group over another of same wage region; provided,
such elimination or compression is caused by a wage law, or wage order A124 LC; CBA renegotiation; or merger; but not a promotion
b) no. since the cause of the alleged elimination is not one the recognized causes, as it was an adjustment of the hiring rate for new hires joining other wage
groups, the elimination of the wage gap is not a wage distortion. It is rather clear that the increase rate would only be given to new hires and not to all the
members of the wage group/s they would be joining. Hence, the company has nothing to adjust or rectify.

On December 1, 2017. GHI co an organized estbalishemnt and union J, the exclusive bargaining agent therein executed a 5 year collective bargaining
agreement CBA which, after the ratification, was registered with the Bureau of Labor relations.
a) when can the union ask, at the earliest, for the renegotiation of all terms of the CBA, except its representation aspect? Explain
b) when is the eaerliest time that another union can file for a petition for certification election? Explain

a) except for the representation aspect of the CBA, the other provisions can be renegotiated not later than 3 yrs form date of CBA’s effectivity A265 LC
b) another union can file a petition for certification election during the freedom period of the CBA which is its last 60 days A265 LC

W ship management inc hired seafarer G as bosun in its vessel under the terms of the 2010 POEA-SEC
On the 6th month on board, seafarer G fell ill while working. In particular, he complained of stomach pain, general weakness and fresh blood in his stool. When
his illness persisted, he was medically repatriated on 1/16/2018. On the same day, seafarer G submitted himself to a post-emplyoment medical exam. Wherein
he was referred for further treatment as of 9/30/ 2018, seafarer G has yet to be issued any fit-to-work cert’n by the company-designated physician, must less a
final and definitive assessment of his actual condition. Since Seafarer G still felt unwell, he sought an opinion from a doctor of his choice who later issued an
independent assessment stating that he was totally and permanently disable due to his illness sustained during work.
Seafrer G then proceeded to file a claim for tital and permanent disability compensation. The company asset’s that the claim should be dismissed due to
prematurity since Seafarer G failed to 1st settle the matter through the 3rd-doctor conflict resolution procedure as provided under 2010 POEA-SEC

a) what is the 3rd doctor conflict resolution procedure under the 2010 POEA-SEC
b) will seafarer G’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits prosper despite his failure to 1 st settle the matter through the 3rd doctor conflict resolution
procedure? Explain
c) assuming that seafarer G failed to submit himself to a post-employment medical exam w/in 3 working days from his return, what is the csqnce thereof to his
claim??

a) in the event of conflicting medical assessments, the parties are required to select a 3 rd physician whose finding shall be final and binding on them. Under S20B
of the 2010 POEA-Sec, the selection is consensual; however, jurisprudence has made it mandatory (PH Hammonia Ship Agency V eulogio)
b) yes, it will prosper. The 3 rd physician rule has no application when the company- designated physician exceeds the 120-dday treatment period w/o making a
final, categorial and definitive assessment. Here, he allowed 209 days to elapse w/o issuing a fit-to-work assessment or a disability grade (ApinesVeiburg ship
management Phil Inc)
c) non-complaince with the 3-day reporting requirement results in the forfeiture of G’s entitlement to disability compensation (sec20 B POEA-SEC)

Ms A is a volleyball coach w/ 5 yrs of exp in her field. Before the start of the volleyball season of 2015, she was hired for the sole purpose of overseeing the
training and ccoaching of the University’s volleyball team. During her hiring, the VP for sports expressed to Ms A the university’s expectation that she would bring
the University a championship at the end of the yr.
In her 1st volleyball season, the university placed 9 th out of 10 participating teams. Soon after the end of the season, the VP for sports informed Ms a that she was
a mere probationary ee and hence, she need not come back for the next season because of the poor performance of the team
In any case, the VP for sports claimed that Ms a was a fixed-term ee whose contract had ended at the close of the yr
a) is Ms a prob, fixed term or regular EE? Explain why she is or she is not such kind of an ee for each of the types of employment
b) assuming that Ms a was dismissed by the University for serious misconduct but was never give na notice to explain, what is the csqnce of procedurally infirm
dismissal from service under our labor law and jurisprudence?

a) ms A is a regular ee, she cannot be considered a fixed-term ee in the absence of a fixed-term employment contract, nor a prob ee because it was nto
expressly communicated to her upon her engagement that her tenure was for 6 months unless she survived pre-disclosed standards for regularization. When a
EE is hired w/o being apprised of such standards, he is deemed a regular ee regardless of the er’s intent to hire him as a probationary ee (abbot laboratoriez v
alcaraz)

b) the violation of Mr. A’s right to statutory due process requires the assessment of the university with a nominal damages. The amount is P30k because a
dismissal for failure to qualify is akin to a dismissal for a just cause (abbot laboratoris vs alcaraz)

when resolving a case of unfair labor practice field ba union, what should be the critical point of analysis to determine if an act constitutes ULP
the nature of an ULP is that it is a violation of worker’s right to self-organization (A258 Lc). An aact, however unfair it may be, is not a ULP unless listed as such
under A259 and 260 at the LC. Therefore, the critical point of analysis is a ULP case field by a union is whether the act complained of its expressly listed as UKP
under A259 LC

because of dwindling of sales and the csqnt limitation of production, rumos were fife that XYZ inc would reduce its ee force. The next day, the ees of XYZ ince.
Received a notice that the company will have a winding down period of 10 days, after which there will be a 6 month suspension of operations to allow the
company to address its precarious financial position
on the 4th month of suspension its operations XYZ, posted announcement that it will resume its operations in 60 days but at the sme time announced that instead
of closing down due to financial losses, it will retrench 50% of the work force.
A) is the announcement that there would be rentrenchment affecting 50% of the work force sufficient compliance w/ the legal requirments for retrenchment?
b) assuming that XYZ ince sintead of retrenchment extended the suspension of its operation form 6 months to 8 months, would the same be legally permissible?
If not, wat are the consequence??
a) no, the 30 day notice requirement is a written notice that must be serve on both the DOLE and the affected ees (A298), hence the posted announcement is a
violation of the prescribed pre-termination procedure
b_) temporary suspension of business operations under A301 of the LC should not exceed 6 months; otherwise, the suspension would ripen to constructive
dismissal after the period expires. In such case, the company would be ordered to reinstate and pay backwages.

Discuss the diff b/n compulsory and voluntary/ optional retirement & min benfits provided under the LC for retiring ees of private establishemnts

a) voluntary/optional retiremen is a termination of employment based on a bilateral agreement to terminate employet at an agreed age regardless of yrs in
service, or after a certain number of yrs in service regardless of age, it is a matter of contract. In contrast, a compulsory retirement is a termination of employment
by operation of law. it is a matter of statute.

underA302 LC retiring EEs shall be paid retirement benefits computed as ff (22.5 days x daily rate) x length of service. The 22.5 days consists of 15 days
representing half-month salary, 5 days as service incentive leave, and 2.5 days representing 1/12 of 13 th month pay. The full 22.5 days shall be used if the retiree
is entitled to both service incentive leave and 13th month pay. Meantime, the 15 days must always be used.
2018
I
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school
since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a summer term for the school year 1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching
until 2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he could no longer
teach because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso’s claim for retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who
have served for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time
faculty member, Narciso did not acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code,
regardless of his length service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)
Yes, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. A part-time lecturer, with a fixed-term employment , who did not attain permanent status, is entitled to retirement
pay.This was ruled by the Supreme Court in De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo: RA 7641, "any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement
age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any
collective bargaining agreement and other agreements." The Implementing Rules provide that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to "all employees in the private
sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x
x." And Further clarifies that employees covered by Republic Act No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees, employees of service and other job contractors
and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another."

(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed in the absence of any contract between him and Norte University providing for
such benefits? (2.5%)
= The retirement will be 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion benefits. According to Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary Ma. Nieves R.
Confessor,
For purposes of computing compulsory and optional retirement benefits and to align the current retirement plan with the minimum standards of Art. 287 of the
Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 7641, and Sec. 5 (5.2) of its implementing rules, “1/2 month salary” means 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion
benefits.

Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term ‘ (1/2) month salary’ shall mean (15) days plus (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of
not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves x x x x (italics supplied).

II
Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating a rank-and-file Neuman Employees Union . On the same day, New Neuman Employees filed a petition for
certification election with the (DOLE) Regional Office, attaching the appropriate charter certificate.
a) The employer, Neuman Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of legal personality on the part of the petitioner union. Should the motion be
granted? (2.5%)
The motion should be denied. For purposes of filing a petition for certification election, New Neuman Employees has legal personality from the time it was issued
with a charter certificate. Labor Code, which provides that the chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election
from the date it was issued a charter certificate. (Article 241)
Alternative answer:
The motion should be denied. The employer can question the legal personality of the union only through independent petition for cancellation of union
registration and not by way of collateral attack in the petition for certification election.

b) The employer likewise filed a petition for cancellation of union registration against New Neuman Employees Union, alleging that Nayon Federation already had
a chartered local rank-and-file union, Neuman Employees Union, pertaining to the same bargaining unit within the establishment. Should the petition for
cancellation prosper? (2.5%)
Article 247LC , the following are the relevant grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Unless the employer can prove that any of the foregoing grounds are present the petition for cancellation will not prosper.

III Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary
differentials, 13th month pay, and financial assistance, as promised by his employer. Management promised to pay him as soon as it is able to pay off all
retrenched rank-and-file employees. 5 years later, and before management was able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died of a heart attack.
His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the company before the (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the unpaid claim. She also claimed additional
damages arguing that the supposed resignation letter was obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and influence. The employer filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money claims, and (B) the action has prescribed.
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including interest on the amount unpaid? (2.5%)

Jurisdiction will depend on the amount being claimed by Nicanor’s surviving spouse.
If the amount exceeds (PhP5,000.00) as provided in Article 224 (a [6]) of the Labor Code then jurisdiction belongs to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
However, if the amount did not exceed (PhP5,000.00) then jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Director under Article 129 of the Labor Code involving recovery of
wages, simple money claims and other benefits. Either of the said quasi-judicial body can award interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages.
The award of interest in money claim was explained in Limlingan v. Asian Institute Management, Inc., that the rate of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages as well as its accrual are as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which
may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions
of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the
discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or until the demand
can be established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially
(Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the
date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for
the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance
of credit.

(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction, has the action prescribed? (2.5%)
> The action has not prescribed. This is because Nicanor’s surviving spouse’s cause of action will accrue upon the categorical denial of the claim.
Here, there was demand for its payment, however, the management had promised to pay as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-and-file employees.
However, it is was only after (5) years that the management was able to pay. Moreover, there was no denial of the claim. Therefore, prescription did not set in.
Serrano v. Court of Appeals, Supreme Court explained the accrual of a cause of action under Article 306 [291] Labor code.

(c) May Nicanor’s spouse successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged undue pressure and influence? (2.5%)
Yes, Nicanor’s spouse can successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged undue pressure and influence. Article 224 (a [4] of the Labor Code
which provides for claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relationship within the jurisdictional authority
of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
In the alternative, it can be argued that Nicanor’s spouse cannot successfully claim additional damages because it is not within the jurisdictional authority of the
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The employer-employee relationship is only incidental and the cause of action arises from other sources like torts and damages.
Therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

IV
Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant. After having been
paid their separation benefits, the retrenched workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA between their union and management Natasha
Shoe Company denied the workers’ demand.
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this dispute? (2.5%)
Since this is a money claim involving the interpretation and implementation of the CBA, the retrenched workers can refer the matter to the grievance machinery
and if it remained unresolved within (7) days from the date of its submission the same shall be automatically referred to the voluntary arbitration prescribed in the
CBA.
In the alternative, it can be argued that since this is a dispute between the retrenched workers and the employer the same cannot be the subject matter of
grievance and voluntary arbitration. This is because only disputes between the union and the company, as ruled in Tabique v. International Copra Export
Corporation, shall be referred to grievance machinery or voluntary arbitration. Thus, the dispute should be resolved by way of mandatory conciliation-mediation in
accordance with Article 234 of the Labor Code. Then file a money claim before the Labor Arbiter if it exceeds P5kor if it is less than P5,000.00 for each of the
employees then the money claims is within the jurisdictional authority of the Regional Director under Article 129 of the Labor Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the workers can claim both separation pay and retirement benefits. It was ruled in Goodyear v. Marina Angus, where the absence of an express or implied
prohibition against it, collection of both retirement benefits and separation pay upon severance from employment is allowed. This is grounded on the social
justice policy that doubts should always be resolved in favor of labor rights. (Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653, February 11,
1992)

V
Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an 8-hour workday.
On Good Friday, she worked for (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480 for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for
work done on Good Friday.
She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shit differential for working on a Good Friday.
Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by
the employer and partially paid for by the employee through salary deduction. According to the employer, such valid deduction caused the payment of Nelda’s
wage to be below the prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay hotel workers have to
work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.

