I.

Apple was hired by Samsung as a Customer Service Representative on October 6,

2012, until it forced her to resign on December 13, 2012. To prove her employment, she
submitted copies of her identification card and pay slips.  Samsung, on the other hand,
averred that Apple has no employment records with them. Samsung said that it could
not have terminated Apple because a two-month probationary employment period was
insufficient for the company to assess her fitness for regularization.  Her separation from
work was possibly brought by her voluntary resignation or absence without official leave
which is a common occurrence among call center agents transferring from one BPO
Company to another.   

The Labor Arbiter (LA) held that Samsung illegally dismissed Apple from her
employment.  The LA said that considering Apple was a mere probationary employee,
she was entitled to backwages only for the remaining months of her probationary work.  
Further, the LA ruled that Apple’s money claims already prescribed.  NLRC agreed that
Apple was a probationary employee, and she was illegally dismissed.  

On the contrary the Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed with the ruling of the NLRC
holding that Apple was a regular employee on the following grounds:

1.       Her job was necessary and desirable to the line of business of Samsung

2.       Samsung did not inform Apple of the reasonable standards for her regularization

And since Apple failed to prove that fact of her regularization, the CA ordered her
reinstatement.

Questions:

1.       Who is a probationary employee?

A probationary employee is one who is placed on trial by an employer, during which the
employer determines whether such employee is fit for regularization.

2.       When does a probationary employee be considered a regular employee by

operation of the law?
An employer is deemed to have made known the regularization standards when it has exerted
reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he or she is expected to do or accomplish
during the trial period of probation.

3.       Who has the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases?

While it is an established rule that the employer bears the burden of proof to prove that
the employee's dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by
substantial evidence that indeed he or she was dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can
be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.

4.       What are the entitlements of an illegally dismissed employee?

employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full backwages, inclusive of
allowances and other benefits, computed from the time their actual compensation was withheld
from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. But if reinstatement is no longer possible,
the backwages shall be computed from the time of their illegal termination up to the finality of
the decision.

5.       May separation pay be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee.

separation pay may be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee in lieu of

reinstatement when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time
or because of the realities of the situation.

6.       Is the award of moral and exemplary damages proper in this case?
Moral damages are a type of extraordinary damage that compensate an employee for mental
distress or other intangible injury arising from the employer's breach of its duty of good faith and
fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.

 exemplary damages are imposed primarily upon the wrongdoer as a deterrent in the
commission of similar acts in the future.

7.       May attorney’s fees be granted?  

Anent the award of attorney's fees, considering that respondent was forced to litigate to
protect his rights and interests, he is entitled to a reasonable amount pursuant to Article
2208(8)52 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Court agrees with the NCMB and the CA
that payment of attorney's fees is warranted in an amount equivalent to 10% of the total amount
awarded to respondent

II.
a. What is misconduct? To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the
text and meaning of Art. 297 of the Labor Code, what are the elements of
misconduct? 

a. Misconduct refers to an unacceptable or improper behavior, especially by an

employee or professional person.
Article 297 of the Labor Code allows the termination of an employee for willful breach of
the trust reposed in him by the employer. Trust is a very important word that takes years to
build but only seconds to destroy. Some believe that trust, once lost, can never be regained.

b. What are the conditions for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause
for dismissal? 

Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be work related such
that the employee concerned is shown to be unfit to continue working for the employer; it must
also be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. In the same
vein, the misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor Code, must be of such a
grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Thus, for misconduct or
improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal: (a) it must be serious; (b) it must relate to the
performance of the employee's duties; and (c) it must show that the employee has become unfit
to continue working for the employer.

c. What is the concept of circumstantial evidence? Is it applicable in labor

cases?

Circumstantial evidence is "proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience."
Here, respondent relied on the sworn affidavits of three witnesses to establish
circumstantial evidence against the watchmen. These affidavits, however, lack credibility
and conclusiveness.

considering again that the quantum of evidence required in labor cases is mere
substantial evidence and is lower than that of proof beyond reasonable doubt or moral
certainty required in criminal cases, there is no reason why the concept of circumstantial
evidence should be inapplicable in labor cases.

d. What is the Doctrine of Strained Relations?  

As a general rule, an employee who has been illegally dismissed is entitled to

reinstatement. An exception to this rule is the doctrine of strained relations. The Court, in
Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., explained the doctrine of strained relations, the reason
behind it, and the limitations of its appreciation in each and every case, viz.:

Under the doctrine of strained relations, such payment of separation pay is considered an
acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On
the one hand, it liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work
environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation
of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. x x x.

*10 points

III. On April 13, 2015, Christopher entered into a contract of employment with RCPOKG
through local manning agent, JC Crew Management, Inc. On April 14, 2015,
Christopher boarded MV Obedient as a steward.  On April 17, 2015, he was instructed
by the Chief Mate to strip and wax the navigational bridge. Christopher alleged that he
politely asked the Chief Mate if he can do it in the afternoon since he was still busy
accomplishing his current tasks.  The Chief Mate accused him of insubordination and
threatened him with dismissal.  He received a Show Cause Notice with a charge of
insubordination. A hearing was conducted and on the same day he received a Notice of
Formal Warning. In the next days following the hearing, Christopher averred that he felt
harassed, singled out and pressured due to the April 17 incident and as a result he was
constrained to tender his resignation on April 21, 2015. Christopher arrived in the
Philippines on May 22, 2015. RCPOKG and JC Crew Management Inc. filed with the
POEA a complaint for disciplinary action against Christopher on June 26, 2015.
Christopher for his part filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against RCPOKG and JC
Crew Management Inc. on July 15, 2015.

Was there illegal dismissal/Constructive Dismissal?

*10 points

IV. Aside from mandatory stipulations in the employment contract, another device to
secure the employees' labor rights is the registration of contractors with the DOLE
regional office where the applicant contractor principally operates.  The applicant for
registration should present proof of substantial capital, copy of registration, certificates
from government regulatory agencies, and its audited financial statements. 

a. What is the effect of not being registered? 

b. Conversely, does registration presume that the registrant is a legitimate contractor?
c. Is this DOLE guarantee valid? Does it have legal basis? 
*10 points

V. Discuss the economic reality test that requires proof of the "totality of economic
circumstances of the worker" in order to determine the existence of a employer-
employee relationship*10 points