You are on page 1of 2

Take Home Exam # 3 Answer


1. (C) Payment for lost or damaged equipment provided the deduction does not exceed 25%
of the employee‘s salary for a week [Implementing Rules Book III, Rule VIII, Section
11: 20% of employee‘s salary in a week, not 25%]
2. (D) No, because Article 116 of the Labor Code absolutely prohibits the withholding of
wages and kickbacks. Article 116 provides for no exception. Or (A) Yes, because where
the employee is indebted to the employer, it is sanctioned by the law on compensation
under Article 1706 of the Civil Code.
3. (D) Gross under over-valuation.
4. B) Yes, because he is jointly and solidarily liable for whatever monetary claims the
employees may have against K [Art. 106, Labor Code] or (C) Yes, because of the
principle of "a fair day‘s wage for a fair day‘s work.
5. (C) Settlement of the dispute through voluntary arbitration in case of failure to resolve
dispute through CBA dispute mechanism [Art. 124, Labor Code].

6. Katrina’s objection is justified.
Having enjoyed the across-the-board bonuses, Katrina has earned a vested right. Hence,
none of them can be withheld or reduced. In the problem, the company has not proven its
alleged losses to be substantial. Permitting reduction of pay at the slightest indication of
losses is contrary to the policy of the State to afford full protection to labor and promote
full employment. (Linton Commercial Co. v. Hellera, 535 SCRA 434)
As to the withheld productivity-based bonuses, Katrina is deemed to have earned them
because of her excellent performance ratings for three quarters. On this basis, they cannot
be withheld without violating the Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits.
Moreover, it is evident from the facts of the case that what was withdrawn by FEB was a
productivity bonus. Protected by RA 6791 which mandates that the monetary value of the
productivity improvement be shared with the employees, the “productivity-based
incentive” scheme of FEB cannot just be withdrawn without the consent of its affected
7. Yes. A bonus is an act of generosity granted by an enlightened employer to
spur the employee to greater efforts for the success of the business and
realization of bigger profits. The granting of a bonus is a management
prerogative, something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or
strictly due the recipient. Thus, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable
obligation, except when it is made part of the wage, salary or compensation of
the employee. It may, therefore, be withdrawn, unless they have been made a
part of the wage or salary or compensation of the employees, a matter which is
not in the facts of the case (American Wire and Cable Daily Rated Employees
Union v. American Wire and Cable Co., Inc. and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
155059, April 29, 2005).
8. (C) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited
by the Labor Code.
9. No. The following requisites were not complied with:
(a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade

11 . (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deduction from employee’s wages. because the service charge benefit attaches to the outlet where service charges are earned and should be distributed exclusively among the employees providing service in the outlet. 485 SCRA 609 [2005]) 10 D: No. Adarna. (b) the provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted by the employee (c) the facilities are charged at the fair and reasonable value.