(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary? (2.5%)

As held in Mabeza v. NLRC, Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without the
employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the
employee’s wages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be
voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. (Labor Code, Art. 97 [f])
Applying the above, unless the hotel can comply with the legal requirements it has no valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis
salary.
Included in 13th month all remuneration
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the successive regular holidays, the rule requires that an employee may not be paid for both holidays if he absents himself from work on the day
immediately preceding the 1st holiday, unless he works on the 1st holiday, in which case he is entitled to his holiday pay on the 2nd holiday. (see Sec. 10, R IV
Book III IRR).
Applying the foregoing rule, Nelda is not entitled to the payment for the successive regular holiday. The facts stated that she only worked on Good Friday, the
2nd holiday. However, she is entitled only to the (1) hour work she rendered plus her additional compensation by way of night shift differential. To be computed
as follows: P560/8=70 per hour. The P70 is the compensation she will receive for working on Good Friday. As she is not entitled to any of the successive regular
holiday for failure to comply with the rules. For the NSD 560/8 x 220% =154 x 1 hour= 154 NSD. This is based on the computation for rendering work between
10pm and 6am under Article 86. The formula is based on work schedule on regular holiday 200% of P70.00 + 10% of (200% of P70.00) 220= (2.0 x P70.00) +
10% (2.0 x P70.00) =P140.00 + 14.00 =154

VI
A certification election was conducted in Nation Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of eligible voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The results
were as follows: Union Nana : 45 votes Union Nada : 40 votes Union Nara : 30 votes No Union : 80 votes
Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of the certification election.
a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)
Union Nana cannot be declared as the winner. This is because the said union did not obtain the majority of the valid votes casts as provided under
Article 268 of the Labor Code.

b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged during pre-election conference. The ballots of the 30 challenged voters were placed inside an envelope
sealed by the DOLE Election Office. Considering the said envelope remains sealed, what should be the next course of action with respect to the said challenged
votes? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The procedure in the Challenge of Votes provides as follows:
The ballot of the voter who has been property challenged during the Pre-Election conferences, shall be placed in an envelope which shall be sealed by the
Election Officer in the presence of the voter and the representatives of the contending unions. The election Officer shall indicate on the envelope the voter’s
name, the union challenging the voter, and the ground for the challenged. The sealed envelope shall then be signed by the Election Officer and the
representatives of the contending unions. The Election Officer shall note all challenges in the minutes of the election proceedings and shall have custody of all
envelops containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter only if the
number of segregated votes will materially alter the results of the election. (Section 11, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by
Department Order No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 and renumbered by Department Order No. 40-I-15, Series of 2015)
Applying the said procedure, if the number of segregated votes will materially alter the results of the election the next course of action with respect to the said
challenged votes is to open the said envelopes and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 402 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano. This is the first time that this type if question was asked in the Bar Examinations.

I
A.
What are the accepted tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship? (5%)
The four elements of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal;
and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. (Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa-Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang Promo
ng Burlingame v. Burlingame Corporation)

B.
Applying the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, is a jeepney driver operating under the boundary system an employee of his
jeepney operator or a mere lessee of the jeepney? Explain your answer. (3%)

Paguio transport Corporation vs NLRC it was ruled that the relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and jeepney drivers on the other under
the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. It was explained that in the lease of chattels, the lessor loses complete control over
the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of
jeepney owners/operators 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 “boundary” they pay to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.

II.
Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul’s watch. Procopio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA ruled in Procopio’s favor
on the ground that Raul’s testimony was doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling
because Article 4 of the Labor Code – which states that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the IRR,
shall be resolved in favor of labor – applied only when the doubt involved the “implementation and interpretation” of the Labor Code; hence, the doubt, which
involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved in favor of Procopio.
Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
In Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing, Supreme Court explained the application of Article 4 of the Labor Code regarding doubts on respondent’s
evidence on the voluntariness of petitioner’s resignation, That all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor
of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.
(Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. CA) As shown above, Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the
company’s case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence, the
cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the hostile and discriminatory working
environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD
manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the company’s chief corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign
from his employment. (Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte)
III. A.
Andrew Manning Agency (AMA) recruited Feliciano for employment by Invictus Shipping, its foreign principal. Meantime, AMA and Invictus Shipping terminated
their agency agreement. Upon his repatriation following his premature termination, Feliciano claimed from AMA and Invictus Shipping the payment of his salaries
and benefits for the unserved portion of the contract. AMA denied liability on the ground that it no longer had any agency agreement with Invictus Shipping. Is
AMA correct?
Explain your answer. (3%)
AMA is not correct. Section 10 of Republic Act 10022 provides that the liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims 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.

B.
As a rule, direct hiring of migrant workers is not allowed. What are the exceptions? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
Direct Hires — workers directly hired by employers for overseas employment as authorized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment and processed by the
POEA, including: 1. Those hired by international organizations 2. Those hired members of the diplomatic corps. 3. Name hires or workers who are able to secure
overseas employment opportunity with an employer without the assistance or participation of any agency.
[Labor Code, POEA Rules] (Section 1(i), Rule II, Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 as
amended by Republic Act No. 10022)
The direct hires are exceptions to the ban on direct-hiring under Article 18 of the Labor Code.

C.
Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the Philippines. The employer, noticing that Phil was a foreigner, demanded that he first secures an employment
permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
The employer is not correct. Section 2, Dept. Order No. 97-09 Series of 2009, [Revised Rules for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals] one
of the foreign nationals that are exempt from securing an employment permit is a permanent resident foreign nationals, probationary or temporary visa holders.
Labor Code speaks of non-resident aliens that are required to obtain an alien employment permit.

IV
The Regional Tripartite and Productivity Board (RTWPB) for Region 3 issued a wage order on November 2, 2017 fixing the minimum wages for all industries
throughout Region 3.
(a) Is the wage order subject to the approval of the National Wages and Productivity Commission before it takes effect? (2%)
No. the National Wages and Productivity Commission function is to review the Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite and Productivity Board (RTWPB)
(Section 4, Rule IV, NWPC GUIDELINES NO. 01 Series of 2007, dated June 19, 2007)

(b) The law mandates that no petition for wage increase shall be entertained within a period of 12 months from the effectivity of the wage order. Under what
circumstances may the Kilusang Walang Takot, a federation of labor organizations that publicly and openly assails the wage order as blatantly unjust, initiate the
review of the wage increases under the wage order without waiting for the end of the 12-month period? Explain your answer. (3%)

If Kilusang Walang Takot feels aggrieved by the Wage Order issued by the Board it may appeal such Order to the National Wages and Productivity Commission
by filing a verified appeal with the Board not later than ten (10) days from the date of publication of the Order on the grounds of non-conformity with prescribed
guidelines and/or procedures, questions of law and grave abuse of discretion. (See Section 1, Rule IV, in relation to Section 2 Rule V, NWPC GUIDELINES NO.
01 Series of 2007, dated June 19, 2007)

V
Percival was a mechanic of Pacific Airlines. He enjoyed a meal break of 1 hour. However, during meal breaks, he was required to be on stand-by for emergency
work. During emergencies, he was made to forego his meals or to hurry up eating. He demanded payment of overtime for work done during his meal periods. Is
Percival correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
Percival is correct. While as a rule the 8 hour period does not include the meal break however, here, Percival he was required to forego his meals or to hurry up
eating. The meal period should therefore be considered compensable hours of work and a work beyond 8 hours. Percival is therefore entitled to overtime time.

B.
Distinguish a learner from an apprentice. (4%)
As to the agreement
In Apprenticeship, the agreement entered by the parties is known as Apprenticeship Agreement. (Articles 58 [d], Labor Code); In learnership, the agreement
entered by the parties is known as Learnership Agreement (Article 75, Labor Code);
As to the period of agreement
In Apprenticeship, the agreement shall not be less than (4) months and not more than (6) months; (Articles 58 [c] in relation to Article 61 and 3.10, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership, the agreement period shall not be more than (3) months; (Article 75 (c), Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No.
16, Series of 2004);
As to obligations to hire
In apprenticeship, the enterprise is not obliged to hire the apprentice after the apprenticeship period; (Articles 61, Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16,
Series of 2004); In learnership, the enterprise is obliged to hire the learner after the learnership period (Article 75 (d), Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16,
Series of 2004);
As to pre-termination of the agreement
In apprenticeship, upon pre-termination of the agreement there is no regular employment by operation of law; (Articles 57-72, Labor Code); In learnership, a
learner allowed or suffered to work during the first two (2) months shall be deemed regular employees if training is terminated by the employer before the end of
the stipulated period through no fault of the learners (Article 75 (d), Labor Code);
As to the person hired
 In apprenticeship, the persons hired as trainees is known as apprentice; (Articles 58 [a], Labor Code, 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership,
the persons hired as trainees is known as learner (Articles 73, Labor Code, 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
As to the supplement on theoretical instructions
In apprenticeship, the training on the job is with compulsory related theoretical instructions; (Article 58 [a], Labor Code, Section 4 [j], R.A. 7796, and 2, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership, the practical training on the job may or may not be supplemented by related theoretical instructions; (2, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
As to the reasons for hiring
In apprenticeship, the law did not provide any reasons where an apprentice may be hired (Articles 59-72, Labor Code); In learnership, the law provides the
following reasons for hiring (1) when no experienced workers are available; (2) the employment of learners is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment
opportunities; and (3) the employment does not create unfair competition in terms of labor costs or impair or lower working standards (Article 74, Labor Code);
As to qualifications
In apprenticeship, the qualifications are (a) At least fifteen (15) years of age; (b) Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests; and (c) Possess
the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions and no justifications or reasons given by law for hiring; (Articles 59, Labor Code); In learnership,
the law did not provide such qualifications. However, reasons or justifications for hiring are provided by law (Articles 74, Labor Code);
As to what occupations hired
In apprenticeship, the occupations involves “highly technical industries” which means trade, business, enterprise, industry, or other activity, which is engaged in
the application of advanced technology and apprenticeable occupations must be approved by TESDA; (Articles 60, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA Circular No. 16,
Series of 2004). In learnership, the occupations involves are semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are non-apprenticeable and learnable
occupations must be approved by TESDA (Articles 73, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004).

C.
Are there differences between a househelper and a homeworker? Explain your answer?
Domestic worker or “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following:
general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person while (b) “Industrial Homeworker” means a worker who is engaged in industrial
homework.

VI.
A.
One Pacific Airline’s policies was to hire only single applicants as flight attendants, and considered as automatically resigned the flight attendants at the moment
they got married. Is the policy valid? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

The policy is not valid. The policy is a violation of the Labor Code’s prohibition on stipulation against marriage under Article 134. The requirement that a company
policy must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management prerogative was also at issue in the 1997 case of Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NLRC. In said case, the employee was dismissed in violation of petitioner’s policy of disqualifying from work any woman
worker who contracts marriage. The Supreme held that the company policy violates the right against discrimination afforded all women workers under Article 134
of the Labor Code.

B.
Tarcisio was employed as operations manager and received a monthly salary of P25k through his payroll account with DB Bank. He obtained a loan from
Roberto to purchase a car. Tarcisio failed to pay Roberto when the loan fell due. Roberto sued to collect, and moved to garnish Tarcisio’s payroll account. The
latter vigorously objected and argued that salaries were exempt from garnishment. Is Tarcisio correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

Tarciso is not correct. In Gaa vCA, where it ruled that Article 1708 used the word "wages" and not "salary" in relation to "laborer" when it declared what are to be
exempted from attachment and execution. The monthly salary of Tarcisio is therefore subject to garnishment.

VII
Dr. Crisostomo entered into a retainer agreement with AB Hotel and Resort whereby he would provide medical services to the guests and employees of AB
Hoteland Resort, which, in turn, would provide the clinic premises and medical supplies. He received a monthly retainer fee of P60k, plus a 70% share in the
service charges from AB Hoteland Resort’s guests availing themselves of the clinic’s services. The clinic employed nurses and allied staff, whose salaries, SSS
contributions and other benefits he undertook to pay. AB Hotel and Resort issued directives giving instructions to him on the replenishment of emergency kits
and forbidding the clinic staff from receiving cash payments from guests. In time, the nurses and the clinic staff claimed entitlement to rights as regular
employees of AB Hotelnad Resort, but the latter refused on the ground that Dr. Crisostomo, who was their employer, was an independent contractor. Rule, with
reasons. (4%)

The test of independent contractorship was applied in the case of Polyfoam-RGC International Corporation v. Concepcion. It was ruled, that The test of
independent contractorship is “whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without
being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work.” (San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa) In San Miguel Corporation v.
Semillano, the Court laid down the criteria in determining the existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship, to wit:
“x x x [W]hether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the
relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer’s power with
respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor’s workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials, and
labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment.” (San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano)
Applying the above-test, the nurses are employees of Dr. Crisostomo. The facts show that Dr. Crisostomo was the one paying the salaries of the nurses and
even reported them for SSS coverage. The element of payment of wages is present.

The requisites of a valid quitclaim are:

1. a fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;
2.the benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount;
3. a statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employees in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees and that by signing the
waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to, receive the benefits which are due them under the law, and
4. a statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document and that their
consent was freely given without any threat, violence, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.

It is advisable that the stipulations be made in English and Tagalog or in the dialect known to the employees. There should be two (2) witnesses to the execution
of the quitclaim who must also sign the quitclaim. The document should be subscribed and sworn to under oath preferably before any administering official of the
DOLE or its regional office, the Bureau of Labor Relations, the NLRC or a labor attache in a foreign country. Such official shall assist the parties regarding the
execution of the quitclaim and waiver (Edi-Staffbuilders International, Inc., v. NLRC)

Gregorio was hired as an insurance underwriter by the Guaranteed Insurance Corporation (Guaranteed). He does not receive any salary but solely relies on
commissions earned for every insurance policy approved by the company. He hires and pays his own secretary but is provided free office space in the office of
the company. He is, however, required to meet a monthly quota of (20) insurance policies, otherwise, he may be terminated. He was made to agree to a Code of
Conduct for underwriters and is supervised by a Unit Manager.

