LABOR STANDARDS AND LABOR

RELATIONS

COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS
1. Question: What is Labor Law?

Answer: Labor law may be defined as an area of the law that deals with the rights
and duties of employers, employees, and labor organizations.

The Labor Code is the principal statute that reflects Philippine labor law. Other than
the Labor code are social and welfare legislations which are likewise considered part
of labor law. The major ones are the SSS and GSIS laws.

2. Question: What is the primordial reason for the passage of Labor Laws?

Answer: The primordial reason for the passage of the labor laws is social justice.

The Constitution says that “the state affirms labor as the primary social economic
force, and therefore, it shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare.”

3. Question: Give at least three (3) duties that the state is duty-bound to provide and
guarantee.

Answer: The state is duty-bound to provide and guarantee the following:

a. Full protection to labor;

b. Promotion of full employment;
c. Promotion of equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed;

4. Question: What is Social Justice?

Answer: Social justice means the "humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in the rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated."
5. Question: What does the promotion of social justice include?

Answer: The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

6. Question: What are the Constitutional Provisions related to labor?

Answer: The Constitutional provisions related to Labor are:

1. Article 13, the heart of the Constitution;

2. Articles 1-6 of the Labor Code

7. Question: Is Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution limited to local

 employment? Give examples of the rights of the workers.

Answer: No, 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 by 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.

8. Question: Vic is a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo and was an employee of Rope
Factory and a member of the Rope Workers' Union. Membership with the Union was
mandatory as provided for under a collective bargaining agreement.

Before its amendment, RA 875 allows the employer to require as a condition of

employment membership in a labor organization. However, the provision was later
amended, “but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which
prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization”. Victoriano
presented his resignation to the Union. In turn, the Union asked the Company to
dismiss Victoriano from the service because he was resigning from the Union as a
member.
In case of conflict, which enjoys primacy, religious freedom,
or contract rights?

Answer: In the hierarchy of rights, the right to religious freedom enjoys primacy
over other constitutional rights.

Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and

liberty, and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of values. Contractual rights,
therefore, must yield to freedom of religion.

9. QUESTION : Is involuntary resignation considered an illegal dismissal?

ANSWER: Yes, as held in cases, involuntary resignation due to circumstances in his

employment that are tantamount to constructive dismissal are considered illegal
dismissal. The employee must prove his allegations with particularity or when an
employer interposes the defense of resignation, on him necessarily rests the burden
to prove that the employee indeed voluntarily resigned.

10. QUESTION : Does the DOLE provide protection of women against discrimination?
 ANSWER: Yes, DOLE issued a Department Order regarding discrimination
involving women. An example would be DO 178-17 which control measures
regarding wearing of high heels and allowing women to sit and stand while
performing their task.

11. QUESTION : What is the hearing requirement under Perez Doctrine?

ANSWER: The hearing requirement under Perez Doctrine are the following:

a. First notice should inform the employee of the charges against him or her.

b. Second notice is the result of the investigation informing the employee

of the outcome.

In between the two notices is a hearing requirement, as a general rule

you need not have a hearing, the only requirement is the opportunity to be
heard. A filing of an answer would constitute compliance with the opportunity
to be heard unless employee requests a hearing.

12. QUESTION : What does Abbott Laboratories Doctrine provide with regard to
dismissal of labor cases?

ANSWER: Abbott Laboratories Doctrine provides that Statutory Due Process

should include substantive and procedural compliance. In this case, they failed to
comply with procedures agreed upon by the parties in the CBA. The procedure agreed
upon by the CBA should be complied with and this is Contractual Due Process.

13. QUESTION : Mr Masipag filed with the Wage Administration Service a claim for
overtime pay in the total sum of P100,00.00, against his employer Mr. Kuripot. Upon
the case being submitted to the WAS (Wage Administration Service) for
investigation and arbitration, to establish the claim of Mr. Masipag, had Mr.Kuripot
summoned to the witness stand and put under oath. But before any question was
asked to him, Mr. Kuripot invoked his constitutional right not to be compelled to be
a witness against himself, calling attention to the fact that the law on overtime pay
provides a penalty for its violation. The investigator ordered Mr. Kuripot's
withdrawal from the witness stand. Is Mr. Kuripot right in invoking the Right against
self-incrimination?

ANSWER: No, right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in labor.

Under a case decided by the supreme court, a person who has been
summoned to testify "cannot decline to appear, nor can he decline to be sworn as a
witness" and "no claim of privilege can be made until a question calling for a
criminating answer is asked; at that time, and, generally speaking, at that time only,
 the claim of privilege may properly be interposed." This has to be so, because before
a question is asked there would be no way of telling whether the information to be
elicited from the witness is self-incriminating or not.

14. QUESTION: Would the failure of the employer to inform the employee who is
undergoing administrative investigation of his right to counsel amount to deprivation
of due process?

ANSWER: No, the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel and the assistance
of one in investigations involving termination cases is neither indispensable nor
mandatory, except when the employee himself requests for one or that he manifests
that he wants a formal hearing on the charges against him. In petitioner's case, there
is no showing that he requested for a formal hearing to be conducted or that he be
assisted by counsel.

15. QUESTION : What is the importance of P.D. No. 442 with respect to labor laws?

ANSWER: P.D. No. 442, is a decree instituting a labor code thereby revising and
consolidating labor and social laws to afford protection to labor, promote
employment and human resources development and insure industrial peace based on
social justice. It simply provides that all existing laws in the country at the time of its
promulgation and enactment which pertains to labor be codified.(Principle of
Codification)

16. QUESTION : Give at least three (3) salient features of the Labor Code.
ANSWER:
1. It reorients labor laws towards development and employment goals:
(a.) By purging laws with built-in leverages for graft and corruption on
the part of labor law enforcers and fly-by-night labor leaders;
(b) By removing archaic and unworkable provisions of labor laws; and,
(c) By eliminating the permit system without impairing the substantive
tights and privileges and the umbrella of protection assured by law to
the workers.
2. It institutionalizes the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
established under P.D. No. 21 in place of the Court of Industrial Relations
(CIR).
3. It abolishes the workmen's compensation system Which has become
graft-ridden and unworkable and integrates workmen's compensation into
the social security to be this administered by the system to be administered
by the SSS for the private sector and by the SSS for the private sector and
by the GSIS for the government sector.
4. It establishes an Overseas Employment Develop rent Board (OEDB)
 and a National Seamen Board (NSB). (amended ref Art 20.).
5. It implements the provision of the 1973 Constitution, placing employees
of government -owned and controlled corporations under the Civil
Service and mandating the National Assembly to standardize their
salaries. The terms and conditions of employees of Government-owned
and controlled corporations are henceforth fixed by law rather than left to
collective bargaining.
6. It ends the wasteful energy-snapping anarchy and opportunism in the
Philippine labor movement by restructuring it by region and by industry.
The aim is to stop the interminable inter-union and intra-union rivalries
which accounted for more than fifty percent (50%) of all strikes,
demonstrations and lockouts under the Old Society. It is expected to
transform unions into positive and responsible agents of democracy,
social justice development.
7. It abolishes the wage-fixing function of the Wage Commission by
transforming it into a study and research body only with power to
recommend adjustments in the minimum wages to the Secretary of Labor
who may adopt such recommendations subject to the approval by the
President of the Philippines.

17. Question: What is the Equipoise Doctrine in Labor Law?

Answer: When the evidence of the employer and the employee are in equipoise,
doubts are resolved in favor of labor. This is in line with the policy of the State to
afford greater protection to labor. [Hubilla v. HSY Marketing (G.R. No. 207354.
January 10, 2018)]

18. Question: Is the relationship between capital and labor merely contractual?

Answer: No. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual.
They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the
common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor
unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. (Article 1700 and 1702 of the Civil
Code)

19. Question: What is the salient feature of the Labor Code which relates to the
employees of Government-owned and controlled corporations?

Answer: The Labor Code implements the provision of the 1973 Constitution, placing
employees of government-owned and controlled corporations under the Civil Service
 and mandating the National Assembly to standardize their salaries. The terms and
conditions of employees of Government-owned and controlled corporations are
henceforth fixed by law rather than left to collective bargaining.

20. Question: What is the aim of enacting the Labor Code with regards to strikes and
unions?

Answer: The enactment of the Labor Code ends the wasteful energy-snapping
anarchy and opportunism in the Philippine labor movement by restructuring it by
region and by industry. The aim is to stop the interminable inter-union and intra-
union rivalries which accounted for more than fifty percent (50%) of all strikes,
demonstrations and lockouts under the Old Society. It is expected to transform unions
into positive and responsible agents of democracy, social justice development.

21. Question: What are the differences between Article 1702 of the Civil Code and
Article 4 of the Labor Code?

Answer: Compared to the provision of Article 4 of the Labor Code, it that Article
1702 is broader in scope in that it pertains to "all labor legislation and all labor
contracts" and not merely to the implementation and interpretation of the provisions
of one single code, the Labor Code, as well as its implementing rules and regulations,
as enunciated in Article 4. Moreover, the Civil Code embodies a standard which
would the invocation of the labor-tilted rule of interpretation in that the same should
be done "in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.

Having made such observation, it may well be said that the provisions of the Civil
Code and the Labor Code do not really differ since the policy of the law is clear - any
doubt should always be interpreted or construed in favor of labor - which means, in
more specific terms, the safety and decent living for the laborer.

22. Question: When does the rule in Article 4 of the Labor Code not apply?

Answer: The rule in Article 4 does not apply where the pertinent provisions of the
Labor Code leave no room for doubt either in their interpretation or application.

23. Question: What is the nature of an employment contract?

Answer: The nature of the employment is determined by law, regardless of any

contract expressing otherwise. The supremacy of the law over the nomenclature of
the contract and the stipulation contained therein is to bring to life the policy
enshrined in the Constitution to “afford full protection to labor.” Thus, labor
 contracts are placed on a higher plane than ordinary contracts; these are imbued
with public interest and therefore subject to the police power of the State. (Leyte
Geothermal vs. PNOC-EDC)

24. Question: Is a Project Employment Contract valid?

Answer: Project employment contracts which fix the employment for a specific
project or undertaking remain valid under the law. In the case of Leyte Geothermal
vs. PNOC-EDC, the records revealed that the officers and the members of petitioner
union signed employment contracts indicating the specific project or phase of work
for which they were hired, with a fixed period of employment.

As clearly shown by petitioner union’s own admission, both parties had executed the
contracts freely and voluntarily without force, duress or acts tending to vitiate the
worker’s consent. Thus, there is no reason not to honor and give effect to the terms
and conditions stipulated therein.

25. Question: Enumerate the following workers that are excluded from the provision of
Article 82, Title 1, Book III.

Answer: The following workers are excluded from the provision of Article 82, Title
1, Book III:

a. Government employees;

b. Managerial employees;

c. Field personnel;

d. Members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support;

e. Domestic helpers;

f. Persons in the personal service of another, and

g. Workers who are paid by results, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in

appropriate regulations.

26. Question: What is operative fact doctrine?

Answer: Operative Fact Doctrine is prior to the declaration of nullity of a particular

rule promulgated to implement a law, it enjoys the presumption of validity and
therefore, compliance therewith is presumed to be valid and legal until the same is
declared null and void.
27. Question: When is publication mandatorily required?

Answer: In the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, the court said that all statutes, including
those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their
effectivity which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

28. Question: What is the exemption to the rule on Publication?

Answer: In the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, the court said that the exemption to the
rule on publication are the Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public, need Not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters
of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.

29. Question: What is the most important index in determining the existence of the
employer-employee relationship?

Answer: Control test, that constitutes the most important index of the existence of
the employer-employee relationship.

30. Question: When is the application of labor code of employees of GOCCs?

Answer: As far as employees of government-owned and/or controlled corporations

(GOCCs) are concerned, the applicability of the Labor Code depends on whether
such a corporation has been organized with original charter or under the Corporation
Code. If organized with original charter, the governing law is the Civic Service Law,
rules and regulations. If organized under Corporation Code, the applicable law is the
Labor code.

31. Question: Enumerate the workers who are excluded from the coverage of the
provisions of wages?

Answer: Under Article 98, Title II, Book III, the following are the workers who are
excluded from the coverage of the provisions of wages:

a. Farm tenancy or leasehold;

b. Domestic service; and

c. Persons working in their respective homes in needle work or in any cottage

industry duly registered in accordance in law.
32. Question: What is the Four-Fold Test?

Answer: Thea four-fold test are the following:

(a) Selection and engagement of the employee;

(b) Payment of wages;

(c) Power of dismissal; and

(d) Employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct with respect to the means
and methods by which the work is to be accomplished

33. Question: What is the two-tiered approach?

Answer : The two-tiered approach are as follows:

a. First Tier - Control Test (refer to the Four-Fold Test)

b. Second Tier - The underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.

34. Question: Differentiate “perfection of contract” from “commencement of

relationship”.

Answer : “ The perfection of the contract which coincided with the date of execution
, occurred when petitioner and respondent agreed on the object and the cause, as well
as the rest of the terms and conditions set forth therein. The commencement of the
employer-employee relationship on the other hand, would have taken place had the
petitioner been actually deployed from the point of hire. Thus, even before the start
of any employer-employee relationship, contemporaneous with the perfection of the
employment contract was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach of
which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party.

The perfection of an employment contract is different from the commencement of

the employer-employee relationship. The distinction is underscored in instances
where an employment contract has already been signed and executed by the parties
but due to certain supervening events. The employer-employee relationship never
ripens into fruition.

35. Question: What lines should be drawn in determining employer- employee

relationship?

Answer : The line should be drawn between:

a. Rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of mutually

desired results without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it.
These aim only to promote the result. In such case, NO EE-ER relationship exists.
 b. Rules that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to
the use of such means. These address both the result and the means used to
achieve it and hence, EE-ER relationship exists.

36. Question: What is the most important element in determining the existence of an
employer- employee relationship? Explain.

Answer : It is the “control test,” that constitutes the most important index of the
existence of the employer-employee relationship.

The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not
only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish it. [Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757, (2011)].

The control test calls merely for the “existence” of the right to control and not the
“actual exercise” of the right. [Zanotte Shoes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100665, (1995)].

37. Question: What is the Tongko doctrine?

Answer : Tongko Doctrine states that employment relationships must be tested not
only based on the Labor Code but also on the Insurance Code and Civil Code.

A glaring evidentiary gap for Tongko in this case is the lack of evidence on record
showing that Manulife ever exercised means-and-manner control, even to a limited
extent, over Tongko during his ascent in Manulife’s sales ladder.

38. Question: What particular form of evidence is required to prove employment-

employee relationship?

Answer : No particular form of evidence required but based on jurisprudence:

➢ Written copy of the employment contract or appointment document

➢ Testimonial evidence to prove employment relationship
➢ Effect of admission by employer of existence of employment relationship
➢ Identification card
➢ Vouchers
➢ Daily time records
➢ Payroll
➢ Payslips
➢ Reporting of employee to SSS, PhilHealth, etc.
➢ Disciplinary memo.
39. Question: Is the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter limited to the claims arising from
employer- employee relationship?

Answer : No. In the case of CF Sharp vs. Santiago, it was ruled that despite the
absence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent the
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint. This is so because the
jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is not limited to claims arising from employer-
employee relationships.

40. Question: What quantum of evidence is needed to prove employment relationship ?

Answer : It has long been established that in administrative and quasi-judicial

proceedings, substantial evidence is sufficient as basis for judgment on the existence
of employer-employee relationship.

41. Question: When were the Rules to Implement the Labor Code promulgated?

Answer: The Rules to Implement the Labor Code were promulgated on January 19,
1975.

42. Question: Do administrative rules, regulations, and policies have the force and
effect of law?

Answer: Yes. Administrative bodies like the DOLE are granted under the law the
power and authority to issue administrative rules, regulations and policies to
implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce. It is an
elementary rule in administrative law that such administrative rules, regulations and
policies have the force and effect of law and are entitled to great respect.

43. Question: What kind of powers are granted to administrative bodies?

Answer: Quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers are granted to administrative

bodies. Such grant of power is not unconstitutional, unreasonable, and oppressive as
it has been necessitated by "the growing complexity of the modern society." More
and more administrative bodies are necessary to help in the regulation of society's
ramified activities. Specialized in the particular field assigned to them, they can deal
with the problems falling within their sphere with more expertise and dispatch than
can be expected from the legislature or the courts of justice.

44. Question: Is the grant of authority to the DOLE and other government agencies
charged with the administration and enforcement of the Labor Code or any of its parts
and to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations unlimited?
 Answer: No, the grant of authority to the DOLE and other government agencies
charged with the administration and enforcement of the Labor Code or any of its
parts, to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations, is not
unlimited- Such rule-making power should not be in character as would change
completely the context and parameter of the law being implemented. The DOLE
Secretary has no legal power to amend or alter in any material sense whatever the
Labor Code itself unequivocally specifies or fixes. Such power should be confined
to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has
been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the
statute cannot be sanctioned.

45. Question: Are monthly-paid employees excluded from the benefits of holiday pay?

Answer: No. In Insular Bank, Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules
and Policy Instructions No.9, issued by the DOLE Secretary regarding holiday pay,
were declared null and void by the Supreme Court because, in the guise of clarifying
the provisions on holiday pay, the same, in effect amended them by amplifying the
scope of their exclusion. The Labor Code is clear that monthly-paid employees 4re
not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. But said implementing rules excluded
monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by inserting under Rule IV, Book III
thereof, Section 2 which provides that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be
paid for all days in the month, whether worked or not. In Policy Instruction No. 9, the
DOIE Secretary went as far as to categorically declare that the holiday pay benefit is
intended primarily for daily-paid employees when the law clearly states that every
worker should be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the
mandatory directive of Article 4 which states that doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the Code, including its implementing rules, should be resolved in
favor of labor.

46. Question: How did the Court rule in the Chartered Bank case?

Answer: In Chartered Bank which involves the same issue of entitlement of monthly-
paid employees to the benefits of holiday pay under the exclusionary clause provided
in Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions
No. 9, the Supreme Court declared that an administrative interpretation which
diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or withholds is
obviously ultra vires.

47. Question: Is paragraph [k], Section 1 of the Rules Implementing P.D. No. 1123
valid?

Answer: No. In Kapisanang Manggagawa, the Supreme Court, invoking its ruling in
Philippine Apparel, reiterated that paragraph [k], Section 1 of the Rules
 Implementing
P.D. No. 1123, is null and void as it contravenes the statutory authority conferred to
the Secretary of Labor under said law. The act of the labor Secretary in exempting
not only distressed employers but also “those who have granted in addition to the
allowance under
P.D. No. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January l, 1977,
provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference"
contravenes the statutory authority granted to him and therefore void.

48. Question: Is Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988 valid?

Answer: Yes. In Philippine Association, where the validity of Department Order No.
1, Series of 1988, issued by the DOLE Secretary was challenged, the Supreme Court
ruled that the same does not constitute an invalid exercise of legislative power.
Although the power to legislate is vested in the legislature, however, such power may
be validly delegated. It must be noted that Article 5 of the Labor Code grants the
DOLE rule-making powers.

49. Question: Why is direct hiring prohibited?

Answer: The Labor Code of the Philippine prohibited Direct hiring to ensure Filipino
workers secure for themselves fair and legal employment terms and conditions, s
prohibits the direct hiring of Filipinos for overseas work. Instead, foreign employers
are required by law to recruit Filipino employees through POEA-accredited
recruitment agencies.

In addition, direct hiring is prohibited because they do not undergo the process of the
POEA and they could no longer assure the security and protection of OFWs.

50. Question: When is Illegal recruitment considered economic sabotage?

Answer: Illegal recruitment is considered economic sabotage when the commission

thereof is attended by the qualifying circumstances such as if carried out by a group
of 3 or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another ( By a syndicate)
or if committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a group (in large scale).

51. Question: What are the four requisites before deployment of OFWs?

Answer: SEC. 4. Deployment of Migrant Workers - The State shall deploy overseas
Filipino workers only in countries where the rights of Filipino migrant workers are
protected. The government recognizes any of the following as guarantee on the part
of the receiving country for the protection and the rights of overseas Filipino workers:
 (a) It has existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of migrant workers;
(b) It is a signatory to multilateral conventions, declaration or resolutions relating
to the protection of migrant workers;
(c) It has concluded a bilateral agreement or arrangement with the government
protecting the rights of overseas Filipino workers; and
(d) It is taking positive, concrete measures to protect the rights of migrant workers.

52. Question: Explain the concept of Processual Presumption.

Answer: Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and
proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or
domestic or internal law.

53. Question: What is the rule if the dismissal was for just cause but procedural due
process was not observed?

Answer: To dismiss an employee, the law required not only the existence of a just
and valid cause but also enjoins the employer to give the employee the right to be
heard and to defend himself. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal
of an employee to resume his employment. For a valid finding or abandonment, two
factors are considered: failure to report for work without a valid reason; and, a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship with the second as the more
determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced
that the employees has no more intention to work.

Where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the
due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be
penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil
Doctrine of the Belated Due process Rule.

54. Question: What is a constructive dismissal case in the context of Philippine law?

Answer: Constructive dismissal, under Philippine labor law, refers to a situation

where an employee resigns due to the unbearable working conditions set by the
employer, making it impossible for the employee to continue with the employment.
In essence, while there's no overt dismissal, the acts or omissions of the employer
effectively make the employee's working conditions intolerable.

55. Question: What would be the sanction If the dismissal is based on a just cause
under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement?

Answer: If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer
failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him
 should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act
imputable to the employee. If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under
Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the
sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by the
employer's exercise of his management prerogative.

56. Question: What is the twin notice requirement in labor law?

Answer: As a standard, the "Twin Notice Rule" is observed in the administrative

process. This mandates the provision of two written notices to the employee: first,
the notice which describes the alleged violation (the NTE), and second, the notice of
decision on the administrative case.

57. Question: Since a valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and adherence to the
valid procedure of dismissal, the employer is required to give the charged employee
at least two written notices before termination. What should the two written notices
contain? Aside from the notice requirement, what should the employer accord/give
the employee?

Answer:
In the case of Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabiles, G.R. No.
170139, Aug. 05, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for an employer to
validly dismiss an employee, there must be a valid cause and adherence to the valid
procedure of dismissal. The employer is required to give the charged employee at
least two written notices before termination. One of the written notices must inform
the employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal. The other
notice must inform the employee of the employer’s decision. Aside from the notice
requirement, the employee must also be given “an opportunity to be heard”.

58. Question: In case an employer illegally dismisses an employee, who shall shoulder
the repatriation cost and the transport of his personal belongings? But in cases of a
valid/legal dismissal by the employer, who shall shoulder the repatriation cost and
the transport of his personal belongings?

Answer:
According to Republic Act No. 8042, Section 15, the repatriation of the worker and
the transport of his personal belongings shall be the primary responsibility of the
agency which recruited or deployed the worker overseas. All costs attendant to
repatriation shall be borne by or charged to the agency concerned and/or its principal.
Likewise, the repatriation of remains and transport of the personal belongings of a
deceased worker and all costs attendant thereto shall be borne by the principal and/or
the local agency. However, in cases where the termination of employment is due
solely to the fault of the worker, the principal/employer or agency shall not in any
 manner be responsible for the repatriation of the former and/or his belongings.

59. Question: What is direct hiring? Why is direct hiring prohibited by law?

Answer: Direct hiring refers to the process of directly hiring workers by employers
for overseas employment as authorized by the DOLE Secretary and processed by the
POEA, including:

1. 1. Those hired by international organizations;

2. 2. Those hired by members of the diplomatic corps;
3. 3. Name hires or workers who are able to secure overseas employment
opportunity with an employer without the assistance or participation of any
agency.

Because OFWs cannot avail of any protection in case of any violation or wrong
against them if they are undocumented. The prohibition of direct hiring is to ensure
that the employment is fully regulated by the government through its agencies, such
as the POEA. In this ways, adverse exploitation of the migrant workers by foreign
employers is minimized, if not eradicated.

60. Question: It is the general rule under Article 18 that no employer shall directly hire
an OFW for overseas employment. What are the exemptions to direct hiring?

Answer: The following are allowed to directly hire OFWs for overseas employment:

• Members of the Diplomatic Corp;

• International Organizations;
• Heads of state and government officials with the rank of at least deputy
minister; or Other employees as may be allowed by the DOLE.

61. Question: Who are considered documented OFWs?

Answer: According to the 2010 Omnibus Rules, these are the following:

1. Those who possess valid passports and appropriate visas or permits to stay
and work in the receiving country; and
2. Those whose contracts of employment have been processed by the POEA, or
subsequently verified and registered on-site by the POLO, if required by law
or regulation.

62. Question: As opposed to documented OFWs, who are considered undocumented

OFWs? What is the disadvantage if an OFW is undocumented while working at a
foreign country?

Answer: According to the 2010 Omnibus Rules, these are the following:
 3. Those who acquire their passports through fraud or misrepresentation;
4. Those who possess expired visas or permits to stay;
5. Those who have no travel document whatsoever;
6. Those who have valid but inappropriate visas; or
7. Those whose employment contracts were not processed by the POEA or
subsequently verified and registered on-site by the POLO, if required by law
or regulation.

The disadvantage that an undocumented OFW may risk facing in a foreign country is
that he/she can be deported anytime.

63. Question: Who are considered as overseas Filipinos in distress?

Answer: According to the 2010 Omnibus Rules, these are overseas Filipinos who
have valid medical, psychological or legal assistance problems requiring treatment,
hospitalization, counseling, legal representation as specified in Sections 24 and 26 of
R.A. No. 8042 or any other kind of intervention with the authorities in the country
where they are found.

64. Question: When it comes to the supervisory or visitorial power of the DOLE, an
employee/worker must go to the DOLE regardless of the violation. What are the
requisites before a valid exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers under
Article 128? What is the reason behind the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
DOLE?

Answer: For the valid exercise of the visitorial power and enforcement powers under
Article 128 of the Labor Code , the following requisites should concur:

8. The employer-employee relationship should still exist;

9. The findings in question were made in the course of inspection by the labor
Inspector; and
10. The employee should not have initiated any claim or complaint with the
DOLE Regional Director under Article 129 (Small money claims not
exceeding P5000.00), or the Labor Arbiter under Article 224 [217] (money
claims not exceeding P5000.00).

This is for the DOLE Regional Director, as the authorized representative of the DOLE
Secretary, to determine compliance with the labor laws, rules and regulations. Further, to
question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary
to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of the Labor Code and of any
labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

65. Question: What is an alien employment permit, and who issues it?
 Answer: An alien employment permit is a document issued by the DOLE Secretary
through the DOLE-Regional Director who has jurisdiction over the intended place of
work of the foreign national.

66. Question: What privileges are granted to qualified foreigners who are granted the
SVEG?

Answer: Qualified foreigners granted the SVEG are considered special non-
immigrants with multiple entry privileges and conditional extended stay, without the
need for prior departure from the Philippines.

67. Question: In terms of employment, what role should the foreign investor play to
qualify for the SVEG?

Answer: To qualify for the SVEG, the foreign investor should actually, directly, or
exclusively engage in a viable and sustainable commercial investment/enterprise in
the Philippines and have the authority to hire, promote, and dismiss employees.

68. Question: How does the Special Visa for Employment Generation (SVEG) support
economic development in the Philippines?

Answer: The SVEG supports economic development by attracting foreign investors

and entrepreneurs who, in turn, create viable and sustainable businesses that provide
employment, ultimately contributing to the overall economic growth and well-being
of the country.

Rationale: There are foreigners who want to maintain a lawful presence in the
Philippines by actually, directly or exclusively engaging in lawful, viable, and
sustainable trade, business, industry, or activity offering local employment. A survey
of NSO shows millions of unemployed Filipinos. SVEG is for the creation of job
opportunities for the Filipino.

69. Question: What is the Doctrine of Processual Presumption?

Answer: The Doctrine of Processual Presumption is an International Law doctrine

which dictates that where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved,
the presumption is that such foreign law is the same as Philippine law. Thus, under this
situation, Philippine labor laws should apply in determining the issues presented in a
case." (EDI-Starbuilders Ihlemational, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 14558, Oct 26, 2007.)

70. Question: In EDI-Staffbuilders,(Supra) the employment contract signed by the

private respondent OFW specifically states that the Saudi Labor Laws will govern
matters not provided for in the contract (eg., specific causes for termination,
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci
 intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi should govern all matters relating to the
termination of the employment of the OFW. Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not
prove the pertinent Saudi Labor Laws on the matter. What is the International Law
doctrine that comes into play when certain laws are not proven in a case?

Answer: The presumed-identity approach or processual presumption. It generally means

that if a foreign law is not pleaded or not proved even if pleaded, the presumption is that
it is the same as Philippine law. This doctrine was applied in a case where the pertinent
Saudi laws were not proven by the petitioner. As a result, the International Law doctrine
of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption came into play. The court
presumed that the foreign law was the same as Philippine law.

71. Question: How does the concept of due process in termination proceedings apply to
seamen on board a foreign vessel?

Answer: In the case of Talidano, (Talidano v. Falcon Maritime & Alied Services,
Inc., GR No. 172031, July 14, 2008.) the minimum requirement of due process in
termination proceedings must be complied with even with respect to seamen on board
a foreign vessel. Except for the self-serving allegation that respondent was required to
explain why he should not be relieved for being incompetent, petitioners offered no
proof to show that they furnished respondent a written notice of the charges against
him, or that there was a formal investigation of the charges, or that respondent was
furnished a written notice of the penalty imposed upon him.

72. Question: May OFWs be terminated without due process?

Answer: No. OFWs are entitled to security of tenure as guaranteed under the
Constitution and the laws of the Philippines. ( Gopio v. Bautista, GR No. 205953, June
06, 2018.) Thus, OFWs may only be terminated for a just or authorized cause
(substantive due process) and after compliance with procedural due process
requirements. (Sameer Overseas Placement)

73. Question: Is a stipulation in the employment contract of pre-termination without

need for due process considered legal?

Answer: No, a stipulation in the employment contract of pre-termination without need

for due process considered is considered illegal. In the case of Gopio v. Bautista (G.R.
No 205963, June 06, 2018), respondent Bautista's employment was terminated on the
basis of Article 4.3 of the employment contract by giving him one-month salary in lieu
of one month's written notice. Article 4.3 deprives the employee of his right to due
process of law as it gives the employer the option to do away with the notice requirement
provided that it grants one month salary to the employee in lieu thereof.

The validity of Article 4.3 of the employment contract cannot be sustained as it

contravenes the constitutionally-protected right of every worker to security of tenure.
74. Question: May an OFW be terminated on the basis of a substituted employment
contract?

Answer: No, an OFW may not be terminated on the basis of a substituted employment
contract. In the case of Dagasdas v. Grand Placement and General Services (GR No.
205727, Jan. 18, 2017), petitioner OFW's termination on the basis of a void substituted
employment contract which was subsequently executed upon his arrival in Saudi Arabia,
in replacement of the POEA-approved employment contract which he earlier executed in
the Philippines, was declared illegal.

75. Question: What did the Supreme Court say in the case of Gopio v. Bautista?

Answer: The Court declared in this case that respondent Bautista's incompetence as the
alleged just cause for his dismissal was not proven by substantial evidence because the
evaluation report of his superior was made only on August 22, 2009, and the declaration
of Paul Thompson, Supervising Engineer of the Project to which Bautista was assigned,
was executed only on October 1, 2009, which dates are beyond the date of termination
of Bautista's employment on July 10, 2009.

76. Question: What are the rules on termination of employment of seafarers as

enunciated in Section 18 of the 2012 POEA-SEC?

Answer: The rules on termination of employment of seafarers as enunciated in

Section 18 of the 2012 POEA-SEC are as follows:

A. The employment of the seafarer shall cease when the seafarer completes
his period of contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off from the ship and
arrives at the point of hire;

B. The employment of the seafarer is also terminated effective upon arrival at

the point of hire for any of the following reasons:
1. When the seafarer signs-off and is disembarked for medical reasons;
2. When the seafarer signs-off due to shipwreck, ship’s sale, lay-up of
ship, discontinuance of voyage or change of ship principal;
3. When the seafarer, in writing, voluntarily resigns and signs off prior to
expiration of contract pursuant; or
4. When the seafarer is discharged for just cause.
5.

77. Question: What are the disciplinary procedural rules against an erring seafarer with
which the Master shall comply to?

Answer: The Master shall comply with the following disciplinary procedures against
an erring seafarer:
 The Master shall furnish the seafarer with a written notice containing following:
1. Grounds for the charges as listed in Section 33 of the Contract or
analogous act constating the same.
2. Date, time and place for a formal investigation of the charges against the
seafarer concerned.

78. Question: What is the ‘two-notice’ rule as provided for under Section 17 of the 2010
POEA-SEC?

Answer: The ‘two-notice rule’ states that an erring seaman is given a written notice
of the charge against him and is afforded an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
Should sanctions be imposed, then a written notice of penalty and the reasons for it
shall be furnished to the erring seafarer.

It is only in the exceptional case of clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew
or vessel that the required notices are dispensed with, but just the same, a complete
report should be sent to the manning agency, supported by substantial evidence of the
findings.

79. Question: With regard to dismissal of OFWs, what happens when the ‘two-notice’
rule is not complied with?

Answer: The dismissal is considered illegal. In holding that respondent’s dismissal

was illegal in the case of Evic Human Resource Management Inc. v. Panahon, the
Court emphasized that the records are bereft of any evidence showing that respondent
was given a written notice of the charges against him, or that he was given an
opportunity to explain or to defend himself.

80. Question: To whom does the burden of proof rest in termination cases involving
OFWs?

Answer: Burden of proof rests with the employer. In termination cases, where the
employer-employee relationship has been established, the onus probandi (burden of
proof) that the dismissal of an employee is for a just cause, lies with the employer.

Also, in monetary claims cases, the rule was reiterated in the case of G & M [Phils.], Inc.
v. Cruz (G.R. No. 140495, April, 2005) that the burden of proving payment of monetary
claims rests on herein petitioner employer, it being the employment agency or recruitment
entity and agent of the foreign principal which recruited respondent.

81. Question : What is the quantum of evidence needed in OFW cases?

Answer: Substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is required before quasi-judicial

bodies like the POEA and NLRC over OFW cases.
82. Question: Why does the law provide that the Burden of proof devolves on both the
foreign-based employer and the local agent in OFW cases?

Answer: The nature of the obligation is joint and solidary between the foreign-based
employer and the local recruitment agency, therefore, the nature of the liability or the
burden of proof to show that the dismissal of the OFW is legal and valid devolves upon
the both of them.

83. Question: What is the evidentiary value of the Ship’s or Captain’s logbook?

Answer: The ship’s logbook is the official record of a ship’s voyage which the captain
is obligated by law to keep. The contents of the logbook is the best evidence and the
official repository of the day-to-day transactions and occurrences on board the vessel.

84. Question: What are the basis of money claims of OFWs over which Labor Arbiters
have jurisdiction?

Answer:
(a) From employer-employee relationship; (b) By virtue of any law; (c) By reason of
contract

The monetary claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages will have
to be litigated in the same proceeding initiated before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter may exercise jurisdiction over an OFW case even absent the
employment relationship, such as when the cause of action arose from violation of law
or breach of contract.

85. Question: What is the legal basis of claims of OFWs that are monetary in nature?

Answer:
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995,” which was amended on March 8, 2010 by Section 7 of R.A. No.
10022.), which is the appropriate legal basis for monetary claims of OFWs.

86. Question: This is a landmark case where exemption to the general rule was discussed
providing that the existence of employer-employee relationship between parties-
litigants is not a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction over labor disputes by
the Labor Arbiters, the NLRC and the other labor agencies

Answer:
In the case of Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc., G.R. No. 162419, July
10, 2007, Labor Arbiters may exercise jurisdiction over an OFW case even absent the
employment relationship, such as when the cause of action arose from violation of law
 or breach of contract.

87. Question: What are the events where monetary claims of OFWs may be brought
about?

Answer:
(a) Illegal dismissal; (b) Disability; (c) Death; or (d) Other benefits.

Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 (Otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995,” which was amended on March 8, 2010 by Section 7 of R.A.
No. 10022.), provides the appropriate legal basis for such claims.

88. Question: Article 294 of the Labor Code provides: "x x x An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his 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.", why is this provision not applicable to OFWs?

Answer: The provision of Article 294 [279] - reinstatement or its alternative remedy of
separation pay in lieu thereof, or full backwages, are not available to OFWs because of
the fact that the same are available only to regular employees, as this term is understood
within the context of the Labor Code.

89. Question: In dismissing OFWs, should the employer comply with the
requirements of Article 299 [284] of the Labor Code?

Answer: No, they should not. In Millares v. NLRC, it was held that OFWs can never
acquire regularity of employment, their employment being always fixed term in
nature. . In the 1995 case of Coyoca v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113658, 31 March 31, 1995,
243 SCRA 190, 194, it was declared that Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules
and Regulations of the POEA.

90. Question: An OFW was terminated without just, valid, or authorized cause. The
OFW is now asking for a full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
twelve percent (12%) per annum plus his salaries for the unexpired seven months
portion of his employment contract. The employer however is only willing to give
his salaries for three (3) months of the unexpired term. Which is correct?

Answer: The OFW is correct. The phrase -"or for three months for even, year of the
unexpired term. whichever is less" has been declared unconstitutional in Antonio M
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services. Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd., G.R.
 No 167614, March 24. 2009, for being discriminatory, among other significant
reasons cited therein

91. Question: The contracts of the Filipino seafarers aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge
state that the term of their contract is indefinite. Should the POEA allow such a
contract?

Answer: No, it should not. The Standard Employment Contract (SEC) governing the
Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the POEA
(particularity in its Part 1, Section C), specifically provides that the contract of
seamen shall be for a fixed period.

92. Question: Kirk, a Filipino seafarer, has been contracting with the commercial vessel
Enterprise for 10 years. On the 11th year after its last voyage, the company decided
not to contract with Kirk for the next voyage. Kirk then filed an illegal dismissal case
with the NLRC. He claims that he is a regular employee of the company. Is Kirk
correct?

Answer: No. He is not correct. A seafarer is not a regular employee as defined in

Article 280 of the Labor Code. Seafarers are contractual employees whose rights and
obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for
Filipino Seamen, the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and,
more importantly, by Republic Act No. 8042. (Skippers United Pacific vs. NLRC;
G.R. No. 148893, July 12, 2006)

93. Question: Which clause in R.A. 8042 was declared by the supreme court en banc
unconstitutional and was later replicated verbatim by RA 10022 a year later after the
declaration?

Answer: "or for three months for even, year of the unexpired term. whichever is less"

94. Question: Abdul is a Filipino citizen of Arabian decent. In August 2001, he signed
a contract to work in New York City as a waiter. After the twin tower bombings, his
employer dismissed him solely based on the way he looks. Abdul consults his lawyer
on the amount of relief he can receive based in this illegal dismissal. His lawyer
answers that it depends on the duration in his contract. Is the lawyer correct?

Answer: Yes, the lawyer is correct. Prior to Serrano, as a form of relief the amount
of monetary award to which an illegally dismissed OFW is entitled under Section 10
of R.A. No. 8042, was made dependent on the duration of his contract of
employment. (Skippers Pacific, Inc. v. Mira, GR No. 144314, Nov. 21, 2002, 392
SCRA 371) Thus, for purposes of simplification:

Two (2) clauses as points of reckoning:

 first is the cumulative salary for the unexpired portion of his employment; and

second is the grant of three (3) months' salary for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever is lesser.

(Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc v. Villanos, GR No. 151303. April 15,
2005; Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. v NLRC, G.R. No. 127195, Aug. 25, 1999, 313
SCRA 88.)

95. Question: Pepito is an OFW who was illegally dismissed in 2018. Kekito, his
employer, claims that he only need to pay him three months’ worth of his wages.
Kekito claims that the Serano doctrine is no longer applicable since the passage of
RA 10022 reinstated the clause “"or for three months for even, year of the unexpired
term. whichever is less". Is Kekito correct?

Answer: No, Kekito is not correct. In 2014, the Supreme Court en banc held in Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabiles, (G.R No 170139, Aug. 05, 2014)
that the unconstitutionality of the said reinstated clause remains. Thus, limiting wages
that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed OFW to three (3) months is both a
violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.(Section
1, Article III of the Constitution).

96. Question: Why did the Supreme court not immediately declare the re-enacted clause
in RA 10022 unconstitutional?

Answer: The Supreme court stated, “Whether or not RA. 1002. 2 is constitutional is not
for us to rule upon in the present case as this is an issue that is not squarely before us. In
other words, this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court; in the meanwhile, we
make no pronouncement on it."

That proper day in court only arrived in 2014 in the case of Sameer Overseas Placement
Agency, Inc. v. Joy C. Cabiles, (G.R No 170139, Aug. 05, 2014).

97. Question: What is the nature of monetary award to an illegally dismissed OFW?

Answer: The monetary award consisting of the illegally dismissed OFW's salaries for
the unexpired portion of his employment contract is not in the nature of backwages or
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but a form of indemnity which the law grants
to him by reason of the illegality of his dismissal. (Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v
NLRC, G R No 148893, July 12, 2006.)

98. Question: What are the other monetary awards consequent to illegal dismissal?
 Answer:
➢ Reimbursement of placement fee.
➢ Refund of unauthorized deductions from salary.
➢ Cost of repatriation and transport of personal belongings.

***It bears noting that said 12% interest is not affected by the latest Circular No. 799,
Series of 2013,2 issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-
MB) (Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc. and Eduardo B. Olaguer v. Bangko Sentral
Monetary Board, G.R. No. 192986, Jan. 15, 2013, 688 SCRA 530, 547), which
reduced the legal interest to 6% effective July 1, 2013. The reason is that such reduced
6% is applicable only in the absence of a stipulation or a law that sets a different rate.
Since it is the law itself, Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, which sets the rate
at 12%, the same shall be the rate that should apply and not the BSP-Monetary Board-
prescribed rate of 6% (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Joy Cabiles, G.R
No. 170139, Aug. 05, 2014).

99. Question: Define execution of waiver or quitclaim.

Answer: The execution of a waiver or quitclaim by an OFW in favor of his employer

does not preclude him from subsequently filing a suit demanding benefits to which he
is entitled and from filing an illegal dismissal case (Dagasdas v. Grand Placement and
General Services, G.R. No. 205727, Jan. 18, 2017). This is because waiver or
quitclaim is looked upon with disfavor, and is frowned upon for being contrary to
public policy. Unless it can be established that the person executing the waiver
voluntarily did so, with full understanding of its contents, and with reasonable and
credible consideration, the same is not a valid and binding undertaking.

100. Question: What are the legal bases of disability benefits claims?

Answer: It is settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability

benefits is governed by the following:

1) Law Articles 197 [191] to 199 [193], Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of the Labor Code;
2) Parties’ contracts; and
3) Medical findings -company-designated physician, the seafarer’s personal physician and
those of the mutually-agreed third physician

101. Question: Differentiate Permanent Disability from Total Disability and

Permanent Total disability.
 Answer: Permanent disability transpires when the inability to work continues
beyond 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his
body. On the other hand, total disability means the incapacity of an employee to earn
wages in the same or similar kind of work that he was trained for, or is accustomed
to perform, or in any kind of work that a person of his mentality and attainments can
do. It does not mean absolute helplessness. Accordingly, permanent total disability
(PTD) means the inability to do substantially all material acts necessary to the
prosecution of a gainful occupation without serious discomfort or pain and without
material injury or danger to life.

102. Question: What is being compensated in disability compensation?

Answer: In disability compensation, it is not the injury per se which is compensated

but the incapacity to work.

103. Question: Why does the Court apply the 240-day rule under Section 2, Rule
X of the IRR to claims for disability compensation by seafarers?

Answers: Court has applied the 240-day rule under Section 2, Rule X of the IRR to
claims for disability compensation by seafarers, not because it considered seafarers
as employees as defined under the SSS or the GSIS, but because of the express
directive by the New Civil Code. This issue is actually not novel as it has already
been previously addressed in several cases. As early as 2006 in the case of Remigio,
the Court affirmed the application of the Labor Code concept of permanent total
disability to the case of seafarers. The Court stated therein that a contract of labor,
such as a seafarer’s contract, so impressed with public interest that Article 1700 of
the New Civil Code expressly subjects it to ‘the special laws on labor unions,
collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions,
hours of labor and similar subjects. Considering, therefore, that the concept of total
permanent disability under Article 198 (c)(I) [formerly Article 192 (c)(l)] of the
Labor Code is applicable to seafarers, it only follows that Section 2, Rule X of the
IRR - the rule implementing the aforesaid Labor Code provision - is also applicable
to seafarers.

104. Question: When has the SSS law been amended?

Answer: The SSS Law has been amended in 2019 with the signing into law on
February 07, 2019 of R.A. No. 11199, otherwise known as the "Social Security Act of
2018. Under this new law, the SSS coverage of OFWs is now compulsory.

105. Question: What are the benefits for permanent disability?

 Answer: According to Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, a disability is
considered total and permanent if the seafarer is unable to perform any gainful
occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days. In such cases, the seafarer or
their heirs are entitled to a disability benefit equivalent to the seafarer’s basic wage
multiplied by the appropriate disability rating as determined by the company-
designated physician.

106. Question: Is Disability somehow similar to Illness or Sickness?

Answer: No. Disability, not similar to illness or sickness. Disability” is generally

defined as the "loss or impairment of a physical or mental function resulting from
injury or sickness." Clearly, "disability" is not synonymous with "sickness" or
"illness."

107. Question: What are the requisites for the compensability of injury or illness?

Answer: In order for disability to be compensable under Section 20 (A) of the 2010
POEA-SEC, two elements must concur:

a. The injury or illness must be work-related; and

b. The work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the
seafarer’s employment contract.

108. Question: What are the requisites in order for an occupational disease to be
considered compensable?

Answers: For occupational disease and resulting disability or death to be

compensable. Section 32-A of the 2010 POEA-SEC requires that all of the following
conditions, as supported by substantial evidence, must be established:
a. The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described in the POEA-SEC;
b. The disease was contracted as a result of tire seafarer’s exposure to the described
risk;
c. The disease was contacted within a period of exposure and under such other factors
necessary to contract it; and d. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the
seafarer.

109. Question: What are the requirements for seafarer to prove their
entitlement to disability benefits?

Answer: According to the Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 238652, the
seafarer must prove the following to claim compensation and benefits under Section 20-
B of the law;
 a. He suffered an illness.
b. He suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract.
c. He complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B.
d. His illness is one of the enumerated occupational diseases or that his illness or
injury is otherwise work-related.
e. He complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A for an
occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be
compensable.

110. Question: What is the relationship between Section 20 (A) and Section 32 (A)
of POEA-SEC?

Answer: Section 20(A) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration

Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) provides that the employer shall be
liable for the full cost of medical, serious dental, surgical, and hospital treatment as
well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated.
Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC lists 21 illnesses that are considered work-related
provided the conditions therein are met. The Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R.
No. 238652 held that the seafarer must prove the following to claim compensation and
benefits under Section 20-B of the law;

1. He suffered an illness.

2. He suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract.

3. He complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B.

4. His illness is one of the enumerated occupational diseases or that his illness
or injury is otherwise work-related.

5. He complied with the four conditions enumerated under Section 32-A for an
occupational disease or a disputably-presumed work-related disease to be
compensable

While Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC refers to conditions for compensability of an

occupational disease and the resulting disability or death, the conditions stated therein
should also apply to non-listed illnesses given that: (a) the legal presumption under
Section 20 (B) (4) accorded to the latter is limited only to “work-relatedness”; and (b)
for its compensability, a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board
the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated must be shown.

111. Question: What is the Principle of Work-Relatedness?

Answer: The Principle of Work-Relatedness is a legal concept that determines

whether an injury or illness is work-related. According to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), an injury or illness is considered work-related if it
 was caused by an event or exposure in the work environment, or if it significantly
aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. The determination of work-relatedness is
important because it affects the employer’s responsibility to record the injury or illness
and provide workers’ compensation benefits.

112. Question: What is the “aggravation” principle of work-relatedness?

Answer: The ‘aggravation’ principle of work-relatedness is a legal principle that

applies to disability claims of seafarers.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 226779 held that if the seafarer’s
working conditions contributed to or aggravated his illness, the seafarer’s illness is
considered work-related and compensable. This means that when it is shown that the
seafarer’s work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least,
aggravation of any pre-existing disease, the condition/illness suffered by the seafarer
shall be compensable.

113. QUESTION: In the case of Lagne(2018) was his contention correct that his
rectal illness was aggravated to colon cancer due to work related factors? Why?

ANSWER: His contention is correct. because they found that his dietary provisions
while at sea increased his risk of contracting colon cancer because he had no choice of
what to eat on board.

114. QUESTION: How does the court determine the compensation of a work-
related illness

ANSWER: The court does not require that the employment be the sole factor in the
growth, development, or acceleration of a claimants' illness to entitle him to the benefits
provided for. It is enough that his employment contributed, even if only in a small degree,
to the development of the disease.

115. QUESTION: How does the 2010 POEA-SEC define a work-related injury and
work-related illness

ANSWER: The 2010 POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as an “injury resulting

in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment,” and a work-related
illness as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational
disease listed under Section 32-A of this Cantract with the conditions set therein saisfied”
(Skippers
United Pacific, Inc. v. Lagne, G.R. No. 217036, Aug. 20, 2018).
116. QUESTION: What is the principle of work-aggravation

ANSWER: In the 2018 case of Gagne," both the NLRC and the CA found Lagne's
rectal illness to be compensable for permanent and total disability, because they found
that his dietary provisions while at sea increased his risk of contracting colon cancer
because he had no choice of what to eat on board. Suffice it to say, the strenuous nature
of Lagne's job, combined with his poor diet which consists of mostly carbohydrates
and meat, usually with saturated fat, his advanced age as he was 55 at the time of
hiring, we find it reasonable to conclude that Lagne acquired or developed his illness
during the term of his contract. There is a probability that Lagne's work as an oiler
caused or contributed even to a small degree to the development or aggravation of his
rectal illness.
It was, thus, stressed that in determining the compensability of an illness, the Court
does not require that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development,
or acceleration of a claimants' illness to entitle him to the benefits provided for. It is
enough that his employment contributed, even if only in a small degree,
to the development of the disease.

117. QUESTION: Distinguish the Rule under the 2000 POEA-SEC with Rule
under the 2010 POEA-SEC

ANSWER:
The Rule under the 2000 POEA-SEC, Evident from this new provision is that the
permanent total or partial disability suffered by a seafarer during the term of his
contract must be caused by work-related illness or injury. In other words, to be entitled
to compensation and benefits under said provision, it is not sufficient to establish that
the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled, but
it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness
or injury and the work for which he had been contracted. Whereas Rule under the 2010
POEA-SEC. The pertinent provision (Section 20 (A) of the Amended Standard Terms
and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board
Ocean-Going Ships (POEA Memorandum Circular hb. 10, Series of 2010, October
26, 2010) of the 2000 POEA-SEC is substantially the same as the one found in the
2010 POEA-SEC.' Hence, work-relation of the injury or illness suffered during the
term of the contract is necessary. (Doroteo v. Phiimare Inc.)

118. QUESTION: Is a post-medical examination a mandatory requirement?

ANSWER: In the case of Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No.
160315 (2005) without a post-medical examination or its equivalent to show that the
disease for which the seaman
died was contracted during his employment or that his working conditions increased
the risk of contracting the ailment the employer/s cannot be made liable for
 death compensation.

119. QUESTION: Are working conditions alone sufficient to determine

compensation for work-related illness?

ANSWER: NO. An example would be the petitioner in this case, who suffered brief
psychotic disorder, pointed out that his illness was work-related simply because had
it been a land-based employment, petitioner would have easily gone home and
attended to the needs of his family. The Supreme Court, however, did not submit to
this argument since this is not the "work-related" instance contemplated by the
provisions of the employment contract (POEA SEC) in order to the entitled to the
benefits. Otherwise, every seaman would automatically be entitled to compensation
because the nature of his work is not land-based and the submission of the seaman to
the company-designated physician as to the nature of the illness suffered by him would
just be an exercise of futility.

120. QUESTION: In the case of Walem Maritime Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 130772, Nov. 19, 1999 what did the Supreme Court state regarding to the prior
ailment of the worker?

ANSWER: Even assuming that the ailment of the worker was contracted prior to his
employment, this still would not deprive him of compensation benefits. For what matters
is that his work had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the
disease and in bringing about his eventual death

121. Question: In this case, the Court held that the death of a seaman even during
the term of employment does not automatically give rise to compensation.

Answer: In Mabuhay Shipping Services, Inc., v. NLRC, G.R No. 94167 (1997), the
Court held that the death at a seaman even during the term of employment does not
automatically give rise to compensation. Several factors must be taken into account,
such as the circumstances which led to the death, the provisions the contract, and the
right and obligation of the employer and the seaman with due regard to the provisions
of the Constitution on the due process and equal protection clauses.

122. Question: What is the definition of an accident under the Philippine Law?

Answer: Black's law Dictionary defines “accident" as “an unintended and unforeseen
injurious occurrence: something that does not occur in the usual course of events or
that could not be reasonably anticipated, xxx an unforeseen and injurious occurrence
not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect or misconduct.” The Philippine Law
Dictionary defines the word “accident" as “that which happens by chance or
fortuitously, without intention and design and which is unexpected, unusual and
unforeseen.” Philsynergy Maritime, Inc., v. Gallanor Jr., GR No. 228504
123. Question: Is self-inflicted injury compensable?
Answer: No. Section 20 (D) of the 2010 POEA-SEC is clear, viz:
“ No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity,
disability, or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or
intentional breach of his duties; Provided, however, that the employer can prove that
such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.

124. Question: Are employers always liable for the injury or illness that a seafarer
suffers?
Answer: No. Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC speaks of an instance where an
employer is absolved from liability when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or
illness on account of the latter's willful concealment or misrepresentation of a pre-
existing condition or illness. (Docariza v. Fleet Management Services Philippines,
GR. No. 229955 (2018).

125. Question: Who has the burden of proving the concealment of a pre-
existing illness or condition of a seafarer?

Answer: The employer has the burden to prove such concealment of a pre-existing
illness or condition on the part of the seafarer to be discharged from any liability.
(Docariza v. Fleet Management Services Philippines, GR. No. 229955 (2018))

126. Question: Is the Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) a totally in-

depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition which can
prove the seafarer’s condition prior to his deployment?

Answer: No. The PEME cannot be a conclusive proof that the seafarer was free from
any ailment prior to his deployment. A seafarer only needs to pass the mandatory
PEME in order to be deployed on duty at sea.

The PEME could not have divulged the seafarer's illness considering that the
examinations were not exploratory in nature and cannot be relied upon to arrive at
his true state of health. For the seafarer therefore to claim that the issuance of a clean
bill of health to him after a PEME means that his illness was acquired during his
employment is a non sequitur.

127. Question: May the employer use concealment as a defense if the employer
has prior knowledge of the seafarer’s medical history?

Answer: No. It is only when a seafarer’s proper knowledge of pre-existing

conditions and intent to deceive an employer are established that compensability is
negated. But if the employer is well aware of the seafarer's medical history, there can
be no concealment to speak of.
 For instance in Ventura, Jr. v. Crewtech Shipmanagement Phil., GR. No. 225995
(2017), the Court pronounced that contrary to the findings of the CA, there was no
concealment on the part of petitioner when he failed to disclose in his 2013 PEME
that he was previously treated for prostatitis in 2011.

128. Question: May the failure to declare a prior medical procedure be

considered as fraudulent misinterpretation of a pre-existing illness or
condition?

Answer: No. The rule is different regarding prior medical procedure and pre-existing
illness of condition. The failure to declare a prior procedure in connection with a pre-
existing illness or condition cannot be held as misrepresentation, especially when the
employer already had prior knowledge that its employee is already suffering from an
illness or condition.

In Manansala v. Marlow Navigation Phil, petitioner was held to have engaged in

fraudulent misrepresentation when he deceptively concealed his pre-existing
hypertension and diabetes. But the failure to declare a prior procedure in connection
with a pre-existing illness or condition cannot be held as misrepresentation,
especially when the employer already had prior knowledge that its employee is
already suffering from an illness or condition. Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC
refers to concealment of a pre-existing illness or condition. This does not refer to a
medical procedure undergone by a seafarer in connection with an illness or condition
already known to the employer.

129. Question: What are the conditions that must be present for an illness to
be considered as pre-existing prior to the processing of the POEA contract?

