1. An employer is prohibited from making any deductions from the wages of his employees.

What are the exceptions to this rule?

a. Deduction to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as insurance premium in
favor of the employee;
b. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned;
c. Where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. (Art.
113, Labor Code)
Note: The Civil Code allows deductions to be made for debts that are due and demandable.
(Article 1706, NCC)

2. What are the essential elements of wage distortion?

a. The company has a hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates;

b. A wage order significantly changes or increases the salaries of the employees in the lower level
but doesn't have a corresponding increase for the salaries of the employees in the higher level;
c. The distinction between the positions/groups of employees is eliminated; and
d. The distortion exists in the same region of the country. (Prubankers Association vs. Prudential Bank and
Trusts Co. GR No. 131247, January 25, 1999)

3. What is the principle of non-diminution of benefits?

The Non-Diminution Rule under Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from
eliminating or reducing the benefits already enjoyed by their employees . (Wesleyan University-Philippine vs.
Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association, G.R. No. 181806, March 12, 2014)

4. What are the distinctions between facilities and supplements?

FACILITIES SUPPLEMENTS
DEFINITION
Items of expense necessary for the laborer's Extra remuneration or special privileges or
and his family's existence and subsistence. It benefits given to or received by the laborers over
includes articles or services for the benefit of and above their ordinary earnings or wages
the employee or his family but shall not
include tools of the trade or articles or
services primarily for the benefit of the
employer or necessary to the conduct of the
employer’s business
RULE ON DEDUCTIBILITY
May be charged to or deducted from wages May not be charged from wages
IS IT PART OF THE BASIC WAGE S OF THE EMPLOYEE?
Yes. No.

5. Distinguish apprenticeship from learnership.

Apprenticeship Learnership
As to Duration
Not less than 3 months practical training on Practical training on the job not exceeding
the job but not more than 6 months. 3months.
As to Concept
 Practical training on the job supplemented by Hiring of persons as trainees in semi-skilled and
related theoretical instruction. other industrial occupations which are non
apprenticeable and which may be learned
through practical training on the job in a relatively
short period of time.
As to Qualifications
1. At least 15 years of age (as amended by Learners may be employed when:
R.A. No. 7610, Sec. 12) 1. No experienced workers are available;
2. With vocational aptitude and capacity; and 2. The employment of learners is necessary to
3. Ability to comprehend and follow oral and prevent curtailment of employment opportunities;
written instructions. and
3. The employment does not create unfair
competition in terms of labor costs or impair or
lower working standards.
As to Focus of Training
Highly-skilled or technical industries and in Semi-skilled/industrial occupation (non-
industrial occupation. apprenticeable).
As to Employer’s Obligation to Hire
No obligation to hire. With an obligation to employ the learner as
regular employee if he desires upon completion of
learnership.
As to Effect of Pre-termination
Worker is not considered an employee. Learner is considered regular employee after 2
months of training and dismissal is without fault of
learner.
As to Approval
Requires TESDA approval for validity. TESDA approval is not required. Only inspection
Legally allowed in highly technical industries from TESDA is required.
and only in apprenticeable occupations Allowed even for non-technical jobs.
approved by DOLE.
As to Salary
Not less than 75% of applicable minimum Not less than 75% of applicable minimum wage,
wage, except if training is required by the except for learners in piecework, where salary
school or training program, or requisite for shall be paid in accordance to the minimum wage
graduation or board examination. imposed.
As to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy in case of Breach of Contract
Precondition for filing action. Not required.
(Art. 57-77, Labor Code)

6. What are the rights of Night Workers?

a. Right to free health assessment before undergoing night work
b. Right to safe and healthful working conditions
c. Right to be transferred to a similar job for which they are fit to work
d. Right of pregnant women to alternatives to night work
e. Right to regular consultation (Arts. 154-161 as amended by RA 10151; Poquiz, Labor Standards and Social
Legislation with Notes and Comments, Vol. 1, 2018 Ed., p. 461-470)

7. What are the certain facilities required to be provided for women to ensure their safety and
health?
a. Provides seats proper for women and permit them to use such seats when they are free from
work and during working hours, provided that they can perform their duties in this position
without detriment to efficiency;
b. To establish separate toilet rooms and lavatories for men and women and provide at least a
dressing room for women;
 c. To establish a nursery in a workplace for the benefit of the women employees therein; and
d. To determine appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement or termination in
special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like.

8. How is sexual harassment committed in the workplace?

According to Republic Act No. 7877, sexual harassment is committed in a work-related or

employment environment when:

a. The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or  in the employment, re-employment or
continued employment  of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges;  or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way  would discriminate, deprive
or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
b. The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
c. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the
employee. (Sec. 3 (a), Republic Act No. 7877)

Note: RA 11313 or Safe Spaces Act (signed April 17, 2019) now expanded the concept to
include gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace, and no longer requires moral
ascendancy as an element.

