MA.

VIDIA LARGO
Final Examinations
Labor Law Review

1. Peter, a fresh graduate, was hired on a probationary employment basis by Magulang

Corp. as a desk receptionist. Under his probationary contract, Peter will undergo a six
(6) month probationary period where his skills as desk receptionist will be evaluated.

On his fifth month, Peter was given his assessment and received failing scores on 3 out
of 10 categories for his regularization. The HR Manager of Magulang Corp. informed
Peter that they will be extending Peter's probationary contract for one (1) month after
the initial six (6) months probationary period.

Fearing for his job security, Peter agreed to the extension.

Upon the end of the seven month probationary period, Peter still failed, and was handed
his notice of dismissal based on failure to qualify as a regular employee.

Peter filed a case with the Labor Arbiter claiming illegal dismissal.

If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you rule on the foregoing? Explain. (5%)
5 points
1. I will rule in favor of the HR Manager of Magulang Inc. Under the Labor Code,
the law does not prevent the employer from terminating the probationary
employment, if the employer finds that the probationary employee is not qualified
for regular employment. However, the reason for termination must be provided
under Article 296 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, although probationary
employees enjoy security of tenure, they do not enjoy permanent status and they
may be terminated on the grounds of just cause and when they fail to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with the standards set by the employer. In this
case, the HR Manager had given consideration to Peter and extended the
probationary contract for one month after the initial six months probationary
period but Peter still failed therefore, the dismissal is legal.

2. Suppose Peter instead requested for the extension of his probationary employment
period, will your answer be the same in #1? Explain why or why not. (5%)
5 points
2. No, I will now rule in favor of Peter. Under the rule, probationary employment
shall not exceed 6 months from the date the employee started working except
when the employer and the employee mutually agreed on a shorter or longer
period if the nature of work requires a longer period. A longer period is required
and established by company policy, there must be an agreement stipulating a
different period and the agreement of parties must be voluntary. In this case, if
both parties mutually agreed for the extension of Peter’s probationary
employment and this time, Peter passed the assessment, then there would be
illegal dismissal if the HR Manager will dismiss Peter after the extended
probationary period.

3. Neo was engaged as a project employee by Matrix Inc. to write the code to a
software being developed by Matrix Inc.

According to the contract, the project will run for 8 months upon the launch of the
software program.

The software program was completed by Neo and was thereafter launched as
scheduled.

Pleased with the performance of Neo, the President of Matrix Inc., Mr. Smith, informed
Neo that should a similar project be available, Neo will be one of the first people they
will call.

True enough, a similar project came to Matrix Inc., involving similar job orders,
specifications, and coding language. The second project also ran for another 8 months,
and the deadline was once again met.

This cycle continued for 5 more times, with a 1 month break in between each cycle.

In Neo's last stint, he was not given the opportunity to finish the project since the code
he gave Mr. Smith failed to launch during the beta test. Matrix Inc. summarily terminated
the contract with Neo.

Neo filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter and claims he was illegally
dismissed, and that he was a regular employee. He further claims that he was not paid
his wages, holiday pay premiums, over time pay, and even his 13th month pay. On the
other hand, Matrix Inc. claims that Neo is a contractor, he was not illegally dismissed,
and since he is not a regular employee, he is not entitled to backwages, 13th month
pay, premium pay and the like.

Rule on the foregoing. (5%)

5 points
3. I will rule in favor of Neo. Under the law, the principal test in determining
whether an employee is a project employee is whether he is assigned to carry out
a specific project or undertaking and the duration and scope of which are
specified at the time the employee is engaged in the project and if the service to
be performed is seasonal in nature. Furthermore, with regard to the termination
by the employer to be valid, there must be just cause to terminate an employee.
Meaning there is serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of duties, fraud, willful breech by the employer to trust impose upon
them, commission of crime and offence. In this case, there is a gap in the hiring
of Neo therefore, he is a project employee and not a regular employee but he is
still entitled to due process in terms of termination of his work.

4. Discuss the "Twin Notice Rule" (5%)

4. In the TWIN-NOTICE RULE, the employer must notice the due process. There is
an opportunity to be heard. A written notice served on the employee specifying
the grounds for termination and giving the employee the opportunity to explain
his side. The employee is given an opportunity to respond to the charge against
him, gather and present his evidence. A written notice of termination served on
the employee explaining that upon due consideration of all the circumstances,
there is now grounds to justify his termination.
5. Andrea is employed as a factory worker for Star Magic Wax Inc. As part of her past
time, Andrea watches Filipino TV shows and movies. Due to this, she fell in love with
the love team of Karen and Ariel, otherwise known as Kariel to their fans. Due to this
fandom, Andrea formed a union with her fellow Kariel fans which grew from a mere 100
fans to half a million members within Andrea's city.

