LABOR LAW

I.

Linda’s complaint for illegal dismissal is meritorious, while the argument of her
employer Sectarian University (SU) is bereft of merit.

Under the Labor Code, a person who is working in a commercial, industrial, or

agricultural industry cannot be considered to be engaged as a domestic househelp, but
rather is considered as a regular employee.

In this case, Linda is engaged as a cook for the members of the religious order,
SU, which is engaged in the business of teaching and who lives inside the campus. Linda,
is engaged not as a domestic househelp, but as a worker in a commercial industry, hence
Linda is considered as a regular employee of SU. Thus, her complaint for illegal
dismissal shall prosper.

II.

I will advise Lucy that she has no chance of getting her job back.

Under the Labor Code, contractual employees are employees that are hired on a
contractual basis, on the onset of their employment these types of employees voluntarily
agrees to the conditions of the employment and are informed as to the duration and the
scope of their employment. Being contractual employees, they do not possess the right to
security of tenure, which are only available to regular emoployees.

In this case, Lucy is a contractual employee, she is very well aware of the fact that
her employment shall last for a certain contractual period. Although, regularly re-hired,
the said constant re-hiring does not in any way equate to a regularization in employment.
Hence, Lucy has a slim to no chance of getting her job back, since as a contractual
employee she does not have the right to security of tenure.

III.

IV.

Yes, POEA should be held solidarily liable with LMI for the payment of salary
differentials due to the complainants.

Under the Labor Code, a contractor shall be held joint and solidarily liable with
the employer in case of non-payment of wages of the employees.

In this case, POEA contracted the services of LMI and engaged the services of
LMI’s janitors. POEA in this instance did not contract the services of LMI as a
government agency, but as a private contractor, since the janitorial services offered by
LMI is not related to the official functions of POEA. Hence, POEA, although a
government agency may be impleaded as a proper party to the complaint for the payment
of salary differentials filed by the complainants, because POEA is jointly and severally
liable as a contractor with LMI, the employer of the complainants.
 V.

(A)

Yes, the votes of the probationary and dismissed employees should be counted in
the total votes cast for the purpose of determining the winning labor union.

Under the Labor Code, for purposes of certification election, probationary

employees may be included in the list of voters for the said elections, since they would be
benefiting from the establishment of a recognized labor union as well. The Labor Code
also provided that dismissed employees, who questioned the validity of their dismissal, at
the time of the conduct of the certification election, shall be included in the list of voters
for the said elections.

Thus, the votes of the four (4) probationary employees and the six (6) dismissed
employees should be counted in the total votes cast for the purpose of determining the
winning labor union.

(B)

No, there was no valid certification election in this instant case.

Under the Labor Code, for a certification election to be valid, a petition for
certification election should first be filed before the Bureau of Labor Relations.

In this case, there was no petition for certification filed befor the Bureau of Labor
Relations. Thus, making the certification election in this case invalid.

(C)

No, Union A should not be delcared as the winner.

Under the Labor Code, for a union to be considered in a certification electio, the
total accumulated votes of such union should total to majority of the total votes cast.

In this case, the total votes cast was five hundred (500), thus for Union A to be
declared winner, it should have received the majority of the total votes, or two hundred
fifty-one (251) votes in total. Union A in this case, only received two hundred (200) votes,
falling short of the majority vote needed to win the certification election. Hence, Union A
should not be declared the winning union during the certification election.

(D)

Supposing the election is declared invalid, either Union A or Union B can

represent the rank-and-file employees.

Under the Labor Code, a run-off election is resorted to when there is no union that
won the certification elections. In such case, a run-off election is conducted to determine
which among the two (2) unions with the greatese amount of votes can represent the
employees.

In this case, Union A and Union B got the most number of votes. Hence, the
union who wins the run-off elections can represent the rank-and-file employees. Thus,
either Union A or Union B can validly represent the rank-and-file employees of
Liwayway Glass.

(E)

No, Union A should not be certified as the bargaining representative.

Under the Labor Code, for a union to be considered in a certification electio, the
total accumulated votes of such union should total to majority of the total votes cast.

