Pointers in Labor Law

2019 Bar Examinations

I. Preliminaries

1. Constitutional foundation on protection to labor – The State shall afford protection to labor,
local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all (Sec. 3, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution).

2. Define due process; types of due process –

Types of due process:
(a) Constitutional – invoked against the government;
(b) Statutory – As applied under the Labor Code; and
(c) Contractual – Employer violated its own rules to justify dismissal.

3. Define social justice; Target of social justice, principles –

(a) It is not a license to condone a wrongdoing; neither it is a refuge scoundrels. It should be
invoked with clean hands.
(b) The target is the common tao, the indigent, the impoverished, those in the lower bracket of
society, so that those who have less in life should have more in law.

4. Constitutional rights of workers under Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution –

(a) Right to self-organization,
(b) Right to collective bargaining,
(c) Right to collective negotiations,
(d) Right to security of tenure,
(e) Right to just and humane conditions of work,
(f) Right to a living wage,
(g) Right to peaceful concerted activity,
(h) Right to strike in accordance with law,
(i) Right to participate in policy and decision-making processes with the management,
(j) Right to profit sharing benefits.

II. Landmark Rulings

RECRUITMENT and PLACEMENT
1. Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. And Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., v. EstanislaoSurio,
Freddie Palguiran, et al.; G.R. No. 154213, 23 August 2012
Although R.A. 8042, through its Section 10, transferred the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide money claims involving overseas Filipino workers from the POEA to the Labor Arbiters, the law did
not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary cases
and other special cases administrative in character involving such workers. The NLRC had no appellate
jurisdiction to review the decision of the POEA in disciplinary cases involving overseas contract workers.
Petitioners should have appealed the adverse decision of the POEA to the Secretary of Labor instead of
the NLRC.

LABOR STANDARDS
2. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. Ernesto C. Tanawan; G.R. No. 160444, 29 August 2012
A seafarer, to be entitled to disability benefits, must prove that the injury was suffered during the term of
the employment, and must submit himself to the company-designated physician for evaluation within
three days from his repatriation.
While the seafarers and their employers are governed by their mutual agreements, the POEA rules and
regulations require that the POEA SEC, which contains the standard terms and conditions of the
seafarers’ employment in foreign ocean-going vessels, be integrated in every seafarers’ contract.
Company-designated physician--The one tasked to determine whether the seafarer suffers from any
disability or is fit to work is the company-designated physician. As such, the seafarer must submit himself
to the company-designated physician for a post employment medical examination within three days from
his repatriation. But the assessment of the company-designated physician is not final, binding or
conclusive on the seafarer, the labor tribunals, or the courts. The seafarer may request a second opinion
and consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury, and the medical report issued by the
physician of his choice shall also be evaluated on its inherent merit by the labor tribunal and the court.
Disability benefits—Even in the absence of an official finding by the company-designated physician to the
effect that the seafarer suffers a disability and is unfit for sea duty, the seafarer may still be declared to be
suffering from a permanent disability if he is unable to work for more than 120 days. What clearly
determines the seafarer’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits is his inability to work for more than
120 days.

1|Page
3. Netlink Computer Incorporated v. Eric Delmo; G.R. No. 160827, 18 June 2014
In the absence of a written agreement between the employer and the employer that sales commissions
shall be paid in a foreign currency, the latter has the right to be paid in such foreign currency once the
same has become an established practice of the former. The rate of exchange at the time of payment, not
the rate of exchange at the time of the sales, controls.
Non-diminution of benefits—With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been
observed to constitute a voluntary employer practice that cannot be unilaterally reduced, diminished,
discontinued or eliminated by the employer, the Supreme Court finds that jurisprudence has not laid down
any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years.

4. Mega Magazine Publications, Inc. v. Margaret A. Defensor; G.R. No. 162021, 16 June 2014
The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management prerogative, is not a demandable and
enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or special incentive is made part of the wage, salary
orcompensation of the employee, or is promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the
parties. By its very definition, bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver, and cannot be considered
part of an employee’s wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity
is achieved. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not accomplished, the bonus does not
accrue.

