THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIZENS - AdDU Bar Notes

aat ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIV ERS ITY – CO LLEG E OF LAW
THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS CITIZENS
(Formerly Political Law, Labor Law and Taxation Law) - DAY ONE (Bar Exams 2020/2021)
QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1. On May 5, 2009, a bus used for public transport was flagged down by the Philippine Army at a
checkpoint. Y, a soldier, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle. Y then boarded the
bus to check the presence, and intercept the entry, of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and
suspicious individuals. A small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught Y’s attention.
Y lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. Y then looked at the male passengers lined outside
and noticed that X kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the bag. Y requested X to
board the bus and open the bag. X obliged. When opened, the bag contained several firearms and explosives.
X, however, failed to produce proof of his authority to carry them.
X was arrested, informed of his rights, and charged with illegal possession of high-powered
firearms, ammunition, and explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866. He argues that the pieces of
evidence are inadmissible on the ground that the extensive search conducted by the Philippine Army sans
a search warrant was illegal.
a. Was the search here valid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, it was a valid bus search as provided for by the Supreme Court
in Saluday v. People (G.R. No. 215305, 3 April 2018).
The bus inspection conducted by the members of the Philippine Army at a military checkpoint
constitutes a reasonable search. The bus was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have
a reduced expectation of privacy.
Further, the soldier merely lifted X's bag. This visual and minimally intrusive inspection was
even less than the standard x-ray and physical inspections done at the airport and seaport terminals
where passengers may further be required to open their bags and luggages. Considering the
reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no application,
thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant.
b. What are the guidelines in the conduct of a bus search prior to the passengers’ entry?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Prior to entry, passengers and their bags and luggages can be
subjected to a routine inspection akin to airport and seaport security protocol. In this regard, metal
detectors and x-ray scanning machines can be installed at bus terminals. Passengers can also be
frisked. In lieu of electronic scanners, passengers can be required instead to open their bags and
luggages for inspection, which inspection must be made in the passenger's presence. Should the
passenger object, he or she can validly be refused entry into the terminal.
c. What are the guidelines in the conduct of a search of a public bus in transit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: While in transit, a bus can still be searched by government agents or
the security personnel of the bus owner in the following three instances.
First, upon receipt of information that a passenger carries contraband or illegal articles, the bus
where the passenger is aboard can be stopped en route to allow for an inspection of the person and
his or her effects. This is no different from an airplane that is forced to and upon receipt of
information about the contraband or illegal articles carried by a passenger on board.
Second, whenever a bus picks passengers en route, the prospective passenger can be frisked and
his or her bag or luggage be subjected to the same routine inspection by government agents or private
security personnel as though the person boarded the bus at the terminal. This is because unlike an
airplane, a bus is able to stop and pick passengers along the way, making it possible for these
passengers to evade the routine search at the bus terminal.
Third, a bus can be flagged down at designated military or police checkpoints where State
agents can board the vehicle for a routine inspection of the passengers and their bags or luggages.
Page 1 of 15
Contributors: Atty Gil E. Garcia II, Atty Justin Ryan D. Morilla, Atty. Maria Christina S. Sagmit, and Atty. Jazzie M. Sarona-Lozare
2. A concerned citizen informed the police that a male person, identified as X, was on his way to
Davao City to transport marijuana. The citizen stated that the subject was wearing a collared white shirt
with green stripes, red ball cap, and was carrying a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney. Based on this
tip, the authorities set up a checkpoint.
Eventually, the police chanced upon X inside a passenger jeepney. The jeepney was flagged down
and the police asked the passengers to disembark. The police approached the jeepney and saw X seated at
the rear side of the vehicle. The police officers him if he the owner of the blue sack in front of him, which
the latter answered in the affirmative. The said officers then requested him to open the blue sack. The police
officers saw four bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper. X was arrested.
Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a vehicle on the sole basis of an
unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, they cannot. The Supreme Court ruled in People v. Sapla (G.R.
No. 244045, 16 June 2020), law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped
information to effect a warrantless search. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not
sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse
suspicion.
Here, the police merely adopted the unverified and unsubstantiated suspicion of a concerned
citizen. Apart from the information passed on to them, the police simply had no reason to reasonably
believe that the passenger vehicle contained an item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure
and destruction. X was a mere passenger in a jeepney who did not exhibit any act that would give police
officers reasonable suspicion to believe that he had drugs in his possession. There was no evidence to
show that the police had basis or personal knowledge that would reasonably allow them to infer anything
suspicious.
3. Two police officers were manning a checkpoint along the Diversion Road, Buhangin, Davao City.
At around 9:45 p.m. of 14 February 2021, they noticed two persons onboard a blue and black Mio
motorcycle attempt to pass through the checkpoint. Before reaching the checkpoint sign, the driver of the
motorcycle suddenly executed a U-turn and fled to the direction opposite the checkpoint. The motorcycle,
however, swerved and fell.
When the driver stepped out of the vehicle, the officers immediately saw the handle of a handgun
that was tucked in his waistband. They went over to him and his companion. They asked him for the
necessary license and permit to carry the said firearm. He could not produce the necessary papers. He was
arrested. The police officers then searched the utility box of the motorcycle where they found six heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu.
The driver and his companion were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They claim, however, that the arrest and search done
on them was invalid.
a. Was the arrest valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the arrest was a valid warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
flagrante delicto. As ruled by the Supreme Court in People v. Amago (G.R. No. 227739, 15 January
2020), it is apparent that the driver’s act of making an abrupt U-turn, instead of stopping at the
checkpoint sign, made a reasonable belief for the police officers to suspect that accused-appellants
might have committed some traffic violations or delivering something illegal. The police officers
stopped them and, in the course, saw the handle of a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. Due
to the failure of the driver to produce any license to carry the firearm, he was arrested.
b. Was the search valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the search is a valid warrantless search incident to a lawful
arrest. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to
conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area
within the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous
Page 2 of 15
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The
phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence
In the instant case, tire shabu was found inside the utility box of the driver’s motorcycle that
was within their immediate control. Therefore, it is within the permissible area that the
apprehending officers could validly execute a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
4. At around 7:00 P.M. on August 25, 2013, while PO2 A was patrolling along Barangay Salvacion,
Panabo City, he noticed X aboard a motorcycle holding a lady bag, which appeared to have been taken
from a vehicle parked on the side of the road. When PO2 A shouted at X to halt, the latter sped away. The
owner of the vehicle then approached PO2 A and told him that X broke the window of her vehicle and took
her belongings. This prompted PO2 A to chase X until the latter entered a dark, secluded area, prompting
him to call for back-up. The backup arrived and joined PO2 A in waiting for X.
About six hours later, or at around 1:00 A.M. of the following day, PO2 A saw X come out and
decided to approach him. X, however, attempted to flee, but PO2 A was able to apprehend him. After
successfully recovering the lady owner’s bags and belongings from X, the police officers conducted an
initial cursory body search on the latter but they found no weapon or contraband.
Thereafter, X was brought to the Panabo Police Station. At approximately 9:00 P.M., the police
officers conducted another more thorough search on X, which yielded five plastic sachets of shabu. X was
charged before the court of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
a. Was X’s arrest valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, it was a valid hot pursuit arrest. In warrantless arrests made
pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
accused had committed it. Here, the twin requisites of personal knowledge and immediacy in order
to effectuate a valid "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest are present, considering that PO2 A obtained
personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed and that he did not waver in his continuous
and unbroken pursuit of X until he was arrested.
b. Was the first search done on X valid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Valid, as it was a warrantless search incident to a valid warrantless