Answer: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing
illness or condition; or

(b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or
condition but failed to disclose the same during the PEME, and such cannot be
diagnosed during the PEME (Pre-Employment Examination).

Rationale: Philsynergy Maritime Inc., v. Gallano Gr. No. 228504 (2018), personally
carried on board Isordil, a medication used to treat people with chest pain, which he
failed to disclose during his PEME, does not suggest that "he may be experiencing
some symptoms for which he was given that medications previously." As cited above,
pursuant to the 2010 POEA-SEC, an illness shall be considered is pre-existing if prior
to the processing of the POEA contract, any of the following conditions is present: (a)
the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given for such continuing illness or
condition; or (b) the seafarer had been diagnosed and has knowledge of such illness or
condition but failed to disclose the same during the PEME, and such cannot be
 diagnosed during the PEME . In this case, the evidence on record is devoid of any
indication that any of the conditions is present.

130. Question: What is the 120-Day Treatment Period Rule?

Answer: When a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness in the course of

employment, the company-designated physician is obligated to arrive at a definite
assessment of the former’s fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days
from repatriation.

During the said period, the seafarer shall be deemed on temporary total disability and
shall receive his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability
is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially, or totally, as his
condition is defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws.

Rationale: Pursuant to Sector 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, when a seafarer suffers
a work-related injury or illness in the course of employment, the company-designated
physician is obligated to arrive at a definite assessment of the former’s fitness or
degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation. (Gamboa v.
Maunlad Trans, lnc., G.R. No, 232905, Aug. 20, 2018) During the said period, the
seafarer shall be deemed on temporary total disability and shall receive his basic wage
until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the
company to be permanent, either partially, or totally, as his condition is defined under
the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. However, if the 120-day period is
exceeded and no definitive declaration is made because the seafarer requires further
medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a
maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period
that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. (Vergara v. Hammonia
Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. 172933, Oct. 6, 2008)

131. Question: What is 240-day Treatment Period Rule?

Answer: If the 120-day period is exceeded and no definitive declaration is made

because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total
disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right
of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total
disability already exists. (Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., G.R.
172933, Oct. 6, 2008)

132. Question: What is the remedy if there is no valid and definitive assessment
form issued by the company-designated physician within the 120-day
period/240-day period?

Answer: The law steps in to consider the petitioner’s disability as total and
permanent. Thus, a temporary total disability becomes total and permanent by
 operation of law.(Tamin v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 220608,
Aug. 31, 2016)

133. Question: What are the Elements or Tests of Employer-Employee

Relationship?

Answer: There is no uniform test of employment relationship but the four (4)
elements of an employer-employee relationship are as follows:

1. Selection and engagement of the employee;`

2. Payment of wages;
3. Power of dismissal; and
4. Employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct with respect to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

(Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines et. al. v. Zamora, G.R. No.
48645)

134. Question: Who are Managerial Employees?

Answer: Managerial employees refer to those whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or
subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff.

135. Question: What is the most important element of Employer-Employee

Relationship?

Answer: The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s
conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and
methods to accomplish It (Lirio v. Genovia, G.R. No. 169757).

136. Question: Not every form of control will have the effect of establishing
employee-employer relationship. The line should be drawn between two rules.
Enumerate.

Answer:Not every form of control will have the effect of establishing employee-
employer relationship. The line should be drawn between

1) Rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of mutually

desired results without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it.
These aim only to promote the result. In such case, no employee-employer relationship
exists; and

2) Rules that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party
hired to the use of such means. These address both the result and the means used to
 achieve it and hence, employee-employer relationship exists. (Insular Life Assurance
Co, LTD v. NLRC, G.R. No. 84484).

137. Question: What are the two (2) categories of workers paid by result?
Answer: The two categories of of workers paid by result are the following:
1. Those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer; and
2. Those whose time and performance are unsupervised
There is an employer-employee relationship present in the former, while the latter
has none. In workers whose time and performance are supervised, the employer-
employee relationship is present and there is an essential element of control and
supervision over the manner as to how work is to be performed. In workers whose
time and performance are unsupervised, the employer's control is over the result of
the work and work measured either by piece or by task.

138. Question: How does the work of workers paid by results is measured?
Explain.
Answer: Such work is measured either by piece or by task. "By piece" refers to those
who are compensated on the basis of the units or pieces of work they produced and
accomplished. The work process involved is usually repetitive and the compensation
is uniform per unit or per piece. "By task", on the other hand, refers to those who are
compensated on the basis of the completion or accomplishment of a certain specified
task. This is commonly known as pakyao which simply means "wholesale.

139. Question: What does work day and work week mean?
Answer: Work day means 24 consecutive-hour period which commences from the
time the employee regularly starts to work. It does not necessarily mean the ordinary
calendar day from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight unless the employee starts to
work at this unusual hour.
On the other hand, work Week means it is a week consisting of 168 consecutive hours
or 7 consecutive 24-hour work days beginning at the same hour and on the same
calendar day each calendar week.

140. Question: Are employers allowed to change the working hours?

Answer: Yes, the employers are allowed. It is part of the managerial prerogative to
change the time of the 8 hours of work as long as it is still within the 8-hour period.
Well-settled is the rule that the employer retains the prerogative, whenever
exigencies of the service so require, to change the working hours of its employees.
This is part of his

141. Question: Should the normal eight (8) working hours mandated by law
always be continuous and uninterrupted?
Answer: No, the normal hours of work do not always mean continuous or
 uninterrupted. As long as the 8 hours is accomplished within one work day as this
term is given by law.
As may be required by peculiar circumstances of employment, it may mean broken
hours of, say, four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening or a variation
thereof, provided the total of eight (8) hours is accomplished within one "work day"
as this term is understood in law. Hence, the 4-hour work done in the evening as in
the example above, should not be considered overtime work since the eight-hour
period has not yet been exceeded.

142. Question: Is the employer allowed to reduce the 8-hour working day?

Answer: Yes, the employer is allowed and can lawfully exercise the prerogative to
reduce 8-hour normal working time per day provided that no reduction is made on
the wage or salary.
In instances where the number of hours required by the nature of work is less than
eight
(8) hours, such number of hours should be regarded as the employee's full working
day.

143. Question: What does a compressed workweek mean? Is this allowed to

practice?
Answer: Compressed workweek refers to a situation where the normal workweek is
reduced to less than six days but the total number of work-hours of 48 hours per week
remains.
Yes, it is allowed to practice, provided the following conditions are met:
1) The employees voluntarily agree to work nine (9) hours a day from Monday to
Friday;
2) There should be no diminution in the take-home pay and fringe benefits of the
employees;
3) The value of the benefits that will accrue to the employees under the proposed
work schedule is more than or, at least, commensurate with, or equal to, the one-hour
overtime pay that is due them during weekdays based on the employees'
quantification;
4) The one-hour overtime pay of the employees will become due and demandable if
ever they are permitted or made to work on any Saturday during the effectivity of the
new working time arrangement, since the agreement between the employees and
management is that there will be no Saturday work in exchange for a longer work
day during week-days;
5) The work of the employees does not involve strenuous physical exertion and they
are provided with adequate rest periods or coffee breaks in the moming and
afternoon; and
The effectivity of the proposed working time arrangement should be of temporary
duration as determined by the DOLE Secretary.
144. Question: What are the regular working hours and regular working days of
hospital or clinic personnel?
Answer: The regular working hours of hospital and clinic personnel shall not be
more than eight (8) hours in any one day nor more than forty (40) hours in any one
week. Healthcare workers are required to work 40 hours a week and if they exceed
40 hours you are entitled to overtime pay.
The regular working days of covered employees shall not be more than five days in
a workweek.

145. Question: When is sleeping while on duty considered as compensable?

Answer: Under compensable hours worked, sleeping while on duty is compensable if

the nature of the employee’s work allows sleeping without interrupting or prejudicing
work or when there is an agreement between the employee and his employer to that
effect. For example, a truck helper may sleep after performing his task and while his
truck is traveling on its way to its assignment. But the same may not be done by the
driver.

146. Question: What does a seafarer need to prove to be entitled to an overtime

pay?

Answer: Seafarers are entitled to overtime pay as long as the seafarer can prove that
there was work rendered beyond the 8 hours of work.

147. Question: What is the rule if the one-hour break is beyond an 8-hour work
period?

Answer: It is a rule that if the one-hour break is beyond an 8-hour work period, then
the one-hour break is compensable.

148. Question: Who is given the right to fix the work schedules?

Answer: In a case decided by the Court, it was held that the right to fix the work
schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer.

149. Question: What are the four instances when Shortening of Meal Time to not
less than 20 minutes is compensable?
Answer: Shortening of Meal Time to not less than 20 minutes is compensable if:

a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve

 strenuous physical exertion;

b) Where the establishment regularly operates for not less than 16 hours a day;

c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or when there are

installations to avoid serious losses which the employer would otherwise suffer;
and

d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.

150. Question: What are the conditions to be complied with to be considered

compensable working time?
Answer: This shall be considered compensable working time provided the following
conditions are complied with:

a) The employees voluntarily agree in writing to a shortened meal period of

30 minutes and are willing to waive the overtime pay for such shortened meal
period;

b) There should be no diminution in the benefits of the employees which they

receive prior to the effectivity of the shortened meal period;

c) The work of the employees does not involve strenuous physical exertion and
they are provided with adequate coffee breaks in the morning and afternoon.

d) The value of the benefits derived by the employees from the proposed
work arrangements is equal to or commensurate with the compensation due them
for the shortened meal period as well as the overtime pay for 30 minutes as
determined by the employees concerned;

e) The overtime pay of the employees will become due and demandable if they
are permitted to work beyond 4:30 p.m. and

f) The effectivity of the proposed working time arrangement shall be for a

temporary duration.

151. Question: What is Night Shift Differential?

Answer: Night Shift Differential may be defined as an equivalent to 10% of

employee's regular wage for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. of the following day.

152. Question: What is the reason why the receipt of overtime pay shall not
preclude the right to receive night differential pay when the work of an employee
 falls at nighttime?

Answer: The reason why the receipt of overtime pay shall not preclude the right to
receive night differential pay when the work of an employee falls at nighttime is
because the payment of the night differential pay is for the work done during the
night; while the payment of the overtime pay is for work in excess of the regular eight
(8) working hours.

153. Question: What is overtime pay?

Answer: Overtime pay means the additional compensation for work, approved by the
management, performed beyond 8 hours. Every employee entitled to premium pay is
also entitled to the benefit of overtime pay.

154. Question: What is premium pay?

Answer: Premium pay means the additional compensation required by law for work
performed within 8 hours on non-working days, such as rest days and special days.

155. Question: Hugh Jass, a baker in the Banana Soft Factory, was required by his
supervisor to come to work on his rest day to cope up with the demand in anticipation
of the Christmas holiday season. Since Hugh Jass is a hard worker and is saving up,
he still reported to work despite his son’s insistence that today is their special day to
bond. How much rate should he expect if he also worked overtime that day?
Answer: Since Hugh Jass worked overtime on his rest day, he should be paid 160%
of his basic rate. As provided for by Article 93(a) of the Labor Code, for overtime
work performed on a rest day, the overtime pay is plus 30% of the basic hourly rate
which includes 30% additional compensation.

156. Question: The DOLE Secretary inspected 7 Evelyn and found violations of
labor standards provisions of the Labor Code such as underpayment of wages
(overtime pay) among others. Then, the DOLE gave notice to Evelyn Dose, the owner
of 7 Evelyn, to effect restitution of the alleged violations within 5 days. Upon failure
of 7 Evelyn to comply, the DOLE Regional Director issued an order directing them
to pay the workers a Php 500,000.00 based on the interviews of the claimants. Evelyn
Dose appealed to the Secretary of Labor contending lack of basis of the Order. Is
Evelyn Dose correct?
Answer: Yes, Evelyn Dose is correct. The Court once held in a similar case that a
straight method of computation of overtime pay is not allowed. This is so because the
use of the straight computation method in awarding the Php 500,000.00 to the
claimants, without reference to any other evidence other than the interviews conducted
during the inspection, is highly telling that the DOLE failed to consider evidence in
arriving at its award and leads the Court to conclude that such amount was arrived at
arbitrarily.
Rationale: The use of the straight computation method in awarding the sum of money
to private respondents, without reference to any other evidence other than the
 interviews conducted during the inspection, is highly telling that the DOLE failed to
consider evidence in arriving at its award and leads this Court to conclude that such
amount was arrived at arbitrarily. It is quite implausible for the nine (9) private
respondents to be entitled to uniform amounts of Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay,
holiday pay premium, and rest day premium pay for three (3) years, without any
disparity in the amounts due them since entitlement to said benefits would largely
depend on the actual rest days and holidays worked and amount of remaining leave
credits in a year. Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should
establish his or her right thereto. 30 The burden of proving entitlement to overtime
pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days lies with the employee because these
are not incurred in the normal course of business. 31 In the case at bar, evidence
pointing not only to the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the
petitioners and private respondents but also to the latter's entitlement to these benefits
are miserably lacking. (South Cotabato Communications Corp. v. Sto. Tomas, G.R.
No. 217575, [June 15, 2016])

157. Question: Can an employer compel the employee to render overtime work?

Answer: It depends. As a general rule, no employee may be compelled to render

overtime work against his will. However, by way of exception, he cannot validly
refuse to do so if any. Of the following conditions is present:

1. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has
been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive;

2. When overtime work is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case

of imminent danger to public safety due to actual or impending emergency in the
locality caused by serious accident, fire, floods, typhoons, earthquake, epidemic
or other disasters or calamities;

3. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations or

equipment, or in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some
other causes of similar nature;

4. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods;

5. When the completion or continuation of work started before the 8 th hour is

necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations
of the employer; and

6. When overtime work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or

environmental conditions where performance or quality of work is dependent
thereon.

158. Question: Tim Ang, the newly promoted manager of a shop, required Mike
Hawk, an employee thereof, to render emergency overtime work. However, Mike
Hawk refused since the country is at the state of war as declared by the President.
Tim warned Mike Hawk to comply because otherwise, he may be dismissed from
 work. Is Tim correct?
Answer: Yes, Tim is correct. When an employee refuses to render emergency
overtime work when compelled under the exception to do so when the country is at
war or when any national or local emergency has been declared by the National
assembly or the Chief Executive, he may be dismissed on the ground of
insubordination or willful disobedience of the lawful order of the employer.

159. Question: Cleah Torres, an employee of PAL Corp., filed a case against the
latter for depriving her of overtime pay. On the other hand, PAL Corp contended that
her employment contract with them specifically provides a 12-hour workday at a
fixed monthly salary rate that is above the legal minimum wage. In addition to this,
they contended that giving her claims would result in serious wage distortion. Is
Cleah entitled to overtime pay for work rendered in excess of eight hours a day?
Answer: Yes, Cleah Torres is entitled to overtime pay. The Supreme Court once held
in a case with similar facts that if the contract in question would have been deemed in
violation of pertinent labor laws, the provisions of said laws would prevail over the
terms of the contract, and the employee would still be entitled to overtime pay. So,
even if there had been a meeting of the minds in the instant case, the employment
contract could not have effectively shielded the petitioner from the just and valid
claims of the private respondent. As to the issue of wage distortion, the Court finds
the argument flimsy and undeserving of consideration. How can paying an employee
the overtime pay due him cause serious distortions in salary rates or scales since "other
employees" cannot be aggrieved when they did not render any overtime service?

160. Question: What is the rationale for the rule on why the burden rests on the
employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee to prove nonpayment?
Answer: In Mantle Trading Services, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 166705, July 28, 2009, citing Villar v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130935,
May 11, 2000, 331, SCRA 686, 695, the Supreme Court explained that the reason for
such rule is that pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other
similar documents–which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive
leave, and other claims of workers have been paid–are not in the possession of the
employees, but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Hence, the one who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and the burden rests on the employer to
prove payment.

161. Question: Who has the burden of proving that the rate of pay given to the
employees is in accordance with the minimum fixed by the law and that he paid
thirteen-month pay, service incentive leave pay, and other monetary claims?
Answer: The who is burdened to prove that the rate of pay given to the employees is
in accordance with the minimum fixed by the law and that he paid thirteen-month pay,
service incentive leave pay, and other monetary claims rests on the employer (see case
of Gregorio S. Saberola vs Ronald Suarez, G.R. No. 151227, July 14, 2008, citing
Villar vs NLRC, 387 Phil. 706, 716 (2000); National Semiconductor, (HK)
 Distribution, Ltd. vs NLRC, 353 Phil. 551, 557 (1998); Jimenez vs NLRC, 326 Phil.
89, 95 (1996))
162. Question: What is the rule on the burden of proof of payment or non-payment
of 13th month pay, SIL pay, and other monetary claims of the employees provided
in the case of Gregorio Saberola v. Ronald Suarez?
Answer: The rule is that the one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
Even when the plaintiff alleges non-payment, still the general rule is that the burden
rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-
payment.

163. Question: When a debtor makes true to his obligation of paying his creditor
and presents evidence to such, who now has the burden of going forward with
evidence of non-payment?
Answer: When the debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going
forward with the evidence- -as distinct from the general burden of proof--shifts to the
creditor, who is then under the duty of producing some evidence to show non-
payment.

164. Question: Is it correct to state that in cases of proving extinguishment of

payment, the burden of proving such is on the debtor?
Answer: Yes. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the
obligation has been discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully
established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has
been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who invokes such a defense
against the claim of the creditor.

165. Question: What is Weekly Rest Period?

Answer: Right to weekly rest day. – It shall be the duty of every employer, whether
operating for profit or not, to provide each of the employees a rest period of not less
than 24 consecutive hours after every six consecutive normal work days.

166. Question: What is Blue Sunday Rule?

Answer: With the repeal of the Blue Sunday Law by the Labor Code, Sunday is no
longer the rest day designated by law. Consequent to such repeal, the rule now is that
all establishments and enterprises may operate or open for business on Sundays and
holidays provided that the employees are given the weekly rest day and the resultant
benefits as provided in the law and its implementing rules.
167. Question: Why do employees have a preference for their rest day?
Answer: The preference of the employee as to his weekly day of rest shall be
 respected by the employer if the same is based on religious grounds. The employee
shall make known his preference to the employer in writing at least seven (7) days
before the desired effectivity of the initial rest day so preferred.
168. Question: When an employer may require work on a rest day?
Answer: The employer may require their employees to work on any day if an
emergency caused by accident, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other
disaster or calamity to prevent loss of life and property, or imminent danger to public
safety; urgent work to be performed on the machinery, equipment, or installation, to
avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; abnormal pressure of
work due to special circumstances; prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; nature
of the work requires continuous operations, or under other circumstances analogous
or similar to the foregoing as determined by the Labor Authorities.

169. Question: What is Holiday Pay and Holiday Pay Rule?

Answer: Holiday pay refers to the payment of the regular daily wage for any
unworked regular holiday.
The Holiday Pay Rule applies to entitlement to holiday pay during regular
holidays and not during special non- working days. Thus, every employee covered by
the Holiday Pay Rule is entitled to the minimum wage rate (Daily Basic Wage and
COLA). This means that the employee is entitled to at least 100% of his minimum
wage rate even if he did not report for work, provided he is present or is on leave of
absence with pay on the workday immediately preceding the holiday. Should the
worker work on that day, such work performed on that day would merit at least twice
or two hundred percent (200%) of the wage rate of the employee.

170. Questions: What are the paid regular holidays and are they mandatory?

Answer: Article 94 of the Labor Code and the subsequent amendments thereto
guarantee a worker the enjoyment of twelve (12) paid regular holidays in a
year. This is important for purposes of reckoning certain divisors and
computation of employee benefits.
a. New year’s Day – January 1
b. Maundy Thursday – Movable date
c. Good Friday – Movable date
d. Eidul Fitr – Movable date
e. Araw ng Kagitingan – Monday nearest April 9
f. Eidul Adha – Movable date
g. Labor Day – Monday nearest May 1
h. Independence Day – Monday nearest June 12
i. National Heroes Day – Last Monday of August
j. Bonifacio Day – Monday nearest November 30
k. Christmas Day – December 25
l. Rizal Day – Monday nearest December 30
The provision on holiday pay is mandatory.
171. Question: What is the rule on holiday pay for seasonal workers?

Answer: Seasonal workers are entitled to holiday pay while working during the
season. They may not be paid the required holiday pay during off-season where they
are not at work.

172. Question: What is the rule on holiday pay for teachers?

Answer: The following is the rule on holiday rule for teachers:

a. For private school teachers, in general
- Private school teachers, including faculty members of colleges
and universities, may not be paid for the regular holidays during
semestral vacations. They shall, however, be paid for the regular
holidays during Christmas vacation.

b. For hourly-paid teachers

- A school is exempted from paying hourly-paid faculty members
their pay for regular holidays, whether the same be during the
regular semester school year or during semestral. However, it is
liable to pay the faculty their regular hourly rate on days declared
as special holidays or if, for some reason, classes are called off
or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught.

173. Question: What is the rule on holiday pay rate for piece workers?

Answer: Where the covered employee is paid on piece-rate basis, his/her holiday
pay shall not be less than his/her average daily earnings for the last seven (7) actual work
days preceding the regular holiday; provided, however, that in no case shall the holiday
pay be less than the applicable statutory minimum wage rate.

174. Question: What is the rule on holiday pay for monthly-paid employees?

Answers: The Labor Code does not exclude monthly-paid employees from the
benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay excluded
monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by inserting under Rule IV, Book III of
the said rules, Section 2 which provides that monthly-paid employees are presumed to
be paid for all days in the month, whether worked or not.
In Policy Instructions No. 9, the Secretary of Labor categorically declared that the
benefit is intended primarily for daily-paid employees when the law clearly states that
every worker should be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the
mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the Code, including its implementing rules, shall be
resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the legislature
intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial
effect that its language permits. (Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union
[IBAAEU] vs. Inciong, et al., G. R. No. L-52415)

175. Question: Power Puff Girls (PPG) Corporation agreed in the CBA to pay all
its daily paid employees on the following days if declared as special holidays by the
national government: Black Saturday, November 1, and December 31.
In 2023, the national government declared December 31 which fell on a Sunday as a
special holiday. However, the company refused to pay arguing that although it agreed
to pay December 31 if declared as a special holiday it does not include the time when
it falls on a rest day.
Is PPG Corporation correct?

Answer: No, PPG Corporation is incorrect.

In RFM Corporation vs. Kasapian ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM, the Supreme
Court held that if the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention
of the contracting parties, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. That is settled. As
such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays
which are so declared by the national government, regardless of whether they fall on
rest days.
The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its
provisions. Indeed, if petitioner and respondents intended the provision in question
to cover payment only during holidays falling on work or weekdays, it should have
been so incorporated therein.

176. Question: What are the effects of absences on entitlement to holiday pay?

Answer: The following are the effects of absences on entitlement to holiday pay:

a. Employees on leave of absence with pay.- All covered employees are entitled to
holiday pay when they are on leave of absence with pay.

b. Employees on leave of absence without pay on the day immediately preceding the
regular holiday. - Employees who are on leave of absence without pay on the day
immediately preceding a regular holiday may not be paid the required holiday pay
if he has not worked on such regular holiday.

c. Employees on leave while on SSS or employee’s compensation benefits -

Employers should grant the same percentage of the holiday pay as the benefit
granted by competent authority in the form of employee's compensation or social
security payment, whichever is higher, if he is not reporting for work while on
 such benefits.

d. When the day preceding the regular holiday is a non-working day or scheduled
rest day- Where the day immediately preceding the regular holiday is a non-
working day in the establishment or the scheduled rest day of the covered
employee, he should not be deemed to be on leave of absence on that day, in
which case, he is entitled to the regular holiday pay if he worked on the day
immediately preceding the non-working day or rest day.

177. Question:
Site instances when an employee is entitled to holiday pay.

Answer :
Instances when an employee is entitled to holiday pay, are as follows:
1. When he is at work, including an official business, on the day immediately
preceding the regular holiday; or
2. When he is in an authorized leave of absence on the day immediately preceding
the regular holiday.

Rationale: (DOLE Handbook; Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)

178. Question: When is an employee forfeited from having holiday pay?

Answer : An employee will be forfeited of holiday pay if he is absent without

official leave (AWOL) on the day immediately preceding the regular holiday.
Under the Labor Code, If an absent employee is paid the workday
immediately preceding a regular holiday, then he/she is entitled to holiday pay.
Conversely, if an absent employee is not paid the workday immediately preceding a
regular holiday, he/she is not entitled to holiday pay.

Rationale:
(DOLE Handbook; Rule IV, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)

179. Question: How much would Nene, a contractual employee, receive if she
worked on a Maundy Thursday, from 8am to 5pm, which also happened to be araw ng
Kagitingan, if her daily wage is Php 420.00?

Answer : Nene will receive a total of Php 1,260.00 for said date. Under the law, if an
employee worked during a double holiday, he is entitled to three times his daily wage
based on 200% or twice his daily wage for the two (2) regular holidays, plus a premium
of 100% for work on that day. In here, Nene worked during the double holiday
(Moundy thursday and Ara ng Kagitingan), therefore, she is entitled to 300% of Php
420.00.
 Rationale:
The 2022 Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits provides that
in case two regular holidays fall on the same day, an employee is entitled to the
following:
a. 200% or twice his/her daily wage, if unworked;-
b. 300% or three times his daily wage, if worked. This is based on 200%
or twice his/her daily wage for the two regular holidays PLUS
premium of 100% for work on that day.

180. Question: What would Nena, a contractual employee, worked on a Maundy

Thursday, from 8pm to 5am, which also happened to be araw ng Kagitingan and her
rest day. What will her salary be for that day if her regular rate is Php600? Explain.

Answer :
Her salary for working during said double holiday which also happened to be
her rest day is Php 2,340.00
Under the Labor Code, an employee who works on the night shift on a double
holiday which falls on his/her rest day shall be paid an additional 30% of the daily
rate of 300% in addition to wages for the night shift.
Here, Nena worked on a night shift during a double holiday which happens
also to be her rest day. Therefore, she is entitled to Php 2,340.00

Rationale:
Based on the provisions of labor code, below is the computation for the
salary of Nena on said holiday:
=(3XPhp600.00)(X.30)
=1,800+ (1800X.30)
=1,800+540
=2,340

181. Question: Jenna is a part time employee of Dragon Corporation. How many
SIL will she be entitled to after working for 11 months in said company?

Answer : Jenna will not be entitled to any Service Incentive Leave (SIL) after
working for 11 months in Dragon Corporation.
Under the Labor Code, five (5) SIL is given every year to an employee who
has rendered at least one (1) year of service to the employer.
Here, Jenna only rendered service for 11 months. Therefore, she does not yet
qualify to be given SIL.

Rationale:

According to the 2022 DOLE-BWC Handbook on Workers’ Statutory

Monetary Benefits, Service incentive leaves are five (5) leave credits with full pay
 given to qualified and covered employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of
service
Juan Carlos, a taxi driver, was not entitled to SIL during his entire
employment.

182. Question: Will SIL be included in the computation of his retirement benefits?

Answer : No, SIL will not be included in the computation of his retirement benefits.
Under labor code, if an employee is not enjoying SIL, then it will not be included in
the computation of retirement benefits. Meantime, if the employee is enjoying more
than the SIL provided by law, then it should be included.

Rationale:

Workers Service Incentive Leave (SIL) is guaranteed by Art. 95 of the

Philippine Labor Code, whereas,

a. Every employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be
entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay.

b. This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying the
benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least
five days and those employed in establishments regularly employing less than
ten employees or in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment after considering the viability or
financial condition of such establishment.

183. Question: Who are employees that do not enjoy Service incentive Leave (SIL)?
Answer :
Under the Labor Code, those who are already enjoying the benefit
provided during the implementation of the Labor Code, those enjoying
vacation leave with pay of at least five (5) days and those employed in
establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) employees or in
establishments exempted from granting said benefit by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment after considering the viability or financial condition of such
establishment are not entitled to SIL.

Rationale:
Workers Service Incentive Leave (SIL) is guaranteed by Art. 95 of the
Philippine Labor Code, whereas,

a. Every employee who has rendered at least one (1) year of

service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five (5)
days with pay.
 b. This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying
the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of
at least five days and those employed in establishments regularly
employing less than ten employees or in establishments exempted from
granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor and Employment after
considering the viability or financial condition of such establishment.

184. Question: Jenny worked as a receptionist for 25 years without availing of her
SIL. On 12 December 2019, she resigned. However, only the SIL for the last three (3)
years of her employment was given to her. Will her claim for the remaining 22 years
of previous SIL prosper?

Answer :
Yes, her claim will prosper. In one case decided upon by the Supreme Court , it was
held that the three-year prescriptive period commences not at the end of the year
when the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of her SIL but from the time
when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent, after demand of
commutation or upon termination of the employee’s services, as the case may be.
Here, the period of prescription started from the time that the employer gave
the three year SIL money equivalent to Jenny and refused to pay the remaining 22
years SIL equivalent and not at the end of each year that Jenny became entitled to
SIL. Therefore, the case will prosper.

Rationale: Please refer to Lourdes Rodriguez v Park N Ride Inc. GR no.

222980

185. QUESTION: There is one employer that provides 15–day vacation and
sick leave. The workplace is not organized and the employer voluntarily
upgraded the 5-day vacation and sick leave to 15. Can the employer set the terms
and conditions for the benefit?

ANSWER: Yes, the employer can impose conditions only on the additional days.
The five-day leave imposed by law is not conditional, but the additional days given
voluntarily can be subject to conditions.

186. Question: What is the rationale behind the grant of vacation leave to an
employee?

Answer: The rationale behind the grant of vacation leave to an employee is to enable
 the employee to have some rest and to re-invigorate himself so that he would be more
efficient and productive in his work (Guadalupe v. Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, G.R. No. L-41539)

187. Question: Who is eligible for maternity leave and how many days can it
be availed of?

Answer: All female workers in government and the private sector, including those in
the informal economy, regardless of civil status or the legitimacy of her child are
covered. They shall be granted one hundred five (105) days maternity leave with full
pay and an option to extend for an additional thirty (30) days without pay. Provided,
that in case the worker qualifies as a solo parent under R.A. No. 8972, or the “Solo
Parents’ Welfare Act”, the worker shall be granted an additional fifteen (15) days
maternity leave with full pay. (Section 3, RA. No. 11210)

188. Question: When should an employee start availing maternity leave?

Answer: Enjoyment of maternity leave cannot be deferred but should be availed of

either before or after the actual period of delivery in a continuous and uninterrupted
manner, not exceeding one hundred five (105) days, as the case may be. (Section 3 of
RA 11210).

This can be availed of as early as 45 days before the expected delivery date up to 60
days after the delivery date.

189. Question: What is Paternity Leave?

Answer: Paternity leave refers to the benefits granted to a married male employee
allowing him not to report for work for seven (7) days (for each delivery for the first
4 deliveries) but continues to earn the compensation therefor, on the condition that his
spouse has delivered a child or suffered a miscarriage for enabling him to effectively
lend support to his wife in her period of recovery and/or in nursing of the newly-born
child. (Section 3, R.A. No. 8187 or the “Paternity Leave Act of 1996). If paternity
 leave is not availed of, it is not convertible to cash. (Section 7, IRR of R.A. No. 8187)
(2022 Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits)

190. Question: What is the rule on the allocation of maternity leave credits to
the child’s father or alternative caregiver?

Answer: A female worker entitled to maternity leave benefits may, at her option,
allocate up to seven (7) days of said benefits to the child’s father, whether or not the
same is married to the female worker. In case of death, absence, or incapacity of the
child’s father, the female worker may allocate to an alternate caregiver [(Section 1 of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11210 or the 105-Day
Maternity Leave Law) and (Section 6, R.A. No. 11210)]

191. Question: Who is an “alternate caregiver” under R.A. No. 11210 or the
105-Day Maternity Leave Law (R.A. No. 11210)?

Answer: An alternate caregiver under the 105-Day Maternity Leave Law refers to a
relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity of the female worker or to her
current partner, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, of the female
worker sharing the same household. (Section 1, par. a, Rule II, Implementing Rules
and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11210)

192. Question: Who are considered solo parents?

Answer: Under Section 3 of RA 8972, any individual who falls under any of the
following is considered a solo parent:
a) Giving birth as a result of rape or crimes against chastity;
b) Death of a spouse;
c) Spouse is detained or serving sentence under criminal convictions;
d) Physical or mental incapacity;
e) Legal separation or de facto separation;
f) Declaration of nullity of marriage;
g) Abandonment of spouse for at least a year;
h) Unmarried father or mother who has preferred to keep and rear his or
her child instead of having others care for them;
i) Any other person who solely provides parental care and support to a
child or children;
 j) Any family member who assumes the responsibility of head of a
family as a result of the death, abandonment, disappearance

193. Question: When will a service charge be shouldered by the employer?

Answer: If the employer stops the collection of service charge, but the establishment
has been collecting for a long period then the service charge benefit of employee for
the last 12 months’ average and incorporate in the basic wage of the employee to be
shouldered by employer.

194. Question: What is the basic wage?

Answer: All the remuneration or earnings paid by an employer to a worker for

services rendered on normal working days and hours, but does not include cost-of-
living allowances, profit—sharing payments, premium payments, 13th month pay or
other monetary benefits which are not considered as part of or integrated into the
regular salary.
195. Question: What is the benefit given under the Magna Carta for women?
Answer: A woman employee, regardless of age and civil status, having rendered
continuous employment service for at least six months for the last 12 months shall be
entitled to a special leave benefit of two months with full pay based on her gross
monthly compensation.

196. Question: What is the rule in the application of a service charge?

Answer: The rule on service charges applies only to establishments collecting service
charges, such as hotels, restaurants, lodging houses, night clubs, cocktail lounges,
massage clinics, bars, casinos and gambling houses, and similar enterprises, including
those entities operating primarily as private subsidiaries of the government. It applies to
all employees of covered employers, regardless of their positions, designations, or
employment status, and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid.

197. Question: Differentiate wage from salary

Answer: Wage is used to characterize the compensation paid for manual skilled or
unskilled labor while salary on the other hand is used to describe the compensation for
higher or superior level of employment.

198. Question: What is the distinction of facilities and supplements in terms of

wages
Answer: Facilities and Supplements, distinction: The benefit or privilege given to
the employee which constitutes an extra remuneration over and above his basic or
 ordinary earning or wage, is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege is part of
the laborer’s basic wage, it is a facility.

199. Question: What are the legal requirements for facilities to be deducted as
discussed in the case of Mabeza v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118506?
Answer:
The employer cannot deduct the value from the employee’s wages without satisfying
the following:
a. Proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade;
b. The provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by
the employee; and
c. The facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value.

200. Question: What is the basic criterion in determining whether such deduction
should be considered supplement or facility?

Answer: The criterion is not so much with the kind of the benefit or item (food,
lodging, bonus, or sick leave) given but its purpose. Thus, free meals supplied by the
ship operator to crew members, out of necessity, cannot be considered as facilities
but supplements which could not be reduced having been given not as part of wages
but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew
personnel during the voyage.

201. Question: Is allowance included in the computation of 13th month pay or

retirement pay?

Answer:

No. According to the rules, allowance is not included in the computation of 13th
month pay or retirement pay. It is however included in the computation of separation
pay because an employee should be enjoying such benefits were it not for his
dismissal.

202. Question: Differentiate supplement and facility.

Answer:

Laid down in the case of State Marine Corporation v. Cebu Seamen's Association
(G.R. No. L-2444), Supplement is the benefit or privilege given to the employee
which constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic or ordinary earning
or wage while Facility is when said benefit or privilege is part of the laborers’ basic
wages.
203. Question: True or False, there is a law which prescribes a method in
computing commissions. Defend your answer.

Answer:

False. Decided in the case of Lagatic v. NLRC (G.R. No. 121004), there is no law
which prescribes a method in computing commissions. Instead, the determination of
the amount of commissions is the result of collective bargaining negotiations,
individual employment contracts or established employer practice.

204. Question: Differentiate Statutory Minimum Wage Rate and Regional

Minimum Wage Rate.

Answer:

Statutory Minimum Wage Rate is the lowest basic wage rate fixed by law that an
employer can pay his workers. On the other hand, Regional Minimum Wage Rate is
the lowest basic wage rates that an employer can pay his workers as fixed by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.

205. Question: If an employee works 365 days a year, how many days’ worth
of compensation is he entitled to?

Answer:

According to the rules on computation of EEMR or Divisors, should/if an employee

work/s 365 days a year, factoring Sundays, 12 holidays, and other special holidays,
he is entitled to 393.8 days’ worth of compensation.

206. Question: In the computation of EEMR or Divisors, what benefits are

included in the computation of an employee who works 365 days a year?
Answer:

When an employee works 365 days a year, holiday premium (12 times 2) rest days
(times 30%) plus 30% of 4 special days are the benefits included in the computation
of his EEMR.

207. Question: Which is/are the proper legal basis/bases for Non-diminution or
Non-elimination of Employee Benefits?

Answer:

The proper legal bases for the non-diminution or non-elimination of employee

benefits are those presented in the Arco Metal case:
 1) Express terms of an employment agreement.

2) Company practice which refers to the implied terms of an employment

agreement which the employer has freely, voluntarily, and consistently extended to
its

employees and thus cannot be withdrawn except by mutual consent or agreement of

the contracting parties;

3} The constitution particularly Sec. 18 of Art. II and Sec. 3 of Art. XIII; and

4) Art. 4 of the Labor Code.

208. Question: Explain Article 100 of the Labor Code.

Answer:

Article 100 of the Labor is the Prohibition on the Non-diminution and Non-
elimination of employee benefits. It provides that the reduction or diminution or
withdrawal by employers of any such benefits, supplements or payments as may be
provided in existing laws, individual or collective agreements or voluntary employer
practice or policy is not allowed. Despite it being only applicable only to benefits
being enjoyed at the time of the promulgation of the Labor Code, it is nevertheless
used by the courts in declaring the invalidity of so many acts of employers deemed to
have eliminated or diminished the benefits of employees.

209. Question: Does an employee voluntarily resigns from employment entitled to

separation pay?

Answer:
In the case of Del Rio v. DPO Philippines, an employee who voluntarily
resigns from employment is not entitled to separation pay, except when it is
stipulated in the employment contract or the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
(Del Rio v. DPO Philippines, G.R. No. 211525)

210. Question: What are the requisites for diminution of benefits?

Answer:
According to the case of Vergara Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers (G.R. No.
176985) there is diminution of benefits when:
1. The grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into a practice
over a long period of time;
2. The practice is consistent and deliberate;
 3. The practice is not due to error in the construction or application of a
doubtful or difficulty question of law; and
4. The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.

211. Question: What is the meaning of supplements or other employee benefits in

article 100?

Answer:
The benefits referred to in Article 100 refers to monetary benefits or
privileges given to the employee with monetary equivalents.

212. Question: Can the operators’ chairs be considered as one of the employee
benefits covered in Article 100?

Answer:
In the case of Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, the operators’ chairs cannot be considered as one of the employee
benefits covered in Article 100 of the Labor Code. In the Court’s view, the term
"benefits" mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or
privileges given to the employee with monetary equivalents.

213. Question: What is the criteria to determine whether an act has ripened into a
company practice?

Answer:
The following criteria may be used to determine whether an act has ripened into a
company practice:
1) The act of the employer has been done for a considerable period of time;
2) The act should be done consistently and intentionally; and
3) The act should not be a product of erroneous interpretation or construction
of a doubtful or difficult question of law or provision in the CBA. (Globe Mackay
Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 74156)

214. Question: What is the rule if the company practice is not due to error in the
construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law?

Answer:
As a general rule, if it is a past error that is being corrected, no vested right
may be said to have arisen therefrom nor any diminution of benefit may have resulted
by virtue of the correction. The error, however, must be corrected immediately after
its discovery otherwise the rule on non-diminution of benefit would apply.
215. Question: What if the fixed monthly emergency allowance which it has
consistently granted has been discontinued by the employer?

Answer:
It is violative of the non-diminution principle. The Deputy Minister of Labor
and Employment correctly ruled that since the petitioners had been paying the private
respondents a fixed monthly emergency allowance since 1976 up to1980, as a matter
of practice and/or verbal agreement between the petitioners and the private
respondents, the discontinuance of the practice and/or agreement unilaterally by the
petitioners contravened the provisions of the Labor Code, particularly Article 100
thereof which prohibits the elimination or diminution of existing benefits. (Tiangco
vs. Leogardo Jr., G.R. No. L-57636)

216. Question: Can the employer discontinue special bonuses?

Answer:
The Meralco granted its employees an additional Christmas bonus at the tail-end
of the year since 1988, aside from complying with the 13th month pay bonus. Even if the
special bonuses differed in amount and bore different titles, it cannot be denied that these
were given voluntarily and continuously. The considerable length of time that this benefit
was given indicates a unilateral voluntary act knowing that it was not required by law.
(Meralco v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 127598 )

217. Question: What is the fourth requisite for diminution of benefit to arise?

Answer :
The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the employer.
In the case of Vergara Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers (G.R. No. 176985), there is
diminution of benefits when:
o The grant or benefit is founded on a policy or has ripened into
a practice over a long period of time;
o The practice is consistent and deliberate;
o The practice is not due to error in the construction or
application of a doubtful or difficulty question of law; and
o The diminution or discontinuance is done unilaterally by the
employer.

218. Question: Is there an instance where discontinuance or diminution of benefit

does not violate the non diminution principle?

Answer :
Yes. If the diminution or discontinuance of a certain benefit is by mutual
consent of the employer and the employee, there can be no violation of the non-
diminution principle. It was also held in Insular Hotel Employees Union v.
 Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, G.R. Nos. 174040-41 that the memorandum of
agreement executed by the exclusive bargaining union and Waterfront Hotel
providing for the diminution and or elimination of some of the benefits in the CBA
in order to avert financial losses on the part of the hotel and to enable it to re-open
and resume its operation, did not violate Article 100.

219. Question: May the employer discontinue the benefits provided to employees
given that such benefits are considered part of the company's practices?

Answer :
Yes. Even if the employee has been enjoying certain benefits for quite a long
period of time, if the circumstances have changed which no longer justify the
continuation of the grant of said benefits, the removal thereof does not certainly
constitute a violation of the non-diminution of benefits principle.

220. Question: May elimination or diminution of benefits result in constructive

dismissal?

Answer :
Yes. Constructive dismissal is an involuntary resignation resorted to when
continued employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, due to any of
the following:
1) demotion in rank or a diminution in pay; or
2) when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes unbearable to an employee.

Constructive dismissal is illegal and usually occurs when an employee resigns as a

result of unfavorable work conditions instigated by the employer. It is typically
resorted to by employers who do not want to undergo the procedural due process
involved in legally terminating an employee.

221. Question: What is a Bonus?

Answer :
It is an amount granted and paid ex gratia to the employee for his industry or
loyalty, hence, generally not demandable or enforceable. If there is no profit, there
should be no bonus. If profit is reduced, bonus should likewise be reduced, absent
any agreement making such bonus part of the compensation of the employees.

222. Question: Is Bonus demandable?

Answer :
 It depends. On the basis of equitable considerations, long practice, agreement
and other peculiar circumstances, bonus may become demandable and enforceable.
Consequently, if bonus is given as an additional compensation which the employer
agreed to give without any condition such as success of business or more efficient or
more productive operation, it is deemed part of wage or salary, hence, demandable.

223. Question: What is 13th month pay and who are entitled to receive such
benefit?

Answer :
"Thirteenth-month pay" shall mean one twelfth (1/12) of the basic salary of
an employee within a calendar year (PD 851). Only rank and file employees,
regardless of their designation or employment status and irrespective of the method
by which their wages are paid, are entitled to 13th month pay benefit not later than
December 24 of every year.

224. Question: Who are excluded from the coverage of 13th month pay ?

Answer :
Under PD 851, the following are excluded from the coverage of 13th month pay:

(a) Distressed employers, such as (1) those which are currently incurring
substantial losses or (2) in the case of non-profit institutions and organizations, where
their income, whether from donations, contributions, grants and other earnings from
any source, has consistently declined by more than forty (40%) percent of their
normal income for the last two (2) years, subject to the provision of Section 7 of this
issuance;

(b) The Government and any of its political subdivisions, including

government-owned and controlled corporations, except those corporations operating
essentially as private subsidiaries of the Government;

(c) Employers already paying their employees 13-month pay or more in a

calendar year or its equivalent at the time of this issuance;

(d) Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of

another in relation to such workers; and

(e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or

task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work,
irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the
workers are paid on piece-rate basis
225. Question: What are the forms of payment of wages?

Answer: It is mandated that the laborer’s wages shall be paid in legal currency. Under
the Labor Code and its implementing rules, as a general rule, wages shall be paid in
legal tender and the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers, coupons or any other
form alleged to represent legal tender is prohibited even when expressly requested by
the employee.

226. Question: The commission should be part of what?

Answer: The commission should be part of the basic salary of the employee for it to
be computed with 13th month pay. If the commission is in the nature of a productivity
bonus or profit-sharing benefit which is dependent on and generally tied to the
productivity or capacity for revenue production of a company, it should not be
considered part of the basic salary.

227. Question: The basic salary shall include?

Answer: Basic salary includes all remunerations or earnings paid by the employer for
services rendered but does not include allowances and monetary benefits which are
not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary.

228. Question: There are seven exceptions for the forms of payment of wages:

1. The employees are given reasonable time to withdraw their wages from
the bank facility which time, if done during working hours, shall be considered
compensable hours worked.

2. The system shall allow workers to receive their wages within the period
or frequency and in the amount prescribed under the Labor Code, as amended;

3. Upon request of the concerned employee/s, the employer shall issue a

record of payment of wages benefits and deductions for a particular period;

4. The employer shall assume responsibility in case the wage protection

provisions of law and regulations are not complied with under the
arrangement.

What are the remaining exceptions?

Answer: 1. The ATM system of payment is with the written consent of the
employees concerned,
2. there is a bank or ATM facility within a radius of one (1) kilometer to the place
 of work, and 3. there shall be no additional expenses and no diminution of benefits
and privileges as a result of the ATM system of payment;

229. Question: What is the time of payment of wages?

Answer: The general rule is, wages shall be paid not less often than once every
two (2) weeks or twice a month at intervals not exceeding sixteen (16) days.
No employer shall make payment with less frequency than once a month. The
exception is when payment cannot be made with such regularity due to force
majeure or circumstances beyond the employer’s control, in which case, the
employer shall pay the wages immediately after such force majeure or
circumstances have ceased.

230. Question: There are five exception to the general rule for the payment of wages:

1. When payment cannot be effected at or near the place of work by reason of the
deterioration of peace and order conditions, or by reason of actual or impending
emergencies caused by fire, flood, epidemic or other calamity rendering payment
thereat impossible

2. When the employer provides free transportation to the employees back and forth;
and

3. Under any other analogous circumstances, provided that the time spent by the
employees in collecting their wages shall be considered as compensable hours worked.

4. Payment through banks - allowed in businesses and other entities with twenty-
five (25) or more employees and located within one (1) kilometer radius to a
commercial, savings or rural bank.

What is the general rule for the payment of wages and what is the missing
exception?

Answer: As a general rule, the place of payment shall be at or near the place of
undertaking. Payment in a place other than the workplace is permissible only under
certain circumstances or the exceptions enumerated above. One of the exceptions is,
payment of wages in bars, massage clinics or nightclubs is prohibited except in the
case of employees thereof.

231. Question: There are 3 exceptions on whom wages should be paid, one is:
Where payment to another person of any part of the employee’s wages is authorized
by existing law, including payments for the insurance premiums of the employee and
union dues where the right to check-off has been recognized by the employer in
accordance with a collective agreement or authorized in writing by the individual
employees concerned. What is the general rule on whom wages should be paid and
 what are the missing exception?

Answer: Payment of wages shall be made directly to the employee entitled thereto
and to nobody else. Two of the exceptions is, where the employer is authorized in
writing by the employee to pay his wages to a member of his family and in case of
death of the employee, in which case, the same shall be paid to his heirs without
necessity of intestate proceedings.

232. Question: Frequency of payment of wages?

Answer: No employer shall make payment with less frequency than once a month.
The exception is when payment cannot be made with such regularity due to force
majeure or circumstances beyond the employer’s control, in which case, the employer
shall pay the wages immediately after such force majeure or circumstances have
ceased.

233. Question: Define Contracting or Subcontracting.

Answer: Contracting or Subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a

principal agrees to put or farm out with a contractor 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.

234. Question: Who are indirect employers?

Answer: Principal is the employer also referred to as the indirect employer.

An indirect employer refers to any person, partnership association or
corporation who/which contracts with an independent contractor for the
performance of any work, job, task, project, or services.

235. Question: What is Labor – only contracting?

Answer: Labor-only contracting refers to when the principal is the employer

of the employees and the contractor now is merely an agent of the principal.
In this set-up the contractor has no capitalization, no equipment.

236. Question: What are the requisites of a Legitimate Contracting?

Answer: The following are the requisites of a Legitimate Contracting:

1. The contractor must be duly registered with the Department

of Labor and Employment;

2. The contractor carries a distinct and independent business

and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own
responsibility, according to its own manner and method,
 and free from control and direction of the principal in all
matters connected with the performance of the work except
as to the result thereof;

3. The contractor has substantial capital and/or

investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries,
work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the
conduct of business; and The amount of substantial capital is
5 million pesos for both corporations, partnership,
cooperatives, or sole-proprietorship.

4. The Service agreement between the principal and contractor

should ensure compliance with all the rights and benefits of
workers under Labor laws such as labor and occupational
safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-
organization, security of tenure, and social and welfare
benefits.

237. Question: What are the four (4) tests in determining Legitimate Contracting?

Answer: The following are the four (4) tests in determining Legitimate Contracting:

1. RIGHT OF CONTROL TEST;

- Used in determining whether the contractor’s manner and methods of

performing his job contracting is free from the control and direction of the
principal in all matters connected with the performance of work except as to
the results.

- IF the principal is concerned with the means and how the work is conducted
then it is a labor only contractor.

2. REGISTRATION TEST;

- Requires the contractor to be registered with the DOLE.

3. RELATION TO BUSINESS TEST; and

- Work must be necessary and desirable.

4. LEGAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS COMPLIANCE

- The service agreement should contain provisions for the benefits and rights
of the employees.

238. Question: Can Article 110 may be invoked in the absence of a formal
declaration of bankruptcy?
 Answer: No. Under Article 110 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715, it
is provided: "In the event of bankruptcy or liquidation of the employer's business,
his workers shall enjoy first preference as regards their wages and other monetary
claims, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. Such unpaid wages
and monetary claims shall be paid in full before claims of the government and
other creditors shall be paid."

In the case of DBP v. NLRC (G.R. No. 75801), it was held that taxes and secured
credit transactions are preferred over the ordinary credit transactions. Article 110
may not be invoked in the absence of a formal declaration of bankruptcy or
judicial liquidation order.

239. Question: Give the two (2) types of Attorney’s fees and define each type.

Answer: The following are the two (2) types of Attorney’s fees:

1. EXTRAORDINARY

Attorney’s fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be
paid by the losing party to the winning party. This may be awarded and is payable
to the client and not the lawyer, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that
the award shall accrue to the lawyer as additional or part of compensation.

2. ORDINARY

An attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client

for the legal services the lawyer renders.

240. Question: Are there allowed deductions from the wages of an employee?

Answer: Yes. As a general rule, making deductions from the wages of an employee
is prohibited. However, the following deductions are allowed:

1. When the deductions are authorized by law, including deductions for the
insurance premiums advanced by the employer in behalf of the employee as well
as the union dues where the right to check off has been recognized by the
employer or authorized in writing by the individual employee himself;

2. When the deductions are with the written authorization of the employees for
payment to a third person and the employer agrees to do so, provided that the
latter does not receive any pecuniary benefit, directly, or indirectly, from the
transaction;

3. When deductions are made pursuant to the order of the court;

4. When deductions as agency fees are made against the salary of a non-member
of the union; provided he accepts the benefits of the CBA; and
 5. When deductions are made for habitual tardiness or absence as a form of
disciplinary measure, known in labor law as docking.

241. Question: What are the 4 tests for a valid deduction?

Answer: The four tests for a valid deduction are:

1.) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be responsible for the
loss or damage;

2.) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to show cause why
deduction should not be made;

3.) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not
exceed the actual loss or damage; and

4.) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does not exceed
20% of the employee’s wages in a week.

242. Question: What are the authorized deductions by law?

Answer: The following are the authorized Deductions by Law:

a.) Deductions for facilities supplied by an employer;

b.) Deductions for loss or damage to tools, materials, equipment supplied by the
employer in trade, occupation or business where the practice of making the
deduction is recognized;

c.) Deduction for taxes withheld pursuant to the NIRC;

d.) Deductions for socials security, PhilHealth and PAGIBIG Premiums

e.) Deductions for employee’s compensation premiums;

f.) Deductions for a demandable debt due the employer;

g.) Deductions made in case of judgment against the debtor-worker where the
wages may be the subject of attachment or execution but only for debts incurred
for food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance

243. Question: What are the acts involving withholding of wages and kickbacks?

Answer: The acts involving withholding of wages and kickbacks are as

follows:
 a.) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold
any amount from the wages of a worker;

b.) Induce him to give up any party of his wages by force, stealth,
intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever.

244. Question: A taxi company requires its drivers to make daily deposits to defray
any shortage in their boundary. Is this covered by the general prohibition under Article
114?

Answer: Yes, a taxi company requiring drivers to make daily deposits to defray
any shortage in their boundary is covered by the general prohibition under
Article 114. However, requiring them to deposit an amount to defray expenses
for car washing is allowed in view of the practice in the taxi industry for the
drivers to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when he
took it.

Rationale: This is the case of Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474.

245. Question: ABC Inc. contend that withholding an employee’s last salary is
justified because the employee was absent and did not show up for work during that
period. The employee also failed to account for his whereabouts and work
accomplishments during the period. ABC Inc. contend that it is within management
prerogative to temporarily withhold an employee’s salary pending determination of
whether such employee did indeed work. Is ABC Inc. correct?

Answer: No, ABC Inc. is incorrect. In the case of SHS Perforated Materials v. Diaz,
G.R. No. 185814, the Supreme Court held that management prerogative does not
include the right to temporarily withhold salary, wages, without the consent of the
employee to determine whether such an employee has in fact performed his work.

246. Question: What retaliatory measures may an employer commit which Article
118 of the labor code declares unlawful?

Answer: Article 118 of the Labor Code prohibits and declares it unlawful for the
employer to:

1.) Refuse to pay wages;

2.) Reduce the wages;

 3.) Discharge from employment; and

4.) Discriminate against the employee.

If retaliatory acts involve the union officers, then it is unfair labor practice.

247. Question: What is the consequence for employers who refuse or fail to pay
benefits upon the effectivity of a wage order?

Answer: Under the Doctrine of Double Indemnity, the employer will pay the
concerned employee of the prescribed increase or adjustments in the wage rate in an
amount equivalent to twice the unpaid benefits owing to such employee.

248. Question: What is the rule on false reports kept by employers?

Answer: The employer is mandated by law to keep records that are genuine and
authentic in all its material respect, for it would be unlawful for him to make any
statement, report, or record knowing the same to be false.

249. Question: What are the four (4) tests in wage fixing?

Answer:

The following are the four (4) tests in wage fixing

1. Standards of needs;

2. Capacity of Employer to pay;

3. Comparable wages and incomes;

4. Requirements of economic and social development

250. Question: What is the rule for wage fixing?

Answer:

The rule is that within thirty (30) days after conclusion of last hearing, the Board shall
decide on the merits of the petition and where appropriate, issue a wage order. The
wage order shall specify the region, province, or industry to which the minimum
wage shall apply. Furthermore, any wage order issued by the Board may not be
disturbed for a period of 12 months from its effectivity, and no petition for wage
increase shall be entertained within the said period. The wage order shall take effect
 15 days after its publication in at least one newspaper of general circulation. If there
be any aggrieved party, they may appeal such order to the commission by filing a
verified appeal with the Board.

251. Question: What is wage distortion?

Answer:

R.A. No. 6727 defined “wage distortion” as a situation where an increase in

prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional
quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups
in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage
structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical basis of differentiation.