Recently, due to a scandal, the love team of Kariel split up causing outrage among the
fans. Andrea, deeply affected, sent a message to the union's group chat galvanizing the
members to absent themselves from work and walk throughout the city while holding
placards and signs saying "we will not work until Kariel reunites!". The union's peaceful
demonstration turned disruptive as their protest continued for more than a week.

Star Magic Wax Inc., and the other employers of the members of the Kariel Union grew
weary and worried about the demonstration as this has now affected their operations
prompting the employers to write to the President of the Philippines. Having read the
letter, the President ordered the Labor Secretary to take control of the situation. The
Labor Secretary thereafter issued an Order ordering the workers to return to work,
otherwise, they will be dismissed from their employment.

Is the Labor Secretary correct? Explain. (5%)

5 points
5. Yes, the Labor Secretary may assume jurisdiction over the strike. Under the
rule, employees in the private sector are within the scope of labor relations or it is
under the Labor Code. The employees who participated in the strike will have to
return to work. Those that would be continuing the strike would then be
conducting now an illegal strike and this can be a ground to dismissal. If the
employer refuse to accept the employees, that’s also a violation of the
assumption of power of the Labor Secretary.
6. Philip Morris, a call center agent, was employed by iScam Caller Inc. Philip Morris
was assigned the night shift to make cold calls to potential customers of iScam Caller
Inc. As an employee, during his on-boarding, it was discussed to him that he was
afforded the benefits under the Labor Code, and was given 2 fifteen minute coffee
breaks during his shift, and other terms under the company's Code of Conduct. He was
also instructed to read the Code of Conduct and sign an acknowledgment that he
received the same and understood the contents thereof. However, Philip Morris simply
signed the acknowledgment without bothering to read the contents.

During one of his shifts, Philip Morris encountered an irate customer which resulted to
the former getting stressed. Due to this, Philip Morris opted to take one of his coffee
breaks to unwind. He went to the comfort room and took out his electronic cigarette and
took a puff. The smoke that came from the electronic cigarette triggered the smoke
detector alarm prompting an evacuation of the office. Upon investigation, it was
discovered that Philip Morris was the cause. A Notice to Explain was thereafter issued
to Philip Morris for violation of the anti-smoking policy of the company which included
prohibition of use of electronic cigarettes, and any violation thereof would result to
termination. In his explanation, Philip Morris countered that he was unaware of the
policy but apologized for his actions. Thereafter, Philip Morris was dismissed from
employment for violation of said policy.

Philip Morris approached you, an outstanding Labor lawyer, asking if he was illegally
dismissed. As the lawyer, what will be your advice? Discuss. (5%)
5 points
6. Yes, Philip was illegally dismissed. Under Article 277, the termination of
employment irrespective of the nature of the business of the employer while the
this rule may only be exercised in industries indispensable to the national
interest. If the nature of business is not highly dangerous like a gasoline station,
the offense must be based on the gravity of the offence and proportionality of the
disciplinary action. In this case, Philip Morris violated the anti-smoking policy of
the company but this is not considered a grave offense therefore, verbal warning
or written warning can be imposed upon him.
7. Suppose that in #6 instead of working at a call center, Philip Morris was a gasoline
attendant, and during one of his breaks, Philip Morris lit up a cigarette within the vicinity
of the gasoline station.

Would your advice be the same to Philip Morris? Explain why or why not? (5%)

7. No, I will rule in favor of the owner of the gasoline station. Under the rule, in
cases of termination of employment for as long as any of the two grounds
mentioned in Article 277exists, irrespective of the nature of the business of the
employer while this rulemay only be exercised in industries indispensable to the
national interest. In this case, Philip Morris smoked in a gasoline station which is
highly dangerous and this act is indispensable to the national interest.
8. On 9 December 2023, Party Harder Corp. held its annual year end party. The party's
program included contests and parlor games to entertain their employees and guests.

