2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute

Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

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

In cases of illegal dismissal, the employees must first establish by substantial evidence that
they were dismissed. If there is no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality
or illegality thereof. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus,
petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from
their employment. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear,
positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal
dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the
petitioners. (Symex Security Services, Inc., et al. v. Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 202613, November
8, 2017)

2. Who has the burden of proof in money claims?

The employer has the burden to prove that it had paid the money claims set out with
particularity in the employee’s complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents. He
who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; and even where the employees must allege
nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment,
rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. (Symex Security Services, Inc., et al. v.
Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017)

3. What is the quantum of evidence required in illegal dismissal cases?

For dismissal to be valid, the employer must show through substantial evidence — or such
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion — that (1) the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the dismissed
employee was afforded due process of law. (Evic Human Resources Management, Inc., et al.
v. Panahon, G.R. No. 206890, July 31, 2017)

4. What are the reliefs available to a migrant worker who was illegally dismissed?

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as

defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker’s salary,
the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee and the
deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less. (Evic Human Resources Management, Inc., et al. v.
Panahon, G.R. No. 206890, July 31, 2017)

5. What is labor-only contracting?

Labor-only contracting refers to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor

merely recruits, supplies, or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal,
and any of the following elements [is] present: i) 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 ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of
the work of the contractual employee. (Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
227795, February 20, 2019)

6. What are some of the factors determinative of labor-only contracting?

Among the factors in determining whether there is labor-only contracting are: (1) the nature
of the employee’s job, i.e., whether the work he performs is necessary and desirable to the
business of the principal; and (2) the ownership of substantial capital in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, and other properties, by the contractor. (Daguinod
v. Southgate Foods, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019)

7. Does registration with the DOLE negate a finding of labor-only contracting?

No. Registration with DOLE as an independent contractor does not automatically vest it with
the status of a legitimate labor contractor, it is merely presumptive proof. (Daguinod v.
Southgate Foods, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

8. When may a claim for total and permanent disability benefit be granted?

The Court has held that in order for a claim for total and permanent disability benefits to
prosper, any of the following circumstances must obtain:

a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to

engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there
is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total
disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the company[-]
designated physician;
c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-
day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor
chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion;
d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently
disabled but other doctors whom he consulted, on his own and jointly with his
employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently
disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not
compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the
third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;
g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but
the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled
within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his
usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods. (Esposo v. Epsilon Maritime
Services, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 218167, November 7, 2018)

9. Does the lapse of the 120-day or 240-day period automatically entitle the seafarer to a total
permanent disability?

The lapse of the 120-day or 240-day period does not automatically entitle the seafarer to a
total permanent disability. It is the company-designated physician who will certify him as
either fit to work or classify his condition as partial or total permanent disability within the
said periods. (Yialos Manning Services, Inc., et al. v. Borja, G.R. No. 227216, July 4, 2018)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

10. What happens if company-designated physician fails to make an assessment upon the lapse
of the 240-day period?

If after the lapse of 240 days, the seafarer is still incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties
and the company-designated physician has not made any assessment at all (whether the
seafarer is fit to work or whether his permanent is partial or total), the conclusive
presumption that the seafarer is totally and permanently disabled arises. Stated differently,
temporary total disability only becomes permanent when so declared by the company
physician within the periods he is allowed to do so, or upon the expiration of the maximum
240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of either fitness to work or the
existence of a permanent disability. (Yialos Manning Services, Inc., et al. v. Borja, G.R. No.
227216, July 4, 2018)

11. Is the assessment of a company-designated physician mandatory in compensation claims?

Yes. In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits
enumerated in Section 32 of POEA-Standard Employment Contract. Computation of his
benefits arising from an illness or disease shall be governed by the rates and the rules of
compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease was contracted. However, this
presupposes that the company-designated physician issued a valid and timely assessment.
Without the assessment, there will be no other basis for the disability rating. Thus, it is
mandatory for company-designated physician to issue his assessment within the 120/240-
day periods. Otherwise, the seafarer’s illness shall be deemed total and permanent disability.
(Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., et al. v. San Jose, G.R. No. 220949, July 23, 2018)