Is Gregorio an employee of Guaranteed? (2.5%)

No, Gregorio is not an employee of Guaranteed. Control is the most important element of employer-employee relationship, which refers to the means and
methods by which the result is to be accomplished (Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura v. NLRC and J.C. Tailor Shop and/or Johnny Co), citing Makati
Haberdashery, Inc. v. NLRC. The requirement of complying with quota, company code of conduct and supervision by unit managers do not go into the means
and methods by which Gregorio must achieve his work. He has full discretion on how to meet his quota requirement, hence, there is no employer- employee
relationship between Gregorio and Guaranteed.

Alt: Yes, Gregorio is Guaranteed's employee. The fact that Gregorio was made to agree to a Code of Conduct and was supervised by a Unit Manager are
indicators that he is an employee of Guaranteed by using the control test mentioned in the Makati Haberdashery case. Furthermore, the fact that he was given a
quota and can be terminated if he does not meet it all the more indicates that he is indeed an employee of Guaranteed. In Francisco v. NLRC Kasei Corporation,
the court added another element to ascertain employer-employee relationship. This is whether or not the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his
continued employment. This was dubbed as the economic dependence test. The fact that Guaranteed can terminate Gregorio if he does not meet the quota of
20% insurance policies a month, means that the latter is an employee which negates that his status as an independent contractor and proves that he
is an employee.

[b] Suppose Gregorio is appointed as Unit Manager and assigned to supervise several underwriters. He holds office in the company premises, receives an
overriding commission on the commissions of his underwriters, as well as a monthly allowance from the company, and is supervised by a branch manager. He is
governed by the Code of Conduct for Unit Managers. Is he an employee of Guaranteed? Explain. (2.5%)

Yes, Gregorio is an employee. In fact, he is deemed as a regular employee. As a unit manager who was tasked to supervise underwriters is said to be doing a
task which is necessary and desirable to the usual business of Guaranteed. Article 295 of the Labor code provides that, "(T)he provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes. Article 219 (m) of the Labor Code defines a Managerial employee as one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. As Gregorio was appointed Unit Manager,
the means and methods of accomplishing his goal come under the guidelines laid down by Guaranteed.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. Guaranteed did not define the duties and responsibilities of Gregorio; Guaranteed left, it to Gregorio's discretion as to how he will achieve his goal.
Therefore, the only interest Guaranteed has is in the result of Gregorio's work.

III
Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama "participation basis" by DJN Radio Company. He worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 6 days a week, on a gross
rate of P80.00 per script, earning an average of P20kper month. Inggo filed a complaint before the (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal deduction, non-payment
of SIL, and 13th month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection.
The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary claims in the total amount
of P30k. DJN Radio elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals. The radio station
contended that there is no employer-employee relationship because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined him.
Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and not the DOLE because Inggo's claim exceeded P5,000.00.
[a] May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers?
(2.5%)

Yes. Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the DOLE may do so where the prima facie determination of ER-EE relationship is for the exclusive purpose of
securing compliance with labor standards provisions of said Code and other labor legislation.
The DOLE, in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers, somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an employer- employee
relationship. Such determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely
preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLE's primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions (People's Broadcasting Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor)

[b] If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of
Inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain. (2.5%)
No. In the case Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, Inc., the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass
compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers; thus, even claims exceeding
P5,000.00.
IV Hagibis Motors Corporation (Hagibis) has 500 regular employees in its car assembly plant. Due to the Asian financial crisis, Hagibis experienced very low car
sales resulting to huge financial losses. It implemented several cost- cutting measures such as cost reduction on use of office supplies, employment hiring
freeze, prohibition on representation and travel expenses, separation of casuals and reduced work week. As counsel of Hagibis, what are the measures the
company should undertake to implement a valid retrenchment? Explain. (5%)

For a valid retrenchment, the following requisites must be complied with: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b)
written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to
one-month pay or at least one- half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
Jurisprudential standards for the losses which may justify retrenchment are:
Firstly, the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis inexistent. If the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly
shown to be insubstantial and inconsequential in character, the bonafide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously in question;
secondly, the substantial loss must be reasonably imminent, as such imminence can be perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer;
thirdly, because of the consequential nature of retrenchment, it must be reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses;
lastly; x x x alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence
(Manatad v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, G.R. No. 172363, March 7, 2008). Hagibis should exercise its prerogative to retrench employees
in good faith. It must be for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. Hagibis should use fair and
reasonable criteria, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers in ascertaining who would be dismissed
and who would be retained among the employees.

Asia Union (Union) is the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Asia Pacific Hotel (Hotel).
The Union submitted its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel. Due to the bargaining deadlock, the Union, on December
20, 2014, filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Consequently, the Union conducted a Strike Vote on January 14,
2015, when it was approved.
The next day, waiters who are members of the Union came out of the Union office sporting closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads. The next day, all the
male Union members came to work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel prevented these workers from entering the premises, claiming that they violated the
company rule on Grooming Standards.
On January 16, 2015, the Union subsequently staged a picket outside the Hotel premises and prevented other workers from entering the Hotel. The Union
members blocked the ingress and egress of customers and employees to the Hotel premises, which caused the Hotel severe lack of manpower and forced the
Hotel to temporarily cease operations resulting to substantial losses.
On January 20, 2015, the Hotel issued notices to Union members, preventively suspending them and charging them with the following offenses:
(1) illegal picket; (2) violation of the company rule on Grooming Standards; (3) illegal strike; and (4) commission of illegal acts during the illegal strike. The Hotel
later terminated the Union officials and members who participated in the strike. The Union denied it engaged in an illegal strike and countered that the Hotel
committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) and a breach of the freedom of speech.

[a] Was the picket legal? Was the mass action of the Union officials and members an illegal strike? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The picket was illegal. The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of freedom of speech guaranteed
by the constitution (De Leon v. National Labor Union ). But this right is not absolute. Article 278 of the Labor Code provides that no person engaged in picketing
shall ... obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes or obstruct public thorough fares. The acts of the union members
in blocking the entrance and exit of the\ hotel which caused it to shut down temporarily makes the picket illegal.
The actions of all the union members in cropping or shaving their head is deemed an illegal strike. In National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and
Allied Industries (NUWHRAINAPL-IUF) Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. Court of Appeals the Supreme Court ruled that the act of the Union was not merely an
expression of their grievance or displeasure but was, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious damage to the hotel's grooming
standards which resulted in the temporary cessation and disruption of the hotel's operations. This should be considered as an illegal strike.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As regards the shaving of heads by the union members, their mass action was not an illegal strike. It was the Hotel administration which prevented them from
entering the hotel premises.

[b] Rule on the allegations of ULP and violation of freedom of speech. Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Hotel is not guilty of ULP. The act of the hotel in suspending and eventually dismissing the union officers who concertedly antagonized and embarrassed the
hotel management and, in doing so, effectively disrupted the operations of the hotel, is an act of self-preservation. The law in protecting the rights of the laborer
authorizes neither oppression nor self- destruction of the employer. The right of the employer to dismiss its erring employees is a measure of self-protection
(Filipro v. NLRC). The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative that is inherent in the employee's right to freely manage and regulate its
business (Philippine Singapore Transport Service v. NLRC).
It cannot be said that the hotel is guilty of violating the union member's right to freedom of speech. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; it is subject
to regulation so that it may not be injurious to the right of another or to society. As discussed, the union member's act of cropping or shaving their heads caused
substantial losses to the hotel caused by the cessation of its operations. The Supreme Court in one case held that the union's violation of the hotel grooming
standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action.
The physical appearance of the hotel employees directly reflect the character and well-being of the hotel, being a five-star hotel that provides service to topnotch
clients.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The Hotel is guilty of Unfair Labor Practice under Art. 259 of the Labor Code, specifically Art. 259 (1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization. The act of the Hotel in preventing the employees from entering the work premises constitutes this unfair labor practice.
Pedro, a bus driver of Biyahe sa Langit Transport, was involved in a collision with a car, damaging the bus. The manager accused him of being responsible for
the damage and was told to submit his written explanation within 48 hours. Pedro submitted his explanation within the period. The day after, Pedro received a
notice of termination stating that he is dismissed for reckless driving resulting to damage to company property, effective immediately. Pedro asks you, as his
counsel, if the company complied with the procedural due process with respect to dismissal Of employees.

[a] Explain the twin notice and hearing rule. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The twin notice and hearing rule requires a directive that the employee be given the opportunity to submit a written explanation on why he should not be
dismissed within a reasonable period of time (King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Santiago). The grounds for terminating an employee, again as explained in the
Kings case, must be a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against him. Further, it should mention specifically
which company rule or provision of the Labor Code was violated. The Supreme Court defines 'reasonable period of time" to be 5 calendar days from the day the
employee received the NTE. As to the hearing, in Perez v. Philipjine Telegraph Company, the Supreme Court enunciated the rule that a hearing is only
necessary if it was asked or requested by an employee. In case it was requested, a summary hearing must be done by the employer where the employee must
be afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence and present witnesses in his behalf. Then the employer must inform the employee in writing of its decision stating
the facts, the analysis of the evidence and statement of witnesses and the law or policy which led to the decision.

[b] Did the Biyahe sa Langit Transport comply with the prior procedural requirements for dismissal? (2.5%)
No. The notice given by Biyahe sa Langit Transport did not give Pedro a minimum period lof (5) days to submit a written explanation. He was given only 48
hours to submit the same. The fact that he met the deadline did not cure the lapse committed by Biyahe sa Langit Transport. There being a violation, of
procedural due process, Biyahesa Langit Transport becomes liable for nominal damages even, assuming that there was a valid ground for dismissal.

VII Forbes Country Club (Club) owns a golf course and has 250 rank-and-file EE who are members of the Forbes Country Club Union (Union). The Club has a
CBA with the Union and one of the stipulations is a Union Security Clause, which reads: "All regular rank-and-file employees who are members of the union shall
keep their membership in good standing as a condition for their continued employment during the lifetime of this agreement."
Peter, Paul and Mary were the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, and Budget Officer of the Union, respectively. They were expelled by the Board of Directors of the
Union for malversation. The Union then demanded that the Club dismiss said officials pursuant to the Union Security Clause that required maintenance of union
membership. The Club required the 3 officials to show cause in writing why they should not be dismissed. Later, the Club called the 3 Union officials for a
conference regarding the charges against them. After considering the evidence submitted by the parties and their written explanations, the Club dismissed the
erring officials. The dismissed officials sued the Club and the Union for illegal dismissal because there was really no malversation based on the documents
presented and their dismissal from the Union was due to the fact that they were organizing another union.

[a] Is the dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary by the Club valid? (2.5%)
The dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary is valid as it was made pursuant to a union security clause contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
management and the union. A union security clause is intended to strengthen, a contracting union and protect it from the fickleness or perfidy of its own
members (Caltex Refinery Employees) Association v. Brillarts.In terminating EEs by reason of union security clause, what the ER needs to determine and
prove are:
a). that the union security clause is applicable,
b). that the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security clause and,
c). that there are sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the EE from the union (Picop Resources v. Tantla, G.).
Here,, the union demanded - the dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary after they were expelled from the union. The Club then afforded them due process by
ordering them to show cause in writing why they should not be dismissed. Thereafter, a conference was held in their behalf. Having complied with all the
requirements mentioned, it can be said that the dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary was made validly.

[b] If the expulsion by the Union was found by the Labor Arbiter to be baseless, is the Club liable to Peter, Paul and Mary? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Club can be held, liable to Peter, Paul and Mary. Even if the elements under (a) and (b), as mentioned above, are present, it behooves upon the Club to
ascertain in good faith the sufficiency of evidence that supports the decision of expelling them from the union . The Club should have been circumspect in the 1
sense that it should have determined the veracity of the union's claim that Peter, Paul and Mary were indeed guilty of malversation. Should it have been guilty of
making a mistake then it should be accountable for it. Just as the Court has stricken down unjust exploitation of laborers by oppressive employers, so will it strike
down their unfair treatment by their own unworthy leaders. The Constitution enjoins the state to afford protection to labor. Fair dealing is equally demanded of
unions as well as of employers, in their dealings with employees (Heirs of Cruz vs. CIR).

Differentiate learnership from apprenticeship with respect to the period of training, type of work, salary and qualifications. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Learnership and apprenticeship are similar because they both mean training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be acquired through actual work experience.
And because both a learner and an apprentice are not as fully productive as regular workers, the learner and the apprentice may be paid wages 25 % lower than
the applicable legal minimum wage.
They differ in the focus and terms of training. An apprentice trains in a highly skilled job or in any job found only in highly technical industries. Because it is a
highly skilled job, the training period exceeds 3 months. For a learner, the training period is shorter because the job is more easily learned than that of
apprenticeship. The job, in other words, is "non -apprenticeable" because it is practical skills which can be learned in 3 (not 6) months. A learner is not an
apprentice but an apprentice is, conceptually, also a learner.
Accordingly, because the job is more easily learnable in learnership than in apprenticeship, the employer is committed to hire the learner- trainee as an employee
after the training period. No such commitment exists in apprenticeship.
Finally, employment of apprentices, as stated in Article 60, is legally allowed only in highly technical industries and only in apprenticeable occupations approved
by the DOLE. Learnership is allowed even for non- technical jobs.
Zienna Corporation (Zienna) informed the DOLE Regional Director of the end of its operations. To carry out the cessation, Zienna sent a Letter Request for
Intervention to the NLRC for permission and guidance in effecting payment of separation benefits for its (50) terminated employees.