In one of the parlor games, the host invited male employees to the front and asked them
to get chairs and form a circle. Once the men were seated, the host gave them each an
eggplant and instructed them to hold the eggplant in between their legs. The host then
invited female employees to the front. The female employees were then given the
mechanics of the game where they will be required to walk around the circle of men
while the music played, and once the music stops, the female contestants will grab an
eggplant and whoever fails to grab one will be removed from the game. Once the
mechanics were clear, the game started. During one of the rounds, the female
employees started getting competitive and noticed one of the good looking male
employees remained in the game. When the music stopped, the female employees
rushed to the male employee, Manoy. One of the female employees, Didi, overshot the
eggplant and grazed Manoy's crotch area. Manoy, surprised, laughed nervously and
shrugged the incident off. However, the following day, Manoy filed a sexual harassment
complaint against Didi for the incident before the HR Manager. The HR Manager
listened to Manoy but declined to entertain the complaint stating that: 1) the company
was not liable since it was a social event; 2) there was no sexual harassment since they
gave consent to join the game; and 3) there was no request for sexual favors.

Is the HR Manager correct? Why or why not? Explain (5%).

5 points
8. No, this act falls under the Safe Space Act. The act explains that it is sexual
harassment affecting the dignity of a person which is unwelcome, unreasonable
and offensive to the person whether verbally, physically or through the use of
technology such as text messaging or electronic email and any other forms of
communication systems. In this case, the female employee made several
advances to Manoy through grazing over Manoy's crotch area therefore, this is
under the Safe Space Act since it affected the dignity as a person.

9. Lupin, a driver for Ms. Maya Man, was entrusted by his employer to drive his
employer's Audi R8. During his employment, Maya informed Lupin that she will be
taking a vacation abroad and that she instructed Lupin to take care of her house, clean
the garden, and not to use her car while she was away. Lupin acknowledged this and
agreed to the instructions.

While Lupin was alone, he got a chat message from one of his attractive female friends.
Aiming to impress her, Lupin told his friend that he'll pick her up with a sports car and
they can go back to his place and have dinner there, to which she agreed to. Lupin took
Maya's sports car and drove his friend back to Maya's house where they had dinner.
Unbeknownst to Lupin, Maya had CCTV cameras installed in the premises and saw
what Lupin did. Upon Maya's return, Maya issued a Notice to Explain to Lupin for the
ground of commission of a crime, namely violation of the anti-carnapping law. After
submitting his explanation, Maya issued a Notice of Dismissal based on the same
ground.

Lupin filed a case before the Labor Arbiter claiming illegal dismissal. According to Lupin,
a criminal case should be filed and that he should first be found guilty of the crime
before his services be dismissed. Decide (5%).
5 points
9. I will rule in favor of Lupin. Under the rule, the breach of trust and confidence is
a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee if the cause of loss of trust and
confidence is not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal,
or unjustified. Loss of confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of
overwhelming evidence and it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify
earlier action taken in bad faith. Furthermore, the right of employer to control or
to manage should be used in tandem with social justice and the policies of labor
code. In this case, Lupin took Maya's sports car but drove it back to Maya's house
thereafter, therefore, this is not considered crime.
10. Discuss the "Double-Majority Rule". (5%)
5 points

10. The RUN OFF ELECTION or DOUBLE MAJORITY RULE refers to an election
between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes in a
certification or consent election with three or more choices. If a certified or
consent election results in none of the three 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 of the number of votes cast. For
example, there are 500 employees in which Union 1 has 102 votes, Union 2 has
101 votes, Union 3 has 50 votes, Union 4 has 50 votes. To sum it up, total of 303
employees have voted. The first majority is satisfied since the majority of 500
employees is 251. However, if we follow the double majority rule, the 102 votes
did not meet the majority votes from all of the 303 votes then the holding of a run-
off election between Union 1 and Union 2 is in order.

11. On 1 February 2020, a Notice of Strike was filed by Philippine Aluminum Cookware
and Kitchen Inc.'s Union (PACK-U) before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). In the said Notice of Strike, PACK-U claims that their employer, Philippine
Aluminum Cookware and Kitchen Inc. (PACK) and their union have a bargaining
deadlock.

On 8 February 2020, the union met with their members and conducted a strike vote. All
of the members voted via secret ballot for the continuance of the strike, and the result
was thereafter brought and reported to the DOLE. On 2 March 2020, PACK-U held their
strike outside the premises of PACK. PACK's management thereafter questioned the
validity of PACK-U's strike before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Decide on the
foregoing. (5%)
5 points
11. The strike of PACK-U is valid. Under the rule, the strike is valid if prior to the
conduct of strike, there is a notice filed by the Union to DOLE, 30 days prior to the
execution of strike if it is a traditional type of strike. In this case, the union has
notified their members to vote if they will still continue the strike or not and
majority decides to proceed with the strike and the union submitted the decision
or the result of their vote to DOLE 30 days prior to the execution of the strike,
therefore, the strike is valid.