9. What are the Kinds of Sexual Harassment?

The following are the two (2) types of sexual harassment:

a. Quid pro quo sexual harassment – takes place whereby sexual favors are demanded as a
condition for hiring, promotion or grant of other employment benefits. It generally involves some
express or implied linkage between the employees’ submission to sexually oriented behavior
and tangible job consequences. Thus, when an employee refuses to submit, she suffers an
adverse “tangible job detriment” as a result. To exemplify is the act of a superior to have sexual
relations with him. (Lusk Series, Business Law and the Regulatory Environment, p. 1227)

b. Hostile work environment – under this classification, the superior officer’s conduct caused
some anxieties in the working environment which may include, sexual remarks or utterances,
unwelcome sexual flirtations or propositions of a sexual nature. Such conduct has the effect of
creating an intimidating hostile or offensive working environment. (Poquiz, Labor Standards and
Social Legislation with Notes and Comments, 2018, p. 135)

10. What is illegal recruitment?

Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Art. 12 (f) of P.D. 442, as amended otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two (2) or more persons shall be deemed so
engaged (First par. Of Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042, as amended by Sec. 5 of R.A. 10022 and Sec. 1, Rule IV, Omnibus Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, as amended by R.A. 10022 ).

11. What are the four (4) types of illegal recruitment?

a. Simple or licensee – illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority against one
or two persons only;
 b. Non-licensee – illegal recruitment committed by any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder
of authority;
c. Syndicated – illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons in conspiracy or confederation with one another; and
d. Large scale or qualified – illegal recruitment committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group despitethe lack of the necessary license from the POEA ( People v. Sadiosa,
G.R. No. 107084, May 15, 1998).

12. What is corporate spin-off that simplifies the bargaining process?

The transformation of companies is a management prerogative and business judgment which the
courts cannot look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals. If, considering the spin-
offs, the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of
nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment. The nature of their
products and scales of business may require different skills, volumes of work, and working conditions
which must necessarily be commensurate by different compensation packages. (San Miguel Union vs.
Confessor, G.R. No. 111262, September 19, 1996)

13. How does the law distinguish, as to effects of illegal strikes, between a participating worker
and a union officer?

An ordinary worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It
is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost employment
status.

In contrast, a union officer may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an
illegal strike or participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law grants the
employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his
employment. (Visayas Community Medical Center vs. Yballe, G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014)

14. Can wage increase given in accordance with the CBA be credited as compliance with
increases mandated in wage orders?

Yes. Creditability provisions in wage orders are grounded in an important public policy, which is to
encourage employers to grant wage and allowance increases to their employees higher than the
minimum rates of increases prescribed by statute or administrative regulation.The creditability provisions
in the Wage Orders prevent the penalizing of employers who are industry leaders and who do not wait for
statutorily prescribed increases in salary or allowances and pay their workers more than what the law or
regulations require (Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, G. R. No. 86200, February 25, 1992).

15. A provision in the CBA between Apex Company and Union A reads:
 The COMPANY agrees to grant general wage increases to all employees within
bargaining unit as follows:

Twenty Pesos (P20.00) general increase per day upon the effectivity of this
Agreement (February 1, 2018).

On April 3, 2019, Union A filed a claim for Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA)
differential against Apex Company alleging that Apex had paid its employees, between November
1, 2015 until March 28, 2019, an aggregate cumulative daily ECOLA of only P100.00 which was
P20.00 below the cumulative minimum ECOLA of P120.00 established under Wage Order No. 5.

a) Apex Company considers the P20-increase in basic salary effective February 1, 2018
provided in the CBA as compliance with the requirements of Wage Order 5. On the other
hand, Union A argues that to do so would be violative of Article 100 of the Labor Code on
prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. Is the contention of Union A
tenable? Explain.

No. The prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits set out in Article 100 of the Labor
Code is specifically concerned with benefits already enjoyed at the time of the promulgation of the
Labor Code. Article 100 does notapply to situations arising after the promulgation date of the
Labor Code. Clearly, the wage increase under Wage Order No. 5 is not within the term “benefits”
in Article 100.

b) Wage Order No. 5 provides: “All increases in wages and/or allowances granted by
employers between February 1, 2017 and the effectivity of this order [16 June 2018] shall
be credited as compliance with the minimum wage and allowance adjustments prescribed
herein.” Has Apex Company complied with the increase mandated by Wage Order No. 5?
Explain.

