Labor Review 2020-21

( 2nd Sem)

Atty. Paciano F. Fallar Jr.

SSCR-CoL

BAR QUESTIONS ON

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
and
JURISDICTION

Part 2

Q13-14. Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama “participation basis” by DJN Radio
Company. He worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., six days a week, on a gross rate of
P80.00 per script, earning an average of PhP 20,000.00 per month. Inggo filed a complaint
before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal
deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave, and 13th month pay, among others. On the
basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection.

The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and
that Inggo is entitled to his monetary claims in the total amount of P30,000.00. DJN Radio
elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to
the Court of Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee
relationship because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and
disciplined him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and
not the DOLE because Inggo’s claim exceeded PhP 5,000.00.

[a] May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-
employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers?

[b] If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case
fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of Inggo is
more than PhP 5,000.00. Explain

Q15. Can a member of a cooperative be deemed an employee for purposes of compulsory

coverage under the Social Security Act? Explain.

Q16. Philhealth is a government-owned and controlled corporation employing thousands of

Filipinos. Because of the desire of the employees of Philhealth to obtain better terms and
conditions of employment from the government, they formed the Philhealth Employees
Association (PEA) and demanded Philhealth to enter into negotiations with PEA regarding terms
and conditions of employment which are not fixed by law.

Are the employees of Philhealth allowed to demand Philhealth to enter into negotiations with
PEA for better terms and conditions of employment and, in case of unresolved grievances, can
the employees resort to strikes to pressure the government to accede to their demands?

Q17. Linis Manpower, Inc. (LMI) had provided janitorial services to the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) since March 2009. Its service contract was renewed every
three months. However, in the bidding held in June 2012, LMI was disqualified and excluded. In
2013, six janitors of LMI formerly assigned at POEA filed a complaint for underpayment of
wages. Both LMI and POEA were impleaded as respondents. Should POEA, a government
agency subject to budgetary appropriations from Congress, be held liable solidarily with LMI for
the payment of salary differentials due the complainant? Cite the legal basis of your answer.

1
Q18. Matibay Shoe and Repair Store, as added service to its customers, devoted a portion of its
store to a shoe shine stand. The shoe shine boys were tested for their skill before being allowed
to work and given ID cards. They were told to be present from the opening of the store up to
closing time and were· required to follow the company rules on cleanliness and decorum. They
bought their own shoe shine boxes, polish, and rags. The boys were paid by their customers for
their services but the payment is coursed through the store's cashier, who pays them before
closing time. They were not supervised in their work by any managerial employee of the store
but for a valid complaint by a customer or for violation of any company rule, they can be
refused admission to the store. Were the boys employees of the store? Explain.

Q19. Don Luis, a widower, lived alone in a house with a large garden. One day, he noticed that
the plants in his garden needed trimming. He remembered that Lando, a 17-year old out-of-
school youth, had contacted him in church the other day looking for work. He contacted Lando
who immediately attended to Don Luis’s garden and finished the job in three days

Is there an employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando?

Q20 Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio
networks. He employed Lionel as his agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty
Communications to formally engage in the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of the
incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant
Vice-President for Sales and Head of Technical Coordination. After several months, there were
allegations that Lionel was engaged in "under the table dealings" and received "confidential
commissions" from Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was, therefore, charged with serious
misconduct and willful breach of trust, and was given 48 hours to present his explanation on
the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48 -hour deadline and was subsequently
barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter
claiming constructive dismissal. Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the
complaint alleging that the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which was within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company’s
motion to dismiss?

Q21 Jose Lovina had been member of the board of directors and Executive Vice President of
San Jose Corporation for 12 years. In 2008, the San Jose stockholders did not elect him to the
board of directors nor did the board reappoint him as Executive Vice President. He filed an
illegal dismissal complaint with a Labor Arbiter. Contending that the Labor Arbiter had no
jurisdiction over the case since Lovina was not an employee, the company filed a motion to
dismiss. Should the motion be granted?

Q22. Ruben Padilla entered into a written agreement with Gomburza College to work for the
latter in exchange for the privilege of studying in said institution. Ruben's work was confined to
keeping clean the lavatory facilities of the school. One school day, Ruben got into a fistfight
with a classmate, Victor Monteverde, as a result of which the latter sustained a fractured arm
Victor Monteverde held a civil case for damages against Ruben Padilla, impleading Gomburza
College due to the latter's alleged liability as an employer of Ruben Padilla.

2
Under the circumstances, could Gomburza College be held liable by Victor Monteverde as an
employer of Ruben Padilla?