252. Question: When does wage distortion arise?

Answer:

Wage distortion arises when the following are present:

1. An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates;

2. A significant change or increase in the salary rate of a lower pay class without
a corresponding increase in the salary rate of a higher one;

3. The elimination of the distinction between the two groups of classes; and

4. The distortion exists in the same region of the country.

253. Question: What is the difference between floor wage and salary ceiling?

Answer:

Floor wage method involves the fixing of a determinate amount to be added to the
prevailing statutory minimum wage rates, while in salary-ceiling method, the wage
adjustment was to be applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary
ceiling. The workers already being paid more than the existing minimum wage are
also to be given a wage increase.

254. Question: Is there an instance where the across the board wage increase
applied by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board cannot be
applied?

Answer:

Yes. As held in Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services. Inc., v. Nasipit
Employees Labor Union, G.R. No. 162411, Across the board wage increase applied
 by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board cannot apply to those who
are already enjoying a wage higher than the minimum.

255. Question: Is mere factual existence of wage distortion ipso facto result to
an obligation to rectify it?

Answer:

In the case of Bankard v. Metro Transit, G.R. No. 140689, it was held that mere
factual existence of wage distortion does not, however, ipso facto result to an
obligation to rectify it, absent a law or other source of obligation which requires its
rectification. Unlike in Metro Transit then where there existed a "company practice,"
no such management practice is herein alleged to obligate Bankard to provide an
across-the-board increase to all its regular employees. Bankard’s right to increase its
hiring rate, to establish minimum salaries for specific jobs, and to adjust the rates of
employees affected thereby is embodied under Section 2, Article V (Salary and Cost
of Living Allowance) of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), to wit:
Section 2. Any salary increase granted under this Article shall be without prejudice
to the right of the Company to establish such minimum salaries as it may hereafter
find appropriate for specific jobs, and to adjust the rates of the employees thereby
affected to such minimum salaries thus established. This CBA provision, which is
based on legitimate business-judgment prerogatives of the employer, is a valid and
legally enforceable source of rights between the parties. In fine, absent any indication
that the voluntary increase of salary rates by an employer was done arbitrarily and
illegally for the purpose of circumventing the laws or was devoid of any legitimate
purpose other than to discriminate against the regular employees, this Court will not
step in to interfere with this management prerogative. Employees are of course not
precluded from negotiating with its employer and lobby for wage increases through
appropriate channels, such as through a CBA.

256. Question: Where and when sexual harassment is committed?

Answer:

Situations where sexual harassment may exist:

1. Work environment;

2. Education environment; and

3. Training environment.

Sexual Harassment is Committed:

1. By any employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,

teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person;
 2. Who, having authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over another;

3. In a work, training, or education environment;

4. Demands, requests, or otherwise requires any sexual favor from another regardless
of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the
object of said act.

257. Question: What are the acts of discrimination against women enumerated
under the Labor Coder?
Answer:
Article 133 [135] of the Labor Code considers as unlawful the act of an employer to
discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of
employment solely on account of her sex. The following are acts of discrimination:

(a) Payment of a lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of

remuneration and fringe benefits, to a female employee as against a male
employee, for work of equal value; and
(b) Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion,
training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their
sexes.

258. Question: What are the acts of discrimination against women enumerated
under the Magna Carta of Women?

Answer:
Based on the definition of the term “Discrimination Against Women” in R.A. No.
9710, the following are considered discriminatory acts:

(a) Any gender-based distinction, exclusion, or restriction which has the effect
or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise
by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men
and women.
(b) Any act or omission, including by law, policy, administrative measure, or
practice that directly or indirectly excludes or restricts women in the
recognition and promotion of their rights and their access to and enjoyment
of opportunities, benefits or privileges;
(c) A measure or practice of general application that fails to provide for
mechanisms to offset or address sex or gender-based disadvantages or
limitations of women, as a result of which women are denied or restricted in
the recognition and protection of their rights and in their access to and
enjoyment of opportunities, benefits or privileges; or women, more than men,
are shown to have suffered greater adverse effects of those measures or
 practices; and
(d) Discrimination compounded by or intersecting with other grounds, status, or
condition.

259. Question: Sometime in 2008, in line with respondent Coca-Cola’s “I

Operate, I Maintain, I Clean” program for bottling operators, the chairs provided for
the operators were removed. Petitioner Royal Plant Workers Union, however,
contended that the removal of the chairs constitutes a violation of the labor laws and
the State policy to assure the right of the workers to a just and humane condition of
work pursuant to Article 3 of the Labor Code and of CCBPI's Global Workplace
Rights Policy. Is the contention of petitioner union correct?

Answer:
No, the contention of petitioner union is incorrect. The rights of the Union
under any labor law were not violated. There is no law that requires employers
to provide chairs for bottling operators. The CA correctly ruled that the Labor
Code, specifically Article 130
[132] thereof, only requires employers to provide seats for women. No similar
requirement is mandated for men or male workers. It must be stressed that all
concerned bottling operators in this case are men (Royal Plant Workers Union
v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 198783).

260. Question: As part of the condition of Ms. Haan Baak’s employment, employer
Ay-Ena requires that Ms. Haan Baak should be unmarried and shall remain
unmarried. Otherwise, upon getting married, she shall be deemed resigned. Is the
requirement of employer Ay-Ena lawful?

Answer:
No, the requirement of employer Ay-Ena is unlawful.

Article 134 [136] of the Labor Code provides that “it shall be unlawful for an
employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment
that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that
upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or
to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman
employee merely by reason of her marriage.”

Hence, employer Ay-Ena’s requirement that Ms. Haan Baak should be unmarried
and shall remain unmarried as a condition for her employment is unlawful.

261. Question: Can children below fifteen years of age be employed?

Answer:
 Generally, children below fifteen years of age cannot be employed. However, Section
12, Article VIII of R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, provides the
following exceptions:

(1) When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his/her parents
or legal guardian and where only members of his/her family are employed:
Provided, however, That his/her employment neither endangers his/her life,
safety, health, and morals, nor impairs his/her normal development: Provided,
further, That the parent or legal guardian shall provide the said child with the
prescribed primary and/or secondary education;
(2) Where a child's employment or participation in public entertainment or
information through cinema, theater, radio, television or other forms of media
is essential: Provided, That the employment contract is concluded by the
child's parents or legal guardian, with the express agreement of the child
concerned, if possible, and the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment: Provided, further, That the following requirements in all
instances are strictly complied with:
(a) The employer shall ensure the protection, health, safety, morals and
normal development of the child;
(b) The employer shall institute measures to prevent the child's
exploitation or discrimination taking into account the system and level
of remuneration, and the duration and arrangement of working time;
and
(c) The employer shall formulate and implement, subject to the approval
and supervision of competent authorities, a continuing program for
training and skills acquisition of the child.

262. Question: Can an employer automatically engage a child below fifteen years
of age belonging to the exceptions provided in Section 12, Article VIII of R.A. No.
7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231, upon compliance with the requirements
mentioned therein without the need of a work permit?

Answer:
No, an employer cannot automatically engage a working child without first securing
a work permit. The law provides that in the given exceptional circumstances, where
any such child may be employed, the employer shall first secure, before engaging
such child, a work permit from the Department of Labor and Employment. This is to
ensure that the requirements mentioned in the said Article are observed.

263. Question: What are the hours of work of a working child?

Answer:
The following are the hours of work which shall be observed for any child allowed to
work under the law:
 (a) A child below fifteen (15) years of age may be allowed to work for not more
than twenty (20) hours a week: Provided, That the work shall not be more
than four (4) hours at any given day;
(b) A child fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) shall not be allowed
to work for more than eight (8) hours a day, and in no case beyond forty (40)
hours a week; and
(c) No child below fifteen (15) years of age shall be allowed to work between 8
o'clock in the evening and 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day and
no child fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) shall be allowed to
work between 10 o'clock in the evening and 6 o'clock in the morning of the
following day. (Section 12-A, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R. A. No. 9231,
December 19, 2003).

264. Question: What does the phrase “worst forms of child labor” refer to?

Answer:
The phrase "worst forms of child labor", which children shall not be engaged to
refers to any of the following:

(a) All forms of slavery, as defined under the "Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of
2003", or practices similar to slavery such as sale and trafficking of children,
debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including
recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) The use, procuring, offering or exposing of a child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal or illicit activities,
including the production or trafficking of dangerous drugs and volatile
substances prohibited under existing laws; or
(d) Work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is
hazardous or likely to be harmful to the health, safety or morals of children.

265. Question: Under the phrase “worst forms of child labor”, what is the nature
of working conditions that will constitute where it is likely to be harmful to the health,
safety or morals of children?

Answer:
The phrase "worst forms of child labor" where the nature of the work is likely to be
harmful to the health, safety or morals of children constitutes any of the following:

a. Debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a

human being; or
b. Exposes the child to physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or is found to be highly
 stressful psychologically or may prejudice morals; or
c. Is performed underground, underwater or at dangerous heights; or
d. Involves the use of dangerous machinery, equipment and tools such as power-
driven or explosive power-actuated tools; or
e. Exposes the child to physical danger such as, but not limited to the dangerous
feats of balancing, physical strength or contortion, or which requires the manual
f. transport of heavy loads; or
g. Is performed in an unhealthy environment exposing the child to hazardous
working conditions, elements, substances, co-agents or processes involving
ionizing, radiation, fire, flammable substances, noxious components and the like,
or to extreme temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations; or
h. Is performed under particularly difficult conditions; or
i. Exposes the child to biological agents such as bacteria, fungi, viruses,
protozoans, nematodes and other parasites; or
j. Involves the manufacture or handling of explosives and other pyrotechnic
products.

266. Question: As a kasambahay, is an employment contract important?

Answer:
Yes, There must be an employment contract in writing and should contain conditions set
by law. The employment contract shall conform to the standards set by the Department of
Labor and Employment. To make the relationship between the employer and the
kasambahay more formal,
R.A. No. 1036122 requires that a written contract of employment be executed between
them.

267. Question: Cite some reasons why domestic workers cannot acquire regularity of
employment.

Answer:
Domestic Workers cannot acquire regularity of employment under R.A. No. 10361
due to the following reasons:

• By express provision of the law, the employment contracts of Kasambahays

are for fixed or definite term. They do not fix the period of employment nor put a cap
on their duration, unlike in Article 142 of the Labor Code.
• The law does not recognize any probationary employment of Kasambahays;
• The Kasambahays are not included in the concept of regular employment
under Article 280 (Regular and Casual Employment) of the Labor Code;
• The Kasambahays are not entitled to the reliefs provided under Article 279 of
the Labor Code such as “reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his/her full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his/her other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his/her compensation
 was withheld from him/her up to the time of his/her actual reinstatement";
• The Kasambahays' enjoyment of security of tenure holds true only during the
effectivity of their fixed-term employment;
• The employment of Kasambahays ceases upon the expiration of the fixed term
thereof;
• The contract of employment of Kasambahays is terminable by mere notice, a
clear indication that the employment is not regular in nature;
• The Kasambahay is given the right to pre-terminate the employment contract.

268. Question: What are the qualifications of an apprentice?

Answer:
Apprenticeship means any training on the job supplemented by related theoretical
instruction involving apprenticeable occupations and trades as may be approved by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. It is a training within employment with
compulsory related theoretical instructions involving a contract between an apprentice
and an employer or an enterprise on an approved apprenticeable occupation. Whereas,
an “apprentice” is a worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship agreement with
an employer, which requires for proficiency, more than three (3) months of practical
training on the job supplemented by related theoretical instructions.

269. Question: What are the qualifications of an apprentice?

Answer:
The qualifications of an apprentice are as follows:

Be at least fifteen (15) years of age, provided those who are at least fifteen (15) years
of age but less than eighteen (18) may be eligible for apprenticeship only in non-
hazardous occupation; Be physically fit for the occupation in which he desires to be
trained; Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for the particular occupation as
established through appropriate tests; and Possess the ability to comprehend and
follow oral and written instructions.

270. Question: May an apprentice become a regular employee if the

apprenticeship program is not approved by TESDA?

Answer:
No, The requisite TESDA approval of the apprenticeship program prior to the hiring
of apprentices was further emphasized by the DOLE with the issuance of Department
Order No. 68-04 on 18 August 2004 specifically states that no enterprise shall be
allowed to hire apprentices unless its apprenticeship program is registered and
approved by TESDA. However, in the case of In the case of Century Canning
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 152894, August 17, 2007, the respondent
 is not considered an apprentice because the apprenticeship agreement was enforced
before the TESDA's approval of petitioner's apprenticeship program, respondent is
deemed a regular employee performing the job of a "fish cleaner." Clearly, the job of
a "fish cleaner" is necessary in petitioner's business as a tuna and sardines’ factory.
Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, an employment is deemed regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

271. Question: Who is a learner and what is a learnership?

Answer:
A “learner” is a person hired as a trainee in industrial occupations which are non-
apprenticeable and which may be learned through practical training on the job for a
period not exceeding three
(3) months, whether or not such practical training is supplemented by theoretical
instructions. Whereas, a learnership refers to any practical training on learnable
occupation which may or may not be supplemented by related theoretical instructions.

272. Question: What are the prerequisites before a learner may be hired?

Answer:
The prerequisites where learners may be hired are as follows: When no experienced
workers are available; The employment of learners is necessary to prevent curtailment
of employment opportunities; and the employment does not create unfair competition
in terms of labor costs or impair or lower working standards.

273. Question: Are the Handicapped Workers not eligible for apprenticeship and
learnership?

Answer:
No. Based on the Handicapped Workers Rules, they are entitled to equal
opportunity for employment. They are eligible for apprenticeship and learnership.
Handicapped workers are entitled to not less than 75% of the applicable adjusted
minimum wage and a Magna Carta – 100%.

Rationale:
Article 81. Eligibility for apprenticeship. - Subject to the appropriate
provisions of this Code, handicapped workers may be hired as apprentices or learners
if their handicap is not such as to effectively impede the performance of job operations
in the particular occupations for which they are hired.

274. Question: Are the employers who employ persons with disabilities shall be
entitled to an additional deduction from their gross income equivalent to 15% of the
 total amount paid as salaries and wages to persons with disabilities?

Answer:

No, those employers who employ persons with disabilities shall be entitled to
an additional deduction from their gross income equivalent to 25% of the total amount
paid based on the Handicapped Workers Rules. Provided, however, That such entities
present proof as certified by the Department of Labor and Employment that disabled
persons are under their employ. Provided, further, That the disabled employee is
accredited with the Department of Labor and Employment and the Department of
Health as to his disability, skills and qualifications.

Rationale:

Many companies in the Philippines have since started accepting PWD

workers, making it a game-changer in the industry. Not only are they treating them
equally, but they also still cater to their special needs. They make job positions
accessible to PWDs, allowing for more room in the industry.

275. Question: Are the Handicapped workers entitled to not less than 75% of the
applicable adjusted minimum wage.

Answer:

Yes. Based on the Handicapped Workers Rules, they are entitled to equal
opportunity for employment. They are eligible for apprenticeship and learnership.
Handicapped workers are entitled to not less than 75% of the applicable adjusted
minimum wage and a Magna Carta – 100%.

Rationale:
Learners, apprentices and handicapped workers shall be entitled to not less
than seventy-five percent (75%) of the applicable adjusted minimum wage. A
handicapped worker is one whose efficiency or quality of work is impaired by his
disability in relation to the work performed.

276. Question: Are the Handicapped Workers not entitled to equal opportunity
for employment?

Answer:
No. Based on the Handicapped Workers Rules, they are entitled to equal
opportunity for employment. They are eligible for apprenticeship and learnership.
Handicapped workers are entitled to not less than 75% of the applicable adjusted
minimum wage and a Magna Carta – 100%.
 Rationale:
No disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable
employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and
conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe
benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person.

277. Question: What are the key rights and entitlements for handicapped workers
in the context of employment?

Answer: Handicapped workers have several rights and entitlements in the workplace.
They are entitled to equal opportunity for employment, eligible for apprenticeship and
learnership programs, and are entitled to not less than 75% of the applicable adjusted
minimum wage. Additionally, the Magna Carta guarantees them 100% support in their
employment.

278. Question: Explain the significance of offering equal employment

opportunities to handicapped workers.

Answer: Offering equal employment opportunities to handicapped workers is

essential to prevent discrimination based on disabilities and promote inclusivity and
diversity in the workplace.

279. Question: Explain the concept of the 25% additional deduction for employers
who hire persons with disabilities. How does this benefit both employers and
handicapped workers?

Answer: Employers who hire persons with disabilities are eligible for a 25%
additional deduction from their gross income, which is equivalent to 25% of the total
amount paid as salaries and wages to persons with disabilities. This incentive benefits
employers by reducing their taxable income, and it benefits handicapped workers by
encouraging more employment opportunities.

280. Question: Discuss the importance of offering apprenticeship and learnership

opportunities to handicapped workers. How can these programs empower them in
the workforce?

Answer: Apprenticeship and learnership programs are vital for handicapped workers
as they provide valuable training and skill development opportunities. These
programs empower handicapped workers by equipping them with the knowledge and
skills required to succeed in the job market. They enhance their employability, boost
their confidence, and help bridge the employment gap for disabled individuals
NOTE: No content in page 70 so we made two sets of questions for page 69.

…END OF 2A…
281. QUESTION: Define Labor Relations?

ANSWER: Labor Relations refers to that part of labor law which regulates the relations
between employers and workers. It involves settlement of disputes. The term "labor relations"
refers to that part of labor law which regulates the relations between employers and workers.
Examples are the provisions of Book V of the Labor Code which deal with labor
organizations, collective bargaining, grievance machinery voluntary arbitration, conciliation
and mediation, unfair labor practices, strikes, picketing and lockout

282. QUESTION: How may Labor Relations be distinguished from Labor Standards?

ANSWER: Labor relations, as understood within the ambit of Book of the Labor Code, dwell
on the broad and dynamic relationship between the employer and the employee, its
ramifications and implications insofar as their respective rights and interests are concerned
as well as the modes of settling and adjusting their differences and disputes. Just like any
relationship founded on mutual interest, the employer cannot exist without the employee and
vice versa.

While Labor Standars is that part of Labor Law which prescribes the minimum terms and
conditions of employment that the employer is required to grant to its employees. It is in this
light that laws are enacted to delineate and govern their relationship with the end in view of
promoting enduring industrial peace and harmony in the workplace.

283. QUESTION: Give examples that specifically covers Labor standards law and Labor
relations law.

ANSWER: Example of Labor standards law are the following:

Working conditions, wages, hours of work, holiday pay and other benefits, conditions of
employment of women, minors, house helpers and homeworkers, medical and dental
services, occupational health and safety, termination of employment and retirement.

Example of Labor relations law are the following: Labor organizations, collective bargaining,
grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration, conciliation and mediation, unfair labor
practices, strikes, picketing and lockout.

RATIONALE: Labor standards law specifically covers Books One to Four of the Labor
Code as well as Book VI thereof which deal with working conditions, wages, hours of work,
holiday pay and other benefits, conditions of employment of women, minors, house helpers
and homeworkers, medical and dental services, occupational health and safety, termination
of employment and retirement.

Labor relations law specifically covers: Book V of the Labor Code which deals with labor
organizations, collective bargaining, grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration, conciliation
and mediation, unfair labor practices, strikes, picketing and lockout.
284. QUESTION: What are the following rights of workers expressly guaranteed under the
Constitution?

ANSWER: The following rights of workers expressly guaranteed under the Constitution are
the following:

1. Self-organization;
2. Collective bargaining and negotiations;
3. Strike and other peaceful concerted activities;
4. Security of tenure;
5. Participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights, welfare and
benefits; and
6. Preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation and mediation.

RATIONALE:

Constitutional Foundation:

The following rights of workers are expressly guaranteed under the Constitution: (1) Self-
organization; (2) Collective bargaining and negotiations; (3) Strike and other peaceful
concerted activities; (4) Security of tenure; (5) Participation in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights, welfare and benefits; and (6) Preferential use of voluntary
modes in settling disputes, including conciliation and mediation.

285. QUESTION: Is the existence of employer-employee relationships essential in Labor

Relations?

ANSWER: Yes. It is essential for without it, there can be no legal basis for organizing in
order to be able to bargain collectively.More significantly, employer-employee relationship
is the jurisdictional basis for recovery of claims under the law. (Republic Planters Bank
General Services Employees Union National Association of Trade Unions v Laguesma, GR
No. 119675, Nov. 21, 1996, 264 SCRA 637, 643, Singer Sewing Machine Company v
Drillon, GR No. 91307, Jan. 24,1991, 193 SCRA 270,275).

286. QUESTION: Are labor relations and labor standards mutually exclusive?

ANSWER: No, labor relations and labor standards laws are not mutually exclusive. They
are complementary to and closely interlinked with each other. Labor relations and labor
standards laws are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary to, and closely
interlinked with, each other. For instance, the laws on collective bargaining, strikes and
lockouts which are covered by labor relations law necessarily relate to the laws on working
conditions found in Book III.

287. QUESTION: Give some manifestations of Right to Self-Organization.

ANSWER: Here are some manifestations:

- Ensuring the rights of workers, inter alia, to self-organization and collective bargaining;
- Promoting free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development; and
- Fostering the free modes of conciliation.

288. QUESTION: What are the two basic purposes of Labor Organization?

ANSWER: The following are the two basic purposes of Labor Organization:

1. For collective barrgaining; and

2. For dealing with the employer.

RATIONALE: This is based on the legal definition of the term “Labor Organization”.

289. QUESTION: Who may exercise the Right to Self-Organization?

ANSWER: The following may exercise this right.

PRIVATE SECTOR:

- All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises;

- Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations without original charters
established under the Corporation Code;
- Employees of religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions, whether operating for
profit or not;
- Front-line managers, commonly known as supervisory employees;
- Alien employees;
- Working children;
- Homeworkers;
- Employees of cooperatives; and (members)
- Employees of legitimate contractors – not with the principals but with the contractors.

PUBLIC SECTOR:

- All rank-and-file employees of all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of

government including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters.

RATIONALE: Every worker has the right to self-organization, that is, to form or to join any
legitimate worker’s union , free from interference of their employer or the government.

290. QUESTION: Who may review compliance with the requirements for certification
registration?

ANSWER: The BLR or the DOLE. It is MANDATORY for the BLR or the DOLE to review
compliance with the requirements for certification registration

291. QUESTION: What is a Labor Dispute?

ANSWER AND RATIONALE: A Labor Dispute is any controversy or matter concerning

terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of
 employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employer and employees.

292. QUESTION: Is the NLRC an independent agency of the Government?

ANSWER: YES. The NLRC used to be attached to DOLE solely for program and policy
coordination, but because of RA 9347 the NLRC is now an independent agency of the
government. The decision of the labor arbiter falls under the NLRC for appellate purposes.

293. QUESTION: What are the qualifications of an NLRC Commissioner?

ANSWER: The following are the qualifications of an NLRC Commissioner:

- Member of the Philippine Bar;

- Engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least 15 years;
- Experience and exposure in handing labor-management relations for at least 5 years; and
- Resident of the region where they shall hold office.

RATIONALE: The NLRC is a co-equal rank as the Court of Appeals, but their decisions
are appealable to the Court of Appeals by Rule 65.

294. QUESTION: What are the qualifications of a Labor Arbiter?

ANSWER: The following are the qualifications of a Labor Arbiter:

- Must be member of the Philippine Bar;

- Must have been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years; and
- Must have experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations for at least 5
years.

RATIONALE: Labor Arbiters are of equal rank as RTC Judges.

295. QUESTION: In the case of Santiago v C.F Sharp Crew Management Inc, what does it
say regarding Labor Arbiter Jurisdiction?

ANSWER: General rule, Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction when there is existence of employer-
employee relationship between the parties litigants, for it is a pre-requisite for the exercise of
jurisdiction over labor dispute. However, in this case, it held that despite the absence of an
employer-employee relationship the labor arbiter has jurisdiction.The employment contract
in this case has been perfected.

296. QUESTION: Are all disputes between an employer-employee relationship fall within
the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals?

ANSWER: No. Not all disputes between an employer-employee fall within the jurisdiction
of the labor tribunals. Abandonment of work is an example of a labor case and the manner
and consequent effects of such abandonment is an example of a civil case. The cause of action
arises from the employer-employee relationship. In Singapore Airlines Limited v. Pano – Not
all disputes between an employer-employee fall within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals.
Abandonment of work and the manner and consequent effects of such abandonment is that
the first is a labor case and the other is a civil case. The cause of action arises from the
 employer-employee relationship.

297. QUESTION: What are the powers of the Labor Arbiter?

ANSWER: The powers of the Labor Arbiter are the following:

- Injunction Power;
- Contempt Power; and
- Power to conduct ocular inspection

298. QUESTION: Is direct employer-employee relationship an essential requisite for a

labor dispute to exist?

ANSWER: No, it suffices that there be a showing of a reasonable causal connection between
the claim asserted and the employer-employee relationship. The cause of action asserted
should have reasonable causal connection to the employer-employee relationship. There
should be a reasonable causal connection with the cause of action and the employer-employee
relationship.

299. QUESTION: What are the cases under Article 224? And what is the exception?
ANSWER: The cases under Article 224 are the following:
-Unfair Labor Practice;
-Termination Disputes;
-Claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates, pay, hour
of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
-Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-
employee relationship;
-Cases arising from279 including questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts;
The exception:
Claims for employees’ compensation, social security, PhilHealth and money claims
involving 5,000 pesos and below.

300. QUESTION: Enumerate the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under the Labor Code.

ANSWER: The following are the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under the Labor Code:

1. Article 224 (a) - Unfair Labor Practice, Termination disputes; Claim for reinstatement, those
cases that workers may file involving wages, rates, pay, hour of work and other terms and
conditions of employment; Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relationship; Cases arising from 279 including questions
involving legality of strikes and lockouts; Except: Claims for employees’ compensation,
social security, PhilHealth and money claims involving 5,000 pesos and below.
2. Article 124 - Disputes involving legislated wage increases and wage distortion in
unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled.
3. Article 128 (b) - Contested Cases
4. Article 233 - Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by any
of the parties.
5. Article 276 - Writ of execution to enforce decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators.

RATIONALE: Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under the Labor Code:

Article 224 (a) - Unfair Labor Practice, Termination disputes; Claim for reinstatement, those
cases that workers may file involving wages, rates, pay, hour of work and other terms and
conditions of employment; Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relationship; Cases arising from 279 including questions
involving legality of strikes and lockouts; Except: Claims for employees’ compensation,
social security, PhilHealth and money claims involving 5,000 pesos and below.

Article 124 - Disputes involving legislated wage increases and wage distortion in
unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled.

Article 128 (b) - Contested Cases

Article 233 - Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by any

of the parties.

Article 276 - Writ of execution to enforce decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators.

301. QUESTION: Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over Contested Cases?

ANSWER: Yes, Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over contested cases such as the following:

● Employer contest findings of the labor regulations officer and raises thereon;
● In order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
● Such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

302. QUESTION: Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over Special Law?

ANSWER: Yes, Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over money claims arising out of employer-
employee relationship of OFWs. Under Section 10 of RA 8042: Money claims arising out of
employer-employee relationship of OFWs.

303. QUESTION: What are the instances when the Labor Arbiter acquires jurisdiction over
unfair labor practices?

ANSWER: The Labor Arbiter acquires jurisdiction over unfair labor practices through these
instances:

1. Gross violations resulting to unfair labor practice;

2. Civil aspect is cognizable by the labor arbiter. Criminal is cognizable by the regular courts;
and
3. Gross violations of the CBA except when parties agree to submit to voluntary arbitration.

304. QUESTION: Is removal or expulsion of a union member an inter-union dispute?

 ANSWER: No. Removal or expulsion is an unfair labor practice in violation of the right to
join a labor organization. In the case of Allan Mendoza v. Officers of Manila Water
Employees Union – The union member filed a case against the union for removal/expulsion.
Labor Arbiter stated that it is an intra-union dispute and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court stated that it is not an intra-union dispute, but an unfair labor practice in
violation of the right to join a labor organization and it falls under the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter.

305. QUESTION: Does a federation have a personality to file a case against a union by
reason of disaffiliation?

ANSWER: No, a federation does not have a personality to file a case against a union by
reason of disaffiliation. In the case of Philippine Skylander Inc. v. NLRC, the Supreme Court
has held that a federation has no personality to file a case against the union by reason of
disaffiliation and there is no unfair labor practice.

306. QUESTION: Can jurisdiction be conferred by mutual agreement of the parties?

ANSWER: Yes, jurisdiction can be conferred by mutual agreement of the parties as long as
the Labor Arbiters act as a Voluntary Arbitrator. The Supreme Court held in Negros Metal
Corp. v. Lamayo, mutual agreement may be conferred to the Voluntary Arbitrator absent
provisions of the CBA.

307. QUESTION: Abdul Ahmed X. Aberjakar-Amarabo, a security guard in BIDYAKUL

SALSALANI INVESTIGATION CORPORATION (BSIC), filed a complaint with the
DOLE Regional Director Dao Ming Su, against BSIC for non-compliance of the new wage
order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board in Baguio City
amounting to Php 800,000.00. Regional Director Dao Ming Su then conducted inspection
visits and found that BSIC indeed violated the non-implementation of the new wage order.
Regional Director Dao Ming Su then issued an order to BSIC to pay the amount of Php
800,000.00 within 10 days otherwise, a writ of execution shall be issued to enforce such
order. BSIC did not comply and appealed to the Secretary of Labor but was denied because
of failure to perfect the appeal. BSIC lastly filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the
issuance of temporary restraining order to the Supreme Court. BSIC contends that DOLE has
no jurisdiction because the power to adjudicate money claims belongs to the Labor Arbiter
where the aggregate amount exceeds Php 5,000.00. Does the DOLE have jurisdiction?

ANSWER: Yes, the DOLE has jurisdiction regardless of the amount of money claims as
long as there is an employee and employer relationship. In Allied Investigation Bureau Inc.
v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Supreme Court ruled that regardless of the
amount of money claims, as long as there is employer-employee relationship, the DOLE has
jurisdiction.

308. QUESTION: When does the DOLE or Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over money
claims?
 ANSWER:

The DOLE has jurisdiction over money claims when:

1. The money claim does not exceed 5,000 pesos; or

2. The money claim exceeds 5,000 pesos and the employer-employee relationship exists.

The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over money claims when:

1. The money claim exceeds 5,000 pesos without prayer for reinstatement; or
2. The money claim does not exceed 5,000 pesos but with prayer for reinstatement.

309. QUESTION: Does the DOLE have jurisdiction over cases arising out of the visitorial
power of the Secretary of Labor even if the money claim exceeds 5,000 pesos?

ANSWER: Yes. The DOLE has jurisdiction over cases arising out of their visitorial powers.
Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code :The Department of Labor and Employment should
maintain jurisdiction over cases arising out of the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor
even if it exceeds 5,000 pesos provided that employer-employee relationship exists.

310. QUESTION: Can you invoke the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter in cross-claims?

ANSWER: No. You cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter in cross-claims. In
the case of Del Monte Philippines Inc. v. Saldivar, the Supreme court ruled that a person
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter in cross-claims. It should be with the
Voluntary Arbitrator.

311. QUESTION: What are the instances when Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over
Contested cases?

ANSWER: The following are the instances when Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over
Contested cases:

● Employer contest findings of the labor regulations officer and raises thereon;
● In order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
● Such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection

312. QUESTION: What kind of agreements fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter?

ANSWER: Compromise agreements, it is an agreement between a business and an

employee under which the employee agrees to settle their potential claims and in return the
employer will agree to pay financial compensation. This kind of agreement falls under the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

313. QUESTION: Can POEA acquire jurisdiction over cases which are not administrative
in character?

ANSWER: No. POEA can only acquire jurisdiction over all cases which are
 administrative in character, involving or arising out of violations of recruitment rules and
regulations, including refund of fees collected from land-based OFWs and seafarers and any
violation of the condition for the issuance of the license to recruit OFWs.

314. QUESTION: What are the cases not falling under the POEA?

ANSWER: The following are the cases not falling under the POEA:

● Money claims;
● Quasi-delict or tort cases;
● Enforcement of foreign judgment;
● Local employment

311. QUESTION: What law governs Government-owned and controlled Corporation?

ANSWER: GOCCs and/or controlled corporations whether created by law or formed as

subsidiaries under the general corporation law are governed by the Civil Service Law and not
by the Labor Code.GOCCs are vested with functions relating to public need whether
governmental or proprietary in nature.

312. QUESTION: What is Joined Personality Doctrine for Member-employees?

ANSWER: Joined Personality Doctrine for Member-employees means a member-employee

has two distinct personalities joined into one:

● As an employee of the cooperative; and

● As a Member co-owner

313. QUESTION: Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over Local Water District?

ANSWER: No the Labor Arbiter have no jurisdiction over Local Water District. In Hagonoy
Water District vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 81490, August 31, 1988], the Supreme Court ruled that
local water districts are quasi-public corporations and, therefore, the dismissal of their
employees are governed by the civil service laws, rules and regulations. In Hagonoy Water
District vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 81490, August 31, 1988], the Supreme Court ruled that local
water districts are quasi-public corporations and, therefore, the dismissal of their employees
are governed by the civil service laws, rules and regulations.

314. QUESTION: Are employees created under an exclusive authority of the Department
of Tourism falls within the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter?

ANSWER: No, Employees are subject to the Civil Service Law being created under
exclusive authority of the Department of Tourism. Duty Free Philippines v. Mojica, the
Supreme Court ruled that employees are subject to the Civil Service Law being created under
exclusive authority of the Department of Tourism.

315. QUESTION: What is the test to determine the type of dispute?

ANSWER:
To determine the type of dispute, the two-tiered test must be followed which are:
a. The status or relationship of parties (relationship test); and
b. Nature of the questions that is subject of their controversy (nature of controversy test)

RATIONALE:
Two-tiered test to determine a type of dispute:
c. The status or relationship of parties (relationship test); and
d. Nature of the questions that is subject of their controversy (nature of controversy test)

316. QUESTION: The employment contract Messi signed in 2020 with Barcelona
Pharmaceutical Company states that he will not be allowed to work for or consult for another
company in the same industry or a competitor for two years following the termination of his
employment. A rival of Barcelona Pharmaceutical Company, Madrid Pharmaceutical
Company, hired Messi right away after he resigned from Barcelona Pharmaceutical Company
in 2021. Having violated the non-compete clause in their contract, the latter filed a
P3,000,000.00 damages lawsuit against Messi in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC
ruled that the complaint for damages arises from an employer-employee relations, and
determined that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject
matter. As a result, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the dispute. Is
the RTC correct?

ANSWER: No, the RTC is not correct.

In Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Villarama, (G.R. No. 112940:

November 21, 1994), the Supreme Court held that the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction in cases
that no longer has employee-employer relationship.

In the instant case, the employer-employee relationship between Messi and Barcelona
Pharmaceutical Company was already severed when Messi resigned. Thus, the claim for
damages by Barcelona Pharmaceutical Company falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC and
not the Labor Arbiter.

317. QUESTION: In what cases does the Labor Arbiter have no jurisdiction?

ANSWER: The Labor Arbiters have NO JURISDICTION over breach of non-compete

clause and other post-employment prohibitions. ART. 224. [217] Jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters and the Commission. 183 –(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty
(30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without
extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all
workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

(1) Unfair labor practice cases;

(2) Termination disputes;184
(3) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving
wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; (4) Claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations;
(5) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code,185 including questions
involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and
(6) Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare186 and maternity
 benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Labor Arbiters.

(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining

agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance
machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.

318. QUESTION:
What are the two tiered test to determine whether a case involves intra-corporate
controversy?

ANSWER:
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, two elements
must concur: (a) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question
that is the subject of their controversy.

The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or
partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership, or
association of which they are not stockholders, members or associates, between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members
or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership, or association and the
State insofar as it concerns the individual franchises. The second element requires that the
dispute among the parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If
the nature of the controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character, necessarily,
the case does not involve an intra-corporate controversy.’ (Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011 [De; Castillo, J.)

319. QUESTION: Taylor Sheesh was the Vice President of JBL Builders and one of the
incorporators of the company. She also handled the construction projects within Cordilleras
and had to travel a lot due to the nature of her work. Since the company is based in Baguio
City, Taylor failed to attend the weekly stockholders meetings numerous times. Taylor
Sheesh was then dismissed from her position due to her shortcomings. She then filed a case
before the RTC against the company for illegal dismissal. Can the RTC take cognizance of
the case.

ANSWER: No, the RTC cannot take cognizance of the illegal dismissal case. As decided in
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, Inc. the labor arbiter and not the regular courts, has original
jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case of an incorporator. The mere fact that a person was
a stockholder at the time of the filing of the case does not make the action an intra-corporate
dispute. A person, although an officer of the company, is not necessarily a corporate officer
thereof.
320. QUESTION: Travis and Taylor were working in the Le Cheffe Restaurant in the John
Mayer Airbase operated by the US Air Force located in Baguio City. They entered into a
romantic relationship while they were working in the said restaurant. Taylor was then
dismissed due to the violation of the company policy on workplace romance. Taylor then
filed a case before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch. Le Cheffe filed a motion to
dismiss due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Philippine court to take cognizance of the case
and state immunity.. Le Cheffe claims that the US courts shall be the only courts with
jurisdiction over cases filed regarding establishments within the John Mayer Airbase since it
is under the US government. Is the contention of Le Cheffe correct?

ANSWER: No, Le Cheffe is not correct. As decided on United States v. Hon. Rodrigo, the
know the jurisdiction of the proper court, the function of the foreign entity partakes of the
nature of a proprietary activity only and not of a commercial activity for profit. The Le Cheffe
Restaurant is for commercial activity and not in the governmental capacity of the US Airbase.
Thus the case for illegal dismissal is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts.

321. QUESTION: Betty was employed as a teller for the Asian Development Bank. She
also sells food to her coworkers that she cooks before going to work which helps in the daily
expenses of her family since she is a single-mom of four and all of her children are studying.
Her manager, James, was not happy with her selling food in the bank since he believes it is
interfering with Betty’s work. James then decided to dismiss Betty. Can Betty file a case of
illegal dismissal?

ANSWER: No, Betty cannot file a case of illegal dismissal. As decided in the Department
of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC, Asian Development Bank is an entity which enjoys immunity
from suit therefore a labor case will not prosper.
In this case, Betty was employed by the Asian Development Bank and ADB is enjoying
immunity from suits. Thus, Betty cannot file a case against ADB.

322. QUESTION: A case was filed against Cornelia Corporation before the Labor Arbiter.
Unfortunately, the corporation wanted to declare bankruptcy but went to rehabilitation. The
Labor Arbiter then decided on the case disadvantageous of the Cornelia Corporation.
Cornelia now seeks your advice on their remedy since they found out you are studying labor
law from one of the best labor law professors in the city. What is your remedy?

ANSWER: The remedy is to file for a petition to annul the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Any decision by the Labor Arbiter shall be void in case the corporation is under financial
rehabilitation or insolvency. In this case, the decision was made during the financial
rehabilitation of the corporation thus, the decision is void.

323. QUESTION: Employees of the Archer company were not happy with the drafted
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of their Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent
(SEBA). They have then filed a case questioning the constitutionality of the CBA before the
RTC. The SEBA filed a motion to dismiss contending the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction of
the case. Is the SEBA correct?

ANSWER: No, the SEBA is not correct. Under the Halaguena Doctrine (Halaguena v.
 Philippine Airlines Inc. ), it is not the labor arbiter, but the regular court which has jurisdiction
to rule on the constitutionality of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In this case, the case filed by the employees of the Archer is proper. They have filed it with
the regular courts who shall have the jurisdiction over the case.

324. QUESTION: A petition for certiorari was filed against the Labor Arbiter before the
Supreme Court. The petitioners claim that the Labor Arbiter has acted with grave abuse of
discretion for failing to decide on the case filed by the petitioners promptly. They contend
that the case was filed for more than 40 days already and should have already been decided.
Are they correct?

ANSWER: Yes, they are correct. The Labor Arbiter is only given 30 days to decide on cases
filed before its court. Here, the Labor Arbiter failed to decide on the case within the period it
is authorized to decide the case on. Thus, the Labor Arbiter has acted with grave abuse of
discretion.

325. QUESTION: Matt Heali applied for employment with T. Swift Corned Beef
Corporation. After taking the pre-employment examination and complying with all the
requirements he was asked to submit, he was transferred to another division which he did not
apply for as a transitory employee. He took another examination for the said division and
passed the exam. He was given a six-month contract as a clerk which was a lower position
than what he originally applied for. He continued with the employment but he was only given
half the monthly salary of a clerk. Matt then files a case before the MTC. T. Swift filed a
motion to dismiss contending the NLRC should have the jurisdiction over the case. Is T.
Swift correct?

ANSWER: No. In Tolosa v. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that, it is not the NLRC but the
regular courts that have jurisdiction over action for damages, in which the employer-
employee relations is merely incidental, and in which the cause of action proceeds from a
different source of obligation such as tort.
Here, since petitioner's claim for damages is predicated on a quasi-delict or tort that has no
reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article 217, other labor
statutes or collective bargaining agreements, jurisdiction over the action lies with the regular
courts not with the NLRC or the labor arbiters.

326. QUESTION: Jhoe Alwin was an engineer for the London Boy Construction Company.
He consulted with Dr. TS about the recurring weakness and dizziness he was having. It was
found that he had Chronic Poly Sinusitis, and thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent
Allergic Rhinitis. He was later dismissed by the company for filing a complaint against the
company for unsafe working place. Jhoe filed a case before the NLRC for illegal dismissal
and for the payment of backwages, separation pay and moral damages. The company filed a
motion to dismiss contending that the jurisdiction falls under the Labor Arbiter. Is the London
Boy Construction Company correct?

ANSWER: No, the London Boy Construction Company is not correct. As decided on
Indophil Textile Mills Inc. v. Adviento the Court have formulated the "reasonable causal
 connection rule," wherein if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim
asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the
labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.
Here, the reliefs sought for by Jhoe Alwin are for backwages and damages due to fault of the
employer. He is not praying for any reliefs stated under the Labor Code but rather, his reliefs
are under the predicament of the unsafe workplace that led to work-related disease. Such
cause of action is under the Civil Law which is cognizable by the regular Courts.

327. QUESTION: In a complaint filed with the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Voldemort, an employee of Slytherin Bar, alleged that the latter had been in
violation of labor laws by not following the wage increase order and by not being paid for
overtime, holidays, or rest days. Voldemort also requested an investigation and inspection.
Salazar, the Slytherin Bar's proprietor, claimed that Voldemort's total claim exceeds PHP
5,000.00. Therefore, regardless of whether a claim for reinstatement is included or not, the
DOLE lacks jurisdiction over his case.

Is the argument of Salazar correct?

ANSWER: No, the argument of Salazar is not correct. The Labor Code provides that
notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 to the contrary, and in cases where
the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give
effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the
findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made
in the course of inspection.

In the instant case despite Voldemort's claim exceeding the maximum amount of Php
5,000.00 as specified in Article 129, the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
representatives, such as the DOLE regional directors, retain jurisdiction over the case of
Voldemort. They can still issue compliance orders, enforce the Labor Standards provisions,
and propose labor legislation based on the findings of their inspections, provided that
Voldemort and Slytherin Bar's employer-employee relationship still exists. Hence, the Dole
Regional Director as authorized representative of the Secretary has jurisdiction.

328. QUESTION: What are the two categories of jurisdiction the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) have?

ANSWER: The first category of jurisdiction that the NLRC have is its original jurisdiction
over petitions for injunction in ordinary labor disputes to order or restrain the actual or
threatened commission of, or to permit the performance of, any or all prohibited or unlawful
acts require a specific action in a labor dispute which, if not promptly stopped or carried out,
may cause serious or irreparable harm to a party; petitions for an injunction in the event of
strikes or lockouts; certified labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest certified to it by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment for compulsory arbitration, and; petition to annul or modify the order or
resolution of labor arbiters, including those issued during execution proceedings.

The second category consists of the NLRC's appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Labor Arbiters, cases decided by DOLE Regional Directors or hearing officers involving
allegations of small amounts of money under Article 129 of the Labor Code, and cases
 decided by Labor Arbiters regarding contempt.

RATIONALE: The NLRC has original and exclusive jurisdiction for the following cases:

1) Certified cases for compulsory arbitration – in relation to DOLE Secretary’s assumption

of jurisdiction (Article 278 [263] (g), Labor Code);
2) Extraordinary remedies via a verified petition to annul or modify the order or resolution
of the Labor Arbiter (Section 1, Rule XII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended);
3) Petition for Injunction in labor cases (Article 225 [218] (e), Labor Code); and,
4) Contempt cases

Article 217 of the Labor Code. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. - (a)
Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission
of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic
notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
"(1) Unfair labor practice cases; "(2) Termination disputes; "(3) If accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of
work and other terms and conditions of employment; "(4) Claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; "(5)
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving
the legality of strikes and lockouts; and "(6) Except claims for employees compensation,
social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-
employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service involving
an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a
claim for reinstatement. "(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. "(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation
or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed by the Labor Arbiter by
referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided
in said agreements.

329. QUESTION: Which industries are deemed indispensable to the national interest?

ANSWER: Industries deemed essential to the national interest include the hospital industry,
the electric power industry, the water supply industry (excluding minor water supply services
such as bottling and refilling stations), air traffic control, and any other industries the National
Tripartite Industrial Peace may recommend.

RATIONALE: Phimco Industries Inc., v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 120751: March 17, 1999

330. QUESTION: What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the NLRC and that of
the Labor Arbiters?

ANSWER: The difference is that exclusive appellate jurisdiction rests with the NLRC for
all cases decided by labor arbitrators. In cases where labor arbitrators have original and
exclusive jurisdiction, the NLRC lacks original jurisdiction. The NLRC cannot have
appellate jurisdiction over a claim if it does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction
 of the labor arbitrator.

RATIONALE: Article 217 of the Labor Code. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the
Commission. - (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar
days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in
the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural: "(1) Unfair labor practice cases; "(2) Termination disputes;
"(3) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
"(4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations; "(5) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this
Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and "(6) Except
claims for employees compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all
other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in
domestic or household service involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. "(b) The
Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor
Arbiters. "(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining
agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies shall be disposed by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance
machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.

331. QUESTION: When may the Secretary of Labor assume jurisdiction over labor
disputes?

ANSWER: The Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction, when labor disputes affect the
industries indispensable to the national interest.

The Labor Code provides that when, in the opinion of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, he may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for arbitration.

332. QUESTION: In what cases does the Secretary of Labor exercise original jurisdiction?

ANSWER: The Secretary of Labor shall exercise original jurisdiction over petitions to
assume jurisdiction over labor disputes affecting industries indispensable to the national
interest, petitions to certify national interest cases to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration,
petitions to suspend effects of termination, administrative intervention for dispute avoidance
cases, voluntary arbitration cases and contempt cases.

RATIONALE: When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause
a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same
to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of
assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to
work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under
 the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor
and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce
the same. (Article 278 [263] (g), P.D. 442, Labor Code)

333. QUESTION: Which decisions are not subject to appeal to the Labor Secretary?

ANSWER: The decisions which cannot be appealed to the Secretary of Labor are decisions
of the labor arbitrator which may be appealed to the Commission, which has exclusive
jurisdiction over appeals. Decisions made by the Commission as they may be referred directly
to the Court of Appeal (CA) under Rule 65; Decisions made by the BLR Director in the
exercise of his appellate jurisdiction as they may be filed directly with the CA under Rule 65,
decisions made by the DOLE Regional Directors in simple or small monetary claims under
Article 129, decisions made by the DOLE -Regional Director in his capacity as a volunteer
arbitrator shall be issued ex officio as they may be submitted directly to the CA in accordance
with Rule 43 and decisions of the volunteer arbitrators which may be appealed directly to the
CA.

RATIONALE: Article 217 of the Labor Code (supra); Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code of
the Philippines; DOLE D.O. No. 83-07, Series of 2007; Article 129 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines; Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

334. QUESTION: What are cases that may be submitted for appeal to the Labor Secretary?

ANSWER: The cases subject to appeal to the Secretary of Labor are visitorial cases under
Article 37, visitorial and enforcement cases under Article 128, occupational health and safety
violations, and cases related to private recruitment and placement agencies.

RATIONALE: Article 128, Labor Code of the Philippines; Article 37, Labor Code of the
Philippines

335. QUESTION: What are the powers of the commission?

ANSWER: The powers of the commission are to administer oaths, rule-making, to summon
parties to a controversy, issue subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum, investigate a
question, matter, or controversy within its jurisdiction, conduct its proceeding, hold any
person in direct or indirect contempt and impose appropriate penalties therefor by law and to
issue TRO and prohibitory or mandatory injunction.

RATIONALE: ART. 225. [218] Powers of the Commission. 187 – The Commission shall
have the power and authority:

(a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases
before it and its regional branches, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Code;
(b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts,
records, statement of accounts, agreements, and others as may be material to a just
 determination of the matter under investigation, and to testify in any investigation or hearing
conducted in pursuance of this Code;
(c) To conduct investigation for the determination of a question, matter or controversy within
its jurisdiction, proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party thereto
who has been summoned or served with notice to appear, conduct its proceedings or any part
thereof in public or in private, adjourn its hearings to any time and place, refer technical
matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his report as evidence after hearing of the
parties upon due notice, direct parties to be joined in or excluded from the proceedings,
correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form,
give all such directions as it may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the
dispute before it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further hearing or from determining
the dispute or part thereof, where it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Commission
are not necessary or desirable; and
(d) To hold any person in contempt directly or indirectly and impose appropriate penalties
therefor in accordance with law. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near
the Chairman or any member of the Commission or any Labor Arbiter as to obstruct or
interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward said officials,
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn, or to answer as a witness or to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily
adjudged in direct contempt by said officials and punished by fine not exceeding five hundred
pesos (P500) or imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days, or both, if it be the Commission
or a member thereof, or by a fine not exceeding one hundred pesos (P100) or imprisonment
not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a Labor Arbiter. The person adjudged in direct
contempt by a Labor Arbiter may appeal to the Commission and the execution of the
judgment shall be suspended pending the resolution of the appeal upon the filing by such
person of a bond on condition that he will abide by and perform the judgment of the
Commission should the appeal be decided against him. Judgment of the Commission on
direct contempt is immediately executory and unappealable. Indirect contempt shall be dealt
with by the Commission or Labor Arbiter in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the
Revised Rules of Court; and

(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or
unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if
not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or
render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or
permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in
this Code shall be issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity
for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and
testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission,
to the effect.

336. QUESTION: Can the Department of Labor and Employment Secretary be a party-in-
interest?

ANSWER: No, the DOLE Secretary is only a nominal party and not a party in interest. He
or she cannot be a petitioner under rule 45 as provided in the case of Republic of the
Philippines v Namboku Peak, Inc.

337. QUESTION: Are all the cases from the POEA that are administrative in character
 appealable?

ANSWER: Yes, all cases that are administrative in character are appealable like disciplinary
action cases against land-based OFWs and seafarers and principal employers which are
administrative in character are appealable. Under Sec. 28 of the Rules Implementing the
Migrant Workers’ Act (1996), POEA retains its jurisdiction in: (a) all cases which are
administrative in character, involving or arising out of violations of rules and regulations
relating to licensing and registration of recruitment and employment agencies or entities; and
(b) disciplinary action cases and other special cases which are administrative in character,
involving employers, principals, contracting partners, and Filipino migrant workers.

338. QUESTION: With regards to the decisions of the Regional Director or Med Arbiter
on Union Registration-related cases, where can they appeal?

ANSWER: The decisions of the regional director or med arbiter on Union Registration cases
are appealable to the Bureau of Labor Relations Regional Director:

a. Article 289 pertaining to local union;

b. Union Registration-related cases;
c. Notice of Merger and Consolidation;
d. CBA- Related cases

339. QUESTION: What are the Cardinal Rules of Procedural Due Process?

ANSWER: The Cardinal Rules of Procedural Due Process are as follows:

a. Right to a hearing;
b. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
c. Decision must be supported by something;
d. Supporting evidence must be substantial;
e. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected;
f. The NLRC or the Labor Arbiter must act on their own independent consideration of the law
and facts, and not simply accept the views of the subordinate in arriving at a decision;
g. Decide in such manner that parties will know the various issues involved and the reason for
the decision; and
h. The right to a speedy disposition of the case.

340. QUESTION: What is the effect of non-compliance with the certification against forum
shopping?

ANSWER: Under the Altres Doctrine, the effect of non-compliance with the certification
against a forum shopping is generally not fatal.

341. QUESTION: When can extraordinary remedies be resorted to in labor cases?

ANSWER: Extraordinary Remedies may be entertained only if there is no appeal or any

other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and should be filed
not later than 10 days from receipt of the order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter. Upon the
 filing of the petition, the proceedings before the labor arbiter shall continue unless restrained
by the NLRC.

342. QUESTION: What determines the venue of the labor cases to be filed?

ANSWER: The workplace determines the venue. When the venue is not objected to before
the conference it is deemed waived. Under Rule IV of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure,
as amended. All cases that Labor Arbiters have the authority to hear and decide may be filed
in the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) having jurisdiction over the workplace of the
complainant or petitioner.

343. QUESTION: What is the effect of non-appearance of the parties during the two
settings for mandatory conciliation and mediation conference scheduled in the summons
despite due notice?

ANSWER:

In case of non-appearance by the respondent during the first scheduled conference, the second
conference as scheduled in the summons shall proceed. If the respondent still fails to appear
at the second conference despite being duly served with summons, he/she shall be considered
to have waived his/her right to file position paper. The Labor Arbiter shall immediately
terminate the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference and direct the complainant
or petitioner to file a verified position paper and submit evidence in support of his/her causes
of action and thereupon render his/her decision on the basis of the evidence on record.

RATIONALE:

SECTION 10. NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES - The non-appearance of the

complainant or petitioner during the two (2) settings for mandatory conciliation and
mediation conference scheduled in the summons, despite due notice thereof, shall be a ground
for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.(Section 10, Rule V of the 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure)

344. QUESTION: When should mandatory conciliation be terminated?

ANSWER: The mandatory conciliation and mediation conference shall be terminated within
30 days from the date of the first conference.

The labor arbiter will then direct the parties to submit simultaneously their verified position
paper within 10 days from the date of the termination of the mandatory conciliation and
mediation conference.

The case will be submitted for decision when the 10-day period lapses.

RATIONALE: In February 2016, the DOLE issued Department Order No. 151-16 (DO 151-
16) setting forth the “Single Entry Approach Implementing Rules and Regulations”. DO 151-
16 reiterated the requirement for the 30-day mandatory conciliation-mediation for all issues
arising from labor and employment, except certain cases enumerated in the Department Order
such as the following: strike, lockout and preventive mediation cases with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board; issues arising from the interpretation or
 implementation/enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement or company personnel
policies which should be processes through grievance machinery; application for exemption
from wage orders; issues involving violation of permits, licenses or authorizations issued by
the DOLE and its attached agencies; certain violations of rules and regulations of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Authority; and occupational safety and health standard
issues.

The SEnA is initiated by filing a Request for Assistance (RFA). The RFA is assigned to a
Single Entry Approach Desk Officer (SEADO) who is tasked to provide advice and conduct
conciliation-mediation. The 30- day conciliation-mediation period may be pre-terminated by
request of the complainant (requesting party) or both parties. If the dispute is settled, the RFA
is considered closed. If the dispute is not settled and the RFA is not withdrawn, the SEADO
will issue a “Referral”, an endorsement of the unsettled issue to the appropriate DOLE office
or attached agency.

To illustrate, a dismissed employee who seeks to charge his employer with unlawful
dismissal must first go through the SEnA. He cannot directly file the case with the Labor
Arbiter, who has jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases, without undergoing the mandatory
conciliation- mediation.

345. QUESTION: When is service by ordinary mail complete?

ANSWER: Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of five (5) days after
mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon
actual receipt by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within
five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the
expiration of such time (emphasis supplied).

RATIONALE: Section 15. Completeness of service. — Personal service is complete upon

actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) calendar
days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete
upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) calendar days from the date he or she
received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. Service by accredited
courier is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after at least two (2) attempts to
deliver by the courier service, or upon the expiration of five (5) calendar days after the first
attempt to deliver, whichever is earlier.

346. QUESTION: Who may ask to inhibit?

ANSWER: Under the order, a Labor Arbiter may inhibit himself or herself from handling a
case for just and valid reasons. However, all inhibitions from handling a case, to be effective,
must be with the prior approval of the Executive Labor Arbiter. Only after such approval will
the Order of Inhibition be issued.