12. Discuss the "Contract Bar Rule", and is there an exception to the rule? (5%)
5 points
12. In a Contract Bar Rule, a petition for certification election may not be filed
when a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the employer and a duly
recognized or certified bargaining agent has been registered with the Bureau of
Labor Relations in accordance with the Labor Code. This may be filed only within
the 60 days before it expires. The purpose of this rule is to ensure stability in the
relationship of the workers and the employer by preventing frequent
modifications of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

13. A Notice to Explain (NTE) was issued to Bea, a researcher for TextGPT. In the NTE,
Bea was required to explain her failure to reach the metrics required of her when she
was only able to secure 5 research materials out of the 20 required by her employer.
Additionally, she was placed on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) by her employer
and was to be evaluated for 30 days with a weekly evaluation.

At the end of her PIP, Bea still failed to reach her metrics and was dismissed from
employment on 30 November 2020.

After her dismissal, Bea was able to secure another job which took her abroad. During
her stint abroad, she met a Filipino, on vacation, who happens to be a law student.
There Bea learned that she was illegally dismissed by TextGPT, and began preparing
the documents that she'll need to institute the case.

Upon her return to the Philippines on 1 December 2023, Bea immediately went to the
Labor Arbiter and filed an illegal dismissal case, with prayer for backwages, overtime
pay, premium pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and other benefits, and damages.
TextGPT, on the other hand submitted their defenses claiming that Bea was afforded
due process when she was issued an NTE and was informed of her dismissal.

If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would rule on the foregoing? Explain. (5%)
5 points
13. I will rule in favor of TextGPT. Under Article 279, with regard to the termination
by the employer to be valid, there must be just cause to terminate an employee.
Meaning there is serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual
neglect of duties, fraud, willful breech by the employer to trust impose upon
them, commission of crime and offence In this case, Bea was dismissed since
she failed to reach her metrics despite placing her on Performance Improvemnet
Plan by the TextGPT, therefore the dismissal is legal.
14. During the annual audit of Pasara Inc., it was discovered by its accountants that the
company's operating expense was double its gross income, and that in the next quarter,
the company would be operating at a loss if it were not to make cuts to its operations,
which included the payroll of its employees.

To remedy this, the company included in its audit a performance review, a budget
review, and cost-analysis review of all its departments.

It then identified 20 departments consisting of a total of 100 employees that it should

lay-off based on performance, budget, and cost-analysis.

Pasara Inc., thereafter announced this to their employees and informed them that they
will be laid-off after 30 days from posting of the written notice. A day after the
announcement, Pasara Inc. posted the written notice and likewise informed the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) of the lay-off.

After the 30 day notice, the 100 employees were laid-off and dismissed from
employment. The said employees then went to the Labor Arbiter claiming illegal
dismissal and non-payment of separation pay.

Will the employees case prosper? Discuss. (5%)

5 points

14. No, the case will not prosper. Under the rule retrenchment to prevent loses is
lawful when cutting down the number of employees to prevent loses. In this case,
instead of keeping on every employee and risking the closure of the Pasara
company or there will be cessation of operation, they chose to retrench the
employees to prevent loses or the closure of their business. The loses was
proven by convincing evidence like financial statements of the company. The
company is not required to give separation pay since the company is on its
bankruptcy state.

15. The workers of Naykee Shoes Inc. decided to hold a consent election to determine
their legitimate bargaining representative. Three groups emerged from this initiative, the
first is the Naykee Shoes Employees Group (NSEG), the second is the Naykee Shoes
For the Win (NSFW), and the last being the Naykee Shoes Workers (NSW).
The election was then scheduled and out of the 360 employees, 350 were in attendance
to cast their vote. Among the 350 employees, 2 were supervisory employees, and 6
were probationary employees.

The employees then casted their vote in the following manner:

1. NSEG - 6
2. NSFW - 160
3. NSW - 168
4. No union - 8
5. Segregated - 2
6. Spoiled (probationary employees) - 6

NSW thereafter claims that it won the certification election claiming that it attained
double majority when it garnered 168 votes out of the total 334 votes garnered by the
three labor union candidates. Further, according to NSW, the votes of the no union
members, and the supervisory employees did not count from the 350 votes since the
double majority only pertains to the number of votes cast for labor unions. Thus, since
the majority of 334 votes is 167+1, then NSW should be declared as the winner of the
election.