Yes. Wage Order No. 5 expressly allowed the crediting of increases in wages or allowances
granted under collective bargaining agreements towards compliance with increases in ECOLA
requirements prescribed by such wage order. Here, the CBA between Apex Company and Union
A provides for the P20 general increase upon effectivity thereof. Therefore, Apex Company has
complied with Wage Order No. 5. (Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, G. R. No. 86200, February 25, 1992).

16. When may the DOLE Secretary assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute?
The DOLE Secretary is granted the extraordinary police power of assuming jurisdiction over a labor
dispute which, in his opinion, will cause or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable
to the national interest, or national interest cases. Alternatively, he may certify the labor dispute to the
NLRC for compulsory arbitration. (Article 278 [263(g]) of the Labor Code)

17. When may separation pay be granted in lieu of reinstatement?

1. Where the continued relationship between the employer and the employee is no longer viable
due to the strained relations and antagonism between them. (Doctrine of Strained Relations)
(Claudia’s Kitchen Inc. vsTanguin G.R. No. 221096, June 28, 2017)

2. When reinstatement proves impossible, impracticable, not feasible or unwarranted for varied
reasons and thus hardly in the best interest of the parties such as:

a. Where the employee has already been replaced permanently as when his position has
already been taken over by a regular employee and there is no substantially equivalent
position to which he may be reinstated. (F.F. Marine Corp. vs NLRC, G.R. No. 152039, April 8, 2005)
 b. Where the dismissed employee’s position is no longer available at the time of reinstatement
for reasons not attributable to the fault of the employer. (Bani Rural Bank Inc. vs Teresa De Guzman,
G.R. No. 170904, Nov. 13, 2013)
c. When there has been long lapse or passage of time that the employee was out of employer’s
employ from the date of the dismissal to the final resolution of the case or because of the
realities of the situation.(Jaile Olisa et. al. vs. Danilo Escario et al, G.R. No. 160302, September 27, 2010)
d. By reason of the injury suffered by the employee. (Article 298 [283] of the Labor Code)
e. The employee has already reached retirement age under a Retirement Plan.
f. When the illegally dismissed employees are over-age or beyond the compulsory retirement
age and their reinstatement would unjustly prejudice their employer. (Alfredo Laya vs. CA, G.R. No.
205813, January 10, 2018)

3. Where the employee decides not to be reinstated as when he does not pray for reinstatement in
his complaint or position paper but asked for separation pay instead.

4. When reinstatement is rendered moot and academic due to supervening events, such as:

a. Death of the illegally dismissed employee

b. Declaration of insolvency of the employer by the court
c. Fire which gutted the employer’s establishment and resulted in its total destruction
d. In case the establishment where the employee is to be reinstated has closed or ceased
operations.

5. To prevent further delay in the execution of the decision to the prejudice of private respondent.
6. Other circumstances such as:

a. When reinstatement is inimical to the employer’s interest;

b. Reinstatement does not serve the best interest of the parties involved;
c. The employer is prejudiced by the worker’s continued employment; or
d. That it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts transpired which made
execution unjust or inequitable.

18. What kind/s of damages does the Labor Arbiter have the jurisdiction to award?

As provided by Art. 224 [217] of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from employer-employee relations.

19. Dionisio, Adessa and Elvie were employed by MOL, a common carrier engaged in transporting
cargoes to and from the different parts of the world. However, after some time they tendered their
resignation letter upon belief that their company is downsizing due to productivity and
profitability volume. Dionisio, Adessa and Elvie also signed quitclaims after their separation pay
and other benefits were given. However, after 15 months, they filed Complaints for Illegal
Dismissal alleging that their consent to resign was not voluntarily given but obtained through
mistake and fraud. Decide.

The complaints for illegal dismissal will not prosper. Resignation is the formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office. The overt act of relinquishment should be coupled with intent to relinquish,
which intent could be inferred from the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation. In
the present case, it appears that the employees, on their own volition, decided to resign from their
positions when they tendered their resignation letter. (Auza, Jr.vs. MOL Philippines, Inc., G. R. No. 175481, 21
November 2012)

21. What are the requisites of abandonment?

The following are the requisites of abandonment:

a. The employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or
justifiable reason; and
b. There must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to server the employer-
employee relationship manifested by some overt act .(Unicorn Safety Glass Inc. et al. vs. Rodrigo Basarte. et
al. G.R. No. 154689, November 25, 2004)