5. National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) v. Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL);
G.R. No. 150326, 12 March 2014
The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards (RTWPBs) could issue exemption s from the
application of the wage orders as long as the exemptions complied with the rules of the National Wages
and Productivity Commission (NWPC). The wage orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards could be reviewed by the National Wages and Productivity Commission motupropioor
upon appeal. Any party aggrieved by the wage order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards could appeal.

POST EMPLOYMENT (EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP)

6. Legend Hotel (Manila) v. Hernani S. Ruyo; G.R. No. 153511, 18 July 2012
A petition for certiorari brought to assail the decision of the NLRC may raise factual issues, and the CA
may then review the decision of the NLRC and pass upon such factual issues in the process. The power
of the CA to review factual issues in the exercise of its own original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
is based on Section 9 of B.P. 129. There is no need to prove that the NLRC is guilty of grave abuse of
discretion first before the CA can acquire jurisdiction.
Where a pianist who performs in the restaurant of a hotel could not choose the time and place of his
performance, was required by the restaurant manager to conform with the venue’s motif, and had been
subjected to the rules on employees’ representation checks and chits, said pianist is an employee of the
restaurant. The power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered most significant
determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

7. Alumaymay O. Jamias, Jennifer Matuguinas and Jennifer Cruz v. NLRC, et al; G.R. No. 159350. 9
March 2016
The test to determine whether a particular employee is engaged as a project or regular employee is
whether or not the employee assigned to carry out specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope
of which was specified at the time of his engagement. There must be a determination of, or a clear
agreement on, the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged.

8. D.M. Consunji Corporation v. Rogelio P. Bello; G.R. No. 159371, 29 July 2013
For the resignation of an employee to be a viable defense in an action for illegal dismissal, an employer
must prove that the resignation was voluntary, and its evidence thereon must be clear, positive and
convincing. The employer cannot rely on the weakness of the employee’s evidence.
A project employee is one who is hired for a specific project or undertaking, and the completion or
termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of engagement of the
employee.
The extension of the employment of a project employee long after the supposed project has been
completed removes the employee from the scope of a project employee and makes him a regular
employee.
It is axiomatic in labor law that the employer who interposes the defense of voluntary resignation of the
employee in an illegal dismissal case must prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the
resignation was voluntary; and that the employer cannot rely on the weakness of the defense of the
employee.

9. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. The Lepanto CAPATAZ Union; G.R. No. 157086, 18
February 2013
Capatazes are not rank-and-file employees because they perform supervisory functions for the
management; hence, they may form their own union that is separate and distinct from the labor
organization of rank-and-file employees.

2|Page
10. Jao v. BCC Products Sales, Inc.; G.R. No. 163700, 18 April 2012
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Generally, a re-examination of
factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the
Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. – Nor may the court be bound to analyze
and weigh again the evidence adduced and considered in the proceedings below. This rule is not
absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor
cases when the factual findings of the labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
11. Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Ricardo Coros; G.R. No. 157802, 13 October
2010
As a rule, the illegal dismissal of an officer or other employee of a private employer is properly cognizable
by the Labor Arbiter. However, where the complaint for illegal dismissal concerns a corporate officer, the
controversy falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

12. DaniloEscario, et al. v. NLRC, Pinakamasarap Corporation, et al.; G.R. No. 160302, 27
September 2010
Art. 264(a) authorizes the award of full backwages only when the termination of employment is a
consequence of an unlawful lockout. On the consequences of an illegal strike, the provision distinguishes
between a union officer and a union member participating in an illegal strike. A union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike is deemed to have lost his employment status, but a union
member who is merely instigated or induced to participate in the illegal strike is more benignly treated.

13. Jennifer Lagahit v. Pacific Concord Container Lines/Monette Cuenca; G.R. No. 177680, 13
January 2016
In cases of unlawful dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a
valid or authorized cause, but before the employer is expected to discharge its burden of proving that the
dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish a substantial evidence the fact of her dismissal
from employment.

As a rule, the employer who interposes the resignation of the employee as s defense should prove that
the employee voluntarily resigned.
To justify the dismissal of an employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove that the dismissal was for a
just cause, and that the employee was afforded due process prior to dismissal.
For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for the termination of the employee, the employer
must establish that: (1) the employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) the act
complained against would justify the loss of trust and confidence.
Her position as sales manager did not immediately make the petitioner a managerial employee. The
actual work that she performed, not her job title, determined whether she was managerial employee
vested with trust and confidence.
The cause of the loss of trust must ne work-related as to expose the employee as unfit to continue
working for the employer.

14. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. v. Michael Maximo R. Amurao III; G.R. No. 167225, 22 October
2014
A quitclaim is invalid or contrary to public policy only: (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was
wrangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (2) where the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on their face.

15. Northwest Airlines Inc. v. Ma. Concepcion M. Del Rosario; G.R. No. 157633, 10 September 2014
Misconduct or improper behavior, to be a just cause for termination of employment, must: (a) be serious;
(b) relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit
to continue working for the employer.

16. Lolita S Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation/Minerama Corporation et al.; G.R. No.
153569, 24 January 2012
The employer may validly dismiss for loss of trust and confidence an employee who commits an act of
fraud prejudicial to the interest of the employer. Neither a criminal prosecution nor a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime is a requisite for the validity of the dismissal. Nonetheless, the dismissal of
due process under the Labor Code; otherwise, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages as
indemnity to the dismissed employee.

17. Rosalie L. Gargoles v. Reylita S. Del Rosario (Jay Anne’s One Hour Photo Shop); G.R. No.
158583, 10 September 2014
An act of dishonesty by an employee who has been put in charge of the employer’s money and property
amounts to breach of the trust reposed by the employer, and normally leads to loss of confidence in her.
Such dishonesty comes within the just and valid causes for the termination of her employment under

3|Page
Article 282 of the Labor Code. The dishonesty imputed to the petitioner included the making of double
entries in the production reports and thereby enriching herself by pocketing the extra cash generated from
the double entries. The failure of the employee to rebut or disprove the proof of wrongdoing then
establishes the charge against her. This is especially true in a case for dismissal grounded on loss of
confidence or breach of trust, in which the employer may proceed to dismiss the erring employee once
the employer becomes morally convinced that she was guilty of a breach of trust and confidence.

18. Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. v. Ateneo De Naga University, Fr. Joel Abora, et al.; G.R. No. 175293, 23
July 2014
The employer is obliged to reinstate the dismissed employee and to pay his wages during the period of
appeal of the decision in the latter’s favor until the reversal of the decision.

19. Dongon v. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co. Inc.; G.R. No. 163431, 28 August 2013
The prerogative of an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground of willful disobedience to company
policies must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.
For willful disobedience to be a ground to terminate an employee, it is required that: (1) the conduct of the
employee must be willful or intentional; and (2) the order the employee violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had been
engaged to discharge. The management prerogative will be upheld for as long as it is not wielded as an
implement to circumvent the laws and oppress labor.

RETIREMENT

21. Masing and Sons Development Corporation and Crispin Chan v. Gregorio P. Rogelio; G.R. No.
161787, 27 April 2011
The benefits under R.A. 7641 can be extended not only from the date of its enactment but retroactively to
the time the employment contracts started.

22. Robina Farms Cebu/Universal Robina Corporation v. Elizabeth Villa; G.R. No. 175869, 18 April
2016
Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the employer and the employee based on their voluntary
agreement that upon reaching a certain age, the employees agree to sever his employment. On one
hand, voluntary retirement cuts the employment ties leaving no residual liability; on the other, involuntary
retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering the employer liable for termination without cause. The
employee’s intent is decisive.
In case of early retirement, the offer of benefits must be certain while the acceptance to be retired should
be absolute. The acceptance by the employees contemplated herein must be explicit, voluntary, free and
uncompelled. Employees are free to accept the employer’s offer to lower the retirement age if they feel
they can get a better deal with the retirement plan presented by the employer. Having terminated an
employee solely on the basis of a provision of a retirement plan which was not freely assented to
by the employee, respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal.

23. Samar-Med Distribution v. NLRC; G.R. No. 162385, 15 July 2013

Although an employer may legally dismiss an employee for a just cause, the non-observance of the
requirements of due process before effecting the dismissal leaves the employer liable for nominal
damages.
For loss of trust and confidence to constitute a sufficient ground for termination, the employer must have
a reasonable ground to believe, if not to entertain the moral conviction, that the employee was
responsible for the misconduct, and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.

24. Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Trajano; G.R. No. 160982, 26 June 2013
An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to her reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges, and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.
Should the reinstatement be no longer feasible, an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement will be
justified, and the backwages shall be reckoned from the time her wages were withheld until the finality of
the decision.
Loss of the employer’s trust and confidence is a just cause under Article 282 (c), a provision that ideally
applies only to cases involving an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence, or to a situation
where the employee has been routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or
property.

25. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Journal Employees Union (JEU), for its union member, Michael
Alfante; G.R. No. 192601, 3 June 2013
The coverage of the term legal dependent as used in a stipulation in a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) granting funeral or bereavement benefit to a regular employee for the death of a legal dependent, if
the CBA is silent about it, is to be found construed as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous social

4|Page
legislations have set. This is because the terms of such social legislations are deemed incorporated in or
adopted by the CBA.
The concurrence of a legitimate spouse does not disqualify a child or a parent of the employee from being
a legal dependent provided substantial evidence is adduced to prove the actual dependency of the child
or parent on the support of the employee.

LABOR RELATIONS
PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES

26. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union, et al. v. NLRC; G.R. No.
156635, 11 January 2016
A strike staged without compliance with the requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code is illegal, and
may cause the termination of the employment of the participating union officers and members. However,
the liability for the illegal strike is individual, not collective. To warrant the termination of an officer of the
labor organization on that basis, the employer must show that the officer knowingly participated in the
illegal strike. An ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated based solely on his participation in the
illegal strike, for the employer must further show that the employee committed illegal acts during the
strike.

27. Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) v. Hon. Hans Leo J. Cacdac; G.R. No.
155097, 27 September 2010
The petition for the plebiscite to amend PALEA’s Constitution and By-laws was merely incidental to the
conduct of the general election pursuant to the final and executory decision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations. As such, the recourse open to PALEA was not to file the petition for certiorari to assail such
denial, but to first await the final election results as certified by DOLE-NCR.

28. Rogelio Baronda v. Hon. Court of Appeals and HIDECO Sugar Milling Co., Inc.; G.R. No.
161006, 14 October 2015
The reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s award or decision is immediately executor from its
receipt by the parties.

III. Special Areas

A. Matters related to OFWs
Types of illegal recruitment
(a) Simple – committed against one or two persons only;
(b) Non-licensee – committed by a person who is neither a licensee or holder of authority;
(c) Syndicated – committed by (3) or more persons in confederation with one another;
(d) Large scale – committed against (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. The number of
victims here is determinative.

Doctrinal rulings on illegal recruitment

(a) Giving impression that she has ability to enlist workers for overseas job;
(b) Act of referral of an applicant to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau;
(c) Failure to present receipts;
(d) No valid license or authority;
(e) Alteration of employment contract;
(f) Certification on license, inconsequential;
(g) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by undeployed worker;
(h) Recruitment agency’s employee not registered with POEA;
(i) Defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification;
(j) Inducing applicants to part their money upon false misrepresentations;
(k) Execution of affidavit of desistance – affects only civil liability not criminal liability;
(l) Money not material in recruitment and placement;
(m) Number of persons recruited not material;
(n) Conduct of interviews in recruitment and placement;
(o) Illegal recruitment and estafa cases can be filed simultaneously or separately;
(p) Doctrine of double jeopardy will not set in illegal recruitment and estafa;
(q) Liability of corporate directors and officers, not automatic, there must be finding that they are remiss
in directing the affairs of the recruitment agency; and
(r) Liability of the previous owner not extinguished by an undertaking to assume responsibility by the
new owner.

Theory of imputed knowledge –

The act of the foreign principal cannot be imputed or ascribed to the local agency. But the knowledge of the
agent is the knowledge of the principal although not communicated to the latter.

5|Page
Seafarer’s contract, nature –
Seafarer’s contract is for a fixed period; thus, upon expiration of period or term, the contract terminates by
itself. Despite constant renewal of his contract, he can never attain regular status.
Indeed, there is no implied renewal of seafarer’s contract, it being for a fixed period.

OFWs including seafarers

(a) Award of nominal damages in dismissal without due process (Agabon ruling) applies also to OFWs
and seamen.
(b) Normal consequences of illegal dismissal do not apply to OFWs and seafarers.