hot pursuit arrest.
c. Are the plastic sachets of shabu here admissible in evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: They are inadmissible. As held by the Supreme Court in Vaporoso v.
People (G.R. No. 238659, 3 June 2019), it was no longer a search incident to a valid warrantless
arrest. Case law requires a strict application of this rule, that is, to absolutely limit a warrantless
search of a person who is lawfully arrested to his or her person at the time of and incident to his or
her arrest and to 'dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of
the offense.' Such warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place other than the place of
arrest.
Here, a substantial amount of time had already elapsed from the time of the arrest to the time of
the second search, not to mention the fact that the second search was conducted at a venue other
than the place of actual arrest, i.e., the Panabo Police Station.
5. Determine and explain if a warrantless arrest may or may not be done in the following
instances:
a. A buy-bust operation had been conducted against A after the police received a tip from a
confidential agent. As the poseur-buyer, Police Officer X sent A a text message that he would be
buying P500.00 worth of shabu. A agreed to the transaction. Upon arrival at the buy-bust operation
area, A recognized Police Officer X from a previous arrest and ran away.
Page 3 of 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No warrantless arrest may be done here. For A’s in flagrante
arrest to be valid, he must have executed an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is about to commit a crime. His mere act of running away after
recognizing Police Officer X, however, cannot be considered an "overt act" indicating the
commission of a crime. (Niro v. People, G.R. No. 226014, 22 January 2020, citing People v.
Cogaed)
b. While Barangay Tanod Y was on patrol, he spotted B alighting from a bus carrying a bag. Barangay
Tanod Y saw that B was acting weird when he nervously looked around after he left the bus, so he
approached him. Upon seeing Barangay Tanod Y, B ran away.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No warrantless arrest may be done. Here, B’s act of looking
around after getting off the bus was but natural as he was finding his way to his destination.
That he purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant and cannot
by itself be construed as adequate to charge the tanod with personal knowledge that he had just
engaged in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. (Niro,
citing Valdez v. People)
c. Police Officer Z, while on patrol, saw C holding a plastic sachet with some white crystalline
substance, which he identified to be akin to shabu. Police Officer Z had recognized C based on
several prior arrests for illegal possession. As he approached C, the latter fled by riding a
motorcycle and threw away the plastic sachet. When Police Officer Z retrieved the sachet, he
confirmed that it was shabu.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A valid warrantless arrest may be done. C's act of holding the
shabu in the presence and in view of the police officers was enough to justify that a crime has
just been committed. (Niro, citing Dacanay v. People)
Note: Take note, however, of People v. Villareal (2013), Comerciante v. People (2015), and Cruz
v. People (2019) where the Supreme Court held that even with the arresting officer’s
presumably perfect vision, he would not be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from a
distance, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance inside the plastic sachet
allegedly held by the accused.
6. Section 36.8 of The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, as amended, prohibits any person to
engage in partisan political activity abroad during the 30-day overseas voting period. A violation of this
provision entails penal and administrative sanctions. It provides:
SEC. 36. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful:
36.8. For any person to engage in partisan political activity abroad during the thirty (30)-
day overseas voting period; ...
On the other hand, Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code defines partisan political activity
as follows:
Section 79. Definitions. - ... (b) The term "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" refers
to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public
office which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the
purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies,
for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against
a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the
election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the
election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
Page 4 of 15
a. What test should be used in determining the validity of the challenged provision?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Being a content-neutral regulation, the intermediate test (O’brien