12. What are the requisites for a seafarer’s beneficiary to be entitled to death benefits?

In order for the beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the
employer, it must be proven by substantial evidence that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-
related; and (2) occurred during the term of his contract. The death of the employee should
occur during the effectivity of the employment contract. The only exception to this rule is
when the death occurs after the employee’s medical repatriation. (Menez v. Status Maritime
Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 227523, August 29, 2018)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

13. Does a seafarer’s drunkenness while off duty warrant the penalty of dismissal?

No. Section 33(6) of the POEA-SEC provides that drunkenness must be committed while on
duty to merit dismissal from employment. Where the employee was off duty when he was
allegedly caught by drinking onboard, the penalty of dismissal from employment is
unwarranted. (Evic Human Resources Management, Inc., et al. v. Panahon, G.R. No. 206890,
July 31, 2017)

14. What is unfair labor practice?

Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. All the
prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers’ right to
self-organization. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair labor practice if it can
be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his employees to self-organize.
To prove the existence of unfair labor practice, substantial evidence has to be presented. (San
Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
200499, October 4, 2017)

15. What are the procedural requirements for a valid strike?

Under Article 278 of the Labor Code, there are different procedural requirements depending
on the ground of the strike:

i. A notice of strike (or lockout) filed with the DOLE AND cooling-off period (30 days in
case of bargaining deadlock, 15 days in case of unfair labor practice, and not
applicable in case of union-busting)
ii. Notice to conduct a strike vote AND with 24-hour notice to the NCMB before the
actual conduct of the strike vote
iii. Notice of results of the strike vote AND 7-day strike ban

16. Is participation in an unlawful strike a ground for termination of employment?

It depends. For union members, what is required is that they knowingly participated in the
commission of illegal acts during the strike for there to be sufficient ground for termination
of employment. For union officers, however, it suffices that they knowingly participated in an

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

illegal strike. However, as to the union members who did not participate in any prohibited
act during the strikes, their dismissal was invalid. Conformably with the long honored
principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor, employees dismissed for joining an illegal
strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are reinstated by
virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not commit any illegal act
during the strike. (Biggs, Inc. v. Mancacas, et al., G.R. No. 200487, March 6, 2019)

17. What is the limitation to the DOLE Secretary’s power to assume jurisdiction?

The powers given to the DOLE Secretary under Article 263(g) is an exercise of police power
with the aim of promoting public good. In fact, the scope of the powers is limited to an
industry indispensable to the national interest as determined by the DOLE Secretary.
Industries that are indispensable to the national interest are those essential industries such
as the generation or distribution of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and
export-oriented industries. And following Article 263(g), the effects of the assumption of
jurisdiction are the following: (a) the enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting,
and (b) an order for the workers to return to work immediately and for the employer to
readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout, or the return-to-work order. (San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union v. Coca-
Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200499, October 4, 2017)

18. What are just causes for termination?

The just causes for dismissal are listed under Article 297: Termination by Employer.—An
employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee
of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. (Pardillo
v. Bandojo, G.R. No. 224854, March 27, 2019)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

19. Does a single incident of negligence constitute just cause for termination?

No. The single unverified incident on respondent’s supposed negligence is surely insufficient
to warrant a finding of just cause for termination. Incompetence or inefficiency, as a ground
for dismissal, is understood to mean the failure to attain work goals or work quotas, either
by failing to complete the same within the allotted reasonable period, or by producing
unsatisfactory results. Neglect of duty, on the other hand, must be both gross and habitual.
Gross negligence implies a lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the total
absence of care in the performance of duties, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally,
with conscious indifference insofar as other persons may be affected. Habitual neglect
involves repeated failure to perform duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the
circumstances, and not mere failure to perform duties in a single or isolated instance. (Evic
Human Resources Management, Inc., et al. v. Panahon, G.R. No. 206890, July 31, 2017)

20. What is the difference between managerial employees and rank-and-file employees in
termination on the ground of loss of trust and confidence?

With respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid
dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere
uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as
regards a managerial employee, the mere existence of a basis for believing that such
employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Hence, in
the case of managerial employees, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, it being
sufficient that there is some basis for such loss of confidence, such as when the employer has
reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported
misconduct, and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust
and confidence demanded by his position. (Pardillo v. Bandojo, G.R. No. 224854, March 27,
2019)

21. What are the requisites for termination of employment on the ground of insubordination?

Insubordination or willful disobedience requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

(1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness
being characterized by a “wrongful and perverse attitude”; and (2) the order violated must
have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties
which he had been engaged to discharge. (Villanueva v. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc.,
et al., G.R. No. 227175, January 8, 2020)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

22. What are the requisites of abandonment?

No. Abandonment of employment is a deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to

resume his employment, without any intention of returning. While it is not expressly
enumerated under Article 297 of the Labor Code as a just cause for dismissal of an employee,
it has been recognized by jurisprudence as a form of, or akin to, neglect of duty. It requires
the concurrence of two elements: 1) failure to report for work or absence without valid or
justifiable reason; and 2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship as
manifested by some overt acts. (Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc. G.R. No. 240254, July 24,
2019)

23. Is there constructive dismissal where the employer and the employee cannot agree on a
separation package, in view of the implementation of a redundancy program, based on the
demands of the latter?

No. There is no constructive dismissal where the employee was informed of the planned
implementation of a redundancy program and he accepted the decision and negotiated for a
separation package that would be more than what the law required. When the parties failed
to agree on the separation package primarily because of the demands of the employee, the
employer had no choice but to implement the redundancy program. In any case, the
employee must prove the work environment became hostile thus making it unbearable for
him to remain an employee of the company. (Que v. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 202388,
April 10, 2019)

24. What are the reliefs available to an employee who was unjustly dismissed?

Article 294 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. When reinstatement is no longer viable such as when the parties have
strained relations, separation pay may be awarded as an alternative. (Daguinod v. Southgate
Foods, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

25. What is the reckoning period for award of backwages?

Backwages is computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering
separation pay, thus: when separation pay is ordered after the finality of the decision
ordering the reinstatement by reason of a supervening event that makes the award of
reinstatement no longer possible (as in the case), backwages is computed from the time of
dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay. When there is an order of
separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement or when the reinstatement aspect is waived or
subsequently ordered in light of a supervening event making the award of reinstatement no
longer possible), the employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the
decision ordering the separation pay. The finality of the decision cuts off the employment
relationship and represents the final settlement of the rights and obligations of the parties
against each other. (Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. v. Zaragoza, G.R. No. 229302,
June 20, 2018)

26. How are backwages and separation pay computed in case of death of the employee?

Generally, the computation of backwages and separation pay is computed until the finality of
the decision that awarded them. However, in case of death of the employee during the
pendency of the case, backwages and separation pay shall be computed only until his death.
(Fernandez v. Kalookan Slaughterhouse, Incorporated, G.R. No. 225075, June 19, 2019)

27. What is the doctrine of strained relations?

Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an
acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or
viable. On one hand, such payment 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. Strained
relations must be demonstrated as a fact. The doctrine of strained relations should not be
used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone. (Symex Security
Services, Inc., et al. v. Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 10
 2022 BAR REVIEW Last Minute
Handout No. 2
LABOR LAW

28. When may separation pay be awarded in lieu of reinstatement?

In certain cases, separation pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement such as:

a) when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the passage of a long period
of time or because of the realities of the situation;
b) reinstatement is inimical to the employer’s interest;
c) reinstatement is no longer feasible;
d) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved;
e) the employer is prejudiced by the workers’ continued employment;
f) facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or
g) strained relations between the employer and employee. (Biggs, Inc. v. Mancacas, et
al., G.R. No. 200487, March 6, 2019)

29. May damages be awarded in cases of where an employee is punished for filing a complaint
against the employer?

Yes. Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad
faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to
good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are
recoverable when the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
Damages may be awarded where the employer’s acts constitutive of dismissal are clearly
tainted with bad faith as they were done to punish the employee for filing a complaint against
it and for his refusal to withdraw the same. (Symex Security Services, Inc., et al. v. Rivera, et
al. G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017)

30. When does the prescription period for service incentive leave pay commence?

The three-year prescriptive period commences not at the end of the year when the employee
becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but only from the time
the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, i.e., from
the time he demands its commutation or upon termination of his employment, as the case
may be. Thus, the computation of employee’s service incentive leave pay should cover the
period from the beginning of her employment until its termination. (Villanueva v. Ganco
Resort and Recreation, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 227175, January 8, 2020)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 10