1. A. No, Jojo was not illegally dismissed by XYZ.

It is clear in this case that in the application of the

control test her actual employer was not XYZ but Atty Malantip Law office. In the application of the
four fold test whose criteria go as follows

(1) Payment of salary

(2) Selection of worker
(3) Power to dismiss and discipline
(4) And most importantly, the power of control.

It is clear then that it is the firm that has the power of control over Jojo and not XYZ corporation. It is
the firm that has power to prescribe the means and methods by which Jojo performs tasks and has
the power to have those tasks redone if it did not conform to the methods prescribed.

B. An employee may perform work that is in the nature of work performed by a regular employee
that is; usually necesssary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employee but merely be a
temporary employee or a non-regular employee if he is hired for a fixed term. In this case he may very
well perform essential functions within the business and perform all the duties that are to be
performed by a regular employee but due to the fixed duration of his employment cannot obtain
regular status.

It is clear here that the concept of a ‘’Regular’’ employee clashes with that of a ‘’fixed term’’
employee. The two classes of employment simply contradict each other.

C. An endo is a sort of short-term employment contract wherein companies give employees a

temporary employment and then terminate that contract before the employee becomes regularized.
Then having that employee sign another contract of the same nature.

It is an underhanded and sly technique used by a number of businesses as a cost-saving measure to

avoid giving employees that by a certain point should be regularized and entitled to numerous
benefits as a way of skirting their obligations under the Labor Code. The termination of the contract
gives them a fresh period with which the reckoning point for an employee to become regularized is
refreshed upon every signing of a new contract.

Although new guidelines have been released by the DOLE, endo is as of yet not yet completely
banned. As recently as 2019 President Duterte vetoed a bill that woud have put an end to the practice
of endo. What is invalid as of today is labor-only contracting but the practice of endo, although it
seems as if the common sentiment among legislators is that the time has come to put a stop to such a
practice, is still regrettably valid.

2. A. Juan’s employment may be validly terminated pursuant to Article 299 of the Labor Code which
provides for disease as an authorized cause for the dismissal of an employee. This is reasonable and
just as keeping an employee who is stricken with disease maybe prejudicial to the employee’s own
health or his own performance as an employee. If the disease be contagious then the danger is then
extended upon his co-workers thus jeopardizing the flow and continued operation of business.

For termination due to disease the following must concur:

(1) His continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his own health or the health of his
co-employees
(2) It is certified by competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within 6 months

Therefore in this case, the first requisite is already established. The nature of COVID-19 is contagious
and its mode of transmission is highly dangerous and the possibility of infecting his co-employees is
very likely. Siddiq must now acquire certification from a public health authority that the disease is
incurable within six months. Being a novel disease with not much information and research available,
the likelihood of a recovery within six months is slim.

This however is not the end for Juan. Employees terminated due to disease are entitled to
reinstatement provided that they furnish certification by public health authority that he is fit to return
to work.

B. Retrenchment under Article 297 of the Labor Code is perhaps the best remedy to his business
troubles. To retrench or not is a management perogative and so long as it is not done underhandedly
or in bad faith, that is that it is done for business reasons and not as a way to target specific
employees, it is valid. The concept in retrenchment is that a business reduces the number of workers
to minimize cost and simplify organizational structure so that stability in the business’ finances is
attained.

In this case a retrenchment is valid as it is caused by a lack of work caused by COVID-19. The lack of
business caused by a lack of demand for hotels has caused the business to incur or potentially incur
losses.

The requisites for a valid retrenchment are the following:

(1) It is necessary to prevent or minimize losses and such losses are proven
(2) Notice to the DOLE at least one month before the date of retrenchment
(3) Separation pay

An issue now arises as to preference as to who to retrench. The following criteria must be used in
determining the employees to dismiss.

(1) Less preferred status

(2) Efficiency rating
(3) Seniority

The old rule requiring for those last hired to be first dismissed thus heavily favoring those with
seniority is now no longer mandatory. Seniority is a criteria for consideration not the be all end all
that it once was.

There are also standards to follow for a retrenchment to be valid.

(1) That the losses expected are substantial

(2) That the losses are reasonably imminent
(3) Retrenchment would likely prevent losses
(4) Losses or expected losses are proven with sufficient and convincing evidence.

It is clear in this case that the particular facts seem to fit what is required for a valid retrenchment
based upon these standards. The losses are substantial as the whole industry is massively affected, it
is occurring now, retrenchment seems as though it is the proper remedy, and losses are obviously to
be incurred.