In this case, the total votes cast was five hundred (500), thus for Union A to be
declared winner, it should have received the majority of the total votes, or two hundred
fifty-one (251) votes in total. Union A in this case, only received two hundred fifty (250)
votes, falling short of the majority vote needed to win the certification election. Hence,
Union A should not be certified as the bargaining representative.

VI.

If I were the Labor Arbiter handling the case, I would decide in favor of Loyal
Cruise Lines, and rule that Lina was not illegally dismissed.

Under the Labor Code, contractual employees are employees that are hired on a
contractual basis. At the start of their employment these types of employees voluntarily
agrees to the conditions of the employment and are informed as to the duration and the
scope of their employment. Being contractual employees, they do not possess the right to
security of tenure, which are only available to regular emoployees.

In this case, Lina is a contractual employee, she is very well aware of the fact that
her employment shall last for a certain contractual period. Although, regularly re-hired,
the said constant re-hiring does not mean that she is a regular employee. Thus, as a
contractual employee Lina does not enjoy the security of tenure. Therefore, the complaint
for illegal dismissal filed by Lina should necessarily fail.

VII.

VIII.

(A)

Yes, Lazo Corporation can validly refuse to admit the strikers.

Under the Labor Code, employees who commit illegal acts during a strike shall be
considered as to have been terminated from employment based on just cause.

In this case, during the strike Lazo Employees Union committed illegal acts, thus
warranting their termination from employment. Hence, Lazo Corporation can validly
refuse to admit the strikers, since said strikers are considered to have been terminated
from employment based on just cause.

(B)
 No, Lazo Corporation can no longer dismiss the employees who committed illegal
acts after it has admitted the strikers back to work.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that an
employer who admits the employees back to work after the latter committed illegal acts
during a strike, has in effect waived his right to dismiss said employees.

Thus, Lazo Corportation by admitting the strikers who committed illegal acts
back to work, can no longer dismiss the employees for committing said illegal acts.
Based on the reason that, Lazo Corporation by admitting the employers back to work has
deemed to have waived its right to validly dismiss the erring employees.

(C)

Yes, Lazo Corporation can validly refuse to admit the replaced strikers.

Under the Labor Code, employees who commit illegal acts during a strike shall be
considered as to have been terminated from employment based on just cause.

In this instant case, the strikers during the strike committed illegal acts, thus
warranting their termination from employment. Hence, Lazo Corporation can validly hire
replacements since the strikers has in effect been terminated from employment. Therefore,
Lazo Corporation can validly refuse to admit the replaced strikers.

IX.

If I was the Labor Arbiter assigned in this case, I would rule in favor of the
chambermaids and rule that they were illegally dismissed by Luisa Court.

Under the Labor Code, an employer in the exercise of its management prerogative
can validly terminate its employees from employment due to authorized causes, such as
redundancy. However, for such termination to be valid, the employer must first notify the
employees to be terminated by such fact and that it should notify the DOLE-RD which
has jurisdiction over its business, at least one month prior to the scheduled termination.

In this case, Luisa Court simply dismissed its chambermaids without notifying the
DOLE-RD of such termination. Thus, violative of the due process as provided for under
the law. Therefore, the dismissal fo the chambermaids is illegal, due to the absence of due
process.

X.

If I were the Labor Arbiter, I would rule that there was illegal dismissal due to
arbitrariness and denial of due process.

Under the Labor Code, for termination from employment to be valid, the twin
notice rule should be followed, that is a notice to explain should be given to the employee
sought to be terminated and a notice of termination should be given to the same employee.

In this case, the twin notice rule was not followed, Luisa was dismissed from her
employment right then there, she was not afforded the opportunity to defend herself.
Thus violative of the due process as provided for by the Labor Code. Hence, making the
claim of Luisa that she was illegally dismissed correct. Therefore, as the Labor Arbiter I
would rule in favor of Luisa.
 XI.

(A)

Lionel has a valid cause of action against JP Morgan.

Under the Labor Code, the employer may transfer his employees from one branch
to another and appoint his employee to higher rank, as an exercise of his management
prerogative. However, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, such transfer and
appointment may be validly refused by an employee, and the same is not tantamount to
serious disobedience as a just cause for termination.

