1.

Mary, school teacher took pity on one of her pupils, 12-year-old boy whose poor family
could barely afford the cost of his schooling. Mary lives alone at her house near the School
after her housemaid had left. In the afternoon, she lets the boy do various chores as
cleaning, and fetching water after school hours. Mary gives him rice and P200.00 before the
boy goes home at 7:00 p.m .Upon the discovery, the school principal charged her with
violating the law which prohibits the employment of children below 15 years of age. In her
defense, the teacher stated that the work performed by her pupil is not hazardous.

(a) Is her defense tenable? Why?

(b) Is the employment of children below 15 years of age absolutely prohibited? Why?

2. Bulaw Aviation Company (BAC) is a new airline company recruiting flight attendants for its
domestic flights. It requires that the applicant be single, not more than 24 years old,
attractive, and familiar with three (3) dialects, viz: Chavacano, Cebuano and Tausug. Langga,
23 years old, was accepted as she possesses all the qualifications. After passing the
probationary period, Langga disclosed that she got married when she was 18 years old but
the marriage was already in the process of being annulled on the ground that her husband
was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease at the time of the celebration of their
marriage. As a result of this revelation, Langga was not hired as a regular flight attendant.
Consequently, she filed a complaint against Mam-manu alleging that the pre-employment
qualifications violate relevant provisions of the Labor Code and are against public policy. Is
the contention of Langga tenable?

3. After working from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Thursday as one of 10,000 employees in a Son
Michael’s factory, Anito hurried home to catch the early evening news and have dinner with
his family. At around 10 p.m. of the same day, the plant manager called and ordered Anito to
fill in for Canto who missed the second shift.
(a) May anito validly refuse the plant manager’s directive?
(b) Assuming that A was made to work from 11 p.m. on Thursday until 2 a.m. on Friday,
may the company argue that, since he was two hours late in coming to work on
Thursday morning, he should only be paid for work rendered from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m.?
(c) Is a waiver of right to claim overtime pay contrary to law?

4. Silbe Company pays its regular employees P350.00 a day, and houses them in a dormitory
inside its factory compound in Manila as well as three meals a day. In the course of a routine
inspection, the DOLE Inspector noted that the workers' pay is below the prescribed
minimum wage of P426.00 plus P30.00 allowance, and thus required Silbe Company to pay
wage differentials. Silbe contends that after the market value of the company-provided
board and lodging are added to the employees' P350 cash daily wage, the employees'
effective daily rate would be way above the minimum pay required by law. The company
counsel further points out that the employees are aware that their food and lodging form
part of their salary, and have long accepted the arrangement. Is the company's position
legally correct?

5. Is an employment contract prohibiting employment in a competing company within one

year from separation is valid?

6. Atty. R, conducted the orientation seminar for newly-hired employees of the firm, among
them, Miss M. After the seminar, R requested M to stay, purportedly to discuss some work
assignment. Left alone in the training room, R asked M to go out with him for dinner and
ballroom dancing. Thereafter, he persuaded her to accompany him to the mountain
 highway in Antipolo for sight-seeing. During all these, R told Ma that most, if not all, of the
lady supervisors in the firm are where they are now, in very productive and lucrative posts,
because of his favorable endorsement. Did R commit acts of sexual harassment in a work-
related or employment environment?

7. Distinguish Labor-Only contracting and Job-Only contracting

8. Awit Manpower Services was sued by its employees together with its client, Tawi Polyester
Manufacturing Company. Tawi is one of the many clients of Awit. During the proceedings
before the Labor Arbiter, Awit was able to prove that it had substantial capital of Three
Million Pesos. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees because it deemed Awit as
a labor only contractor. Awit was not able to prove that it had invested in tools, equipment,
etc. Is the Labor Arbiter's ruling valid? Explain

9. Abed was approached for possible overseas deployment to Dubai by Jerome, an interviewer of
job applicants for Beta Personnel Services, Inc., an overseas recruitment agency. Jerome
required Abed to submit certain documents (passport, NBI clearance, medical certificate) and to
pay P25,000 as processing fee. Upon payment of the said amount to the agency cashier, Abed
was advised to wait for his visa. After five months, Abed visited the office of Beta Personnel
Services, Inc. during which Jerome told him that he could no longer be deployed for
employment abroad. Abed was informed by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) that while Beta Personnel Services, Inc. was a licensed agency, Jerome
was not registered as its employee, contrary to POEA Rules and Regulations. Under POEA Rules
and Regulations, the obligation to register personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of a
recruitment agency.

(a) May the officers having control, management or direction of Beta Personnel Services, Inc. be
held criminally liable for illegal recruitment?
(b) What are the types of illegal recruitment under the labor code?
(c) In initiating actions against alleged illegal recruiters, may the Secretary of Labor and
Employment issue search and arrest warrants?