Mandatory 3-day post medical examination of seafarers

(a) Mandatory 3-day post-employment medical examination of seafarers for death and disability claims;
non-compliance, fatal to seafarer’s claim.
(b) Without any certification by the company doctor that the seaman remains fit for work, the law
presumes that he is in a state of temporary disability. Should no certification be issued within 240
days maximum period, the pertinent disability becomes permanent in nature.
(c) Based on Kestrel doctrine, if the maritime compensation complaint was filed prior to 6 October 2008,
the 120-day rule applies; if the complaint was filed from 6 October 2008 onwards, the 240-day rule
applies.
(d) Under the mandatory 3-day post medical examination rule, the company doctor makes an
assessment on the work-related death, illness or injury within (3) days upon arrival of the seafarer.
The seafarer disagreed with the assessment of the company doctor, so he hired a doctor to make a
separate assessment which is opposed to the opinion of the company physician. The assessment of a
third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer (manning agency) and the seafarer, whose
decision shall be final and binding.

B. Matters related to Apprenticeship and Learnsship

Apprenticeship and learnership, distinguished
The distinctions are as follows:
(a) Person hired – In apprenticeship, the person hired as trainee is an apprentice (Art. 58[c], Labor
Code 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004). In learnership, the person hired as trainee is a learner (Art.
78, Labor Code 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
(b) Reasons for hiring – In apprenticeship, the law does not provide any reasons for hiring of an
apprentice (Arts. 59-72, Labor Code). In learnership, the law provides the following reasons for hiring: (1)
when no experienced workers are available; (2) the employment of learners is necessary to prevent
curtailment of employment opportunities; and (3) the employment does not create unfair competition in
terms of labor costs or impair or lower working standards (Art. 74, Labor Code).
(c) Qualifications – In apprenticeship, the qualifications are: (a) at least fifteen (15) years of age; (b)
possess vocational aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests; and (c) possess the ability to comprehend
and follow oral and written instructions (Art. 59, Labor Code; Sec. 12, R.A. 7610 as amended by Sec. 2, R.A.
9231). In learnership, the law does not provide such qualifications (Art. 74, Labor Code);
(d) Hired/employed with/without available experienced workers – In apprenticeship, an apprentice
may be employed even when there are available experienced workers. In learnership, a learner may be
employed only when there are no available experienced workers, the purpose of which is to preclude
curtailment of job opportunities (Art. 74, infra).

(e) What occupations are involved - In apprenticeship, the occupations involved are “highly
technical industries which means trade, business, enterprise, industry, or other activity, which is engaged in
the application of advanced technology.” Apprenticeable or skilled occupations must be approved by
TESDA (Arts. 60, Labor Code and 3.3. TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004). In learnership, the occupations
involved are semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are non-apprenticeable. Learnable or
semi-skilled occupations must be approved by TESDA (Art. 73, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA Circular No. 16,
Series of 2004);
(f) Training period – In apprenticeship, the training period shall not be less than three (3) months
and not more than six (6) months; (Art. 58[c] in relation to Art. 61, Labor Code and DOLE Circular No. 2,
Series of 2006). In learnership, the training period shall not be more than three (3) months; (Art. 75[c],
Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
(g) Supplemented by theoretical instructions – In apprenticeship, the practical training on the job is
supplemented with compulsory related theoretical instructions; (Art. 58 [a], Labor Code, Secs. 4[j], R.A.
7796, and 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004). In learnership, the practical training on the job may or
may not be supplemented by related theoretical instructions (2 TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
(h) Obligation to hire – In apprenticeship, the enterprise is not obliged to hire the apprentice after
the training period; (Art. 61, Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004). In learnership, the

6|Page
 enterprise is obliged to hire the learner after the training period (Art. 75[d], Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); and
(i) Pre-termination of training agreement – In apprenticeship, upon pre-termination of the training
agreement, an apprentice does not become a regular employee (Arts. 57-72, Labor Code). In learnership, a
learner allowed to work for the first two (2) months shall automatically become a regular employee if
training agreement is pre-terminated by the employer through no fault of the learner (Art. 75[d], Labor
Code).

C. Handicapped/disabled worker
Definition: A handicapped worker is one whose earning capacity is impaired by age, physical,
mental or sensory deficiency or injury.