In case of inhibition of a Commissioner from handling a case, the prior approval of the
Chairman is necessary if the inhibition will result in the creation of a Special Division.

RATIONALE: Under the 2005 NLRC Rules, a Labor Arbiter may voluntarily inhibit
himself from the resolution of a case and shall so state in writing the legal justifications
 therefor.

The Executive Labor Arbiter’s or the Chairman’s approval or disapproval of inhibitions will
be attached to the records of the case, copy furnished the Research, Information and
Publication Division (RIPD).

347. QUESTION: Is appeal a constitutional right?

ANSWER: NO. It is not a constitutional right "The right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor is it a component of due process”

It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. Hence, it is a statutory right.

RATIONALE: The right to appeal is statutory and one who seeks to avail of it must comply
with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary
period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of an appeal in the manner
and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence failure
to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. And, just as a losing party has
the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also does the prevailing party
have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of a decision in his favor.

348. QUESTION: What will happen if there is a failure to pay the bond during the 10-day
period to appeal?

ANSWER: Failure to pay the bond does not stop the running of the 10-day period.

SECTION 6. Bond. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director
involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent
in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.

No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon
the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.

The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the
preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.

RATIONALE:

The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving

monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. The intention of the lawmakers to
make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is clearly
expressed in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" in Articles 223 of the Labor Code makes
it unmistakably plain that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the
employer to be the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be
perfected. The word "may" refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the
defeated party, but not to the compulsory posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal.
The meaning and the intention of the legislature in enacting a statute must be determined
from the language employed; and where there is no ambiguity in the words used, then there
 is no room for construction.

Clearly, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that
must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance with
the requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory. This
requirement is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive
the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal.

It is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation
to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.(HILARIO S. RAMIREZ vs.HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, Cebu City, HON. NLRC, 4th Division, Cebu City and MARIO S.
VALCUEBA)

348. QUESTION: Who will transmit the case upon perfection of an appeal?

ANSWER: The labor arbiter will transmit your case upon perfection of an appeal.

Rule XI, Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Commission Rules, which provides:The
perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter except
execution for reinstatement pending appeal.

RATIONALE: Under this provision, the perfection of an appeal stays the execution of a
Labor Arbiter's decision. Thus, for clarity, the Court of Appeals should have explained that
because its April 27, 2015 Decision deemed respondents' appeal before the National Labor
Relations Commission as reinstated, the execution of the Labor Arbiter's October 24, 2013
Decision was stayed under Rule XI, Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Commission
Rules of Procedure.

However, despite the applicability of Rule XI, Section 3 of the National Labor Relations
Commission Rules to the factual circumstances before the Court of Appeals as of its assailed
July 22, 2016 Decision and January 23, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 142199, the
Petition must be granted.

349. QUESTION: Is mere filing of an appeal enough for the perfection of an appeal?

ANSWER: No, it is not enough to perfect an appeal. The mere filing of the Notice of Appeal
is not enough, for it must be accompanied by the payment of the correct appellate docket
fees.

Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only
mandatory, but jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal having the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory (Cabellan vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 119). Not only that,
late appeals deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less
entertain the appeal (Pedrosa vs. Hill, 257 SCRA 373).

RATIONALE:

In M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,27 the Court emphasized, thus:

 Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. It is an essential
requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as
if no appeal had been filed. Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is not a
mere technicality but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment.

349. QUESTION: Niall Horan comes to you for advice regarding the decision of the Labor
Arbiter in relation to his case where the latter declared that there was no illegal dismissal and
denied his claims for separation pay. What remedy can he avail of if only three days had
passed after he was served with the decision of the Labor Arbiter?

ANSWER: Niall Horan may still appeal the decision to the National Labor Commission if
any of the following grounds exist:

1. If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
2. If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and
corruption;
3. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable
damage or injury to the appellant;
4. Pure question of law.

350. QUESTION: What is Actual Reinstatement?

ANSWER: Actual reinstatement means that the employee should be reinstated to the
position which he occupied prior to his illegal dismissal under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to his dismissal.

RATIONALE: Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall

not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his 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. (Art 294
of the Labor Code)

351. QUESTION: What is the difference between actual and payroll reinstatement?

ANSWER: Actual Reinstatement means that the employee should be reinstated to the
position which he occupied prior to his illegal dismissal under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal. Payroll Reinstatement means that the employee
should be reinstated merely in the payroll of the company without requiring him to report
back to his work.

352. QUESTION: What are the grounds of appeal in labor cases?

ANSWER: The following are the grounds of appeal in labor cases:

1. Evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter or DOLE Regional
 Director
2. If the decision, award, or order was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and
corruption
3. If made purely on question of law
4. If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which if not corrected would cause grave
or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

353. QUESTION: Elon Mask filed a case of illegal dismissal against his employer,
Suckerburg. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Elon Mask and ordered his reinstatement.
What are the two options of the Suckerburg to implement the reinstatement of Labor Arbiter’s
Decision?

ANSWER: To implement the reinstatement aspect of a Labor Arbiter's decision, herein

employer Suckerburg may opt for actual or payroll reinstatement.

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that there are only two (2) options available to the
employer in implementing a reinstatement, to wit:

1. Actual reinstatement which means that the employee should be reinstated to the position
which he occupied prior to his illegal dismissal under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, if no longer available, viable or feasible, to
a substantially-equivalent position; or
2. Payroll reinstatement which means that the employee should be reinstated merely in the
payroll of the company without requiring him to report back to his work.

354. QUESTION: Abonjing filed a case of illegal dismissal against Chong San, his
employer. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Abonjing and ordered his reinstatement
hence, Abongjing was actually reinstated. On appeal, the Labor Arbiter's decision was
reversed by the NLRC. Abonjing, in turn, properly instituted a Rule 65 certiorari petition
before the CA. While the case is on appeal, Chong San terminated Abonjing on the basis of
the decision of the NLRC. Is the action of Chong San correct?

ANSWER:

No. Chong San is incorrect.

As enunciated in the case of Wenphil, the interim actual reinstatement shall not cease on the
date of reversal but only on the date of the ultimate finality of such reversal. For as long as
the actually-reinstated employee has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration or appeal,
the employee shall remain reinstated until the finality at the highest judicial level.

Here, Abonjing properly instituted a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the CA. Hence, he
should be allowed to continue to work by virtue of the same reinstatement order issued by
the Labor Arbiter during the pendency of said proceedings until the issue of the legality of
his dismissal attains ultimate finality.

RATIONALE: For as long as the actually-reinstated employee has seasonably filed a motion
 for reconsideration of the reversal judgment of the NLRC or has properly instituted a Rule
65 certiorari petition before the CA or a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court, he should be allowed to continue to work under the authority and by virtue
of the same reinstatement order issued by the Labor Arbiter during the pendency of said
proceedings until the issue of the legality of his dismissal is ultimately laid to rest with finality
at the highest judicial level where the case may have been brought to. (Wenphil Corporation
v. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014).

355. QUESTION: What is the Genuino doctrine?

ANSWER: Genuino doctrine is otherwise known as the “refund doctrine”. This doctrine
states that the employee who is reinstated in the payroll, as distinguished from actual
reinstatement, should refund the reinstatement salaries she received if her dismissal is finally
found legal on appeal (Genuino v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 142732-33, Dec. 4, 2007).

356. QUESTION: Jhongs (employee) was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter however,
Ki (employer) refused to obey the reinstatement order and instead, initiated an appeal. On
appeal, the decision of the Labor Arbiter’s decision was reversed. Is Ki still liable to pay the
reinstatement wages and benefits of Jhongs? If yes, what is the reckoning point of his
liability?

ANSWER:

Yes, Ki is still liable for the payment of reinstatement wages and benefits of Jhongs.

Roquero doctrine, as enunciated in Garcia, the Court reaffirmed the prevailing principle that
even if the reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the
part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the
period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. The employer’s liability is reckoned and
computed from the time the employee was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter until the
date of reversal of appeal.

Here, Ki’s success in having the decision of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reversed on appeal
will not exculpate him from paying the reinstatement wages and benefits of Jhongs from the
time Jhongs was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter until the date of reversal of appeal.

RATIONALE: Roquero v. PAL, G.R. No. 152329, April 22, 2003

357. QUESTION: The two-fold test laid down in Garcia determines the liability of the
employer to pay the “reinstatement wages” of the dismissed employee covering the period
from the time he was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter to the reversal of the Labor
Arbiter’s decision either by the NLRC, the CA or the High Court. What is the two-fold test?

ANSWER: The two-fold test laid down in Garcia are as follows:

1. There must be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not
executed prior to its reversal; and
2. The delay must not be due to the employer's unjustified refusal; otherwise, it may still be
required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the labor arbiter’s decision.
 RATIONALE: After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the
employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in
enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.

The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement
pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to
the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the employer’s unjustified
refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of
the Labor Arbiter’s decision (Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 160798, June 8,
2005).

358. QUESTION: Ishagani Polvoron, an illegally dismissed employee was ordered to be

reinstated however, such reinstatement is no longer possible since the position he previously
held was no longer available. In the case of Pfizer, the Court ruled that if a reinstatement is
no longer viable, the employee shall be paid separation pay. On such basis, Ishagani was paid
a separation pay in lieu of the reinstatement. How is the computation of his backwages?

ANSWER: The computation of the backwages entitled to Ishagani includes the period when
he should have been reinstated by virtue of the order of the Labor Arbiter until he is paid said
separation pay.

In cases where the illegally dismissed employee will not be reinstated but will instead be paid
separation pay in lieu thereof because reinstatement is no longer viable, the computation of
backwages due him includes the period when he should have been reinstated by virtue of the
order of the Labor Arbiter until he is paid said separation pay. (Pfizer v. Velasco, G.R. No.
177467, March 9, 2011).

359. QUESTION: Who determines whether an appeal is frivolous or dilatory?

ANSWER: Jurisprudence gives conflicting claims but it appears that both Labor Arbiter and
the Commission have the power to so determine. If the appealed case is still with the Labor
Arbiter and the records were not yet transmitted to the NLRC, the Labor Arbiter may make
a finding that the appeal is frivolous and, there and then, terminate the appeal. (Bongay v.
Martinez)

However, in a subsequent case, it was ruled that it is only the NLRC which has authority to
impose penalties for filing frivolous or dilatory appeals, thereby implying that the Labor
Arbiter has been divested of the power and authority to rule on the propriety of the appeal
filed by a party. The NLRC, and not the Labor Arbiter, has the power to rule upon appeals.
(National Power Corporation v. NLRC)

360. QUESTION: As a general rule, the NLRC should limit itself to reviewing and deciding only
the specific issue that were elevated on appeal. Give at least two instances when the
commission may review unassigned errors on appeal.

ANSWER: The following are the instances when the NLRC may review unassigned issues
on appeal:

1. Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter;
2. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal, but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the
contemplation of law;
3. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal, but consideration of which is necessary in arriving
at a just decision;
4. Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal, but raised in the lower tribunal;
5. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal, but closely related to an error assigned;
6. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal, but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned is dependent.

361. QUESTION: Who has authority to impose penalties for filing frivolous or dilatory
appeals?

ANSWER: It is only the NLRC which has authority to impose penalties for filing frivolous
or dilatory appeals, thereby implying that the labor arbiter has been divested of the power
and authority to rule on the propriety of the appeal filed by a party. The NLRC, and not the
Labor Arbiter has the power to rule upon appeals. It is only the NLRC which has authority
to impose penalties for filing frivolous or dilatory.

RATIONALE: National Power Corporation v. NLRC

364. QUESTION: May the NLRC admit evidence for the first time on appeal?

ANSWER: Yes, provided the following requisites are present:

1. A party should adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence; and
2. A party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.

RATIONALE: In Tanjuan v. Philippine Postal Savings Bank - The Supreme Court allowed
the presentation of evidence of business losses for the first time on appeal. However, it was
stressed that the delay in the submission of evidence should be clearly explained and must
adequately prove the employer's allegation.

365. QUESTION: What is the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

ANSWER: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative
body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts
is had even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.

RATIONALE: Euro-Med Laboratories Phil v. Province of Batangas

366. QUESTION: May a party change theory upon which the case is tried and decided by
the lower court?

ANSWER: No. A party who changes theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the
lower court is not allowed. It was held in Magtoto v. NLRC that such a change of theory on
 appeal is improper, offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice, and violative of the
petitioner's right to due process of law.

367. QUESTION: May a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals be elevated to the Supreme
Court by way of Certiorari under Rule 65?

ANSWER: Yes, but it must be shown that the respondent court committed grave abuse of
discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment, for
certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal.

RATIONALE: Tomas Claudio Memorial College Inc. v. Court of Appeals

368. QUESTION: What are the exceptions to the application of the Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies?

ANSWER: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to certain

exception:

a. Violation of Due Process;

b. Issues involved are purely legal question;
c. Administrative action is illegal;
d. Estoppel;
e. When respondent is the Secretary of Labor;
f. Subject matter is a private land in land case.
RATIONALE: SAMELCO II v. Ananias Seludo

369. QUESTION: May petitioner file an appeal by petition for review under Rule 65 for
failure to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court?

ANSWER: No. Petitioner cannot mask its failure to file an appeal by petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by the mere expedient of conjuring grave abuse of
discretion to avail of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In the case of Malayang
Manggagawa v. NLRC, it was held that petitioner should have filed an appeal by petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in this Court.
Where the rules prescribe a particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy
should be availed of.

370. QUESTION: What is the period to file a motion for reconsideration?

ANSWER: Upon denial of appeal, you have 10 days to file a Motion for Reconsideration. If
denied, then a Petition for Certiorari can be filed within 60 days upon receipt. Section 4, Rule
4 of ANNEX E Rules of Procedure for the Filing and Disposition of the Employees'
Compensation Claims

371. QUESTION: What does Levy mean?

ANSWER: It refers to the act by the Sheriff or duly designated officer, of taking possession,
actual or constructive, of sufficient property of the losing party or of the appeal bond posted
by the latter to satisfy the decisions, order or award.
 372. QUESTION: Who are allowed to issue execution?
• Secretary of Labor;
• Voluntary Arbitrator;
• Labor Arbiter;
• Director of BLR;
• Regional Director of DOLE;
• Med-Arbiter; and
• NLRC

373. QUESTION: Does recomputation of the consequence constitute an amendment of the

decision?

ANSWER: No. In Session Delight Case, recomputation is allowed because of a natural

consideration of a case pending for a long time. The reliefs continue to add on until full
satisfaction of the decision. The recomputation of the consequence does not constitute an
amendment of the decision. (Session Delights Ice Cream and Fast Foods v. Court of Appeals)

374. QUESTION: Can execution may be delayed? If yes, when?

ANSWER: Yes. Execution may be delayed by filing an injunction.

375. UESTION: What is garnishment?

ANSWER: It is a levy of money, goods, or chattels and/or an interest thereon, belonging or

owing to the losing party in the possession or control of a third party.

376. QUESTION: Give at least three (5) examples of intra-union disputes.

ANSWER:

a) Cancellation of registration of labor organization filed by its members or by

another labor organization;
b) Conduct of an election of union and workers’ association officers or
nullification of election of union and worker’s association;
c) Audit/Accounts examination of union or worker’s association funds;
d) Deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
e) Validity or invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation

377. QUESTION: What is an inter-union dispute? What is an intra-union dispute?

ANSWER: Inter-union dispute is one occurring or carried on between or among unions. It

refers to a case involving a petition for certification election filed by a duly registered labor
organization. Intra-union Dispute is a conflict within or inside a labor union. It may refer
to any conflict between and among officers and/or members of one particular union,
including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of members.

378. QUESTION: What cases does Med-Arbiter have jurisdiction over?

ANSWER:
· Inter-union disputes;
· Intra-inion disputes; and
· Other related labor relations disputes;
· Injunction Cases; and
· Contempt cases.

379. QUESTION: What other disputes are related to labor relations?

ANSWER: Other disputes to related to labor relations include any conflict between a labor
union and the employer or an individual, entity or group that is not a labor union or worker’s
association

380. QUESTION: What are the original and exclusive jurisdiction of DOLE Regional
Directors?

ANSWER: The following are the original and exclusive jurisdiction of DOLE Regional
Directors:
1.Visitorial cases under Article 289
2. Union registration-related cases
3. Denial of registration of single-enterprise CBAs or petitions for deregistration
4. Request for SEBA Certification when made in an unorganized establishment with only
one legitimate union.

381. QUESTION: What decisions of Regional Directors/Med Arbiter are appealable to the
BLR Regional Director?

ANSWER: Decisions of the Regional Director/Med Arbiter that are appealable to the BLR
Regional Director are the following:

1. Article 289 pertaining to local union

2. Union registration-related cases
3. Notice of merger and consolidation
4. CBA-related cases

382. QUESTION: What cases are not appealable to the BLR Director?

ANSWER: The following cases are not appealable to the BLR Director:

1. Visitorial under Article 37

2. Visitorial and enforcement of cases under Article 128
3. Occupational safety and health violation
4. Cases related to private recruitment and placement agencies for local employment

383. QUESTION: In what form does compromise agreements be?

ANSWER: Compromise agreement must be in writing and signed before the BLR or DOLE
Regional Director or his authorized representative.

384. QUESTION: What are the requisites for a quitclaim to be recognized?

ANSWER: The following are the requisites for a quitclaim to be recognized:

1. There must be no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties

2. The consideration for the quitclaim should be credible and reasonable
3. The contract is not contrary to law, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial
to a third person with a right recognized by law
4. The employee who executed the quitclaim should have done so voluntarily.

385. QUESTION: What is a waiver or quitclaim?

ANSWER: A waiver or quitclaim is a valid and binding agreement between the parties
provided that it constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement and the one accomplishing it
has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.

386. QUESTION: What’s the importance of RA 10396?

ANSWER: RA 10396 is the revival of Article 234 and it mandates conciliation conference
before a case is entertained.

387. QUESTION: What is the purpose of the Contract Bar Rule?

ANSWER: The rule is intended to prevent the proliferation of union politics which may be
deleterious to the smooth administration of the CBA. During the effectivity of the CBA there
can be no petition for certification election challenging the registration of the Sole and
Exclusive Bargaining Agreement. Except when there is schism and disaffiliation and the 60-
day freedom period.

388. Question: When does the statutory bar rule commence to run?

Answer: In the case of Kampil-Katipunan v. Trajano it was decided that, statutory bar begins
to run on the actual date of the prior election, not from the date the SEBA was certified, which
is the reckoning for another rule.

389. QUESTION: Can the registration of the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agreement be
contested through a petition for certification election during the effectivity of the CBA?

ANSWER: No. A petition for certification election cannot be held if there is in force and
effect a collective bargaining agreement that has been duly registered with the Department
of Labor and Employment except during the freedom period of such CBA which is the 60-
day period prior to the expiry date of said CBA.

RATIONALE: The rule is intended to prevent the proliferation of union politics which may
be deleterious to the smooth administrative of the CBA

390. QUESTION: What is Statutory Bar Rule?

ANSWER: There can be no filing of a petition for certification within a period of one year
from the date of a valid conduct of a certification, consent, run-off or re-run election where
 no appeal on the results thereof was made. Statutory bar begins to run on the actual date of
the prior election, not from the date the SEBA was certified, which is the reckoning for
another rule. (Rule VII, Sec. 3(a), DOLE department Order No. 40-03, S. 2003)

391. QUESTION: What are the 2 modes of creating a Labor Organization?

ANSWER: The 2 modes of creating a Labor Organization is by Independent Registration;

and Chartering of Local Chapter or Chartered Local where a duly registered federation or
national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating the
establishment of the local chapter.

RATIONALE: ART. 241. [234-A] Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. – A duly
registered federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter
certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal
personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was
issued a charter certificate. The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization only upon the submission of the following documents in addition
to its charter certificate.

392. QUESTION: What is a Bargaining Deadlock Bar Rule?

-There is a deadlock when there is complete blocking or stoppage of the negotiation.

In this case, the representation question may not be entertained when a bargaining deadlock to
which an incumbent SEBA is a party.

393. QUESTION: What is the essence of Kampil-Katipunan v. Trajano case?

-It was illustrated in this case where the bargaining deadlock rule was not followed. The
deadlock bar rule cannot be applied because prior to the filing of the petition for certification
election, there was no bargaining deadlock.

394. QUESTION: When should the negotiation begin?

-In the case of Kampil-Katipunan v. Trajano, it was ruled that you should begin the negotiations
within the one-year bar rule.

395. QUESTION: Where to file an application for an independent labor union?

ANSWER: It should be filed with the DOLE Regional Office where the applicant principally
operates. It shall be processed by the Labor Relations Division at the Regional Office in
accordance with the Rules to Implement the Labor Code.

396. QUESTION: What is the importance of determining whether an organization is a

legitimate one?

ANSWER: It is important to determine whether or not a particular labor organization is

legitimate since only legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which
cannot be exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the
SEBA of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.

RATIONALE: ART. 240. [234] Requirements of Registration. – A federation, national union

or industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and
shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations
upon issuance of the certificate of registration.

397. QUESTION: What are the organizations required to register?

The organizations required to register are the following as provided in ART. 240. [234] of the
Labor Code:

a. Federation;
b. National Union;
c. Industry Union;
d. Trade Union; or
e. Independent Union

398. QUESTION: In addition to the required organizations under Article 240. [234],
what are other kinds of organizations required to register?

ANSWER: In addition to the enumeration in Article 240. [234], the following are likewise
required to register:

a. Local chapter/chartered local

b. Workers’ association; and
c. Government employees’ organization.

399. QUESTION: What is/are the Effect/s of Registration?

ANSWER: The labor organization, upon registration, acquires legal personality as well as the
rights and privileges as enumerated below:

1. Right of Representation. where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a

representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in
the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real-party in interest.

2. Right to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the bargaining unit. the right to be
certified as the exclusive bargaining agency refers to the right to represent the entire employees
in the bargaining unit. It being certified as the exclusive bargaining agent gives the union the
right to collectively bargain with the management to the exclusion of other minority or
competing unions.

400. QUESTION: Does the existence of a bargaining agent prevent registration of other
unions in the same bargaining unit?
ANSWER: No, the existence of a bargaining agent cannot prevent registration of other unions
in the same bargaining unit. Section 2(B) Rule III, Book V, Rules to implement the Labor
Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003, Feb 17, 2003.

401. QUESTION: Is the 20% membership a continuing requirement?

ANSWER: No, It is not a continuing requirement. The law does not mandate that the 20%
requirement be continuous, but as long as there is 20% membership during the submission of
the application.

402. QUESTION: Is the Approval of Registration of Labor Organizations ministerial in

nature.

ANSWER: No, Approval of Registration of Labor Organizations are not ministerial in

nature.Thus, petition for mandamus is not the proper remedy when there is a violation.

403. QUESTION: What are the requirements for registration of Labor Organizations?

ANSWER: The application for registration of an independent labor union shall be supported
by the following documents:

1.The name of the applicant labor union, its principal address the name of its officers and their
respective addresses, approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks
to operate;

2. The minutes of the organizational meeting and the list of employees who participated in the
meeting;

3.The name of all its members comprising at least of 20% of the employees of the bargaining
unit;

4. The annual financial reports if the applicant has been in existence for one year or more years,
unless it has not collected any amount from the members, in which case

a statement to this effect shall be included in the application;

5. The applicant’s constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list
of the members who participated.

404. QUESTION: Does the Independent Union have a legal personality?

ANSWER: Yes, the Independent Union has a legal personality. Independent Union Refers to
a labor organization operating at the enterprise level which acquired legal personality through
independent registration.

405. QUESTION: What are the requirements of Registration of Workers Association?

ANSWER: The requirements for Registration of Workers Association are the following
1. The name of the applicant labor union, its principal address the name of its officers and their
respective addresses;
2. The minutes of the organizational meeting and the list of employees who participated in the
meeting;
3. The financial reports if the applicant has been in existence for one year or more years, unless
it has not collected any amount from the members, in which case a statement to this effect shall
be included in the application;
4. The applicant’s constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list
of the member who participated;
5. Application for registration of a worker’s association operating in more than one region
shall be accompanied, in addition to the other requirements;
6, The report of creation of a chartered local shall be accompanied by a charter certificate issued
by the federation or national union indicating the creation or establishment of the chartered
local.

406. QUESTION: What is the purpose of the Worker's Association?

ANSWER: The purpose of the association of workers is to organized for mutual aid and
protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining and
duly registered with the Department of Labor.

407. QUESTION: Is 20% membership requirement applies to chartering of a local

chapter

ANSWER: To create a local chapter and register it, there is no 20% registration requirement.
The requirement that membership should at least be 20% of the bargaining unit is not applicable
to a local chapter.

RATIONALE: 20% membership requirement applies only to registration of independent

union. SECTION 1. Article 234 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known
as the Labor Code of the Philippines, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

ART. 234. Requirements of Registration. — A federation, national union or industry or trade

union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the
rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the
certificate of registration based on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization,
the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such
meetings;

(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at
least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual
financial reports; and

(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption
or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

408. QUESTION: Is it necessary for a charter local to wait for the certificate of registration
before obtaining full legal personality for the local chapter?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No. A charter local need not wait for the Certificate of
Registration as long as the charter certificate and the documentary requirements were submitted
to the Bureau of Labor Relations or the Regional Office of the Dole, the local chapter acquires
complete and full legal personality.

409. QUESTION: What is Federation?

ASNWER & RATIONALE: A labor federation is any group of legitimate organization in a

private establishment operating within an identified industry. Organized for collective
bargaining or for dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment
within an industry, for participating in the formulation of social and employment policies,
standards, and programs in such industry.

410. QUESTION: What documentation must be submitted before the Local Chapter can claim
all the rights and benefits of an authorized labor organization?

ANSWER: The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the
chapter and the chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's
constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national union, this fact
shall be indicated accordingly.

RATIONALE:REPUBLIC ACT No. 9481. SEC. 2. A new provision is hereby inserted into
the Labor Code as Article 234-A to read as follows:

"ART. 234-A. Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. - A duly registered federation or
national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating the
establishment of the local chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes
of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate.

The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization
only upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate:

(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the chapter;
and

(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the chapter's constitution
and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national union, this fact shall be
indicated accordingly.

411. QUESTION: What is the proper remedy against the refusal to register a labor
organization which complies with all the requirements?

ANSWER: Mandamus is a proper remedy against the refusal to register a labor organization
which complies with all the requirements. There being no other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy.
In the case of Umali v Luvina the respondent refused the registration of the application for the
petitioner’s union and permission to operate as a legitimate labor organization; it being the duty
of the respondent to register the application and issue the permit upon payment of the required
fee, as provided for in section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 213, the investigation to be
conducted by him, as required by law, having been conducted and completed, as may be
inferred from his official statements in connection therewith, the conclusion is inescapable that
he has neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins him to perform
as a duty resulting from his office, and that such neglect unlawfully excludes the petitioner’s
union from the use and enjoyment of a right to which it is entitled. It appearing further that
there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,mandamus
is the proper remedy.

RATIONALE: Section 3 of Commonwealth Act 213 provides that after the filing of an
application to register and operate as a legitimate labor organization, the Secretary of Labor
"shall conduct an investigation of the activities of the applying labor organization and if, on
such investigation, it shall appear that the applicant is entitled to registration, he shall issue a
permit therefor upon payment of the registration fee of five pesos" It is claimed that this
investigation has not been completed or accomplished because of the union's failure to fill out
a questionnaire. An investigation to be conducted by the Secretary of Labor need not take the
form of a questionnaire. What is asked in the questionnaire may be secured by other means. He
or his representative should conduct and complete that investigation within a reasonable time.
The failure of the officials of the petitioner's union to answer or fill out the questionnaire is no
lawful excuse or reason for the respondent to neglect the performance of his duty of conducting
and completing the investigation required by section 3 of Commonwealth Act 213 ( Umali v
Luvina G.R. No. L-2771 )

412. QUESTION: Who shall act on all application for registration?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The Bureau of Labor Relations shall act on all application for
registration within 30 days from filing

413. QUESTION: Before the 60-day freedom period, is disaffillation permitted?

ANSWER: Disaffiialtion is allowed only during the freedom period except shift of allegiance.
Disaffilation before the 60-day freedom period is valid if supported by majority of the union
membership.

RATIONALE: P.D. 1391 provides:

Item No. 6. No petition for certification election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall be
entertained or given due course except within the 60-day freedom period immediately
preceeding the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement,

said law is definitely not without exceptions. Settled is the rule that a local union has the right
to disaffiliate from its mother union when circumstances warrant. 5 Generally, a labor union
may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union only during the
60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. However, even
before the onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation may be carried out when there is a shift
of allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union.

414. QUESTION: Where may one file an appeal regarding the denied registration?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The denial may be appealed to the Bureau if denial is made by
the Regional Office or to the Secretary of the denial is made by the BLR.

415. QUESTION: What are the effects of disaffiliation?

ANSWER: The effects of disaffiliation are the following:

1) Disaffiliation does not disturb the enforceability and administration of an existing collective
bargaining agreement;

2) Disaffiliation does not result in the termination of the status of the affiliate union’s members
as employee;

3) Once the disaffiliation is completed the federation can no longer collect federation fees from
the union; and

4) The union security clause in the CBA cannot be used to justify the dismissal of the
employees who voted for the disaffiliation of the local union from the federation.

416. QUESTION: What kind of union dispute is disaffiliation?

ANSWER: Disaffiliation is actually an inter-union dispute and not an intra-union dispute.

(Skylanders v. NLRC, G.R. No. 127374 January 31, 2002)

417. QUESTION: Who has jurisdiction over cases of intra-union dispute?

ANSWER: Disaffiliation is actually an intra-union dispute and is cognizable by the Med

Arbiter of the Bureau of Labor Relations. (Citrek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free
Workers v. Citrek Electronics, G.R. No. 190515 November 15, 2010)

418. QUESTION: Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a
local or independent union only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the
expiration of the CBA. What is the exception?

ANSWER: Disaffiliation may be carried out even before the onset of the freedom period when
there is a shift of allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union. (ANGLO-
KMU v. SAMANA BAY, G.R. No. 118562 July 5, 1996

419. QUESTION: What is Cancellation of Registration?

ANSWER: Cancellation proceedings refer to the legal process of leading to the revocation of
legitimate status of a union or a worker’s association. (ART. 245. [238] and ART. 247. [239]
of the Labor Code)
420. QUESTION: What are National and Local Unions?

ANSWER: National Union refers to federations, national unions, industry unions and trade
union centers. While Local Unions refers to independent labor unions, local chapters or
chartered locals and worker’s associations.

421. QUESTION: What are the grounds for cancellation of registration of a union?

ANSWER: The following are grounds for cancellation of registration of a union as provided
by ART. 239 of the Labor Code of the Philippines:

1) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of

the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of
members who took part;

2)Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the election of officers,

minutes of the election of the officers, and the list of voters; and

3)Voluntary dissolution by the members.

422. QUESTION: Is the Non-submission of reportorial requirements a ground for cancellation

of registration of a union?

ANSWER: Non-submission of reportorial requirements are no longer grounds for

cancellation. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground for
cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension,
expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty. (ART. 242-A of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, as amended by Section 7, Republic Act No. 9481)

423. QUESTION: In Union Membership, does the right to join associations include the
right not to join?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Yes, the right to form or join associations necessary includes
the right not to join. In Victoriano v. Elizarde Rope Worker’s Union, et al. G.R. No. L-25246,
it is mentioned that the Constitution and RA No. 875 recognizes the right to association. This
right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or freedom, such as the
absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented
by law; and second, power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from
Joining an association. It is, therefore, the employee who should decide for himself whether he
should join or not an association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes up his mind
as to which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty
and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at any time.

The purpose of the law is precisely to avoid those who cannot, because of their religious belief,
join labor unions, from being deprived of their right to work and from being dismissed from
their work because of union shop security agreements. Republic Act No. 3350 ensures
economic stability to the members of a religious sect, like the Iglesia ni Cristo, who are also
component elements of society, for it ensures security in their employment, notwithstanding
their failure to join a labor union having a closed shop agreement with the employer.

424. QUESTION: May a union which has been issued a certificate of registration be subject
to a collateral attack in a petition for certification election?

Answer: No, collateral Attack in a petition for certification election is not allowed. As provided
for in the case of Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union “After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality
cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for
cancellation.”

Rationale: In accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the
Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which reads: Sec. 5. Effect of registration. The labor
organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Such legal personality
cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack, but may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules.

425. QUESTION: Is Collateral Attack in a petition for certification election is allowed?

ANSWER: No, collateral Attack in a petition for certification election is not allowed. After a
certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a
collateral attack in another proceeding. It may be questioned only in an independent petition
for cancellation.

RATIONALE: Ruling of the case - Tagaytay Highlands International Goldf Club v. Tagaytay
Highlands Employees Union

426. QUESTION: What are the rights and conditions of membership in labor organizations?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Under Section 17 of R.A. 875 also known as an Act to promote
industrial peace and for other purposes, the rights and conditions of membership in labor
organization are the following:

(a) Arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall not be required of the members of a legitimate
labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fines and forfeitures be imposed;

(b) The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and
representatives of all financial transactions as provided in the constitution and by-laws of the
organization;

(c) They shall also have the right to elect officers by secret ballot at intervals of not more than
two years and to determine and vote upon the question of striking or not striking or upon any
other question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the organization;

(d) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as member or continue in membership therein
any individual who belongs to any subversive organization or who is engaged directly or
indirectly in any subversive activity or movement;
(e) No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be eligible
for election to any office in a legitimate labor organization or for appointment to any position
involving the collection, custody, management, control, or disbursement of its funds, and any
such person shall be disqualified from continuing to hold any office or such position in the
organization. Within sixty days of the election of the officers of a legitimate labor organization,
the secretary or other responsible officer thereof shall furnish the Secretary of Labor with a list
of the newly-elected officers and the appointive officers or agents of the organization who are
entrusted within the collection, custody, management, control or disbursement of its funds.
Any change in such list shall be reported within this period;

(f) No officer, agent or member of a legitimate labor organization shall collect any fees, dues,
or other contributions in behalf of the organization or make any disbursement of its money or
funds unless he is provided with the necessary authority pursuant to its constitution or by-laws;

(g) Every payment of fees, dues, or other contributions by a member shall be evidenced by a
receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered upon the record of the
organization to be kept and maintained for that purpose;

(h) The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those
expressly stated in its constitution or by-laws or those expressly authorized by a resolution of
the majority of the members;

(i) Every expenditure of the funds of the organization shall be evidenced by a receipt from the
person to whom the payment was made, which shall state the date, place and purpose of such
payment. Such receipts shall form part of the financial records of the organization;

(j) The officers of a legitimate labor organization shall not be paid any other compensation, in
addition to the salaries and expenses for their positions which shall be specifically provided for
in its constitution or by-laws, except in pursuance of a resolution approved in a meeting by a
majority vote;

(k) The treasurer of a legitimate labor organization and every officer thereof who is responsible
for the accounts of such organization or for the collection, disbursement, custody or control of
the funds, moneys and other properties of the organization, shall render to the organization and
to its members at the times specified hereunder, a true and correct account of all moneys
received and paid by him since he assumed office or since the last date on which he rendered
such account and of the balance remaining in his hands at the time of rendering such account,
and of all bonds, securities, and other properties of the organization entrusted to his custody or
under his control. The rendering of such account shall be made:

(1) at least once a year within thirty days of the close of its fiscal year;

(2) at such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of
the organization; and

(3) upon vacating his office.

The account shall be verified by affidavit and copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of
Labor. The organization shall cause such account to be audited by a qualified person; and

(l) The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of a legitimate labor
organization shall be open to inspection by any officer or member thereof.
427. QUESTION: Is the right to Union Membership an absolute right?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, the right to Union Membership is not absolute. You cannot
be accepted in the union if you are:
1. Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
2. A member of a subversive organization.

428. QUESTION: Panday de Coco is an employee of Ser Geybin Corporation. With the other
employees, to acquire legal personality and to enjoy their rights the Ser Geybin Corporation
Union (SGCU) was formed. For the registration of the said union, it submitted three (3) copies
of the constitution but failed to submit the by-laws. SGCU contended that the three copies of
the union constitution are sufficient to register the union together with the other requirements
such as the registration fee, the names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all the
employees in the bargaining unit, copies of its annual financial reports since it is in existence
for one year already and that there is no need to submit the union by-laws. Is SGCU’s
contention, correct?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, the SGCU’s contention is incorrect. As stated in Article 234
(e) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the
applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it are required to be submitted as part of the requirement for a union’s
registration. Here, SGCU, upon registration, submitted only three (3) copies of the union
constitution and failed to submit its by-laws. Thus, SGCU’s contention is incorrect.

429. QUESTION: One of the members of Islander Spartan Corporation Union is Sylver
Stallion, who urged Batista, a gambler, to prevent the use of the union’s fund in gambling at
Thunderbird resort since it is not the purpose provided by the union. Batista replied that Sylver
Stallion has no right to prevent him from using the union’s fund since he is just a member of
the union. Is Batista correct?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, Batista is wrong. One of the Fiscal Rights of a Union
Member is the right to prevent funds from being used for any purpose or object other than those
expressly provided by the union. Here, Sylver Stallion, as a member of the Islander Spartan
Corporation Union, has the right to prevent Batista in using the union’s fund in gambling since
it is not expressly provided by the union is valid.

430. QUESTION: As a member of the Island Spartan Corporation Union what are the political rights of
Sylver Stallion?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Sylver Stallion’s political rights include his:

1.Right to vote by secret ballot on any question of major policy; and
2. Right to initiate and participate in impeachment.
431. QUESTION: Jose Mari Masakitang Chan was appointed as COMELEC but he is also
running for office. He argued that since he is a Magna Cum Laude who graduated at University
of the Philippines, he is capable of doing both-being a COMELEC and as an officer of another
office. Is Jose Mari Masakitang Chan’s argument valid?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, Jose Mari Masakitang Chan’s argument is not valid. In the
appointment of COMELEC the following requirements must be present: 1. They should be
independent; 2. Not affiliated to any faction/group; and 3. Not running for office. Here even if
Jose Mari Masakitang Chan graduated as Magna Cum Laude, he cannot be appointed as
COMELEC is he is also running for office.

432. QUESTION: Differentiate Union Election v. Certification Election

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The following are the distinctions between Union Election and
Certification Election:

1. Union election is to elect the officers of the union; while certification election is to elect
the union which shall be bestowed the authority and right to the be Sole and Exclusive
Bargaining Agent.

2. A union election is held pursuant to the Constitution and By-laws; while certification
election is held pursuant to the Labor Code.

3. A union election does not need intervention of the DOLE; while a certification election
is conducted only upon the order of the Med-Arbiter of the BLR

4. In union election the right to vote is enjoyed only by union members; while certification
election all employees can vote as long as they belong to the bargaining unit.

433. QUESTION: In 1996, A general assembly was attended by University of Maulawak

Mildred Union (UMMU) and also by non-UMMU members in good standing of the UMM
Academic Community Collective Bargaining Unit. In the CBL. It was stated that the election
should be done through a secret ballot. However, Profesor, Tokyo, Berlin, Nairobi, Rio, and
Helsinki were elected as officers of the University of Maulawak Mildred by acclamation and
clapping of hands with the absence of the COMELEC. Is the election valid?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, the election is not valid. In UST Faculty Union et al. vs.
Bitonio Jr. et al. G.R. No. 13123, in a certification election and union election, there are
procedures to be followed. An election of officers cannot be called a union election if the
procedures laid down are not followed. Here, the election conducted in 1996 did not follow the
procedures imposed by the CBL but was done by acclamation and clapping of hands. Further,
there was no COMELEC to oversee the election as mandated in the CBL. Hence, the election
is not valid.

434. QUESTION: As members of Chevron Philippines Inc. Union who belong to the
appropriate bargaining unit, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker is entitled to vote in a certification
election. On the same manner, Jason Statham and Ludacris who belong to the appropriate
bargaining unit, even not a member of the union can also vote in the union election. Is this
correct?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No, Jason Statham and Ludacris cannot vote in the union
election. In UST Faculty Union et al. vs. Bitonio Jr. et al. G.R. No. 131235 stated that in a
certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote.
Therefore, a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled
to vote in said election. However, the reverse is not always true; an employee belonging to the
appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union
election, unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily, union
affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity. Here, Jason Statham and
Ludacris, though belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit, cannot vote in the union election
because they are not members of the union.

435. QUESTION: What is the definition of Run-off Election?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: "Run-off Election" refers to an election between the labor
unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with
three (3) or more choices, where such a certified or consent results in none of the three (3) or
more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the total number of
votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. (Rule
I. Section 1(ss) of The Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines.)

436. QUESTION: May an elected union officer be expelled for past wrongdoings?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: No. Elected union officers may not be expelled from the union
as officers for past malfeasance or misfeasance since this will render null the choice of the
union character and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct if he had been
guilty of any. (Manalad v. Trajano, G.R. Nos. 72772-73, June 28, 1989)

QUESTION: What are the valid grounds for the expulsion or impeachement of a union officer
or member?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The following are the valid grounds for the expulsion ir
impeachment of union officers or members:

(a) Violation of the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization;

(b) Acts of disloyalty, such as organizing another union or membership therein;
(c) Violation of the union security clause;
(d) Commission of irregularities in the approval of the resolutions regarding compensation of
union officers;
(e) Failure to provide adequate labor education and research services to union members; and

(d) Misuse or illegal disbursement of labor education and research funds.

1
437. QUESTION: What are the exceptions to the Rule of Exhaustion of Intra-Union
Remedies?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The following are the exceptions to the Rule of Exhaustion of
Intra-Union Remedies:

(a) Improper expulsion or impeachment procedure;

(b) Futility of availing of the intra-union members;
(c) Undue delay in the institution of appeal which would result in substantial injustice;
(d) Lack of jurisdiction of the body tasked to investigate the case;
(e) The action involves purely claims for damages;
(f) The action of the investigating body is illegal, whimsical and arbitrary; and
(g) The issue is purely a question of law.

438. QUESTION: Are non-members of the union subject to fees collected by the union?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not
members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee
equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining
agreement. (Article 259 (e), Labor Code of the Philippines)

439. QUESTION: What is the difference between Union dues and Agency fees?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Union dues are the regular monthly contributions paid by the
members to the union in exchange for the benefits given to them by the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) and to finance the activities of the union in representing them. If such dues
are collected by the union from non-members, such dues are referred to as agency fees. Agency
fees are charged from the non-members who benefited under the CBA negotiated by the union,
despite non-membership to the union.

440. QUESTION: When is written authorization not required for the check-off from any
amount due an employee who is a member of the union?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The following are the exceptions for the required individual
written authorization duly signed by the employee prior to check-off:

(a) Assessment from non-members of the bargaining agent of reasonable fees;

(b) Deduction for fees for mandatory activities such as labor relations seminar;
(c) Check-off for union service fee;
(d) Deductions for withholding tax mandated by the NIRC;
(e) Deductions made pursuant to judgment against the worker under circumstances where his
wages may be the subject of attachment or execution;
(f) Deductions from wages ordered by the court; and
(g) Deductions authorized by law such as for premiums for PhilHealth, SSS, and such.

441. QUESTION: Who has the right to check-off union dues or agency fees from employees?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent is the only union
given the authority to deduct, represent, and collect union dues. The right to check off of union
dues or agency fees as above-described is available only to the SEBA. The minority union, not
being the collective bargaining agent, has no such right. The employer therefore is not under
any legal obligation to check-off any union dues and assessments for the minority union.

442. QUESTION: What is the right to check off?

ANSWER: Check off is a method of deducting by the employer from the employees pay at
prescribed periods, any amount due for fees, fines, or assessments. Also, Check off is a process
or device whereby the employer, in agreement with the union certified as the SEBA, or on prior
authorization from its employee, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages and
remits them directly to the union.

RATIONALE: The Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent is the only union given the authority
to deduct, represent, and collect union dues. The right to check off of union dues or agency
fees as above described is available only to the SEBA. The minority union, not being the
collective bargaining agent, has no such right.

443. QUESTION: Who benefits from the system of Check off?

ANSWER: The system of check-off is avowedly primarily for the benefit of the union and
only indirectly of the individual laborers. However, the welfare of the labors depends directly
upon the preservation and welfare of the union. It is the union which is to be recognized
instrumentality and mouthpiece of the laborers. Only through the union can the laborers
exercise the right of collective bargaining and enjoy other privileges. Without the union
laborers are impotent to protect themselves against "the reaction of conflicting economic
changes" and maintain and improve their lot. To protect the interest of the union ought to be
concern of arbitration as such as to help the individual laborers.

RATIONALE: Al Ammen Transportation Co. v. Bicol Transportation Employees Mutual

Association

444. QUESTION: What are the distinctions between Article 250 and 289 of the Labor Code?

ANSWER: The following are the distinctions:

a. Article 250 is an intra-union dispute; 289 is an inter-union dispute;

b. 250 requires 30% of the membership to file a case of cancellation; 289 requires 20% of the
membership to file a case of cancellation; and
c. 250 is for union members only; 289 applies to union members and outsiders.

RATIONALE: Article 250 and 289 of the Labor Code

445. QUESTION: What is the percentage if the purpose is to secure the cancellation of union
registration or expulsion of union officer/s from office by reason of any violation of the rights
and conditions of union membership?

ANSWER: If the purpose is to secure the cancellation of union registration or expulsion of

union officer/s from office by reason of any violation of the rights and conditions of union
membership, at least 30% of the members of the union concerned or any member or members
specially concerned may report such violation.

RATIONALE: Article Article 250 [241] of the Labor Code

446. QUESTION: What happens if the union fails to conduct labor relations seminar?

ANSWER: The failure of the Union to conduct Labor Relations seminar may be a ground for
the cancellation.

RATIONALE: Article 250 of the Labor Code

447. QUESTION: What are the factors to be considered for an organization to have a right to
sue or to be sued?

ANSWER: The union has its own legal personality, the union is a juridical person, and the
action is brought in behalf of its members.

RATIONALE: Right of Legitimate Labor Organization

448. QUESTION: Explain the tax exemption of the Right to Own Property of a Labor
Organization.

ANSWER: The income and the properties of a legitimate labor organization, including grants,
endowments, gifts, donations and contributions it may receive from fraternal and similar
organizations, whether local or foreign, shall be free from taxes, duties and other assessments
provided the same are: (1) actually, (2) directly and (3) exclusively used for its lawful purposes.
These three (3) standards set by law should all concur in order to be so entitled to tax
exemption. The tax benefit is granted to a legitimate labor organization "notwithstanding any
provision of a general or special law to the contrary and the exemptions may be withdrawn
"only by a special law expressly repealing this provision”.

RATIONALE: A legitimate labor organization has the right to acquire real property and
personal properties. Express provision on tax exemption is found on Article 251 [242] of the
Labor Code.

449. QUESTION: Do individual members of the union have the right to intervene?

ANSWER: Yes. The individual members have the right to intervene because the case filed by
the unions pertains to the individual benefits of the members. The union was willing to settle,
but the union members did not. Supreme Court stated that the union is not a party-in-interest.
The members can interfere when the decisions of the union is counter to the decision of the
union. The decision of the members should succeed.

RATIONALE: Producer’s Bank v. NLRC

450. QUESTION : During the election of union officers, AA who was just employed for five
days was prohibited by the other members from casting his vote for the reason that his
membership to the union is not yet official, given that there is a need for at least 1 year of his
service before he can be considered as a member of the union. Is this proper?

Answer: No, it is not proper, the right to join a union begins On the first day of employment,
the employee is now eligible to join a labor organization. Any employee, whether employed
for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on the first day of his service, be eligible for
membership in any labor organization.

Rationale: By express provision of Article 292 (c) of the Labor Code, any employee, whether
employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered
an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union.

451. QUESTION: AA stated in its position paper that due to the nature of the business in
which its livestock-agro division is engaged, his company is not eligible to join a union. Is he
correct?

Answer: No,nature of the Business is immaterial whether it be commercial, industrial and

agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions,
whether operating for profit or not.

Rationale:RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Every worker has the right to self-organization, i.e., to form or to join any legitimate
workers’union, free from interference of their employer or the government. All workers may
join a union for the purpose of collective bargaining and is eligible for union membership on
the first day of their employment.

452. Question: Manager Juan claimed that he is allowed to unionize and vote in employees
organization without any legal prohibitions. Is he correct?

Answer: No, manager Juan is not correct. The disqualification of managerial and confidential
employees from joining a bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees or supervisory employees
is already well entrenched in jurisprudence.

Rationale: In the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed to be on

the side of the employer to act as its representatives and to see to it that its interests are well
protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if managerial employees themselves
are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided. It is the
same reason why the positions of confidential employees are included in the disqualification
found in Article 245 as if such disqualification was written in the provision. If confidential
employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could
be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employer. Moreover,
unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean
the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act “in the interest of”
the employers. It is not far-fetched that in the course of the collective bargaining negotiations,
they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty-bound to protect

453. Question: Are government employees governed by the labor code?

Answer: No, government employees are not governed by the labor code. When the GOCC is
created under its original charter, then it is covered by the Civil Service Commission. When
the GOCC is created under the Corporation Code, then the labor code governs the Corporation.
It is as if it is a private corporation.
Rationale: Employees of government agencies including GOCCs created by special or original
charters are not covered by the Labor Code. Such employees are governed by the Civil Service.

The law says:

“SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and
agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters.
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided
by law. (Section 2, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution)

454. QUESTION : JO1 Balud, a bonafide member of Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology wanted to join PLAI, a government employees’ organization. After having been
declined membership, he insisted and claimed that he is a government employee in good
standing and character, thus he is eligible to join the organization. Is Jo1 Balud correct?

Answer: No, Jo1 Balud is not correct, High-level employees, Members of the Armed Forces,
Police Officers,Firemen,and Jail Guards are not eligible to form, join or assist any employees’
organization.Executive Order No. 180, s. of 1987 – provided guidelines for the exercise of the
right to organize of the government employees. The following shall not be eligible to form,
join or assist any employees’ organization for purposes of collective negotiations:

(a) high level, highly confidential and coterminous employees;

(b) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
(c) members of the Philippine National Police;
(d) firemen;
(e) jail guards; and,
(f) other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, except
when there is express written approval from management.

455. Question: What is Accredited Employees’ Organization?

Answer: Accredited Employees’ Organization refers to a registered organization of rank-and-

file employees recognized as the sole representative to negotiate for the employees in an
organizational unit headed by an officer with sufficient authority to bind the agency.

Rationale: “Accredited Employees’ Organization” refers to a registered organization of rank-

and-file employees as defined in these Rules, which has been recognized and certified by the
CSC as the sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent. (EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 180
PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, CREATING A PUBLIC SECTOR LABOR-
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)
 456. QUESTION: What is an Organization Unit?

ANSWER: It is the unit where the government employees’ organization seeks to operate and
represent. It is the employer‟ s unit consisting of rank-and-file employees unless circumstances
otherwise require. In the private sector, this is technically known as “bargaining unit.”

RATIONALE: “Organizational Unit” refers to an identifiable government unit, such as the

constitutional bodies and their regional offices; the executive department including services
and staff bureaus; line bureaus; attached agencies; the legislature; the judiciary; state
universities and colleges, government-owned or controlled cor- porations with original
charters; provinces, cities and munici- palities; regional offices (composed of provincial,
district, local offices) of a department/agency, office, or government-owned or controlled
corporations; and, such other identifiable government units as may be considered by the Public
Sector Labor- Management Council.

457. QUESTION: Are government employees allowed to strike?

ANSWER: No,Government employees are not allowed to strike because they cannot paralyze
the operations of the government. At present, in the absence of any legislation in government
employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such
right, they are prohibited from striking by express prohibition of MC No. 6 and as implied in
EO 180.

RATIONALE: While the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to whether or not
government employees may strike, they are prohibited from striking, by express provision of
Memorandum Circular No. 6 series of 1987 of the Civil Service Commission and as implied
in E.O. No. 180.

458. QUESTION: What are the requirements for the registration of a government
employees’ organization?

ANSWER: The following are the requirements for the registration of a government
employees’ organization:

1. One hundred pesos registration fee;

2. The names and addresses of the officers, the principal address of the organization, the minutes
of the meeting and the list of employees;
3. The names of the employees’ organization compromising at least 10% of all the employees in
the appropriate organizational unit; and
4. Four copies of the constitution and by-laws.

RATIONALE: Labor Relations, Employees’ Organization (Government Employees)

450. QUESTION: Can a duly registered employees’ organization be accorded voluntary

recognition?

ANSWER: Yes, a duly registered employees’ organization is accorded voluntary recognition.

E.O. 180 provides that a duly registered employee’s organization should be accorded voluntary
recognition upon showing that no other employees’ organization is registered or is seeking
registration in the organizational unit.

RATIONALE: Section 11 of Executive Order No. 180 states that a duly registered employees'
organization shall be accorded voluntary recognition upon a showing that no other employees'
organization is registered or is seeking registration, based on records of the Bureau of Labor
Relations, and that the said organizations has the majority support of the rank-and-file
employees in the organizational unit.

451. Question 1: What is Registration?

Answer: Registration is the processing of the application for registration of an employees’

organization and the issuance in its favor of the corresponding Certificate of Registration.

Rationale: Registration is required with Civil Service Commission and the Department of
Labor and Employment. The application is filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations of the
DOLE which shall process the same in accordance with the Labor Code.

452. QUESTION: How Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent is determined?

ANSWER: Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent is determined by:

Voluntary Recognition- E.O. 180 provides that a duly registered employees’ organization
should be accorded voluntary recognition upon a showing that no other employees’
organization is registered or is seeking registration in the organizational unit.

Certification Election- Where there are two or more duly registered employees’ organization,
the Bureau of Labor Relations should conduct a certification election and certify the winner as
the Exclusive representative.
r
RATIONALE: Right to collectively bargain is exercised through SEBA. SEBA refers to a
legitimate labor union duly certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative or
agent of all the employees in a collective bargaining unit (CBU) (Art 219 (j) Labor Code)

453. QUESTION 1: What agency has jurisdiction over certification election in the public
sector?

ANSWER: The Bureau of Labor Relations has jurisdiction over Petitions for Certification
Election in the public sector.

RATIONALE: Association of Court of Appelas Employees v. Ferrer-Calleja

454. QUESTION 2: What is the scope of negotiation by the Collective Negotiation

 Agreement?

ANSWER: The scope of negotiation by the Collective Negotiation Agreement are the
following:
1. Schedule of vacation or other leaves;
2. Work assignment of pregnant women;
3. Personnel growth and development;
4. Communication system;
5. Provision for protection and safety;
6. Provision for facilities of handicapped personnel;
7. Provisions for first aid medical services and supplies;
8. Physical fitness program;
9. Provisions for family planning services for married women;
10. Annual medical/physical examination; and
11. Recreational, social, athletic, and cultural activities

RATIONALE:
Scope of Negotiation by the Collective Negotiation Agreement: Schedule of vacation or other
leaves; Work assignment of pregnant women; Personnel growth and development;
Communication system; Provision for protection and safety; Provision for facilities of
handicapped personnel; Provisions for first aid medical services and supplies; Physical fitness
program; Provisions for family planning services for married women; Annual medical/physical
examination; and Recreational, social, athletic, and cultural activities.

455. QUESTION 3: Where does the employees’ organization register?

ANSWER: The employees’ organization shall be registered at both the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE).

RATIONALE: Registration of employees' organizations is made with both Civil Service

Commission (CSC) and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). Once registered, it is technically called a "registered employees'
organization." In the private sector, this is theoretically known as a "legitimate labor
organization." Cancellation of registration of an employees' organization is likewise made by
both the CSC and the BLR.

456. QUESTION 4: What is the sole and exclusive bargaining unit called in the public sector?
How about in the private sector?

ANSWER: The sole and exclusive bargaining unit is called “accredited employees'
organization”. In the private sector, it is called “sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA)”.

RATIONALE:
 The sole and exclusive bargaining union is called an "accredited employees' organization." In
the private sector, this is in principle known as a "sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA).

457. QUESTION 1:What are the characteristics of an employee with managerial rank?

ANSWER: The following are the characteristics of an employee with managerial rank:
1. He is not subject to the rigid observance of regular office hours;
2. His work acquires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance;
3. The output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given
period of time;
4. He manages a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the establishment; and
5. He is not as a rule, paid hourly wages.

