Agrarian Law any agrarian reform program are within the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary
and Social Legislation
FINALS REVIEWER
(Atty. Ungos III)
I.
Several farmers claim that they have resided
in an area in Bataan for a number of years
doing farming activities and from which
they derive their income for their daily
sustenance. They contend that under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, they
are considered as beneficiaries who are
automatically granted with lands in the said
area. Is the contention of the farmers
correct? Briefly Explain your answer.
No, the farmers are not automatically granted
rights to the land despite the fact that they have
resided for a number of years. It was provided
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
that before one can be considered as a beneficiary,
there must first be an established tenurial
relationship.
In this case, no tenurial relationship exists, thus the
farmers cannot claim that they are beneficiaries.
II.
Stan, a registered owner of two adjoining
lots, filed a complaint before the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication (PARAD) for
cancellation of the Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to Renlee.
His grounds are that the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform
erroneously granted the CLOA to Renlee,
that he is the lawful owner and possessor of
the subject lots, and that said lots are
exempt from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Does PARAD have jurisdiction over the
case? Briefly Explain.
No, PARAD has no jurisdiction over the case
Section 24 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law provides that all cases involving the
cancellation of CLOAs, and other titles issued under
Pokmaru Notes
of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
III.
Krusterly Rock Corporation is a domestic
corporation registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC). Is
Krusterly Rock Corporation allowed to
engage in the recruitment and placement of
overseas workers? Briefly explain your
answer.
A. Krusterly Rock Corporation cannot engage in
recruitment and placement of overseas workers.
RA 8042 provides that illegal recruitment of
migrant workers is committed when a person, who
is not licensed or authorized to recruit workers,
engages in recruitment activities. This contemplates
a license from the Department of Labor apart from
registration with the SEC. Furthermore, RA 8042
requires compulsory insurance coverage for agency-
hired migrant workers.
The facts do not provide that Krusterly Rock
Corporation has acquired said license, or the
compulsory insurance coverage for agency-hired
migrant workers. If it engages in recruitment and
placement activities, it would be committing illegal
recruitment.
Hence, Krusterly Rock Corporation cannot engage
in recruitment and placement of overseas workers.
When does the recruitment of workers
become an act of economic sabotage?
B. RA 8042 provides that the illegal recruitment of
workers become an act of economic sabotage when
committed by a syndicate or in large scale.
There is syndicated illegal recruitment if it is
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another.
There is large scale illegal recruitment when
committed against 3 or more persons individually
or as a group.
1
 IV.
Tyrone and Tywin, both Overseas Filipino
Workers, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of salaries and
overtime pay, refund of transportation
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees
against Highguard, Inc. and their foreign
employer Kingsgarden, Ltd.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in
favor of Tyrone and Tywin and ordered
Highguard, Inc. and Kingsgarden, Ltd. to
jointly and severally pay them their unpaid
salaries, overtime pay, and transportation
expenses. Neither party appealed the Labor
Arbiter’s decision.
Later on, during execution proceedings,
Tyrone and Tywin filed a motion praying
that Olayna, a corporate officer of
Highguard, Inc., be impleaded as a
judgment debtor in the case. The Labor
Arbiter granted said motion because under
Section 10 RA No. 8042 or the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995,
corporate officers may be held jointly and
severally liable with the placement agency
for the judgment award. Was the Labor
Arbiter correct in allowing Olayna to be
impleaded in the case? Briefly explain your
answer.
The labor arbiter is incorrect in allowing Olayna
to be impleaded in the case.
In the case of Fernandez v. Newfield, the court
ruled that “in labor cases, the Court has held
corporate directors and officers solidarily liable
with the corporation for the termination of
employment of employees done with malice or in
bad faith.” Bad faith does not connote bad
judgment or negligence, but rather an ill will which
partakes of the nature of fraud.