On the other hand, NSFW contends that NSW's celebration is premature since NSW did
not attain double majority as all votes, except the votes of the supervisory employees
should be counted.

Decide on who is correct. Explain. (5%)

(5%)
5 points
15. Under the rule, a run-off election refers to an election between the labor
unions receiving the two highest number of votes in a certification or consent
election with three or more choices, where such a certified or consent election
results in none of the three 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 of the number of votes cast. In this case, there are 360
employees 350 were in attendance to cast their vote in which NSEG has 6, NSFW
has160, NSW has 168, No union has 8, Segregated – 2 and Spoiled (probationary
employees) has 6 votes. To sum it up, total of 344 employees have voted minus
16 spoiled votes. In this case, the RUN OFF ELECTION or DOUBLE MAJORITY
RULE is not applicable since NSW has the highest votes of 168 and met the
majority number of the qualified voters
16. You were engaged as the lawyer for a medical supplies company. During your
representation for the said company, a case for illegal dismissal was filed against your
client. According to the complaint, your client illegally dismissed the complainants when
they were verbally dismissed. Further, the complainants claim that they were not paid
their holiday pay, overtime, and SSS, PhilHealth, and PAG-IBIG benefits. Upon further
review of the complaint, the only evidence presented by the complainants were their
affidavits and a photo of a logbook showing their attendance.

When you interviewed your client, your client intimated that he was only helping the
complainants and offered them to sell the medical supplies at his place of business for
over the counter transactions, and paid them based on a commission basis. When
asked to provide evidence of this, your client likewise provided affidavits from the
security guard who had possession of the logbook testifying that the security guard logs
the time the complainants come to the shop and the time they leave the shop for
security purposes, your client's own testimony, and the testimony of the accountant who
testified that they pay the complainants based on a commission basis.

Given the foregoing facts, discuss how you would defend your client (the owner) based
on Labor Law principles. (5%)
5 points
16. I will advise the client that he is wrong. Under the rule, every worker shall be
paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays except employee engaged on
task or purely commission basis. Furthermore, in security of tenure, the burden
of proof lies on the employee who has the burden of proving that there is
employer-employee relationship. In this case, the client is paid on a commission
basis and the only evidence presented by the complainants to prove their
security of tenure were their affidavits and a photo of a logbook showing their
attendance, therefore, they are entitled to the benefits as to a regular employee.

17. Discuss the effect of the assumption of jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor on a
valid strike in relation to: a) the strike itself; b) union members who violate or disregard
the assumption of jurisdiction; c) union officers who disregard the assumption of
jurisdiction; and d) the employer. (5%)

17. If the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over that particular strike, it
means the end of the strike. The employees who participated in the strike will
have to return to work. Those that would be violating by continuing the strike
would then be conducting now an illegal strike and this can be a ground to
dismissal. If the employer refuse to accept the employees, that’s also a violation
of the assumption of power of the Secretary of Labor.
18. Discuss the concept of "Management Prerogative". (5%)
5 points
18. The Management Prerogative is the right of employer to control or to manage.
This should be used in tandem with social justice and the policies of labor code.
The employees who occupy positions of trust and confidence are managerial
employees. For example those employees who are vested with the powers or
prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-
off, recall, discharge, discipline employees and effectively recommend the
managerial actions.

19. What is "security of tenure" and how is this protected under our labor laws? (5%)
5 points

19. Under the labor law, the security of tenure means that the employee cannot be
dismissed from employment unless there is just or authorize causes. In the
security of tenure, the burden of proof lies on the employee who has the burden
of proving that there is employer – employee relationship. On the other hand, the
burden of proof as to rightful dismissal of the employee lies on the employer is
who has the burden of proving that there is a rightful dismissal of the employee.

20. Bonus:

What is the achievement that you are most proud of? How did you accomplish that
achievement? (5%)

20. So far I am most proud of earning my Master’s Degree in Nursing and being in
the fourth year of my law school journey. But, speaking honestly, I consider it just
as a start of my journey, not an end. I hope to achieve many other things, both as
a Nurse and as a Businesswoman, as a wife, a mother, a daughter and in any
other roles I may have in my life. I love setting goals and pursue them with my
work with dedication and enthusiasm.