Topic Year & Q# Q Provision Doctrine/Principle *Suggested Answer

Regular and Casual 2015 / Q7 Don Don is hired as a contractual
Employment employee of CALLHELP, a call
center. His contract is expressly
for a term of 4 months. Don Don is
hired for 3 straight contracts of 4
months each but at 2-week
intervals between contracts. After
the third contract ended, Don Don
is told that he will no longer be
given another contract because of
"poor performance." Don Don files
a suit for "regularization" and for
illegal dismissal, claiming that he is
a regular employee of CALLHELP
and that he was dismissed without
cause. You are the Labor Arbiter.
How would you decide the case?
(4%)
Article 295. Regular and casual
employment.
The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where
the work or service to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment
is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be
casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That
any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall
continue while such activity exists.
When contractual/fixed As Labor Arbiter, I will
period employees decide the case in favor of
become regular Don Don. Given the nature
of Don Don’s work, which
consist of activities usually
or desirable in the usual
business of CALLHELP,
Don Don should be
considered a regular
employee.
CALLHELP’s termination of
Don Don’s service in the
guise of “poor performance”
is not valid.
Whether for a probationary
or regular employee, the
requisites of dismissal on
that ground do not appear
to have been complied with
by the employer here.

Termination of 2015 / Q9 Din Din is a single mother with one Article 297. Termination by employer. Unsatisfactory rating (afv note:
Employment child. She is employed as a sales can be a just cause for
executive at a prominent An employer may terminate an dismissal As per Atty. Duano’s book,
supermarket. She and her child employment for any of the following this Bar Q is under
live in Quezon City and her
 residence and workplace are a 15-
minute drive apart. One day, Din
Din is informed by her boss that
she is being promoted to a
managerial position but she is now
being transferred to the Visayas.
Din Din does not want to uproot
her family and refuses the offer.
Her boss is so humiliated by Din
Din's refusal of the offer that she
gives Din Din successive
unsatisfactory evaluations that
result in Din Din being removed
from the supermarket.
Din Din approaches you, as
counsel, for legal advice. What
would you advise her? (4%)
Security of Tenure 2015 / Q10 Karina Santos is a famous news
anchor appearing nightly in the
country's most watched newscast.
She is surprised, after one
causes:
a. Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee
of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in
connection with his work;
b. Gross and habitual neglect by
the employee of his duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach by the
employee of the trust reposed in
him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
d. Commission of a crime or
offense by the employee against
the person of his employer or
any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized
representatives; and
e. Other causes analogous to the
foregoing.
Article 294.. Security of tenure.
In cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the
discussion in Art. 297
[when unsatisfactory rating
can be a just cause for
dismissal]. But in the
suggested answer from
internet, it tates dismissal
[in the case] is illegal. *see
answer below)
I will advise Din Din to sue
her boss and the
supermarket for illegal
dismissal. Din Din cannot
be compelled to accept the
promotion. Her
unsatisfactory evaluations
as well as her boss’
insistence that she should
agree to the intended
transfer to Visayas are
badges of an abuse of
management prerogative.
In Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco
(645 SCRA 135), the
Supreme Court held that
the managerial prerogative
to transfer personnel must
be exercised without abuse
of discretion, bearing in
mind the basic elements of
justice and fair play. Hence,
Din Din’s dismissal is
illegal.
If there is no indication No. The preventive
that an employee suspension of Karina is not
poses a serious threat valid.
to the life and property
 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.
services of an employee except for a
just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. (As amended by Section
34, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
of the employer/co-
employee, there shall The employer may place an
be no basis to justify employee under preventive
preventive suspension suspension if his/her
continued employment
would pose a serious and
imminent threat to the life or
property of the employer or
of his/her co-employees.
These requirements are not
present here.