The facts do not provide that Tyrone and Tywin
were dismissed due to the bad faith of Olayna or
other corporate directors. Hence, the labor arbiter
is incorrect for holding her personally liable for the
liability of her company to Tyrone and Tywin.
Pokmaru Notes
V.
Margarae is an unwed mother with 3
children from different fathers. In 2010, she
became a member of the Social Security
System (SSS). That same year, she suffered
a miscarriage of a baby out of wedlock from
the father of her child. She wants to claim
maternity benefits under the SSS Act. Is she
entitled to claim?
Yes, Margarae is entitled to claim maternity
benefits. Female Social Security System (SSS)
members, married or unmarried, who give birth or
suffer abortion or miscarriage are entitled to
maternity leave benefits, provided that the
conditions are met.
The conditions for entitlement to maternity leave
are: (1) payment of at least three monthly
contributions in the 12-month period immediately
preceding the semester of her childbirth, abortion
or miscarriage; and (2) notice to employer about
the pregnancy and probable date of childbirth. This
can be availed of only for the first four deliveries or
miscarriage.
Alternative Answer:
No, Margarae is not entitled to claim maternity
benefits. She only became a member of the SSS in
2010, and in the same year, she had a miscarriage.
The condition of “payment of at least three monthly
contributions in the 12-month period immediately
preceding the semester of her childbirth, abortion,
or miscarriage” was not met for her to avail the
maternity leave benefits.
VI.
Mizandrea was employed by Yoonkay
University (YU) to cook for the members of
a religious order who teach and live inside
the campus. While performing her assigned
task, Mizandrea accidentally burned herself.
Because of the extent of her injuries, she
went on medical leave. Meanwhile, YU
engaged a replacement cook. Mizandrea
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, but
her employer YU contended that Mizandrea
was a mere domestic househelp, not a
regular employee. Is YU’s contention
correct? Briefly explain your answer.
2
No, YU’s contention is not correct. Mizandrea is
not a domestic worker but YU’s regular employee.
A domestic worker is a person engaged in domestic
work within an employment relationship. Domestic
work refers to work performed in or for a household
or households. A household refers to the immediate
members of the family or the occupants of the
house that are directly provided services by the
domestic worker.
In this case, while it is true that Mizandrea’s work
as a cook is similar to the work of a domestic
worker, still, she could not be classified as a
domestic worker because she was not working for a
family but for the members of a religious order.
Since she is not performing a domestic work, she is
not a domestic worker, but YU’s regular employee.
VIII
Since she was stressed in caring for her four
(4) growing children, Sercei suffered a
miscarriage late in her pregnancy and had
to undergo an operation. What can Jimmy,
her husband, claim as benefits under the
circumstances? Briefly explain your answer.
Jimmy cannot claim any benefits as the benefits
of paternity leave act in which the duration of
paternity leave is seven days with full pay is only
available for the first four (4) deliveries or
miscarriage of the legitimate spouse with whom he
is cohabiting. Paternity leave benefit, if unused, is
not convertible to cash.

VII
Sergio lived alone in a house with a garden.
One day, he noticed that the plants in his
garden needed trimming. He remembered
that Anya, a fourteen (14) year old out-of-
school youth, had mentioned to him that she
was looking for work. He contacted Anya
who then attended to Sergio’s garden. Is
Anya’s employment allowed under such
circumstances? Briefly explain your answer.
No, the employment of Anya is not allowed under
the Domestic Workers Act as the minimum age for
employment of domestic workers is fifteen (15)
years old.
It is said to be unlawful to employ any person below
fifteen (15) years old. As defined in RA 10361,
domestic workers or kasambahay is a person
engaged to work for a household within an
employment relationship. Examples are: general
house help, nursemaid, cook, “gardener”, or
laundry person. Although the work of Anya is in
line with the said act she cannot be employed as she
is only fourteen years old which is under the
minimum age of fifteen years old. Employment of
anyone below the age limit is considered a criminal
offense under such act.

3
Pokmaru Notes