Test), should be applied, viz.:
(1) the regulation is within the constitutional power of the government;

(2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
(3) such governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of the free expression; and
(4) the incidental restriction on the alleged freedom of expression is no greater than what is essential
to the furtherance of the governmental interest.
b. Using the test in item a, is the provision unconstitutional? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: As ruled by the Supreme Court in Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC (G.R.

No. 223705, 14 August 2019), Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, is an
impermissible content-neutral regulation for being overbroad, violating, thus, the free speech clause
under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. It fails the fourth criterion of the intermediate
test, i.e., that the regulation should be no greater than what is essential to the furtherance of the
governmental interest.
The challenged provision's sweeping and absolute prohibition against all forms of expression
considered as partisan political activities without any qualification is more than what is essential to
the furtherance of the contemplated governmental interest. On its face, the challenged law provides
for an absolute and substantial suppression of speech as it leaves no ample alternative means for
one to freely exercise his or her fundamental right to participate in partisan political activities.
7. Is the second paragraph of Section 10, Article II of the 1987 Constitution a Self-Executing
Provision?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is a
mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words, the provision does not require
any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution
mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that — qualified Filipinos
shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any
legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such
constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from
which all legislations must take their bearings.
SOURCE: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, February 3, 1997
INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. What are the sources of international law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
lists the sources of international law, as follows: (1) international conventions, whether general or
particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (2) international custom,
as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (3) the general principles of law recognized by
civilized nations; and (4) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings
of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law.
SOURCE: BAYAN MUNA V. Romulo, February 1, 2011
Page 5 of 15
2. What is customary international law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Customary international law or international custom is a source of

international law as stated in the Statute of the ICJ. It is defined as the "general and consistent
practice of states recognized and followed by them from a sense of legal obligation." In order to
establish the customary status of a particular norm, two elements must concur: State practice, the
objective element; and opinio juris sive necessitates, the subjective element.
State practice refers to the continuous repetition of the same or similar kind of acts or norms
by States. It is demonstrated upon the existence of the following elements: (1) generality; (2)
uniformity and consistency; and (3) duration. While, opinio juris, the psychological element, requires
that the state practice or norm "be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this
practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it."
3. Is the International Criminal Court, as an international tribunal, found in the Rome Statute
declaratory of customary international law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is, as yet, no overwhelming consensus, let alone prevalent
practice, among the different countries in the world that the prosecution of internationally recognized
crimes of genocide, etc. should be handled by a particular international criminal court.
Absent the widespread/consistent-practice-of-states factor, the second or the psychological

element must be deemed non-existent, for an inquiry on why states behave the way they do
presupposes, in the first place, that they are actually behaving, as a matter of settled and consistent
practice, in a certain manner. This implicitly requires belief that the practice in question is rendered
obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. Like the first element, the second element has
likewise not been shown to be present.
LABOR LAW
1. What is Protection to Labor Clause?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Protection to Labor Clause is the one which is stated under
Article XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution, which provides:
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They
shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided
by law. xxx
2. Clinica Pollos, Inc. hired Walter as a resident doctor. They executed a “Contractor’s Agreement”,
which states that Walter is an independent contractor of Clinica Pollos, Inc. In the said Agreement, it was
further stipulated that Walter must abide with the specific work schedules determined by the Hospital
Director, wherein his work is monitored by his superiors. Moreover, any instructions as to the specific
tasks that Walter has to undertake are to be given by his immediate supervisors. These tasks include
diagnosis and treatment of the patients of the hospital.
Page 6 of 15
a. What are the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following are the tests to determine the existence of
an employer-employee relationship:
i. The FOUR-FOLD TEST, which includes the following elements: a) the manner of selection
and engagement of the putative employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence
or absence of power of dismissal; and, (d) the presence or absence of control of the putative
employee’s conduct. Most determinative among these factors is the so-called "control test."
ii. The TWO-TIERED TEST, which considers the following: (a) Control Test - power to control
the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is accomplished; (b)
Economic Dependence Test - underlying economic realities of the activity or the
relationship.
Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality
test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.
Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties
are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true
nature of the relationship between the parties. This is especially appropriate when, as in this
case, there is no written agreement or contract on which to base the relationship. (Reyes vs.
Glaucoma Research – G.R. No. 189255 (June 17, 2015))
b. Is there an employer-employee relationship between Clinica Pollos and Walter?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship between