Each of the terminated employees executed a Quitclaim and Release before Labor Arbiter Nocomora, to whom the case was assigned. After the erstwhile EEs
received their separation pay, the LA declared the labor dispute dismissed with prejudice on the ground of settlement. Thereafter, Zienna sold all of its assets to
Zandra Company (Zandra), which in turn hired its own employees.

Nelle, one of the (50) terminated employees, filed a case for illegal dismissal against Zienna. She argued that Zienna did not cease from operating since the
corporation subsists as Zandra. Nelle pointed out that aside from the two companies having essentially the same equipment, the managers and owners of
Zandra and Zienna are likewise one and the same.

For its part, Zienna countered that Nelle is barred from filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against the corporation in view of her prior acceptance of separation
pay.

Is Nelle correct in claiming that she was illegally dismissed? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. In SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman , there are two (2) types of corporate acquisitions: asset sales and stock sales. In asset sales, the corporate entity sells
all or substantially all of its assets to another entity. In stock sales, the individual or corporate shareholders sell a controlling block of stock to new or existing
shareholders. Asset sales happened in this case; hence, Zienna is authorized to dismiss its employees, but must pay separation pay. The buyer Zandra, is not
obliged to absorb the employees affected by the sale, nor is it liable for the payment of their claims. The most that Zandra may do, for reasons of public policy
and social justice, is to give preference is hiring to qualified separated personnel of Zienna.

Lazaro, an engineer, organized a union in Garantisado Construction Corporation (Garantisado) which has 200 employees. He immediately filed a Petition for
Certification Election, attaching thereto the signatures of 70 employees. Garantisado vehemently opposed the petition, alleging that 25 signatories are
probationary employees, while 5 are supervisors. It submitted the contracts of the 25 probationary employees and the job description of the supervisors. It
argued that if 30 is deducted from 70, it gives a balance of 40 valid signatures which is way below the minimum number of 50 signatories needed to meet the
alleged 25% requirement. If you are the Director of Labor Relations, will you approve the holding of a Certification Election. Explain your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I will allow the certification election. What is required for a certification election is that at least 25 per cent of the bargaining unit must sign the petition. Since
25 percent of 200 is 50 then the fact that there were
70 signatories who signed means that it should be allowed. Note that out of the 70 signatories only the supervisors should be excluded. Article 254 of the Labor
Code allows supervisory employees to form, join, or assist separate labor organizations but they are not eligible for membership in a Labor organization of the
rank-and-file. Thus, they are the only ones, that should be disqualified. As to the probationary employees, they should be included. The fact that an employee is
given a classification such as beginner, trainee, or probationary employee, and the fact that contemplation of permanent tenure is subject to
satisfactory completion of an initial trial period, are insufficient to warrant such employees' exclusion from a bargaining unit. Moreover the eligibility of
probationary employees does not turn on the proportion of such employee who, willingly or not, fails to continue to work for the employer throughout the trial
period.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I will allow the certification election. Following the Bystander Rule, the role of the employer in certification elections is that of a mere bystander; it has no
right or material interest to assail the certification election. Thus, its opposition to the certification election must not be given credence.
The only exception to this rule is where the employer has to file the petition for certification election pursuant to Article 270 of the Labor Code because it was
requested to bargain collectively; such exception does not apply in this case.

Dion is an Accounting Supervisor in a trading company. He has rendered exemplary service to the company for 20 years. His co-employee and kumpadre, Mac,
called him over the phone and requested him to punch his (Mac's) daily time card as he (Mac) was caught in a monstrous traffic jam. Dion acceded to Mac's
request but was later caught by the Personnel Manager while punching. Mac's time card. The company terminated the employment of Dion on the ground of
misconduct. Is the dismissal valid and just? Explain. (5%)

Yes. The ground sustaining the dismissal of Dion is serious misconduct. The act of Dion in giving in to Mac's request to punch the latter's daily time card is
loth a wrongful conduct, grave in character and not merely trivial or unimportant. The subject act involves dishonesty, and the same portrays Dion's moral
obliquity to make it appear that Mac was working when actually he is not. The fact that he has rendered 20 years of service aggravates his situation because, by
the length of his service, he should be well-aware that Mac must personally punch his daily time card.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Applying both the Proportionality Rule and the 1st offense rule, dismissal was too harsh a consequence for the actions of Dion. Absent a showing that the
action amounted to serious misconduct, his length of service may be taken as a mitigating factor in the penalty to be imposed against him.

Amaya was employed as a staff nurse by St. Francis Hospital (SFH) on July 8, 2014 on a probationary status for six (6) months. Her probationary contract
required, among others, strict compliance with SFH's Code of Discipline.

On October 16, 2014, Dr. Ligaya,, filed a Complaint with the SFH Board of Trustees against Amaya for uttering slanderous remarks against the former. Attached
to the complaint was a letter of Minda, mother of a patient, who confirmed the following remarks against Dr. Ligaya:
"Bakit si Dr. Ligaya pa ang napili mong pedia ' eh ang tanda- tanda na n'un? E makakalimutin na yun x x x Alam mo ba, kahit wala namang diperensya yung
baby, ipinapa-isolate nya?"
The SFH President asks you, being the hospital's counsel, which of these two (2) options is the legal and proper way of terminating Amaya: a) terminate her for a
just cause under Article 288 of the Labor Code (Termination by
Employer); or b) terminate her for violating her probationary contract. Explain.
(5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
I will advise the President of SFH to terminate Amaya for violating her probationary contract. Part and parcel of the standards of her employment is to strictly
follow the Code of Conduct of SFH. The act of defaming Dr. Ligaya is certainly a misdemeanor that is usually not acceptable in any work environment. With
such attitude Amaya displayed, she cannot pass the company standard of SFH.
I will not suggest the dismissal of Amaya under Article 297. Though she displayed misconduct, the same is not work-related, as spreading a rumor against a
Doctor does not go into the duties and responsibilities of a staff nurse.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
I will advise the President of SFH to terminate Amaya for a just cause under Art. 297 of the Labor Code in relation to Art. 296. The Labor Code assigns a
separate provision, Article 296, and provides a different set of grounds for the dismissal of probationary employees, to wit:

ART. 296. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT

Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement
stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An
employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
The law does not preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment, if the employer finds that the probationary employee is not qualified
for regular employment. As long as the termination was made for reasons provided under Article 296 of the Labor Code before the expiration of the 6-month
probationary period, the employer is well within its rights to sever the employer-employee relationship (Pasamba v. NLRC).

Matibay Shoe and Repair Store, as added service to its customers, devoted a portion of its store to a shoe shine stand. The shoe shine boys were tested for their
skill before being allowed to work and given ID cards. They were told to be present from the opening of the store up to closing time and were required to follow
the company rules on cleanliness and decorum. They bought their own shoe shine boxes, polish, and rags. The boys were paid by their customers for their
services but the payment is coursed through the store's cashier, who pays them before closing time. They were not supervised in their work by any managerial
employee of the store but for a valid complaint by a customer or for violation of any company rule, they can be refused admission to the store. Were the boys
employees of the store? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages;
(c) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct; and (d) the power of dismissal.
The first element is present, as Matibay Shoe allowed shoe shine boys in its shoe shine stand to render services that are desirable in the line of business of
Matibay Shoe. In issuing ID's to the shoe shine boys, the same signifies that they can represent themselves as part of the work force of Matibay Shoe.
The second element is also present. Requiring the customers to pay through the Matibay Shoe's cashier signifies that their services were not engaged by the
customers. Equally important, it was Matibay Shoe which gave the shoe shine boys their daily wage.
The third element is satisfied. Requiring the shoe shine boys to be present from store opening until store closing and to follow company rules on cleanliness and
decorum shows that they cannot conduct their activity

17

anywhere else but inside the store of Matibay Shoe, hence, their means and methods of accomplishing the desired services for the customers of Matibay Shoe
was controlled by it.
Lastly, the fourth element is made apparent when Matibay Shoe barred the shoe shine boys from continuing with their work-related activity inside its
establishment.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages;
(c) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct; and (d) the power of dismissal.
The first element is absent. The mere issuance of an ID to the boys is not conclusive of the power of selection of Matibay Shoe. They may be given IDs merely
as a security measure for the establishment.
Furthermore, using the control test, the boys have exclusive power over the means and method by which the shoe shining activity is to be conducted.

XIV
Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing Factory, became pregnant. Because of morning sickness, she frequently absented herself from work and often came to
the factory only four (4) days a week. After two (2) months, the personnel manager told her that her habitual absences rendered her practically useless to the
company and, thus, asked her to resign. She begged to be retained, citing her pregnancy as reason for her absences. Tess asked for leave of absence but her
request was denied. She went on leave nevertheless. As a result, she was thus dismissed for going on leave without permission of management.
Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company's defense: she was legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not
because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal was an act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the company
treated as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company's or Tess'? Explain. (5%)

18

SUGGESTED ANSWER'
The position of Tess is meritorious because the dismissal was based on the alleged failure of Tess to file a leave of absence. She filed the said leave but was
denied by Mariit Clothing Factory. Under the present law, a pregnant worker is entitled to go on maternity leave. She asked for leave of absence only to be
denied and yet she was terminated for absence without leave. This is an act that flagrantly violates Tess' right which translates to discrimination.
However, I do not agree with Tess' contention that her pregnancy was treated as a form of disease. There is nothing to support this contention.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The position of Tess is meritorious. Art. 133 (2) of the Labor Code provides that it shall he Unlawful for any employer to discharge a woman
on account of her pregnaucy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy. In the case at hand, the dismissal of Tess was clearly on account of her
absences related to her pregnancy.

XV

Jim is the holder of a certificate of public convenience for a jeepney. He entered into a contract of lease with Nick, whereby they agreed that the lease period is
for one (1) year unless sooner terminated by Jim for any of the causes laid down in the contract. The rental is thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) monthly. All the
expenses for the repair ofthe jeepney, together with expenses for diesel, oil and service, shall be for the account of Nick. Nick is required to make a deposit of
three (3) months to answer for the restoration of the vehicle to its good operating condition when the contract ends. It is stipulated that Nick is not an employee of
Jim and he holds the latter free and harmless from all suits or claims which may arise from the implementation of the contract. Nick has the right to use the
jeepney at any hour of the day provided it is operated on the approved line o f operation.
After five (5) months of the lease and payment of the rentals, Nick became delinquent in the payment of the rentals for two (2) months. Jim, as authorized by the
contract, sent a letter of demand rescinding the contract and asked for the arrearages. Nick responded by filing a complaint with the NLRC

19

for illegal dismissal, claiming that the contract is illegal and he was just forced by Jim to sign it so he can drive. He claims he is really a driver of Jim on a
boundary system and the reason he was removed is because he failed to pay the complete daily boundary of one thousand (P1,000.00) for 2 months due to the
increase in the number of tricycles.
[a] Jim files a motion to dismiss the NLRC case on the ground that the regular court has jurisdiction since the agreement is a lease contract. Rule on the
motion and explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jim's Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Jim and Nick called their contract as a lease, it is actually a contract of employment, and the rentals that Nick
must pay to Jim is actually a boundary. Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission,(G.R. No. 117495, May 29,1997),
teaches that jeepney owners/operators exercise control over jeepney drivers. 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 does not affect the existence of employer-employee relationship. Nick was engaged by Jim to perform
activities which were usually necessary or desirable to the business or trade of Jim which makes him the employer of Nick.

[b] Assuming that Nick is an employee of Jim, was Nick validly dismissed?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. For failing to remit five (5) months worth of boundary, Nick apparently committed fraud against Jim. In Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Fermin, G.R. No.
193676 and Fermin v. Cosmos Bottling Corporation, (G.R. No. 194303, 20 June 2012), it was ruled that theft committed against a co-
employee is considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, for which the penalty of dismissal from service may be meted out to the erring employee.

XVI
In a case for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits, with prayer for Damages•, Apollo was awarded the following: 1) P200,000.00 as back.wages; 2)
P80,000.00 as unpaid wages; 3) P20,000.00 as unpaid holiday pay; 4) PS,000.00

20

as unpaid service incentive leave pay; 5) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and 6) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. Attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of all
the amounts covered by items 1 to 6 inclusive, plus interests of 6% per annum from the date the same were unlawfully withheld, were also awarded.
[a] Robbie, the employer, contests the award of attorney fees amounting to 10% on all the amounts adjudged on the ground that Article 111 of the
Labor Code authorizes only 10% "of the amount of wages recovered". Rule on the issue and explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The attorney's fees should be granted to Robbie. There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees the so-called ordinary and extraordinary. In its
ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of
this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for
damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The instances where these may be awarded are those enumerated in Article 2208 of
the Civil Code, specifically par. 7 thereof which pertains to actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have
agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The extraordinary concept of attorneys fees is the one
contemplated in Article 111 of the Labor Code, which provides:
"Art. 111. Attorneys fees. (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent
of the amount of wages recovered x x x"
Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the awarding of attorneys fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is still
necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There
need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly, as in this case.

