1. Differentiate labor standards law from labor relations law. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Labor standards law is that labor law which prescribes terms and conditions of employmentlike Book III, Book IV, Title I and Book VI of the Labor Code. These books of the Labor Code dealwith working conditions, wages, working conditions for women, minors, house helpers and home-workers, medical and dental services, occupational health and safety, termination and retirement.On the other hand, labor relations law is that labor law which regulates the relationsbetween employers and workers like Book V of the Labor Code which deals with labororganizations, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices and strikes and lockouts.Labor standards laws and labor relations laws are not mutually exclusive; they complementto each other. Thus the law on strikes and lockouts which is and example of labor relations lawincludes some provisions on the security of tenure of workers who go on strike or who are lockedout. These provisions are clear examples of labor law relations.
2.What is the Constitutional basis of Articles 7-11 regarding emancipation of tenants?
“The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right offarmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands theytill or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end,the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject tosuch priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into accountecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of justcompensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the rights of smalllandowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.”
(Article XIII,Section 4, 1987 Constitution)
3. Is a corporation, of which seventy percent (70%) of the authorized and voting capital isowned and controlled by Filipino citizens, allowed to engage in the recruitment and placementof workers, locally or overseas? Explain briefly.NO.
Art. 27 of the Labor Code explicitly requires that in order to qualify for participation inthe overseas employment program, the corporation must at least possess seventy-five percent(75%) of the authorized and voting capital stock of which is owned and controlled by Filipinocitizens.
4. Can a recruiter be convicted of violating a POEA Circular which was implemented withoutprior publication?NO.
The POEA MEMO Circular no. 2, series of 1983 was void. Where the administrativecircular in question is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since itspurpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Consideringthat POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed withthe National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and ma not be enforced
(PhilsaInternational Placement and Services Corp. vs. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 103144, April 4,2001)
5. Is the absence of an employment a valid defense in a case of illegal recruitment? Explain.NO.
the law is clear on the matter. Private respondents further argue that they cannot beheld liable by petitioner because no employment contract between him and Step-Up Agency hadbeen approved by the POEA. They also claim that the absence of a
Special Power of Attorney
Affidavit of Responsibility,
as required under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 1, Book III of the POEARules and Regulations only proves that they did not deploy petitioner to Singapore.