RATIONALE: Engineering Equipment v NLRC.

458. QUESTION 2: What are the conditions in order for an employee to be considered a
managerial employee?

ANSWER: The conditions in order for an employee to be considered a managerial employee

are the following:
1. His primary duties consist of management of the establishment in which he is employed or of
a department or subdivision;
2. He customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more employees therein; and
3. He has the authority to hire or fire employees of lower rank or his suggestions and
recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of
status of other employees are given particular weight.

RATIONALE: Samson v. NLRC (G.R. No.121035)

459. QUESTION 3: What are the three types of managerial employees?

ANSWER: The three types of managerial employees are the following:

1. Top Management – small group of executives;
2. Middle Management – one level in an organization. Direct the activities of other managers and
sometimes also those of operating employees.
3. First-Line – lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible for the work
of others

RATIONALE:
Three Types of Managerial Employees: Top Management – small group of executives; Middle
Management – one level in an organization; Direct the activities of other managers and
sometimes also those of operating employees; First-Line – lowest level in an organization at
which individuals are responsible for the work of others.
 450. QUESTION 4: Who is a managerial employee?

ANSWER: A managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such managerial
actions.
RATIONALE: United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union vs Laguesma (G.R. No. 122226)

451. QUESTION: What type of managerial employees are also called supervisors?

ANSWER: The first-line managers or first-level managers are also called supervisors.
The First-Line Managers are the lowest level in an organization at which individuals are
responsible for the work of others. First-line managers direct operating employees only; they
do not supervise managers.

RATIONALE:
Jurisprudence says:

1. The First-Line Managers are the lowest level in an organization at which individuals are
responsible for the work of others. First-line managers direct operating employees only; they
do not supervise managers.
2. Middle Managers or the Middle Management can refer to more than one level in an
organization. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those
operating employees. Middle managers’ principal responsibilities are to direct the activities
that implement their organizations’ policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with
the capacities of their subordinates.
3. Top Managers are composed of a comparatively small group of executives; top management
is responsible for the overall management of the organization. It established operating policies
and guides the organization’s interactions with its environment. (United Pepsi-Cola v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 122226, March 25, 1998)

452. QUESTION: A plant manager in an electronic firm is an example of what type of

managerial employee?

ANSWER AND RATIONALE: A plant manager in an electronic firm is an example of a

middle manager. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also
those of operating employees. The middle managers' principal responsibilities are to direct the
activities that implement their organization's policies and to balance the demands of their
superiors with the capacities of their subordinates.
453. QUESTION: What is commingling?

ANSWER: Commingling is the inclusion of workers who are not part of the collective
bargaining unit (CBU). another form of commingling is when supervisors are included in a
rank-and-file union.

RATIONALE: It is important to remember that commingling is NOT a ground for the

cancellation of the registration of a union. The only effect is that said employees (who are not
supposed to be included) are, ipso jure, excluded and deemed removed from the unit or the list
of union members. (661 Phil. 175)

However, in the case of Tagaytay Highlands Int'l. Golf Club, Inc. v. Tagaytay Highlands
Employees Union-PGTWO (443 Phil. 841, 2003), the core issue was whether mingling affects
the legitimacy of a labor organization and its right to file a petition for certification election.
The Supreme Court held that, while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for
the effects thereof.

Thus, the Court said that after a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the
rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization. Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership (or, by analogy, any inclusion of workers outside
the CBU) cannot affect its legitimacy for that is NOT among the grounds for cancellation of
its registration, unless such mingling was brought about by misrepresentation, false statement
or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. (G.R. No. 169717)

454. QUESTION: Is the Separation of Unions Doctrine still being followed?

ANSWER AND RATIONALE: No. The separation of unions doctrine 46 has already been
rendered nugatory by the latest amendment of Article 245 of the Labor Code introduced by R.
A. No. 948147 which added the phrase: “The rank-and-file union and the supervisors’ union
operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.” This
doctrine prohibits the situation where the supervisory union and the rank-and-file union
operating within the same establishment are both affiliated with one and the same federation
because of the possible conflict of interest which may arise in the areas, inter alia, of discipline,
collective bargaining and strike.

455. QUESTION: What are the two criteria to be considered as a confidential employee?

ANSWER: Within the context of labor relations, “confidential employees” are those who
meet the following criteria:

(1) They assist or act in a confidential capacity;

(2) To persons or officers who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies
specifically in the field of labor relations.

RATIONALE: The two (2) criteria are cumulative and both must be met if an employee is to
be considered a “confidential employee” that would deprive him of his right to form, join or
assist a labor organization.

A confidential employee may be a rank-and-file or supervisory employee but because in the

normal course of his duties, he becomes aware of management policies relating to labor
relations, he is not allowed to assist, form or join a rank-and-file union or supervisory union,
as the case may be. His exclusion from the bargaining unit is justified under the “confidential
employee rule.”

456. QUESTION: Give examples of confidential employees under the confidential employee
rule.

ANSWER AND RATIONALE: Based on jurisprudence, the following are considered

confidential employees under the confidential employee rule:

1. Accounting personnel and radio and telegraph operators;

2. Division secretaries, all Staff of General Management, Personnel and Industrial Relations
Department, Secretaries of Audit, EDP and Financial Systems;

3. Legal secretaries who are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents,
memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of and receiving
notices, and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation.

4. Executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality
Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System
Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials
Manager and Production Manager were also considered confidential employees since they have
access to “vital labor information.

457. QUESTION: It is the legal basis for the ineligibility of a confidential employee to join
a union.

ANSWER: The doctrine of necessary implication is the legal basis for the ineligibility of a
confidential employee to join a union. The disqualification of managerial and confidential
employees from joining a bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees or supervisory employees
is already well entrenched in jurisprudence.

While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, assist or form a labor
organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to
confidential employees or those who, by reason of their positions or nature of work, are
required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and, therefore, are
likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records

RATIONALE: Art. 255 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to
join, assist, or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication,
confidential employees are similarly disqualified.

This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is
expressed. In the table of the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed
to be on the side of the employer to act as the representatives and to see to it that its interests
are well-protected. The employer is not assured of such protection if managerial employees
themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-
sided.

458. QUESTION: What are cases where confidential employees were allowed to join unions?

ANSWER AND RATIONALE: The High Court proclaimed in Filoil Refinery Corporation
v. Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Association, that confidential rank-and-file
employees may join the union of supervisors, especially in a situation where the confidential
employees are very few in number and are, by practice and tradition, identified with the
supervisors in their role as representatives of management vis-à-vis the rank-and-file
employees.

Such identity of interest has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining unit of supervisors for
purposes of collective bargaining. They remain employees in relation to the company as their
employer. This identity of interest logically calls for their inclusion in the same bargaining unit
and at the same time fulfills the law's objective of ensuring them the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining which could hardly be accomplished if the
respondent association‟ s membership were to be broken up into five separate ineffective tiny
units.

Jurisprudence, therefore, has established that there is no legal prohibition against confidential
employees who are not performing managerial functions to form and join a union.

459. Question 1: What are the requisites of Unfair Labor Practice?

Answer:

1. There should exist an employer-employee relationship between the offended party and the
offender; and
2. The act complained of must be expressly mentioned and defined under the Labor Code
as Unfair Labor Practice.

Rationale: Accordingly, violations of a collective bargaining agreement, except those which

are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved
as grievances under the collective bargaining agreement For purposes of this Article, gross
violations of a collective bargaining agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions of such agreement
460. Question 2: What are the 2 purposes where a strike and picket maybe staged?

Answer:

1) for the purpose of collective bargaining; or

2) for their mutual aid and protection
Rationale:

Meaning of the Right

a. Includes the right to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of the two
or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in concerted activities with co-
workers for purposes of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

b. Concerted activities refer to strike and picket. HEWASI

c. The strike and picket may be staged for two purposes namely: 1) for the purpose of collective
bargaining; or 2) for their mutual aid and protection

461. Question 3: What are the 2 basic rights under the right to self-organization?

Answer:

1. "to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing;" and

2. ''to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose or for their mutual aid and
protection, subject to the provisions of Article 279.

462. Question 4: What are the violations where there is an unfair labor practice?

Answer:

1) Right to self-organization;

2) Right to Strike; and

3) Right to Picket – there is an unfair labor practice.

463. Question 1: What are the two aspects of Unfair Labor Practice?

Answer: The two aspects of Unfair Labor Practice are as follows:

1. Criminal

2.Civil
464. Question 2: What are considered as not an unfair labor practice?

Answer:

(1) ordinary violations of a CBA which involve its non-economic/political provisions;

(2) violations of its non-economic provisions, even if gross in nature; and

(3) violations of its economic provisions which are not gross in character. Consequently, they
shall be resolved as ordinary grievances properly cognizable under the grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration of the CBA.

Rationale: Republic Savings Bank v. CIR – It is enough that there is now a varying force of
interference, restraint, or coercion. What is important is the act constitutes unfair labor practice.
Enumeration under 259, 260, 274 and 278 are exclusive grounds for unfair labor practice.

465. Question 3: What is the effect of the absence of the decision of the Labor Arbiter?

Answer: Absent the final judgment of the labor arbiter there is no criminal case.

Rationale: Without the decisions of the labor arbiter, the filing of a criminal case is premature
for lack of cause of action.

Manandeg, Merly Anne A. JD-2B page source :123

466. Question 4: Give two unfair labor practices of an employer

Answer:

To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

➢ To require as a condition for employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor
organization o

r shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;

➢ To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

➢ To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of

any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers
or officers;

➢ To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of

employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall prevent the parties from requiring membership
in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except of those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective
bargaining agreement. Employees belonging to an appropriate collective bargaining unit who
are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable
fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective
agreement: Provided, That the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph
(o), of this Code shall not apply to non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;

➢ To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having

given or being about to give testimony under this Code; (Retaliatory Measure)

➢ To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

➢ To pay negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the
settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

➢ To violate a collective bargaining agreement. (gross in nature)

467. QUESTION(1): Differentiate Taft-Hartley Act from Wagner Act.

ANSWER: The Taft-Hartley Act is a principle allowing the employer to bad mouth the union.
This allows the employer to counter the allegations of the union under freedom of speech which
is not applicable in the Philippines while on the other hand, Wagner Act is Strict neutrality
principle or we have no business when it comes to interfering with the affairs of the union.

RATIONALE: The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–
Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions.
It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman,
becoming law on June 23, 1947.
The purpose of the Wagner Act was to establish the legal right of most workers to join
labour unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. It also prohibited employers
from engaging in unfair labour practices.

468. QUESTION(2): What is the Insular Life Doctrine?

ANSWER: In the case of Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v.
Insular Life Assurance states that the terms "interfere," "restrain" and "coerce" in paragraph (a)
of Article 259 [248] are very broad that any act of management that reasonably tends to have
an influence or effect on the exercise by the employees of their right to self-organization may
fall within their meaning and coverage.

RATIONALE: In the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. EmployeesAssociation – NATU
v. Insular Life Assurance Co.Ltd., this Court had occasion to lay down the test of whether an
employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self–
organization, that is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably
be said,tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees rights; and that it is not necessary
that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements
of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti–union conduct of the
employer does have an adverse effect on self–organization and collective bargaining.

469. QUESTION(3): What is the Totality of Conduct Doctrine?

ANSWER:The Totality of Conduct Doctrine provides that because of its nature and
consequences, a finding of unfair labor practice should not be made based alone on the cited
unfair labor practice act considered in isolation, but should be viewed on the basis of the
employer’s act outside of the bigger context of the accompanying labor relations situation.

RATIONALE: The “totality of conduct doctrine” means that expressions of opinion by an

employer, though innocent in themselves, may be held to be constitutive of unfair labor practice
because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particular
employer’s labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their connection with an established
collateral plan of coercion or interference. An expression which might be permissibly uttered
by one employer, might, in the mouth of a more hostile employer, be deemed improper and
consequently actionable as an unfair labor practice.

470. QUESTION(4): What is the important ruling in case of T & H Shopfitters Corp./
Gin Queen Corp. v. T & H Shipfitters/ Gin Queen Worker’s Union?

ANSWER: It was highlighted that the acts are considered unfair labor practice: 1) sponsoring
a trip to Zambales; 2) active campaign for the other union; 3) escorting employees after the
field trip to the polling center.

RATIONALE: The Court ruled that ULP acts were committed by petitioners. The questioned
acts of petitioners: 1) sponsoring a field trip to Zambales to the exclusion of union members,
before the election; 2) the active campaign by the sales officer of petitioners against the union
prevailing as a bargaining agent during the field trip;3) escorting its employees after the field
trip to the polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of subcontractors performing their functions;
5)assigning union members to the site to work as grasscutters; and 6) the enforcement of work
on a rotational basis for union members, all reek of interference on the part of petitioners.The
various acts of petitioners reasonably support an inference that such were all orchestrated to
restrictrespondents’ free exercise of their right to self–organization. Petitioners’ undisputed
actions prior and immediately before the scheduled certification election, while seemingly
innocuous, unduly meddled in the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive
bargaining representative

471. QUESTION (1): What is Union Security Clauses

ANSWER: It is for the protection of the union. This gives unions the power to enforce rules
and regulations, and to collect dues. A “union security clause” is a stipulation in the CBA
whereby the management recognizes that the membership of employees in the union which
negotiated said agreement should be maintained and continued as a condition for employment
or retention of employment. The obvious purpose is to safeguard and ensure the continued
existence of the union.

472. QUESTION (2): Is Organizing and forming a union a valid ground to dismiss?

ANSWER: No, organizing and forming a union is never a valid ground to dismiss. Article
263(c) of the Labor Code provides that it is an act of union-busting to dismiss from employment
any union officers who were duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-
 laws where the existence of the union is threatened. Union-busting is an unfair labor practice.

473. QUESTION (3): What is a Yellow Dog Contract?

ANSWER: A “yellow dog contract” is an agreement which exacts from workers as a condition
of employment, that they shall not join or belong to a labor organization, or attempt to organize
one, during their period of employment or that they shall withdraw therefrom, in case they are
already members of a labor organization.

The typical yellow dog contract embodies the following stipulations:

1. a representation by the employee that he is not a member of a labor organization;

2. a promise by the employee that he will not join a union; and

4. a promise by the employee that upon joining a labor organization, he will quit his employment.
5.

474. QUESTION (4): What is Contracting Out of Services and Functions?

ANSWER: The act of an employer in having work or certain services or functions being
performed by the union members contracted out is not an unfair labor practice. This is because
the contracting out of a job, work or service, is clearly an exercise by the employer of its
business judgment and inherent management rights. It becomes an unfair labor practice when
the job contracted out will interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization.

RATIONALE: Contracting out of a job or work being performed by union members and such
will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self
organization as provided in Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended.

475. QUESTION: As soon as the rank-and-file employees obtained the SEBA certification,
they immediately entered into the collective bargaining process. The SEBA commences
multiple negotiations with the Company in different matters, respectively, in terms and
conditions with which the Company complies. However, at some point in time, the company
realises that if there are more members in the union, more demands and new proposals will be
submitted, subject to negotiation for the benefit of the employees. In this instance, the company
thought of a way to prevent employees or newly hired employees from joining the union so
that the collective bargaining agreement would only apply to those current members of the
union. Consequently, the company changed the location of the union.

Did the company commit Unfair Labor Practice? Explain.

ANSWER: Yes, the company committed an unfair labor practice. The case above is an
example of a Runaway shop in which there is change of location of the union to prevent
employees from joining the union.

RATIONALE: Unfair Labor Practice of Employers

- To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their ngnt to sell-organization;
- To require as a condition for employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor
organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
- To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization:
- To militate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any
labor or ganization, including the giving of financial or other
- To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization,
Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall prevent the parties from requiring membership
in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except of those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective
bargaining agreement.
- To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code:
- To pay necotiation or attorney stees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement
of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute: or
- To violate a collective bargaining agreement. gross in nature.

476. QUESTION: In the Union Shop Agreement are all probationary employees required to
join the SEBA?

ANSWER: No. In the Union Shop Agreement all new regular employees are required to join
the SEBA within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment.

RATIONALE: Union Shop Agreement

-it is not the probationary employees who are required to join the SEBA but all new regular
employees.

477. QUESTION : Does the closed shop agreement violate one’s freedom to join a union or
labor organization when it requires that an employee need to be a member of the SEBA to be
employed?

ANSWER : No. In the case of National Labor Union v. Aguinaldo’s Echague – any agreement
with a labor organization requiring membership is such organization as a condition of
employment provided such labor arrangement as a form of union security.

RATIONALE : It is a union security because of the following - (National Labor Union v.

Aguinaldo’s Echague)

a. Increase the strength and bargaining power of labor organizations.

b. Prevents non-union workers from sharing in the benefits of the union's activities without also
sharing its obligations.
c. Prevents the weakening of labor organizations by discrimination against union members.
d. Eliminates the lowering of standards caused by competition with non-union workers.
e. Enables labor organization effectively to enforce collective agreements.
 h. Facilitates the collection of dues and the enforcement of union rules.
i. Creates harmonious relations between the employer and employees."

478. QUESTION: Is the runaway shop similar to a spin-off situation?

ANSWER: No, a runaway shop is the change of location of the union to prevent the employees
from joining the union while a spin-off is part of an existing bargaining unit that is relocated to
a different facility.

RATIONALE: In a spin-off situation, the union may attempt to continue its representation of
the relocated workers at the new location while a runaway shop will prevent its employee from
joining the union.

479. QUESTION: The SEBA, entering its first CBA with the employer, desiring that their
first CBA is solely for the members of the SEBA in which the employer agreed. Is the CBA
valid?

ANSWER: No, the CBA is not valid. Such agreement is “Bargaining for Members only
Agreement” where the union negotiated and concluded the CBA with management is
recognized as the SEBA only for its own members. This kind of union security is not allowed
in our jurisdiction since the SEBA is required to represent not only its members but all the
employees covered by the bargaining unit where such SEBA operates and which it represents.

RATIONALE: Bargaining for Members only Agreement

- This kind of union security is not allowed in our jurisdiction since the SEBA is required to
represent not only its members but all the employees covered by the bargaining unit where
such SEBA operates and which it represents.

480. QUESTION: Petitioner union and the Hacienda entered into a collective bargaining
agreement. The said agreement provides that all employees shall be required to be a member
of the said UNION. Moreover, it provides that failure to comply with the conditions set forth
in the agreement shall be discharged immediately.

In a letter to the union president, Mark D. Great-Romero, a group of more than 115 person
representing themselves to be members of the UNION and followers of a religious sect known
as the Iglesia ni Cristo, made manifest their 'irrevocable resignation' from the UNION.

The followers of Iglesia ni Cristo were prompted to resign from the union because of the
circular from the Iglesia ni Cristo, enjoining all members of the sect not to join any outside
association or organization of whatever kind or nature or that if they are already members of
such association or organization that they disaffiliate themselves, otherwise they would be
expelled from the church.

Do the petitioners be dismissed on the grounds of resignation from the union?

ANSWER: NO, the petitioners cannot be summarily dismissed from their employment the
Hacienda as a result of their resignation from the respondent Union, notwithstanding the
existenceof a union shop security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Sec 4, par. 4
of the RA 3350, provides that, nothing in this Act or in any Act or statute of the Republic of
the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization
to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the
representative of the employees as provided in Section twelve, but such agreement shall not
cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such
labor organization.

RATIONALE: DOMINADOR ANUCENSION AND 114 OTHER IGLESIA NI CRISTO

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OF HACIENDA LUISITA (PETITIONER)vs.NATIONAL
LABOR UNION, TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (RESPONDENTS)

481. QUESTION: Is it true that the right of the members of Iglesia Ni Cristo sect not to join
a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, bars them from forming their own
union?

ANSWER: No. The right of members of the IGLESIA NI CRISTO sect not to join a labor
union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from
forming their own union. The "recognition of the tenets of the sect should not infringe on the
basic right of self-organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious
affiliation."

RATIONALE: KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIVISION VS. THE

HONORABLE BLR DIRECTOR PURA FERRER CALLEJA CASE

482. QUESTION: There was a certification election authorized to be conducted by the Bureau
of Labor Relations among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation. It was between
SALSWIT & SALTO. 348 workers were qualified, but only 240 took part - 141 of the 240
were INC members.

The final tally of the votes were: SALTO:1, SALSWIT:95, No Union:1, Spoiled:1, Challenged:
141.

The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INC members. They were segregated and
excluded from the final count in virtue of an agreement between the competing unions, reached
at the pre-election conference, that the INC members should not be allowed to vote "because
they are not members of any union and refused to participate in the previous certification
elections."

INC found this unfair, so they filed a petition to cancel the election. SALSWIT opposed the
petition, stating that they are not members of either union, but of the "INC" which prohibits its
 followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor organization.

Should the members of the INC be allowed to vote in the certification elections?

ANSWER: YES. INC members have the right to vote in certitication election for labor union
Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the "right to self-organization and to form, join, or
assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining.

- Art 243 of Labor Code provides: All persons employed in commercial, industrial and
agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions whether
operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant,
intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any
definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.
- The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain
from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of
a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right.

RATIONALE: Art. 243; Art 248 (a); Art 249 (a) of the Labor Code

483. QUESTION: The petitioner, Workers' Organization, declared a strike against the
respondent Company which was amicably settled the following day.Among the strikers were
100 seasonal workers, some of whom have worked as such for the company for how many
years.

On the opening of the milling season, the respondent company refused to re-admit these 100
seasonal workers of the workers organization on the ground that it was precluded by the closed-
shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the Worker’s Organization filed an
unfair labor practice charge against the company. The Court of Industrial Relations, ordered
the reinstatement, with back wages, of these laborers; but on a motion for reconsideration, the
said court, en banc, reversed the said decision in its resolution. Not satisfied with the reversal,
the Worker’s Organization filed the present petition for certiorari.

The petitioner contends that they are regular and old employees and, as such, they should have
been re-hired at the start of each milling season, which usually lasts 5 months. The respondents,
on the other hand, urge that these laborers are new, their employment terminating at the end of
each milling season and, therefore, could not be re-admitted without the company violating the
closed-shop agreement.

Is the respondent’s contention correct? Explain.

ANSWER: No, the respondent’s contention is not correct. The petitioners, even if seasonal
workers were not "new workers" within the scope of the closed shop contract between the
respondents; hence their discharge was illegal.

The dismissal of employees is illegal because there is absolutely nothing in the clause to show
that it was the intention of the parties that the non-membership of existing employees will cause
their dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, the resolution under review should be set aside, and the court of
origin must direct to order the reinstatement of the 100 seasonal workers to their former
positions in the respondent sugar milling company.

RATIONALE: ICAWO vs. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEPILAR (G.R. No. L-21465)

484. QUESTION: Does closed-shop provision in a collective bargaining contract is

retroactive?

ANSWER: NO. In order that an employer may be deemed bound, under a collective
bargaining agreement, to dismiss employees for non-union membership, the stipulation to this
effect must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave no room for doubt thereon. An undertaking
of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly construed, and doubts must be resolved against
the existence of "closed shop”.

The closed-shop agreement authorized under sec. 4, subsec. a(4) of the Industrial Peace Act
applies to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor
organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another
union. To hold otherwise, i.e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority
union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting
union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial Peace
Act as well as by the Constitution.

RATIONALE: Cases of Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co.and Freeman

Shirt Manufacturing v. Court of Industrial Relations

485. QUESTION: Employees of Manila Cordage Company formed the Manila Cordage
Workers Union. Some employees who were members of the Manco Labor Union resigned from
said union and joined the Manila Cordage Workers Union. At the instance of the Manco Labor
Union, the Manila Cordage Company dismissed those who resigned from the Manco Labor
Union. It is alleged that the Manco Labor Union held meetings wherein the members were
informed that under the collective bargaining agreement, continued membership in the Manco
Labor Union was a condition precedent to employment in the Manila Cordage Company.

Is the contention correct? Explain.

ANSWER: No. To construe the stipulations as imposing as a condition to continued

employment in the Manila Cordage Company the maintenance of membership in the Manco
Labor Union is to violate the natural and constitutional right of the laborer to organize freely.
Such interpretation would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate that the State shall
afford protection to labor.

RATIONALE: Manila Cordage Company vs CIR (G.R. No. L-27079

 486. QUESTION: Give at least to grounds invoked by the SEBA on the dismissal due to
violation of Union Security Clause

ANSWER: The following are the at least two grounds invoked by the SEBA on the dismissal
due to violation of Union Security Clause:

1) Refusal to become members of the SEBA; and

2) Resignation by its existing members

RATIONALE:

1) Refusal to become members of the SEBA;

2) Resignation by its existing members; and
3) Expulsion on the following grounds:
- Disloyalty to the SEBA;
- Commission of any act inimical to the interest of the SEBA;
- Refusal to pay union dues and other assessments;
- Commission Or Conviction Of A Felony;
- Organizing Or Joining Another Labor Organization;
- Involvement in any violation of the union security agreement of the SEBA; or
- Participation in an unfair labor practice.

487. QUESTION: What is the difference between Union Due Process and Employer Due
Process?

ANSWER: The due process required to be observed by the union prior to its member’s
expulsion concerns the termination of his membership with the union; while the due process
required that must be complied with by the employer pertains to the termination of his
employment with the employer.

RATIONALE: The due process is designed to safeguard a union member's rights within the
organization. It ensures that the member is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before
any decision to expel them from the union is made.

The due process required for employment termination by the employer aims to protect the
rights of workers in the context of their employment relationship. It ensures that employees are
not arbitrarily or unfairly dismissed from their jobs and guarantees them a fair opportunity to
present their side of the story or address any concerns the employer may have.

488. QUESTION: What are the requisites for Termination Based on Union Security Clause?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The requisites for termination based on Union Security Clause
are there is sufficient evidence to support the SEBA’s decision to expel the employee from the
membership; the SEBA is requesting for the enforcement of such clause; and the union security
clause is applicable.

489. QUESTION: What are the distinctive applications of Joint and Solidary Liability to the
Remedies of Reinstatement, Backwages, and Damages?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: These are the distinctive application of joint and solidary
liability to the remedies of reinstatement, backwages, and damages only the employer can
comply with the reinstatement, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement will be paid by the union
and employer solidary liability, and backwages are given by the employer and the union
solidarily.

490. QUESTION: Can the employer immediately terminate an expelled union member
without the union’s recommendation?

ANSWER: An expelled union member cannot be dismissed by the employer without the
union’s recommendation.
.
RATIONALE: Independent and Separate Hearing is in connection with the due process
required in termination grounded on violation of the union security clause. The employer is not
duty-bound to immediately implement the recommendation to terminate the SEBA.

491. QUESTION: What is Beck Rights Doctrine?

ANSWER: A question may be raised on whether the amount of agency fee could be reduced
to less than amount being paid by the SEBA members as their union dues, considering that the
non-SEBA members are supposed to pay the SEBA only for the costs of collective bargaining
contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.

RATIONALE: The agency fee be a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid
by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent should mean equivalent to that of
the dues of the members of the SEBA to cover the cost and expenses for
REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES such as the cost for collective bargaining.

492. QUESTION: What is an Agency Fee or Fair Share Fee?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The Agency fee or Fair Share Fee refers to employees who are
not members of the SEBA who would pay agency fees if they are enjoying benefits from the
CBA. Payment of agency fees would change non-members to quasi-SEBA members. The
principle of Agency Fee is quasi-contractual.

493. QUESTION: What are the limitations of Agency Fees?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The limitations of the Agency Fees are that it should be
equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by the members of the SEBA, and it is reasonable in
amount.

494. QUESTION: What is an automatic reimbursement clause?

ANSWER: An automatic reimbursement clause refers to the stipulation in the CBA stating
that the Union assumes full responsibility of any such termination of any member of the
bargaining unit who loses his membership and agrees to hold Del Monte free from liability.

RATIONALE: Case of Del Monte Philippines Inc. v. Saldivar G.R. No. 158620, October 11,
2006

495. QUESTION : What is the distinction between refusal of SEBA member to pay union
dues and refusal of non-SEBA member to pay agency fees?

ANSWER : In case of “Open shop”, there is no distinction because under this arrangement,
there is no legal compulsion on the part of the employee to pay union dues or agency fees, as
the case may be. No sanction is imposed upon the refusing employee, irrespective of his
membership or non-membership with the SEBA.

BUT: in cases where there is a union security arrangement in which payment of union dues or
agency fees to the SEBA is required:

(1) If the refusing employee is a member of the SEBA and payment of union dues is expressly
imposed as a condition for his continued membership in good standing therein, his refusal to
pay the union dues can be cited as a ground for his expulsion from the union and, upon the
SEBA's recommendation, for his subsequent dismissal from employment.

(2) If the refusing employee is not a member of the SEBA, the effect of his refusal will depend
on whether be accepts the CBA benefits or not. If he accepts, the SEBA can demand that the
grant of the CBA benefits to him be stopped; if he does not accept, he has no obligation to pay
any agency fees to the SEBA, hence, no sanction can be imposed on him. Notably, his refusal
to pay the agency fees to the SEBA cannot result in the termination of his employment.

RATIONALE : Agency fees are paid by non-seba members, union dues are paid by Seba
members

496. QUESTION : What is deauthorization?

ANSWER : It is an election process intended to achieve only one purpose and effect, that is,
to get rid of the union security clause in the CBA which imposes forced membership in the
SEBA as a condition of continued employment.

RATIONALE : It ensures that the employees are no longer forced to pay union dues or agency
fees or similar impositions.

497. QUESTION: Is there a legal compulsion in Open Shop Union?

ANSWER : There is no legal compulsion on the part of the employee to pay union dues or
agency fees, as the case may be. No sanction is imposed upon the refusing employee,
irrespective of his membership or non-membership to the SEBA

RATIONALE : The legislative intent is to assure absolute freedom of the employees to

establish labor organizations and unions as well as to proffer charges for violation of labor
laws.

498. QUESTION : Differentiate union dues vs. Agency fees

ANSWER : Union dues are required to be paid by the members of the SEBA; agency fees are
required to be paid by the non-SEBA members to the SEBA

499. QUESTION : What are the CBA Related Unfair Labor Practice?

ANSWER : To violate the duty to bargain collectively; To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees
to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective
bargaining; To violate a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

RATIONALE : not ULP: (1) ordinary violations of a CBA which involve its non-
economic/political provisions; (2) violations of its non-economic provisions, even if gross in
nature; and (3) violations of its economic provisions which are not gross in character.
Consequently, they shall be resolved as ordinary grievances properly cognizable under the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration of the CBA.

500. QUESTION : Differentiate surface bargaining and blue sky bargaining

ANSWER : Surface Bargaining - Going through the motions of negotiating without any legal
intent to reach an agreement.-
Blue-Sky bargaining - Making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals committed by the
SEBA.-SEBA

501. QUESTION : When is there an interference of an employer in the Choice of Union

Bargaining Panel?

ANSWER : It happens when an employer interferes in the selection of the union’s negotiators
or coerces the union to exclude from its panel of negotiators, a representative of the union, and
if it can be inferred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free
exercise of the right to self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employee

502. QUESTION : Is an employer’s act of negotiating with union members individually an

unfair labor practice?

ANSWER : Yes. In the case of CBU-SEBA, MU, NUME, INC Union cannot bargain validly
on behalf of its members only. But in the case of Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union
–NFL v. Central Azucarera de Bais – Employer’s act of negotiating a CBA with another union
during pendency of NCMB conciliation with the SEBA is not an unfair labor practice because
90% of the employees created a union to negotiate
503. QUESTION: Who are the persons criminally and civilly liable for ULPs of employer?

ANSWER: The persons criminally and civilly liable for ULPs of employers are the: a) officers
and agents of corporations; b) associations or partnerships who have actually participated in 1)
authorized or 2) ratified unfair labor practices.

RATIONALE: The Unfair Labor Practice of Labor Organizations in the Labor Code states
that, it shall be unlawful for labor organization, its officers, agents, or representatives to commit
any of the following unfair labor practices;

(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization: Provided,
That the labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership; (interfere not present)

(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including

discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization
has been denied or terminated on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under
which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members;

(c) To violate the duty or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided that it is
the representative of the employees;

(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any
money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not
performed or not to be performed, including the demand for a fee for union negotiations;

(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney's fees from employers as part of the settlement
of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers, members of
governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations
who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held
criminally liable.

504. QUESTION: Mimiyuuh is the owner of an establishment located on Kennon Arthur

Highway Road, Pakitong Kitong Alimango. He is also a gambling addict, spending most of his
time in high-end casinos. One day, he found himself without any capital remaining in his
establishment and no funds to pay his employees, as he had used all of it to gamble throughout
the day. Consequently, he had to close the establishment and mortgage it to the financier of the
casino. Is this situation considered an unfair labor practice?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Yes, the closure of an establishment in bad faith is considered
as an unfair labor practice.

505. QUESTION: What is the concept of boulwarism?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Boulwarism is a negotiation tactic in which the management

opens the negotiation with a generous offer that is not meant to be negotiated. Moreover, it is
an offer which is ultimate and to which no further revisions will be made. In short, take it or
leave it.
506. QUESTION: Lakas Tama has anger issues and holds a position as an officer at Jumbo
Hotdog Corporation, which leads to him discriminating against his employees. For instance,
he called Pearl Krabs a 'big fat loser' due to a misunderstanding. Initially, they resolved the
issue, but over time, Lakas Tama continued to shout, causing a disruptive work environment.
Is this behavior considered an unfair labor practice by labor organizations?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: Yes, it is considered as an unfair labor practice by labor

organizations. Under the Unfair Labor Practice of Labor Organizations paragraph b, which
states that, “To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee,
including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such
organization has been denied or terminated on any ground other than the usual terms and
conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other
members” is a valid ground for an unfair labor practice.

507. QUESTION: What is the concept of featherbedding?

ANSWER: Featherbedding is in the nature of exaction which is the payment of something

which was not delivered or done. The requisites for featherbedding are: a) the labor
organization, its officers, agents or representatives have caused or attempted to cause an
employer either, 1) to pay or agree to pay any money including the demand for fee for union
negotiations or 2) to deliver or agree to deliver any things of value; b) such demand for payment
of money or delivery of things of value is in the nature of exaction; and c) the services
contemplated in exchange for the exaction are not actually performed or will not be performed.

508. QUESTION: What are the kinds of discrimination?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: The kinds of discrimination are: a) the act of the union to cause
or attempt to cause or an employer to discriminate against an employee, in general, irrespective
of whether he or she is a member or non-member of the union; b) the discriminatory act of the
union against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been
denied; and c) the discriminatory act of the union against an employee whose membership
therein has been terminated based on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions
under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members.

509. QUESTION: Give examples of unfair labor practice.

ANSWER & RATIONALE: a) asking and accepting negotiation fees of standby services and
b) act of the union to cause or attempt to cause or an employer to discriminate against an
employee are examples of unfair labor practice.

Asking and accepting negotiation fees of standby services is an unfair labor practice if the fees
are designed to hinder the union's ability to negotiate or are imposed unfair and unreasonable.
Moreover, it's important for unions to act in accordance with labor laws and not engage in
activities that could lead to discrimination or retaliation against individual employees.

510. QUESTION: What is the duty to bargain?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: It is the obligation of the parties to meet and negotiate for the
CBA. Both employers and labor unions or employee representatives have a duty to bargain in
good faith. This means that they are expected to participate in negotiations with a sincere
intention to reach an agreement and not engage in tactics that would undermine the bargaining
process. The duty to bargain covers a wide range of employment-related matters, including
wages, benefits, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment.

511. QUESTION: Is it true that Bargaining Collectively is the performance of the mutual
obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times,
and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder?

ANSWER: Yes, the duty to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation
of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times, and confer
in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or
the negotiation of an agreement, or any question arising thereunder.

ART. 263. [252] Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. – The duty to bargain collectively
means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously
in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work
and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any
grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating
such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree
to a proposal or to make any concession

Note: The Duty to bargain collectively does not exist when the majority status of the
employees’ representative is not established. The employer has no such duty to bargain with
the individual worker or with the minority union.

512. QUESTION: Who has the Burden of Proof in Unfair Labor Practices?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: The onus probandi rests upon the party alleging it to prove
or substantiate such claims by the requisite quantum of evidence. Also in the case of Adamson
University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University G.R. No. 227070. March
09, 2020 the court ruled that "the general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the
burden of proving it." NOTE: Substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.

513. QUESTION: Discuss the Principle of Automatic Renewal Clause?

ANSWER: Pending the renewal of the CBA and while they are negotiating its renewal, the
parties are bound to keep the status quo and to treat the terms and conditions embodied therein
still in full force and effect not only during the 60-day freedom period but until a new agreement
is negotiated and ultimately concluded and reached by the parties

RATIONALE: An existing CBA cannot constitute a bar to the filing of PCE. Under Article
264 [253] which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of
the CBA, and does not include the representational aspect of the CBA. In the exercise of
management’s wide prerogative, the employer may merge or consolidate its business with
another, or sell or dispose of all or substantially all of its assets and properties.

514. QUESTION: How should the Duty of Bargain Collectively be discharged?

ANSWER: The duty to bargain collectively when there has yet been no CBA is the collective
bargaining unit (CBU) where the SEBA seeks to operate should be complied with in the
following order:

First: in accordance with any agreement or voluntary arrangement providing for a more
expeditious manner of collective bargaining, and;

Second: in its absence, in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code, referring to Article
261[250] thereof which lays down the procedure in collective bargaining.

RATIONALE: Clearly, the law gives utmost premium and extends due respect to the
voluntary arrangement between the parties on how they will discharge their respective duties
to bargain collectively before resort to the procedure laid down in the Labor Code may be
made. In other words, it is only when there is no such voluntary arrangement that the procedure
laid down in Article 261 [250] of the Labor Code should be followed

515. QUESTION: How many days is allowed to terminate or modify the agreement when
there exists a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

ANSWER:The 60-day- Freedom period is the only time the parties are allowed to terminate
or modify the agreement prior to its expiration date.

RATIONALE: ART. 264. [253] Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective
Bargaining Agreement. – When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain
collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during
its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the
agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties
to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
parties.

516. QUESTION: What is the duty to Bargain when there is no CBA yet?

ANSWER: ➢ The duty to bargain collectively when there is no existing CBA yet in the
bargaining unit where the SEBA operates should be discharged first.

➢ The advantage of negotiating a CBA for the first time lies in the fact that both parties are
not restricted or encumbered by any previous agreements or commitments on any issues that
may be raised in the course of the negotiation.

517. QUESTION: What is the duty to bargain where there exist CBA?

ANSWER: ➢ The duty to bargain does not also mean that neither party shall terminate nor
modify such agreement during its lifetime.
518. QUESTION: Does the signing of the authorization in support od the petition for
certification of a new union filed during the freedom period is sufficient to terminate the
employment?

ANSWER: The mere signing of the authorization in support of the Petition for Certification
Election of FFW on March 19, 20 and 21, or before the “freedom period,” is not sufficient
ground to terminate the employment of respondents inasmuch as the petition itself was actually
filed during the freedom period. ( Picop Resource Inc. v. Taneca)

519. QUESTION: What is Collective Bargaining Agreement?

ANSWER: A collective bargaining agreement refers to the negotiated contract between a duly
certified Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent of workers and the employer in incorporating
the agreement reached after the negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work, and all other
terms and conditions of employment in the appropriate bargaining unit, including mandatory
provisions for grievances and arbitration machineries.

520. QUESTION: What is the purpose of the Collective Bargaining agreement?

ANSWER & RATIONALE: ➢ The primary purpose of the CBA is the stabilization of labor-
management relations in order to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace (Rivera
v. Espiritu,supra; Kiok Loy v. NLRC, GR. No. L- 54334, January 22, 1986)

➢ To upgrade the benefits of the employees.

521. QUESTION: What is the Absorption Doctrine?

ANSWER: The absorption doctrine (otherwise known as “accretion doctrine” in other

jurisdictions.) Applies when there is absorption and integrationby one entity of one or more
establishments having the same kind and line of business and having their respective CBAs
with different labor unions existing therein.

An example, is when one company is sold to another in which case, the duty to bargain
collectively which originally devolves upon the selling party if transferred tothe buying party.
This holds true especially in cases where the organization, structure, assets and other features
of the company sold are not disturbed.

RATIONALE: BPI v. BPI Employees Davao

522. QUESTION: What are the law between the Parties?

ANSWER: ➢ CBA is the law between the parties during its lifetime.

➢ It embodies all the agreements reached after negotiations between the employer and the
SEBA with respect to the terms and conditions of their employmentrelationship.
➢ Any violation of the provisions of the CBA can be a subject of redress in the courts.

523. QUESTION: What is the Binding effect of CBA

Answer and Rationale : The binding effect of CBA is the Ratification of the CBA by the
majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit; it is also binding on all employees therein.

524. QUESTION: What is the effect of Business Losses on the CBA?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: In the case of Benson Industries Employees Union v. Benson
Industries, Inc. The court ruled that "if there is an agreement to provide separation benefits and
in case of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses. The obligation to pay does not come from law, but the
existing CBA. Thus,The employer must comply."

525. QUESTION: Who are employees entitled to CBA?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: The employees entitled to CBA are the following:
a)Members of the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent;
b)Non-members of the SEBA, but members of the Bargaining Unit;
c)Members of the minority union as long as they are paying agency fee; and
d)New employees hired after the conclusion of the CBA and during its effectivity or even after
its expiration.

526. QUESTION: Galaxie Steel Corporation (Galaxie) is a corporation engaged in the

business of manufacturing and sale of re-bars and steel billets which are used primarily in the
construction of high-rise buildings. On account of serious business losses which occurredin
1997 up to mid-1999 totaling around P127,000,000.00, Galaxie decided to close down its
business operations.

Galaxie thus filed on July 30, 1999 a written notice with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) informing the latter of itsintended closure and the consequent
termination of its employees effective August 31, 1999. However, Petitioners Galaxie Steel
Workers Union and Galaxie employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice, and money claims against Galaxie. Will the petition prosper?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: No, the petition will not prosper. Galaxie’s closure or
cessation ofbusiness operations was due to serious business losses or financial reverses, and
not because of any alleged anti-union position.In addition, where, the closure then is due to
serious business losses, the Labor Code does not impose any obligation upon the employer to
payseparation benefits. Thus the Supreme Court ruled that since the benefit was given
unilaterally by the company as an act of generosity then the company is not required to give
the benefit because of losses.

527. QUESTION: What are the Rights of Parties in case of Deadlock?

Answer and Rationale: According to Art. 253-A of the Labor Code. “Any agreement on such
other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months
from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective
Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such
agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of
retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the negotiation of the collective bargaining
agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code.” Example of such rights of
parties in case of Deadlock are the following;

a)Submission of the deadlocked issue to conciliation and mediation by the NCMB - VA;

b) Declaration and actual staging of a strike by the union or lockout by the employer;

c) Assumption by the Secretary or Certification to the NLRC (HEWASI);

d) Submission to the VA

528. QUESTION: What are the instances where CBA negotiation should not push through?

ANSWER and RATIONALE : There are two instances in which CBA negotiation should not
push through;

a) With a union whose Petition for Certification Election is still pending and, therefore, it has
yet to be certified as the SEBA; or

b) If the majority status of the current SEBA is being challenged and contested by other union/s
in the bargaining unit which seasonably filed Petition for Certification Election within the 60-
day period.

529. QUESTION: At what point does a deadlock occur, and when does it not qualify as a
deadlock?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: In the case of Divine Word University of Tacloban v. SOLE
"There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage in the negotiation resulting
from the action of equal and opposing forces. While, there can be no deadlock if the employer
failed or refused to counter-propose to the bargaining agent's proposals. "

530. QUESTION: Can we assert that a deadlock can only be officially declared upon mutual
consent of both parties?

ANSWER and RATIONALE: No. In Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v.

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court
held that the "absence of the parties' mutual declaration of deadlock does not mean that there
was no deadlock"

531. QUESTION: Why is Middle Ground Approach not the best method to resolve a
wage dispute?

ANSWER: Middle Ground Approach is not the best method in resolving a wage dispute
because merely finding the midway point between the demands of the company and the union,
 and "splitting the difference" is a simplistic solution that fails to recognize that the parties may
already be at the limits of the wage levels they can afford. It may lead to the danger too that
neither of the parties will engage in principled bargaining; the company may keep its position
artificially low while the union presents an artificially high position, on the fear that a
"Solomonic" solution cannot be avoided..

RATIONALE: In the case of Manila Electric Company vs. The Honorable Secretary of Labor
Leonard Quisimbing and MERALCO Employees and Workers Association (MEWA) it was
noted that "middle ground" approach employed by the Secretary do not necessarily find to be
the best method of resolving a wage dispute. Merely finding the midway point between the
demands of the company and the union, and "splitting the difference" is a simplistic solution
that fails to recognize that the parties may already be at the limits of the wage levels they can
afford. It may lead to the danger too that neither of the parties will engage in principled
bargaining; the company may keep its position artificially low while the union presents an
artificially high position, on the fear that a "Solomonic" solution cannot be avoided. Thus,
rather than encourage agreement, a "middle ground approach" instead promotes a "play safe"
attitude that leads to more deadlocks than to successfully negotiated CBAs.

532. QUESTION: In the Meralco Rule what factors are best considered in determining
the factors that affect wage determination?

ANSWER: The factors that are best considered in determining factors that affect wage
determination in the Meralco Rule are the following:

1. The bargaining history of the company;

2. The trends and amounts of arbitrated and agreed wage awards and the company's previous
CBAs;
3. The industry trends in general;
4. The affordability or capacity to pay; and
5. The public interest aspects of the case.

RATIONALE: According to Meralco Ruling, a collective bargaining dispute requires due

consideration and proper balancing of the interests of the parties to the dispute and of those
who might be affected by the dispute. In determining the factors that should affect wage
determination, the best way is to holistically consider the available objective facts, including,
where applicable, factors such as: 1.) The bargaining history of the company; 2.) The trends
and amounts of arbitrated and agreed wage awards and the company's previous CBAs;3.) The
industry trends in general; 4.) The affordability or capacity to pay; and; 5.) The public interest
aspects of the case.

533. QUESTION: How is arbitral award distinguished from the mutually negotiated and
agreed terms and conditions of the CBA?

ANSWER: As distinguished from the parties' mutually negotiated and agreed terms and
conditions of the CBA, arbitrally awarded ones are granted through the intervention of a third
party called a voluntary arbitrator or compulsory arbitrator through any of the modes mentioned
above. While arbitral awards cannot per se be categorized as agreements voluntarily entered
into by the parties because they are determinations and impositions made by a third party, they
can be considered as "approximations of collective bargaining agreements" which would
otherwise have been entered into by the parties; hence, they have the force and effect of a valid
contract obligation. This is the proper way arbitral awards should be legally treated

RATIONALE: As distinguished from the parties' mutually negotiated and agreed terms and
conditions of the CBA, arbitrally awarded ones are granted through the intervention of a third
party called a voluntary arbitrator or compulsory arbitrator through any of the modes mentioned
above. While arbitral awards cannot per se be categorized as agreements voluntarily entered
into by the parties because they are determinations and impositions made by a third party, (Like
a Voluntary Arbitrator, the DOLE Secretary or the NLRC, as the case may be.) they can be
considered as "approximations of collective bargaining agreements" which would otherwise
have been entered into by the parties; hence, they have the force and effect of a valid contract
obligation. This is the proper way arbitral awards should be legally treated. (G.R No. 127598,
Jan. 27,1999,302 SCRA173,214)

534. QUESTION: What is Solomonic Approach?

ANSWER: A Solomonic Approach is an approach in resolving a wage dispute by merely

finding the midway point between the demands of the company and the union and splitting the
difference to successfully negotiate the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

RATIONALE: In the 1998 case of Manila Central Line Corporation, this solomonic or middle
ground approachwas given approbation. In this case, the parties' proposal and counter-proposal
shows that the union was demanding that the rate be increased to 10% and 8% from the old
rate of 8% and 6% or an increase of 2%, while that of the company effectively increased the
rate by .5% to make the rate at 8.5% and 6.5%. From this, it appears that the disagreement lies
on how much would the increase in the rate be. As appearing the union was asking for an
increase equivalent to at least 25% for the drivers and at least 33% for the conductor/tresses,
while that which proposed (sic) by the company shows an increase of at least 6% and 8%
respectively. The difference between the parties proposal and counter-proposal is at least 19%
and 25%, respectively. With this disagreement in this difference, it is thought of to be practical
and reasonable to meet at the middle of the difference in the rate by dividing the same into two.
Hence, the increase in the rate should be from the present 8% and 6% to 8.75% and 6.75%.
However, in order to make the increase realistic it is opined that it should be rounded off to the
nearest full number that is to 9% and 7%, respectively (MANILA CENTRAL LINE
CORPORATION vs. MANILA CENTRAL LINE FREE WORKERS UNION-NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF LABOR and the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
G.R. No. 109383 June 15, 1998).

535. QUESTION: In the Triump Rule, what was the consideration noted in resolving
wage issues?

ANSWER: There is only one consideration and that is the prevailing economic indicators in
the workplace, in the industry, and in the local and regional economy.
RATIONALE: In Triumph International, the High Court, in affirming the DOLE Secretary's
award resolving the bargaining deadlock between the petitioner union and the private
respondent company for their 1999-2001 CBA, noted the reasonableness thereof as it as based
on the prevailing economic indicators in the workplace, in the industry, and in the local and
regional economy. As well, it took into account the comparative standing of the company in
terms of employees' wages and other economic benefits. The company's previous CBAs is a
consideration under the Asia Brewery Rule.

...END OF 2B...
536. Question1: An employer has certain duties to their employees such as proper
wages/compensation, benefits, providing sick leaves and rest days, etc.. On the other
hand, employees also have duties to comply with in rendering service and
obligations towards their employer. With that, what are the fundamental duties of an
employee to his/her employer?

Answer: Jurisprudence states that in order to prevent the termination of an

employee initiated by the employer, the employee must do their fundamental duties
which is to obey all reasonable rules, orders and instructions of the employer.
However, such rules, orders, and instruction must be lawful and not violative to the
employee’s rights.

This is to promote a harmonious and healthy employer-employee relationship and

to protect the employer from paying an employee who does not do their job properly
or willfully violating the company rules and regulations.

Rationale: One of the fundamental duties of an employee is to obey all reasonable

rules, orders and instructions of the employer. In order to validly invoke this
ground, the following requisites must be complied with. (The Coffee Bean and Tea
Leal Philippines, Inc. v. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015)

537. Question2: What are the following requisites in order to validly invoke
Insubordination or Willful Disobedience as a ground for termination by an
employer?

Answer: One of the fundamental duties of an employee is to obey all

reasonable rules, orders and instructions of the employer. In order to validly invoke
this ground, the following requisites must be complied with, to wit.

(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 be based on a reasonable and lawful company rule,
regulation or policy and made known to the employee and must pertain to the
duties for which he has been engaged to discharge. (The Coffee Bean and Tea Leal
Philippines, Inc. v. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015)

Rationale: One of the fundamental duties of an employee is to obey all reasonable

rules, orders and instructions of the employer. In order to validly invoke this
ground, the following requisites must be complied with, to wit. o The employee's
assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being
characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and o The
order violated must be based on a reasonable and lawful company rule, regulation
or policy and made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties for which
he has been engaged to
discharge. (The Coffee Bean and Tea Leal Philippines, Inc. v. Rolly P. Arenas,
 G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015)

**As far as the second requisite for insubordination or willful disobedience is

concerned, it is required that there should exist a rule, regulation or policy upon
which the order is based which must be: 1) lawful and reasonable; 2) sufficiently
known to the employee; and 3) in connection with the duties for which the employee
has been engaged to discharge. (Ace Promotion and Marketing Corp. v. Ursabia,
G.R. No. 171703, Sept 22.2006.)

538. Question3: Glen is a security guard of AAA Company. After 6 months of

employment, Glen was dismissed after his failure to observe the rotation/sequencing
process of the VCR for the CCTV to capture a theft incident in one of the hospital
rooms. “In his letter dated January 6, 1997, Glen explained that on the subject dates,
he was the only personnel on duty as nobody wanted to assist him. Because of this,
he decided to focus the cameras on the Old and New Maternity Units, as these two
units have a high incidence of crime.” Finding the explanation unsatisfactory, he was
dismissed. Was Glen’s dismissal proper and lawful?

Answer: No, the dismissal was improper and unlawful.

Gross and habitual neglect of duty is considered a just cause for dismissing an
employee under Article 297 (b) of the Labor Code. To be a cause for dismissal, the
neglect must be both gross and habitual. Thus, the Department of Labor and
Employment has set standards that should be met before gross and habitual neglect
of duty may be validly used as just cause for termination.

In this case, Glen exercised his best judgment in monitoring the CCTV cameras so
as to ensure the security within the hospital premises. Verily, assuming arguendo
that he was negligent, although the Court finds otherwise, the lapse or inaction
could only be regarded as a single or isolated act of negligence that cannot be
categorized as habitual and, hence, not a just cause for his dismissal. Thus, a single
or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the
employee.

Rationale: Under Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate
an employee for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Neglect of duty, to be a
ground for dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes
want of care in the performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated
failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances. A single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just
cause for the dismissal of the employee.

539. Question4: What are the two (2) elements that must concur in order to
validly invoke abandonment of work as a ground for termination by an employee?
 Answer: To constitute abandonment, two (2) elements must concur, namely:

(1) The employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent
without valid or justifiable reason; and
(2) There must have been a clear intention on the part of the
employee to sever the employer-employee relationship
manifested by some overt act.

Rationale: Abandonment is a form of neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for

termination of employment under Article 297(b) (282(b)] of the Labor Code. ➢ To
constitute abandonment, two
(2) elements must concur, namely: o The employee must have failed to report for
work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and o There
must have been a clear
intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship
manifested by some overt act. (CRC Agricultural Trading v. NLRC, G.R. No.
177664, Dec. 23. 2009.)

540. Question5: Kim is the secretary of Joy, the owner of Lu Company, and
became a regular employee last month. One time, Kim asked Joy for an advanced
salary as he is in financial despair and he needs to pay for his apartment. Joy
declined to give him an advanced salary as he already advanced his 2 months of
salary last week with the same reason. Kim got mad because of the rejection. At
night on the same day, when Joy was about to go home, Kim stabbed Joy and fled.
Fortunately, Joy was not fatally injured. The next day, Joy terminated Kim from his
employment and filed a case of frustrated homicide. Is the termination proper?

Answer: Yes, the termination is proper.

The law provides that a commission of a crime or offense can only be a ground for
dismissal of an employee if it is committed against the employer, his immediate
family, or his duly authorized representatives. A crime or offense is an act or
omission that is prohibited or punished by law.

In this case, Kim committed a crime of frustrated homicide against his employer,
Joy. Thus, the fact that Kim is the secretary of Joy (who also owns the Lu
Company) shows that there is an employee-employer relationship between them.
Therefore, commission of a crime or offense can be validly invoked as ground for
termination by an employer.

Rationale: According to Article 297 of the Labor Code, the following are the
requisites for the valid invocation of commission of crime or offense as a ground
for termination by an employer: o A crime or offense was committed by the
employee; o It was committed against any of the following persons: 1) his
 employer; 2) any immediate member of his employer's family; or 3) his employer's
duly authorized representative.

541. Question6: Give an acts or circumstances wherein an employee can be

terminated by his employer by invoking analogous causes under jurisprudence as a
ground.

Answer: Under the jurisprudence, there are circumstances or acts by an employee

which is considered as an analogous cause to terminate their employment. Some of
which are the following:

(1) Violation of company rules and regulations.

(2) Theft of property owned by a co-employee, as distinguished from theft of
property owned by the employer.
(3) Incompetence, inefficiency or ineptitude. (International School Manila v.
International School Alliance of Educators
(4) Failure to attain work quota
(5) Failure to comply with weight standards of the employer.
(6) "Attitude problem” is analogous to loss of trust and confidence. However,
the mere mention of negative feedback from her team members regarding
her low performance rating and her work attitude is not proof of her
attitude problem. Likewise, her failure to refute petitioners' allegations of
her negative attitude does not amount to admission.