Is the preventive suspension of

Karina valid? Discuss the reasons
for your answer. (4%)

Termination of 2015 / Q12 Blank Garments, Inc. (BLANK), a
Employment clothing manufacturer, employs
more than 200 employees in its
manufacturing business. Because
of its high overhead, BLANK
decided to sell its manufacturing
business to Bleach Garments, Inc.
(BLEACH) lock, stock and barrel
which included goodwill,
equipment, and personnel. After
taking on BLANK's business,
BLEACH reduces the workforce by
not hiring half the workers
Article 283. Closure of establishment
and reduction of personnel.
The employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to the
installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent
losses or the closing or cessation of
operation of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closing is for the
purpose of circumventing the provisions
of this Title, by serving a written notice
on the workers and the Ministry of Labor
 specifically the ones with seniority.
BLANK and BLEACH are still
discerned to be sister companies
with identical incorporators. The
laid-off employees sue both
BLANK and BLEACH for unlawful
termination.
(a) How would you decide this
case? (4%)
(b) What is the "successor
employer" doctrine? (2%)
Strikes, picketing and 2015 / Q16 The Alliance of Independent Labor
lockouts. Unions (AILU) is a legitimate labor
federation which represents a
majority of the appropriate
bargaining unit at the Lumens
Brewery (LB). While negotiations
were ongoing for a renewal of the
collective bargaining agreement
(CBA), LB handed down a
decision in a disciplinary case that
was pending which resulted in the
termination of the AILU's treasurer
and two other members for cause.
AILU protested the decision,
claiming that LB acted in bad faith
and asked that LB reconsider. LB
refused to reconsider. AILU then
and Employment at least one (1) month
before the intended date thereof. In
case of termination due to the
installation of labor-saving devices or
redundancy, the worker affected thereby
shall be entitled to a separation pay
equivalent to at least his one (1) month
pay or to at least one (1) month pay for
every year of service, whichever is
higher. In case of retrenchment to
prevent losses and in cases of closures
or cessation of operations of
establishment or undertaking not due to
serious business losses or financial
reverses, the separation pay shall be
equivalent to one (1) month pay or at
least one-half (1/2) month pay for every
year of service, whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall
be considered one (1) whole year.
Article 278. Strikes, picketing and (a) No. Firstly, a Notice of
lockouts. Strike is always required by
Art. 263(c) of the Labor
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the Code before a strike may
duly certified or recognized bargaining be staged – be it grounded
agent may file a notice of strike or the on bargaining deadlock or
employer may file a notice of lockout unfair Labor Practice.
with the Ministry at least 30 day before Secondly, the Supreme
the intended date thereof. In cases of Court already held in
unfair labor practice, the period of notice Sukothai that while AILU
shall be 15 days and in the absence of a may not exhaust the 15-day
duly certified or recognized bargaining cooling-off period in case of
agent, the notice of strike may be filed dismissal from employment
by any legitimate labor organization in of its officers who were duly
behalf of its members. However, in case elected in accordance with
of dismissal from employment of union the Union constitution and
officers duly elected in accordance with by-laws and the dismissal
walked out of the negotiation and
declared a strike without a notice
of strike or a strike vote. AILU
members locked in the LB
management panel by barricading
the doors and possible exits
(including windows and fire
escapes). LB requested the DOLE
to assume jurisdiction over the
dispute and to certify it for
compulsory arbitration.
The Secretary of Labor declined to
assume jurisdiction, finding that
the dispute was not one that
involved national interest. LB then
proceeds to terminate all of the
members of the bargaining agent
on the ground that it was unlawful
to:
(1) barricade the management
panel in the building, and (2)
participate in an illegal strike.
(a) Was AILU justified in declaring
a strike without a strike vote and a
notice of strike? Why or why not?
(3%)
(b) Was the Secretary of Labor
correct in declining to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute? (2%)
(c) Was LB justified in terminating
all those who were members of
AILU on the two grounds cited?
the union constitution and by-laws,
which may constitute union busting,
where the existence of the union is
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off
period shall not apply and the union
may take action immediately. (As
amended by Executive Order No. 111,
December 24, 1986)
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a
labor dispute causing or likely to cause
a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest,
the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may assume jurisdiction over the
dispute and decide it or certify the same
to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or
certification shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order.
If one has already taken place at the
time of assumption or certification, all
striking or locked out employees shall
immediately return-to-work and the
employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout.
The Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the Commission may
seek the assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this
provision as well as with such orders as
he may issue to enforce the same.
constitutes union busting
and a threat to AILU’s
existence, still, Art. 263 (f)
requires that a strike vote
be undertaken through a
secret ballot and approved
by a majority of the total
union membership in the
bargaining unit. Devoid of a
notice of strike and a strike
vote, AILU’s strike is
therefore illegal.
(b) The refusal of the
Secretary to assume
jurisdiction is valid. Par. (g)
of Art. 263 (old) of the
Labor Code leaves it to his
sound discretion to
determine if national
interest is involved.
Assumption power is full
and complete. It is also
plenary and discretionary
(Philtranco Service
Enterprises, Inc. v.
Philtranco Workers Union-
AGLO, G.R. No. 180962,
February 26, 2014). Thus, if
in his opinion national
interest is not involved, then
the company cannot insist
that he assume jurisdiction.
(c) If dismissal is based on
illegal strike:
The company has to file a
 (3%)
Unfair Labor Practices 2015 / Q18 The Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between Libra
Films and its union, Libra Films
Employees' Union (LFEU),
contains the following standard
clauses:
Article 279. Prohibited activities.
(a) No labor organization or employer
shall declare a strike or lockout without
first having bargained collectively in
accordance with Title VII of this Book or
without first having filed the notice
required in the preceding Article or
without the necessary strike or lockout
vote first having been obtained and
reported to the Ministry.
Article 259. Unfair labor practices of
employers.  clause, all employees are
It shall be unlawful for an employer to
commit any of the following unfair labor
practice:
a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce
complaint for illegal strike
first. Once the strike is
declared by final judgment
to be illegal, it can dismiss
the union officers. As to
members, their dismissal
must be based on their
having committed
illegalities on the occasion
of their illegal strike. Since
the company prematurely
and indiscriminately
dismissed the AILU
members then their
dismissal is illegal. If
dismissal is based on the
unlawful acts of barricading
to lock the AILU members:
Yes. Article 279 (a) of the
Labor Code authorizes the
employer to declare the
loss of employment status
of “ANY WORKER” or
union officer who knowingly
participates in the
commission of illegal acts
during a strike.
(b) In a “closed shop”
required to be members of
the union at the time of
hiring. They too must
remain members of good
standing during the period
of employment as a
condition of continued

