PHILIPPINE LAW SCHOOL :

I. Amaya was employed as a staff nurse by St. Francis Hospital (SFH) on

July 8, 2014 on a probationary status for six (6) months. Her probationary
contract required, among others, strict compliance with SFH's Code of
Discipline.

On October 16, 2014, Dr. Ligaya, filed a Complaint with the SFH
Board of Trustees against Amaya for uttering slanderous remarks against
the former. Attached to the complaint was a letter of Minda, mother of a
patient, who confirmed the following remarks against Dr. Ligaya:

"Bakit si Dr. Ligaya pa ang napili mong 'pedia' eh ang tandatanda

na n'un? E makakalimutin na yun xx x Alam mo ba, kahit wala
namang diperensya yung baby, ipinapa-iso/ate nya?"

The SFH President asks you, being the hospital's counsel, which of
these two (2) options is the legal and proper way of terminating Amaya:

a) terminate her for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code
(Termination by Employer); or

b) terminate her for violating her probationary contract. Explain. (5%)

2016 Bar

II. Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing Factory, became pregnant.

Because of morning sickness, she frequently absented herself from work and
often came to the factory only four (4) days a week. After two (2) months, the
personnel manager told her that her habitual absences rendered her
practically useless to the company and, thus, asked her to resign. She begged
to be retained, citing her pregnancy as reason for her absences. Tess asked
for leave of absence but her request was denied. She went on leave
nevertheless. As a result, she was thus dismissed for going on leave without
permission of management.

Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company's defense: she was
legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not
because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal
was an act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the
company treated as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company's
or Tess'? Explain. (5%) 2016 Bar

III. Jim is the holder of a certificate of public convenience for a jeepney.

He entered into a contract of lease with Nick, whereby they agreed that the
lease period is for one (1) year unless sooner terminated by Jim for any of the
causes laid down in the contract. The rental is thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) monthly. All the expenses for the repair of the jeepney,
together with expenses for diesel, oil and service, shall be for the account of
Nick. Nick is required to make a deposit of three (3) months to answer for
the restoration of the vehicle to its good operating condition when the
contract ends. It is stipulated that Nick is not an employee of Jim and he

1
holds the latter free and harmless from all suits or claims which may arise
from the implementation of the contract. Nick has the right to use the
jeepney at any hour of the day provided it is operated on the approved line
of operation.

After five (5) months of the lease and payment of the rentals, Nick became
delinquent in the payment of the rentals for two (2) months. Jim, as
authorized by the contract, sent a letter of demand rescinding the contract
and asked for the arrearages. Nick responded by filing a complaint with the
NLRC for illegal dismissal, claiming that the contract is illegal and he was
just forced by Jim to sign it so he can drive. He claims he is really a driver of
Jim on a boundary system and the reason he was removed is because he
failed to pay the complete daily boundary , of one thousand (P1,000.00) for
2 months due to the increase in the number of tricycles.

[a] Jim files a motion to dismiss the NLRC case on the ground that the
regular court has jurisdiction since the agreement is a lease contract. Rule on
the motion and explain. (2.5%)

[b] Assuming that Nick is an employee of Jim, was Nick validly

dismissed? 2016 Bar

IV. Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by

television and radio networks. He employed Lionel as his agent.
Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty Communications to formally engage in
the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of the incorporators an
d
assigned to him 100 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant
Vice-President for Sales and Head of Technical Coordination. After several
months, there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in “under the table
dealings” and received “confidential commissions” from Liberty’s clients
and suppliers.
He was, therefore, charged with serious misconduct and
willful breach of trust, and was given 48 hours to present his explanation on
the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-hour deadline and
was subsequently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed
a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal. Among
others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that th
e
case involved an intra-corporate controversy which was within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you
rule on the company’s motion to dismiss? (5%) 2014 Bar Exams

V. An accidental fire gutted the JKL factory in Caloocan. JKL decided

to suspend operations and requested its employees to stop reporting fo
r
work. After six (6) months, JKL resumed operations but hired a new set of
employees. The old set of employees filed a case for illegal dismissal. If
you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case? (4%) 2014 Bar