Sheltered employment, defined

It is a device of the government created to place disabled workers in an assured employment
opportunities that suit their qualifications, skills training and experience since if they are left alone,
they could hardly find a suitable employment in an open labor marker,

Full wage rate for disabled workers

Disabled workers are qualified able-bodied persons. They are entitled to the same terms and
conditions as qualified regular employer; thus, entitled to full wage rates under R.A. 7277.

Compensable hours worked

The following shall be considered as compensable hours worked:
a) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at the employer’s
premises or to be at a prescribed workplace; and
b) All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. (Art. 84, Labor Code)
“Fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor,” remains the basic factor in determining the employees’
wages and back wages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or
pay unless, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, or
suspended. (SSS v. SSS Supervisors Union-CUGCO, 117 SCRA 746)

D. Flexible working hours (Flexi time rule)

“Flexible work arrangements” refer to alternative arrangements or schedules other than the
traditional or standard work hours, workdays and workweek. The effectivity and implementation of
any of the flexible work arrangements should be temporary in nature.
Under R.A. No. 8972, otherwise known as “The Solo Parents” Welfare Act of 2000,” solo parents are
allowed to work on a flexible schedule. The phrase “flexible work schedule” is defined in the same
law as the right granted to a solo parent employee to vary his/her arrival and departure time without
affecting the core work hours as defined by the employer.

E. Conditions for the validity of the Compressed Work Week (CWW)

The (CWW) schedule may be authorized when it is the employees themselves who proposed the
compressed workweek and if the following criteria are present:
a. It is voluntary on the part of the worker;
b. There will be no diminution of the weekly or monthly take-home pay and fringe benefits of the
employees;
c. The value of the benefits that will accrue to the employees under the proposed schedule is
more than or at least commensurate with during weekdays based on the employee’s
qualification

Compensation made under a valid CWW

Unless there is a more favorable practice existing in the firm, work beyond eight (8) hours will not
be compensable by overtime premium provided the total number of hours worked per day shall not
exceed twelve (12) hours. In any case, any work performed beyond twelve (12) hours a day or
forty-eight (48) hours a week shall be subject to overtime pay. (Chan, Bar Reviewer, 2017).
Waiting time compensation
Waiting time spent by an employee shall be considered as working time of waiting is an
integral part of his work or the employee is required or engaged by the employer to wait. Time
spent waiting for work is compensable if it is spent “primarily” for the benefit of the employer and
[its] business.”

F. Compensation

Distinguish PREMIUM PAY and OVERTIME PAY

“Premium pay” refers to the additional compensation required by law for work performed within the
eight (8) normal hours of work on non-working days, such as rest days and regular and special
holidays.

7|Page
The rule in built-in-overtime pay
In case the employment contract stipulates that the compensation include built-in overtime pay and
the same is duly approved by the DOLE, the non-payment by the employer of any overtime pay for
overtime work is justified and valid. (Chan, Bar Reviewer, 2017)

Employer requires compulsory work on a rest day

The employer may require any of its employees to work on their scheduled rest day for the duration
of the following emergency and exceptional conditions:
a. In case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accident, fire, flood,
typhoon, earthquake, epidemic or other disaster or calamity, to prevent loss of life and property, or
in case of force majeure or imminent danger to public safety;
b. In case of urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment, or installations, to
avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer;
c. In the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances, where the
employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures;
d. To prevent serious loss of perishable goods;
e. Where the nature of the work is such that the employees have to work continuously for
seven (7) days in a week or more, as in the case of the crew members of a vessel to complete a
voyage and in other similar cases; and
f. When the work is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental conditions
where performance or quality of work is dependent thereon. (Art. 92, Labor Code)

Distinction between regular and special (non-working) days

Regular holidays are considered GUARANTEED WITH PAY since employees should be paid their
wages during regular holidays regardless of whether they work or not on those days.
As far as special (non-working) days are concerned, the principle of “NO WORK, NO PAY” applies,
which means that if workers do not work on special (non-working) days, they do not receive any
wages for those days, unlike in the case of regular holidays.

Covered and not covered by the 13th month pay law

The law covers 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 the 13 th month pay
benefit. Managerial employees are not entitled to 13th month pay.

8|Page