Rationale: Analogous Causes Under Jurisprudence ➢ Violation of company rules

and regulations. (Sampaguita Auto Transport Corporafon v. NLRC, G.R. No.
197384, Jan. 30, 2013)
➢ Theft of property owned by a co-employee, as distinguished from theft of property
owned by the employer. (John Hancock Life Insurance Corp.v. Davis, G.R No.
169549, Sept 3, 2008.) ➢
Incompetence, inefficiency or ineptitude. (Intematonal School Manila v. Intemational
School Alliance of Educators (ISAE), G.R. No. 167286, Feb. 5, 2014; Realda v. New
Age Graphics, Inc., G.R. No. 192190, April 25, 2012.) ➢ Failure to attain work
quota (Aling y. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012). ➢ Failure to comply
with weight standards of employer. (Yrasueguiv. Philippine Airfnes, Inc, GR No.
168081, Oct 17, 2008.) ➢ "Attitude problem” is analogous to loss of trust and
confidence. (Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corp., G.R. No. 174893,
July 11, 2012; See also Heavyift Manila, Inc. v. The CA, GR No. 154410, Oct 20,
2005.
However, in this case of Heavyift, petitioners have not shown sufficiently clear and
convincing evidence to justify respondent employee's temination for her attitude
problem. The mere mention of negative feedback from her team members regarding
her low performance rating and her work attitude is not proof of her attitude
problem. Likewise, her failure to refute petitioners' allegations of her negative
attitude does not amount to admission. See also Navarro illv. Damasco, G.R. No.
 101875, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 260, 265.

542. Question7: Alli is a regular employee of Bakyu Country Club (BCC) for
almost 2 years. Complying with the company rules, all employees are mandated to
conduct a medical twice a year. Alli went to a company hospital for his medical and
found out that he suffers from a disease
XXX. With that, the competent public health authority issued a certification that the
disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of
six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. Based on the findings and
certification, the employer terminated the employment of Alli in BCC and paid his
separation pay legally. Is the termination proper?

Answer: Yes, the termination is proper.

Article 299 of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate the
services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and
whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to
the health of his co-employees. Provided, That he is paid separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1) month
salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is
greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.

In this case, the fact that Alli later suffers from a disease which cannot be cured
within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment is considered
as an authorized cause for the termination of employment. Thus, the employer paid
his separation pay. Therefore, the ground is valid.

Rationale: The authorized causes provided in the Labor Code may generally be
classified into two (2), namely: ➢ Business-related causes. - Referring to the
grounds specifically mentioned in Article 298 [283], to wit. o Installation of labor-
saving device; o Redundancy; o Retrenchment; o Closure or cessation of business
operations NOT due to serious business losses or financial reverses; and o Closure
or cessation of business operations due to serious business losses and financial
reverses. ➢ Health-related causes. - Referring to disease

543. Question8: Business-related causes. - Referring to the grounds for

termination by an employer specifically mentioned in Article 298 [283], to wit: (1)
Installation of labor-saving device; (2)Redundancy; (3)Retrenchment; (4)Closure or
cessation of business operations NOT due to serious business losses or financial
reverses; and (5)Closure or cessation of business operations due to serious business
losses and financial reverses. What are the common requisites in order for the said
grounds to be applicable?

Answer:The following five (5) common requisites are applicable to the said grounds:
 (1) There is good faith in effecting the termination;
(2) The termination is a matter of last resort, there being no other option
available to the employer after resorting to cost-cutting measures;
(3) Two (2) separate written notices are served on both the affected employee
and the DOLE at least one (1) month prior to the intended date of
termination;
(4) Separation pay is paid to the affected employee

Rationale: There are certain requisites that are common to the five (5) grounds in
Article 298 (283). To simplify the discussion, the following five (5) common
requisites are applicable to the said grounds: ➢ There is good faith in effecting the
termination; ➢ The termination is a matter of last resort, there being no other
option available to the employer after resorting to cost-cutting measures; ➢ Two (2)
separate written notices are served on both the affected employee and the DOLE at
least one (1) month prior to the intended date of termination; ➢ Separation pay is
paid to the affected employee, to wit. o If based on (1) installation of labor-saving
device, or (2) redundancy. - One (1) month pay or at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six (6) months shall
be considered as one (1) whole year. o If based on (1) retrenchment, or (2) closure
NOT due serious business losses or financial reverses. - One (1) month pay or at
least one-half (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction
of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. o If closure is
due to serious business losses or financial reverses, NO separation pay is required to
be paid. (d) In case the CBA or company policy provides for a higher separation
pay, the same must be followed instead of the one provided in Article 298 [283].

544. Question9: How does separation pay computed when the grounds for
termination by an employer was under Article 299 (283) of the Labor Code?

Answer: Separation pay is paid to the affected employee and it is computed

through the following:

● If based on (1) installation of labor-saving device, or (2) redundancy. - One

(1) month pay or at least one (1) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered
as one (1) whole year.
● If based on (1) retrenchment, or (2) closure NOT due serious business losses
or financial reverses. - One (1) month pay or at least one-half (1) month pay
for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six (6)
months shall be considered as one (1)
whole year.
● In case the CBA or company policy provides for a higher separation pay,
the same must be followed instead of the one provided in Article 298
[283].

Rationale: Separation pay is paid to the affected employee, to wit. o If based on (1)
 installation of labor-saving device, or (2) redundancy. - One (1) month pay or at
least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction of
at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year. o If based on (1)
retrenchment, or (2) closure NOT due serious business losses or financial reverses.
- One (1) month pay or at least one-half (1) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher, a fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one
(1) whole year. o If closure is due to serious business losses or financial reverses,
NO separation pay is required to be paid. (d) In case the CBA or company
policyprovides for a higher separation pay, the same must be followed instead of the
one provided in Article 298 [283].

555. Question10: What if the closure is due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, is the company required to pay the separation pay of the affected
employee/s?

Answer: No, the company or the employer is not required to pay the separation pay
of the affected emploee/s.

Under the Labor Code, if the closure is due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, NO separation pay is required to be paid. Thus, when an employee is
terminated for just causes, no separation pay is required, as the grounds relate to
wrongdoing committed by the employee, such as misconduct, disobedience, fraud,
breach of trust, neglect of duty, commission of a crime, and other like causes.

Rationale: The only time employers are not compelled to pay separation pay when
terminating employees based on authorized causes is when they closed their
establishments or undertaking due to serious business losses or financial reversal.
(G.J.T Rebuilders Machine Shop, et al. v. Ambos, et al., G.R. No. 174184, January
28, 2015)

556. Question: Can an Arbitral Award be included in the Collective Bargaining

Agreement?

Answer: Yes. An Arbitral Award can be included in the Collective Bargaining

Agreement. However, when it comes to provisions that the parties have voluntary
agreed upon then it must be incorporated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Rationale: The law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that
granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by intervention of
the government. Despite the silence of the law, the Court rules herein that CBA
arbitral awards granted after six months from the expiration of the last CBA shall
retroact to such time agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their
union (Manila Electric Company v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 127589, August
1, 2000).
 557. Question: May an Arbitral Award be subject to

renegotiation?

Answer: No. An Arbitral Award cannot be subjected to re-

negotiation. As a result of their voluntary decision to submit the

outstanding matters to arbitration, the parties are required to

abide by the arbitral judgment made there and to sign a CBA

that fully incorporates and reflects the arbitral decision. The

benefits and other conditions do not need to be renegotiated or

reviewed again after being granted.

558. Question: Can an arbitrally awarded benefits provided under the CBA be
taxed?

Answer: Yes. An arbitrally awarded benefits provided under the CBA can be taxed
which should be 5% withholding tax but subject to certain exceptions such as
sickness benefits and conversion of leave benefits of not less than ten (10) days.

Rationale: The NLRC, through its Administrative Order No. 11-17, Series of
2012, which was issued in relation to BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 39-
2012, imposes a five percent (5%) withholding income tax on arbitrally awarded
benefits provided under the CBA except for sickness benefits and conversion of
leave benefits of not less than ten (10) days.
559. Question: Differentiate Single Enterprise Bargaining from Multi-Employer
Bargaining.

Answer: Single enterprise bargaining involves a CBA negotiation between one certified
sole and exclusive bargaining agent and one employer. On the other hand, Multi-Employer
Bargaining involves a CBA negotiation between and among several certified SEBAs and
employers.
Question: Suppose an employer failed to comply with the 10-day requirement to reply on
a written notice to collectively bargain. What would be the result?

Answer: If the employer failed to comply with the 10-day requirement to reply, it would
result as a failure or refusal to bargain.

Rationale: Collegio San Juan De Letran v. Association of Employees and

Faculty As provided in Art. 250 of the Labor Code, to wit:

 Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures
shall be observed in collective bargaining:

(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written

notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party
shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt
of such notice.4
560. Question: What are the essential requirements of

collective bargaining? Answer: The essential requirements of

collective bargaining are as follows:

1. Employee-employer relationship must exist between the employer

and the members of the bargaining unit being represented by the
SEBA;
2. The majority status of the SEBA must be duly established through any
of the mode sanctioned by law such as SEBA Certification;
3. The bargaining unit being sought to be represented by the SEBA
should be validly constituted and established in accordance with law;
4. There should be lawful written demand to bargain and a clear statement
of the proposals by one party to negotiate an agreement and the equivalent
counterproposals.
561. Question: Is refusal to provide financial statements considered as an unfair

labor practice? Answer: Yes. The refusal to provide financial statements considered as an

unfair labor practice.

Rationale: A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: To be furnished by the
employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial statements, including the
balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the
date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing
collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation (Art. 242,
Labor Code).
562. Question: Suppose a business establishment was ordered to stop its operation. What
will happen to the employer-employee relationship and can the employees still have the
right to negotiate?

Answer: The stoppage of operation will not affect the employer-employee relationship.
Since there is still a relationship, employees are still obliged to negotiate.

Rationale: Temporary suspension of operations is recognized as a valid exercise of

management prerogative provided it is not carried out in order to circumvent the provisions
of the Labor Code or to defeat the rights of the employees under the Code. The
determination to cease or suspend operations is a prerogative of management that the State
usually does not interfere with, as no business can be required to continue operating at a
loss simply to maintain the workers in employment. Such an act would be tantamount to a
taking of property without due process of law, which the employer has a right to resist. But
where it is shown that the closure is motivated not by a desire to prevent further losses, but
to discourage the workers from organizing themselves into a union for more effective
negotiations with management, the State is bound to intervene. (San Pedro Hospital of
Digos v. Secretary of Labor)
563. Question: What is the first step to be done in the collective bargaining process?

Answer: The party desiring to negotiate an agreement must present and serve a written
notice to the other party.

Rationale: As provided in Art. 261(a) of the Labor Code, “When a party desires to
negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement
of its proposals.
The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt
of such notice.”
564. Question: In order, what are the steps in the collective bargaining

process? Answer: The steps in the collective bargaining process:

Preliminary - Acts of a party desiring to negotiate an agreement can be initiated by serving

a written notice upon the other party with a statement of proposals. The other
party is required to make a reply not later than 10 days.

Negotiation - Meeting not later than 10 calendar days from the date of request for
conference.

Execution - Signing of the written document. If the parties are able to come to an
agreement on the terms of the CBA, the union officers and the representatives of the
management will sign the CBA.

Publication - Posting in two places in the workplace at least 5 days prior to ratification.
After signing, the CBA should be posted for five days in at least two conspicuous places in
the establishment. This is mandatory requirement. The purpose of this is to inform the
covered employees about the terms and conditions of the CBA.

Ratification Process - Ratifying in writing the newly concluded CBA by at least majority
of the employees covered by the bargaining unit. Five days after the posting, the CBA
should be submitted to the employees covered by the collective bargaining unit for
ratification. This is mandatory and necessary because the CBA was entered into by the
union as the bargaining agent of the employees covered by the collective bargaining unit.
The CBA will be deemed ratified if the majority of the employees covered by the
bargaining unit approve it.

Registration Process - This pertains to the registration of the duly ratified CBA with the
Bureau of Labor Relations or the DOLE Regional Office by submitting 5 copies together
with
other documentary requirements and paying the required registration fee.
 Administration Process - Joint administration of the CBA by the employer and the SEBA.
Interpretation and Application - Interpretation, application, implementation and
enforcement of the stipulations embodied in the CBA.

Rationale: Sec. 2, Rule XVII, Book V, Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended
by Department Order No. 40-03.
565. Question: What are the two (2) stipulations in the Collective Bargaining

Agreement? Answer: The two (2) stipulations in the Collective Bargaining Agreement

are:

1. Economic; and
2. Non-economic
Question: What must be included in the economic provision under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement?

Answer: The economic provision must include wage increases, premiums, and anything
that has monetary values.
566. QUESTION: What is a single enterprise bargaining?

ANSWER: Single enterprise bargaining refers to a collective bargaining agreement

negotiation between one certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent and one employer for
the terms and conditions of
employment. It is a mechanism that allows employees to come together and bargain as a
unified group to negotiate wages, working hours, leave entitlements, and other employment
conditions.
This kind of collective bargaining agreement aims to reach an agreement that satisfies the
interests of both parties. This process typically involves discussions, proposals, and
counterproposals, with the goal of
reaching a mutually acceptable outcome.
567.QUESTION: What is a Multi-employer bargaining?

ANSWER: A Multi-employer bargaining is a kind of Collective Bargaining Agreement

involving a negotiation between and among several certified sole and exclusive
bargaining agents (SEBA) and employers. In this type of bargaining, the union represents
the interests of
workers from different companies or establishments within a particular industry or
geographic area. By negotiating with multiple employers collectively, the union aims to
establish uniform terms and conditions of employment for all workers within the industry
or geographic area.
568.QUESTION: What are some of the mandatory subjects that parties are required to
discuss and negotiate in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

ANSWER: A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requires the parties to discuss and
debate a number of mandatory topics in the context of collective bargaining. This includes a
variety of terms and conditions of employment, and also proposals . These subjects include
various terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, hours of work, mealtime, time
breaks, overtime and other premiums, commissions, shift differentials, paid holidays,
incentive pays, paid leaves of absence, fringe benefits, separation/severance pay, pensions
and retirement
benefits, work schedules, probationary periods, grievance procedures, arbitration, labor-
management councils (LMCs), and no-strike and no-lockout clauses. These are essential
elements that shape the working conditions and benefits of employees covered by the
CBA.

Rationale:
Many of the mandatory subjects, such as grievance procedures and arbitration, are
essential for addressing workplace disputes and conflicts. Having these topics covered
in the CBA
streamlines the resolution process and ensures fairness.

569. QUESTION: What is the requirement for publishing a Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA)?
ANSWER: Under Article 237 (231) “…………. the parties shall submit copies of the
same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and
Employment for
registration, accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places
in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining
unit.”
The publication of the CBA is mandatory. After the parties have reached an
agreement, the CBA must be posted in the premises of the establishment where the
bargaining unit operates. The publication aims to serve the intent of transparency and
to make sure that employees are informed about the terms and conditions agreed and
reached upon through collective
bargaining.

Rationale:
Article 237(231) Registry of unions and File of Collective Bargaining Agreement
570.QUESTION: Is there a requirement for the ratification of the CBA by employees?
ANSWER: Yes, there is a requirement for the ratification of the CBA. The CBA must
be ratified by the majority of the employees comprising the bargaining unit. It is not
sufficient for a small
minority to ratify the agreement; instead, the majority of the bargaining unit's members
must approve it. This ensures that the terms and conditions of employment specified in
the CBA have the support of the majority of the affected employees.
Rationale:
Planters Products, Inc. v. NLRC – The CBA was not declared invalid even though it was
not ratified in view of the availment and enjoyment of the employees of the benefits
provided arising from the CBA. There is implied ratification

571. QUESTION: What is the requirement regarding the registration of a Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?
ANSWER: The requirement for the registration of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) stipulates that the CBA must be registered with the Bureau of Labor
Relations of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). This registration process ensures
that the CBA is formally recognized by the appropriate labor authorities and is in
compliance with labor laws and regulations.
Rationale:
Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective bargaining agreements. The Bureau
shall keep a registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau shall also maintain
a file of all collective bargaining agreements and other related agreements and records
of
settlement of labor disputes and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators.
The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties under conditions prescribed
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, provided that no specific information
submitted in
confidence shall be disclosed unless authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in
any judicial litigation, or when public interest or national security so requires.
572. QUESTION: What is the Substitutionary Doctrine, and in what situations does it
apply?
ANSWER: The Substitutionary Doctrine is a legal principle that applies in situations of
disaffiliation and in cases of schism within labor unions. In these circumstances, when a
 new Sole Exclusive Bargaining Agent (SEBA) is formed, the Substitutionary Doctrine
requires
that the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) remains valid and effective
and
should be respected by the new SEBA. This doctrine aims to ensure continuity and
stability in labor relations by recognizing the rights and obligations established under
the existing
CBA

Rationale:
UNDER "SUBSTITUTIONARY DOCTRINE", EMPLOYEES CANNOT RENEGE
ON THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT; EXCEPTION. — THE
"Substitutionary doctrine" provides that the employees cannot revoke the validly
executed collective bargaining contract with their employer by the simple expedient of
changing their bargaining agent. The new agent must respect the contract. The
employees, thru their new
bargaining agent, cannot renege on the collective bargaining contract, except to
negotiate with management for the shortening thereof.
Benguet Consolidated Inc., v. BCI Employees and Worker’s Union – We follow the
substitutionary doctrine with the exception of the personal undertakings of the old
SEBA.
572. QUESTION: What is the remedy available to the new SEBA under the
Substitutionary Doctrine?
ANSWER: Under the Substitutionary Doctrine, the new SEBA is expected to respect
the standing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, if the new SEBA
wishes to make changes or renegotiate the terms of the CBA, the remedy available to
them is to
approach the employer and request negotiations aimed at decreasing the duration or
lifetime of the existing CBA. This allows the new SEBA to address their concerns or
seek
modifications to the agreement while maintaining the principles of continuity and good-
faith bargaining in labor relations.
Rationale:
Benguet Consolidated v. BCI Ees Union G.R. No. L-24711, April 30, 1968
DOCTRINE: The Substitutionary Doctrine provides that the employees cannot revoke the
validly executed collective bargaining contract with their employer by the simple
expedient of changing their bargaining agent. The new agent must respect the contract.
The employees, thru their new bargaining agent, cannot renege on the collective
bargaining contract, except to
negotiate with management for the shortening thereof. This doctrine however cannot be
invoked to support the claim that a newly certified CBA assumes all personal
undertakings, such as the no-strike stipulation in this case, assumed by the deposed union.
 573. QUESTION: What is the purpose of the 5-year term in the context of the SEBA
(Sole Exclusive Bargaining Agent

ANSWER: The 5-year term in the context of the SEBA serves two primary purposes.
Firstly, it aims to promote stability and predictability within the labor-management
relationship. By establishing a fixed timeframe for the validity of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement
(CBA), both employers and employees can have a clear understanding of when
negotiations will occur and when the terms of employment are up for review or
renegotiation. Secondly, the 5-year term assigns specific timetables for negotiations,
making it a matter of right and
requirement. This ensures that the parties involved engage in collective bargaining at
defined intervals, promoting a structured and orderly process.

Rationale:
1. Promotion of Stability: The 5-year term is intended to promote stability within labor
relations. It establishes a predictable timeframe during which labor and management
can operate under the terms and conditions outlined in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA). This stability is vital for the smooth functioning of businesses
and the security of workers.
2. Predictability: The 5-year term provides predictability for both employers and
employees. Knowing that the terms of the CBA will remain in effect for a fixed
duration allows all parties to plan their labor-related activities, budgets, and
operations with
confidence.

574. QUESTION: What are the key considerations and implications of the 60-day
freedom period in labor relations, and how does it relate to the representation of the
Sole and Exclusive
Bargaining Agent (SEBA)?
ANSWER: The 60-day freedom period is a critical aspect of labor relations, and its
significance is closely tied to the representation of the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining
Agent (SEBA).
During this period, employees or other parties have the opportunity to challenge the
SEBA's representation by filing a petition for a certification election. This period
serves as a crucial mechanism for ensuring that the interests and preferences of the
workforce are accurately
reflected in labor representation.

Rationale:
Tanduay Distillery labor Union v NLRC. The last 60 days in a collective bargaining
agreement is referred to as the "freedom period" when rival union representation can be
entertained during the existence of a valid CBA. In this case, the "freedom period" was May
1 to June 30, 1982.
Q: Can CBA negotiations be suspended by the employer during a temporary shutdown
of its operations, as indicated in the case of Manila Mining Corporation Employees
Association v. Manila Mining Corporation?
A: Yes, according to the case of Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association v.
Manila Mining Corporation, CBA negotiations may be unilaterally suspended by the
employer during a temporary shutdown of its operations. This ruling establishes the legal
framework for handling the delicate balance between the rights and obligations of both
employers and employees in such situations.
Rationale:
Manila Mining Corporation Employees Association v. Manila Mining Corporation [G.R.
Nos. 178222-23 : September 29, 2010] .While the law makes it an obligation for the
employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion
does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the
other. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an
open mind and make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement. The
Union based its contention on the letter request by MMC for the suspension of the
collective bargaining negotiations until it resumes operations. Verily, it cannot be said
that MMC deliberately avoided the negotiation. It merely sought a suspension and in
fact, even expressed its willingness to negotiate once the mining operations resume.
There was valid reliance on the suspension of mining operations for the suspension, in
turn, of the CBA negotiation. The Union failed to prove bad faith in MMC’s actuations.

575. QUESTION: What is the negotiation bar rule, and how does it impact the SEBA
(Sole Exclusive Bargaining Agent)?

ANSWER: The negotiation bar rule is a critical principle in labor relations. It dictates
that as long as there is a valid negotiation ongoing, the Sole Exclusive Bargaining Agent
(SEBA) cannot be challenged. This rule is designed to ensure that labor negotiations
proceed without
disruptions and challenges to the representation of the SEBA are temporarily barred
while negotiations are underway.
Rationale:
Art 265 [253-a]

576. QUESTION: What is Hold Over Principle in connection with the CBA?

ANSWER: The holdover principle in connection with a Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) refers to a situation where a CBA has expired, but the terms and conditions
of the CBA continue to apply while negotiations for a new CBA are ongoing. The holdover
principle in the context of a CBA can be significant for both labor unions and employers
because it provides continuity and stability in labor relations during the negotiation process.

When a CBA between a labor union and an employer has reached its expiration date, the
agreement is no longer in force. Under the holdover principle, the terms and conditions of the
expired CBA are maintained and continue to apply to the employment relationship. This
includes provisions related to wages, benefits, working conditions, and other terms outlined
in the old CBA. The parties, both the labor union and the employer, are expected to engage
in good faith negotiations for a new CBA. Negotiations can include discussions on any
changes or updates to the terms and conditions.

The holdover principle is a temporary arrangement that ensures that employees continue to
work under the terms of the previous CBA while negotiations are ongoing. This prevents
sudden changes to their working conditions or benefits. The holdover period lasts until the
parties reach a new CBA. Once a new CBA is agreed upon and ratified by both parties, it
replaces the old CBA, and its terms become effective.

Rationale:

In Collective Bargaining Agreement, Hold Over Principle is applied as even when the
Collective Bargaining Agreement has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between
the parties util a new CBA has been entered into. In the absence of a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full
force and effect the terms of existing agreement until a new agreement is reached.

The holdover principle helps prevent labor disputes and strikes that might arise if there is a
significant gap between the expiration of one CBA and the finalization of a new one. It
provides stability in labor relations and ensures that employees are not left without the
protection of a labor agreement while new terms are being negotiated.

It's important to note that the application of the holdover principle in connection with a CBA
can vary depending on local labor laws, industry practices, and the specific terms outlined in
the expired CBA. Parties involved in CBA negotiations should be aware of their legal
obligations and work collaboratively to reach a new agreement in a timely manner.

577. QUESTION: Elaborate the Prospectivity Rule and Retroactivity Rule in connection
with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

ANSWER: The prospectivity rule in a CBA determines when the changes specified in the
agreement will take effect. It outlines whether these changes are to be implemented from the
date of ratification or from another specified effective date stated in the CBA. This rule
ensures that the terms and conditions agreed upon in the new CBA are applied moving forward
from a designated point in time.

It contrasts with retroactivity, which applies changes retroactively to cover a period before the
CBA's ratification. It involves applying changes retroactively, meaning that the agreed-upon
terms and conditions are considered to have been in effect from a date before the CBA's actual
ratification. Retroactivity is often used to ensure that employees receive any salary increases
or benefits retroactively, covering the period when the previous CBA expired, or negotiations
began, and the new CBA is signed.

The specific effective dates for retroactive and prospective provisions are typically
determined through negotiations between the labor union and the employer and are
documented in the CBA for clarity in implementation. This rule is important for
understanding how changes are applied and when they will take effect.

Rationale:

In the case of Union Filipro Employees v. NLRC, it is explained that the prospective effect of
the CBA deprives the union members of substantial amount of monetary benefits which they
could have enjoyed had the CBA been given retroactive effect: SC: This Court is not
unmindful of these. Nevertheless. We are convinced that the CBA formulated by public
respondent is fair, reasonable and just. Even if prospective in effect, said CBA still entitles
the Nestle workers and employee’s reasonable compensation and benefits which, in the
opinion of this Court, is one of the highest, if not the highest in the industry.

While in the case of St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v Torres, the effectivity date of the new
arbitrally awarded CBA was made retroactive to the date of the expiration of the previous
CBA. Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the
effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article278(g)
(1263(g)) of the Labor Code, such as herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested
with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof."

578. QUESTION: Mrs. Pining Garcia is an employee at ABC Corporation and holds a
membership in the DiKagandaHun Labor Union, with the intention of improving her entitled
benefits. As of February 14, 2023, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiated
by the SEBA of DiKagandaHun Labor Union is set to expire. However, the SEBA was unable
to conduct negotiations due to adverse circumstances. Consequently, 2 months later, the
employer has not granted the employees the benefits they are entitled to as specifically
provided in the CBA. Aggrieved, Mrs. Pining Garcia filed a case against the ABC
Corporation. However, the employer argues that the employees are no longer entitled to
receive additional benefits, citing the expiration of the CBA negotiated by the SEBA of
DiKagandaHun Labor Union. Is the employer's contention correct under these circumstances?

ANSWER: No, the contention of the employer is incorrect.

 Hold Over Principle states that even when the Collective Bargaining Agreement has
expired, it continues to have legal effects as between the parties util a new CBA has
been entered into. In the absence of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, the
parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the
terms of existing agreement until a new agreement is reached.

In this case, Ms. Pining Garcia and the employees of the ABC Corporation are
entitled to the additional benefits specifically provided in the CBA of the
DiKagandaHun Labor Union and the employer. Even the expiration of the CBA, it
shall have a continuing legal effect until new agreement is reached as enshrined in
the Hold Over Doctrine.

Therefore, the contention of the employer is incorrect.

Rationale:

In Collective Bargaining Agreement, Hold Over Principle is applied as even when

the Collective Bargaining Agreement has expired, it continues to have legal effects
as between the parties util a new CBA has been entered into. In the absence of a new
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties must maintain the status quo and must
continue in full force and effect the terms of existing agreement until a new agreement
is reached.

579. QUESTION: What is the effectivity of a CBA that contains both mutually
negotiated and arbitrarily awarded terms and conditions?

ANSWER: In a CBA that combines mutually negotiated and arbitrarily awarded

terms and conditions, the following rules govern the effectivity:

1. Effective Date: Both mutually negotiated and arbitrarily awarded

terms and conditions of the CBA will take effect on the date expressly set by
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary, National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), Court of Appeals (CA), or Supreme Court
(SC), or the voluntary arbitrator, as the case may be.

2. Advance Effect of Mutually Agreed Terms: The mutually

negotiated and agreed terms and conditions may take effect in advance, even
before the arbitrarily awarded aspects come into effect.

3. Priority in Effect: The mutually agreed and arbitrarily awarded

terms and conditions will take effect first, while certain remaining issues will
be subject to further negotiations by the parties or further adjudication by any
of the mentioned government agencies or arbitrators.
 These rules ensure that a CBA with a combination of mutually
negotiated and arbitrarily awarded terms and conditions has a clear
framework for when and how the various provisions take effect, providing
clarity and order in labor relations.

Rationale:

Effectivity in case CBA is an amalgamation of Mutually Negotiated and

Arbitrarily Awarded:
● Both mutually negotiated and arbitrarily awarded terms and conditions
of the CBA will take effect on the date expressly set by the DOLE
Secretary, NLRC, CA, or SC, or the voluntary arbitrator, as the case may
be.
● CBA’s mutually negotiated and agreed terms and conditions may take
effect in advance and before the arbitrarily awarded aspect.
● The mutually agreed and arbitrarily awarded terms and conditions will
take effect first while certain remaining issues will be subject to further
negotiations by the parties, or further adjudication by any of the said
agencies of government or arbitrators.

580. QUESTION: What is a Deadlock?

In labor relations, a "deadlock" refers to a situation where labor and

management, typically represented by a labor union and an employer, cannot reach
an agreement or resolution during negotiations. This impasse occurs when the parties
involved in collective bargaining are unable to find common ground on one or more
key issues, and as a result, negotiations come to a standstill. Deadlocks can occur for
various reasons, such as disputes over wages, benefits, working conditions, or other
terms of employment.

ANSWER: Key characteristics of a deadlock in labor

negotiations include:

4. Stalemate: The parties have reached a point where they are unable
or unwilling to make further concessions or compromises on the contentious
issues, causing the negotiations to stall.

5. Failure to Reach an Agreement: Despite efforts to negotiate, the

parties cannot agree on the terms and conditions of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) or other labor-related matters.

6. Potential Consequences: Deadlocks can lead to various

consequences, including strikes, lockouts, or the involvement of a third-party
 mediator or arbitrator to help break the impasse.

7. Legal Implications: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal

requirements for employers and unions to engage in good faith bargaining,
which means they must make a sincere effort to reach an agreement. A
deadlock may raise questions about whether good faith bargaining has been
upheld.

8. Resolution Methods: Parties may employ various methods to

resolve a deadlock, such as seeking mediation, arbitration, or fact-finding to
help facilitate an agreement or decision. In some cases, the intervention of
government agencies or labor boards may be necessary.

It's important to note that deadlocks are common in labor negotiations but do
not always result in labor disputes or work stoppages. Parties often continue
negotiations or seek alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve their
differences and reach an agreement that is acceptable to both labor and management.
However, when an impasse persists, it can lead to more severe actions such as strikes
by labor unions or lockouts by employers, which can disrupt work and have economic
and social implications.

Rationale:

There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage in the

negotiation resulting from the action of equal and opposing forces so that there can
be no deadlock if the employer failed or refused to counter-propose to the bargaining
agent's proposals (Divine Word University of Tacloban v. SOLE)

581. QUESTION: What is Injunction?

ANSWER: An injunction is a legal remedy issued by a court that requires a person

or entity to either do something (a mandatory or "positive" injunction) or refrain from
doing something (a prohibitory or "negative" injunction). Injunctions are typically
used to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent harm, or protect the rights of
individuals or entities when legal actions, contractual obligations, or other
circumstances are in dispute.

General rule: there shall be no temporary injunction or restraining order in

any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued by any court or
other entity.

Except:
● Grave or irreparable damage to any party. . There is a grave danger. This
 is an instance when you can ask for an injunction because it aims to
protect any party from irreparable injury.
● Prohibited activities during a strike
● Assumption or certification power of the Secretary of Labor

Rationale:

Injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of a person’s

substantive rights and interests.

General rule: there shall be no temporary injunction or restraining order in

any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued by any court or
other entity.

Except:
● Article 225- Grave or irreparable damage to any party. There is a grave
danger. This is an instance when you can ask for an injunction because it
aims to protect any party from irreparable injury.
● Article 279- Prohibited activities during a strike
● Article 278- Assumption or certification power of the Secretary of Labor

582. QUESTION: Ms. Ma. Cathy Licudmo, is the SEBA of the BooBoom Labor
Union. It is stipulated by Ms. Licudmo and Mr. Abdul Wakwakani, the employer
representing the company, in their CBA that there shall be no strike or lockout and
listed additional benefits therein. After few months, the employer and the employees
of the company started to have tensions brewing between both parties. Aggrieved,
the employees of the company planned and executed a 3-day strike, starting April 10
to 12, 2023 to show upon their employer their grievances. Mr. Wakwakani, filed an
injunction suit to prohibit the furtherance of 3-day strike. The NLRC issued an
injunction against the Booboom Labor Union in staging a strike for the reason to
contain illegal acts and to prohibit strike itself as it is deemed stipulated in the CBA
of Booboom Labor Union and the company. Is the decision of the NLRC, correct?

ANSWER: Yes, the decision of the NLRC is correct.

Jurisprudence provides that an injunction may be issued not only for the
illegal acts in the course of the strike, but against the strike itself if there is a provision
in the CBA that there would be no strike or lockout.

In this case, Ms. Licudmo as the SEBA of Booboom Labor Union and Mr.
Wakwakani as the employer agreed upon that there will be no strike or lockout
provided in their CBA. Hence, the general rule that there shall be no temporary
injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute
shall be issued by any court or other entity is not applicable. It is directly stipulated
in their CBA that there shall be no strike or lockout. However, the employees violated
their CBA. This, prompted the NLRC to issue an injunction.

Therefore, the decision of the NLRC is correct.

Rationale:

San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC – The Supreme Court ruled that injunction
may be issued not only for illegal acts in the course of the strike, but against the strike
itself if there is a provision in the CBA that there would be no strike or lockout.

583. QUESTION: What is Bystander Rule?

ANSWER: Bystander Rule states that the Employer has no legal standing to oppose
a petition for certification election or appeal any order relative to the conduct thereof.
Furthermore, it is an idea where the employer is not allowed to interfere with the
certification election of the labor union.

Rationale:

The Bystander Rule explains that the employer does not interfere with
certification election. Employer has no legal standing to oppose a petition for
certification election or appeal any order relative to the conduct thereof. The
absoluteness of employer bystander rule applies only when no question is raised on
existence of employer-employee relationship. This is to ensure that the employer shall
have no undue influence over the results of certification election.

584. QUESTION: Mr. Xavier, the employer of PokeLand Company, is interested on

who will be the new SEBA of Fujira Union and Fukiko Union. There were 2
representatives coming from both labor unions. Kyle, being the favorite of Mr.
Xavier, wants to ensure that he shall be declared as the winner in the Certification
Election. On the day of the election, Mr. Xavier went to watch the election with
intention to ensure that his bet will win and he will interfere if the results will not be
on his favor. Are the actions of Mr. Xavier proper?

ANSWER:No, the actions of Mr. Xavier are improper.

Bystander Rule reiterates that the Employer has no legal standing to

oppose a petition for certification election or appeal any order relative to the conduct
thereof. Furthermore, it is an idea where the employer is not allowed to interfere with
the certification election of the labor union.

In this case, the act of Mr. Xavier in watching the Certification Election and
ensuring that his bet will win is a violation of Bystander Rule. Hence, his actions are
improper.

Rationale:

The Bystander Rule explains that the employer does not interfere with
certification election. Employer has no legal standing to oppose a petition for
certification election or appeal any order relative to the conduct thereof. The
absoluteness of employer bystander rule applies only when no question is raised on
existence of employer-employee relationship. This is to ensure that the employer shall
have no undue influence over the results of certification election.

585. QUESTION: What is SEBA?

ANSWER: A Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent, also known as an exclusive

bargaining representative or simply a bargaining agent, is a term commonly used in
labor relations and collective bargaining contexts. It refers to a labor union or
employee organization that has been legally designated or recognized as the
exclusive representative of a group of workers within a specific bargaining unit.

9. Exclusive Representation: When a labor union is designated as the sole and

exclusive bargaining agent for a particular group of employees, it means that the
union is the only organization authorized to negotiate on behalf of those employees
with the employer. This exclusivity gives the union the sole right to engage in
collective bargaining, make agreements, and address workplace issues for that
specific group of employees.

10. Bargaining Unit: A bargaining unit is a group of employees who share

common work- related interests and typically includes employees in a specific job
category, department, or location. The determination of the bargaining unit is often
subject to legal or regulatory guidelines.

11. Collective Bargaining: The exclusive bargaining agent represents the

interests of the employees within the bargaining unit in negotiations with the
employer. They negotiate employment terms and conditions, such as wages, benefits,
working hours, and workplace rules, on behalf of the employees. This process is
known as collective bargaining.

12. Legal Recognition: The designation of a sole and exclusive bargaining agent
 typically involves a formal legal or administrative process, which may include a
certification or election conducted by a labor relations board or agency. Once
certified, the union gains legal recognition as the exclusive representative for the
specified group of employees.

This arrangement is intended to provide a streamlined and organized process for

labor- management relations, making it easier for both employers and employees to
engage in negotiations and reach agreements. It helps prevent multiple unions from
representing the same group of employees, which could lead to confusion and
inefficiency in labor relations.

Rationale:

Refers to the legitimate labor organization duly certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent. A non-certified union cannot collectively bargain with
employer. SEBA is duty-bound to represent includes not only its members but also
its non-members that are covered by the CBU. Any such unfair and unreasonable
refusal may amount to a ULP of the SEBA under and by virtue of paragraph (c) of
Article 260 [249]

586. QUESTION: When are runoff elections acceptable?

ANSWER:
A run-off election is proper when there are labor unions that garnered the
two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with
three (3) or more choices, where such a certified or consent election results in
none of the three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes
cast; provided that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at
least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.

587. QUESTION: Who may file a notice or declare a strike or lockout or request
preventive mediation?

ANSWER:
Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may file a notice
or declare a strike or request for preventive mediation in cases of bargaining
deadlocks and unfair labor practices. The employer may file a notice or declare
a lockout or request for preventive mediation in the same cases. In the absence
of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor
organization in the establishment may file a notice, request preventive
mediation or declare a strike, but only on grounds of unfair labor practice.
 588. QUESTION: Suppose union that is not the representative of the majority of the
employees negotiates with the employer, would it be considered as valid and binding?
Explain.

ANSWER: No. Under Article 267 (255) of the Labor Code, only the union
certified as SEBA can act as the exclusive representative of the employees in a CBU. Hence,
if the union is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees in
a CBU, it could not demand from the employer the right to bargain collectively in their
behalf.

589. QUESTION: What is the objective of a certification election?

ANSWER: The conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to
determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority representation of the
bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is
not simply the determination of who between two or more contending unions won, but
whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members of the bargaining unit as to whether
they want to be represented and which union they want to represent them.

590. QUESTION: Can a petition for certification election prosper even though it lacks
the required support of 25% of the employees? Explain.

ANSWER: The administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25%
consent signatures upon the filing of the petition for certification election should not be
strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers.
Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256, the law it seeks to
implement. Mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is
sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject
to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
591. QUESTION: How can an unorganized establishment file for a petition for certification
election?
ANSWER: It is filed by any legitimate labor organization, including a national
union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its 1ocal/chapter
participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which has been issued a charter
certificate by the national union or federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a
national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local
chapter's officers and members. It shall be immediately conducted by the Med-Arbiter
upon filing.
 592. QUESTION: Why can unions who disaffiliated from a federation conduct a new
certification election?

ANSWER: A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it
is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of
its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither
does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only
gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence,
local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their
agent. As such principals, the unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.

593. QUESTION: What is the difference between Deauthorization and Decertification?

ANSWER: Deauthorization is an election process intended to achieve only one purpose and
effect, that is, to get rid of the union security clause in the CBA which imposes forced
membership in the SEBA as a condition of continued employment. It ensures that the
employees are no longer forced to pay union dues or agency fees or similar impositions.
Decertification, on the other hand, is Certified SEBA has ceased to be a legitimate labor
organization or has gone out of existence or has become defunct; has abandoned its
bargaining rights; has, by reason of schism or other causes, lost its majority. Decertification
is not followed by Philippine jurisdiction. Decertification removes the SEBA, while
Deauthorization does not remove the SEBA, only the union security clause.

594. QUESTION: There are various factors which must be satisfied and considered in
determining the proper constituency of bargaining unit. What are these factor?

ANSWER: There are many factors that are considered however the most important ones
would be:

1) will of employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of employees' interest, such as
substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) employment status, such as
temporary, seasonal and probationary employees.

595. QUESTION: Can employees on probationary status at the time of the certification
elections be allowed to vote?
ANSWER: Yes. In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is
clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the "labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective
bargaining." Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the
resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit.
Hence, all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in
the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their
employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election.

596. QUESTION: What is RA 875 ?

ANSWER: RA 875 is an act to promote industrial peace and for other purposes. This was
repealed by presidential Decree No. 442. eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by
encouraging and
protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social, and economic well-being.
Rationale: RA No. 875, otherwise known as the INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT
597. QUESTION: What does the community or mutuality model of interest doctrine
provides?
ANSWER: Standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit.
the employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have
substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by
the type of work they perform. It is characterized by similarity of employment status, same
duties and
responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and working conditions.

Rationale: Employees sought to be represented by SEBA must have a substantial

mutuality of interest in terms f employment and working working conditions as evidenced
by the types of where they perform. it is properly substantial similarity in the employment
status, duties and
responsibilities, skills, wages, fringe benefits, hours of work and among others.

598. QUESTION: What are the four doctrines applied to determine appropriate CBU
name and define each doctrine.
ANSWER: The four doctrines being applied to determine appropriate CBU are:
1. Community or mutuality of Interest Doctrine- the employees sought to be
represented by the SEBA must have substantial mutuality of interest in terms if
employment and
working conditions as evidenced by the type of work they perform. It is
characterized by substantial similarity in employment status, duties and
responsibilities skills, wahes,
fringe benefits, hours of work and among others.
 2. Globe Doctrine this doctrine is based on the will of others. in determining the
proper bargaining unit, the express will or desire of the employees shall be.
considered, they
should be allowed to determine for themselves what union to join or form. The
best way is through a. referendum, as decreed by the Executive Labor Arbiter.
3. Collective Bargaining History Doctrine: This doctrine puts premium to the
prior collective history and affinity of the employees in determining the
appropriate CBU.
However, the existence of a prior collective bargaining history has been held as
neither
decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate
bargaining unit.
4. Employment Status Doctrine the determination of the appropriate CBU is based
on the employment status of employees
Rationale:

Community or mutuality of Interest Doctrine- the employees sought to be

represented by the SEBA must have substantial mutuality of interest in terms if
employment and
working conditions as evidenced by the type of work they perform. It is
characterized by substantial similarity in employment status, duties and
responsibilities skills, wages,
fringe benefits, hours of work and among others.
Globe Doctrine this doctrine is based on the will of others. in determining the proper
bargaining unit, the express will or desire of the employees shall be. considered, they
should be allowed to determine for themselves what union to join or form. The
best way is through a. referendum, as decreed by the Executive Labor Arbiter.
Collective Bargaining History Doctrine: This doctrine puts premium to the prior
collective history and affinity of the employees in determining the appropriate
CBU.
However, the existence of a prior collective bargaining history has been held as
neither
decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate
bargaining unit.
Employment Status Doctrine the determination of the appropriate CBU is based
on the employment status of employees.

599. QUESTION: What is the doctrine that is being applied when new employees
are added by the
employer to an existing CBU by reason or because of creation of new jobs or
acquisition of new facility or business?
 ANSWER: the doctrine that is being applied when employees are being merged
into an exiting CBU is the of DOCTRINE OF ACCRETION this is basically
applied when there is absorption and integration by one entity of one or more
establishments having the same kind and line of business and having their
respective collective bargaining agreements with different labor union existing
therein; the duty to bargain which originally devolves upon the selling party is
transferred to the buying entity.

Rationale: The doctrine of accretion applies only when new employees are added by
the employer to an existing CBU by reason as a result of creation of new jobs or
acquisition of new facility or business.

600. QUESTION: This is a situation in a union that attempts to continue its

representation of the relocated workers at the new location.
ANSWER: The Spin-off situation is a union that attempts to continue the
representation of the union to wherever it is relocated at its new location.
An employer may validly effect a spin-off of some of its divisions to operate as distinct
companies. Such transformation of the companies is a management prerogative and business
judgment which the courts cannot look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or
morals

Rationale: In Spin off situation, does the union attempt to continue its representation of the
relocated workers at the new location.

601. QUESTION: Does the Collective Bargaining History Doctrine puts importance to pior
collective
bargaining history and affinity of the employees in determining the appropriate
CBU?
ANSWER: Yes, it does.
The collective Bargaining History Doctrine puts importance to the history and
affinity of the employees in determining the CBU.
Rationale: This doctrine puts premium to the prior collective bargaining history and
definition of employees in determining the appropriate CBU. However, decrease stance of
prior collective bargaining history has been held as neither decisive nor conclusive in
determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.

602. QUESTION: The doctrine of co-determination legal right shares the

responsibility of formulating certain policies of fundamental rights what are those?
 ANSWER: The doctrine of co-determination of legal right provides the following
certain policies namely Rights, Benefits and Welfare.
Principle of co-determination- the workers have a right to participate in the decision-
making process of employers on matters affecting their rights and benefits through
collective
bargaining agreements, grievance machineries, voluntary modes of settling disputes and
conciliation proceedings mediated by the government.
Rationale: in doctrine of co-determination legal right where the employees are given that
affect three right to co-determinate or share the responsibility oof formulating certain
policies
fundamental things, namely Right , benefits and Welfare
603. QUESTION: What are the options of an employer who has no existing certified SEBA?
ANSWER: The options of an employer who has no existing SEBA in the bargaining unit
are as follows: 1. Employer will file a PCE with the BLR, 2.Employe will wait until the
requesting union files a PCE and 3.Employer will demand the requesting union to file PCE
itself
Rationale: If there is no existing certified SEBA in the bargaining unit the employer has the
following options: 1) Employer will file a PCE with the BLR, 2) Employer will wait
until the requesting union file a PCE and and 3) Employer will demand the requesting
union to file PCE itself.

604. QUESTION: What does article 266 of the labor code talk about?
ANSWER: Article 266 talks about the Jurisdiction of the Commission. — The Commission
shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiters and
compulsory arbitrators.

Rationale: The order granting the conduct of a certificate election in an organized

establishment and the decision dismissing or denying the petition may be appealed to the
office of the secretary of labor within 10 days.

605. QUESTION: What does article 272 pertains to?

ANSWER: Art. 272 talks about Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor
Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such
awards, orders or decisions.

Rationale: “Art. 272 talks about Appeal. — Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor
Arbiters or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such
awards, orders or
decisions
606. QUESTION: What is Grievance
Machinery?
ANSWER: Grievance Machinery is the adjustment and resolution mechanism for
grievances arising from:
a.) interpretation or implementation of the
CBA; and
b.) interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

Rationale: Refers to the mechanism for the adjustment and resolution of

grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

607.QUESTION: What are the areas of controversies where the employer or the union may
raise Grievable Issues?
ANSWER: The areas of controversies where the employer or the union may raise Grievable
Issues are the following:
1.) Interpretation of the CBA;
2.) Interpretation of the company personnel policies;
3.) Violation of the CBA; Violation of company personnel policies.
Rationale: It is any question raised by either the employer or the union regarding any of the
following issues or controversies:
1.) Interpretation or application of the CBA;
2.) Interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies; or
3.) Any claim by either party that the other party is violating any provision of the CBA or
company personnel policies.

608. QUESTION: What are CBA provisions subject to Grievance Machinery?

ANSWER: The CBA provisions subject to Grievance Machinery are the following:
1.) Economic provisions - have monetary cost consequences; and
2.) Non-Economic provisions - cannot be directly computed

Rationale: CBA Provisions Subject to Grievance Machinery:

1.) Economic provisions which have direct and measurable monetary cost consequences
such a wage rates, paid leaves, pensions and others; and
 2.) Non-economic provisions whose monetary cost cannot be directly computed such as
the no strike or no lockout clause.

609. QUESTION: What is the default procedure, if there is no provision for a Grievance
Machinery?
ANSWER: The default procedure, if there is no provision for a Grievance Machinery, is
the following:
1.) Oral or written presentation of the grievance to the shop steward, who determines the
validity of the grievance.
2.) The shop steward brings the complaint to the employee’s supervisor. Both will try to
resolve the grievance at their level.
3.) The grievance is referred to the grievance committee within 10 days;
4.) The grievance may be referred to the committee, if it involves the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA; and
5.) Voluntary Arbitration.

Rationale: Default Procedure Absent any provision:

1.) An employee shall present his grievance or complaint orally or in writing to the shop
steward. Upon receipt thereof, the shop steward shall verify the facts and determine whether
or not the grievance is valid. Ee-ee u-m e-m
2.) If the grievance is valid, the shop steward shall immediately bring the complaint to the
employee’s supervisor. They shall exert efforts to settle the grievance at their level.
3.) If there is no settlement, the grievance shall be referred to the grievance committee
within ten days.
4.) Where the issues involve or arises from the interpretation or implementation of a
provision in the CBA, or any memorandum or order, the same may be referred to the
committee.
5.) VA

610. QUESTION : What is the Theory of Implied Incorporation?

ANSWER: Under the Theory of Implied Incorporation: the general rule is that the CBA is
deemed to carry: its term; and the terms and conditions of employment not covered by the
agreement, which prevailed when the agreement was executed. The exception is when an
intention is manifest.
Rationale: Theory of Implied Incorporation - A CBA should be deemed, unless an
intention is manifest, to carry forward for its term the major terms and conditions of
employment not covered by the agreement, which prevailed when the agreement was
executed.

611. QUESTION: What should happen if there are Unresolved Grievances?

ANSWER: If grievances are not resolved within 7 calendar days from the date of their
submission for resolution, they should automatically be referred to Voluntary Arbitration.

Rationale: Unresolved Grievances - All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery

which are not settled within seven calendar days from the date of their submission for
resolution should automatically be referred to Voluntary Arbitration prescribed in the
CBA.

612. QUESTION: What is Voluntary Arbitration?

ANSWER: Voluntary Arbitration occurs when the parties select a competent, trained, and
impartial voluntary arbitrator to settle labor-management disputes.
Rationale: Concept of Arbitration - Voluntary arbitration refers to the mode of
settling labor-management disputes in which the parties to select a competent, trained, and
impartial third person called a voluntary arbitrator.

613. QUESTION: What are the 2 kinds of Voluntary Arbitrators?

ANSWER: The 2 kinds of Voluntary Arbitrators are the following:
1.) Permanent Arbitrator; and
2.) Ad-Hoc Arbitrator
Rationale: Two Kinds:
1.) Permanent Arbitrator – arbitrator specifically named or designated by the CBA; and
2.) Ad-Hoc Arbitrator – chosen by the parties in accordance with the procedure in the
CBA

614.QUESTION: What are the Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbiter?
ANSWER: The Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbiter are the
following:
1.) Unresolved grievances involving the CBA;
2.) Unresolved grievances involving company personnel policies;
3.) Non-gross violations of the CBA;
4.) Unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks;
5.) National Interest Cases;
6.) Wage distortion in organized establishments;
7.) Unresolved grievances involving Productivity Incentive Programs
Rationale: Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction:
1.) Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA;
2.) Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies;
3.) Violations of the CBA which are not gross in character; Gross-LA;
4.) Other labor disputes, including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks, upon
agreement of the parties;
5.) National Interest Cases;

6.) Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized
establishments; Unorganized-LA
7.) Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of the
Productivity Incentive Programs.

615. QUESTION: How is Voluntary Arbitration initiated?

Answer: Voluntary Arbitration is initiated through the following means:
1.) Submission of Submission Agreement; or
2.) Notice to Arbitrate invoking the arbitration clause; or
3.) NCMB Appointment.
Rationale: Initiation of Voluntary Arbitration:
1.) Submission Agreement is submitted; or
2.) Demand or Notice to Arbitrate invoking the arbitration clause in the CBA; or
3.) An Appointment from the NCMB.

617. QUESTION: What is a Submission Agreement?

ANSWER: A submission agreement is a written agreement by the parties submitting

their case for arbitration, containing a statement of the issues, the name of their
chosen Voluntary Arbitrator and a stipulation and an undertaking to abide by and
 comply with the resolution that may be rendered.

618. QUESTION: What is a Notice to Arbitrate?

ANSWER: A Notice to Arbitrate is a formal demand made by one party to the other for
the arbitration of a particular dispute in the event of refusal by one arty in a CBA to submit
to the arbitration.

619. QUESTION: Who is a Voluntary Arbitrator?

ANSWER: A Voluntary Arbitrator refers to any person who has been accredited by the
NCMB as such, or any person named or designated in the CBA by the parties as their
Voluntary Arbitrator, or one chosen by the parties with or without the assistance of the
NCMB, pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in the CBA or one appointed by
the NCMB in case either of the parties to the CBA refuses to submit to voluntary
arbitration. This term includes a Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

620. QUESTION: How does procedural rules governing voluntary arbitration proceedings
construed?

ANSWER:Procedural rules governing voluntary arbitration proceeding should be

liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Labor Code, to promote
voluntary arbitration as a preferred mode of labor or industrial dispute settlement and
as an integral component of the collective bargaining process.

621. QUESTION: Can a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator
be submitted to compulsory arbitration? Why or why not?

ANSWER: No. A dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator cannot
be submitted to compulsory arbitration because jurisdiction in compulsory arbitration is
conferred by law and not by agreement of the parties. Moreover, the law mandates that all
grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled shall be referred to
voluntary arbitration provided in the CBA.

622. QUESTION: How to initiate voluntary arbitration proceeding?

ANSWER: An arbitration may be initiated either by way of: a) A Submission

Agreement; or
b) A Demand or Notice to Arbitrate invoking the arbitration clause in the CBA; or c) An
 Appointment from the NCMB.

623. QUESTION: Who are the labor officials empowered to issue writs of execution of
their final orders, decisions, resolutions or awards?

ANSWER: The following labor officials are empowered under Article 230 [224]to issue
writs of execution of their final orders, decisions, resolutions or awards: a) Secretary of
Labor and Employment; b) Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations; c) Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment; d) National Labor Relations
Commission; e) Labor Arbiters; f) Med-Arbiters; or g) Voluntary Arbitrators

624. QUESTION: What is the distinction between a strike and picketing?

ANSWER: Strike is to withhold or to stop work by the concerted action of the

employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute and focuses on stoppage of
work. Picketing simply means to march to and from the employer’s premises, usually
accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts
involved in a labor dispute and focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its
incidents to inform the public of what is happening in the company struck against.

625. QUESTION: When strike becomes a prohibited activity?

ANSWER: Strike becomes prohibited when it is undertaken despite the issuance by the
DOLE Secretary of an assumption or certification order that such strike is prohibited and
thus, illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 279 (264] of the Labor Code, as
amended. This means that even if the strike has started as a legal strike, it automatically
becomes an illegal strike the moment it is pursued and continued after the issuance of the
said order, in clear defiance thereof. Consequently, the strike would be treated as a
"prohibited activity," an "illegal act" that would justify the termination of employment not
only of the defiant union officers but of the defiant ordinary union members as well.

626. QUESTION: What are the elements of a valid strike?

ANSWER: The following are the elements of a strike: a) Temporary stoppage of

work by the employees; 2) Through their concerted action; and 3)Occasioned by an
industrial or labor dispute. (Article 219 (o) [212(o), Labor Code as amended by
Section 4, R.A. No. 6715)

627. QUESTION: Distinguish General Strike and Particular Strike

ANSWER: General Strike and Particular Strike are a classification of strike as to

coverage. General Strike is one which covers and extends over a whole province or country.
It is a stoppage affecting numerous employers including an employer who has no
 dispute with his employees. Particular Strike, on the other hand, is one which covers
a particular establishment or employer or one industry involving one union or
federation.

628. QUESTION: What are the requisites of a Valid Strike?

ANSWER: The requisites of a valid strike are the following:

1. Grounds which include unfair labor practice or collective bargaining
deadlock;
2. A notice of strike filed with the NCMB-DOLE;
3. A notice served to the NCMB-DOLE at least 24 hours prior to the taking
of the strike vote by secret balloting informing said office of the decision to
conduct strike vote, and the date, place, and time thereof and asking it to
supervise the taking of the strike vote;
4. A strike vote must be taken where a majority of the members of the union
obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose;
5. A strike vote report should be submitted to the NCMB-DOLE at least 7
days before the intended date of strike;
6. Except in cases of union busting, observance of the cooling off period of
15 days, in cases of ULP of the employer, or 30 days, in case of CBD,
reckoned from the filing of the notice of strike; and
7. The 7-day waiting period or strike ban reckoned after the submission of
the strike vote report to the NCMB.