2
VI. Karina Santos is a famous news anchor appearing nightly in the
country's most watched newscast. She is surprised, after one newscast, to
receive a notice of hearing before the station's Vice-President for Human
Resources and calls the VP immediately to ask what was wrong. Karina is
told over the phone that one of her crew filed a complaint against her for
verbal abuse and that management is duty-bound to investigate and give
her a chance to air her side. Karina objects and denies that she had ever
verbally assaulted her crew. The VP then informed her that pending the
investigation she will be placed on a 30-day preventive suspension without
pay and that she will not be allowed to appear in the newscast during this
time. Is the preventive suspension of Karina valid? Discuss the reasons for
your answer. (4%) 2015 Bar

VII. Rico has a temper and, in his work as Division Manager of Matatag
Insurance, frequently loses his temper with his staff. One day, he physically
assaults his staff member by slapping him. The staff member sues him for
physical injuries. Matatag Insurance decides to terminate Rico, after notice
and hearing, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Rico claims that
he is entitled to the presumption of innocence because he has not yet been
convicted. Comment on Matatag's action in relation to Rico's argument.
(4%) 2015 Bar

VIII. Dion is an Accounting Supervisor in a trading company. He has

rendered exemplary service to the company for 20 years. His co-employee
and kumpadre, Mac, called him over the phone and requested him to punch
his (Mac's) daily time card as he (Mac) was caught in a monstrous traffic jam.
Dion acceded to Mac's request but was later caught by the Personnel
Manager while punching. Mac's time card. The company terminated the
employment of Dion on the ground of misconduct. Is the dismissal valid and
just? Explain. (5%) 2016 Bar

IX. Zienna Corporation (Zienna) informed the Department of Labor and

Employment Regional Director of the end of its operations. To carry out the
cessation, Zienna sent a Letter Request for Intervention to the NLRC for
permission and guidance in effecting payment of separation benefits for its
fifty (50) terminated employees.

Each of the terminated employees executed a Quitclaim and Release before

Labor Arbiter Nocomora, to whom the case was assigned. After the erstwhile
employees received their separation pay, the Labor Arbiter declared the
labor dispute dismissed with prejudice on the ground of settlement.
Thereafter, Zienna sold all of its assets to Zandra Company (Zandra), which
in tum hired its own employees.

Nelle, one of the fifty (50) terminated employees, filed a case for illegal
dismissal against Zienna. She argued that Zienna did not cease from
operating since the corporation subsists as Zandra. Nelle pointed out that

3
aside from the two companies having essentially the same equipment, the
managers and owners of Zandra and Zienna are likewise one and the same.

For its part, Zienna countered that Nelle is barred from filing a complaint
for illegal dismissal against the corporation in view of her prior acceptance
of separation pay.

Is Nelle correct in claiming that she was illegally dismissed? (5%) 2016
Bar

X. Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining

program that resulted in the retrenchment of 550 employees in its main
plant. After having been paid their separation benefits, the retrenched
workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA between
their union and management. Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers'
demand. 2018 Bar Exams

(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this dispute?
(2.5%)
(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and retirement benefits?
(2.5%)

XI. Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network

Corporation, a telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in
shorts and sneakers, in violation of the "prescribed uniform policy" based
on company rules and regulations. The company human resources manager
wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the company uniform
policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him
more productive, and cited his above-average output. When he came to
work still in violation of the uniform policy, the company sent him a letter
of termination of employment. Nicodemus filed an illegal dismissal case.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nicodemus and ordered his
reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to
reinstate him. The NLRC 1st Division sustained the Labor Arbiter's
judgment. Network Corporation still refused to reinstate Nicodemus.
Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and
ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still
filed. a motion for execution with respect to his accrued backwages. 2018
Bar Exams

(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus from his
employment? (2.5%)

(b) Should Nicodemus' motion for execution be granted? (2.5%)