21

In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the employees' welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor
Code which states that all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor, and
Article 1702 of the Civil Code which 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 (PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 153031, [December 14, 2006]).
[b] Robbie likewise questions the imposition of interests on the amounts in question because it was not claimed by Apollo, and the Civil Code provision on
interests does not apply to a labor case. Rule on the issue and explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is now well-settled that generally, legal interest may be imposed upon any unpaid wages, salary differential, merit increases, productivity bonuses, separation
pay, backwages on other monetary claims and benefits awarded illegally dismissed employees. Its grant, however, remains discretionary upon the courts
(Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013). Legal interest was imposed on all the monetary awards by the SC in the case of Bani
Rural Bank v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 170904 November 13, 2013). The Court therein declared that imposition of legal interest in any final and executory
judgment does not violate the immutability principle. The court ruled that once a decision in a labor case becomes final, it becomes a judgment for money from
which another consequence flows - the payment of interest in case of delay.

XVII

Baldo, a farm worker on pakyaw basis, had been working on Dencio's land by harvesting abaca and coconut, processing copra, and clearing weeds from year to
year starting January 1993 up to his death in 2007. He worked continuously in the sense that it was done for more than one harvesting season.

22

[a] Was Dencio required to report Baldo for compulsory social security coverage under the SSS law? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Dencio is required to report Baldo for compulsory social security coverage under the SSS Law. From the facts mentioned, Baldo is clearly an employee of
Dencio. Considering the length of time that Baldo has worked with Dencio, it may be justifiably concluded that he is engaged to perform activities necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of Dencio and is therefore a regular employee. Length of service was used by the Supreme Court in the case of
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines v.
Zamora, (G.R. No. 485451 January 7, 1987), to pronounce that the
individual involved is a regular employee. Baldo, is thus, not a casual or temporary employee, exempted from the coverage of the SSS Law.

[b] What are the liabilities of the employer who fails to report his employee for social security coverage? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The employer is subject to the following liabilities: It shall pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the benefit which the employee would have been entitled had his
name been reported on time to the SSS, except that in case of pension benefits, the employer shall be liable to pay the SSS damages equivalent to five years
monthly pension; however, if the contingency occurs within thirty (30) days from date of employment, the employer shall be relieved of his liability for damages
(Sec. 24 (a), R.A. 1161, as amended). It shall pay the corresponding unremitted contributions and penalties thereon (Sec.24 (b), R.A. 1161, as amended).

XVIII
Empire Brands (Empire) contracted the services of Style Corporation (Style) for the marketing and promotion of its clothing line. Under the contract,

Style provided Empire with Trade Merchandising Representatives

(TMRs)

whose services began on September 15, 2004 and ended on June 6, 2007, when Empire terminated the promotions contract with Style.

23

Empire then entered into an agreement for manpower supply with Wave Human Resources (Wave). Wave owns its condo office, owns equipment for the use by
the TMRs, and has assets amounting to P1,000,000.00. Wave provided the supervisors who supervised the TMRs, who, in turn, received orders from the
Marketing Director of Empire. In their agreement, the parties stipulated that Wave shall be liable for the wages and salaries of its employees or workers, including
benefits, and protection due them, as well as remittance to the proper government entities of all withholding taxes, Social Security Service, and Philhealth
premiums, in accordance with relevant laws.

As the TMRs wanted to continue working at Empire, they submitted job applications as TMRs with Wave. Consequently, Wave hired them for a term of five (5)
months, or from June 7, 2007 to November 6, 2007, specifically to promote Empire's products.

When the TMRs' 5-month contracts with Wave were about to expire, they sought renewal thereof, but were refused. Their contracts with Wave were no longer
renewed as Empire hired another agency. This prompted them to file complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of service incentive leave and
13th month pay against Empire and Wave.
[a] Are the TMRs employees of Empire? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:'
Yes. From the time Empire contracted the services of Style, both engaged in labor-only contracting. In BPI Employees Union-Davao City-
FUBU v. BPI, (G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013), it was ruled that where any of the following elements is present, there is labor-only contracting:
(1) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial
capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or
(2) The contractor, does not exercise the right to control over the
performance of the work of the contractual employee.
The first element is present herein, as Style has no substantial capital or investment in engaging in the supply of services contracted out by Empire which is
directly related to the marketing and promotion of its

24

clothing line. The second element is present as it is inevitable for Empire to direct the activities of the TMRs to properly market and promote its product line. The
subsequent contract of Empire with Wave did not affect the regular employment of the TMRs with Empire as, through the Marketing Director of Empire, the
TMRs were under the control of Empire. Thus, the five-month employment contract entered into by the TMRs with Wave did not divest them of their regular
employment status with Empire. In addition, such scheme undermined the security of tenure of the TMRs which is constitutionally guaranteed, hence, the
contract of the TMRs with Wave is void ad initio.

[b] Were the TMRs illegally dismissed by Wave? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. As the TMRs are employees of Empire, Wave did not have the power of dismissal; thus, even if Wave dismissed the TMRs the same has no consequence.

XIX

Filmore Corporation was ordered to pay P49 million to its employees by the Labor Arbiter. It interposed an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal and paid the
corresponding appeal fee. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond equivalent to the total amount of the monetary award, Filmore filed a Motion to
Reduce the Appeal Bond to P4,000,000.00 but submitted a surety bond in the amount of P4.9 million. Filmore cited financial difficulties as
justification for its inability to post the appeal bond in full owing to the shutdown of its operations. It submitted its audited financial statements showing a loss of
P40 million in the previous year. To show its good faith, Filmore also filed its Memorandum of Appeal.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection on the ground that posting of an appeal bond equivalent to the monetary award is indispensable for the
perfection of the appeal and the reduction of the appeal bond, absent any showing of meritorious ground to justify the same, is not warranted. Is the dismissal of
the appeal correct? Explain. (5%)

25

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. In McBurnie v. Ganzon,

17,

(G.R. Nos. 178034, 186984-85, October

2013), NLRC made a serious error in denying outright the motion to reduce the bond. Once the motion to reduce the appeal bond is
accompanied by at least 10% of the monetary awards, excluding damages and attorney's fees, the same shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount
of the bond in the meantime that an appellant's motion is pending resolution by the Commission. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage
shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended. The NLRC must resolve the motion and determine the final
amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and reasonable amount. Should the NLRC
later determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall comply accordingly. The appellant
has ten (10) days from notice of the NLRC order to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.

XX

Mario Brothers, plumbing works contractor, entered into an agreement with Axis Business Corporation (Axis) for the plumbing works of its building under
construction. Mario Brothers engaged the services of Tristan, Arthur, and Jojo as plumber, pipe fitter, and threader, respectively. These workers have worked for
Mario Brothers in numerous construction projects in the past but because of their long relationship, they were never asked to sign contracts for each project. No
reports to government agencies were made regarding their work in the company.

During the implementation of the works contract, Axis suffered financial difficulties and was not able to pay Mario Brothers its past billings . As a result, the three
(3) employees were not paid their salaries for two (2) months and their 13th month pay. Because Axis cannot pay, Mario Brothers cancelled the contract and laid
off Tristan, Arthur, and Jojo. The 3 employees sued Mario Brothers and Axis for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and benefits.

LABOR LAW 2015 BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS

1. A. Rocket Corporation is a domestic corporation registered with the SEC, with 30% of its authorized capital stock owned by foreigners and 70% of its
authorized capital stock owned by Filipinos. Is Rocket Corporation allowed to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas? Briefly
state the basis for your answer. (2%)
B. When does the recruitment of workers become an act of economic sabotage? (2%)
Suggested Answer:
Only corporation whos At least 75% interest owned by Filipino shall be permitted to participate in recruitment and placement under Art. 27 of Labor Code.
Art. 36 (b) provides that illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate group of 3 or more or in a large scale shall be considered an offense involving
economic sabotage.
2. LKG Garments Inc. makes baby clothes for export. As part of its measures to meet its orders, LKG requires its employees to work beyond eight (8)
hours everyday, from Monday to Saturday. It pays its employees an additional 35% of their regular hourly wage for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours per
day. Because of additional orders, LKG now requires two (2) shifts of workers with both shifts working beyond eight (8) hours but only up to a maximum of four
( 4) hours. Carding is an employee who used to renderup to six ( 6) hours of overtime work before the change in schedule. He complains that the change
adversely affected him because now he can only earn up to a maximum of four ( 4) hours' worth of overtime pay. Does Carding have a cause of action against
the company? (4%)
Suggested Answer:
No, the labor code does not define a minimum hours-of-work for overtime but only specifies an additional compensation for every hour worked in overtime which
the employer did not breach. It is a basic legal principle that any act is lawful unless expressly prohibited by law.
Alternative Answer:
No, Carding has no cause of action. Under the law, hours of work must be at least eight hours. In excess thereof, a worker who suffered to work must be paid
overtime pay. It is clear that no specific hours required for overtime, Carding's complaint must fail.
Carding has no cause of action because the law does not provide a provision with specific OT hour. The law only provide clear regular working hour. Implicitly,
the law does not encourage longer OT hours for all workers' health consideration.

3. Benito is the owner of an eponymous clothing brand that is a top seller. He employs a number of male and female models who wear Benito's clothes
in promotional shoots and videos. His deal with the models is that Benito will pay them with 3 sets of free clothes per week. Is this arrangement allowed? (2%)
Suggested Answer:
Art. 102 of labor code applies only if there is er-ee relationship. In this case, the models are considered as an independent contractor. Therefore, in the absence
of er-ee relationship, the provisions of the civil code shall govern in relation to the meeting of minds of the contracting parties. Therefore, if both parties agrees,
the stipulation is valid.
Another suggested answer:
Art. 102. Forms of payment. No employer shall pay the wages of an employee by means of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons, tokens, tickets, chits, or any
object other than legal tender, even when expressly requested by the employee.
Payment of wages by check or money order shall be allowed when such manner of payment is customary on the date of effectivity of this Code, or is necessary
because of special circumstances as specified in appropriate regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or as stipulated in a collective
bargaining agreement.
4. Far East Bank (FEB) is one of the leading banks in the country. Its compensation and bonus packages are top of the industry. For the last 6 years,
FEB had been providing the following bonuses across-the-board to all its employees:
(a) 13th month pay;
(b) 14th to 18th month pay;
(c) Christmas basket worth P6,000;
( d) Gift check worth P4,000; and
( e) Productivity-based incentive ranging from a 20o/o to 40% increase in gross monthly salary for all employees who would receive an evaluation of"Excellent"
for 3 straight quarters in the same year.
Because of its poor performance over-all, FEB decided to cut back on the bonuses this year and limited itself to the following:
(a) 13th month pay; (b) 14th month pay; (c) Christmas basket worth P4,000; and ( d) Gift check worth :P2,000
Katrina, an employee of FEB, who had gotten a rating of "Excellent" for the last 3 quarters was looking forward to the bonuses plus the productivity incentive
bonus. After learning that FEB had modified the bonus scheme, she objected. Is Katrina's objectionjustified? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answers:
No, not justified. As a rule bonuses in whatever form are not demandable as a matter of right. That is why it is a general rule. The grant of bonus as a rule is
management prerogative. By way of exception, it becomes legally demandable when it has been long established practice, and the grant of bonus forms part of
wages.
It could be yes. No diminution of benefits is allowed. Bonuses and other benefits given which forms part as a company's practice through the years would serve
as a compelling practice now by the company. Further, the basis for the letter (e) depends on the employees' productivity and not by the company as a whole,
thus, Katrina shall be entitled to letter (e).

5. Soledad, a widowed school teacher, takes under her wing one of her students, Kiko, 13 years old, who was abandoned by his parents and has to do
odd jobs in order to study. She allows Kiko to live in her house, provides him with clean clothes, food, and a daily allowance of 200 pesos. In exchange, Kiko
does routine housework,consisting of cleaning the house and doing errands for Soledad. One day, a representative of the DOLE and the DSWD came to
Soledad's house and charged her with violating the law that prohibits work by minors. Soledad objects and offers as a defense that she was not requiring Kiko to
work as the chores were not hazardous. Further, she did not give him chores regularly but only intermittently as the need may arise. Is Soledad's defense
meritorious? (4%)
Suggested Answer:
The general rule is that employment of minors under 15 years of age is prohibited except: 1. work directly under the sole responsibility of parents and legal
guardians... and 2. employment in public entertainment or information. Yes. Soledad is now considered to be a guardian of Kiko in absence of his parents. The
former may make kiko do the home chores as stated as part of his disciplanry training or the like. Further, there could no er ee relationship could be establish.

