Question No.

Xander Maot died of acute renal failure secondary to 1 st degree burn 70% secondary to
electrocution while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of Mr.
Gwapito. With this, moved by his Christian faith, Mr. Gwapito extended financial
assistance to Xander Maot. This prompted the wife of the Xander Maot to file an
affidavit of desistance stating that she was not holding Mr. Gwapito to be liable.
Thereafter, the wife of Mr. Gwapito filed a claim for social security benefits with the
Social Security System. However, it was discovered that the deceased was not
registered member of the Social Security System. The wife insisted that her late
husband had been employed by petitioner from January 1983 up to his untimely death
on November 4, 1997. Consequently, SSS demanded that Mr. Gwapito remit the social
security contributions of the deceased. He further argues that the deceased was not a
former employee, but was an independent contractor whose tasks were not subject to
petitioners control and supervision. Is Mr. Gwapito’s contention tenable?

Suggested Answer:

NO, Gwapitos contention holds no water.

There exist employer-employee relationship between the two. Farm workers generally
fall under the definition of seasonal employees. The Court has consistently held that
seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal
employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship
with the employer is such that during the offseason, they are temporarily laid off , but
reemployed during the summer season or when the services may be needed. They are
in regular employment because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length
of time they have worked.(Gapayao vs Fulo Gr. No. 193493 2013)

Question No. 2

In the year 2019, a wage order was enacted by the authorities which is effective on
November 21, 2019, However, nothing in its implementation any guidelines on how to
implement. With this, BNLO Corporation increased its Cost of Living Allowance paid to
its daily and monthly paid workers of which P5.00 multiplied by 22 days which is the
number of working days in the company. In the recent years, it is shown that the
company has been practicing to give its daily and monthly workers COLA of P5.00 if
which multiplied by 30 days which is the full calder days. Union of
Samahanngamgatrabahador contends that, due to its company practice, the COLA
ceiling should be computed by 30days and not only 22days for such has been a matter
of company practice. Is the contention of the union correct?

Suggested answer.

NO. The contention of the union is without merit.

The grant by the employer of benefits through erroneous application of the law due to
absence of clear administrative guidelines is not considered a voluntary act which
cannot be unilaterally discontinued. (TSPIC Corp. vs TSPICS Employees Union)

Question No. 3

While employed in the office of the National Telecommunications Commission, Malaya

bore his first borne child. Due to some irregularities and abnormalities with her
pregnancy, Malaya underwent into caesarean section which turned out be successful.
In order to fully take good care of her son, she availed for Maternity Leave granted for
all covered employee in the public sector. This was granted by the NTC. However, more
than 90 days later, the NTC dismissed Malaya with the ground of failure to resume to
work and only paid her monetary maternity leave only inside the 78 days period . Is the
NTC correct?

Suggested answer.

NO. NTC is incorrect.

Pursuant to the Expanded Maternity Leave Law RA. 11210, which is the prevailing law
on maternity leave benefit, states that every covered female working in public sector
should be paid one hundred days for live childbirth, regardless of the mode of delivery.
This is now the prevailing law which was signed by President Rodrigo Dutere on
February 20, 2019. There is already no distinction of whether the childbirth was done
caesarean or not. (R.A 11210)

Question No. 4

Mr. Expose hired a kasambahay because he was too lazy to the dishes and cleaning all
by himself. He went to the province and look for any prospective employee. There he
found Melindras who is very well know in the community to be very industrious and
hardworking individual. With this, Mr. Expose has given the minimum pay to Melindras
and in fact shouldered some of the payments for the latter’s contribution in Social
Security System. Sometime in Mid December, as Melindras is planning to shop some
fancy clothes asked for his 13th month pay over which Mr. Expose is obliged to give.
What is now the prevailing law or domestic worker regarding 13 th month pay? Give
some benefits available for a domestic worker or kasambahay.

Suggested Answer.

Pursuant to R.A. No. 103617, it is now settled that a domestic worker or kasambahay is
entitled 13th month pay as provided by law.
RA 10361 or the Kasambahay Law will entitle household workers to 13th-month pay,
five days annual service incentive leave, and a one whole day uninterrupted weekly rest
period.” Household workers will also get to enjoy social benefits such as availing Social
Security System (SSS), Philhealth, and Pag-Ibig.  The labor advisory identified three
other laws that “entitle kasambahays to special leave benefits. Today, they can avail of
the Solo Parent Leave (Republic Act 8972), Special Leave Benefit for Women under the
Magna Carta for Women (Republic Act 9710), and Violence against Women and their
Children (VAWC) Leave (Republic Act 9262) “provided he/she meets all the conditions
for entitlement. Aside from these leaves, kasambahays are still entitled for a five-day
service incentive leave that is granted under the Labor Code. In addition, all domestic
workers who have rendered at least 1 month of service shall be covered by SSS,
Philhealth and Pagibig Fund and be entitled to all benefits provided by law

Question No. 5

Who are deemed Kasambahay, housemaid or domestic worker?

Suggested answer.

According to the SSS and the Kasambahay Law, these are persons who perform
domestic work (performed in or for household). These persons include: House maid,
general house helpers, Cook, Laundry person, Nanny or “Yaya”, Gardener and Driver.
However, persons who only work occasionally and those under foster care arrangement
in exchange of house service are not covered. (R.A. No. 10361)