Clinica Pollos and Walter. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question
of law and fact and is not subject to stipulation.
Applying the four-fold test, the most determinative element of which is the power of
control, Walter is an employee of Clinica Pollos as he was subjected to specific work
schedules and monitoring by his superiors.
3. Marie’s application for renewal of license to recruit workers for overseas workers was still pending
with the POEA. In the meantime, she recruited Mike, Hank and Gale for employment as construction
workers in Dubai. Marie then demanded and received from them P50,000.00 each so that she can purchase
their tickets. However, Marie’s application for the renewal of her license was denied. Thus, Mike, Hank
and Gale were not able to leave for Dubai. Marie alleged that she was in good faith since she honestly
believed that her license will be renewed.
a. When is there illegal recruitment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Illegal recruitment is "committed by persons who, without

authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes." Article 38 of the Labor Code states that there is illegal
Recruitment if there are any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders
of authority.
Section 6 of RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995
extended the activities covered under the term illegal recruitment as follows:
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and
includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Provided, that such non-license or non-holder,
who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
Page 7 of 15
shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed
by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make
a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to

recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in
order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from
oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to employ any worker who
has not applied for employment through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or
morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittances
of foreign exchange earnings, separations from jobs, departures and such other matters or
information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and
verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof
by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or

member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly
on indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for
monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and
its implementing rules and regulations;
(1) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the Department of
Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment
does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed
by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either non-license or license holders. Non-license

holders are liable by the simple act of engaging in recruitment and placement activities, while
license holders may also be held liable for committing the acts prohibited under Section 6 of
RA 8042.
Page 8 of 15
b. When is there illegal recruitment by economic sabotage?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is illegal recruitment by economic sabotage

either: (a) by a syndicate, when it it is committed by 3 or more conspirators or (b) in large
scale, when it is committed against 3 or more victims, whether dealt with individually or
as a group
c. Can Marie be held liable for illegal recruitment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, she can be held liable for illegal recruitment,
specifically be economic sabotage in large scale as it was committed against 3 victims.
The absence of license to recruit when Marie recruited Mike, Hank and Gale makes her
liable for illegal recruitment. It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to
recruit and deploy workers that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. To prove
illegal recruitment, it must be shown that "the accused gave the complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a
manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end."
Good faith on her part is not a defense as the offense of illegal recruitment is
malum prohibitum.
d. Can a person held liable for illegal recruitment be also liable for estafa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, a person who commits illegal recruitment may be

charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa
under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment
is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial
for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code. It follows that one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale,
and vice versa. (People of the Philippines vs. Sison – G.R. No. 187160 (August 9, 2017))
4. Jakub Food Co. and Osman entered into a Service Agreement wherein Osman will provide
motorcycle riders to Jakub Food who will perform the food delivery service of Jakub Food. Both parties
expressly stipulated that there is no employer-employee relationship between Jakub Food and the riders
deployed by Osman to it. But they also provided in their agreement that Jakub Food Co. would be the one
who would give instructions and monitor the said riders and that it can impose disciplinary sanctions upon
erring riders of Osman, including dismissal. All drivers of Osman are deployed to Jakub Food Co.
a. Distinguish Labor-Only Contracting and Legitimate Job Contracting.
i. In labor-only contracting, the contractor does not have substantial capital OR

investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others.
In legitimate job contracting, a principal agrees to put out or farm out with the contractor
or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work, or service within
a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work, or service is to
be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal, with a capital
of not less than P5,000,000 per Department Order No. 174.
ii. In labor-only contracting, the contractor supplies workers to an employer and the
workers recruited are performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of such employer. The said contractor, who is actually a mere agent, does not
exercise control over the means and methods of performance of the workers it supplies
to its principal. In legitimate job contracting, it does not matter if its workers are
performing tasks directly related to the business of the said principal as long as the
principal does not control their means and methods of performance.
Page 9 of 15
iii. Labor-only contracting is a prohibited act while legitimate job contracting is valid and
recognized under the law.
iv. In labor-only contracting, there is an employer-employee relationship between the