6. Ador is a student working on his master's degree in horticulture. To make ends meet, he takes on jobs to come up with flower arrangements for
friends. His neighbor, Nico, is about to get married to Lucia and needs a floral arranger. Ador offers his services and Nico agrees. They shake hands on it,
agreeing that Nico will pay Ador :P20,000.00 for his services but that Ador will take care of everything. As Ador sets about to decorate the venue, Nico changes
all of Ador's plans and ends up designing the arrangements himself with Ador simply executing Nico's instructions.
(a) Is there an employer-employee relationship between Nico and Ador?
(4%)
(b) Will Nico need to register Ador with the Social Security System (SSS)? (2%)
In order to determine if there is a employee and employer relationship the following must be established: there must be control, power to dismiss, compensation
and in case of doubt the law is in favor of the labor.
A. There is no EE relationship because of the absence of power of control to be exercised by Nico over Ador
B. SSS is a mandatory benefit that should be given from the moment an employee works or upon commencement of his work
7. Don Don is hired as a contractual employee of CALLHELP, a call center. His contract is expressly for a term of 4 months. Don Don is hired for 3
straight contracts of 4 months each but at 2-week intervals between contracts. After the third contract ended, Don Don is told that he will no longer be given
another contract because of "poor performance." Don Don files a suit for "regularization" and for illegal dismissal, claiming that he is a regular employee of
CALLHELP and that he was dismissed without cause. You are the Labor Arbiter. How would you decide the case? ( 4%)
Suggested Answer:
Art. 286 provides that an employee who has rendered at least 1 year of service whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered as regular
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue whlie such activity exist.
8. Star Crafts is a lantern maker based in Pampanga. It supplies Christmas lanterns to stores in Luzon, Metro Manila, and parts of Visayas, with the
months of August to November being the busiest months. Its factory employs a workforce of 2,000 workers who make different lanterns daily for the whole year.
Because of increased demand, Star Crafts entered into a contractual arrangement with People Plus, a service contractor, to supply the former with I 00 workers
for only 4 months, August to November, at a rate different from what they pay their regular employees. The contract with People Plus stipulates that all
equipment and raw materials will be supplied by Star Crafts with the express condition that the workers cannot take any of the designs home and must complete
their tasks within the premises of Star Crafts.
Is there an employer-employee relationship between Star Crafts and the 100 workers from People Plus? Explain. (4%)
Suggested anwer:
Yes, StarCraft is an indirect Employer, however there is a commission of labor only contracting
9. Din Din is a single mother with one child. She is employed as a sales executive at a prominent supermarket. She and her child live in Quezon City and
her residence and workplace are a 15-minute drive apart. One day, Din Din is informed by her boss that she is being promoted to a managerial position but she
is now being transferred to the Visayas. Din Din does not want to uproot her family and refuses the offer. Her boss is so humiliated by Din Din's refusal of the
offer that she gives Din Din successive unsatisfactory evaluations that result in Din Din being removed from the supermarket.
Din Din approaches you, as counsel, for legal advice. What would you advise her? (4 % )
Suggested Answer:
This is an invalid exercise of management prerogative tainted with abuse exercise of power, unreasonableness and discrimination which also constitute illegal
dismissal.
10. Karina Santos is a famous news anchor appearing nightly in the country's most watched newscast. She is surprised, after one newscast, to receive a
notice of hearing before the station's Vice-President for Human Resources and calls the VP immediately to ask what was wrong. Karina is told over the phone
that one of her crew filed a complaint against her for verbal abuse and that management is duty- bound to investigate and give her a chance to air her side.
Karina objects and denies that she had ever verbally assaulted her crew. The VP then informed her that pending the investigation she will be placed on a 30-day
preventive suspension without pay and that she will not be allowed to appear in the newscast during this time.
Is the preventive suspension of Karina valid? Discuss the reasons for your answer. (4%)
Suggested Answer:
If preventive suspension was faithfully serve to give the management an ample time to conduct its own investigation and then to pay the number of days lost by
employee due to the said process in case his guilt has not been proved, then it is lawful.
11. Rico has a temper and, in his work as Division Manager of Matatag Insurance, frequently loses his temper with his staff. One day, he physically
assaults his staff member by slapping him. The staff member sues him for physical injuries. Matatag Insurance decides to terminate Rico, after notice and
hearing, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Rico claims that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence because he has not yet been convicted.
Comment on Matatag's action in relation to Rico's argument. (4%)
Suggested Answer: Physical Injury is a crimimal offense. However, it is the resposibility of the company to look after the mental sitiution of all its employees. The
dismissed employee can go to the court and claim that he is suffering behavioural disorder and can sue Matatag of unjust dismissal & discrimination in the work
place.
12. Blank Garments, Inc. (BLANK), a clothing manufacturer, employs more than 200 employees in its manufacturing business. Because of its high
overhead, BLANK decided to sell its manufacturing business to Bleach Garments, Inc. (BLEACH) lock, stock and barrel which included goodwill, equipment, and
personnel. After taking on BLANK's business, BLEACH reduces the workforce by not hiring half the workers specifically the ones with seniority. BLANK and
BLEACH are still discerned to be sister companies with identical incorporators. The laid-off employees sue both BLANK and BLEACH for unlawful termination.
(a) How would you decide this case? (4%)
(b) What is the "successor employer" doctrine? (2%)
Suggested Answers:
The law cannot force a company to absorb the affected employees because the law just said. The govt should protect as well the business sector, if it cannot
financially accomodate more employees then it can retrench or redundate provided that the laid employees be justly paid.
Successor-employer doctrine. This doctrine involves a transfer of ownership of the business to a new employer. Where the change of ownership is in bad faith or
is used to defeat the rights of labor, the successor-employer is deemed to have absorbed the employees and is held liable for the transgressions of his or her
predecessor.
13. Luisa is an unwed mother with 3 children from different fathers. In 2004, she became a member of the Social Security System (SSS). That same year,
she suffered a miscarriage of a baby out of wedlock from the father of her third child. She wants to claim maternity benefits under the SSS Act. Is she entitled to
claim? (3%)
Suggested Answer:
It depends on her membership. If she is a voluntary member she is not entitled.If she is employed she is entitled.
MATERNITY LEAVE(RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282) To be entitled to the maternity leave benefit, a female employee should be an SSS member employed
at the time of her delivery or miscarriage; she must have given the required notification to the SSS through her employer; and her employer must have paid at
least three monthly contributions to the SSS within the twelve-month period immediately before the date of the contingency (i.e., childbirth or miscarriage).
14. Luis, a PNP officer, was off duty and resting at home when he heard a scuffle outside his house. He saw two of his neighbors fighting and he rushed
out to pacify them. One of the neighbors shot Luis by mistake, which resulted in Luis's death. Marian, Luis's widow, filed a claim with the GSIS seeking death
benefits. The GSIS denied the claim on the ground that the death of Luis was not service-related as he was off duty when the incident happened. Is the GSIS
correct? (3 %)
Suggested Answers:
Actually, the claim here is not under the GSIS law but rather a claim for employee compensation under the ECC with regard to work-connected sickness, injury
or death benefits of the uniformed members of the PNP, AFP, BFP and BJMP and such a claim is coursed through the GSIS which administers the ECC. the
beneficiary must either satisfy the requisites for 'work-connected' death or fall within the ambit of that "24 hour on duty of uniformed members" doctrine laid down
by the SC to be entitled to the death benefits under the ECC.
15. Victor was hired by a local manning agency as a seafarer cook on board a luxury vessel for an eight-month cruise. While on board, Victor complained
of chronic coughing, intermittent fever, and joint pains. He was advised by the ship's doctor to take complete bed rest but was not given any other medication. His
condition persisted but the degree varied from day to day. At the end of the cruise, Victor went home to Iloilo and there had himself examined. The examination
revealed that he had tuberculosis.
(a) Victor sued for medical reimbursement, damages and attorney's fees, claiming that tuberculosis was a compensable illness. Do you agree with Victor? Why
or why not? (2%)
(b) Due to his prolonged illness, Victor was unable to work for more than 120 days. Will this entitle him to claim total permanent disability benefits? (2%)
Suggested Answers:
a. No. Compensable illnesses are those that are due to the result of, or inflicted during the course of, the performance of work or due to exposure to the hazards
of the job. Victor had stated that he had his illness while on board, and had the ship's doctor check him. The ship's doctor did not prove that Victor had become
sick prior to boarding, hence there is the presumption that Victor got sick while on board. There is still a need for Victor to be examined after disembarking by a
doctor chosen by the firm operating the vessel (Victor's employer) or by the same doctor that had seen him during the cruise. If both doctor's disagree, Victor and
is employer must agree to have a 3rd doctor to conduct a check up, the results of which shall be biding to both.
b. Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC: 3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic
wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this
period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days
upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as
compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third
doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
16. The Alliance of Independent Labor Unions (AILU) is a legitimate labor federation which represents a majority of the appropriate bargaining unit at the
Lumens Brewery (LB). While negotiations were ongoing for a renewal of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), LB handed down a decision in a disciplinary
case that was pending which resulted in the termination of the AILU's treasurer and two other members for cause. AILU protested the decision, claiming that LB
acted in bad faith and asked that LB reconsider. LB refused to reconsider. AILU then walked out of the negotiation and declared a strike without a notice of strike
or a strik;: vote. AILU members locked in the LB management panel by barricading the doors and possible exits (including windows and fire escapes). LB
requested the DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the dispute and to certify it for compulsory arbitration.
The Secretary of Labor declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that the dispute was not one that involved national interest. LB then proceeds to terminate all of
the members of the bargaining agent on the ground that it was unlawful to: (1) barricade the management panel in the building, and (2) participate in an illegal
strike.
(a) Was AILU justified in declaring a strike without a strike vote and a notice of strike? Why or why not? (3%)
(b) Was the Secretary of Labor correct in declining to assume jurisdiction over the dispute? (2o/o)
(c) Was LB justified in terminating all those who were members of AILU on the two grounds cited? (3%)
Suggested Answers:
A. No. Non-strikeable issue.
B. Yes. The production of beer is not indispensable to national interests. (hehehehe) Seriously, when, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely
to cause a strike orlockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor andEmployment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the ommission for compulsory arbitration. (Article 263 [g], Labor Code). Sec. Labor exercised his discretion in determining
whether or not the strike involves national interests.
C. No. LB must first determine who among the AILU members participated in the illegal strike. Only those proven to have actually and directly participated in the
illegal strike can be terminated. The Secretary of Labor having not assumed the jurisdiction and had issued no return-to-work order, LB cannot assume that all
union members are deemed to have lost their employment status due to their participation in an illegal strike. Due process must be observed, otherwise, the
terminations will be declared illegal.
17. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Libra Films and its union, Libra Films Employees' Union (LFEU), contains the following standard
clauses:
1. Maintenance of membership;
2. Check off for union dues and agency fees;
and
3. No strike, no lock-out.

While Libra Films and LFEU are in re-negotiations for an extension of the CBA, LFEU discovers that some of its members have resigned from the union, citing
their constitutional right to organize (which includes the right NOT to organize). LFEU demands that Libra Films institute administrative proceedings to terminate
those union members who resigned in violation of the CBA' s maintenance of membership clause. Libra Films refuses, citing its obligation to remain a neutral
party. As a result, LFEU declares a strike and after filing a noticeof strike and taking a strike vote, goes on strike. The union claims that Libra Films grossly
violated the terms of the CBA and engaged in unfair labor practice.
(a) Are LFEU's claims correct? Explain. (4%)
(b) Distinguish between a "closed shop" clause and a "maintenance of membership" clause. (2%)
(c) Distinguish between "union dues" and "agency fees." (2%)
Yes. Non-fulfillment of CBA agreement on maintenance of membership (definition and explanation of Libra's part in the CBA as employer).

b. Closed-Shop Agreement
The employer undertakes not to employ any individual who is not a member of the contracting union and the said individual once employed must, for the duration
of the agreement, remain a member of the union in good standing as a condition for continued employment. It does not have any retroactivity and applies only to
new hires.
Maintenance of Membership Shop Agreement
The agreement DOES NOT require non-members to join the contracting union BUT provides that those who are members thereof at the time of the execution of
the CBA and those who may thereafter, on their own volition, become members must for the duration of the agreement maintain their membership in good
standing as a condition for continued employment in the company for the duration of the CBA.
c. Definition

18. George is an American who is working as a consultant for a local IT company. The company has a union and George wants to support the union. How
far can George go in terms of his support for the union? (3%)
Suggested Answer:
Alien employees with valid working permits issued by DOLE may exercise their right to self-organization and join or assist labor unions for purposes of collective
bargaining if they are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers, as certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
.
19. What is the rule on the "equity of the incumbent"? (2%)
Suggested Answer:
Art. 246 existing legitimate labor organization shall continue to maintain their existing affiliates regardless of the nature of the industry and location of affiliates
Labor union federations as long as operating legally can accept affiliates from different industries. (Labor law perspective)
20. XYZ Company and Mr. AB, a terminated employee who also happens to be the President ofXYZ Employees Union, agree in writing to submit Mr. AB's illegal
dismissal case to voluntary arbitration. Is this agreement a valid one? (3%)
B. XYZ Company and XYZ Employees Union (XYZEU) reach a deadlock in their negotiation for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). XYZEU files a
notice of strike; XYZ Company proposes to XYZEU that the deadlock be submitted instead to voluntary arbitration. If you are counsel for XYZEU, what advice
would you give the union as to the: (1) propriety of the request of XYZ Company, and (2) the relative advantages/disadvantages between voluntary arbitration
and compulsory arbitration? ( 4%)
Suggested Answers:
A. No. Voluntary arbitration is required only if the matter involves a dispute or controversy between the union and the company. The agreement being between
AB and XYZ Company only, such agreement is invalid.
B. Memorization and comparison
21. Philippine News Network (PNN) engages the services of Anya, a prominent news anchor from a rival station, National News Network (NNN). NNN objects to
the transfer of Anya claiming that she is barred from working in a competing company for a period of three years from the expiration of her contract. Anya
proceeds to sign with PNN which then asks her to anchor their nightly newscast. NNN sues Anya and PNN before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), asking for a labor injunction. Anya and PNN object claiming that it is a matter cognizable by a regular court and not the NLRC.
(a) Is NNN's remedy correct? Why or why not? (3o/o)
(b) What are the grounds for a labor injunction to issue? (2%)
(c) Distinguish the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter from that of the NLRC.(3%)
a. The complaint is breach of confidentiality clause, not cognizable by the NLRC but by the RTC.
b. Art. 218 Powers of the Commission. — The Commission shall have the power and authority:
xxxxxxxxx
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in
any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor
of such party

c. Definitions.

22. Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledgling coffee venture, he invites his best friend, Carlo, to join him. Carlo is
hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a
salary and commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the business is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is
so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of stock to Carlo as part of the latter's bonus.
Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced to terminate Carlo but
he does so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain.
Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as it
would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was a corporate
act, he cannot be held personally liable.
(a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the jurisdiction question. (3%)
(b) What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate act declared to be unlawful? (2%)
Suggested Answer:
A. Determine the presence of ee-er relationship, specifically control and right to hire and fire.. The elements were present in the instant case and hence, I would
have jurisdiction over the matter.
b. Before a director or officer of a corporation can be held personally liable for corporate obligations, however, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
complainant must allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross
negligence or bad faith; and (2) the complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith.

26

[a] Mario Brothers claims the 3 workers are project employees. It explains that the agreement is, if the works contract is cancelled due to the fault of the
client, the period of employment is automatically terminated. Is the contractor correct? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. In GMA Network, Inc v. Pabriga, (G.R. No. 176419, November 27, 2013, the requirements to qualify an employment as project-based was set as follows:
1) employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the
time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a project; and
2) the termination of the project must be reported by the employer to the DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within
the period prescribed, and failure to do so militates against the employer's claim of project employment. This is true even outside the construction industry.
Mario Brothers failed to comply with both requirements; hence, Tristan, Arthur and Jojo are its regular employees. The cancellation of its contract with Axis did
not result to the termination of employment of Tristan, Arthur and Jojo.
[b] Can Axis be made solidarily liable with Mario Brothers to pay the unpaid wages and 13th month pay o f Tristan, Arthur, and Jojo? Explain. (2 .5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Axis can be made solidarily liable with Mario Brothers. Principals are solidarily liable with their contractors for the wages and other money benefits of
their contractors' workers.

I.

Linda was employed by Sectarian University (SU) to cook for the members of a religious order who teach and live inside the campus. While performing her
assigned task, Linda accidentally burned herself. Because of the extent of her injuries, she went on medical leave. Meanwhile, SU engaged a replacement cook.
Linda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, but her employer SU contended that Linda was not a regular employee but a domestic househelp. Decide (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The employer’s argument that Linda was not a regular employee has no merit. The definition of domestic servant or househelper contemplates one who is
employed in the employer’s home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer’s family. The Supreme Court already held that
the mere fact that the househelper is working in relation to or in connection with its business warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant
is and should be considered as a regular employee (Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991). Here, Linda was hired not to minister to the
personal comfort and enjoyment of her employer’s family but to attend to other employees who teach and live inside the campus.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The complaint for illegal dismissal should be dismissed. There was no showing that in hiring the replacement cook, SU severed its employer-employee
relationship with Linda. In illegal dismissal cases, an employee must first establish, by substantial evidence, the fact of dismissal before shifting to the employer
the burden of proving the validity of such dismissal (Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Wilfred Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014). Here, Linda’s
dismissal was not clearly established.

II.

Lucy was one of approximately 500 call center agents at Hambergis, Inc. She was hired as a contractual employee four years ago. Her contracts would be for a
duration of five (5) months at a time, usually after a one-month interval Her re-hiring was contingent on her performance for the immediately preceding contract.
Six (6) months after the expiration of her last contract, Lucy went to Hambergis personnel department to inquire why she was not yet being recalled to work. She
was told that her performance during her last contract was “below average.” Lucy seeks your legal advice about her chances of getting her job back. What will
your advice be? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Lucy cannot get her job back. She is a fixed-term employee and as such, her employment terminates upon the expiration of her contract (Rowell Industrial
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167714, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 691).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

I will advise Lucy that she can get her job back if she files a case for illegal dismissal where, as a general rule, the twin reliefs of backwages and reinstatement
are available. In the instant case, Lucy is a regular employee because the employment contracts of five (5) months at a time, for four (4) years are obviously
intended to circumvent an employee’s security of tenure, and are therefore void. As a regular employee, Lucy may only be dismissed from service based on just
and authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code, and after observance of procedural due process prescribed under said law (Magsalin v. National
Organization of Working Men, G.R. No. 148492, May 9, 2003).

III

Lolong Law Firm (LLF), which employs around fifty (50) lawyers and one hundred (100) regular staff, suffered losses for the first time in its history. The
management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide them free lunch. Consequently, it announced that a nominal fee would henceforth
be charged. Was LLF justified in withdrawing this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to its employees? (1%)

(A) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time.

(B) Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due to any legal or contractual obligation.

(C No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code.

(D) No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(C) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code.

IV.

Linis Manpower, Inc. (LMI) had provided janitorial services to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) since March 2009. Its service contract
was renewed every three months. However, in the bidding held in June 2012, LMI was disqualified and excluded. In 2013, six janitors of LMI formerly assigned at
POEA filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. Both LMI and POEA were impleaded as respondents. Should POEA, a government agency subject to
budgetary appropriations from Congress, be held liable solidarily with LMI for the payment of salary differentials due to the complainant? Cite the legal basis of
your answer. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, but only to the extent of work performed under the contract. The second paragraph of Art. 106 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. – … In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code,
the employer shall be jointly and severally, liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract,
in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him …

The fact that POEA is a government agency is of no moment. In U.S.A. v. Ruiz (G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the State may
be sued if the contract it entered into is pursuant to its proprietary functions.

V.

Liwayway Glass had 600 rank-and-file employees. Three rival unions A, B, and C participated in the certification elections ordered by the Med-Arbiter. 500
employees voted. The unions obtained the following votes: A-200; B-150; C-50; 90 employees voted “no union”; and 10 were segregated votes. Out of the
segregated votes, four (4) were cast by probationary employees and six (6) were cast by dismissed employees whose respective cases are still on appeal. (10%)

(A) Should the votes of the probationary and dismissed

employees be counted in the total votes cast for the purpose of determining the winning labor union?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Rule IX, Sec. 5 of DOLE Department Order 40-03 provides that “[a]ll employees who are members of the appropriate bargaining unit sought to be
represented by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of the order granting the conduct of a certification election shall be eligible to vote. An employee who has
been dismissed from work but has contested the legality of the dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the
conduct of a certification election shall be considered a qualified voter, unless his/ her dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct
of the certification election.”

(B) Was there a valid election?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes (Art. 256, now Art. 266, of the Labor Code). In the
instant case, 500 out of 600 rank-and-file employees voted.

C) Should Union A be declared the winner?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The Labor Code provides that the Labor Union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit (Art. 256, now Art. 266, of the Labor Code). Here, the number of valid votes cast is 490; thus, the winning union should receive at least 246
votes. Union A only received 200 votes.

(D) Suppose the election is declared invalid, which of the

contending unions should represent the rank-and-file employees?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
None of them should represent the rank-and-file employees (Art. 255, now Art. 265, of the Labor Code).

(E) Suppose that in the election, the unions obtained

the following votes: A-250; B-150; C-50; 40 voted “no union”; and 10 were segregated votes. Should Union A be certified as the bargaining representative?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The Labor Code provides that the Labor Union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers in the unit (Art. 256, now Art. 266, of the Labor Code). Here, the number of valid votes cast is 490. Thus, the winning union should receive at least 246
votes; Union A received 250 votes.

VI.

Lina has been working as a steward with a Miami, U.S.A.-based Loyal Cruise Lines for the past fifteen (15) years. She was recruited by a local manning agency,
Macapagal Shipping, and was made to sign a ten-month (10) employment contract everytime she left for Miami. Macapagal Shipping paid for Lina’s round-trip
travel expenses from Manila to Miami. Because of a food poisoning incident which happened during her last cruise assignment, Lina was not re-hired. Lina
claims she has been illegally terminated and seeks separation pay. If you were the Labor Arbiter handling the case, how would you decide? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will dismiss Lina’s complaint. Lina is a contractual employee and the length of her employment is determined by the contracts she entered into. Here, her
employment was terminated at the the expiration of the contract (Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110524, July 29, 2002, 385 SCRA 306, 318).

VII.

Non-lawyers can appear before the Labor Arbiter if: (1%)

(A) they represent themselves

(B) they are properly authorized to represent their legitimate labor organization or member thereof

(C) they are duly-accredited members of the legal aid office recognized by the DOJ or IBP

(D) they appear in cases involving an amount of less than Php5,000

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) they represent themselves (Art. 222, Labor Code: Rule III, Sec. 6, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure).

VIII.

As a result of a bargaining deadlock between Lazo Corporation and Lazo Employees Union, the latter staged a strike. During the strike, several employees
committed illegal acts. Eventually, its members informed the company of their intention to return to work. (6%)

(A) Can Lazo Corporation refuse to admit the strikers?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The commission of illegal acts during a strike does not automatically bring about loss of employment status. Due process must be observed by the employer
before any dismissal can be made (Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian, G.R. No. 145496, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 633).

(B) Assuming the company admits the strikers, can it later

on dismiss those employees who committed illegal acts?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The employer may be considered as having waived its right to dismiss employees who committed illegal acts during the strike (Reformist Union of R.B. Liner
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120482, January 27, 1997, 266 SCRA 713).

(C) If due to prolonged strike, Lazo Corporation hired replacements, can it refuse to admit the replaced strikers?
No. Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution guarantees workers the right to strike in accordance with law, and prolonged strike is not prohibited by law. With Art. 212
(o) defining strike as “any temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute, it is the prerogative of strikers to cut short or prolong a strike.
By striking, the employees have not abandoned their employment. Rather, they have only ceased temporarily from rendering work. The striking employees have
not lost their right to go back to their positions, because the declaration of a strike is not a renunciation of their employment, much less their employee-employer
relationship.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. As a general rule, replacements take their employment as conditional, i.e., subject to the rights of strikers to return to work.

However, since this is an economic strike, the strikers are entitled to reinstatement only in case Lazo Corporation has not yet hired permanent replacements
(Consolidated Labor Association v. Marsman & Co., G.R. No. L-17038, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 589).

IX.

Luisa Court is a popular chain of motels. It employs over thirty (30) chambermaids who, among others, help clean and maintain the rooms. These chambermaids
are part of the union rank-and-file employees which has an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company. While the CBA was in force, Luisa
Court decided to abolish the position of chambermaids and outsource the cleaning of the rooms to Malinis Janitorial Services, a bona fide independent contractor
which has invested in substantial equipment and sufficient manpower. The chambermaids filed a case of illegal dismissal against Luisa Court. In response, the
company argued that the decision to outsource resulted from the new management’s directive to streamline operations and save on costs.

If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you decide? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will decide in favor of Luisa Court, provided that all the requisites for a valid retrenchment under the Labor Code are satisfied. It is management prerogative to
farm out any of its activities (BPI Employees UnionDavao City-FUBU (BPIEU-Davao City-FUBU) v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 174912, July 24,
2013).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

I will decide in favor of the chambermaids. Art. 248 (c) of the Labor Code considers as unfair labor practice on the part of Luisa Court its “contract out the
services or functions being performed by union members.” Luisa Court’s abolition and act of outsourcing the chambermaids’ positions are clearly acts of illegal
dismissal.

X.

Luisa was hired as a secretary by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Manila. Luisa’s first boss was a Japanese national whom she got along with. But after
two years, the latter was replaced by an arrogant Indian national who did not believe her work output was in accordance with international standards. One day,
Luisa submitted a draft report filled with typographical errors to her boss. The latter scolded her, but Luisa verbally fought back. The Indian boss decided to
terminate her services right then and there. Luisa filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter claiming arbitrariness and denial of due process.

If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will dismiss the case. ADB enjoys immunity from suit (DFA v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113191, September 18, 1996).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

I will decide in favor of Luisa, by granting nominal damages. To clarify, however, Luisa’s dismissal is not illegal, for it has been held that failure to observe
prescribed standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency, as in this case, may constitute just cause for dismissal (Iluminada Ver
Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr., G.R. No. L-63316, July 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 15). Nonetheless, the employer’s failure to comply with the procedure prescribed by law in
terminating the services of the employee warrants the payment of nominal damages of Php 30,000, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of
Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004).

XI.

Lionel, an American citizen whose parents migrated to the U.S. from the Philippines, was hired by JP Morgan in New York as a call center specialist. Hearing
about the phenomenal growth of the call center industry in his parents’ native land, Lionel sought and was granted a transfer as a call center manager for JP
Morgan’s operations in Taguig City. Lionel’s employment contract did not specify a period for his stay in the Philippines. After three years of working in the
Philippines, Lionel was advised that he was being recalled to New York and being promoted to the position of director of international call center operations.
However, because of certain “family reasons,” Lionel advised the company of his preference to stay in the Philippines. He was dismissed by the company. Lionel
now seeks your legal advice on: (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) whether he has a cause of action

Lionel has a cause of action; he was illegally dismissed. Dismissal due to an employee’s refusal of a promotion is not within the sphere of management
prerogative. There is no law that compels an employee to accept promotion (Dosch v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-51182, July 5, 1983).