629. QUESTION: As part of mass picket conducted by its officers and members, Pusit
Union’s members and officers reported to their work in Pusit Hotel Nikko with their bald or
cropped hair style, a violation of the Hotel’s Grooming Standards. Pusit Union maintains that
the mass picket conducted by its officers and members did not constitute a strike and was
merely an expression of their grievance resulting from the lockout effected by the Hotel
management. On the other hand, the Hotel argues that the Union's deliberate defiance of the
company rules and regulations was a concerted effort to paralyze the operations of the Hotel,
as the Union officers and members knew pretty well that they would not be allowed to work
in their bald or cropped hair style. For this reason, the Hotel argues that the Union committed
an illegal strike. Is the Hotel correct?

ANSWER: Yes, the Hotel is correct.

In the case of Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163942,
November 11, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the Union is liable for conducting
an illegal strike. The Union's violation of the Hotel's Grooming Standards was clearly
a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the
Hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. The appearances of the Hotel
employees directly reflect the character and well-being of the Hotel, being a five-star
hotel that provides service to top-notch clients. Being bald or having cropped hair per
 se does not evoke negative or unpleasant feelings. The reality that a substantial
number of employees assigned to the food and beverage outlets of the Hotel with full
heads of hair suddenly decided to come to work bald-headed or with cropped hair,
however, suggests that something is amiss and insinuates a sense that something out
of the ordinary is afoot.
In view of the Union's collaborative effort to violate the Hotel's Grooming
Standards, it succeeded in forcing the Hotel to choose between allowing its
inappropriately hair styled employees to continue working, to the detriment of its
reputation, or to refuse them work, even if it had to cease operations in affected
departments or service units, which

in either way would disrupt the operations of the Hotel. Therefore, the act of the
Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or displeasure but, indeed, a
calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious damage to the Hotel's finances
or its reputation.
Thus, the court held that the Union's concerted violation of the Hotel's
Grooming Standards which resulted in the temporary cessation and disruption of the
Hotel's operations is an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike.

630. QUESTION: Is mass leave considered as a strike?

ANSWER: No, mass leave is not a strike.

The term “Mass Leave” has been left undefined by the Labor Code. Plainly,
the legislature intended that the term’s ordinary sense be used. “Mass” is defined as
“participated in, attended by, or affecting a large number of individuals; having a
large- scale character.”[While the term “Leave” is defined as “an authorized absence
or vacation from duty or employment usually with pay.” Thus, the phrase “mass
leave” may refer to a simultaneous availment of authorized leave benefits by a large
number of employees in a company. It is undeniable that going on leave or absenting
one’s self from work for personal reasons when they have leave benefits available is
an employee’s right. On the other hand, Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code defines a strike
as "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result
of any industrial or labor dispute." "Concerted" is defined as "mutually contrived or
planned" or "performed in unison."
In Naranjo v Biomedica (GR No. G.R. No. 193789. September 19, 2012), the
5 petitioners went on leave for various reasons. Petitioners were in different places
on during their leave to attend to their personal needs or affairs. They did not go to
the company premises to petition Biomedica for their grievance. Hence, even if they
are considered to be in a mass leave, the same does not constitute a strike.

631. QUESTION: During an economic strike, may an employer hire other workers to fill the
vacancy because of strikers?
 ANSWER: Yes, during an economic strike, an employer may hire other workers to fill the
vacancy because of strikers. However, if the employer refuses to reinstate the strikers based
on their union activities, it will become an unfair labor practice.
For it is recognized that during the pendency of an economic strike an
employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying places left
vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge those hired for that purpose upon
election of the strikers to resume their employment. But the strike changed its
character from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants because of
their union activities after it had offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit
the others. It was then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. (Consolidated
Labor Association of the Philippines v. Marsman and Co. – G.R. No. L-17038. July
31, 1964)

632. QUESTION: What is the purpose of secret balloting?

ANSWER: “Strike Vote Balloting” refers to the secret balloting undertaken by the
members of the union in the bargaining unit concerned to determine whether or not to declare
a strike in meetings or referenda called for that purpose.
Secret balloting is the method used to prevent a minority strike. It is to ensure
that the decision to strike broadly rests with the majority of the union members in
general and not with a mere minority, and at the same time, discourage wildcat
strikes, union bossism and even corruption.

633. QUESTION:What is a cooling-off period?

ANSWER: A-cooling-off period must be observed, i.e., a time gap is required to cool-off
tempers between the filing of notice and the start of the actual work stoppage. The cooling-
off period is thirty days in case of bargaining deadlock and 15 days in case of unfair labor
practice. However, in case of union-busting as defined in Article 264(c), the 15-day cooling-
off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately after the strike vote is
conducted and the results submitted to the Board.
During the cooling-off period, the NCMB mediates and conciliates the
parties. They are not allowed to do any act which may disrupt or impede the early
settlement of the dispute As part of their duty to bargain, they are obliged to
participate fully and promptly in the NCMB meetings.

634. QUESTION: Explain the Conversion Doctrine

ANSWER: In some cases, a strike or lockout may start as an economic strike or lockout,
but later on because of the actuations of the parties, the same may be converted to an unfair
labor practice strike or lockout or vice versa. The conversion doctrine will apply in which
case; the converted strike or lockout shall be subject to the legal requirements appropriate for
such ground.

635. QUESTION: Distinguish cooling-off period and the seven-day reporting period.

ANSWER: The 15 to 30 day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties the
opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the assistance of the NCMB
conciliator/mediator, while the seven-day strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an
opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority
of the union members.

636. QUESTION: What is a union busting?

ANSWER: Union busting is a dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected
in accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws and such dismissal threatens the
existence of the union.
However, the following dismissals are not considered union busting:
▪ Dismissal of union officers, but it does not threaten the existence of
the union;
▪ Dismissal of union officers not elected in accordance with the
union’s constitution and by-laws;
▪ Dismissal of appointive union officers; and
▪ Dismissal of ordinary union members.
▪
637. QUESTION: Is a company guilty of union busting in promoting a substantial number of
Union members and officers to positions outside the bargaining unit during the period of CBA
negotiations?

ANSWER: No, the company is not guilty of union busting.

To constitute union busting under Article 263 of the Labor Code, there must
be: 1) a dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance
with the union constitution and by-laws; and 2) the existence of the union must
be threatened by such dismissal. In the case at bar, the second notice of strike
filed by the Union merely assailed the "mass promotion" of its officers and
members during the CBA negotiations.
As ruled by the court in Telephone Corporation v. PILTEA, G.R. NO.
160058. June 22, 2007, promotion which is manifestly beneficial to an employee
should not give rise to a gratuitous speculation that it was made to deprive the
union of the membership of the benefited employee.
638. QUESTION: Is the deficiency of one day in the seven-day mandatory strike ban a fatal
defect that would make the strike illegal?
ANSWER: Yes, deficiency of one day in the seven-day mandatory strike ban is a fatal
defect that would make the strike illegal.
Before a strike may be declared, the following requirements should be
observed, to wit: (1) the thirty-day notice or the fifteen-day notice, in case of
unfair labor practices;
(2) the two-thirds (2/3) required vote to strike done by secret ballot; and (3) the
submission of the strike vote to the DOLE at least seven days prior to the strike.
The strike requirements under Articles 264 and 265 of the Labor Code are
mandatory requisites, without which, the strike will be considered illegal. The
evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report as
mandatory requirements is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is
essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law.
Verily, substantial compliance with a mandatory provision will not suffice. Strict
adherence to the mandate of the law is required.
Hence, failure of the striking union to observe and comply with the seven-day
mandatory strike ban will render the strike illegal.

639. QUESTION: Social Security System filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
against petitioners, alleging that officers and members of SSSEA staged an illegal strike
and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building, preventing non-striking employees from
reporting for work and SSS members from transacting business with the SSS; that the
strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor – Management Council, which ordered the
strikers to return to work; that the strikers refused to return to work; and that the SSS
suffered damages as a result of the strike.
In dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
filed by petitioners, the Court of Appeals held that since the employees of the SSS, are
government employees, they are not allowed to strike, and may be enjoined by the Regional
Trial Court, which had jurisdiction over the SSS’ complaint for damages, from continuing
with their strike.
Do the Social Security System employees have the right to
strike?

ANSWER: No, the Social Security System Employees does

not have the right to strike.
The 1987 Constitution provides that the State “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” [Art. XIII, Sec. 31].
The SSS is a government-owned and Controlled Corporation with an original charter,
having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are part of the civil service and are
covered by the Civil Service Commission’s memorandum prohibiting strikes. This being the
case, the strike staged by the employees of the SSS was illegal. The strike staged by the
employees of the SSS belonging to petitioner union being prohibited by law, an injunction
may be issued to restrain it.
Therefore, No the Social Security System Employees does not have the right to strike.
 Note from the Guide:
Government employees may, through their unions or association, petition Congress
for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment. But employees in the civil
service may not resort to strikes, walkouts, and other temporary work stoppages, like workers
in the private sector.
640. QUESTION: What are the Industries imbued with
National interest?

ANSWER: The industries that are Imbued with National Interest are the following:
1. Hospital Sector;
2. Electric Power Industry;
3. Water Supply Services, to exclude small water supply services such as
bottling and refilling stations;
4. Air Traffic Control; and
5. Such other industries as may be recommended by the National Tripartite Industrial
Peace Council.

Note:

Remember “HEWASI”
641. QUESTION: What authority does the Labor Secretary have in
National Interest Cases?

ANSWER: In National Interest Cases, the Labor Secretary has specific

authority to take action to prevent or resolve labor disputes. The Labor
Secretary can either assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it
personally or certify it to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.

Alternative Questions:

Q: What are National Interest Cases in the context of labor disputes?

A: National Interest Cases are labor disputes that have the potential to lead to a strike or
lockout in an industry considered indispensable to the national interest, with significant
economic and societal consequences.
Q: What is the role of the Labor Secretary in National Interest Cases?

A: In National Interest Cases, the Labor Secretary holds specific authority to address and
 resolve the labor dispute. The Labor Secretary can take one of two actions: assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and make a personal decision, or certify the case to the National
Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.
Q: What does it mean when the Labor Secretary "assumes jurisdiction" over a National
Interest Case?
A: Assuming jurisdiction means that the Labor Secretary takes direct control over the labor
dispute, including overseeing the resolution process and making the final decision. This is
done to prevent potential strikes or lockouts in industries vital to the national interest.
Q: How does certification to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration work in National
Interest Cases?
A: Certification to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration involves the Labor Secretary
referring the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission, a government
body responsible for resolving labor disputes. In this context, the NLRC is required to
arbitrate and make a
binding decision to settle the dispute, preventing strikes or lockouts in industries of
national importance.

642.QUESTION: What are the principles that affect the exercise of jurisdiction of DOLE
Secretary?
ANSWER: There are certain principles that are well-recognized in relation to the exercise
by the DOLE Secretary of his assumption and certification powers under Article 278(g)
[263(g)]. They are:
1. Principle of subsummation or absorption; and
2. Principle of territoriality.

Alternative Questions:

Q: What is the Principle of Subsummation or Absorption?

A: The Principle of Subsummation or Absorption means that when the DOLE Secretary
assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, all cases involving the same parties, except where
the assumption order specifies otherwise, including the issues submitted for arbitration, are
considered to be subsumed or absorbed by the assumed case. These related cases are then
decided by the DOLE Secretary to ensure a comprehensive and efficient resolution.

Q: What does the Principle of Territoriality entail?

A: The Principle of Territoriality relates to the jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary. It means
that the DOLE Secretary's authority typically extends to labor disputes occurring within the
 geographical territory of the Philippines. While this is the general rule, there may be
exceptions or specific circumstances where the DOLE Secretary's jurisdiction can apply
beyond the Philippines, such as in cases involving Filipino overseas workers or international
labor disputes.

Q: Why does a strike become illegal if there's no notice given to the union about the issuance
of an assumption or certification order by the labor authorities?
A: A strike becomes illegal in the absence of notice to the union regarding the issuance of
an assumption or certification order because the basic rule in labor disputes is that no order,
decision, or resolution, even one that is immediately executory, is binding and automatically
executory unless and until the parties affected are duly notified thereof.
Alternative Q and A:

Q: What is the significance of proper notice in labor disputes?

A: Proper notice in labor disputes is essential to ensure that all parties involved are aware of
the decisions or orders made by labor authorities. This transparency is crucial for
compliance, fair representation, and to prevent misunderstandings or unintended violations
of labor laws and regulations.
Q: Can the absence of notice be used as a defense in the event of an illegal strike?

A: The absence of notice can potentially be used as a defense in the event of an illegal strike,
especially if the union can demonstrate that they were not properly informed of the
assumption or certification order. However, whether this defense is successful will depend
on the specific circumstances and legal provisions applicable to the case.
Q: How does the lack of notice affect the legality of a strike?

A: In the absence of proper notice regarding an assumption or certification order, a strike

called by a union may be considered illegal because the union may not have been informed
of the labor authorities' decision. This lack of awareness can lead to unauthorized strike
actions, which can be in violation of labor laws and regulations.
643. QUESTION: What are the pre-requisites to Assumption or Certification?

ANSWER:
The following are the pre-requisites to Assumption or Certification:
a) Both parties requested the DOLE Secretary to assume jurisdiction over
the labor dispute; or
b) After a conference called by the office of the Secretary on the propriety
of its issuance, or upon request or petition by either of the parties to a
labor dispute.
644. QUESTION: What is the Principle of Subsummation or Absorption in labor disputes?

ANSWER:
The Principle of Subsummation or Absorption refers to a legal principle in labor
 disputes. It states that upon the assumption or certification of a case by the Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), all cases between the same parties, except
where the assumption or certification order specifies otherwise, including the issues
submitted for arbitration that are already filed or may be filed, and are relevant to or are
proper incidents of the assumed or certified case, shall be considered subsumed to, or
absorbed by the assumed or certified case, as the case may be, and shall be decided by the
Secretary.

645. QUESTION: Enumerate at

leastIllegal Strikes?

ANSWER:

The following are considered Illegal Strikes:

a) Strike without complying with procedural requisites;
b) Strike without first having bargained collectively;
c) Strike on non-strikable grounds;
d) Strike for unlawful purposes;
e) Strike to compel the dismissal of an employee;
f) Union-recognitions strike;
g) Trivial and puerile purposes;
h) Premature strike;
i) Strike to circumvent contracts and judicial orders;
j) Staging of a strike by the rank and file to compel retirement of a managerial
employee;
646. QUESTION: What is a return-to-work order?

ANSWER:
A "return to work order" is typically a directive or notice issued by an employer,
government authority, or a medical professional, instructing an employee to return to work
after a period of absence. The reasons for such an order can vary, but it's often related to
situations like medical leave, maternity leave, or other forms of authorized or unauthorized
leave.

647. QUESTION: What is the role of National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB)?
ANSWER: The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) in the Philippines
is an agency under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Its primary role is to
promote and facilitate peaceful and expeditious settlement of labor disputes, primarily
through conciliation and mediation. Here are some of the key functions and roles of the
NCMB:
(Pick at least 3)
 a. Conciliation and Mediation Services: The NCMB provides conciliation and
mediation services to help labor and management parties resolve disputes without
resorting to strikes or lockouts. These services are aimed at fostering an atmosphere
of cooperation and industrial peace.
b. Preventive Mediation: The NCMB is involved in preventive mediation efforts to
identify and address labor-management issues before they escalate into full-blown
disputes. This proactive approach helps prevent labor unrest and disruptions in the
workplace.
c. Grievance Handling: The NCMB assists in the resolution of individual and
collective grievances through conciliation and mediation processes. This helps
address workplace issues and conflicts before they become major disputes.
d. Labor Education and Information: The NCMB conducts labor education and
information programs to raise awareness and promote a better understanding of labor
laws, regulations, and labor-management relations. These programs are designed to
empower both workers and employers with knowledge of their rights and
responsibilities.
e. Dispute Settlement: In cases where conciliation and mediation efforts are not
successful, the NCMB assists parties in resorting to other dispute settlement
mechanisms, such as voluntary arbitration, to reach a resolution.
f. Promotion of Tripartism: The NCMB plays a role in promoting tripartism, which
involves the active participation of representatives from labor, management, and
government in decision-making processes related to labor and employment policies.
Tripartism is a fundamental principle in labor relations and policy development.
g. Research and Policy Development: The NCMB conducts research on labor
relations, workplace dynamics, and related issues. It also contributes to the
formulation and development of labor policies and regulations.
h. Training and Capacity Building: The agency provides training and capacity-
building programs for labor and management representatives to enhance their skills
in conflict resolution, negotiations, and labor relations.
Rationale:
In summary, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in the Philippines plays
a crucial role in promoting labor peace and harmony by providing services to help resolve
labor
disputes and conflicts through peaceful means. Its activities aim to create a conducive
environment for labor and management to work together effectively and maintain stable
labor relations in the country.
648. QUESTION: What is the “No Strike or No lockout Clause” in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA)?
ANSWER: A "No Strike or No Lockout Clause " refers to a specific provision
commonly included in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This policy sets terms and
conditions or limitations on when employees (through their union) can engage in strikes and
when employers can declare lockouts. The primary purpose of such a policy is to promote
labor peace and industrial stability by controlling labor disputes within certain parameters.
"No strike or no lockout clause" can vary between different CBAs, and these terms are
negotiated during the collective bargaining process between labor unions and employers. It
helps protect the rights and interests of both labor and management while operating within
the parameters of the CBA.
No Strike Policy: Under this part of the policy, the labor union agrees not to engage in
strikes, work stoppages, or other forms of concerted labor action during the CBA's duration,
except under specific, predefined circumstances.
No Lockout Policy: Similarly, employers or employer associations agree not to declare
lockouts, which involve temporarily stopping work and preventing employees from entering
the workplace, unless specific conditions outlined in the CBA are met.

649. QUESTION: Under what circumstances is a 'No strike or no lockout policy” in a

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) considered valid? Is there any exception/s?
ANSWER: As a rule, "No Strike-No Lockout Policy” in the CBA is valid in
economic provisions violations only. It means, it may be invoked only by employer when the
strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions
from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law.
While the policy primarily applies to economic strikes, there are exceptions under
Philippine Labor Law that permit strikes related to non-economic issues. For instance, if an
employer engages in Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) that violate labor laws and the terms
of the CBA, labor unions may legally stage a strike even if it relates to non-economic issues.
In such cases, the law may allow workers to disregard the 'no strike' clause in the CBA, as
demonstrated in the case of Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. v. CIR.
650. QUESTION: "What are instances where a strike may be deemed illegal due to the
breach of a 'no strike, no lockout' provision within a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA)?"
ANSWER:
The following are the circumstances under which a strike is considered illegal due to the
violation of a “no strike, no lockout” clause in a CBA:
1. Strikes arising from bargaining deadlocks during CBA negotiations: If a strike
is initiated by employees because of a failure to reach an agreement on economic
provisions during CBA negotiations, it may be considered illegal under the 'no strike,
no lockout' clause.
2. Overtime boycotts and work slowdowns: Actions by employees, such as refusing
to work overtime or engaging in a deliberate slowdown of work, can be considered
illegal strikes if they violate the CBA's 'no strike' provisions.
3. Strikes conducted contrary to explicit contractual commitments: If employees
engage in a strike that goes against the explicit terms of the CBA, which may include
a clause prohibiting strikes during the CBA's term, it can be considered illegal.
4. Strikes initiated when the CBA is still in effect: Strikes conducted while the CBA
is still in effect, and there is no legal basis or exception, can be deemed illegal due to
the violation of the 'no strike, no lockout' clause.
 651. QUESTION: What is the exception in the application of the 'no strike, no lockout'
clause of the CBA?

ANSWER: An exception to this rule is when a newly certified sole and exclusive
bargaining agent (SEBA) is involved, especially if the certification was granted during the
existence of the CBA. In such cases, the SEBA may not be bound by the 'no strike, no
lockout' clause of the CBA. Even under the so-called substitutionary doctrine because it
cannot be invoked to support the contention that a newly certified SEBA automatically
assumes all the personal undertakings.

652. QUESTION: What is the effect of conducting a strike without utilizing the grievance
machinery established in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?
ANSWER:
The effect of a strike without utilizing the grievance machinery in a CBA is that it can
potentially render the strike illegal and subject to legal consequences. These consequences
may include
the strike's dismissal, the issuance of injunctions, or other penalties depending on the
specific circumstances and applicable laws. (See: San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC
[1999 and 2003]; and Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communications)
653. QUESTION: What is assumption order and return to work order?
ANSWER: An assumption order and a return-to-work order are legal directives issued by
labor authorities, typically by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) or relevant
labor agencies, in response to labor disputes and industrial actions such as strikes or lockouts.
An assumption order is issued when the government intervenes in a labor dispute to take
jurisdiction over the dispute. This means that the labor dispute is taken out of the hands of
the labor union, employees, and the employer, and the government assumes control to
mediate and resolve the conflict. The assumption order automatically enjoins any strike or
lockout. The purpose of the assumption order is to restore labor peace and ensure that the
dispute is resolved through peaceful means, such as negotiations and arbitration.
Whereas a return-to-work order is issued when there is an ongoing strike or lockout, and
the labor authorities decide that it is in the best interest of the parties and the public to cease
the industrial action. The order directs the striking employees to immediately return to work
and the employer to accept them back without prejudice. Failure to comply with a return-to-
work order can have legal consequences for both the employees and the employer.
In summary, an assumption order is issued when the government takes control of a labor
dispute to resolve it peacefully, while a return-to-work order is issued to end a strike or
lockout and compel the parties to return to their work duties. Both orders are intended
to maintain labor peace and ensure disputes are resolved through peaceful negotiations or
legal processes.
654. QUESTION: What is the effect of declaring and staging a strike by a minority union?
Explain with legal basis.
ANSWER:
According to the ruling in United Restorer's Employees and Alborz Union-PAFLU v. Torres,
a strike carried out by a minority union is patently illegal. No labor dispute which will justify
the conduct of a strike can exist between the employer and a minority union. To permit the
unions’ picketing activities would be to flaunt at the will of the majority.
On other words, this is because the law does not recognize the presence of a labor dispute
that would warrant a strike between the employer and a minority union. Allowing the
picketing activities of such unions would essentially disregard the preferences and decisions
of the majority.
655. QUESTION: What are the instances where a strike conducted by a minority union
declared illegal by the Supreme Court? Provide legal bases.
ANSWER:
A strike conducted by a minority union can be declared illegal in various instances,
depending on the labor laws and regulations of a specific jurisdiction. For instance, in the
case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. Worker's Association v. NLRC, strikes conducted
when there was no longer an employer-employee relationship had no legal effect, which
suggests that a minority union cannot strike when there is no existing employment
relationship. In St. John Colleges v. St. John Academy Faculty and Employees Union, the
strike was considered illegal due to the failure to take the necessary strike vote and provide
proper notice, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures.
Moreover, in Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming
Mills Co. Inc., a strike conducted in front of Malacañang was deemed invalid because there
was no employer-employee relationship at that location. The case implies that a strike should
typically be carried out at the workplace where the employment relationship exists.
Lastly, in Biflex Phils Inc. Labor Union v. Fileflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corp.,
joining a "welga ng bayan" or sympathy strike without a valid labor dispute as the basis was
considered illegal. This emphasizes the requirement for a legitimate labor dispute as a basis
for striking.
656. QUESTION: Under what circumstances does good faith serve as a defense for a strike,
and when does a strike become illegal due to bad faith?
ANSWER:
Good faith serves as a defense for a strike when it is conducted with the sincere belief that
the employer has committed unfair labor practices. In such cases, the strikers do not lose
their status as employees of the company. On the other hand, a strike becomes illegal due
to bad faith when it is conducted with malicious intent, without legitimate labor grievances,
or as a means of coercion or harassment, leading to the wholesale dismissal of strikers. The
determination of whether a strike is in good faith or bad faith is based on the specific
circumstances of each case, as illustrated in cases like Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio
Lines v. Sulpicio Lines, The Peninsula Manila Hotel v. NLRC, Bacus v. Ople, and Ferrer v.
CIR.
 ANSWER:
Settled in our laws and jurisprudence that a strike, even if conducted in good faith, can be
declared illegal if it violates the specific legal requirements or conditions established under
labor laws or regulations".
It highlights the principle that good faith is not an absolute defense to the legality of a strike.
In the Philippines, the legality of a strike is governed by the Labor Code and its implementing
rules and regulations. These laws lay down specific requirements, procedures, and conditions
that must be met for a strike to be considered legal. When a strike fails to comply with these
legal requirements, it may be declared illegal, regardless of the good faith of the striking
party.

657. QUESTION: What is the liability for participating in an illegal strike?

ANSWER:A mere finding of illegality of a strike should not be automatically followed

by a wholesale dismissal of the strikers from their employment. Moreover, mere
membership in a labor union does not ipso facto mean participation in a strike. Only union
officers during the period of illegal strike are liable. If the dispositive portion failed to
mention the names of the union officers, resort should be made to the text of the decision.
Union officers may be dismissed despite the fact that the illegal strike was staged for only
one day or even less than a day.

Rationale:
Liability for illegal strikes is legally determined individually, not collectively. Article
227 of the Labor Code does not hold the officers of a union responsible for an illegal act of
another officer. When the strike is held illegal, only the union officers who knowingly
participated will be considered to have lost their employment status. The union members
who knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike may be held
liable.

658. QUESTION: What are the situations in Sarmiento v. Tuico and Solidbank v Garnier
where all defiant workers consisting of both union officers and ordinary members were held
liable for Defiance of Assumption or Certification Order or Return to work Order?

ANSWER: In Sarmiento v. Tuico, The employer has manifested its willingness to accept
most of the workers, and has in fact already done so, it has balked at the demand of the
remaining workers to be also allowed to return to work. Its reason is that these persons,
instead of complying with the return to work order, as most of the workers have done,
insisted on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketed the company premises to
prevent the resumption of operations. These strikers have forfeited their right to be
readmitted. Consequently, in the case of Solidbank v. Garnier, The Supreme Court ruled
 that notwithstanding the illegality of the strike, it cannot sanction the act of the bank in
indiscriminately terminating the services of employees who admitted joining the mass
actions and who have refuse to comply with the offer of the management to return to work
. Their liabilities must be determined in that only union officers who knowingly participated
in the illegal strike should be deemed to have lost their employment.

Rationale:
Liability for Defiance of Assumption or Certification Order or Return to Work
Order are as follows:
1st Situation: All defiant strikers were deemed dismissed ( Sarmiento v. Tuico)
2nd Situation: Only defiant union officers and not defiant ordinary members are
dismissed ( Solidbank v. Garnier)

659. QUESTION: What is a Shops Steward?

ANSWER: Shops stewards are embraced in the term union officers and they should be
terminated upon the mere declaration of the illegality of the strike.

Rationale:
Only union officers during the period of illegal strikes are liable. If the dispositive
portion failed to mention the names of the union officers, resort should be made to the text
of the decision, Union officers may be dismissed despite the fact that the illegal strike was
staged for only one day or even less than a day.

660. QUESTION: What is the rationale of the courts decision in the case of Solvic
Industrial Corporation v. NLRC?

ANSWER: Except for the most serious causes affecting the business of the employer, our
labor laws frown upon the penalty of dismissal. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice,
an employee should not be sanctioned with a consequence so severe.

Rationale:
Our Labor Code decrees that an employee cannot be dismissed, except for the most
serious causes. The overly concern of our laws for the welfare of employees is in accord
with the social justice philosophy of our Constitution (Solvic Industrial Corporation v.
NLRC)
661. QUESTION:The granting of the 24 hours period to return is granted upon the discretion
of the ?

ANSWER: The granting of the 24 hours period to return is granted upon the discretion on
the Secretary of Labor. In a case decided by the court, month after the issuance of the return
to work order she issued another order. Several days after the second order, the employer
refused to accept the employees. The secretary of Labor ordered the acceptance of the
employees. The Secretary of Labor cannot disregard defiance of the strikers of the return to
work order.

Rationale:
In the case of Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Brillantes – A month after the issuance
of the return to work order she issued another order. Several days after the second order,
the employer refused to accept the employees. The secretary of Labor ordered the
acceptance of the employees. The Secretary of Labor cannot disregard defiance of the
strikers of the return to work order.
662. QUESTION: What are the illegal acts that would make the striker suffer the penalty of
dismissal?

ANSWER: Commission of the following illegal acts during a strike would make the
striker suffer the penalty of dismissal, these illegal acts are as follows:
A. Violation of article 279(e);
B. Commission of crimes and other unlawful acts in carrying out the strike;
C. Violation of any order, prohibition, or injunction issued by the Secretary of Labor.

Rationale:
Illegal Acts:
D. Violation of article 279(e);
E. Commission of crimes and other unlawful acts in carrying out the strike;
F. Violation of any order, prohibition, or injunction issued by the Secretary of Labor.

663. QUESTION: What is the liability of an employer for his or her refusal to the return to
work order?

ANSWER: When an employer refused to obey the return to work order, such refusal to the
return to work order would render him criminally liable.

Rationale:
Employer’s refusal to of the return to work order would render him criminally liable.

664. QUESTION: The following are the Liabilities for Illegal Acts:

ANSWER: Liability for illegal acts are legally determined individually, not
collectively. Article 227 of the Labor Code does not hold the officers of a union responsible
 for an illegal act of another officer. When the strike is held illegal, only the union officers
who knowingly participated will be considered to have lost their employment status. The
union members who knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the
strike may be held liable.

Rationale:
In Abaria v. NLRC – The employer submitted photographs taken at the picket line, it
did not individually name those striking employees and specify the illegal acts committed
by each of them. There is no clear proof that union members actually participated in the
commission of illegal acts during the strike, they are not deemed to have lost their
employment status as a consequence of a declaration of illegality of strike.

665. QUESTION: What is the rationale in the case of Solidbank Corporation v. Garnier?

ANSWER: In this case, the dismissal of the union members was declared unjustified in
view of the absence of a clear showing that they committed specific illegal acts during the
mass actions and concerted work boycott. Specific illegal acts committed by strikers must
be described with particularity.

Rationale:
In Solidbank Corporation v. Garnier dismissal of the union members was declared
unjustified in view of the absence of a clear showing that they committed specific illegal
acts during the mass actions and concerted work boycott.

666. QUESTION: What is Doctrine of Vicarious Liability?

ANSWER: The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability states that mere membership in a labor
union serves as a basis of liability for acts of individuals, or for a labor activity, done on
behalf of the union. However, The rule has been abandoned and it is only when a striking
worker knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike that he will
be penalized but only with dismissal.

Rationale:
The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability:
A. The rule has been abandoned and it is only when a striking worker knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike that he will be penalized
but only with dismissal.

B. Mere membership in a labor union serves as a basis of liability for acts of

individuals, or for a labor activity, done on behalf of the union.

667. QUESTION: What will happen on the worker’s employment in

case of illegal lockouts?

ANSWER:
Employment of a worker shall be reinstated with payment of full backwages if the lockout
is found to be illegal.

Rationale:
In the case of National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, the Supreme Court of the Philippines
held that the employment of a worker shall be reinstated with payment of full backwages if
the
lockout is found to be illegal. The Court held that the employer has the burden of proof to
show that the lockout was justified, and that the worker's dismissal was not due to union
activities.

668. QUESTION: What are the conditions where a Union officers and Ordinary
Union members may be reinstated when they participate into a strike?

ANSWER:
Participated in a lawful strike;
Did not commit any illegal act in a legal strike; or
Did not knowingly participate in the conduct of an illegal strike.

Rationale:
If a union officer and Ordinary Union members has participated in a lawful strike, meaning
they have followed all the necessary legal procedures and requirements, they may be
eligible for reinstatement. This would typically involve returning to their previous position
within the union or being granted similar rights and responsibilities as before the strike.

union officers and ordinary union members may be reinstated based on various conditions
related to the legality of the strike and their own actions. These conditions include
participating in a lawful strike, not committing any illegal acts during a legal strike, or not
knowingly
participating in the conduct of an illegal strike.

669. QUESTION: what are the circumstances where strikers are not
entitled to backwages?

ANSWER:
These are circumstances where strikers may not be entitled to backwages;
-the strike is deemed illegal or unprotected under labor laws
- strike is deemed a wildcat or unofficial strike
- when they engage in violent or unlawful behavior during the strike

Rationale:
In many jurisdictions, there are specific requirements and procedures that must be
followed for a strike to be considered legal. These requirements often include giving
advance notice to the employer, participating in good faith negotiations, and exhausting
other dispute resolution
mechanisms before resorting to a strike. If these requirements are not met, the strike may
be considered illegal, and strikers may not be entitled to backwages.
670. QUESTION: What is the rule if both parties are in Pare Delicto that the employer
is guilty of illegal lockout and the union is culpable for illegal strike?

ANSWER:
-The dismissal of the striking employees is unwarranted, and their reinstatement should be
ordered as a matter of course.

Rationale:
while the doctrine of in pare delicto can be invoked by employers to argue against the
reinstatement of striking employees, its application in labor disputes is not always
straightforward. Courts may consider various factors, including the power dynamics
between employers and employees, the employer's conduct, and compliance with labor
laws and
regulations. As a result, the dismissal of striking employees based solely on in pare delicto
may not be warranted in all cases, and their reinstatement could be ordered depending on
the
specific circumstances.

671. QUESTION: What is the proper relief available to strikers who were in pari
delicto with the employer and those that were not?

ANSWER:
The strikers are entitled to reinstatement, but without backwages, while the non-erring
strikers are reinstated and given their backwages.

Rationale:
In the case of Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. v. Progresibong Unyon ng mga
Manggagawa, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the proper relief available to
strikers who were in pari delicto with the employer and those that were not. The court held
that the strikers are
entitled to reinstatement, but without backwages, while the non-erring strikers are
reinstated and given their backwages.

672. QUESTION: What is the duty of the Department of Labor in giving

assistance to Labor Organizations?

ANSWER:
Maintain harmonious, equitable, and stable labor relations system, Uphold the right of the
workers and employers, and Provide and ensure the fair and expeditious settlement and
disposition of labor and industrial disputes.

Rationale:
The Department of Labor (DOL) plays a crucial role in providing assistance to labor
organizations in various ways. Its primary duty is to maintain a harmonious, equitable, and
stable labor relations system. This involves ensuring that the rights of both workers and
employers are upheld, and that labor and industrial disputes are settled fairly and
expeditiously.
673. QUESTION: What is the concept of Tripartism?
ASNWER:
The concept of tripartism refers to a collaborative approach involving the government
sector, employees, and employers in decision-making processes and policy
formulation. It is based on the belief that involving all three stakeholders in discussions
and negotiations
leads to more effective and balanced outcomes.

Rationale:
Tripartism is a collaborative approach that involves the government sector, employees,
and employers in decision-making processes and policy formulation. It aims to foster
cooperation, build consensus, and address the concerns of all stakeholders. Tripartism
promotes social dialogue, allows for the exchange of information and expertise, and
contributes to more balanced and equitable policies.

674. QUESTION: In Post employment Four-Fold Test, what are the four key aspects of
an employment relationship that must be present for an individual to be considered an
employee, rather than an independent contractor.

ANSWER:
-Selection and engagement of employee;
-Payment of wages or salaries;
-Exercise of the power of dismissal; or
-Exercise of the power to control the employee’s

conduct. Rationale:

1. Selection and Engagement of Employee: The employer has the right to

select and engage the individual as an employee, which includes the power to
hire, fire, and
discipline them as needed. This aspect focuses on the employer's ability to control
the individual's work and the terms of their employment.
2. Payment of Wages or Salaries: The employer must pay the individual a
wage or salary for their work, which reflects the compensation for their labor.
This aspect
emphasizes the financial aspect of the employment relationship and the expectation
that the individual will receive payment for their work.
3. Exercise of the Power of Dismissal: The employer has the power to dismiss
the individual from their job, which indicates the employer's control over the
individual's continued employment. This aspect highlights the employer's
ability to terminate the employment relationship if necessary.
4. Exercise of the Power to Control the Employee’s Conduct: The employer has
the
power to control the individual's conduct while they are working, which includes
setting expectations for their behavior and performance. This aspect focuses on the
employer's ability to direct and supervise the individual's work.
675. QUESTION: What are the two tiered test enunciated in Francisco v. NLRC?
ANSWER:
The putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means
and methods by which the work is to be accomplished [control test]; and o The
underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship [economic reality test].

Rationale:
Francisco v. NLRC established a two-tiered test consisting of both the control test and
economic reality test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
The control test assesses the level of control exerted by the putative employer over the
employee's work, while the economic reality test examines the underlying economic
dynamics of the relationship. These tests are used to evaluate the nature of the
relationship and determine employment status.

676. QUESTION: Give at least two rights and obligations of parties in the Principles on
Employer- Employee relationship?

ANSWER:
-There is no uniform test prescribed by law or jurisprudence to determine the
existence of employer-employee relationship.
-The existence of the employer-employee relationship is essential in that it comprises as
the jurisdictional basis for recovery under the law. Only cases arising from saidrelationship
are cognizable by the labor courts.

Rationale:
while there is no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, various factors are considered to establish this relationship. These factors
include the level of control exerted by the employer, payment of wages or compensation,
the presence of an
agreement or contract, and other relevant considerations. Understanding the principles
governing the employer-employee relationship is essential for both employers and
employees to ensure compliance with labor laws and protect their rights.
677. QUESTION: When shall union dues be deducted from the employee?

ANSWER: union dues be deducted from the employee upon written authorization to the
Union by an individual employee to become a member of the Union and pay
membership dues, the Employer shall provide for the semi-monthly payroll
deductions of union dues which are uniformly applied to all members in those
bargaining units in which the Union is the exclusive bargaining agent.

678. QUESTION: What is check-off?

ANSWER: A check-off is a method of deducting from an employee's pay at prescribed
periods, the amounts due the union for fees, fines, or assessments. The employee
himself may voluntarily assign so much of his wages as may be necessary to meet
 his union due and direct his employer to pay the amount to the treasurer of his
union.

679. QUESTION: What is Union dues?

ANSWER: union dues is the amount of dues collected from employees represented by
unions is subject to federal and state laws and court rulings. The NLRA allows unions
and employers to enter into union-security agreements that require the payment of
dues or dues equivalents as a condition of employment.
680. QUESTION: What is the general rule in wage deduction?
ANSWER: The general rule on wage deductions is clear: “No employer, in his own
behalf or on behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his
employees.” The law, however, strikes a balance by including certain exceptions to this
prohibition. these are: (a) deductions authorized by law including insurance premiums
advanced by the employer as well as union dues where the right to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the employee; and (b) deductions
with written authorization of the employees for payment to the third person and the
employer agrees to do so; PROVIDED, that the employer does not receive any pecuniary
benefit from the transaction.
681. QUESTION: What are the common deductions of an employee in the Philippines?
ANSWER: The four main statutory contributions employers must deduct from
employees' salaries are income tax, social security, health insurance, and the Home
Development Mutual Fund.

682. QUESTION: Is a deduction from the employee's wages allowed?

ANSWER: It shall be unlawful to make any deduction from the wages of any employee
for the benefit of the employer or his representative or intermediary as consideration of a
promise of employment or retention in employment.

683. QUESTION: What are the Prohibitions Regarding Deduction on Wages?

ANSWER: An employer cannot limit or interfere with the freedom of any employee to
dispose of his wages. In relation to this, an employer shall not in any manner force,
compel, or oblige his employees to purchase merchandise, commodities or other
property from any other person, or otherwise make use of any store or services of
such employer or any other person (Art. 112, Labor Code). The Labor Code also
considers the act of any person in withholding any amount from the wages of a
worker or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth,
intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent
as unlawful (Art. 116 Labor Code).
684. QUESTION: What is non-interference in the disposal of wages and allowable
deductions?
ANSWER: Non-interference in the disposal of wages means that No employer shall
limit or otherwise interfere with the freedom of any employee to dispose of his wages. He
shall not in any manner force, compel, or oblige his employees to purchase merchandise,
commodities or other property from any other person, or otherwise make use of any store or
services of such employer or any other person.

685. QUESTION: What are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization?
ANSWER: The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization:

● No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of a

legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and
forfeiture be
imposed;
● The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and
representatives of all financial transactions as provided for in the constitution and
by-laws of the organization;
● The members shall directly elect their officers, including those of the national
union or federation, to which they or their union is affiliated, by secret ballot at
intervals of five
(5) years. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position shall be
imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor organization. The
secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of Labor
and Employment with a list of the newly-elected officers, together with the
appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds, within
thirty (30) calendar days after the
election of officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the
labor organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
● The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any question
of major policy affecting the entire membership of the organization, unless the
nature of the organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical,
in which case, the board of directors of the organization may make the decision in
behalf of the general membership;
● No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in
membership any individual who belongs to a subversive organization or who is
engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive activity;
● No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be
eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any position in the
union;
● No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues,
or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or
funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws;
● Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be evidenced
by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into
the record of the organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose;
● The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object other
than those expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws or those expressly
authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a
general meeting duly called for the purpose;
● Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a record
showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a
receipt from the person to whom the payment is made, which shall state the date,
place and purpose of such
payment. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.
● Any action involving the funds of the organization shall prescribe after three (3)
years from the date of submission of the annual financial report to the Department
of Labor and Employment or from the date the same should have been submitted as
required by law,
whichever comes earlier: Provided, That this provision shall apply only to a
legitimate labor organization which has submitted the financial report requirements
under this Code:
Provided, further, that failure of any labor organization to comply with the periodic
financial reports required by law and such rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder
six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the
cancellation of union registration of such labor organization; (As amended by
Section 16, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
● The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any compensation other
than the salaries and expenses due to their positions as specifically provided for in
its constitution and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly authorized by a
majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the
purpose. The minutes of the meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast
shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
representatives. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a
ground for impeachment or expulsion from the organization;
● The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is
responsible for the account of such organization or for the collection,
management, disbursement, custody or control of the funds, moneys and other
properties of the organization, shall render to the organization and to its members
a true and correct account of all moneys received and paid by him since he
assumed office or since the last day on which he rendered such account, and of
all bonds, securities and other properties of the
organization entrusted to his custody or under his control. The rendering of such
account shall be made:
At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the close of its fiscal year;
At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the
members of the organization; and
Upon vacating his office.
The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall
be furnished the Secretary of Labor.
● The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any labor
organization shall be open to inspection by any officer or member thereof during
office hours;
● No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the
 members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a
majority of all the members in a general membership meeting duly called for the
purpose. The secretary of the organization shall record the minutes of the meeting
including the list of all members
present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the
recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be attested to by the
president.
● Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments,
attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked
off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written
authorization duly signed by the employee. The authorization should
specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and
● It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members
on the provisions of its constitution and by-laws, collective bargaining agreement,
the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under
existing labor laws.
For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable dues to
finance labor relations seminars and other labor education activities.
● Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground
for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from office,
whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a union
or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to the
Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported violation
to mete the appropriate penalty.

686. QUESTION: What is “Retrenchment”?

ANSWER:

As defined in the case of Anabev. Asian Construction, GR No.

183233, Dec. 23, 2009, “Retrenchment” pertains to the termination
of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the
employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted by
management during periods of business recession, industrial
depression, or seasonal fluctuations; or during lulls occasioned by
lack of work or orders, shortage of materials; or considerable
reduction in the volume of the employer's business, conversion of the
plant for a new production program or the introduction of new
methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation.

687. QUESTION: Because of decreasing sales and the consequent limitation of

productions, rumors were extensive that Jho Iski, Inc. would reduce its employee
force. The next day, the employees of Jho Iski, Inc. received a notice that the company
will have a winding down period of 10 days, after which there will be a six (6)-month
suspension of operations to allow the company to address its precarious financial
position.
On the fourth (4th) month of suspension of its operations Jho Iski, Inc.
 posted announcement that it will resume its operations in 60 days but at the
same time announced that instead of closing down due to financial losses, it
will retrench 50% of the work force. Is the announcement that there would be
retrenchment affecting 50% of the work force sufficient compliance with the
legal requirements for retrenchment? Explain.

ANSWER:

No. Under the Labor Code, retrenchment requires two notices to be

sent, to wit: (a) a 30- day advance notice to DOLE; and (b) a 30-day
advance notice to the employees.
In the case at bar, the Company did not send a 30-day advance notice to
DOLE and to the employees in violation of the Labor Code.
Thus, the announcement is not sufficient to comply with the legal
requirements for retrenchment.

688. QUESTION: Loki’s Pottery Corporation, owned and managed by three (5)
elderly brothers and two (6) sisters, has been in business for 40 years. Due to serious
business losses and financial reverses during the last five (7) years, they decided to
close the business. If the reason for the closure is due to old age of the brothers and
sisters: Is the closure allowed by law?

ANSWER:

Yes. A careful examination of Article 283 of the Labor Code indicates

that closure or cessation of business operation as a valid and authorized
ground of terminating employment is not limited to those resulting from
business losses or financial reverses. An employer may close or cease his
business operations or undertaking even if he is not suffering from serious
business losses or financial reverses, as long as he pays his employees their
termination pays in the amount corresponding to their length of service. It
would, indeed, be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if management’s
prerogative to close or cease its business operations be unjustly interfered
with just because said business operation or undertaking is not suffering from
any loss.

689. QUESTION: What are the four (4) standard situations in Interplay of
Substantive and Procedural Due Process provided in the Labor Code and is
enunciated in pertinent jurisprudence?

ANSWER: The four (4) standard situations in Interplay of Substantive and Procedural
Due Process provided in the Labor Code and is enunciated in pertinent jurisprudence are:

a. LEGAL if it was done with both substantive and procedural due

process. (Philippine Airnes, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115785, Aug.
4, 2000.)
b. LEGAL if it was done with substantive due process but without procedural
due process
(Agabon v. NLRC, GR No. 158693, Nov. 17,2004.).
 c. ILLEGAL if it was done without substantive due process
although procedural due process was observed. (ACD
Investigation Security Agency, Inc. v. Daquera, G.R. No. 147473,
March 30, 2004.)
d. ILLEGAL if it was done without both substantive and procedural due
process.
(Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corp.v. Binamira, G.R. No. 170464,
July 12, 2010)

690. QUESTION: In employment termination what does procedural due process

consists of- for the just causes?
ANSWER:

As a general rule the law requires that the employer must furnish the worker
sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment
can be legally effected.

In just cause termination, the twin-notice requirement applies. More

particularly the following procedure in the order presented below should be
followed:
1. Service of written notice;
2. Conduct of hearing; and
3. Service of second written notice.

691. QUESTION: In the case of King of Kings Transport Inc. v. Mamac, why are
employees given reasonable opportunity to submit written explanation within five (5)
calendar days from receipt of its 1st written notice?

ANSWER:

As provided in the case of King of Kings Transport Inc. v. Mamac,

employees are given reasonable opportunity to submit written explanation
within five (5) calendar days from receipt of its 1 st written notice due to the
following circumstances:

a. to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense;

b. to study the accusation against him;
c. to consult a union official or lawyer;
d. to gather data and evidence; and
e. to decide on the defenses he will raise against the complaint.
 692. QUESTION: Ms. Brenda Mage is a volleyball coach with 7 years of
experience in her field. Before the start of the volleyball season of 2023, she
was hired for the sole purpose of overseeing the training and coaching of the
University’s volleyball team. During her hiring, Mr. Agra Raman who is the
Vice-President for Sports expressed to Ms. Brenda Mage the University’s
expectation that she would bring the University a championship at the end of
the year.
In her first volleyball season, the University placed 9 th out of the 10
participating teams. Soon after the end of the season, the Mr. Agra Raman for
Sports informed Ms. Brenda Mage that she was a mere probationary
employee and hence, she need not come back for the next season because of
the poor performance of the team.
In any case, Mr. Agra Raman for Sports claimed that Ms. Brenda
Mage was a fixed-term employee whose contract had ended at the close of
the year.
Assuming that Ms. Brenda Mage was dismissed by the University for
serious misconduct but was never given a notice to explain, what is the
consequence of a procedurally infirm dismissal from service under our Labor
law and jurisprudence? Explain.

ANSWER:

The consequence of a procedurally infirm dismissal from service

under our Labor law and jurisprudence with regards to the violation of Ms.
Brenda Mage’s right to statutory due process. As ruled in the case of Abbott
Laboratories v. Alcaraz, GR 192571, July 23, 2013 where the dismissal is
for just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
dismissal nor render it ineffectual. Hence, this requires the assessment of the
University with nominal damages. The amount is P30,000.00 because a
dismissal for failure to qualify is parallel to a dismissal for a just cause.

693. QUESTION: What does “ample opportunity to be heard” mean?

ANSWER:

“Ample opportunity to be heard” pertains to any meaningful

opportunity given to the employee to answer the charges against him and
submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in hearing conference or
some other fair, just and reasonable way.

694. QUESTION: What are the instances where a formal hearing or conference
is considered mandatory?
ANSWER: The instances where a formal hearing or conference is considered mandatory
are as follows:
a. When requested by the employee in writing;
b. When substantial evidentiary disputes exist;
c. When a company rule or practice requires it;
d. When similar circumstances justify it.
695. QUESTION: What are the implementing rules and regulations provided in the
Labor Code with regards to “ample opportunity to be heard” as decided by the
Supreme court in resolving conflicts?
ANSWER:
The implementing rules and regulations provided in the Labor Code with
regards to “ample opportunity to be heard” as decided by the Supreme court in
resolving conflicts are:

a. Under Article 292(b) [277(b)] of the Labor Code, the employer is

required to afford the employee “ample opportunity to he heard
and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative
if he so desires”;
b. Under Section 2(d), Rule 1, Book VI of the Implementing Rules
of the Labor Code, the employer is required to afford to the
employee a “hearing or conference during which the employee
concerned, with the assistance of counsel, if he so desires, is
given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.”

696. QUESTION: Smile was hired by Creative Peach, Inc. (CPI) on contractual basis for a
period of three months. Before the expiration of Smile’s contractual employment, she and CPI
agreed to a fifteen-day contract extension under the same conditions as the existing contract.
After the expiration of Smile’s contract, as extended, CPI announced the availability of a new
position in their company. Smile applied for the position. After undergoing interview, she was
hired and was apprised of the company standards.
CPI hired Smile on a probationary basis for a period of 6 months. The signing of a
written contract of employment followed. However, a week before the end of the agreed 6-
month probationary period, Smile received a termination paper grounded on her alleged
failure to meet company standards.
Smile then filed an illegal dismissal case against CPI on the ground that she was denied
due process.
Was Smile denied of due process?

ANSWER:
No, Smile was not denied of due process.

In Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Magtibay, GR No. 164532, July 24, 2007, the
Supreme Court ruled that notice and hearing is not required when a probationary employee
was terminated due to his failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement. Due process of law in
this instance consists of making the reasonable standards expected of the employee during
his probationary period known to him at the time of his probationary employment. By the
very nature of probationary employment, the employee knows from the very start that he
will be under close observation and his performance of his assigned duties and functions
would be under continuous scrutiny by his superiors. It is in apprising him of the standards
against which his performance shall be continuously assessed where due process lies and not
in notice and hearing.

Smile was apprised of the company standards when she was hired as a probationary
employee. Furthermore, she worked on contractual basis prior to her being hired as a
probational employee. As discussed by the Supreme Court in PDI vs. Magtibay, there is
already awareness on the part of the probationary employee of the level of competency and
professionalism required of her for the entire duration of the probationary employment since
the employee first worked on contractual basis. Thus, Smile was not denied of due process.

697. QUESTION: Issie, the long time branch manager of Mapaya, Inc. received a
letter informing him that his services were being terminated on the ground of redundancy.
The letter also indicated that the company was suffering from financial losses.
Aggrieved, Issie filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that his position could
not possibly be redundant because he is the only one performing the same duties. He further
contended that he diligently worked causing the increase of sales. On the other hand, Mapaya
Inc alleged that the termination of Issie’s employment was due to continued financial losses
and that Issie’s position had become redundant
The Labor Arbiter held that Issie was illegally dismissed because there was no
showing that Issie’s work is the same with the work of any one in the company. Aside from
the entitlement to backwages accumulated sick and vacation leaves, hospitalization benefit
package, unpaid commission and attorney’s fees, Issie was also awarded moral damages
since he was not given opportunity to explain his position on the matter and that he was said
to have been embarassed before his immediate family and other acquaintance due to his
inability to explain the reasons behind the termination of his services.
a. Is the Labor Arbiter correct in declaring that Issie was illegally dismissed?
b. Is the awarding of moral damages proper due to the fact that Issie was not given
opportunity to be heard proper?

ANSWER:

a. No, the Labor Artbiter is not correct in declaring that Issie was illegally dismissed.
In Wiltshire File Co., Inc. Vs. NLRC, CR No. 82249, February 7, 1991, the
Supreme Court held that while the letter informing private respondent of the termination of
his services used the word “redundant”, that letter also referred to the company having
“incur(red) financial losses which (in) fact has compelled (it) to resort to retrenchment to
prevent further losses”. Thus, what the letter was in effect saying was that because of
financial losses, retrenchment was necessary, which retrenchment in turn resulted in the
redundancy of private respondent’s position. The Court also explained that redundancy in
an employer’s personnel force does not necessarily or even ordinarily refer to duplication
of work. Redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an
employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the acutal requirements of the
enterprise. The employer has no legal obligation to keep in its payroll more employees than
are necessarry for the operation of its business. Furthermore, in order to cut down operating
expenses due to financial losses, some changes in the company’s organization may be
made and the duties previously discharged by the Sales Manager may be simply added to
the duties of the General Manager, to whom the Sales Manager used to report.
Thus, Issie was not illegally dismissed. His position or work may not exactly be the
same with anyone’s work in the company but the employer has no legal obligation to keep
in its payroll more employees than are necessarily for the operation of its business. His work
may be absorbed by the one to whom he usually reports. This is also to save the company
from further losses.

b. No, the awarding of moral damages is not proper.

In Wiltshire File Co., Inc. Vs. NLRC, CR No. 82249, February 7, 1991, the Supreme
Court held that the notice to specify “the particular acts or omissions constituting the ground
for dismissal” is a requirement which is obviously applicable where the ground for dismissal
is the commission of some act or omission falling withing Article 297 (282) of the Labor
Code. It is such allegations by the employer and any counter-allegations that the employee
may wish to make that need to be heard before dismissal is effected.
In the instant case, the ground for dismissal or termination of services does not relate
to an act or omission on the part of the employee. There is no need for a hearing or
investigation. In such case, there are no allegations which the employee should refute and
defend himself from.
Issie may not also contest the reality of good faith character of the redundancy
asserted as ground for termination of services. The appropriate forum for such controversion
would, however, be the DOLE and not an investigation to be held by the employer itself. It
is for this reason that an employer seeking to terminate services of an employee or employees
because of “closure of establishment and reduction of personnel”, is legally required to give
a written notice not only to the employee but also to the DOLE at least one month before
effectivity date of the termination.

698. QUESTION: While on duty as a security guard, Generous collapsed. He was

immediately brought to the hospital. It was discovered that he has cancer and needs rest. The
doctor informed his immediate family members that it will be prejudicial to his health if he
continues to work. Can Generous’s employer terminate his employment?

ANSWER:

Yes. Article 299(284) provides that an employer may terminate the services of an
employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his
co-employees: Provided that he is paid his separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month
salary to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction
of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.

699. QUESTION: Felipe is an outstanding employee of Hope Company. He worked for the
company for almost 10 years. However, Felipe got bored and felt that his work was just
routinary. He wanted to grow so he wanted to leave his current work and venture in another
type of work. What may Felipe do?

ANSWER:

Felipe may voluntarily resign from his work. Article 285 of the Labor Code provides
that an employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by
serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.The employer
upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages.
Thus, Felipe may serve a written notice of his resignation to his empolyer at least one
month in advance.
This is to enable the employer to look for a replacement and prevent work disruption.
700. QUESTION: Cora is one among the cashiers at Kola Hardware Store. She works hard
and often goes beyond what is expected of her. However, she would usually find herself in
situations where her employer would insult her, call her “good for nothing” and shout at her
whenever the employer pleases. She would not even be allowed to have meal break if she
does not finish the tons of task she was asked to do so she would not usually have lunch
break. Due to this, Cora decided to look for another job as she can no longer endure the
treatment. Thus, without serving a resignation notice, Cora discontinued working at the Kola
Hardware Store. Her employer filed a case against her and demanded that she pay damages
for leaving the workplace without submitting a resignation letter 1 month prior to her leaving.
The employer further alleged that they incurred losses due to Cora’s act. Will Cora be liable
for damages?