principal and the employees of the labor-only contractor while in legitimate job
contracting, an employer-employee exists between the contractor and the employees.
b. Under the facts of this case, is there labor-only contracting or legitimate job contracting?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under the facts of this case, there is labor-only contracting
wherein Jakub Food Co. would be considered as the employer of the riders.
Employer-employee relationship is a question of law and fact and therefore, parties

cannot stipulate against the existence of such relationship. Applying the four-fold test, of
which the most important factor is the element of control, Jakub Food Co. is the true
employer as it exercises control over the means and methods of performance of the rider.
Moreover, there is no proof that Osman has substantial capital OR investment in the form
of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others
c. Assuming that Osman is engaged in legitimate job contracting, who shall be held liable
to the riders for salary differential, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave
pay?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jakub Food Co. and Osman will be solidarily held liable
to the riders for salary differential, overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave
pay.
Article 109 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 109. Solidary liability. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his
contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. For purposes of
determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as
direct employers.
As such, even if there is legitimate job contracting, Jakub Food Co., as an indirect
employer, is solidarily liable with Osman for the payment of salary differential, overtime pay,
holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay as failure to pay the same constitutes violation
of the Labor Code.
5. A was an employee of B Corporation. He submitted a resignation letter. He filed an illegal dismissal

case against his former employer, alleging that he was retrenched due to financial losses, but was not given
the separation pay that was promised to him. A also alleged that B Corporation is guilty of constructive
dismissal, because he was misled to going on leave and to resigning, for a consideration. B Corporation
denied the retrenchment and constructive dismissal, alleging that it never dismissed A and that it was A
who resigned. The parties submitted A’s resignation letter and his quitclaim as evidence. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint for constructive dismissal and separation pay must be
dismissed. When the employer denied dismissing an employee, the burden of proving that there was
termination rests on the employee or the one alleging it. In this case, there is no evidence that A was
dismissed. There is also no proof of constructive dismissal, since he was not demoted in rank and there
was no diminution in his salaries. There is also no showing that B acted in any manner that made it
impossible for A to continue working. In fact, there was a resignation letter submitted and A even
executed a quitclaim. Based on the foregoing, the complaint for constructive dismissal and separation
pay must be dismissed.
Page 10 of 15
6. Liana is an employee of BCD Inc. Liana has a record of excessive tardiness and absenteeism. She
has not been penalized for these offenses, but the corresponding deduction from her salary was made. On
May 2, 2020, Liana was required to overtime work, because she has to handle perishable goods. Liana
refused to work overtime. Thereafter, Liana was terminated for excessive tardiness, absenteeism and
insubordination, after she was made to explain her offenses and investigated. Liana filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, alleging that BCD committed an error in using her habitual tardiness and absenteeism to
justify her dismissal, considering that it has already deducted the corresponding amounts from her salary
and was not subjected to any disciplinary action, which should be deemed as condonation. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint must be dismissed. The mere fact that the numerous
infractions of respondent have not been immediately subjected to sanctions cannot be interpreted as
condonation of the offenses or waiver of the company to enforce company rules. A waiver is a voluntary
and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or privilege. It has been ruled
that "a waiver to be valid and effective must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no
doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him." Hence,
the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right which
cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.
7. Peter resigned from his work in HIJ Corporation. HIJ failed to give him his overtime pay,
amounting to Php 4500.00. Where should he file his complaint? Discuss the jurisdiction and the appellate
procedure.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Peter should file a complaint for simple money claims before the
Department of Labor and Employment under Article 129 of the Labor Code. Since his claim is Php 5,000
and below and does not involve other issues of illegal dismissal or employment relationship, DOLE has
jurisdiction over his case. The losing party in this case can appeal the decision to the National Labor
Relations Commission, within 5 calendar days from receipt of the decision. If the decision has a
monetary award, the company should post an appeal bond covering the monetary award.
8. MNO Corporation informed its employees of a random drug testing. Lino was MNO’s employee
for 10 years, without any record of any offense. MNO informed Lino on the day itself that his schedule will
be after lunch that day. At around 11:30 a.m. of the same day, Lino received news that there was bombing
incident near his wife’s workplace in Israel. Lino left the office to go to the Israel embassy and was unable
to take the drug test. Lino explained to MNO what happened and the investigating committee recommended
his suspension since the term “unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing” is not defined under
the policy. However, MNO decided to terminate his services. Lino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
MNO alleged that it terminated Lino based on the Drug Free Workplace Policy, in valid exercise of its
management prerogative. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Lino was illegally dismissed. While the adoption and enforcement by
a company of an Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as
an employer, such exercise is not absolute and unbridled. Managerial prerogatives are subject to
limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and the general principles of fair play and
justice. In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore ensure that the
policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and
reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and
to the degree of the infraction. Since the policy is unclear on what is “unjustified refusal”, this doubt
must be resolve in favor of Lino. In fact, the unreasonableness of the penalty of termination as imposed
in this case is further highlighted by a fact admitted by the company itself: that for the 10-year period
that Joe had been employed by MPhils., he did not have any record of a violation of its company policies.
9. The Union of Lifestyle Workers (ULW) is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and
file workers of Lifestyle Inc. It inked a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Lifestyle Inc. in July 2020.
When Lifestyle implemented the new wage order and increased the wage of minimum wage earners in
December 2020, ULW opined that the adjustment created a wage distortion. Advise ULW on where to file
the complaint and the appellate procedure, in case of an unfavorable decision.
Page 11 of 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Since Lifestyle is an organized establishment, the wage distortion