1. Maintenance of membership;
2. Check off for union dues and
agency fees; and
3. No strike, no lock-out.
While Libra Films and LFEU are in
re-negotiations for an extension of
the CBA, LFEU discovers that
some of its members have
resigned from the union, citing
their constitutional right to organize
(which includes the right NOT to
organize). LFEU demands that
Libra Films institute administrative
proceedings to terminate those
union members who resigned in
violation of the CBA' s
maintenance of membership
clause. Libra Films refuses, citing
its obligation to remain a neutral
party. As a result, LFEU declares a
strike and after filing a notice of
strike and taking a strike vote,
goes on strike. The union claims
that Libra Films grossly violated
the terms of the CBA and engaged
in unfair labor practice.
(a) Are LFEU's claims correct?
Explain. (4%)
(b) Distinguish between a "closed
shop" clause and a "maintenance
of membership" clause. (2%)
employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization;
b) To require as a condition of
employment that a person or an
employee shall not join a labor
organization or shall withdraw from
one to which he belongs;
c) To contract out services or functions
being performed by union members
when such will interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-
organization;
d) To initiate, dominate, assist or
otherwise interfere with the
formation or administration of any
labor organization, including the
giving of financial or other support to
it or its organizers or supporters;
e) To discriminate in regard to wages,
hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage
membership in any labor
organization. Nothing in this Code or
in any other law shall stop the
parties from requiring membership
in a recognized collective bargaining
agent as a condition for
employment, except those
employees who are already
members of another union at the
employment. Maintenance
of membership clause, on
the other hand, requires all
employees who are union
members at the time of the
execution of the CBA to
maintain their membership
of good standing, as a
condition of continued
employment.
(c) Union dues are union
funds paid by union
members, normally through
check-off by the employer
on the basis of an individual
written authorization duly
signed by the employees
pursuant to Art. 241 (o) of
the Labor Code. Agency
fee, on the other hand, is a
reasonable fee equivalent
to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the
recognized collective
bargaining agent. Art.
248(e) of the Labor Code
mandates that only non-
union members who accept
the benefits under the CBA
may be assessed agency
fees. Their check-off
authorization is not required
(c) Distinguish between "union
dues" and "agency fees." (2%)
f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise
g) To violate the duty to bargain
h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees
time of the signing of the collective
bargaining agreement. Employees
of an appropriate bargaining unit
who are not members of the
recognized collective bargaining
agent may be assessed a
reasonable fee equivalent to the
dues and other fees paid by
members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent, if such
non-union members accept the
benefits under the collective
bargaining agreement: Provided,
that the individual authorization
required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not
apply to the non-members of the
recognized collective bargaining
agent;
prejudice or discriminate against an
employee for having given or being
about to give testimony under this
Code;
collectively as prescribed by this
Code;
to the union or its officers or agents
as part of the settlement of any
issue in collective bargaining or any
other dispute; or