In this case, Lionel is being assigned back to the New York branch with a higher
position. Lionel, can validly refuse such assignment and promotion and the same shall
not be a ground for the termination of his employment. Thus, Lionel has a valid cause of
action against JP Morgan for illegal dismissal.

(B)

Yes, he can file a case in the Philippines.

Under the Labor Code, cases with respect to illegal dismissal even if the employer
is a foreign corporation may be instituted in the Philippines, if such foreign corporation is
validly registered as doing business here in the Philippines.

In this case, JP Morgan is a foreign corporation which has a branch here in the
Philippines, hence a foreign corporation validly registered as doing business here in the
Philippines. Thus, Lionel can file the illegal dismissal case here in the Philippines.

(C)

Lionel’s chances of winning are high.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that
although an employer as an exercise of its management prerogative may validly order the
transfer and promotion of an employee, such order may be may be validly refused by an
employee, and the same is not tantamount to serious disobedience as a just cause for
termination.

Hence, Lionel can validly refuse such assignment and promotion and the same
shall not be a ground for the termination of his employment. Thus, Lionel has a high
chance of winning a case of illegal dismissal instituted against JP Morgan.

XII.

XIII.

(A)

No, there is no employer-employee releationship between Don Luis and Lando.

 Under the Labor Code, there are four (4) factors to be able to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) control over the selection of the
employees; (2) control in the payment of the salaries or wages of the employees; (3)
control in the dismissal of the employees; and (4) control in the means and result of the
work of the employees. Absent, the fourth factor, there is no employer-employee
relationship.

In this case, the services of Lando were engaged by Don Luis, however Don Luis
has no control as to how Lando performs his job to trim Don Luis’ garden. Absent such
control, there can be no employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando.

B.

No, Don Luis need not register Lando with the Social Security System (SSS).

Under the SSS Law, an employer should mandatorily report his employee with
the SSS if there exists an employer-employee relationship. Under the Labor Code, there
are four (4) factors to be able to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship: (1) control over the selection of the employees; (2) control in the payment of
the salaries or wages of the employees; (3) control in the dismissal of the employees; and
(4) control in the means and result of the work of the employees. Absent, the fourth factor,
there is no employer-employee relationship.

In this case, the services of Lando were engaged by Don Luis, however Don Luis
has no control as to how Lando performs his job to trim Don Luis’ garden. Absent such
control, there can be no employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando.
Thus, Don Luis need not register Lando with the SSS.

XIV.

I would advise Luisito that the premiums paid with the Social Security System
(SSS) can be credited or transferred to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

The law provides for the rule on transferability, in this rule in case an employee
either starts to be employes with the government and later on transfers to a private
corporation, the premiums paid with the GSIS can be transferred to SSS, and vice versa.

In this case, Luisito initially worked for a private corporation and paid his SSS
premiums then he later on transferred and started working for the government and started
paying his GSIS premiums. By applying the rule on transferability, Lusisito may validly
have the premiums paid with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Social
credited or transferred to the Social Security System (SSS).

XV.

No, OLPCS-TELU cannot be considered as a legitimate labor organization.

Under the Labor Code, managerial employees cannot belong to the same labor
organization as that of rank-and-file employees.

In this case, members of the teaching personnel hold managerial employees, while
some of the teaching personnel and the non-teaching personnel do not. The Labor Code
prohibits the establishment of a labor union which comprises of both managerial
employees and rank-and-file employees, due to this prohibition OLPCS-TELU cannot be
considered as a legitimate labor organization.
 XVI.

No, the contention of EGE is improper.

Under the Labor Code, an bargaining unit or the employer may institute the
certification election. However, if the certification election is instituted by the employer,
the employer cannot interfere in the proceedings, and shall be considered as a mere
bystander.

In this case, it was EGE, the employer who instituted the certification election, as
the employer EGE cannot interfere in the proceedings and shall only be consiered as a
bystander. Hence, EGE cannot take an active part in the certification process contrary to
its allegation.

XVII.

(A)

Yes, the employees of Philhealth are allowed to self-organize and form PEA and
thereafter demand Philhealth to enter into negotiations for better terms and conditions of
employment.