must first be filed as a grievance, under the grievance machinery provision of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. In case the parties fail to resolve the issue, ULW can file a complaint for wage distortion
before the Voluntary Arbitrator.
The decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from
receipt of the decision, unless a Motion for Reconsideration is filed. A party may file a motion for
reconsideration of a decision, resolution or order of the Voluntary Arbitrator based on the ground of
palpable or patent errors within ten calendar days from receipt of thereof, with proof of service on the
adverse party.
The decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator may be questioned via a Petition for Review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, within 15 calendar days from receipt of the decision
of the Voluntary Arbitrator. The losing party may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration within
15 days from receipt of the decision.
The decision of the Court of Appeals may be questioned via a Petition for Review by Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, within 15 days from receipt of the decision. The decision of the
Supreme Court may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from receipt of the
decision.
10. BDC Inc. received reports that its Sales Manager, Allan, was engaged in revealing confidential
information about clients and suppliers to BDC competitors. BDC issued a memorandum to explain to
Allan and put him on preventive suspension for 30 days. BDC also directed Allan to surrender his company-
issued laptop and cellphone SIM during his suspension. Since BDC failed to finish the investigation on
time, Allan’s suspension was extended for 10 days, before he was terminated based on substantial evidence.
Allan filed a complaint for illegal suspension before he was terminated, alleging that he was penalized even
before he was able to explain. He also questioned the surrender of his gadgets, and alleged that his right to
due process was violated. Allan claims his salary during the suspension. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan’s complaint must be dismissed.
There was no violation of due process. The suspension was not a penalty, but is a preventive one,
intended to afford management the opportunity to investigate without Allan’s presence. Under Section
8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, if the employee is being investigated
for an offense that poses a threat to the employer’s life or property, the employer has the right to put the
employee on PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION for a period not exceeding 30 days. Since the alleged
offenses are related to the hospital’s properties, management merely exercised its right to put you on
preventive suspension, while being investigated.
BDC also had the right to demand the surrender the gadgets since they are company-owned and
are important to determine if Allan has communications with the competitors and if he revealed
confidential information.
Lastly, Allan is entitled to his salary only for 10 of the 40 days of suspension. The maximum
period of preventive suspension is 30 days. In case the employee is liable, the company is not obligated
to pay him during his suspension. Since the 30-day period exceeded by 10 days, BDC should pay Allan’s
salary for 10 days.
11. FGH Hotel is a five-star establishment that enjoyed huge profit from 2015 to 2019. When the
pandemic happened in 2020, it closed for several months in compliance with government regulations. When
it reopened in 2021, its occupancy was limited to 10% of the usual volume, resulting to huge financial
losses. FGH also had too many employees, considering the limited number of guests. FGH consults you on
whether it can terminate employees based on redundancy or based on retrenchment. Advise FGH.
Page 12 of 15
SUGGESTED ANSWER: FGH can terminate its employees on the ground of redundancy.
Under Article 298 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate employees when the employees are in
excess of what the business needs or when their services are superfluous, either because of reduced
volume of business or closure of a department. In this case, since the occupancy was reduced because of
the pandemic, FGH can terminate the employees by giving them a written notice at least 30 days before
the date of dismissal and by giving a written notice to DOLE within the same period. The employees shall
be entitled to separation pay at the rate of 1 month’s salary or 1 month’s salary for every year of service,
whichever is higher, a fraction of at least 6 months being deemed as 1 year.
FGH cannot use retrenchment as a ground because it has to show audited financial statements
of severe financial bleeding for the past three years, to justify retrenchment.
12. Xu Spa hired Erin as its manager. One day, Xu’s owner talked to her and advised her to resign,
because she is a mismatch to Xu according to the Feng Shui master and she should stop working in Xu.
Erin did not receive any termination letter and she also did not resign. Instead, she filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. Xu alleges that it received complaints from employees about Erin’s gossiping. Hence, it
has the management prerogative to terminate Erin on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Erin was illegally dismissed.
Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must have basis and must be
founded on clearly established facts. In this case, there is no substantial evidence that Eric breached the
trust reposed by Xu. The onus of proving a valid dismissal rests on the employer, not on the employee. It
is the employer who bears the burden of proving that its dismissal of the employee is for a valid or
authorized cause supported by substantial evidence. Xu failed to prove that the dismissal is valid.
While an employer has management prerogatives, these are not absolute prerogatives but are
subject to legal limits, collective bargaining agreements, or general principles of fair play and justice.
They can only be upheld if the employer’s exercise of its prerogatives is in good faith to advance its
interests and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws
or valid agreements.
13. Anna filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Credit Inc. In a decision dated March 1, 2019,
the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Anna and reinstated her to her former position within 10 days from
receipt of the decision. On April 1, 2019, Credit received the decision but appealed it and refused to reinstate
Anna in the meantime. The Labor Arbiter’s decision was reversed and set aside in a decision dated
September 1, 2020. Anna filed a motion to collect her backwages from Credit. Credit opposed the motion
on the ground that the decision of the Labor Arbiter has already been reversed. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Anna is entitled to her salary, from the time the Labor Arbiter ordered
her reinstatement, until the reversal of the decision by the NLRC. An order of reinstatement is
immediately executory pending appeal. Credit should have either reinstated Anna physically or in the
payroll. Since Credit did not do either, it should give Anna her salary from April 11, 2019 until
September 1, 2020.
14. Adam is an IT programmer in Alexia Technologies. He was sent to Paris for one year for further
training. He signed an agreement where he committed to stay with Alexia for the next 3 years. A few months
after he came back from training, Adam resigned. Alexia consults you on whether it can file a complaint
against Adam. Advise Alexia as to propriety of case and where the complaint should be filed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Alexia should file a complaint for breach of the retention agreement,
with prayer for damages. Alexia should file it before the regular courts, depending on the amount of
damages to be claimed. The nature of the case is civil in character and must be filed with regular courts,
not labor courts.
Page 13 of 15
15. Jimmy is a factory employee of TYR Inc. Due to his Diabetes, both his eyes became blind and he
stopped reporting to work. TYR consults you on whether it can terminate Jimmy’s employment. Advise
TYR.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: TYR can terminate Jimmy based on disease. Before TYR terminates
Jimmy, it must issue a memorandum to explain to Jimmy, why he should not be dismissed on the ground
of disease. After Jimmy replies, or upon the lapse of the period to reply, TYR must require Jimmy to
present a certification from a government health officer, that his disease cannot be cured within 6
months, despite proper medical attendance and his continued employment will be bad for his health.
Thereafter, TYR can terminate Jimmy, but should give him separation pay of one month’s salary for
half-month’s salary for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six months shall
be considered as one year.
16. Havana Inc. is an unorganized establishment. Its rank and file employees have a legitimate labor
organization, HUnion. On July 1, 2021 HUnion filed a petition for Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent
(SEBA) certification before the Department of Labor and Employment. On July 3, 2021, HAVUnion, a
union claiming to be composed of Havana’s rank and file employees, filed a motion for intervention,
presenting a DOLE registration that makes it a legitimate labor organization. HAV Union also seeks to
represent also the rank and file employees of Havana. Will the petition filed by HUnion prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Petition for SEBA certification will be dismissed. The two
legitimate labor organizations will be required to participate in a certification election.
Under DOLE 40-03, a petition for SEBA certification can only be granted, if there is only one
legitimate labor organization in the establishment. If there are more than one legitimate labor
organization, the petition must be dismissed and the two unions must be directed to participate in a
certification election. The union garnering majority votes shall be considered as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the unit.
17. Garn Farm contracted with Malipay Contracting to provide farm services. The Malipay employees
assigned in Garn Farm organized a union, GF Association of Workers (GFW) and registered it with DOLE.
GFW then filed a petition for certification election, naming Garn as their employer. Both Garn and Malipay
opposed the petition, on the ground that there is no employment relationship between Garn and the members
of the bargaining unit. The Mediator Arbiter ruled that there is no employment relationship and dismissed
the Petition. Thereafter, the officers of GFW were terminated and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Garn. Garn filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Mediator Arbiter has already ruled that there
was no employment relationship between Garn and the members of the unit sought to be represented by
GFW. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. First, a motion to dismiss is
a prohibited pleading in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Second, jurisprudence has ruled that the
Mediator Arbiter has jurisdiction to determine the absence or presence of employment relationship, only
for purposes of certification election. The Labor Arbiter is not bound by the findings of the Mediator
Arbiter, when there a complaint for illegal dismissal is filed by the officers and members of the union.
18. Denmark Inc. hired Luis as driver. Luis was caught stealing the cellphone of her his co-employee,
Giana. After procedural due process, it was established that Luis is guilty of theft. Hence, Dermark
terminated him. Luis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that he was illegally dismissed since
the Labor Code states that it is only when an employee commits a crime against the employer that he can
be terminated. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Luis is wrong. His complaint must be dismissed.
Article 297, paragraph (e) states that an employee may be terminated for causes analogous to
the grounds under Article 297, paragraphs (a) to (d). In a decided case, the Supreme Court ruled that
theft committed against a co-employee is a just cause for termination, because it is a cause analogous to
commission of a crime against the employer and serious misconduct.
Page 14 of 15
19. Savana Corporation hired Liam as branch manager. After regularization, Savana discovered that
Liam has been using his official time for personal purposes, including his masteral studies. He did not only
use the company equipment and facilities, he also did his school work during official time. After procedural
due process, Liam was demoted to the position of supervisor and his salary was diminished. Savana did not
terminate Liam despite the breach of trust, for humanitarian reasons. Liam filed a complaint for illegal
demotion and diminution of benefits. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint must be dismissed.
Management prerogative includes the right of an employer to promote, demote,transfer,