ANSWER:
No, Cora will not be liable for damages.
Article 285 of the Labor Code provides that an employee may put an end to the
relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any of the following just causes:
1. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor and person of the
employee;
2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by the employer or his
representative;
3. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his representative against
the person of the employee or any of the immediate members of his family; and
4. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing.

Cora suffered serious insult by the employer on her honor and person. She was also
treated inhumanely when she was asked to accomplish lots of tasks before having her meal
break causing her to not have any meal break at all. Cora experienced all of these oftentimes
in her stay in the store. She ended the employee-employer relationship for a just cause. Thus,
there is no need for her to serve a resignation notice 1 month prior to her employer.

701. QUESTION: Bestfriends, Fa and Ne, applied as chefs in SeeRa’s restaurant. Fa showed
dedication in her work and continued to learn more and more regarding the techniques in
cooking while Ne who is a very good cook decided to stay in her comfort zone thinking that
attempting to make variation of what she already knows will cause her to lose her job.
Fa continued to explore and learn. It was evident in the way she cooks. After how
many years, Fa was promoted due to her exceptional performance. She then received higher
salary than her bestfriend Na. Feeling that the treatment was unfair, Ne resigned from his
work. Thereafter, she filed a case of illegal dismissal against her employee claiming that her
resignation was due to contructive dismissal. Was Ne subjected to constructive dismissal?

ANSWER:

No, Ne was not subject to constructive dismissal.

In Girly G. Ico v. Systems Technology Institute, Inc, GR No. 185100, June 9, 2014,
the Supreme Court held that there is constructive dismissal when any or all of the following
circumstances exist:
a. When continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
b. When there is a demotion in rank and/or a dimunition in pay; or
 c. When a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee that ir sould foreclose any choice him except to forego
his continued employment.

Ne’s situation does not fall under any of those enumerated above. Furthermore, Fa
was promoted due to her exceptional performance. There was no discrimination between
them.

702. QUESTION: Suppose an employee voluntarily resigns, will he be entitled to separation

pay?

ANSWER:
No, employees who voluntarily resign from work are not entitled to separation pay.
Philippine laws only grant separation pay to those who were dismissed from service not
due to their own fault or negligence but for reasons beyond their control like business
closure, cessation of operation, or retrenchment to prevent losses.
However, there are at least two cases where employees who resign voluntarily may
be entitled to separation pay. These are as follows:
a. When payment of separation pay is provided int eh employment contract or
Collective Bargaining Agreement (for companues with existing bargaining agent or
labor union); and
b. When it is authorized by established company practice or policy.

703. QUESTION: Patience, a taxi operator, hired Juan to be one of his taxi drivers
on January 1, 2018. In November and December 2022, Juan failed to remit his boundary or
at times, it is less than the amount he should give. Due to Juan’s carelessness also, the taxi
was severely damaged. He does not bring the taxi or inform his employer of the need to bring
the taxi for repair when needed. For him, as long as the taxi looks fine, it is fine to drive it.
Because of this, Patience outrightly dismissed Juan. Aggrieved, Juan filed a case
before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. Juan claimed that he was not afforded due
process. Patience, on the other hand, claims that Juan was legally dismissed as Juan’s
misconduct is apparent and that since he was dismissed due to a just cause, there is no need
for him to explain his side. Is Patience correct?

ANSWER:
No, Patience is not correct.
In Agabon Doctrine, the dismissal of the employee was based on just cause but due
process was not observed. Hence, the employee is entitled to nominal damages amounting
to Php 30,000.
Patience dismissed Juan without giving him the opportunity to be heard. Even if it is
found and proven that Juan was dismissed for a just cause, Patience may still be liable for
nominal damages for not complying with the procedural due process.

704. QUESTION: Due to wrongful accusations, Mae was dismissed from her work. Later,
her employer realized that her dismissal was illegal. To prevent Mae from filing a complaint
 against him, he immediately reached out to her. He asked whether she would want to be
reinstated or just be given her full backwages. Mae who is not aware how the legal system
works told her employer that she be given time to think. She decided to consult her lawyer
friend regarding the matter. Given that you are that friend, what will you tell Mae?

ANSWER: You are entitled to both.

Under Article 294 (279) of the Labor Code, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to the
following

a. Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges;

b. Full backwages, inclusive of allowances; and
c. Other benefits or their monetary equivalent.

705. QUESTION: Does the strained relations rule automatically serve as a bar for the
reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee?

ANSWER:
No. While the strained relations rule apply when reinstatement will no longer be in
the best interest of both the employee and employer, considering the animosity and
antagonism that exist betweent them brought about by the filing of the labor case, it does not
automatically mean that everytime an employee was found to be illegally dismissed,
reinstatement will no longer be available for the employee. It has been ruled that the strain
in the parties’ relations would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise,
become the rule rather than the exception in illegal dismissal cases.
Even in cases of legal dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations is not applied
indiscriminately as to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an
aversion to returning to work or does not occupy a position of trust and confidentiality in the
operation of the employer’s business.

706. QUESTION: How did the Supreme Court interpret “full back wages”?

ANSWER: In the case of Bustamante v. NLRC, which is now the prevailing

rule, the Supreme Court changed the rule on the reckoning of back wage.
The Bustamante doctrine provides that the term “full back wages” was
interpreted to mean exactly that, i.e., without deducting from back wages the
earnings derived elsewhere by the concerned employee during the period of
his illegal dismissal.

707. QUESTION: What are the requisites to be complied with before

termination of employment for the disease to be justified?
ANSWER: Disease is one of the authorized causes to terminate employment.
However, the following requisites must be complied with termination of employment
due to disease may be justified.
1. The employee is suffering from a disease;
2. His continued employment is either: prohibited by law;
or prejudicial to his health; or prejudicial to the health of
his co-employees;
 3. There is a certification by a competent public health
authority that the disease is of such nature or at such stage
that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months
even with proper medical treatment;
4. Notice of termination based on this ground should be
separately served both to the employee and the Department
of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month prior to
the effectively of the termination; and
5. Separation pay should be paid to the employee in an amount
equivalent to at least one
(1) month salary or to one-half (1⁄2) month salary for every
year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six
(6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.

708. QUESTION: What does the term “competent” means in the phrase
"competent public health authority"?

ANSWER: The word "competent" in the legal phrase "competent public health
authority" refers to a government doctor whose medical specialization pertains to the
disease being suffered by the employee. For instance, if the employee suffers from
tuberculosis, the medical certificate should be issued by a government- employed
pulmonologist who is competent to make an opinion thereon. If the employee has
cardiac symptoms, the competent physician in this case would be a cardiologist.

709. QUESTION: What are the points to be considered in invoking Disease as grounds for
termination?

ANSWER: The following are the points to consider under this ground.

6. If the disease or ailment can be cured within a period of six (6)

months with proper medical treatment, the employer should not
terminate the employee but merely ask him to take a leave of
absence. The employer should reinstate him to his former
position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health.
7. In case the employee unreasonably refuses to submit to
medical examination or treatment upon being requested to do
so, the employer may terminate his services on the grounds of
insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful order.
8. A medical certificate issued by a company’s own physician is
not an acceptable certificate for purposes of terminating an
employment based on Article 284, it having been issued not by a
“competent public health authority,” the person referred to in the
law.
9. A “competent public health authority” refers to a
government doctor whose medical specialization
 pertains to the disease being suffered by the employee.
10. The medical certificate should be procured by the employer and not by
the employee.

710. QUESTION: What is the rule on due process in Deofiro?

ANSWER: In Deofiro it pronounced the rule that due process in termination due
to disease is similar to due process for just cause termination. Thus, the employer
must furnish the employee with two (2) written notices; 1) the notice to apprise the
employee of the ground for which his dismissal is sought and 2) the notice informing
the employee of his dismissal, to be issued after the employee has been given
reasonable opportunity to answer and to be heard on his defense.

Under the present rule, the employee should be given a reasonable opportunity to
answer and to be heard in his defense.

711.QUESTION: What is being expounded in Fuji rule?

Fuji has expounded the rule on due process requirement in termination

due to disease by categorically specifying the right of the ailing employee to
present countervailing evidence in the form of medical certificates to prove
that his dismissal due to disease is not proper and therefore illegal.

712. QUESTION: If an employee has shown or proven to be suffering from a

disease, should he be dismissed outright?

ANSWER: No, he should not be dismissed outright.

The doctrines of Deofiro and Fuji afforded an ailing employee

procedural due process, asserting that an employee is not dismissible solely
on the basis of his suffering from disease. While an employee may have
become afflicted with a contagious disease such as pulmonary tuberculosis,
and under ART 299(284), an employer may terminate the services of its
employee found to be suffering from disease and whose continued
employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to
that of his co-employees, however, the fact that an employee is suffering
from such disease does not ipso facto make him a sure candidate for
dismissal.

713. QUESTION: Enumerate and state the duties of the three (3) classes of positions of trust

There are 3 classes of positions of trust.

1. Managerial employees or those who, by the nature of their

positions, are entrusted with confidential and delicate matters
 and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly
expected. Their primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of a department or
a subdivision thereof and to other officers or members of the
managerial staff.
2. Supervisory employees who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions the exercise
of which is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment.
3. Fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors,
property custodians, or those who, in the normal and routine
exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant
amounts of the employer’s money or property. These employees,
though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the custody,
handling care, and protection of the employer’s money or
property, or entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, and
are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and
confidence.

714. QUESTION: What are the two (2) kinds of rank-and-file employees?

ANSWER: For purposes of the application of this doctrine, the general

classification of rank-and-file employees should further be classified into two (2),

1. Fiduciary rank-and-file is the one who in the normal and routine

exercise of his/her functions regularly handles significant
amounts of money or property.
2. Ordinary rank-and-file is the ordinary member of an
organization or the ordinary workers in a company, as opposed
to its leaders or managers.

715. QUESTION: Distinguish “preventive suspension” and “suspension as a penalty”.

ANSWER: A “preventive suspension” is a reasonable and justifiable legal

remedy given to an employer for the purpose of investigating and/or resolving
workplace-related incidents that affect his company’s operations whereas, a
“suspension as a penalty” is imposed as an administrative penalty for infractions
committed.

Moreover, a “preventive suspension” is not a penalty, but a part of a

process to investigate a questioned action of an employee, and when it is
determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify an employee’s
 preventive suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during
the time of preventive suspension. On the other hand, in “suspension as a
penalty”, the employee is not entitled to the payment of salaries during the
suspension because of the infractions committed.

716. QUESTION: What is the difference between Preventive suspension and suspension as
penalty?

ANSWER:
A preventive suspension is a reasonable and justifiable legal remedy given to an
employer for the purpose of investigating and/or resolving workplace-related
incidents that affect his company’s operations. It is important to note that preventive
suspension is not a penalty, but a part of a process to investigate a questioned action
of an employee. And when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify
an employee’s preventive suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries
during the time of preventive suspension.

Whereas, a suspension as a penalty is imposed as an administrative penalty for

infractions committed. The employee is not entitled to the payment of salaries during
the suspension because of the infractions committed.

717. QUESTION: What is the Doctrine of

Management Prerogative?

ANSWER:

The Doctrine of Management Prerogative tells us that, every employer has the
inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of
employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and
manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline,
dismissal, and recall of employees.

718. QUESTION: Is the Doctrine of Management

Prerogative unlimited?

ANSWER:

No, there are limitations as regards the exercise of this prerogative and those are
imposed by labor laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice.

719. QUESTION: Differentiate Transfer of Employees from Productivity Standard.

ANSWER:
 Transfer of Employees, is the transfer or assign employees from one office or area
of operation to another is valid provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution
of salary, benefits, and other privileges, and the action is not motivated by
discrimination, made in bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion
without sufficient cause.

Whereas in Productivity standard, the employer has the prerogative to prescribe the
standards of productivity which the employees should comply. The productivity
standards may be used by the employer as:

a. an incentive scheme; and/or

b. a disciplinary scheme. As an incentive scheme, employees who surpass the
productivity standards or quota are usually given additional benefits.

As a disciplinary scheme, employees may be sanctioned for failure to meet the

productivity standards or quota.

720. QUESTION: What is the difference between Change of working hours and Post-
employment ban?

ANSWER:

In Change of working hours, the employers have the freedom and prerogative,
according to their discretion and best judgment, to regulate and control the time
when workers should report for work and
perform their respective functions. Post-employment ban , on the other hand, The
employer, in the exercise of its prerogative, may insist on an agreement with the
employee for certain prohibitions to take effect after the termination of their
employer‐employee relationship.

721. QUESTION: What is Grant of Bonus?

ANSWER:
Bonus, as a general rule, is an amount granted and paid ex gratia to the employee.
Its payment constitutes an act of enlightened generosity and self‐interest on the part
of the employer rather than as a demandable or enforceable obligation. It is an
amount granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which
contributed to the success of the employer’s business and made possible the
realization of profits.

RATIONALE:

The grant of Bonus is a management prerogative. It cannot be forced upon the

employer who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses
 or other benefits aside from the employees’ basic salaries or wag

722 . QUESTION: When may the employer impose a heavier penalty than what the
company rules prescribe?

ANSWER:

The employer has the right to impose a heavier penalty than that prescribed in the
company rules and regulations if circumstances warrant the imposition thereof. The
Fact that the offense was committed for the first time or has not resulted in any
prejudice to the company was held not to be a valid excuse.

RATIONALE:

No employer may rationally be expected to continue in employment a person whose

lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer, regard for his employer’s rules,
and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office, has so plainly and
completely been barred.

723. QUESTION: When is refusal to transfer valid and When is it not?

ANSWER:

The refusal of an employee to be transferred may be held justifiable if there is a

showing that the transfer was directed by the employer under questionable
circumstances. And the exercise of the prerogative to transfer or assign employees
from one office or area of operation to another is valid provided there is no demotion
in rank or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.
The transfer should not be motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith or
effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.

724. QUESTION: What does Change of Working Hours or Lunch Break mean?

ANSWER:

It means that the Employers have the freedom and prerogative, according to their
discretion and best judgment, to regulate and control the time when workers should report
for work and perform their respective functions.
726. QUESTION: What is the case of Cruz vs Coca Cola Bottlers all about?

ANSWER: In Cruz vs. Coca-cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., the Supreme Court held that, the
violation of the company rules committed by petitioner is punishable with the penalty of
suspension for the first offense. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of his
dismissal because respondent company has presented evidence showing that petitioner has a
record of other violations from as far back as 1986

727. QUESTION: Is the exercise of manager prerogative absolute?

ANSWER: No, it is subject to limitations such as;
1. Laws;
2. CBA;
3. Employment Contract;
4. Employer Policy;
5. Employer practice; and
6. General principles of fair play and justice;
7. It is subject to police power;
8. Its exercise should be without abuse of discretion;
9. It should be done in good faith and with due regard to the right of labor
728. QUESTION: Purpose of labor laws.
ANSWER: To balance the conflicting interests of labor and management, not to
tilt the scale in favor of one over the other, but to guarantee that labor and management
stand on equal footing when bargaining in good faith with each other.
729. QUESTION: When is refusal to transfer valid?
ANSWER: The refusal of an employee to be transferred may be held justifiable
if there is a showing that the transfer was directed by the employer under
questionable circumstances.

730. QUESTION: When is refusal to transfer not valid?

ANSWER: The exercise of the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from

one office or area of operation to another is valid provided there is no demotion in rank
or diminution of salary, benefits and other privileges.
The transfer should not be motivated by discrimination or made in bad faith
or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause.

731. QUESTION: What is the Rule in Change of Working Hours or Lunch Break?
ANSWER: Employers have the freedom and prerogative, according to their discretion
and best judgment, to regulate and control the time when workers should report for work and
perform their respective functions.
732. QUESTION: What is post-employment prohibitions?
ANSWER: The employer, in the exercise of its prerogative, may insist on an
agreement with the employer for certain prohibitions to take effect after the
termination of their employer-employee relationship.

733. QUESTION: What is Non-Compete Clause?

ANSWER: The employer and employee are free to stipulate in an employment
contract prohibiting the employee within a certain period from and after the
termination of his employment, from:
1. Starting a similar business, profession, or trade; or

2. Working in an entity that is engaged in a similar business that might compete with
the employer
The non-compete clause is agreed upon to prevent the possibility that upon
an employee’s termination or resignation, he might start a business or work
for a competitor with the full competitive advantage of knowing and
exploiting confidential and sensitive information, trade secrets, marketing
plans, customer/ client lists, business practices, upcoming products, etc.
which he acquired and gained from his employment with the former
employee.

734. QUESTION: What is Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Clause?

ANSWER: The Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Clause reflects the
commitment of the employee that he shall not, either during the period of his
employment with the employer or at any time thereafter, use or disclose to any person,
firm or corporation any information concerning the business or affairs of his
employment for his benefit or to the detriment of the employer. This clause may also
cover Former Employer Information and Third-Party Information.
Question: What is Non-Recruitment or Anti-Piracy Clause?
Answer: This clause prohibits the recruitment by the employee of personnel
or employees of the employer for a certain period after his termination of
employment, either on his own account or in conjunction with or on behalf of
any other person.
Question: What is the Inventions Assignment Clause (Intellectual Property Clause)?
Answer: In industries engaged in research and development and related
activities, this clause requires employee, within a certain period, to disclose
in confidence to the employer and its subsidiaries and to assign all inventions,
improvements, designs, original works of authorship, formulas, processes,
compositions of matters, computer software programs, database, mask works
and trade secrets, whether or not patentable, copyrightable or protectable as
trade secrets (collectively, the “Inventions”), which the employee may solely
or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived
or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of his employment with
the employer.
735. QUESTION: What is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) in the context
of the prohibition against marriage?

ANSWER: A Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) is a valid reason for an

employer to implement a policy prohibiting marriage if it is based on a quality that is
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance. The employer must prove that this
qualification is essential for the operation of the job.

736.QUESTION: What are the two factors that an employer must prove to justify a

BFOQ?

ANSWER: To justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove two factors:

Firstly, that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of
the job involved. Secondly, there must be a factual basis for believing that almost all
individuals who meet the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the
job.

737. QUESTION: Was the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with
employees of competitor companies considered valid in the case of Duncan Association of
Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro Tecson v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines?

ANSWER: Yes, in the case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro Tecson
v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with
employees of competitor companies was considered valid and reasonable because it was
aimed at safeguarding Glaxo's trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies,
and other confidential information from potential compromise by employees involved in
such relationships.

738. QUESTION: In PT and T case, the employer invoked concealment of civil status so
ground to terminate the private respondent employee. In the employer’s defense, the
termination is valid as it is a breach of the company's policy against employing married
women. Is the employer correct?

ANSWER: The employer is incorrect. “In the case at bar, petitioner’s policy of not accepting
or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs
afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by our
labor laws and by no less that the Constitution. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion that it
dismissed private respondent from employment on account of her dishonesty, the record
discloses clearly that her ties with the company were dissolved principally because of the
company’s policy that married women are not qualified for employment in PT & T, and not
merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty”.
739. QUESTION: Why did the Supreme Court uphold the validity of the prohibition against
personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies in the Duncan
Case?

ANSWER: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this prohibition in the Duncan Case
because it was considered a reasonable exercise of management prerogative. The Court found
that such relationships might compromise the interests of the company, particularly regarding
trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and other confidential programs
and information.

740. QUESTION: Was the basis for asking respondents to resign in the case of Star Paper
Corp. vs. Simbol valid?

ANSWER: No. The respondents were asked to resign in this case because they had married
co-employees. The employer failed to demonstrate how these marriages would be
detrimental to its business operations. The policy is premised on the mere fear that employees
married to each other will be less efficient. If the questioned rule is upheld without valid
justification, the employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a
perceived danger at the expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure.

741. QUESTION: What was the non-involvement clause in the Tiu Case?

ANSWER: In the 2007 case of Daisy B. Tiu vs. Platinum Plans Philippines, Inc., the non-
compete clause (called “Non-Involvement Provision” in this case) in the employment
contract stipulates as follows:

“8. NON-INVOLVEMENT PROVISION – The EMPLOYEE further undertakes that during

his/her engagement with EMPLOYER and in case of separation from the Company, whether
voluntary or for cause, he/she shall not, for the next TWO (2) years thereafter, engage in or
be involved with any corporation, association or entity, whether directly or indirectly,
engaged in the same business or belonging to the same pre-need industry as the EMPLOYER.
Any breach of the foregoing provision shall render the EMPLOYER liable to the
EMPLOYER in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100.000.00) for and as
liquidated damages.”

742. QUESTION: Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the validity of the non-
involvement clause in the Tiu case?

ANSWER: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the validity of the non-involvement clause
because it had reasonable limitations in terms of time, trade, and place. It had a two-year time
limit and only restricted the employee from engaging in pre-need businesses similar to the
employer's. Additionally, because the employee held a high-ranking position with access to
confidential information, allowing her to engage in a rival business could potentially
compromise the employer's trade secrets.

743. QUESTION: What was the Supreme Court's assessment of the non-involvement
clause's impact on public welfare and protection of the employer's interests in the Tiu Case?

ANSWER: The Supreme Court found that the non-involvement clause in that case did not
run contrary to public welfare. It was deemed necessary to provide fair and reasonable
protection to the employer, especially considering the sensitive nature of the information the
employee had access to. This clause was seen as a reasonable measure to safeguard the
employer's trade secrets in a competitive market environment.

744. QUESTION: When is a post-employment ban valid?

ANSWER: The Supreme Court has ruled that post-termination covenants are valid if they
contain reasonable limitations as to time, trade or activity, and place. The restriction must be
reasonable and not greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business
interests.

745. QUESTION: Explain post-employment ban in the case of G Martini, Ltd. V. Glasserman.

ANSWER: In G. Martini, Ltd. vs. Glaserman, the stipulation on post-employment ban

was declared void for being an unreasonable restraint of trade. In this case, the employee
was prohibited from engaging in any business similar to that of his employer for a period of
one year. Since the employee was employed only in connection with the purchase and export
of abaca, among the many businesses of the employer, the Court considered the restraint too
broad since it effectively prevented the employee from working in any other business similar
to his employer even if his employment was limited only to one of its multifarious business
activities.

746. QUESTION: Why is post-employment ban held legal, reasonable, and not contrary to
public policy in the case of Del Castillo v. Richmond?
ANSWER: Post-employment ban was held legal, reasonable, and not contrary to public
policy in this case since the employee was merely restricted from opening, owning or having
any connection with any other drugstore within a radius of four miles from the employer’s
place of business during the time the employer was operating his drugstore. Here, a contract
in restraint of trade is valid provided there is a limitation upon either time or place and the
restraint upon one party is not greater that the protection the other party requires.

747. QUESTION: What is the optional retirement age of an employee?

ANSWER: Article 287 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7641
provides in the absence of a retirement plan or other applicable agreement providing for
retirement benefits of employees in an establishment, an employee may retire upon reaching
the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years, and by which he
has served for at least five (5) years in said establishment.

748. QUESTION: What is the compulsory retirement age of an employee?

ANSWER: Article 287 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7641
provides that where there is no such plan or agreement referring to the retirement age of an
employee, the latter shall be retired upon reaching the age of sixty-five (65) years.

749. QUESTION: What is the minimum length of service required to be entitled for a
retirement pay?

ANSWER: The minimum length of service in an establishment or with an employer of at

least five (5) years required for entitlement to retirement pay shall include authorized
absences and vacations, regular holidays and mandatory fulfillment of a military or civic
duty.

750. QUESTION: Why is the Non-Contributory Retirement Plan in the case of Lourdes
Cercado v. Uniprom declared illegal?

ANSWER: The Non-Contributory Retirement Plan in the case of Lourdes Cercado v.

Uniprom, Inc. was declared illegal declared illegal because it was not shown that she has
given her consent thereto. Here, petitioner at the age of 47, after having served respondent
company for 22 years, pursuant to its Employees' Non-Contributory Retirement Plan, which
provides that employees who have rendered at least 20 years of service may be retired at the
option of the company, was declared illegal because it was not shown that she has given her
consent thereto. Not even an iota of voluntary acquiescence to respondent's early retirement
age option is attributable to petitioner. The assailed retirement plan was not embodied in a
CBA or in any employment contract or agreement assented to by petitioner and her co-
employees. On the contrary, it was unilaterally and compulsorily imposed on them.

751. QUESTION: Discuss the meaning of the “One-half (1/2) Month Salary” provided in
Article 302 [287] of the Labor Code.

ANSWER: To dispel any further confusion on the meaning of “One-half (1/2) Month
Salary” provided in Article 302 [287], the Court, in Capitol Wireless, Inc. v Confesor,
simplified its computation by declaring that it means the total of “22.5 days” arrived at after
adding 15 days plus 5days of service incentive leave plus 2.5 days representing one-twelfth
(1/12) of the 13th month pay. Evidently, the law expanded the concept of “one-half month
salary” from the usual one-month salary divided by two.
752. QUESTION: As a general rule, management discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously. What is the exception?
ANSWER: As a general Rule, management discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily or
capriciously especially with regards to the implementation of the retirement plan. As an
exception, the Supreme Court declared in the case of Razon v. NLRC that the employer’s
refusal to give the employee his retirement benefits is based on the retirement plan giving
management wide discretion to grant or not retirement benefits, a prerogative that obviously
cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

753. QUESTION: Are there cases where both retirement pay and separation pay for
authorized cause termination were awarded and ordered paid?
ANSWER: There are cases where both retirement pay and separation pay for authorized
cause termination were awarded and ordered paid. In Aquino vs NLRC, the Supreme Court
ordered the payment to the retrenched employees of both the separation pay for retrenchment
embodied in the CBA as well as the retirement pay provided under a separate Retirement
Plan. The argument of the company that it has more than complied with the mandate of the
law on retrenchment by paying separation pay double that required by the Labor Code was
not favorably considered by the Supreme Court because the employees were not pleading
for generosity but demanding their rights embodied in the CBA which was result of the
negotiations between the company and the employees.

754. QUESTION: Discuss the Pantranco case.

ANSWER: In the case of Pantranco North Express v. NLRC (Pantranco Case), the employer
and the employee may mutually agree to grant to the employer the sole and exclusive right
to retire an employee at an earlier age or after rendering a certain period of service. This
agreement may be stipulated in an employment contract or a CBA. Thus, the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of the CBA stipulation that allowed the employee to be compulsorily
retired upon reaching the age of sixty (60) "or upon [25] years of service to [Pantranco].

755. QUESTION: How do you compute One-half (1/2) Month Salary?

ANSWER: In Article 302 [287], the Court, in Capitol Wireless, Inc. v Confesor, simplified
its computation by declaring that One-half (1/2) month salary means the total of “22.5 days”
arrived at after adding 15 days plus 5 days of service incentive leave plus 2.5 days
representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay. Evidently, the law expanded the
concept of “one-half month salary” from the usual one-month salary divided by two.
756. QUESTION: When is it necessary to pay both retirement pay and separation pay?
ANSWER: It is where both retirement pay and separation pay for authorized cause
termination were awarded and ordered paid.
In Aquino vs NLRC, the Supreme Court ordered the payment to the retrenched employees
 of both the separation pay for retrenchment embodied in the CBA as well as the retirement
pay provided under a separate Retirement Plan. The argument of the company that it has
more than complied with the mandate of the law on retrenchment by paying separation pay
double that required by the Labor Code was not favorably considered by the Supreme Court
because the employees were not pleading for generosity but demanding their rights embodied
in the CBA which was result of the negotiations between the company and the employees.

757. QUESTION: Under what circumstances can the employer and employee mutually agree
to grant the employer the sole and exclusive right to retire an employee at an earlier age or
after a specified period of service, and how can this agreement be formalized in an
employment contract or a CBA?
ANSWER: The employer and the employee may mutually agree to grant to the employer
the sole and exclusive right to retire an employee at an earlier age or after rendering a certain
period of service. This agreement may be stipulated in an employment contract or a CBA.

758. QUESTION: What are the allowances included as part of the separation pay for
employees who have been illegally dismissed?
ANSWER: Regular allowances are included as part of the separation pay which may be
awarded in lieu of reinstatement to an illegally dismissed employee. It is a well-settled rule
that allowances that are regularly received by the employee should be included in the
computation of the separation pay. If not regularly received, the same may not be so included.
759. QUESTION: What are the two exceptions to Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction on money
claims?
ANSWER: According to Section 10 or R.A. No. 8042, money claims of OFW’s now fall
under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters, there are however, two exceptions to wit:
a. Money claims of OFWs who are employed in organized employers, that is, with
existing collective bargaining agreements are required to be submitted for voluntary
arbitration in accordance with Articles 274(261) and 275 (262) of the Labor Code;
b. Money claims arising from recruitment violation may also be awarded by the POEA,
in addition to the administrative penalties imposed.
760. QUESTION: Who has jurisdiction despite the absence of an employer-employee
relationship? The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over a case without employer-employee
relationship.
ANSWER: This is so because the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is not limited to claims
arising from employer- employee relationship. Based on Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, Labor
Arbiters have jurisdiction not only over money claims arising out of an employer-employee
relationship but also “by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.”
761. QUESTION: What is grievance machinery?
ANSWER: This refers to the mechanism for the adjustment and resolution of grievances
arising from the interpretation or implementation of a CBA and those arising from the
interpretation of enforcement of company personnel policies.
762. QUESTION:What is voluntary arbitration?
ANSWER: This refers to the mode of settling labor-management disputes by which the
parties select a competent, trained and impartial person who shall decide on the merits of the
case and whose decision is final, executory and binding.

763. QUESTION: When is there a grievance machinery?

ANSWER: There is a grievance when a dispute or controversy arises over the
implementation or interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement or from the
implementation or enforcement of company personnel policies, and either the union or the
employer invokes the grievance machinery provision for the adjustment or resolution of such
dispute or controversy.
764. QUESTION: What is grievance procedure?
ANSWER: Refers to the internal rules of procedure established by the parties in a Collective
Bargaining Agreement, or in case of unorganized establishments, the workers, and the
management, with voluntary arbitration as the terminal step, which are intended to resolve
all issues arising from the implementation and interpretation of their collective agreement.
Curtly put, it provides for a peaceful way of settling differences and misunderstanding
between the parties.

765. QUESTION: What is the process for a grievance to reach the stage of voluntary
arbitration?

ANSWER:

Initially, an employee presents their grievance to the shop steward or

grievance officer, to the foreman either orally or in writing. Usually, a Grievance
Form is provided for the purpose. Efforts are made to resolve it at the shop steward
and supervisor levels.

If no settlement is reached at the first level, the aggrieved employee or the

grievance officer may bring the grievance through the successive steps in the
grievance procedure provided for in the CBA.

If the grievance still cannot be resolved after going through the above steps,
all grievances that remain unresolved after exhausting all the internal procedures
shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA if they
are not settled within seven (7) days from the date of its submission to the last step
in the internal grievance machinery as mandated by the Labor Code, as amended by
Republic Act 6715.

766. QUESTION: Etwang Union and Yaktam Union are vying for the position of the
SEBA for the factory workers in Granza Considerate and Reasonable
Manufacturing(GCRM). A certification election is held to determine which union will
become the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in a specific
bargaining unit. After the election, Etwang Union emerged as the winner and was
certified as the SEBA for the factory workers.

Yaktam Union, however, disputes the results of the certification election and
alleges that Etwang Union has been illegally procuring votes in their favor. Yaktam
Union takes the case to the labor authorities, seeking to overturn the certification of
Wang Union as the SEBA.

The dispute eventually reached the Med-Arbiter who issued a decision in

favor of Etwang Union, upholding their certification as the SEBA.

Unsatisfied with the decision of the Med-Arbiter, Yaktam Union decides to

appeal to the DOLE Secretary. While the case was pending, Etwang Union argued
that the case should have been appealed before the BLR Director since he has
appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Med-Arbiter. Is Etwang Union
correct?

ANSWER:

Etwang Union is incorrect.

Article 259 of the Labor Code provides that any party to an election may
appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly
to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
for the conduct of the election have been violated.

Given that the dispute is over the held certification election, the BLR Director
does not have jurisdiction over the case. Yaktam Union properly appealed to the
DOLE Secretary.

767. QUESTION: Describe the nature of the power of the President or the DOLE
Secretary to assume jurisdiction or certify “national interest” over labor disputes.

ANSWER:

The power of the President or the DOLE Secretary to assume jurisdiction or

certify “national interest” over labor disputes is in the nature of police power. It is an
extraordinary authority to be exercised sparingly and is primarily reserved for cases
of national interest, undertaken in the interest of the common good, as protracted
strikes or lockouts can have detrimental effects on the national economy. The DOLE
Secretary is entrusted with the responsibility of preserving industrial peace.
Therefore, when the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute or
certifies it to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory
arbitration, the aim is not to obstruct the workers' right to strike but to expedite the
resolution of the dispute.
768. QUESTION: Over what cases do the Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction?

ANSWER:
The Labor Code provides that Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the following:
a. Unfair labor practice cases;
b. Termination disputes;
c. If accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
d. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations;
e. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
f. Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws,
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the
regional office of the Department of Labor;
g. Execution of award of Voluntary Arbiter Agreements; and
h. Wage distortion cases where there is no CBA.

Republic Act No. 8042 as amended by RA No. 10022 provides that the Labor
Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following:
a. Any money claim, regardless of amount, accompanied by a claim for reinstatement
(which involves a termination case);
b. Any money claim, regardless of whether it is accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement exceeding the amount of 5,000.00 pesos per claimant (which does not
necessarily involve termination of employment); and
c. Money claims of OFWs, disability, or death benefits under R.A. No. 8042 as
amended by RA No. 10022.

769. QUESTION: The humble and wise Wangjan is a Filipino overseas worker who
has been working as a skilled electrician in the Middle East for the past 3 years.
During his employment, he experienced various forms of labor violations, including
delayed salary payments, unpaid overtime, and poor working conditions. Due to these
issues, he decides to return to the Philippines and seek legal remedies.

Upon returning to the Philippines, Wangjan filed a complaint with the

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration(POEA) to claim the unpaid wages
and benefits he is entitled to under his employment contract. He is seeking to recover
a substantial amount of money, including back wages, overtime pay, and damages
for the labor violations he experienced while working abroad.

Did Wangjan avail of the proper remedy for his case? If not, What should he
have done?

ANSWER:
 Wangjan did not avail of the proper remedy for his case. It would have been
more appropriate for Wangjan to file his case with the Labor Arbiter.

Republic Act No. 8042, also known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995," defines the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter in cases claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue
of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including
claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

Wangjans’ case involved unpaid wages, overtime pay, and other labor
violations. Said claims fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter. The POEA has no jurisdiction over the case.

The proper action should have been to pursue his claims directly with the
Labor Arbiter, following the legal provisions outlined in RA 8042. This approach
would lead to a more streamlined process for the resolution of his claims within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as specified by the law.

What is the distinction between the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the
NLRC?

Answer:

The NLRC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction on all cases decided by the
Labor Arbiters. The NLRC does not have original jurisdiction on the cases over
which Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction. If a claim does not fall
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC cannot have
appellate jurisdiction.

770. QUESTION: How can one bring to the National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC) an appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter? Can one
appeal from the decision of the NLRC? If not, what is the proper remedy?

ANSWER:

The New Rules Of Procedure Of The National Labor Relations Commission

provide that an appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter is brought by ordinary
appeal to the NLRC within ten (10) calendar days from receipt by the party of the
decision.

There is no appeal from the decision of the NLRC. The available remedy is
to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals by way of the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure filed not later than sixty (60)
days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution.

771. QUESTION: Under Article 261 of the Labor Code, which offices are specifically
enjoined from entertaining cases that fall under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
voluntary arbitrators? What is the effect if such cases are filed before them?

ANSWER:

Article 261 of the Labor Code enjoins the NLRC, its Regional Arbitration
Branches, and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
from entertaining disputes, grievances, or matters under the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator. If any of such cases is filed before them, they
have to immediately dispose of and refer the same to the grievance machinery or
voluntary arbitrator provided in the CBA.

772. QUESTION: May parties to a collective bargaining agreement stipulate that certain
matters or questions arising under the contract be exempt from the grievance procedure?

ANSWER:

It is the law which confers to voluntary arbitrators their original and exclusive
jurisdiction and the parties cannot diminish their jurisdiction by stipulation as this
would conflict with the basic directive of the Labor Code that fixes the scope or
coverage of the grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration in Article 261.

773. QUESTION: May questions concerning terms and conditions obtaining but not
referred to in the CBA, although provided for in company manuals or policy statements,
be subject to the grievance procedure?

ANSWER:

Yes. RA 6715 provided the expansion of the scope of the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators and included questions arising out of
the interpretation or implementation of company personnel policies. Under this
expansion, any complaint, question, or problem that an employee or group of
employees may wish to take up or discuss with the employer respecting terms and
conditions of employment to resolve or satisfy the same, constitutes a grievance.

But even before this expansion of jurisdiction brought about by RA 6715,

under the theory of implied incorporation, existing terms and conditions, though not
dealt with in specific provisions, were already deemed part of the agreement and thus,
grievable.

774. QUESTION: What is the period for filing an appeal?

ANSWER: The period for filing an appeal from the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 43 is 10 days. This period is different from the standard rules of court
(ROC) because the controlling law in this case is the Labor Code, which is substantive,
rather than procedural.
 Rationale: Rule 43 establishes a specific period for appealing VA decisions, recognizing
that labor disputes often involve unique procedures and timelines governed by the Labor
Code. The 10-day period aligns with the Labor Code's provisions to ensure efficient
resolution of labor-related cases.

775. QUESTION: What is the role of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) in the process of voluntary arbitration?

ANSWER: The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) plays a crucial role
in facilitating voluntary arbitration by providing a platform for parties to engage in
conciliation and mediation processes. Its involvement is important in labor dispute
resolution because it helps parties explore non-adversarial methods of resolving their
disputes, promotes peaceful labor relations, and contributes to the prevention of protracted
and potentially disruptive labor conflicts.

Rationale: The NCMB's involvement in voluntary arbitration underscores the importance

of alternative dispute resolution methods in labor relations. By offering conciliation and
mediation services, the NCMB can help parties find mutually agreeable solutions, reducing
the burden on the formal legal system and fostering more cooperative labor-management
relationships.

776. QUESTION: What types of cases fall under the Original Jurisdiction of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)?

ANSWER:
The NLRC has Original Jurisdiction over cases involving injunctions or Temporary
Restraining Orders (TROs) in ordinary labor disputes, certified labor disputes with national
interest implications, direct and indirect contempt, and annulment or modification of orders
or resolutions issued by Labor Arbiters.
It is crucial for the NLRC to handle these cases directly to ensure timely resolution of labor
disputes that could cause significant harm to parties, impact industries of national
importance, or involve issues of contempt or irregularities.

777. QUESTION: What is the Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the NLRC?

ANSWER:
The NLRC has Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over cases involving unfair labor practices,
termination disputes, claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations, and
other claims arising from employee-employer relations, including those of domestic
 workers.
This jurisdiction is necessary to provide a centralized forum for addressing appeals and
disputes that fall within the scope of labor relations, ensuring consistency and uniformity in
labor-related decisions.

778. QUESTION: Under what circumstances does the Labor Arbiter exercise Original
Jurisdiction?

ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter exercises Original Jurisdiction in cases involving unfair labor practices,
termination disputes, claims for damages arising from employee-employer relations,
questions related to the legality of strikes and lockouts, and all other claims arising from
employee-employer relations. They have this jurisdiction when accompanied by a claim for
reinstatement, as specified in Article 217 of the Labor Code.

779. QUESTION: What types of cases fall under the Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter, as provided under Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 (as amended)?

ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter holds Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction over claims arising from
employee-employer relationships or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment, including claims for damages. They also handle cases
decided by the DOLE Regional Director or authorized hearing officers involving recovery
of wages, simple money claims, and other benefits not exceeding P5,000, without a claim
for reinstatement.
This jurisdiction is necessary to address labor issues specific to overseas Filipino workers
and their rights and entitlements.
780 . QUESTION: What is the role of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) in the labor dispute resolution process?

ANSWER:
The Regional Director of the DOLE plays a vital role in handling labor disputes and has the
authority to act as the sole representative in certain cases. This typically occurs when dealing
with complaints related to Violation of Labor Standards, issuance of Compliance Orders
regarding terms and conditions for homeworkers, and exercising the power to call for
national, regional, or industrial tripartite representatives involving government workers and
employees.

781. QUESTION: What are the functions and powers of a Labor Arbiter in the context
of labor dispute resolution, particularly concerning money claims arising from
employer/employee relationships?
 ANSWER:
A Labor Arbiter holds the authority to handle money claims arising from
employer/employee relationships. They are responsible for adjudicating disputes related to
monetary compensation, including claims for back wages, benefits, and other entitlements.
If the reinstatement of an employee is involved, the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction extends to
claims exceeding PHP 5,000, while claims less than PHP 5,000 fall under their jurisdiction
if reinstatement is not an issue.

782. QUESTION: What are the visitorial powers granted to the Regional Director?

ANSWER:
The Regional Director possesses visitorial powers, allowing them to inspect employees'
records and premises, issue compliance orders, and even issue writs of execution, work
stoppage orders, or suspension of operations when necessary. These powers are essential for
monitoring and enforcing labor standards, ensuring that employers comply with labor laws
and protecting the rights of workers.

783. QUESTION: Under what circumstances does the Regional Director lose jurisdiction in
a labor dispute?

ANSWER:
The Regional Director loses jurisdiction in a labor dispute when the employer contests
findings of labor regulations and raises issues requiring examination of evidentiary matters
that are not verifiable at the regional level. This provision is in place to ensure that complex
and contested labor disputes receive the necessary scrutiny and resolution at the appropriate
level, often involving higher adjudicatory bodies like the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).

784. QUESTION: What cases fall under the jurisdiction of DOLE regional directors?

ANSWER:

The cases fall under the jurisdiction of DOLE regional directors are the following:

(1) Small monetary claims;

(2) Labor standards cases;

(3) Occupational safety and health standards (OSHS) violations;

(4) Union registration and cancellations;

 (5) Violations of Article 250 of the Labor Code (Rights and Conditions of Membership in
a Labor Organization);

(6) Complaints against private recruitment and placement agencies (PRPAs) for local
employment; and

(7) Voluntary arbitration cases submitted to them for resolution in their capacity as Ex-
Officio Voluntary Arbitrators (EVAs) (DOLE D.O. No. 83-07, Series of 2007).

785. QUESTION: Sara Nabati thereafter filed a complaint with the Regional Director of
the DOLE for unpaid salaries totaling P5.900.00. The Bojilov spouses moved to dismiss the
complaint on the belief that Sara's claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
Sara, however, claimed that the Regional Director can decide on her claim by virtue of his
plenary visitorial powers under Art. 128 and of Art. 129 of the
Labor Code, as amended, which empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide, among
others, matters involving recovery of wages. Whose position will you sustain?

ANSWER: I will sustain the position of the Bojilov spouses. Art. 128 is not applicable
because the case did not arise as a result of the exercise of visitorial and enforcement
powers by the Regional Director, as the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment. Instead, the case is a simple money claim under Art. 129. which
could be under the Jurisdiction of the Regional Director if the claim does not exceed
P5.000.00. But the claim exceeds P5.000.00. Thus, it is the Labor Arbiter who has
jurisdiction under Art. 217(a) of the Labor Code.

786. QUESTION : What are the money claims falling under the jurisdiction of DOLE
Regional Directors?

ANSWER: Money claims falling under the jurisdiction of DOLE Regional Directors are the
following:

(1) the claim must arise from employer-employee relationship;

(2) the claimant does not seek reinstatement; and

(3) the aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed P5,000.00.

787. QUESTION:What disputes may be the subject of voluntary arbitration under the
Labor Code?

ANSWER: Disputes or issues subject to Voluntary Arbitration are the following:

1. All unresolved grievances arising from the implementation or interpretation of the

 CBA after exhaustion of the grievance procedure;

2. All unresolved grievances arising from the implementation or interpretation of

company personnel policies;

3. All wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized
establishments;

4. All unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of

productivity incentive programs under R.A. 6971;

5. All other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks,
upon agreement of the parties.
788. QUESTION: Toy Kwento Company, a toy manufacturer, decided to ban the use of
cell phones in the factory premises. In the pertinent Memorandum, management explained
that too much texting and phone-calling by employees disrupted company operations. Two
employees-members of Union D were terminated from employment due to violation of the
memorandum-policy. The union countered with a prohibitory injunction case (with prayer
for the issuance of a temporary- restraining order) Filed with the Regional Trial Court,
challenging the validity and constitutionality of the cell phone ban. The company filed a
motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should be referred to the grievance machinery
pursuant to an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with Union D, and eventually to
Voluntary Arbitration. Is the company correct? Explain

ANSWER: YES. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the interpretation and
implementation of collective bargaining agreements, and interpretation and enforcement
of company personnel policies which were initially processed at the various steps of the
plant-level Grievance Procedures under the parties collective bargaining agreements, fall
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator pursuant to
Article 217 (c) and Article 261 of the Labor Code.

789. QUESTION: How is grievance presented ?

ANSWER: Grievances ordinarily are brought by the aggrieved employee, usually with
the union representative called the shop steward or grievance officer, to the foreman either
orally or in writing. Usually a Grievance Form is provided for the purpose. If no
settlement is reached at first level, the aggrieved employee or the grievance officer may
bring the grievance through the successive steps in the grievance procedure provided for
in the CBA.

As mandated by the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 6715, all grievances that
remain unresolved after exhausting all the internal procedures shall automatically be referred
to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA if they are not settled within seven
(7) days from the date of its submission to the last step in the internal grievance
machinery.
 790. QUESTION: What is grievance?

ANSWER: A grievance is defined as “any question by either the employer or the union
regarding the interpretation or application of the collective bargaining agreement or
company personnel policies or any claim by either party that the other party is in
violation of any provision of the CBA or company personnel policies”.

791. QUESTION: May a labor dispute, subject of a notice of strike or lockout, mature
into a Voluntary Arbitration case?

ANSWER: Yes. By mutual agreement, the parties may decide to bring the matter for
resolution before an accredited voluntary arbitrator of their own choice, in which case the
Notice is deemed automatically withdrawn and dropped from the dockets.

792. QUESTION: What is the role of the NCMB in case a notice of strike or lockout is
filed?

ANSWER: Upon receipt of a valid notice of strike or lockout, the NCMB, through its
Conciliator-Mediators, shall call the parties to a conference the soonest possible time in
order to actively assist them to explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. To this
end, the Conciliator-Mediator may suggest/offer proposals as an alternative avenue for
the resolution of their disagreement/conflict which may not necessarily bind the parties.
In the event of failure in conciliation/mediation the parties shall be encouraged to submit
their dispute for voluntary arbitration.
793. QUESTION: Who has the duty to declare that the notice of strike or lockout has been
converted into a preventive mediation case?

ANSWER: Upon the recommendation of the Conciliator/Mediator handling the labor

dispute, the Director of the Regional Branch of the NCMB which has jurisdiction over the
labor dispute has the duty to declare and inform the parties that the issues raised or the
actual issues involved are not proper subjects of a Notice of Strike or Lockout and that the
Notice of Strike or Lockout has been converted into a Preventive Mediation Case without
prejudice to further conciliation or upon the request of either or both parties.

794. QUESTION: Do Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over legality of strikes and
lockouts?

ANSWER:

Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over the issue of legality of strikes and lockouts, except
in strikes and lockouts in industries indispensable to the national interest, in which case,
 either NLRC (in certified cases) or DOLE Secretary (in assumed cases) has jurisdiction.

795. QUESTION: What is the jurisdiction of

theNCMB? ANSWER:

Executive Order No. 251 which created the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) ordains that the conciliation, mediation and voluntary arbitration functions of the
Bureau of
Labor Relations (BLR) shall be absorbed by NCMB. It is an attached agency under the
administrative supervision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
The NCMB has jurisdiction over conciliation, mediation and voluntary arbitration cases. It
performs preventive mediation and conciliation functions. It administers the voluntary
arbitration program; maintains/updates a list of voluntary arbitrators; compiles arbitration
awards and
decisions; and provides counseling and preventive mediation assistance particularly in the
administration of collective agreements.
It is with the NCMB that Notices of Strike or Lockout are filed.

796. QUESTION: What is the effect of conversion of the notice of strike/lockout into a
preventive mediation case?
ANSWER:
Under the NCMB rules, there is a remedy called “preventive mediation.” The NCMB
has the authority to convert a notice of strike filed by the union into a preventive
mediation case if it finds that the real issues raised therein are non-strikeable in character.
Such authority is in
pursuance of the NCMB’s duty to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to enable
the parties to settle the dispute amicably and in line with the state policy of favoring
voluntary modes of settling labor disputes. Once a notice of strike/lockout is converted
into a preventive
mediation case, it will be dropped from the docket of notices of strikes/lockouts. Once
dropped therefrom, a strike/lockout can no longer be legally staged based on the same
notice. The
conversion has the effect of dismissing the notice.

A case in point is Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, [G. R.
No. 88201, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 223] where the strike was declared illegal for lack
of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMB’s conversion of the notice therein into a
preventive
mediation case. The Supreme Court reasoned, thus:

“The NCMB had declared the notice of strike as ‘appropriate for preventive mediation.’
The effect of that declaration (which PALEA did not ask to be reconsidered or set aside)
 was to drop the case from the docket of notice of strikes, as provided in Rule 41 of the
NCMB Rules, as if there was no notice of strike. During the pendency of preventive
mediation proceedings no strike could be legally declared... The strike which the union
mounted, while preventive mediation
proceedings were ongoing, was aptly described by the petitioner as ‘an ambush.’”
(Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, therefore, applying the aforecited ruling, when the NCMB orders the preventive
mediation in a strike case, the union thereupon loses the notice of strike it had filed.
Consequently, if it still defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was ongoing,
the strike is illegal.

797. QUESTION: What is aMed-Arbiter?

ANSWER: A med-arbiter refers to an

officer in the DOLE Regional Office or
in the BLR authorized to hear and
decide representation cases, inter-union
or intra-union disputes and other related
labor

relations disputes.

798.QUESTION: What are inter-union disputes?

ANSWER:

Inter-union disputes are any conflict between and among legitimate labor organizations
involving representation questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any other
conflict or dispute between legitimate labor unions.

799. QUESTION: What are intra-

union disputes?

ANSWER:

Intra-union disputes refer to a conflict within or inside a labor union. It may refer to any
conflict between and among officers and/or members of one particular union.
800. QUESTION: What are the cases falling under the jurisdiction of
the BLR?

ANSWER:

The BLR has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following:
a. Inter-union disputes
b. Intra-union disputes
c. All disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management
relations in all workplaces, except those arising from the interpretation or implementation
of the CBA which are subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.

801. QUESTION: What are the relevant administrative functions of

the BLR?

ANSWER:

The BLR has the following administrative functions:

(1) registration of labor unions;
(2) keeping of registry of labor unions; and
(3) maintenance and custody of CBAs.

802. QUESTION: What is the mode of appeal from the decision of

the BLR?

ANSWER:

A. Denial of application for registration of a union. If the denial is issued by the Regional
Office, it may be appealed to the BLR. If the denial is originally made by the BLR, appeal
may be had to the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
B. Cancellation of registration of a union. If the cancellation of union registration is
ordered by the Regional Office, the same may be appealed to the BLR. If the
cancellation is done by the BLR in a petition filed directly therewith, the BLR’s decision
is appealable to the Secretary of Labor and Employment by ordinary appeal. The
decision of the BLR rendered in its original
jurisdiction may be appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment whose decision
thereon may only be elevated to the Court of Appeals by way of certiorari under Rule 65.
The decision of the BLR rendered in its appellate jurisdiction may not be appealed to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment but may be elevated directly to the Court of Appeals by
way of certiorari under
Rule 65. (Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. vs. Abbott Laboratories Employees Union,
et al., G. R. No. 131374, January 26, 2000).

803. QUESTION: Faith Christian School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (FCS-
TELU) is a legitimate labor organization composed of vice- principals, department heads,
coordinators, teachers, and non-teaching personnel of Faith Christian School (FCS). FCS-
TELU subsequently filed a petition for certification election among the teaching and non-
teaching personnel of FCS before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The Med Arbiter subsequently granted the petition and
ordered the conduct of a joint certification election for the teaching and non-teaching
personnel of FCS. May FCS-TELU be considered a legitimate labor organization?
ANSWER:
Yes, FCS-TELU is a legitimate labor organization. Its mixed-membership which includes
supervisors and rank-and-filers does not affect its legitimacy. The only effect of such
membership is that the supervisors in the persons of vice principals and department heads
are deemed automatically removed (RA 9481).

804. QUESTION: What are the levels of jurisdiction under cases tried by Bureau of Labor
Regulations?

ANSWER: The levels of jurisdiction under cases tried by the Bureau of Labor Relations
are as follows:
The initial level of jurisdiction is at the regional level, where Regional Offices of the
Bureau of Labor Regulations handle cases within their respective regions. These offices
have the authority to hear and decide on labor-related cases filed within their jurisdiction.
If a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Regional Office, they can appeal the case
to the NLRC which serves as the appellate body for labor cases and has the power to review
decisions made by the Regional Offices.
If a party is still dissatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, they can further appeal the
case to the Court of Appeals which has the authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the
NLRC's ruling.
The final level of jurisdiction for cases tried by the Bureau of Labor Regulations is the
Supreme Court. Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals can
file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
805. QUESTION: Under what cases does the Bureau of Labor Relations have original and
exclusive jurisdiction?

ANSWER: The Bureau of Labor Relations shall have original and exclusive on all inter-
union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or
affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective
bargaining agreements
which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/ or voluntary arbitration.

Rationale: Art. 232. [226] Bureau of Labor Relations

806. QUESTION: What is an Inter-Union Dispute?

ANSWER: An Inter-Union Dispute or Representation Dispute refers to cases involving

petition for certification election filed by a duly registered labor organization which is
seeking to be
recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit of a company, firm of establishment.
However, if the labor organization is organized, its grant or denial is appealable and if
unorganized, the denial shall be appealable and its grant may only be viewed via Rule 65.

807. QUESTION: What is an Intra- Union Dispute?

ANSWER: An Intra-Union Dispute or Internal Union Dispute refers to disputes or

grievances arising from any violation or disagreement over any provision of the constitution
and by-laws of the Union, including any violation of the rights and conditions of union
membership provided for in the labor code.

808. QUESTION: Under what cases does the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) has original and exclusive jurisdiction?
ANSWER: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) has original and
exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving overseas employment. This includes all pre-
employment recruitment violations cases which are administrative in character, involving or
arising out of
violations of rules and regulations relating to licensing and registration including refund of
fees collected from the workers or violation of the conditions for issuance of license or
authority to recruit workers. The POEA also has jurisdiction in disciplinary action cases,
which are
administrative in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and
OFWs processed by the said Administration.

809.QUESTION: What is the concurrent jurisdiction of the Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration?

ANSWER: The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s (POEA) concurrent

jurisdiction arises under Article 35 of the Labor Code which provides on its power to
suspend and/ or cancel license or authority. The POEA shares this responsibility with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA).
These agencies work together to ensure that recruitment agencies comply with the
necessary licensing requirements, adhere to ethical recruitment practices, and protect the
welfare of
Filipino workers.

810. QUESTION: What is mandatory conciliation on cases tried by the Philippine

Overseas Employment Administration? Explain.

ANSWER: Mandatory conciliation is a process required in cases tried by the Philippine

Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It is a form of alternative dispute
resolution aimed at resolving labor disputes between overseas Filipino workers and
their employers or recruitment agencies.
Under the POEA rules and regulations, mandatory conciliation is a prerequisite before a
case can proceed to formal adjudication or arbitration. It serves as an opportunity for the
parties involved to reach a mutually acceptable settlement through facilitated negotiations.
During the mandatory conciliation process, a conciliator from the POEA facilitates
discussions between the parties to explore possible resolutions. The conciliator acts as a
neutral third party, assisting in identifying the issues, clarifying misunderstandings, and
encouraging open
communication.
811. QUESTION: What is the role of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
secretary over appeals from the orders of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA)?

ANSWER: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) secretary exercises the
exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide on appeals from the orders of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
When an appeal is filed, the DOLE secretary acts as the final arbiter in resolving disputes
and making determinations related to overseas employment. The secretary carefully
examines the merits of the case, reviews the evidence presented, and considers applicable
laws and
regulations.

END OF 2C