The Labor Code and the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the people and
employees to self-organization. Provided that such self-organization is not contrary to
law, public morals, and the like.

In this case PEA, although employees of a government agency can organize

themselves as a labor union to represent the employees and enter into negotiations for
better terms and conditions of employment. PEA can validly do so since they are not
prohibited by law or by the Constitution from self-organizing.

(B)

In case of unresoved grievances PEA cannot resort to strikes, walkouts, and other
temporary work stoppages.

The Labor Code and the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the people and
employees to self-organization. However, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, an
organized labor union working for the government are prohibited from staging strikes,
walkouts, and work stoppages.

Thus, although PEA can validly organize themselves, they cannot stage strikes,
walkouts, and work stoppages, as these are specifically prohibited by law.

XVIII.

XIX.
 If I were the Labor Arbiter I would grant the motion to dismiss filed by the
company.

Under the law, cases involving the termination of corporate officers fall under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, since this constitutes intra-corporate dispute.

In this case, Lionel is a corporate officer and not just considered as a regular
employee. Thus, his termination is considered as an intra-corporate dispute. Thus, the
instant case properly falls within the Regional Trial Court, being intra-corporate in nature.

Thus, the motion to dismiss filed by the corpoartion should be granted.

XX.

No, Lito’s employer cannot be legally allowed to reduce the bonus.

Under the Labor Code, bonuses are given to the employees as a form of gratitude
for their services and mainly due to management prerogative. Bonuses are not mandated
by law and cannot be claimed by an employe in an action in case the employee fails to
give the bonus. However, if such bonus has been given to the employees for a certain
amount of time and has ripened into a company practice, then the employee cannot
unilateraly decide to no longer give his employees or reduce the said bonus.

In this case, the bonus being given by the employer to its employees has been
going on for ten (10) years and has ripened into a company practice, thus making it
legally demandable. Thus, Lito’s employer cannot unilaterally reduce the bonus.

XXI.

If I were the Labor Arbiter, I would rule in favor of the old set of employees and
decide that they were illegally dismissed.

Under the Labor Code, a business can bona fide suspend its business for a period
not exceeding six (6) months, and it shall notify its employees one (1) month prior to the
expiration of the business suspension if it will rehire its employees or terminate its
employees. The failure of the employer to notify the employees shall result in illegal
dismissal.

In this case, JKL Factory resumed its business and hired new employees, without
informing its old employees. Thus, the failure of JKL Factory to inform and notify its old
employees that they have been terminated from employment is tantamount to an illegal
dismissal.

XXII.

XXIII.

If I were the RTC Judge, I would not issue a restraining order against the union.

Under the Labor Code, only the Bureau of Labor Relations has the jurisdiction
and power to grant injunction against labor unions.
 In this case, the petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order is lodged
before the Regional Trial Court, a court who does not possess an injunction power over
labor unions. Hence, as the RTC judge, I would not issue a restraining order against the
union.

XXIV.

Lanz cannot be legaly terminated by the company.

Under the Labor Code, an employee may be terminated from employement based
on just causes, one of which is when an employee commits a criminal act on the person
of the employer, his family, or to his authorized representative.

In this case, Lanz committed a criminal act against his co-employee and not his
employer, a family member of his employer’s family, or to his authorized representative.
Hence, Lanz cannot be terminated from employment on the said ground.

XXV.

XXVI.

(A)

Yes, Liwanag Corporation’s action is valid.

Under the Labor Code, once the Secretary of Labor and Emplpoyment assumes
jurisdiction over a labor dispute, the corresponding return-to-work order issued by such
authority shall be observed. The failure of the employees to return to work, as ordered
shall consitute an absence without leave, a valid ground for the termination of
employment.

In this case, the Secretary of Labor and Employment released a return-to work
order, and the employees who staged a strike failed to comply with said order, placing
them absent without leave. Thus, validly justifying their dismissal from employment.

(B)

Liwanag Corporation by not allowing the employees to return to work, despite the
employee’s desire to return to work is in clear violation of lawful labor practice. Cases
involving unfair labor practice falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter. Hence, the union in this case can file a case befor the Labor Arbiter for
unlawful labor practice.

XXVII.