Foreign Activities George is an American who is
working as a consultant for a local
IT company. The company has a
union and George wants to
support the union. How far can
George go in terms of his support
for the union? (3%)
2015 / Q21 Philippine News Network (PNN)
engages the services of Anya, a
prominent news anchor from a
rival station, National News
Network (NNN). NNN objects to
i) To violate a collective bargaining
agreement.
j) The provisions of the preceding
paragraph notwithstanding, only the
officers and agents of corporations,
associations or partnerships who
have actually participated in,
authorized or ratified unfair labor
practices shall be held criminally
liable. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21,
1981)
Article 285. Regulation of foreign
assistance.
(a) No foreign individual, organization or
entity may give any donations, grants or
other forms of assistance, in cash or in
kind, directly or indirectly, to any labor
organization, group of workers or any
auxiliary thereof, such as cooperatives,
credit unions and institutions engaged in
research, education or communication,
in relation to trade union activities,
without prior permission by the
Secretary of Labor.
Article 225. Powers of the Commission. (a) The NLRC has no
jurisdiction.
The Commission shall have the power
and authority: As to PNN, there is no
employer-employee
the transfer of Anya claiming that
she is barred from working in a
competing company for a period of
three years from the expiration of
her contract. Anya proceeds to
sign with PNN which then asks her
to anchor their nightly newscast.
NNN sues Anya and PNN before
the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), asking for a
labor injunction. Anya and PNN
object claiming that it is a matter
cognizable by a regular court and
not the NLRC.
(a) Is NNN's remedy correct? Why
or why not? (3%)
(b) What are the grounds for a
labor injunction to issue? (2%)
(c) Distinguish the jurisdiction of a
Labor Arbiter from that of the
NLRC. (3%)
To promulgate rules and regulations
governing the hearing and disposition of
cases before it and its regional
branches, as well as those pertaining to
its internal functions and such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Code; (As
amended by Section 10, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
To administer oaths, summon the
parties to a controversy, issue
subpoenas requiring the attendance and
testimony of witnesses or the production
of such books, papers, contracts,
records, statement of accounts,
agreements, and others as may be
material to a just determination of the
matter under investigation, and to testify
in any investigation or hearing
conducted in pursuance of this Code;
To conduct investigation for the
determination of a question, matter or
controversy within its jurisdiction,
proceed to hear and determine the
disputes in the absence of any party
thereto who has been summoned or
served with notice to appear, conduct its
proceedings or any part thereof in public
or in private, adjourn its hearings to any
time and place, refer technical matters
or accounts to an expert and to accept
his report as evidence after hearing of
the parties upon due notice, direct
parties to be joined in or excluded from
the proceedings, correct, amend, or
relationship between itself
and NNN; hence, the NLRC
cannot hear and resolve
their dispute (Reasonable
Causal Connection Rule).
As to Anya, the injunctive
power of the NLRC is
ancillary in nature; hence, it
requires a principal case,
which is absent. Besides,
the dispute between her
and PNN is not resolvable
solely through the
application of the Labor
Code, other labor statutes,
CBA or employment
contract. (Reference to
Labor Law Rule)
(b) The NLRC may issue an
injunctive writ to enjoin an
illegal activity under Art.
264 (old) of the Labor
Code; as an ancillary
remedy to avoid irreparable
injury to the rights of a party
in an ordinary labor dispute
pursuant to Rule X, 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure,
as amended; and to correct
the Labor Arbiter’s grave
abuse of discretion
pursuant to Rule XII of the
2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, as amended.
Moreover, for labor
injunction to issue, it must
waive any error, defect or irregularity
whether in substance or in form, give all
such directions as it may deem
necessary or expedient in the
determination of the dispute before it,
and dismiss any matter or refrain from
further hearing or from determining the
dispute or part thereof, where it is trivial
or where further proceedings by the
Commission are not necessary or
desirable; and
To hold any person in contempt directly
or indirectly and impose appropriate
penalties therefor in accordance with
law.
A person guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of or so near the Chairman or
any member of the Commission or any
Labor Arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt
the proceedings before the same,
including disrespect toward said
officials, offensive personalities toward
others, or refusal to be sworn, or to
answer as a witness or to subscribe an
affidavit or deposition when lawfully
required to do so, may be summarily
adjudged in direct contempt by said
officials and punished by fine not
exceeding five hundred pesos (P500) or
imprisonment not exceeding five (5)
days, or both, if it be the Commission, or
a member thereof, or by a fine not
exceeding one hundred pesos (P100) or
imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
day, or both, if it be a Labor Arbiter.
be proven under Art. 218
(e). Labor Code:
i. That the prohibited or
unlawful acts have been
threatened and will be
committed and will be
continued unless
restrained;
ii. That substantial and
irreparable injury to the
complainant’s property will
follow;
iii. That greater injury will be
inflicted upon complainant
by the denial of relief than
will be inflicted upon
defendants by the granting
of relief; iv. That
complainant has no
adequate remedy at law;
and v. That public officers
charged with the duty to
protect complainant’s
property are unable or
unwilling to furnish
adequate protection;
(c) As to jurisdiction, the LA
can hear and resolve cases
under Art. 217 (old) of the
Labor Code, money claims
under Sec. 7 of R.A. 10022;
and referred wage
The person adjudged in direct contempt distortion disputes in
by a Labor Arbiter may appeal to the unorganized stablishments,
Commission and the execution of the as well as the enforcement
judgment shall be suspended pending of compromise agreements
the resolution of the appeal upon the pursuant to the 2011 NLRC
filing by such person of a bond on Rules of Procedure, as
condition that he will abide by and amended. On the other
perform the judgment of the hand, the NLRC reviews
Commission should the appeal be decisions rendered by the
decided against him. Judgment of the LA; decisions or orders
Commission on direct contempt is rendered by the RD under
immediately executory and Art. 129 of the Labor Code;
unappealable. Indirect contempt shall and conducts compulsory
be dealt with by the Commission or arbitration in certified
Labor Arbiter in the manner prescribed cases. As to the power to
under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of issue a labor injunction, the
Court; and (As amended by Section 10, NLRC can issue an
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) injunctive writ. On the other
hand, the Labor Arbiter
To enjoin or restrain any actual or cannot issue an injunctive
threatened commission of any or all writ.
prohibited or unlawful acts or to require
the performance of a particular act in
any labor dispute which, if not restrained
or performed forthwith, may cause
grave or irreparable damage to any
party or render ineffectual any decision
in favor of such party: Provided, That no
temporary or permanent injunction in
any case involving or growing out of a
labor dispute as defined in this Code
shall be issued except after hearing the
testimony of witnesses, with opportunity
for cross-examination, in support of the
allegations of a complaint made under
oath, and testimony in opposition
thereto, if offered, and only after a
finding of fact by the Commission, to the
effect:

That prohibited or unlawful acts have

been threatened and will be committed
and will be continued unless restrained,
but no injunction or temporary
restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat, prohibited or
unlawful act, except against the person
or persons, association or organization
making the threat or committing the
prohibited or unlawful act or actually
authorizing or ratifying the same after
actual knowledge thereof;

That substantial and irreparable injury to

complainant’s property will follow;

That as to each item of relief to be

granted, greater injury will be inflicted
upon complainant by the denial of relief
than will be inflicted upon defendants by
the granting of relief;

That complainant has no adequate

remedy at law; and

That the public officers charged with the

duty to protect complainant’s property
are unable or unwilling to furnish
adequate protection.

Such hearing shall be held after due

and personal notice thereof has been
served, in such manner as the
Commission shall direct, to all known
persons against whom relief is sought,
and also to the Chief Executive and
other public officials of the province or
city within which the unlawful acts have
been threatened or committed, charged
with the duty to protect complainant’s
property: Provided, however, that if a
complainant shall also allege that,
unless a temporary restraining order
shall be issued without notice, a
substantial and irreparable injury to
complainant’s property will be
unavoidable, such a temporary
restraining order may be issued upon
testimony under oath, sufficient, if
sustained, to justify the Commission in
issuing a temporary injunction upon
hearing after notice. Such a temporary
restraining order shall be effective for no
longer than twenty (20) days and shall
become void at the expiration of said
twenty (20) days. No such temporary
restraining order or temporary injunction
shall be issued except on condition that
complainant shall first file an
undertaking with adequate security in an
amount to be fixed by the Commission
sufficient to recompense those enjoined
for any loss, expense or damage
caused by the improvident or erroneous
issuance of such order or injunction,
including all reasonable costs, together
with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and
expense of defense against the order or
against the granting of any injunctive
relief sought in the same proceeding
 and subsequently denied by the
Commission.