(B) whether he can file a case in the Philippines

Yes. Since this is a case of illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over the same (Art. 217 (a) (2), Labor Code). Under the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, all cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide, may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the
workplace of the complainant or petitioner (Rule IV, Sec. 1).

(C) what are his chances of winning

He has a big chance of winning. An employee cannot be promoted without his consent, even if the same is merely a result of a transfer, and an employee’s
refusal to accept promotion cannot be considered as insubordination or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer. In this case, JP Morgan cannot
dismiss Lionel due to the latter’s refusal to accept the promotion (Norkis Trading Co., Inc. v. Gnilo, G.R. No. 159730, February 11, 2008, 544 SCRA 279).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

His chances of winning is nil because the objection to the transfer was grounded solely on personal “family reasons” that will be caused to him because of the
transfer (OSS Security & Allied Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112752, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 157); Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton,
G.R. No. 127421, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 124).

XII.

Which of the following groups does not enjoy the right to self-organization? (1%)

(A) those who work in a non-profit charitable institution

(B) those who are paid on a piece-rate basis

(C) those who work in a corporation with less than ten (10) employees

(D) those who work as legal secretaries

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(D) those who work as legal secretaries (Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, August 3, 2010).

XIII.

Don Luis, a widower, lived alone in a house with a large garden. One day, he noticed that the plants in his garden needed trimming. He remembered that Lando,
a 17-year old out-of-school youth, had contacted him in church the other day looking for work. He contacted Lando who immediately attended to Don Luis’s
garden and finished the job in three days. (4%)

(A) Is there an employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. All the elements of employer-employee relationship are present, viz: 1. the selection and engagement of the employee; 2. the power of dismissal; 3. the
payment of wages; and 4. the power to control the employee’s conduct. There was also no showing that Lando has his own tools, or equipment so as to qualify
him as an independent contractor.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

None. Lando is an independent contractor for Don Luis does not exercise control over Lando’s means and method in tending to the former’s garden.

(B) Does Don Luis need to register Lando with the Social Security System (SSS)?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all employees not over sixty (60) years of age.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. Lando is not an employee of Don Luis. What the parties have is a contract for a piece of work which. while allowed by Art. 1713 of the Civil Code, does not
make Lando an employee under the Labor Code and Social Security Act.

XIV.

Luisito has been working with Lima Land for twenty vears. Wanting to work in the public sector, Luisito applied with and was offered a job at Livecor. Before
accepting the offer, he wanted to consult you whether the payments that he and Lima Land had made to the Social Security System (SSS) can be transferred or
credited to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

What would you advice? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Under R.A. 7699, otherwise known as the Portability Law, one may combine his years of service in the private sector represented by his contributions to the
Social Security System (SSS) with his government service and contributions to the GSIS. The contributions shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability,
survivorship and other benefits in case the covered member does not qualify for such benefits in either or both Systems without totalization.

XV.

Our Lady of Peace Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (OLPCS-TELU) is a legitimate labor organization composed of vice-principals,
department heads, coordinators, teachers, and non-teaching personnel of Our Lady of Peace Catholic School (OLPCS).

OLPCS-TELU subsequently filed a petition for certification election among the teaching and non-teaching personnel of OLPCS before the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The Med-Arbiter subsequently granted the petition and ordered the conduct of a joint
certification election for the teaching and non-teaching personnel of OLPCS.

May OLPCS-TELU be considered a legitimate labor organization? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The facts of the case concede that OLPCS-TELY “is a legitimate labor organization.”

XVI.

Samahang East Gate Enterprises (SEGE) is a labor organization composed of the rank-and-file employees of East Gate Enterprises (EGE), the leading
manufacturer of all types of gloves and aprons.

EGE was later requested by SEGE to bargain collectively for better terms and conditions of employment of all the rank-and-file employees of EGE.
Consequently, EGE filed a petition for certification election before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).

During the proceedings, EGE insisted that it should participate in the certification process. EGE reasoned that since it was the one who filed the petition and
considering that the employees concerned were its own rank-and-file employees, it should be allowed to take an active part in the certification process.

Is the contention of EGE proper? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Under Art. 258 (a) of the Labor Code, an emploġer is a mere bystander in certification elections, whether the petition for certification election is filed by said
employer or a legitimate labor organization. The employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification
election.

XVII.

Philhealth is a government-owned and controlled corporation employing thousands of Filipinos. Because of the desire of the employees of Philhealth to obtain
better terms and conditions of employment from the government, they formed the Philhealth Employees Association (PEA) and demanded Philhealth to enter
into negotiations with PEA regarding terms and conditions of employment which are not fixed by law. (4%)

(A) Are the employees of Philhealth allowed to self-organize and form PEA and thereafter demand Philhealth to enter into negotiations with PEA for better terms
and conditions of employment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Employees of Philhealth are allowed to selforganize under Sec. 8, Art. III and Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution which recognize the rights of all workers to
self-organization. They cannot demand, however, for better terms and conditions of employment for the same are fixed by law (Art. 244, Labor Code), besides,
their salaries are standardized by Congress (Art. 276, Labor Code).

(B) In case of unresolved grievances, can PEA resort to strikes, walkouts, and other temporary work stoppages to pressure the government to accede to their
demands?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the
private sector to secure concessions from their employers (Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. Nos. 109406. 110642, 111494, 112056, 119597, September 11, 1998).

XVIII.

The procedural requirements of a valid strike include: (1%)

(A) a claim of either unfair labor practice or deadlock in collective bargaining

(B) notice of strike filed at least fifteen (15) days before a ULP-grounded strike or at least thirty (30) days prior to the deadlock in a bargaining-grounded strike

(C) majority of the union membership must have voted to stage the strike with notice thereon furnished to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
at least twenty-four (24) hours before the strike vote is taken

(D) strike vote results must be furnished to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(B) notice of strike filed at least fifteen (15) days before a ULP-grounded strike or at least thirty (30) days prior to the deadlock in a bargaining-grounded strike
(Art. 263 (c), Labor Code).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

(C).majority of the union membership must have voted to stage the strike with notice thereon furnished to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board(NCMB)
at least 24 hours before the strike vote is taken (Art. 263 (f), Labor Code).

(D) strike vote results must be furnished to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike (Art. 263 (f), Labor Code).

XIX.

Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio networks. He employed Lionel as his agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set
up Liberty Communications to formally engage in the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of the incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty shares.
Lionel was also given the title Assistant Vice-President for Sales and Head of Technical Coordination. After several months, there were allegations that Lionel
was engaged in “under the table dealings” and received “confidential commissions” from Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was, therefore, charged with serious
misconduct and willful breach of trust, and was given fortyeight (48) hours to present his explanation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-
hour deadline and was subsequently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal.
Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which was within the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company’s motion to dismiss? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will deny the motion to dismiss. “Corporate officers” in the context of Presidential Decree No. 902-A are those officers of the corporation who are given that
character by the Corporation Code or by the corporation’s by-laws. Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates three specific officers that in law are considered
as corporate officers – the president, secretary and the treasurer. Lincoln is not one of them. There is likewise no showing that his position as Assistant Vice-
President is a corporate officer in the company’s by-laws. The Labor Arbiter therefore, has jurisdiction over the case (Art. 217 (a) (2), Labor Code).

XX.

Lito was anticipating the bonus he would receive for 2013. Aside from the 13th month pay, the company has been awarding him and his other co-employees a
two to three months bonus for the last ten (10) years. However, because of poor over-all sales performance for the year, the company unilaterally decided to pay
only a one month bonus in 2013. (4%)
Is Lito’s employer legally allowed to reduce the bonus?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. A bonus is an act of generosity granted by an enlightened employer to spur the employee to greater efforts for the success of the business and realization
of bigger profits. The granting of a bonus is a management prerogative, something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient.
Thus, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when it is made part of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee. It may,
therefore, be withdrawn, unless they have been made a part of the wage or salary or compensation of the employees, a matter which is not in the facts of the
case (American Wire and Cable Daily Rated Employees Union v. American Wire and Cable Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155059, April 29, 2005).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. Having been enjoyed for the last ten (10) years, the granting of the bonus has ripened into a company practice or policy which can no longer be peremptorily
withdrawn. Art. 100 of the Labor Code prohibits the diminution or elimination by the employer of the employees’ existing benefits.

XXI.

An accidental fire gutted the JKL factory in Caloocan. JKL decided to suspend operations and requested its employees to stop reporting for work. After six (6)
months, JKL resumed operations but hired a new set of employees. The old set of employees filed a case for illegal dismissal.

If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will rule in favor of the employees. JKL factory merely suspended its operations as a result of the fire that gutted its factory. Art. 286 of the Labor Code states
that an employer may bona fide suspend the operation of its business for a period not exceeding six (6) months. In such a case, there would be no termination of
the employment of the employees, but only a temporary displacement. Since the suspension of work lasted more than six months, there is now constructive
dismissal (Sebuguero v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115394, September 27, 1995, 245 SCRA 532).

XXII.

Despite a reinstatement order, an employer may choose not to reinstate an employee if: (1%)

(A) there is a strained employer-employee relationship

(B) the position of the employee no longer exists

(C) the employer’s business has been closed

(D) the employee does not wish to be reinstated.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(D) the employee does not wish to be reinstated (DUP Sound Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 168317, November 21, 2011).

XXIII.

Luningning Foods engaged the services of Lamitan Manpower, Inc., a bona fide independent contractor, to provide “tasters” that will check on food quality.
Subsequently, these “tasters” joined the union of rank-and-file employees of Luningning and demanded that they be made regular employees of the latter as they
are performing functions necessary and desirable to operate the company’s business. Luningning rejected the demand for regularization. On behalf of the
“tasters,” the union then filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In response, Luningning sought a restraining order from
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) arguing that the DOLE does not have jurisdiction over the case since it does not have an employer-employee relationship with the
employees of an independent contractor.

If you were the RTC judge, would you issue a restraining order against the union? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. There is no labor dispute in the instant case. Since Lamitan Manpower is a bona fide independent contractor, there is no employee-employer relationship
between the Luningning and the tasters.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Art. 254 of the Labor Code is clear that no temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall
be issued by any court or other entity, except as provided in Article 218 and 264 of the same Code.

XXIV.

Lanz was a strict and unpopular Vice-President for Sales of Lobinsons Land. One day, Lanz shouted invectives against Lee, a poor performing sales associate,
calling him, among others, a “brown monkey.” Hurt, Lee decided to file a criminal complaint for grave defamation against Lanz. The prosecutor found probable
cause and filed an information in court. Lobinsons decided to terminate Lanz for committing a potential crime and other illegal acts prejudicial to business. Can
Lanz be legally terminated by the company on these grounds? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The grounds relied upon by Lobinsons are not just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code. Defamation is not a crime against person which is a ground to
dismiss under Art. 282, now Art. 295 (d) of the Labor Code.

XXV.

Lizzy Lu is a sales associate for Luna Properties. The latter is looking to retrench Lizzy and five other sales associates due to financial losses. Aside from a basic
monthly salary, Lizzy and her colleagues receive commissions on the sales they make as well as cost of living and representation allowances. In computing
Lizzy’s separation pay, Luna Properties should consider her: (1%)

(A) monthly salary only

(B) monthly salary plus sales commissions

(C) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance

(D) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance and representation allowance

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(D) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance and representation allowance (Songco v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-50999, March 23, 1990).

XXVI.

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

(A) Was Liwanag Corporation’s action valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes an illegal act committed in the
course of a strike. It rendered the strike illegal. The Union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having
knowingly participated in an illegal act (Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 88710-13, December 19, 1990, 192 SCRA 396).
Such kind of dismissal under Art. 264 can immediately be resorted to as an exercise of management prerogative (Biflex Phils., Inc. v. Filflex Industrial &
Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 155679, December 19, 2006, 511 SCRA 247).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. Liwanag Corporation cannot outrightly declare the defiant strikers to have lost their employment status. “(A)s in other termination cases,” the strikers are
entitled to due process protection under Art. 277 (b) of the Labor Code. Nothing in Art. 264 of the Code authorizes immediate dismissal of those who commit
illegal acts during a strike (Stamford Marketing Corp. V. Julian, G.R. No. 145496, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 633; Suico v. NLRC, G.R. No. 146762, January
30, 2007, 513 SCRA 325).

(B) If, before the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction, the striking union members communicated in writing their desire to return to work, which offer Liwanag
Corporation refused to accept, what remedy, if any, does the union have?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

File a case for illegal dismissal [Art. 217 (a) (2), Labor Code]

XXVII.

The jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission does not include: (1%)
(A) exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided

by the Labor Arbiter (B) exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided

by Regional Directors or hearing officers involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations
where the aggregate money claim of each does not exceed five

thousand pesos (P5,000) (C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration

body over labor disputes certified to it by the Regional

Directors (D) power to issue a labor injunction

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certified to it by the Regional Directors (Art. 129, Labor Code).