discipline and terminate an employee. As long as the exercise is in good faith and according to law,
morals, good customs, public policy, the labor courts should not interfere with the exercise of
management prerogative. An employer may validly impose the penalty of demotion and diminution in
pay, when there is substantial evidence of a valid ground therefor, the penalty is commensurate to the
offense, and after procedural due process is complied with. In this case, Liam committed an offense that
is a ground for termination. When Savana lowered the penalty to demotion with pay cut, it was a valid
exercise of management prerogative.
20. Italiana Phil. Hired Mario as country manager. After spending 10 years in the Philippines, Mario
met Maria and got married. Thereafter, Italiana promoted Mario and assigned him as Vice President in its
head office in Italy. Mario refused because he preferred to stay in the Philippines. Italiana terminated him
for insubordination. Is the termination valid. Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The termination is illegal. Mario is not liable for insubordination.
According to jurisprudence, an employee has the right to refuse a promotion and he was shall not be
liable for willfull disobedience of the employer’s lawful order. This is as opposed to a lateral transfer,
which an employee cannot validly refuse and one that can give rise to a case of insubordination.
21. Maya is a stewardess of Fila Airlines. After she gave birth, she gained 30 pounds and never looked
back. She was issued a memorandum to explain for 5 times, and was warned to lose weight for the first
four times. The last two times, Maya was suspended and given 3 months to lose weight. Despite these
warnings, Maya failed to lose weight and even gained some more pounds in the process. Fila terminated
Maya for failure to comply with the weight management policy for flight personnel. Maya filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal. DECIDE.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In a decided case, the Supreme Court ruled that failure of a flight
attendant to comply with weight standards is a valid cause for dismissal. It falls under Article 297 (e),
other causes analogous to the foregoing. The primary objective of Fila weight standards is flight safety.
Cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times to inspire passengers that they can care for passengers
when something goes wrong. The task of flight attendants is not limited to serving meals, they must also
care for the safety of passengers in case of emergency. Given the constricted cabin space, it is reasonable
to require flight attendants to be of the ideal body weight and size in order to assist passengers. Hence,
Fila validly terminated Maya for failure to comply with weight standards.
Page 15 of 15

THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE &amp; ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIZENS - AdDU Bar Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE &amp; ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIZENS - AdDU Bar Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aat ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIV ERS ITY – CO LLEG E OF LAW

a. Was the search here valid? Explain.

a. Was the arrest valid?

b. Was the search valid?

a. Was X’s arrest valid?

b. Was the first search done on X valid? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Valid, as it was a warrantless search incident to a valid warrantless

c. Are the plastic sachets of shabu here admissible in evidence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Being a content-neutral regulation, the intermediate test (O’brien

(1) the regulation is within the constitutional power of the government;

b. Using the test in item a, is the provision unconstitutional? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As ruled by the Supreme Court in Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC (G.R.

SOURCE: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, February 3, 1997

1. What are the sources of international law?

SOURCE: BAYAN MUNA V. Romulo, February 1, 2011

2. What is customary international law?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Customary international law or international custom is a source of

SOURCE: BAYAN MUNA V. Romulo, February 1, 2011

Absent the widespread/consistent-practice-of-states factor, the second or the psychological

SOURCE: BAYAN MUNA V. Romulo, February 1, 2011

1. What is Protection to Labor Clause?

a. What are the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship?

b. Is there an employer-employee relationship between Clinica Pollos and Walter?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is an employer-employee relationship between

a. When is there illegal recruitment?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Illegal recruitment is "committed by persons who, without

(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to

(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or

Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either non-license or license holders. Non-license

SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is illegal recruitment by economic sabotage

c. Can Marie be held liable for illegal recruitment?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, a person who commits illegal recruitment may be

a. Distinguish Labor-Only Contracting and Legitimate Job Contracting.

i. In labor-only contracting, the contractor does not have substantial capital OR

iv. In labor-only contracting, there is an employer-employee relationship between the

Employer-employee relationship is a question of law and fact and therefore, parties

Article 109 of the Labor Code provides:

5. A was an employee of B Corporation. He submitted a resignation letter. He filed an illegal dismissal

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Since Lifestyle is an organized establishment, the wage distortion

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan’s complaint must be dismissed.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Erin was illegally dismissed.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Luis is wrong. His complaint must be dismissed.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint must be dismissed.

Management prerogative includes the right of an employer to promote, demote,transfer,

You might also like

THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIZENS - AdDU Bar Notes

THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE STATE & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH CITIZENS - AdDU Bar Notes