The undertaking herein mentioned shall

be understood to constitute an
agreement entered into by the
complainant and the surety upon which
an order may be rendered in the same
suit or proceeding against said
complainant and surety, upon a hearing
to assess damages, of which hearing,
complainant and surety shall have
reasonable notice, the said complainant
and surety submitting themselves to the
jurisdiction of the Commission for that
purpose. But nothing herein contained
shall deprive any party having a claim or
cause of action under or upon such
undertaking from electing to pursue his
ordinary remedy by suit at law or in
equity: Provided, further, That the
reception of evidence for the application
of a writ of injunction may be delegated
by the Commission to any of its Labor
Arbiters who shall conduct such
hearings in such places as he may
determine to be accessible to the
parties and their witnesses and shall
submit thereafter his recommendation to
the Commission. (As amended by
Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)
Jurisdiction of the Labor 2015 / Q22 Mario comes from a family of Article 224. Jurisdiction of the Labor (a) The Labor Arbiter has
Arbiters and the coffee bean growers. Deciding to jurisdiction over Carlo’s
Commission incorporate his fledgling coffee illegal dismissal complaint
venture, he invites his best friend,
Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant
because he does not have money
to invest but Mario suggests a
scheme where Carlo can be the
Chief Marketing Agent of the
company, earning a salary and
commissions. Carlo agrees and
the venture is formed. After one
year, the business is so successful
that they were able to declare
dividends. Mario is so happy with
Carlo's work that he assigns 100
shares of stock to Carlo as part of
the latter's bonus.
Much later on, it is discovered that
Carlo had engaged in unethical
conduct which caused
embarrassment to the company.
Mario is forced to terminate Carlo
but he does so without giving
Carlo the opportunity to explain.
Carlo filed a case against Mario
and the company for illegal
dismissal. Mario objected on the
ground that the Labor Arbiter had
no jurisdiction over the case as it
would properly be considered as
an intra-corporate controversy
cognizable by the RTC. Further,
Mario claimed that because
Carlo's dismissal was a corporate
act, he cannot be held personally
liable.
(a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned
Arbiters and the Commission.
Except as otherwise provided under this
Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of
the case by the parties for decision
without extension, even in the absence
of stenographic notes, the following
cases involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural:
Unfair labor practice cases;
Termination disputes;
If accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement, those cases that workers
may file involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment;
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations;
Cases arising from any violation of
Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes
and lockouts; and
Except claims for Employees
Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all
other claims arising from employer-
employee relations, including those of
as he was hired by Mario
on a “salary and
commission” basis. In
Grepalife v. Judico (180
SCRA 445) it was held that
a worker who is paid on a
salary plus commission
basis is an employee. While
regular courts have
jurisdiction over Mario’s
corporate act of severing
ties with Carlo, the Labor
Arbiter, pursuant to Art. 217
A-(2) of the Labor Code,
has jurisdiction over Carlo’s
illegal dismissal complaint.
(b) Corporate officers are
not, as a general rule,
personally liable for the
corporate acts they
performed in behalf of the
corporation they represent.
They are, however,
personally liable for their
corporate acts if they acted
with malice or bad faith
(Girly Ico v. Systems
Technology Institute, Inc.,
G.R. No. 185100, July 9,
2014).
SUGGESTED
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) Carlo is party to a joint-
venture. Hence, he is not
related to Mario as an
employee. As a business
to this case, how would you
resolve the jurisdiction question.
(3%)
(b) What is the rule on personal
liability of corporate officers for a
corporate act declared to be
unlawful? (2%)
persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
regardless of whether accompanied with
a claim for reinstatement.
The Commission shall have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Labor Arbiters.
Cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining
agreements and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies 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.
(As amended by Section 9, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
organization, the affairs of
that joint-venture are not
governed by Labor Law,
except in relation to its
employees. Any issue
arising from that affair,
therefore, must be brought
to the RTC. Thus, the
NLRC has no jurisdiction
because the matter did not
arise from employer-
employee relationship and
the issue between the
disputants is not resolvable
solely through the
application of Labor Law.