22. JLFP Investigation and Security Agency hired Vicente Tatel as one of its security guards. Tatel
alleged that he was required to work 12 hours every day from Mondays through Sundays and
received only P12,400.00 as monthly salary. Tatel filed a complaint before the NLRC against
respondents for underpayment of salaries and wages (underpayment case). Thereafter, Tatel was
placed on "floating status"; thus, after the lapse of six months therefrom, without having been
given any assignments, he filed another complaint against JLFP and its officers for illegal
dismissal (illegal dismissal case). Respondents denied that Tatel was dismissed and averred that
they removed the latter from his post at BaggerWerken because of several infractions he
committed while on duty. Thereafter, he was reassigned at SKI and last posted at IPVG.
Notwithstanding the pendency of the underpayment case, JLFP sent a Memorandum directing
Tatel to report back to work. However, despite receipt of the said memorandum, they averred that
Tatel ignored the same and failed to appear; hence, he was deemed to have abandoned his work.
In his reply, Tatel refuted JLFP’s claim that he abandoned his work, insisting that after working for
JLFP for more than 11 years, it was illogical for him to refuse any assignments, more so, to
abandon his work and security of tenure without justifiable reasons. The LA dismissed Tatel’s
petition and held him to have been validly dismissed. This ruling was set aside by the NLRC.
However, the CA reinstated the ruling of the LA. Hence, this petition. Is Tatel deemed to have
abandoned his work?

No. To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must be present: first, the employee must have
failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there
must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee
relationship manifested by some overt act. The burden to prove whether the employee abandoned his or
her work rests on the employer. The mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to
return, does not necessarily amount to abandonment. Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot
lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of
deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. The operative act is still the
employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment. Here, respondents failed to discharge the
burden required of them to prove that Tatel had abandoned his work. In fact, the filing of a complaint for
illegal dismissal is a proof of Tatel's desire to return to work, thus, effectively negating any suggestion of
abandonment. No rational explanation exists as to why an employee who had worked for his employer for
more than ten years would just abandon his work and forego whatever benefits he may be entitled to as a
consequence thereof.

23. What is the legal remedy when the employer refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee?

Under the law, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages, and if
reinstatement is no longer possible, he may be given separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. (Bunagan vs.
Sentinel Watchman & Protective Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 144376, September 13, 2006).
24. What are the respective jurisdictions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC?

LABOR ARBITER NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

1. Petition for injunction in ordinary labor

1. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and disputes;
other form of Damages arising for Er-Ee 2. Petition for injunction on strikes and
Relations; lockouts;
2. Unfair Labor Practice; 3. Certified cases which refer to labor disputes
Note: The LA has jurisdiction only over the causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout
civil aspect of ULP, the criminal aspect in an industry indispensable to the national
being lodged with the regular courts. (Labor interest, certified to it by SoLE for
Code, Art 250, last par.) compulsory arbitration;
3. If accompanied with a claim for 4. Petition to annul or nullify the
Reinstatement, those workers file involving order/resolution of the LA; and
wages, rates of pay, hours of work and 5. Contempt cases.
other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Wage distortions disputes in unorganized
establishments not voluntarily settled by
the parties pursuant to R.A. 6727;
5. Wage distortions disputes in unorganized
establishments not voluntarily settled by
the parties pursuant to R.A. 6727;
6. Monetary claims of Overseas contract
workers arising from Er-Ee relations under
R.A. 8042 as amended by R.A. 10022;
7. Cases arising from any Violation of Art. 278
including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts;
8. Termination disputes (Illegal Dismissal
Cases);
9. Cases under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code
(Visitorial and Enforcement powers of the
DOLE Secretary);
10. Enforcement Compromise agreements
when there is non-compliance by any of
the parties pursuant to Art. 233; and
11. Other Cases as provided by law.

Exceptions to the Original and Exclusive Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters

1. When the SOLE or the President exercises
his power under to assume jurisdiction over
national interest cases and decide them
himself (Labor Code, Art. 278[g])
2. When the NLRC exercises its power of
compulsory arbitration over similar national
interest cases that are certified to it by the
SOLE pursuant to the exercise by the latter
1. All cases decided by the LA under Art. 217(b)
of the LC and Sec. 10 of R.A.8042 (Migrant
Worker’s Act, as amended); and
2. Cases decided by the Regional Offices of DOLE
in the exercise of its adjudicatory function
under Art.129 of the LC over monetary claims
of workers amounting to NOT more than
P5000 and NOT accompanied by claim for
 of his certification under the same (Labor reinstatement; and
Code, Art. 278[g]) 3. Contempt cases decided by the LA.
3. When cases arise from the interpretation or
the implementation of CBA and from the
interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies which shall be disposed
of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the
same to the grievance machinery and
voluntary arbitration, as may be provided in
said agreements. (Labor Code, Art 224(C); 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure, Rule V, Sec.1); and
4. When the parties agree to submit the case
to voluntary arbitration before a voluntary
arbitration or panel of Voluntary arbitrators
wo, under Arts. 274 and 275 of the Labor
Code, are also possessed of Original and
Exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases mutually submitted to them by the
parties for arbitration and adjudication.